Skip to main content
Log in

The Association Between Emotion Recognition and Internalizing Problems in Children and Adolescents: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis

  • Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of Youth and Adolescence Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Numerous studies have explored the link between how well youth recognize emotions and their internalizing problems, but a consensus remains elusive. This study used a three-level meta-analysis model to quantitatively synthesize the findings of existing studies to assess the relationship. A moderation analysis was also conducted to explore the sources of research heterogeneity. Through a systematic literature search, a total of 42 studies with 201 effect sizes were retrieved for the current meta-analysis, and 7579 participants were included. Emotion recognition was negatively correlated with internalizing problems. Children and adolescents with weaker emotion recognition skills were more likely to have internalizing problems. In addition, this meta-analysis found that publication year had a significant moderating effect. The correlation between emotion recognition and internalizing problems decreased over time. The degree of internalizing problems was also found to be a significant moderator. The correlation between emotion recognition and internalizing disorders was higher than the correlation between emotion recognition and internalizing symptoms. Deficits in emotion recognition might be relevant for the development and/or maintenance of internalizing problems in children and adolescents. The overall effect was small and future research should explore the clinical relevance of the association.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for the Journal of Youth and Adolescence for their insight and feedback. We also thank the authors of the primary studies with whom we communicated for their helpful communication and the additional information they provided about their studies. Finally, we would like to express our gratitude to Yiming Long for assistance with coding. We also thank Dr. Congrong Shi for his help with data analysis.

Preregistration Information:

A protocol for this work was preregistered on the International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42022358003, available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42022358003. In the preregistration, we introduced the research objectives, searching steps, data analysis methods, etc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

LZ conceived of the study, participated in its design and coordination and drafted the manuscript; HL participated in eligibility screening and coding of reports, conducted the statistical analyses, and drafted the manuscript; JB participated in its coordination and helped to draft the manuscript; FX participated in eligibility screening and coding of reports; ZC participated in the interpretation of the data and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

Our work was financially supported by The 2023 National Social Science Foundation of China (NSSFC) Annual Program (23CSH091).

Data Sharing and Declaration

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lin Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants conducted by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A. MERSQI quality assessment of included meta-analyses

Appendix A. MERSQI quality assessment of included meta-analyses

First author, Year

Item 1

Item 2

Item 3

Item 4

Item 5

Item 6

Item 7

Item 8

Item 9

Item 10

Total points

Rappaport et al., 2018

1.5

1.0

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Vanhalst et al., 2017

1.0

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Lulé et al., 2014

2.0

0.5

0.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Franzen et al., 2021

2.0

0.5

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.0

Castro et al., 2018

1.5

1.0

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Dede et al., 2020

1.0

1.0

0.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.0

Tatyana & Mark., 2009

2.0

0.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Simcock et al., 2020

1.0

0.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Xu et al., 2019

1.5

1.0

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

12.0

Sun et al., 2018

1.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.0

11.0

Kleine Deters et al., 2020

2.0

1.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Adegboye et al., 2022

1.5

0.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.0

Ewing et al., 2016

2.0

0.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Vidal-Ribas et al., 2018

2.0

1.5

0.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Jarros et al., 2012

2.0

1.0

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.0

Lee et al., 2013

2.0

0.5

1.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Öztürk et al., 2022

2.0

1.5

1.0

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

15.0

Walker & Leister, 1994

2.0

0.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Peng et al., 2012

2.0

0.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Porter-Vignola et al., 2021

2.0

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

15.5

Walker et al., 1981

2.0

0.5

1.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Székely et al., 2014

2.0

0.5

0.5

3.0

0.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

11.5

Simonian et al., 2001

2.0

1.0

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.0

Morningstar et al., 2020

1.0

1.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Mobach et al., 2022

2.0

1.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

van Beek & Dubas, 2008

1.5

0.5

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.0

Rappaport et al., 2021

1.0

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

14.5

Dadds et al., 2018

1.0

1.0

0.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.0

Simonoff et al., 2012

1.5

1.5

1.5

3.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

15.0

Morningstar et al., 2019

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

0.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Dror et al., 2021

2.0

1.0

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.0

Lee et al., 2013

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Wong et al., 2012

2.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Wieckowski et al., 2016

2.0

1.0

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.0

Peters et al., 2021

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Williams et al., 2008

2.0

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Lenti et al., 2000

2.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Öztürk et al, 2020

2.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

Tekin et al., 2021

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Williams et al., 2023

2.0

1.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

13.5

Chen et al., 2021

1.5

0.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

11.5

Zhang et al., 2017

2.0

0.5

1.5

1.0

1.0

1.0

1.0

2.0

1.0

1.5

12.5

  1. Note. Item 1 = Study design; Item 2 = Sampling: institutions; Item 3 = Sampling: response rate; Item 4 = Type of data; Item 5 = Validity: instrument structure; Item 6 = Validity: content; Item 7 = Validity: relationships to variables; Item 8 = Data analysis: sophistication; Item 9 = Data analysis: appropriate; Item 10 = outcome

Figure 4

Fig. 4
figure 4

Appraising the Quality of Medical Education Research Methods: The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale-Education

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, L., Liang, H., Bjureberg, J. et al. The Association Between Emotion Recognition and Internalizing Problems in Children and Adolescents: A Three-Level Meta-Analysis. J. Youth Adolescence 53, 1–20 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01891-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01891-7

Keywords

Navigation