Fifty-five children, ages 6–8 and 10–12 years, participated in a social cognition study on expectancies for how to cope when feeling sad, angry, afraid, hurt, or ashamed. A comparison sample of sexually abused children was also included. Five hypothetical vignettes, each featuring one of the preceding emotions, were designed such that controllability of outcome, intensity of emotion, and degree of affiliation between protagonists were controlled; the children were provided with coping strategies, including problem-solving, support-seeking, distancing, internalizing, and externalizing options. Children chose the “best” and “worst” coping strategies and justified their choices, as well as responded to what they would do in a similar situation. Results indicated that there were no age, gender, or abuse-related differences in which strategy was selected as best or worst for any of the emotion-linked vignettes; however, younger children tended to provide more simplistic justifications. Problem-solving was most often cited as the best coping strategy when feeling shamed or angry, support-seeking when feeling sad, and both problem-solving and support-seeking were equally nominated when fearful. Distancing was viewed as the best strategy when one's feelings were hurt. Children overwhelmingly chose the aggressive externalizing coping strategy as the worst option across all emotion stories, and both social and nonsocial consequences were cited as the justification for why it was the least desirable coping strategy. The results were further interpreted in light of children's acquisition of emotion scenarios that are script-like and include evaluations of what is both socially desirable and adaptive for how to cope with emotionally aversive circumstances.