The Journal of Genetic Psychology

Research and Theory on Human Development

ISSN: 0022-1325 (Print) 1940-0896 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vgnt20

Coping with Negative Emotions: Connections with

Adolescents’ Academic Performance and Stress

William F. Arsenio & Samantha Loria

To cite this article: William F. Arsenio & Samantha Loria (2014) Coping with Negative Emotions:
Connections with Adolescents’ Academic Performance and Stress, The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 175:1, 76-90, DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2013.806293

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00221325.2013.806293

Accepted author version posted online: 03

Jul 2013.
Published online: 03 Jul 2013.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2172

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=vgnt20
THE JOURNAL OF GENETIC PSYCHOLOGY, 175(1), 76–90, 2014
Copyright 
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0022-1325 print / 1940-0896 online
DOI: 10.1080/00221325.2013.806293

Coping with Negative Emotions: Connections with

Adolescents’ Academic Performance and Stress

William F. Arsenio and Samantha Loria

Yeshiva University

ABSTRACT. The authors assessed connections among adolescents’ emotional dispositions, negative
academic affect, coping strategies, academic stress, and overall grade point average (GPA). A total
of 119 ninth through 12th-grade students completed assessments for (a) overall positive and negative
moods, (b) GPA, and (c) academically related variables involving stress, negative emotions, and
engaged and disengaged coping strategies. Greater negative academic affect and disengaged coping
were related to lower GPAs, and disengaged coping mediated the connection between negative aca-
demic affect and GPA. By contrast, higher academic stress was related to students’ overall moods,
negative academic affect, and disengaged coping; disengaged coping mediated the connection be-
tween academic stress and negative overall moods. Discussion focused on the especially problematic
nature of disengaged academic coping.
Keywords academic performance, academic stress, coping styles, negative affect

Research on the connections between children’s social and emotional competence has undergone
enormous growth over the past couple of decades (for reviews, see Denham, 1998; Saarni,
Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 2006). In general, studies have shown that children’s negative
emotional tendencies (including mood and temperament) and lower emotion-related abilities
(including emotion knowledge and regulation) are connected with greater peer rejection and less
competent interactions with peers (e.g., Arsenio, Cooperman, & Lover, 2000) and adults (e.g.,
Valiente & Eisenberg, 2006).
An early review by Parker and Asher (1987) highlighted the educational implications of this
social-emotional emphasis: peer rejected children were at least two and a half times more likely
to quit high school than their nonrejected peers. Since then much has been learned about how both
peer–peer (e.g., Ladd, Birch, & Buhs, 1999; Wentzel, 2005) and student–teacher relationships
(Pianta, 1999) influence children’s and adolescents’ academic trajectories. To date, however,
much of the emphasis has been on how social rather than emotional competence, per se, relates
to school outcomes (although see Trentacosta & Izard, 2007). As Schutz and Pekrun (2007)
observed, “in spite of the emotional nature of classrooms, inquiry on emotions in educational
contexts, outside of a few notable exceptions. .. has been slow to emerge” (p. 3).

Received December 17, 2012; accepted May 6, 2013.

Address correspondence to William F. Arsenio, Ferkauf Graduate School of Psychology, Yeshiva University, 1300
Morris Park Avenue, Bronx, NY 10461, USA; william.arsenio@einstein.yu.edu (e-mail).
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 77

The present study is part of a larger effort to examine how children’s moods (both general
and in academic contexts) and their coping–emotional regulation are related to their academic
performance and perceived academic stress. Following Oatley, Keltner, and Jenkins (2006),
affect includes “phenomena that have anything to do with emotions, moods, dispositions, and
preferences” (p. 29). An initial study on these topics (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002) addressed
the relations among middle school children’s affective tendencies, cognitive abilities (based on
standardized school achievement tests), and school performance (the mean of mathematics and
English grades). The primary focus was on examining how children’s emotional states are related
to their cognitive and school performance, and whether emotions have any unique influence on
school performance. In addition to assessing children’s overall moods, a measure (the Negative
Academic Affect Scale [NAAS]; Gumora & Arsenio, 2002) was developed to assess children’s
self-reported negative emotions in the context of various academic tasks, ranging from oral and
written classroom projects to tests and quizzes.
Results revealed that middle school students who experienced more negative affect during
academic tasks and more negative overall moods had lower school grades than their peers.
Perhaps most important, even after accounting for cognitive abilities (academic achievement
test scores), students’ moods were still related to their grades, and negative academic affect, in
particular, was uniquely associated with students’ grades. More specifically, cognitive variables
accounted for 42% of the variance in students’ grade point average (GPA), and affective variables
accounted for an additional 15% of the variance in GPA, beyond any shared variance that affective
variables may have had with cognitive variables. Overall, students with more negative moods and
more negative feelings about school-related tasks had lower grades than their peers, and this did
not appear to be the result of lower cognitive abilities (i.e., not simply that being cognitively less
able = doing poorly in school = feeling bad).
In their discussion of the processes that might underlie these findings, Gumora and Arsenio
(2002) argued that children’s abilities to regulate their emotions might play a central role in
how children’s affective tendencies influence school performance. For example, in one influential
longitudinal study, Eisenberg et al. (1997) found that children who were high in negative emo-
tionality but who were also able to regulate those emotions effectively had relatively high levels
of adaptive social functioning. In a related vein, Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, Swanson, and Reiser
(2008) recently conducted a series of studies in which they found that effortful control (EC),
which they viewed as an index of children’s regulatory abilities, plays a key role in children’s
social and academic performance. Specifically, they found that school-aged children who were
high in EC (involving voluntary control of attention and behavior) had higher GPAs and showed
greater academic improvement over the course of a year than their peers.

Stress, Coping, and Academic Performance

Recently, some researchers (see subsequent citations) have sought to understand these observed
connections between children’s regulatory abilities and academic performance by turning to
related research on adolescents’ coping styles. One seminal review of stress during adolescence
defined coping as “conscious volitional efforts to regulate emotion, cognition . . . and the envi-
ronment in response to stressful events or circumstances” (Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman,
Thomsen, & Wadworth, 2001, p. 89). Moreover, these authors argued that certain characteristic
ways of coping become firmly established by adolescence, and that these coping styles have
78 ARSENIO & LORIA

major influence on subsequent adult functioning. Three broad categories of volitional coping
were outlined: primary and secondary engagement control coping, and disengagement coping
(two other categories deal with involuntary ways of dealing with stress). In brief, primary engage-
ment (or active) coping includes problem solving, and emotional regulation–expression (e.g., “I
try to think of different ways to change the problem or fix the situation.”), whereas secondary
positive coping includes cognitive restructuring, positive thinking, acceptance, and distraction
(e.g., “I think about ways to laugh about so it won’t seem so bad.”). Finally, disengagement
coping includes attempts to avoid, deny, or use wishful thinking (e.g., “I try to believe it never
happened.”).
Initial research on these coping styles (e.g., Compas et al., 2001; Connor-Smith, Compas,
Wadsworth, Thomsen, & Saltzman, 2000) found that adolescents with higher levels of both types
of engagement coping had generally lower levels of internalizing and externalizing disorders (as
assessed by both parent and teachers), whereas adolescents’ with higher levels of disengagement
coping scores often had higher internalizing and externalizing disorders. Subsequent studies
revealed that adolescents’ coping styles are related to their abilities to manage various forms
of pediatric pain (e.g., Compas et al., 2006), as well as more general environmental stressors
(Wadsworth, Rieckmann, Benson, & Compas, 2004).
More recently, Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, and Swanson (2009) found that the coping styles
assessed by Compas et al.’s Responses to Stress Questionnaire (RSQ, 2001) are related to chil-
dren’s academic competence, as well as other broad aspects of their psychosocial functioning.
Specifically, engagement coping (combining primary and secondary control coping) was “linked
to children’s adjustment and mediates the relation between parent’s affective responses and chil-
dren’s adjustment” (Valiente et al., 2009, p. 174) with disengagement coping also playing an
additional role in these connections. Engagement coping was also related to academic compe-
tence, although somewhat surprisingly there was no evidence that coping mediated any of the
connections between academic competence and the other major study variables.
One possible explanation for the limited connections between coping and academic perfor-
mance in the Valiente et al. (2009) study, is that their RSQ measure focused exclusively on
peer-related social stressors (e.g., having problems with a friend). The RSQ often focuses on
peer-related stress, and peer relations certainly play a significant role in children’s academic
performance (e.g., Parker & Asher, 1987). At the same time, however, it may be important to
know how adolescents’ cope with specifically academic stressors (e.g., papers, oral reports, lots
of school work). For example, does it matter whether an adolescent copes with academic stress
by denying or avoiding it (e.g., “I try not think about it”) instead of by sharing feelings (“I let
someone else know how I feel”) or trying to address the problem directly (“I’d do something to
fix the problem”)? This focus on academic stress is especially relevant for the relatively affluent
youth who participated in this study (see Method section). Recent research, for example, has
shown that adolescents from affluent families are at especially high risk for substance abuse,
depression, and anxiety (e.g., Luthar & Barkin, 2012), and that excessive pressure to achieve aca-
demically (Luthar & Latendresse, 2005) plays a major role in these difficulties. To date, however,
there is surprisingly little research on academic stress, per se, and its relations with academic
performance and other psychosocial variables.
In summary, previous research has shown that students who have higher levels of nega-
tive general moods and negative academically related affect have lower levels of academic
performance (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002; see also Arsenio, Abdo, & Gumora, 2011). In their
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 79

discussion of these findings, Gumora and Arsenio proposed that children’s regulatory–coping
abilities may have an important influence on how children’s affective tendencies influence
school performance. A separate line of research has shown that adolescents’ coping styles,
in fact, do affect their ability to manage various forms of stress, including peer-related stres-
sors that affect academic performance. To our knowledge, however, little is known about how
adolescents’ cope with academic stress, in particular, and whether academic coping styles
are related to academic performance and previously observed affective correlates of academic
performance.
Consequently, this study was designed to assess several interrelated hypotheses. A first set
of hypotheses addressed the associations among adolescents’ general moods, and their aca-
demic stress, coping, negative affect, and school performance. It was hypothesized (Hypothe-
sis 1) that students’ lower GPAs would be associated with higher negative and lower positive
overall moods, higher negative academic affect, higher academic stress, and less use of adap-
tive forms of academic coping (i.e., more disengaged coping and less of either form of en-
gagement coping). It was also expected (Hypothesis 2) that negative academic affect would
make a separate, unique contribution to students’ GPA beyond the contribution of overall
moods.
In addition to these correlational connections, it was hypothesized (Hypothesis 3) that ado-
lescents’ academic coping styles would influence the connections between negative emotionality
(both academic and general) and their GPAs and levels of academic stress. In general, it was
expected that higher levels of effective coping (i.e., more primary and secondary engagement and
less disengagement coping) would mediate the connections between negative emotionality and
students’ GPA and between negative emotionality and academic stress. Although no specific age-
related differences were hypothesized, analyses were conducted to examine potential differences
in younger (ninth- and 10th-grade students) and older (11th- and 12th-grade students) adoles-
cents. Finally, based on previous findings (e.g., Gumora & Arsenio, 2002), no gender differences
were expected in the relations among the study measures.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 119 adolescents (72 girls and 47 boys; M age = 15.40 years, SD =
1.16 years) who attended a high school in a suburban community near a major metropolitan area in
the Northeastern United States. The community ranked in the top 2% nationally (2006) in terms of
average family income ($217,529) and 80% of the students were European American, 15% Asian
American, and 5% either Latino or African American. This particular age and socioeconomic
status group was selected because of evidence that adolescents in affluent communities are under
particular stress to perform well academically (e.g., Luther & Latendresse, 2005).

Procedure

Only those students with parental consent as well as adolescent assent participated. The assess-
ments were administered to students during first half of health or community-building classes.
80 ARSENIO & LORIA

Students were given a brief description of the purpose of the study and were informed that their
answers would be completely anonymous because they would not write their names on any of the
forms (all of the forms for a single student were connected by a common identification number).
Students then completed the package of questionnaires and returned them to the examiner.

Measures

NAAS

The 39-item NAAS (Gumora & Arsenio, 2002) was developed to assess students’ perceptions
of their negative affect (anxiety, frustration, and anger) while engaged in a variety of academic
tasks, among them homework, class participation, and engagement in class projects. Students
rated the frequency of these three emotions for each of 13 specific school tasks using a 5-point
Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Questions focused on students’ abilities
to organize and synthesize information, classroom participation, and their test performance and
teacher evaluation (with 6 of 39 items in this last category). For example, one item read “I (never,
rarely, sometimes, often, always) experience frustration writing essays.” Higher scores indicated
that participants experienced more frequent negative emotions while engaged in academic tasks.
Items scores were summed to form a total score of negative academic affect.
An original factor analysis examined whether the NAAS was best characterized as a unitary or
multidimensional scale. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy was .80;
the data were appropriate for factor analysis. An inspection of the Scree plot of the eigenvalues
revealed that the NAAS was unidimensional; a single eigenvalue with a value greater than one
emerged (11.6), and most items loaded .40 or greater on this factor. Internal consistency was quite
high (Cronbach’s α = .93). Cronbach’s alpha for the present study was .90.

Positive and Negative Affect Schedule–Child Version

This instrument, an adaptation of the widely used Positive and Negative Affect Schedule
(PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), was developed as an age-appropriate measure
of children’s and adolescents’ perceptions of their moods (Laurent et al., 1999). The Positive
and Negative Affect Schedule–Child Version (PANAS-C), similar to the adult version of the
PANAS, assesses orthogonal dimensions of positive and negative affect: “a two-factor solution
best described the structure of the PANAS-C, consistent with its parent measure” (Laurent et al.,
1999, p. 334). Across replication studies, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients were .94 and .92 for
positive affect and .90 and .89 for negative affect, respectively. Good convergent and discriminant
validity were also reported in relation to other measures of children’s and adolescents’ emotion-
related functioning (e.g., depressive and anxious symptoms).
Adolescents in this study were presented with a list of 27 emotion terms: 12 positive in valence
(e.g., interested, happy, cheerful) and 15 negative (sad, nervous, afraid). Adolescents assessed
“the extent [to which] you have felt this way during the past few weeks” using a 5-point Likert-
type scale ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The negative scale was
the sum of all ratings for negative emotions, whereas positive scale was the sum of all positive
emotions.
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 81

Academic performance

Students’ academic performance was assessed using a self-report measure of overall GPA
(mean GPA) across all academic subjects. Letter grades were transformed to a common 5 point-
scale (A = 4, B = 3, C = 2, D = 1, and F = 0), and plus and minus grades were assigned
relevant fractional values (e.g., B+ = 3.3). This mock report card methodology was developed
by Pierce, Hamm, and Vandell (1999) and refined by Valiente, Lemery-Chalfant, and Castro
(2007). Students’ self-reported grades have been found to correlate .80 and higher with actual
report card grades (Graham, Updegraff, Tomascik, & McHale, 1997).

Academic coping instrument

This instrument was adapted from the original RSQ, which was developed to assess a broad
range of adolescents’ possible responses to stress. Development of the RSQ was guided by
a seminal literature review on coping in adolescents (e.g., Compas et al., 2001) and several
confirmatory studies have demonstrated the connections of the RSQ with a variety of measures of
adolescents’ psychosocial functioning (Connor-Smith et al., 2000). The full instrument includes
5 scales (57 items) that assess both adolescents’ voluntary coping and involuntary engagement,
with the latter including items such as “When I have problems with other kids, I feel it in my
body.”
The present study only included the three scales that assess more voluntary, controlled forms
of coping as it was felt that these scales assessed types of coping that were subject to active
volitional efforts on the part of the adolescent. This focus on voluntary control, as well changes in
wording to focus on academic coping, per se, rather than just social coping, were acknowledged
as acceptable by the instrument creator (B. Compas, personal communication, February, 2006).
Adolescents were presented with the following initial statement:
Even when things are going well for teenagers, almost everyone has tough times with some parts of
their schoolwork. We want to find out how things have been going for you lately. Please put a check
mark next to all the things on this list that have been a problem or have created stress for you in school
in the last year or so.

Students could then check off as many items as they wanted from a list that included
10 items, such as talking to teachers, doing oral reports in class, or assignments not under-
stood. The total number of boxes checked (from 0 to 10) was used as a measure of adolescents’
perceived academic stress.
Following this task, adolescents were presented with several pages listing what people some-
times do, feel, or think when something stressful with school work happens. Adolescents then
judged how likely they were to engage in 30 possible coping strategies (e.g., “I try to think of
different ways to change the problem or fix the situation.” “I try not to think about it, I just try to
forget it.”) using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (a lot). Participants’
responses were categorized into three larger categories: primary control engagement coping (e.g.,
problem solving and emotional regulation), secondary control engagement coping (e.g., cognitive
restructuring and positive thinking) and disengagement coping (e.g., denial and distraction). Each
category score was the sum of responses for the items in that category. Previous studies (Com-
pas et al., 2000) indicated that primary and secondary control engagement coping are related to
82 ARSENIO & LORIA

TABLE 1
Descriptive Data for All Measures

Measure M SD Possible range

Cumulative GPA 3.44 0.38 0–4.3

Negative academic affect 89.78 24.45 39–195
PANAS positive 41.73 8.23 12–60
PANAS negative 33.93 9.16 15–75
Primary positive coping 23.58 4.78 9–36
Secondary positive coping 30.04 6.40 12–48
Disengaged coping 18.48 4.31 9–36
Total academic stressors 5.52 1.94 0–10

Note. GPA = grade point average; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule.

psychologically adaptive functioning, whereas disengagement coping is related to maladaptive

functioning.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses Involving Age & Gender

Preliminary analyses revealed that there was no pattern of significant differences in the relations
among the main study variables (see Table 1) as a function of either gender nor grade level (i.e.,
no patterns of moderation). Consequently, neither gender nor grade level are mentioned further.

Connections Among Study Variables (Table 2)

Mood-related variables

Adolescents with more positive general moods (PANAS positive) reported lower levels of
negative general moods (PANAS negative, r = –.28, p < .05). Higher levels of negative academic

TABLE 2
Correlations Among Variables (n = 119)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. GPA — −.21∗ −.07 −.03 .08 −.07 −.33∗∗∗ .05

2. Negative academic affect — −.24∗∗ .43∗∗∗ .20∗ .09 .61∗∗∗ .59∗∗∗
3. PANAS positive — −.28∗∗ .18∗ .38∗∗∗ −.21∗ −.16∗
4. PANAS negative — −.07 −.11 .40∗ .29∗∗∗
5. Primary positive coping — .37∗∗∗ .03 .14
6. Secondary positive coping — −.09 −.02
7. Disengaged coping — .42∗∗
8. Academic stress —

Note. GPA = grade point average; PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p <
.001.
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 83

affect were associated with more negative general moods (r = .43, p < .001) and with less positive
general moods (r = –.24, p < .01).

Coping variables

Adolescents with higher levels of primary positive coping also had higher levels of secondary
positive coping (r = .37, p < .001). Disengaged coping, however, was not related to either primary
positive (r = .14, p = ns) or secondary positive coping (r = –.02, p = ns).

GPA and other variables

Adolescents’ GPA was associated with two of the seven other study variables. As expected
(Hypothesis 1) participants with higher GPAs experienced less negative academic affect (r =
–.21, p < .05) and were less likely to engage in disengaged coping (r = –.33, p < .001). Contrary
to expectations, however, adolescents’ GPAs were not related to their positive general (r = –.07,
p = ns) or negative general moods (r = –.03, p = ns), their primary positive (r = .08, p = ns) or
primary secondary coping (r = –.07, p = ns) or to their academic stress (r = .05, p = ns).

Academic stress and other variables

Although adolescents’ academic stress was not related to their GPAs, academic stress was
strongly related to more negative academic affect (r = .59, p < .001). In addition, adolescents
with higher levels of academic stress had more negative general moods (r = .29, p < .001), less
positive general moods (r = –.16, p < .05), and were more likely to use disengaged forms of
academic coping (r = .42, p < .001). Supplemental regression analyses revealed that all of the
significant associations involving academic stress and other variables were linear only (i.e., there
were no curvilinear relations, which might indicate that moderate levels of stress were optimal
or less problematic).
In summary, 16 of 28 correlations among the study variables were significant, but these patterns
varied depending on the specific types of variables being assessed. It should also be noted that
adolescents with higher levels of negative academic affect were substantially more likely to use
disengaged forms of coping affect (r = .61, p < .001). Finally, additional partial correlations
revealed that even after controlling for general moods (PANAS positive and negative), greater
negative academic affect was, as expected (Hypothesis 2) related to students’ lower GPA (partial
r = .23, p < .01), as well as to higher academic stress (partial r = .54, p < .001) and greater use
of disengaged coping (partial r = .52, p < .001; see subsequent regressions).

Regression analysis predicting GPA

A regression analysis was conducted to provide a more detailed picture of the relative and
combined influences of students’ general moods, and academic stress, affect, and coping strate-
gies, on their GPAs. Variables were entered in four steps, with the first block including general
moods (positive and negative), followed by a second block that included academic stress, a
84 ARSENIO & LORIA

TABLE 3
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents’ Grade Point Average (GPA)

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

b t b t b t b t

Step 1 (R2 = .007, F change = 0.39)

PANAS positive −.08 −0.82 −.08 −0.77 −.11 −1.12 −.16 −1.61
PANAS negative −.05 −0.54 −.07 −0.66 .04 0.38 .12 1.21
Step 2 (R2 = .009, F change = 0.32)
Academic stress .06 .57 .16 1.59 .18 1.65
Step 3 (R2 = .092, F change = 11.74∗∗∗ )
Negative academic affect −.40 −3.43∗∗∗ −.26 −2.06∗
Step 4 (R2 = .101, F change = 4.71∗∗ )
Primary positive coping .13 1.32
Secondary positive coping .02 .23
Disengaged coping −.37 −3.32∗∗∗

Note. For total model, F(6, 112) = 3.37, p < .05. R2 and F change are shown for each step, β and t are for each predictor
at that step. PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

third block that included negative academic affect, and a fourth block that included the three
types of academic coping strategies. General moods were entered first because these were seen
as reflecting broad aspects of adolescents’ affective dispositions, and academic stress followed
because it was expected to exert a pervasive influence on academic performance (e.g., Luthar &
Latendresse, 2005). Negative academic affect and coping strategies were entered third and fourth
because they were seen as reflecting more specific responses to the broader challenges resulting
from academic stress and general moods.
As can be seen in Table 3, adolescents’ general moods were not a significant predictor
of GPA when entered on the first step, and neither was academic stress when it was entered
on the second step. However, when negative academic affect was added (step 3) it predicted
significantly lower GPAs, (accounting for about 9% of GPA variance). Finally, when adoles-
cents’ coping strategies were entered on the fourth step, they made an additional significant
contribution to predicting GPA (about 10% of the variance), over and above the influence
of negative academic affect. Overall, the total model was significant, with the four blocks
predicting about 20% of the variance in adolescents’ GPA. However, looking at the individ-
ual contributions of each variable on the final step (i.e., considering all variables simultane-
ously), only negative academic affect and disengaged coping were unique significant predictors
of GPA after accounting for the influence of other variables. In summary, adolescents’ neg-
ative academic affect and use of disengaged coping, in particular, were related to having a
lower GPA.

Regression analysis predicting academic stress

Contrary to expectations (part of Hypothesis 1), academic stress was not related to adolescents’
GPA. Yet, academic stress, per se, is known to be associated with problematic internalizing and
externalizing difficulties in affluent youth, such as those who participated in this study (Luthar
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 85

TABLE 4
Hierarchical Regression Predicting Adolescents’ Academic Stress

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

β t β t β t

Step 1 (R2 = .08, F change = 4.73∗∗ )

PANAS positive −.07 −0.70 −.01 −0.12 −.01 −0.04
PANAS negative .26 2.70∗∗ .05 0.47 .05 0.54
Step 2 (R2 = .26, F change = 44.49∗∗∗ )
Negative academic affect .56 6.67∗∗∗ .54 5.99∗∗∗
Step 3 (R2 = .03, F change = 1.75)
Primary positive coping .19 2.16∗
Secondary positive coping −.10 −1.10
Disengaged coping −.03 −0.34

Note. For total model, F(6, 112) = 10.66, p < .001. R2 and F change are shown for each step, β and t are for each
predictor at that step. PANAS = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01. ∗∗∗ p < .001.

& Latendresse, 2005; see also Luthar & Barkin, 2012). Consequently, a decision was made to
conduct a second regression analysis to provide more information on the potential affective and
coping contributors to adolescents’ academic stress. Variables were entered in three steps: block
1 included general moods (positive and negative), block 2 included negative academic affect, and
block 3 included the three types of academic coping strategies.
As can be seen in Table 4, for academic stress, (step 1) adolescents’ general moods (espe-
cially negative mood), and, in addition (step 2), their negative academic affect added signifi-
cantly to predicting academic stress. Finally, academic coping (step 3) did not add to the total
model. Overall, the total model was significant, with the three blocks predicting 37% of the
variance in adolescents’ academic stress. An examination of the unique contributions of the
individual variables at the final step, however, provided a somewhat different picture. Specifi-
cally, higher negative academic affect was uniquely related to higher levels of academic stress,
whereas higher levels of primary academic coping were uniquely related to lower academic
stress.

Negative emotionality, coping, and GPA: mediation analysis (hypothesis 3)

This analysis addressed whether the connections between students’ negative emotionality
(negative academic affect or negative general moods, respectively) and their GPA was mediated
by students’ use of certain coping strategies. Only disengaged coping, negative academic affect,
and GPA met the minimal criteria for conducting this analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986), that is,
the presence of significant connections among all 3 relevant variables.
The resulting regression analysis confirmed that negative academic affect was significantly
related to adolescents’ GPA (Table 5, step 1). However, when both negative academic affect and
disengaged coping were simultaneously assessed (step 2), the contribution of negative academic
affect was nearly reduced to zero. In fact, 98% of the influence of negative academic affect on
students’ GPA was mediated by their disengaged coping, indicating near complete mediation.
86 ARSENIO & LORIA

TABLE 5
Summary of Analyses of the Mediational Role of Children’s Disengaged Coping in the Prediction of
Adolescents’ GPA by Negative Academically Related Affect

Step Effects in model sr2 t

1 Negative academic affect .044 −2.31∗

2 Negative academic affect .001 −0.14
2 Disengaged doping .07 −2.85∗∗

Note. sr2 (squared semipartialed correlation coefficient) is the percentage of unique variance that is shared by two
variables (controlling for any other variable entered in that regression step). The first step in the model indicates the relation
of negative academic affect to grade point average (GPA), and the second step indicates the independent contributions of
the negative academic affect and disengaged coping when both are simultaneously regressed on adolescents’ GPA. ∗ p <
.05. ∗∗ p < .01.

Negative emotionality, coping, and academic stress: mediation analysis

(hypothesis 3)

The final analyses assessed whether the connections between students’ negative moods (neg-
ative academic affect and negative general moods, respectively) and their academic stress was
mediated by students’ use of certain coping strategies. Two sets of variables met the Baron and
Kenny criteria for conducting mediation analysis: (a) negative academic affect, academic stress,
and disengaged coping and (b) general negative moods, academic stress, and disengaged coping.
No tables are included for these two analyses; they follow the same basic organization as depicted
in Table 5.
Regression analyses indicated that disengaged coping did not mediate the significant con-
nections between negative academic affect and academic stress: negative academic affect was a
significant predictor of academic stress at step 1, t(1, 116) = 7.97, p < .001, and when negative
academic affect and disengaged coping were simultaneously entered at step 2, negative academic
affect remained a significant predictor of academic stress, t(1, 115) = 5.63, p < .001, and disen-
gaged coping did not significantly predict academic stress, t(1, 115) = 0.99, p = ns. By contrast,
a separate analysis revealed that disengaged coping did mediate the connection between general
negative moods and academic stress. At step 1 of this regression, negative general mood on its
own was a significant predictor of academic stress, t(1, 116) = 3.22, p < .01, but when both
negative general mood and disengaged coping were entered together at step 2, negative general
mood was no longer a significant predictor of academic stress, t(1, 115) = 1.53, p = ns, whereas
disengaged coping was a significant predictor of academic stress, t(1, 115) = 3.96, p < .001.

DISCUSSION

The present findings underscore the importance of examining the socioemotional dimensions of
students’ school-related experiences (Pianta, 1999; Valiente et al., 2008) and how adolescents
cope with or regulate these affectively charged experiences (Valiente et al., 2009). As expected:
(Hypothesis 1), there were significant connections among adolescents’ emotional dispositions,
academic stress, GPA, and their academic coping styles; and (Hypothesis 2) negative academic
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 87

affect made a unique contribution to adolescents’ GPA beyond any contribution of overall moods.
Moreover, these results are among the first to demonstrate that the techniques adolescents use to
cope with uniquely academic (rather than peer) stress are related to their affective dispositions
both in and out of the classroom, as well as to their academic performance and level of academic
stress. Adolescents’ use of disengaged academic coping (e.g., avoidance and denial), in particular,
emerged as an especially problematic way of regulating negative emotions (Hypothesis 3). These
broad findings, however, differed depending on the context in which adolescents’ emotional
dispositions were assessed (i.e., academic vs. nonacademic) and whether the focus was on
academic performance (GPA) or academic stress.
Using the same affective measures included in this study, Gumora and Arsenio (2002) found
that middle school children with more general negative moods, somewhat more positive general
moods, and more negative academic affect had lower GPAs than their classmates. By contrast,
we found that only adolescents’ higher negative academic affect was related to lower GPAs:
general moods had no connections with academic performance. Yet higher levels of adolescents’
academic stress (not assessed in Gumora & Arsenio, 2002), were related to both more negative
academic affect, as well as higher negative and lower positive general moods. Surprisingly,
however, adolescents’ GPA was not related to their level of academic stress (even in a curvilinear
relationship where moderate levels of stress might be related to higher GPAs).
The differences in GPA-related findings in Gumora and Arsenio (2002) and the present study
may stem from the different age groups in the two studies, that is, middle school versus high
school participants. In comparison with middle school students, older adolescents (as in this
study) may be better able to regulate their general moods (Thompson & Meyer, 2007), so that
general moods are no longer related to academic performance. By contrast, negative feelings
about school-related tasks may require complex regulatory abilities that continue to develop into
the college years. Consequently, the connection between negative academic affect and school
performance could extend from middle school through high school.
Unfortunately, explanations for the present findings involving academic stress are complicated
by the lack of directly relevant research (e.g., Gumora and Arsenio [2002] did not assess stress).
Yet, as noted previously, findings for high school students’ academic stress resembled those for
middle school students’ GPA in that both were strongly related to negative academic affect, and
to more negative and less positive general moods. Again, age-related improvements in older
adolescents’ emotion regulation abilities might result in a connection between general moods
and academic stress without those influences then also affecting GPA. With age adolescents may
get better at controlling and containing the effects of general moods and academic stress so that
they do not spill over and influence actual academic performance (which would also explain
why GPA and academic stress were unrelated). Ideally, it would have been desirable to use path
analyses or structural equation modeling to examine the overall connections among the study
variables more fully. The relatively limited number of study participants, however, precluded
these analyses (Klem, 1997), leaving some important questions about the broad connections
among adolescents’ academic stress, school performance, and affective tendencies for future
research.
Perhaps the most striking findings from this study were those involving adolescents’ academic
coping styles. Adolescents who used more disengaged academic coping (i.e., denial and avoidance
of academic problems) not only had lower GPAs but also reported higher levels of academic
stress (although academic stress and GPA were unrelated). Furthermore, adolescents’ use of
88 ARSENIO & LORIA

disengaged academic coping fully mediated the connection between higher negative academic
affect and lower GPAs; that is, higher negative academic affect was related to more disengaged
coping, and, in turn, it was greater disengaged academic coping which lead to lower academic
performance (GPA). Additionally, adolescents’ disengaged coping significantly mediated the
connection between negative general moods and higher levels of negative academic affect. In
both cases then, negative moods increased disengaged coping and disengaged coping influenced
school-related measures, although only negative academic affect was involved in students’ GPAs
and only general negative moods were involved in academic stress.
These findings are consistent with an extensive literature linking adolescents’ voluntary at-
tempts to use more engaged and less disengaged forms of coping with a range of positive
psychosocial outcomes, from lower externalizing and internalizing problems (Compas et al.,
2001) to reduced levels of pediatric pain (Compas et al., 2006). More specifically, our results may
help to clarify Valiente et al.’s (2009) recent efforts to examine children’s RSQ-assessed coping
styles in relation to parental affect and children’s academic performance competence. Although
Valiente et al. found that coping was related to academic competence, coping did not mediate
any of the connections between children’s academic competence and any other study variable
(coping did, however, mediate other connections not involving academic competence). By con-
trast, adolescents’ coping style in the present study mediated connections between adolescents’
affective states and both their academic performance.
The most likely explanation for these study differences is that Valiente et al. (2009) focused
on how children cope with peer stressors, whereas our explicit focus on academic coping pro-
vided a somewhat clearer picture of how adolescents cope with academic stressors. Other study
differences, however, such as the exclusive importance of disengaged coping in this research, are
much harder to understand. Although it seems reasonable that negative emotional dispositions
might increase a somewhat hopeless, disengaged way of coping with academic stress, it is un-
clear why we found no evidence linking active, engaged forms of coping with positive academic
competence. This pattern was especially unexpected given the key role that engaged forms of
RSQ-related coping have played in most studies in this literature.
It is also important to acknowledge several study limitations, beginning with whether the
present findings would generalize to high school students in less affluent communities, where the
stress to excel academically is likely to be less salient (Luthar & Latendresse, 2005). Without
additional research it is difficult to know whether the same patterns of findings (especially
involving disengaged coping) are typical of most high school students’ experiences.
Other concerns include the exclusive use of self-report measures and difficulties arising from
the correlational design. Future researchers would benefit from the inclusion of additional affec-
tive and coping information from the perspective of adolescents’ teachers, peers, and parents.
Additionally, standardized achievement tests and IQ data would be useful for beginning to ad-
dress questions about the direction of effects in the present findings. For example, most of this
discussion is guided by the notion that adolescents’ moods and coping styles influence their
academic performance, when it also possible that relative academic performance (or underlying
cognitive abilities) affect adolescents’ moods and choice of coping styles. Gumora and Arsenio
(2002) attempted to address this concern by controlling for middle school students’ academic
achievement (a proxy for cognitive ability) prior to examining the links between their GPA and
moods. Ideally, however, initial cognitive ability can be controlled in a longitudinal design, as
when Hamre and Pianta (2001) found that even after controlling for cognitive abilities, children
 COPING WITH NEGATIVE EMOTIONS 89

who had negative relationships with their kindergarten teachers had lower grades and work habits
in Grade 8. A related longitudinal approach could clarify whether adolescents’ moods and coping
abilities (rather than relationships with teachers) have a continuing and cumulative influence on
academic performance over and above initial cognitive abilities.
Overall, however, the present findings underscore the importance of continuing to examine the
various emotional contexts of children’s and adolescents’ academic experiences and how they
relate to school functioning (Schutz & Pekrun, 2007). By the time adolescents reach high school
they have accumulated almost a decade of affective experiences and reactions regarding their
academic abilities and performance. The ways in which they understand, interpret, and learn to
cope with those affective experiences are likely to influence both their expectations about how
they will feel about additional schooling and, potentially, about learning in general.

AUTHOR NOTES

William F. Arsenio is a professor of psychology in the clinical program at the Ferkauf Graduate
School of Psychology, Yeshiva University. His research interests focus on the role of affective
influences on children’s and adolescents’ academic performance and peer relations. Samantha
Loria is a recent graduate of the school-clinical child psychology program at the Ferkauf Graduate
School of Psychology, Yeshiva University.

REFERENCES

Arsenio, W., Abdo, N., & Gumora, G. (2011, March). Adolescents’ academic performance and stress: Relations with
Eqi, mindfulness, and academic coping styles. Poster presented at the Biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Arsenio, W., Cooperman, S., & Lover, A. (2000). Affective predictors of preschoolers’ aggression and peer acceptance:
Direct and indirect effects. Developmental Psychology, 36, 438–448.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182,
Compas, B., Boyer, M., Stanger, C., Colletti, R., Thomsen, A., Dufton, L., & Cole, D. (2006). Latent variable analysis
of coping, anxiety/depression, and somatic symptoms in adolescents with chronic pain. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 74, 1132–1142.
Compas, B., Connor-Smith, J., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A., & Wadsworth, M. (2001). Coping with stress during childhood
and adolescence; Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 87–127.
Conner-Smith, J., Compas, B., Wadsworth, M., Thomsen, A., & Saltzman, H. (2000). Responses to stress in adoles-
cence: Measurement of coping and involuntary stress responses. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 6,
976–992.
Denham, S. (1998). Emotional development in young children. New York, NY: Guilford.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Shepard, S., Murphy, B., Guthrie, I., Jones, S., . . . Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and
longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68,
642–664.
Gumora, G., & Arsenio, W. F. (2002). Emotionality, emotion regulation, and school performance in middle school
children. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 395–413.
Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s school outcomes through
8th grade. Child Development, 72, 625–638.
Klem, L. (1997). Path analysis. In L. Grimm & P. Yarnold (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics
(pp. 65–94), Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
90 ARSENIO & LORIA

Ladd, G., Birch, S., & Buhs, E. (1999). Children’s social and scholastic lives in kindergarten: Related spheres of influence?
Child Development, 70, 1373–1400.
Laurent, J., Catanzaro, S., Rudolph, K., Joiner, K., Potter, K., Lambert, S., . . . Gathright, T. (1999). A measure of
positive and negative affect for children: Scale development and preliminary validation. Psychological Assessment,
11, 326–338.
Luthar, S., & Barkin, S. (2012). Are affluent youth truly “at risk”? Vulnerability and resilience across three diverse
samples. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 429–449.
Luthar, S., & Latendresse, S. (2005). Children of the affluent: Challenges to well-being. Current Directions in Psycho-
logical Science, 14, 49–53.
Oatley, K., Keltner, D., & Jenkins, J. (2006) Understanding emotions (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Parker, J., & Asher, S. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psycho-
logical Bulletin, 102, 357–389.
Pianta, R. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Pierce, K., Hamm, J., & Vandell, D. (1999). Experiences in after-school programs and children’s adjustment in first-grade
classrooms. Child Development, 70, 756–767.
Saarni, C., Campos, J., Camras, L., & Witherington, D. (2006) Emotional development: action, communication, and
understanding. In W. Damon & R. Lerner (Ser. Eds.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6th
ed.), vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (pp. 226–299). New York, NY: Wiley.
Schutz, P. A., & Pekrun, R. (2007). Emotions in education. New York, NY: Wiley.
Thompson, R., & Meyer, S. (2007). Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of
emotion regulation (pp. 249–268). New York, NY: Guilford.
Trentacosta, C., & Izard, C. (2007). Kindergarten children’s emotion competence as a predictor of their academic
competence in first grade. Emotion, 7, 77–88.
Valiente, C., & Eisenberg, N. (2006). Parenting and children’s adjustment: The role of children’s emotion regulation.
In D. Snyder, J. Simpson, & J. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation in families: Pathways to dysfunction and health
(pp. 123–142). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Castro, K (2007). Children’s effortful control and academic competence. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 53, 1–25.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., & Swanson, J. (2009). Children’s response to daily stressors: Relations with parenting,
effortful control, and adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 707–717.
Valiente, C., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Swanson, J., & Reiser, M. (2008). Prediction of children’s academic competence from
their effortful control, relationships, and classroom participation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 67–77.
Wadsworth, M., Rieckmann, T., Benson, M., & Compas, B. (2004). Coping and response to stress in Navajo adolescents:
Psychometric properties of the response to stress questionnaire. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 392–411.
Watson, D., Clark, L., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Wentzel, K. (2005). Peer relationships, motivation, and academic performance at school. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.),
Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 279–296). New York, NY: Guilford.