Let Kids Feel Without Interrogation

As a psychologist, I strongly oppose the universal application of coping-focused training—especially for children. Whether tied to thoughts or not, scripted “calm-down plans” reflect what people do when they’re overwhelmed and out of depth. These strategies may offer temporary relief, but they are desperation moves, not developmental tools. I don’t dismiss coping entirely—it can help people get by. But to treat it as a universal intervention for children? We should be far more sophisticated than this. Adults’ emergency strategies should not be the blueprint for children’s emotional development.

Emotion Regulation: A Relational Process, Not a Cognitive Skill

Historically, emotion regulation referred to the containment of children’s emotions through warm, attuned caregiving. It was the infant’s ebb and flow of emotion in response to relational cues—not a conscious effort to control feelings (Gotlib & Joormann, 2009). Regulation was understood as an unconscious, experience-driven process shaped by sensory, social, and relational interactions. Suppressing emotional expression may be possible, but suppressing emotion itself is not. And overt emotional control has long been considered developmentally inappropriate for children.

Yet today, the term “emotion regulation” is routinely misused. Therapists and researchers often conflate it with emotional control or coping strategies—tools designed to suppress distress, enforce compliance, or promote emotional restraint. This framing ignores the complexity of emotion itself, which is shaped by pain, stress, and our capacity to feel (Schweizer, Walsh, & Stretton, 2016).

Coping Contradicts the Mechanisms of Emotional Growth

Coping-focused approaches also contradict the mechanisms used to treat anxiety disorders. While temporary relief may seem helpful, habitual reliance on coping can reinforce emotional avoidance rather than build resilience. Many therapists fail to clarify that strategies like distress tolerance—cold water immersion, challenging catastrophic thoughts, box breathing—offer short-term relief but can hinder long-term emotional growth if overused. Perhaps radical acceptance, as seen in DBT®️ and exposure-based treatments like ERP, was introduced to counterbalance this tendency. James Gross and others have identified emotional acceptance—not suppression—as a regulatory strategy that supports wellness. Yet public discourse continues to equate regulation with calming down or feeling less. This misrepresentation is widespread and deeply problematic.

Emotional Capacity: The Missing Focus

What’s missing from most research and practice is a focus on emotional capacity—the ability to hold and process emotion. Few scientists prioritize this area, despite its centrality to mental health (Schweizer, Walsh, & Stretton, 2016). From a clinical perspective, our emotional lives, with their ebbs and flows are shaped through relational experiences, not cognitive exercises. Campos, Walle, and Dahl (2011) emphasize the natural ebb and flow of emotion in relationship—not as a tool to calm people down, but as a reflection of how we operate in connection with others.

Some argue that increasing emotional capacity is unrealistic for those overwhelmed by distress. But clinical psychology teaches us the opposite: escaping emotional pain perpetuates illness. The antidote to avoidance is emotional courage—the willingness to feel and stay present through difficulty. Perhaps initially this may happen in the presence of others, and eventually we internalize others’ love and presence while pushing through emotional pain. Naturally, over time, we internalize relational nurturance. So, when the relationships are right, we enter new emotional risks naturally and simultaneously soothed and challenged. And we press on towards emotional growth.

Schools and Therapy: Misrepresenting Regulation

Despite what we know, schools and therapy programs continue to misrepresent emotion regulation. Cognitive reframing is marketed as a regulatory tool, and while it primarily soothes immediate distress, it does not foster long-term regulation (Mauss et al., 2007). In my work advising educators, I see this pattern repeatedly: cognitive restructuring is promoted as “regulation,” when it’s really just a way to try to “independently” and overtly calm down. But regulation develops through relationships, environmental engagement, and physiological experiences—not through cognitive reframing. Even if cognitive strategies were viable, usually children will lack the neurological maturity for deliberate, top-down emotional control (Gotlib & Joormann, 2009).

What Neuroscience Actually Tells Us

Affective neuroscience confirms that emotion regulation develops through attachment and relational experiences—not isolated cognitive shifts (Schore, 1994, 2012). Studies on brain maturation (Stanford, 2023) show that regulatory abilities correlate with late-developing prefrontal regions involved in executive functioning. This undermines the premise that children can be taught top-down emotional control before their neural systems are ready. Yet cognitive restructuring remains widely applied, suppressing emotional intensity rather than supporting genuine regulation (Pauw et al., 2024).

Coping as Compliance

There’s a deeper concern: does cognitive restructuring teach people to adapt to unjust conditions rather than challenge them? Encouraging individuals to reinterpret their suffering—rather than resist the systems causing it—can pacify distress and redirect it inward. When adversity is reframed instead of confronted, coping becomes compliance. This echoes longstanding critiques of psychological frameworks that individualize distress and discourage resistance to systemic harm (Mizen & Hook, 2020).

References

Abramowitz, J. S. (2018). The inhibitory learning approach to exposure and response prevention. International OCD Foundation.

Clark, D. A. (2014). Cognitive restructuring. In S. G. Hofmann (Ed.), The Wiley Handbook of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (Vol. 1). John Wiley & Sons.

Craske, M. G. (2009). First-line treatment: A critical appraisal of cognitive behavioral therapy developments and alternatives. University of California, Los Angeles.

Craske, M. (2014, October 29). Exposure strategies - State of the Art [Video]. Stockholm Psychiatry Lecture, Karolinska Institutet. YouTube.

Ezawa, I. D., & Hollon, S. D. (2023). Cognitive restructuring. In C. E. Hill & J. C. Norcross (Eds.), Psychotherapy Skills and Methods That Work. Oxford University Press.

Gotlib, I. H., & Joormann, J. (2009). Neurobiology of emotion regulation in children and adults. In J. M. Rumsey & M. Ernst (Eds.), Neuroimaging in developmental clinical neuroscience (pp. 38–52). Cambridge University Press.

Mauss, I. B., et al. (2007). Automatic Emotion Regulation. University of California, Berkeley.

Pauw, L. S., et al. (2024). May I Help You? The Relationship Between Interpersonal Emotion Regulation and Emotional and Relational Wellbeing in Daily Life. Collabra: Psychology.

Purdon, C. (2021). Cognitive restructuring. In A. Wenzel (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: Overview and Approaches (pp. 207–234). American Psychological Association.

Schore, A. N. (1994). Affect Regulation and the Origin of the Self: The Neurobiology of Emotional Development. Erlbaum.

Schore, A. N. (2012). The Science of the Art of Psychotherapy. Norton.

Schweizer, S., Walsh, N. D., Stretton, J., Dunn, V. J., Goodyer, I. M., & Dalgleish, T. (2016). Enhanced emotion regulation capacity and its neural substrates in those exposed to moderate childhood adversity. Social cognitive and affective neuroscience, 11(2), 272–281. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsv109

Stanford University (2023). Neural Bases of Emotion Reactivity and Regulation. Stanford Institute for Neurodevelopment and Psychiatry.