. . a.
1x.
.1

 

.. :3
z. 7:... .31.;

r;§:.. ;
. . ,

Sr .fl 3:.
:14 53%? u
29.4 .fi.~.§.u...
. . aumnscs

 

 

:4 E
"Egg
1 33:13.5. 1?.
\lith‘

f. 3

.t.‘

 

.nn.
viz);
. 339..» 3..
'3-g
{ -
23....
«as;
1.1:". L3
"9.6....53;

9..
1
Vt.

15.3.. A. 2..
fl...» w‘

   

   

    

   

v 1......

mini , , ‘y 3 2%

 

gmfifia

t1 1...! .r

A." $3

. Hugflrnflun.

   
     

“if?“ LIBRARY
# I a”? Michigan State
University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN CHILDREN’S
EMOTIONALITY, EMOTION REGULATION, PARENTING
PRACTICES, PARENTAL EXPRESSIVITY AMONG
CHILDREN IN LOW-INCOME FAMILIES

presented by
KYUNGSOOK LEE

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

Doctoral degree in Family and Child Ecolgy

 

\

IVlajor Professor’s Signature

IS— 8

 

Date

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

 

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE
film: :31 Ml
0526 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KIProj/Acca.Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

THE ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN CHILDREN’S EMOTIONALITY, EMOTION
REGULATION, PARENTING PRACTICES, AND PARENTAL EXPRESSIVITY
AMONG CHILDREN IN LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
By

KyungSook Lee

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Family and Child Ecology

2008

ABSTRACT
THE ASSOCIATIONS WITHIN CHILDREN’S EMOTIONALITY, EMOTION
REGULATION, PARENTING PRACTICES, AND PARENTAL EXPRESSIVITY
AMONG CHILDREN IN LOW-INCOME FAMILIES
By

KyungSook Lee

This study examined how children's emotionality contributes to their social
behaviors through various types of emotion regulation and parenting behaviors.
The participants for the current study were 214 children (108 girls and 106 boys;
mean age = 57 months, SD = 6.06), including their parents and teachers. Parents and
teachers rated children on emotionality, emotion regulation, and social competence.
In addition, parents rated themselves and their children on demographic factors,
parenting practices, and parental expressivity. This study found that the relationships
between children’s emotionality and their social competence was mediated by their
emotion regulation, and that parenting practices and parental expressivity played
mediating roles in the relationships between children’s emotion regulation and their
social competence. The findings suggest that family as a proximal environment play an

important role in children’s socioemotional development.

Copyright by
KyungSook Lee
2008

DEDICATION

To God, my mother, JungJa Chang, my sister, KyungSoon Lee, and my brother,

JangJong Lee

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The completion Of this dissertation is the product of invaluable contribution on the
part of many others in my life. First, I am extremely grateful to my chair, Dr. Lillian
Phenice, for her vast amount of support, guidance, and encouragement through many
challenges. Her advice and feedback have not only affected my professional development,
but have influenced my personal growth as well. I would like to thank Dr. Robert
Griffore for lending me his statistical expertise and his supportive defense demeanor.
Likewise, I Offer my special gratitude to Drs. Julia Miller and Ronald Hall for their
helpful comments and support. Above all, I wish to thank Michigan Head Start
Association staff, all of the families, and teachers who participated in this study. Lastly, I
am eternally thankful to my mother for providing an example of sacrifice, unlimited
support, and strong work ethic. My sister has given me strengths and endless love that
have sustained me throughout the process. Her trust and belief in me inspires me to
achieve more each day. At this point, I am eagerly looking forward to writing the next

chapter of my life.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ....................................................................................... vii
List of Figures ................................................................................................................... viii
Chapter One ............................................................................................ I
Introduction ............................................................................................ 1
Theoretical framework ............................................................................... 4
Conceptual model ..................................................................................... 9
Assumptions .......................................................................................... 12
Chapter Two ........................................................................................... 13
The review of literature ............................................................................. 13
Chapter Three ....................................................................................... 2]
Methodology ......................................................................................... 2 I
Questions and hypotheses .......................................................................... 21
Research design ..................................................................................... 23
Subjects ............................................................................................... 24
Procedures .......................................................................................... 25
Instruments ........................................................................................... 25
Chapter Four ....................................................................................... 31
Results ................................................................................................ 3]
Descriptive analysis ................................................................................. 31
Correlations .......................................................................................... 34
Structural equation models ........................................................................ 38
Chapter Five .......................................................................................... 71
Discussion .......................................................................................... 71
Limitation of the study .............................................................................. 79
Conclusion .......................................................................................... 80
References .......................................................................................... 82

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Descriptive Statistics ..................................................................... 33
Table 2: Correlation matrix of parents reports ................................................... 36
Table 3: Correlation matrix of teachers reports ................................................ 37
Table 4: Modification lndices (Hypothesized Model I) ....................................... 41
Table 5: Comparison between hypothesized initial, alternative, and final model I ....... 42
Table 6: Modification lndices (Hypothesized Model 2) ....................................... 45
Table 7: Comparison between hypothesized initial model 2 and final model 2 ........... 46
Table 8: Modification lndices (Alternative Model 1) .......................................... 50
Table 9: Comparison between alternative initial model 1 and final model 1 ............. 51
Table 10: Comparison between hypothesized model 1 and alternative model I ......... 53
Table 11: Modification lndices (Alternative Model 2) ......................................... 54
Table 12: Comparison between alternative initial model 2 and final model 2 ............ 54
Table 13: Modification lndices (Alternative Model 3) ......................................... 57
Table 14: Comparison between alternative initial model 3 and final model 3 ............ 58
Table 15: Modification lndices (Alternative Model 4) ......................................... 61
Table 16: Comparison between alternative initial model 4 and final model 4 ............ 61
Table 17: Modification lndices (Alternative Model 5) ......................................... 65
Table 18: Comparison between alternative initial model 5 and final model 5 ............ 65
Table 19: Comparison between hypothesized model 1 to all alternative models ......... 68

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Conceptual path model Of research constructs ........................................ 9
Figure 2: Measurement model and factor loading ............................................. 30
Figure 3: Hypothesized final model 1 (parent-reported) ....................................... 44
Figure 4: Hypothesized final model 2 (teacher-reported) ...................................... 48
Figure 5: Alternative final model 1 (parent-reported) .......................................... 52
Figure 6: Alternative final model 2 (parent-reported) .......................................... 56
Figure 7: Alternative final model 3 (parent-reported) .......................................... 59
Figure 8: Alternative final model 4 (parent-reported) .......................................... 63
Figure 9: Alternative final model 5 (parent-reported) .......................................... 66

viii

CHAPTER ONE
Introduction

In the study of child development, researchers have been interested in examining
the factors that contribute to children’s successful development of social competence
(Parke & Buriel, 1994). According to Eisenberg and Mussen (1989), the behavior of
human beings is the result of both biological potentialities and environmental experiences.
In other words, human behavior is “the product of complex interactions among biological,
social, psychological, economic, and historical events” (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989, p. 3).
Furthermore, socialization is “the process whereby an individual’s Standards, Skills,
motives, attitudes, and behaviors change to conform to those regarded as desirable and
appropriate for his or her present and future role in any particular society” (Parke &
Buriel, 1994, p. 463). Children acquire the prevalent norms (those that must be learned or
internalized) as cultural expectations or prescriptions of how they ought to behave,
thereby developing behaviors in a prosocial way (Bandura, 1986).

The critical roles played by families, peers, and schools influence children’s
socialization process. This study is an attempt to construct a model focusing on children’s
adaptation in the school environment with peers and teachers to identify the probability
of social behaviors given a particular set of individual, family, and social conditions.
There are a number of studies promoting the development Of prosocial tendencies or
socially appropriate behaviors, which examine the effects of modeling, and identification
in natural settings such as home or school (Bandura, I986; Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989).
Many factors influence children’s social behaviors. They include the nature of the family

milieu (i.e., permissive or strict), specific child-rearing practices (i.e., the use of

punishment or reasoning as discipline skills) (Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, & Volling,
1991; Brody, Stoneman, & Gauger, 1996; Helberstadt, 1999), the classroom peer
interaction (i.e., cooperative play or isolated play) (Bomstein, Hayness, Maurice, &
Painter, 1996; Cole & Cole, 1993; Cole, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, I990; Hubbard & Coie,
1994), the characteristics of teachers (i.e., kindness and consideration or strict), the use of
developmental discipline techniques, the use of programs or projects that can stimulate
discussions of moral values and behaviors that encourage or discourage children’s
behavior patterns in either positive or negative ways (Hart & Eldstein, 1992).

Not only can the characteristics of parents, peers, and teachers play major roles in
shaping the development of children’s behavior, but the characteristics of children can
also promote or diminish their own prosocial responses. For example, children’s positive
emotionality is likely to serve as a protective factor against the problems of their social
competence (Eisenberg et al., 1994; Fables et al., 1999).

Additional variables that potentially lead to the development of prosocial
behaviors, such as, children’s emotional regulatory skills, parent rearing practices, family
expressivity, and family demographics were investigated to examine the relationship
between children’s emotionality and their social competence. This study examined how
children’s emotionality contributed to their social competence through various types of
emotion regulation and parenting behaviors. Construction of path model utilizing
multilevel variables provides a clear understanding of the relationships among children’s
own characteristics, family functioning, and their social behaviors. The path model
articulated the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social competence

as mediated by their regulatory skills, parental expressivity, and parenting practices. The

first path hypothesized that the relationships between children’s emotionality and their
social competence was mediated by their emotion regulation. The second path asserted
the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social competence as
mediated by children’s emotion regulation and parenting practices. The third path
articulates the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social competence
as mediated by children’s emotion regulation and parental expressivity.
The Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to explain the relationship between children’s
emotionality and their social competence. Precursors Of social behaviors such as,
children’s regulation, parent rearing practices, and family expressiveness were examined
as potential mediators of the relationship between children’s emotionality and their social
behavior, for combinations of variables play a role in differentiating social behavior.

The specific Objectives of this study were to examine the relationships between:
1) children’s emotionality and their social competence through emotion regulatory skills;
2) between parenting practices and their social competence through emotion regulatory
skills, 3) parental expressivity and children’s social competence through emotion
regulatory skills.
Reasons for the Study

To date, there are only a small number of studies residing in low-income families
that examine the relationships pertaining to children’s emotionality, emotion regulation,
parenting practices, and parental expressivity to their social functioning. Poverty
heightens risk for poor adaption among people who come from minority populations, no

matter how young or old one is.

According to Duncan and Brooks-Gunn (1997), duration and severity of poverty
affect children’s development: in physical and mental growth, academic ability, and their
sociO-emotional well-being. Studies have shown that persistent financial stress and
negative life styles inhibit effective parenting. In other words, low-income parents are
more likely to provide less nurturance, less responsiveness to the socioemotional needs of
their children, be more restrictive, and use more physical punishment in disciplining than
middle-income parents (Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994; McLoyd & Wilson, 1990;
McLoyd, 1998). In addition, according to Mendez, Fantuzzo, and Cicchetti (2002),
culturally diverse children might undergo far more complications in the process of school
entry than expected, because competencies fostered within low-income and minority
families may differ from those inquired at school. In order to keep children from the
potential trajectory toward negative outcomes for children from economically
disadvantaged families, early intervention programs are required.

Theoretical Framework

The ecological systems theory of human development articulated by
Bronfenbrenner (1989) underlies the present study. He viewed human development from
a person-in-environment context, emphasizing the principle that all growth and
development takes place within the context of relationships. Understanding development
- as “the set of processes through which properties of the person and the environment
interact to produce constancy and change in the characteristics of the person over the life
course” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 191) provides the interconnections of events and the
bi-directionality of effects between the person and the environment. In order words,

“developmental outcomes and processes are illustrated as a joint function of the

characteristics of the person and the environment, thus permitting the detection of
synergistic effects” (Bronfenbrenner, 1989, p. 200).

Under the original defining properties of the model, a newly-evolving theoretical
framework called the bioecological model was introduced to account for processes and
outcomes of human development over the life course (Bronfenbrenner, I997). The
bioecological model involves four principal components (i.e., process, person,
environmental context, and time) and proximal processes which refer to dynamic,
interactive relationships among the components. The bioecological model is referred to as
the process-person-context-time model (PPCT). The PPCT shows the processes to
influence development as “a function of the characteristics of the developing person, of
the immediate and more remote environmental contexts, and the time periods, in which
the proximal processes take place” (Bronfenbrenner, 1997, p. 4). Within this
bioecological perspective, this study examined the relationships among children’s
emotionality, their emotion regulatory skills, their social competence, parental discipline
practices, and parental responsiveness.

In the PPCT model, three types of characteristics Of a developing person that
influence future development are dispositions, bioecological resources, and demands.
Dispositions Of an individual can “set proximal processes in motion in a particular
developmental domain, and continue to sustain their Operation” (Bronfenbrenner, 1997, p.
5). Examples Of dispositions of children in the study include such characteristics as: the
degree of emotionality (i.e., negative, positive, or general emotionality), distress, the level
of emotional regulation (i.e., high, medium, or low), and inhibitory behavior control. The

bioecological resources of ability, experience, knowledge, and skills are “required for the

effective functioning of proximal processes at a given stage of development”
(Bronfenbrenner, 1997, p. 5). Instances of resource characteristics of the person as
shapers of development include gender and ethnicity. Finally, demand characteristics
“invite or discourage reactions from the social environment of a kind that can foster or
disrupt the operation of proximal processes” (Bronfenbrenner, 1997, p. 6).

The development of the child is viewed by the way the child perceives and
interacts within the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994); environment is defined at four
different connected levels from immediate to distant. In this study, a child was studied in
the context of the family, the school, its community, and the larger society. According to
Bronfenbrenner (I 994), there are four connected levels. They include a microsystem:

a pattern of activities, social roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the

developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical, social,

and symbolic features that invite, permit, or inhibit, engagement in sustained,
progressively more complex interaction with, and activity in, the immediate

environment. (p. 1645)

With this definition, a mother-child dyad or a father-child dyad at home, and a teacher-
child dyad and a peer-child dyad at school are microsystems that affect developmental
processes and outcomes. The next expanded environmental interconnection is a
mesosystem, defined as a linkage between the settings in which the individual
participates. In other words, it is a system of two or more microsystems. The child’s
environment’s next systemic level includes an exosystem, which is defined as linkages
between the settings that affect the individual but in which the child is not a participant.
The last systemic level is the macrosystem, which is defined as the distant situations. The

PPCT Model suggests that the child’s immediate environment seem to exert the greatest

influence, but other systems also have their impact. For example, the microsystem

includes the interpersonal activities in the unit Of analysis’s face-tO-face settings, such as
behaviors of the child at home and at school. The degree to which a child experiences
positive and fulfilling interaction with his or her parent may influence his or her feelings
about peers and teachers at school. Thus, the satisfaction s/he derives from each
relationship may determine how well s/he acts at home and at school. Both home and
school are significant socializing forces for the child, and each may provide early
indicators of external behavior problems or prosocial behaviors. Furthermore, the
transactional nature of the parent-child relationship, defined as bidirectional proximal
processes, makes the child particularly reactive to familial variables, and those conditions
that enhance family life. Similarly, in the school setting there must be mutual adaptation
between the child and his teacher, his peers, and the classroom setting.

Under the influence Of family ecological systems theory (Andrews, Bubolz, &
Paolucci, I980), recognition is being given to the family as a social system and defined as
a bonded unit interacting with the environment that is constantly coping and adapting.
Furthermore, to fiJlly understand the nature of the family relationships, it is necessary to
recognize the interdependence among the roles and functions of all family members.
Consequently, to understand the behavior of one member of a family, the complementary
behaviors of other family members also need to be recognized and assessed. Family
members — mother, father, siblings, and child — influence each other directly and
indirectly.

Different units of analysis are necessary to understand families. While the
individual level remains a useful and necessary level of analysis, it is necessary to

recognize the relationships among family members as units of analysis. To understand

the nature of parent-child relationships within families, a multilevel and dynamic
approach is required. Multiple levels of analysis are necessary to capture the individual,
dyadic, and family unit aspects of operation within the family itself.

The present study focused on the parent-child subsystem, the relations between
this subsystem, considering the impact of parent-child interaction, and parental behaviors

on children’s social behaviors.

Conceptual Model
On the basis of the objectives and the theoretical framework of this study,
conceptual path model shows that the effects of children’s emotionality on their social
competence are mediated by their emotion regulation, parenting practices, and parental
expressivity. In Figure 1, 1 represents the first path model, 2 represents the second path

model, and 3 represents the third path model.

     
 

Parenting
Practices

 
  

  
   

   
   

  

.0 Emotion .0.
I 2 Regulation ’o
. 0
O. .0
" 1 I b 1
Emotionality 1 Social
- Competence

 

 
     
 

   
   
 

Positive Parental
Expressiveness

Negative Parental
Expressiveness

Figure 1. Conceptual Path Model of Children’s Emotionality to Social Competence
as Mediated by Children’s Emotion Regulation, Parenting Practice and Parental
Expressiveness.

Conceptufiefinitions

All the constructs were depicted in Figure l are stated as follows:

Emotionality is conceptualized in terms of the individual’s dispositional level of
emotional reactivity, particularly the intensity and threshold of emotion, when it is
experienced without reference to valence of the emotion (as aspects of temperament:
Larsen & Diener, 1987; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988). In particular, negative
emotionality has been described as a stable factor that contributes to differences in how
individuals experience and express their emotions (Larsen & Diener, 1987).

Emotion regulation refers to processes that serve to initiate, modulate, or maintain
the experience of the emotion or the associated behavior or situation (Walden & Smith,
1997). Also, it includes both “extrinsic and intrinsic processes responsible for monitoring,
evaluating, and modifying emotional reactions, especially their intensive and temporal
features, to accomplish one’s goals” (Thompson, 1994, p. 27-28). Thus, two categories of
regulation - emotional regulation and emotion-relevant behavioral regulation are
discussed in this study:

1. Emotional regulation is viewed as emotion-focused coping that involves
regulation of emotional reactivity in social or nonsocial contexts through allocating
attention. Emotional regulation is examined as involving attentional processes such as the
abilities to Shift and focus attention as needed (Derryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Rothbart,
Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994).

2. Behavioral regulation refers to the regulation of emotionally driven behavior,
which involves expressing in facial or bodily reactions under the situation that induced

the emotional arousal, or which involves the ability to modulate the behavioral

10

expression of impulse and feelings (Block & Block, 1980; Kochanska, 1993; Kopp,
1982). Behavioral regulation is Operationalized as behavioral inhibition or impulsivity
(Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).

Social competence is defined as skills - problem-solving behavior, perspective
taking, and person perception - that result in effective or successful social functioning in
a given context (Cole & Cole, 1993). The social outcomes include having friends, being
popular or liked by other children, and engaging in effective social interaction with peers
(Dunham, Blair, & DeMulder, 2003).

Parenting practices is defined as “the specific, goal-directed behaviors through
which parents perform their parental duties” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993, p. 488). That is,
parenting practices represent the specific parent behaviors used to guide or lead children
to attaining socialization goals. Transactional model Shows us how the behavior of
children is affected by the actions of their parents over time and vice versa. One possible
negative outcome of this interaction is that parents’ use of verbal and corporal
punishment is related to increased behavior problems in children.

Email expressiveness is defined as a persistent pattern or style (measured in
terms of frequency of occurrence) in exhibiting nonverbal and verbal expressions that
often but not always appear to be emotion related. Parental expressivity refers to the
predominant style of exhibiting nonverbal and verbal expressions within a family

(Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifer, Parke, & Fox, 1995).

11

Assumptions
The following assumptions are made in this study.
. Parents care for their children in ways that affect the social and emotional
development of children.
. Parenting practices affect the social and emotional development of children.
. Parental expressivity affects the social and emotional development of children.

. Teaching and learning contexts include the family and the school.

12

CHAPTER TWO
The Review of Literature
The relationships among parenting practice, children’s emotion. and regulation

Regulatory processes begin to demonstrate quite early in infancy. Through
interactions with caregivers, especially parents, they develop into more complex
mechanisms that allow the child to cope with emotional arousal. These regulatory
processes eventually become critical to successful familial and extra-familial
interpersonal functioning (Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins, 1995).

According to Eisenberg et al. (1992), young school-aged children’s vicarious
emotional responses are largely predictable by maternal empathy-related characteristics
and maternal vicarious emotional responding. Specifically, the findings indicated that
significantly lower levels of the expression of nonsupportive negative emotions at home
were linked to children’s aversive reactions to dealing with others’ negative emotions.
Moreover, the findings also claimed that children exposed to high degrees of negative
emotions and conflicts at home are more likely to become very sensitive to exposure to

negative parental expressivity (Eisenberg et al. 1992).

In studying the effects of family emotional environment on children’s emotional
responding, Eisenberg et al. (1992) have found that there is an association between
maternal practices and children’s sympathetic and personal distress responding. Namely,
maternal reports of negative submissive emotion (e.g., sadness) were positively related to
young girls’ sympathy, whereas maternal reports of negative dominant emotion (e.g.,

anger) were associated with personal distress for both boys and girls.

The relationshig) between parenting practice and children’s social competence

13

Parental use of authoritative discipline is positively related to higher competence
in children, including better achievement, higher self-esteem and social competence, and
fewer problem behaviors (Coley, 1998).

Additional studies have demonstrated a strong relationship between parenting
practices and children’s social development. Specific findings are that moderate control,
high expectations, high nurturance, high responsiveness, and the use of reasoning were
positively associated with children’s emotion regulation and social competence, while
yelling, physical punishment, low control, and ignoring discipline situations were
negatively related to children’s regulation and social competence (MacDonald & Parke,
1984). For example, Denham, Renwick, and Holt (1991) found that mothers’ inabilities
to regulate hostilities and to interact with positive emotions resulted in withdrawn and
ineffectual engagement in peer groups.

Research by Putallaz (1987) illustrated that as to the relationship between
maternal behaviors and children’s sociometric status, children acquired their social
behavior repertoire through interaction with their mothers, which in turn influenced their
sociometric status. Moreover, her results suggested that children, in their social
interactions with peers, seemed to display affective behavior similar to that of their
mothers. Positive, agreeable mothers had positive, agreeable children. There is also
evidence in her study that maternal behavior may evoke responses that induce
complementary behavior in their children (Putallaz, 1987). For example, the mothers who
talked and who also attempted to influence their children’s behavior were most likely to
have children high on the agreeable/feeling factor scale, rather than the factors involving

a greater display of control (i.e., disagreeable/demanding factor or the questioning factor).

14

Belsky, Youngblade, Rovine, and Volling (1991) found that parents who engaged
the least frequently in control plus guidance as an initial child management strategy had
children who engaged in the most defiant behavior in their initial reaction to parental
control. Probably in consequence, parents experienced most negative escalation in efforts
to regulate children’s behavior.

Rudolph, Hammen, and Burge (1995) reported the impact of family experiences
on the emergence of children’s peer competence. For example, prosocial behavior with
peers and high sociometric status have been linked to parental warmth, responsivity,
engagement, and affection, whereas peer difficulties and low sociometric status have
been linked to parental hostility, intrusiveness, unpredictability, and uninvolvement.
Parents of popular children have been found to differ from those of rejected children in
their affective styles and discipline practices (Rudolph, Hammen, & Burge, 1995).

Brody, Stoneman, and Gauger (1996) found that higher levels of positivity in the
parent-child relationship are linked to higher levels of positive affectivity and prosocial
behavior in the peer relationship. Negative parent-child relationships are related to
aggressive, self-protective behavior in peer relationships.

The relationships among pare—ntal expressivity. children’s emotion regulatiorgand their
sowompetence

Parental expressivity contributes both to children’s abilities to interpret and
understand other’s emotional reactions, and to their beliefs about how much and what
types of emotional expressions are appropriate and effective in social interactions.
Further, such knowledge fosters both self-regulation and social Skills (Eisenberg et al.,

2003; Zhou et al., 2002). In particular, they found that mothers’ positive expressivity was

15

associated with high emotion regulation, and well-adjusted and socially competent
behaviors. Furthermore, parental expressivity appears to contribute to children’s social
skills and peer relations. In particular, parental expressivity is correlated to preschoolers’
prosocial responses to peers and children’s understanding of emotions and display rules
(Denham & Grout, 1992; Garner et al., 1994).

The relggionship between emotioaality and emotion regulation.

Children’s response to emotionally arousing situations with family members at
home and with peers in the classroom and subsequent behavioral regulation may reflect
aspects of temperament (Fox, 1989). Fables et al. (1999) have indicated that there is an
interaction between emotional arousability (i.e., emotional reactivity and intensity) and
emotion regulatory skills. Their study of middle-class European American children
provided some support for this relationship. For example, children who are rated as
emotionally intense or rated as experiencing high levels of negative affect tend to have
less well-regulated coping skills (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Rubin, Coplan, Fox, & Calkins,
1995). Because emotional intensity (the degree of affect expressed when children
experience positive and negative emotion) heightens emotional responsiveness, emotion
regulation should be more difficult for emotionally intense children than those whose
emotional reactions are more controlled. Children with high levels of emotionality are
more likely to be expressive, interpersonally engaging, uncontrolled and active, and have
low levels of social skills as well as exhibiting low levels of delay and high levels of
frustration. Also they are more likely to be prone to personal distress and reactive

aggression. Even though they are sociable or extroverted, they are more likely to be

16

rejected frequently or disliked by peers because of their aggression and lack of social
skills.

In contrast, underregulated children who are moderately low emotional intensity
also are assumed to have low levels of prosocial behaviors and sympathy and engage in
nonconstructive modes of coping (Eisenberg et al., 1997). People who are underregulated
and relatively high levels Of emotional intensity are prone to negative emotions and tend
to be associated with lack of inhibitory behavior control.

The relationship between emotionality and social competence.

Denham, Renwick, and Holt (1991) argued that children’s temperament and
social cognitive abilities are assumed to predict prosocial behaviors with peers. For
example, children who showed predominantly negative emotions, whether sad, angry, or
hurt, showed varying deficits in social cognitive and/or prosocial domains. In particular, a
greater prevalence of angry emotional displays was highly associated with lesser social
cognitive abilities and prosocial responses (Denham, Renwick, & Holt, 1991). Thus,
emotionality was highlighted as a correlate of prosocial behaviors with peers in the
classroom whereas negative emotionality was related to low social competence and
problem behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 1997).

The relationship between emotion regulation and sociafimpetence.

Many studies have demonstrated an association between regulation and social
competence (i.e., the behavioral manifestation of social problem-solving skills such as
peer acceptance and interpersonal skills that facilitate the maintenance of relationships).
Therefore, regulation may be tied to the growth of social problem-solving Skills in

childhood (Fox, 1994). Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) found that children who can manage

17

their emotion and emotion-related behaviors appear better able to behave in appropriate
and socially competent ways at school. In particular, constructive coping was positively
correlated to high quality social functioning. In addition, according to Rubin, Coplan, Fox,
and Calkins (1995), optimal regulation (like ego resiliency), which is defined by
flexibility and the ability to respond effectively to changing environmental conditions and
demands, is associated with the most positive, adaptive behavior. Social behavior is seen
as varying somewhat as a function of individual difference in emotional intensity. In
contrast, destructive coping (i.e., aggression, venting of emotion, and low avoidance) was
related to low quality social functioning. Generally children who are more likely to
experience negative emotions would be likely to lose control and enact negative
behaviors than other children (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Fabes et al., 1999). In particular,
negative emotionality was associated with problem behavior and low levels of social
competence, especially when such emotionality was intense.
The relationship4among emotionality, regulation. gld social competence

Fabes et al., (1999) indicated that emotion regulation and emotional reactivity are
interrelated and jointly contribute to children’s social competence, (which is defined as
the ability to be effective in realizing constructive social goals; having friends,
maintaining interactions, being liked, and so forth.). For example, many researchers have
found that there is an importance of regulations and emotions to children’s social
competence and adjustment. Rothbart, Ahadi, and Hershey (1994) found that negative
affect was negatively related to empathy and positively related to aggression, guilt, and
negativity. Also, regulation was inversely related to aggression and negativity, and

positively related to empathy and guilt. Moreover, maternal and teacher reports of

18

emotion regulatory coping and emotionality are associated with social competence
(Eisenberg et al., 1995). For example, some researchers have found that ineffective
emotion regulation and high emotional negativity are negatively associated with
preschoolers’ and older children’s adult-rated social competence (Eisenberg et al., 1995;
Eisenberg et al., 1996; Eisenberg et al., 1997).

According to Eisenberg et al. (1993) have found that as to the relationship
between children’s emotion regulation and emotional reactivity, the combination of high
emotional intensity and low attentional regulation is related to low social skills and
sociometric status. In the follow-up study, Eisenberg (1997) also found that positive
social functioning was predicted by measures of low levels of negative emotionality and
high levels of regulation taken two years previously. Moreover, Eisenberg et al. (1996)
have indicated that children with high levels of behavioral regulation were likely to be
viewed as nice, helpful, and socially appropriate. Indeed, particularly at school, highly
controlled children may be viewed positively because they do not cause problems and
engage in relatively little negative behavior. According to Eisenberg, F abes, Murphy,
Maszk, Smith, and Karbon (1995), low levels of negative emotionality, high levels of
behavioral regulation, low levels of nonconstructive coping, low levels of general
emotional intensity for boys were related to socially appropriate behaviors, whereas
children who are both unregulated and high in emotional intensity may be particularly
prone to behavioral and social problems. Thus, according to Eisenberg, Fabes, Bemzweig,
Karbon, Poulin, and Hanish (1993), the relationships between emotionality and socially

competent filnctioning are due to the fact that children who are dispositionally well-

19

regulated are better able to attend to social situations and others’ needs, as well as to

regulate negative emotional reactions that interfere with socially competent functioning.

20

CHAPTER THREE
Methodology

This chapter is divided into the following sections: 1) Questions and Hypotheses,
2) Research Design, 3) Research Subjects, 4) Research Procedures, 5) Instruments, and 6)
Data Analysis.

Questions and Hypotheses

Based on the prior literature and underlying theoretical frameworks, this study
examined the nature of the associations within children’s emotionality, their emotion
regulation, and their social competence while taking parenting practices and parental
expressivity into consideration. The goals of the study are specified by the numbered
paths in the model depicted in Figure l on page 8. The first path hypothesizes that the
relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence was mediated
by their emotion regulation.

The second path articulates the relationship between children’s emotionality and
their social competence as mediated by children’s emotion regulation and parenting
practices. This model asserts that children’s emotionality predicts both their emotion
regulation and parenting practices, and the latter variables are hypothesized to have a
direct effect on children’s social competence.

Finally, the third path articulates the relationship between children’s emotionality
and their social competence as mediated by children’s emotion regulation and parental
expressivity. This model explains that children’s emotionality predicts both their
regulation and parental expressivity, and the latter variables are hypothesized to have a

direct effect on children’s social competence.

21

Specific questions and hypotheses are stated as follows:
Question I: Are both children’s emotionality and emotion regulation related to their

social competence?

H0 1: Children’s emotionality will have no direct effect on their social competence.

Ha 1: Children’s emotionality will have a direct effect on their social competence.

H0 2: Children’s emotion regulation will have no direct effect on their social competence.

Ha 2: Children’s emotion regulation will have a direct effect on their social competence.

H0 3: The relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence will

not be mediated by their emotion regulation.

Ha 3: The relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence will

be mediated by their emotion regulation.
Question 2: Are there relationships among children’s emotionality, their emotion

regulation, parenting practices, and their social competence?

H0 1: There is no relation of parenting practices to children’s social competence.

Ha 1: Parenting practices will have a direct effect on children’s social competence.

H0 2: The relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence will

not be mediated by parenting practices.

H32: The relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence will

be mediated by parenting practices.

22

H0 3: The relationship between parenting practices and children’s social competence will

not be mediated by their emotion regulation.

Ha3: The relationship between parenting practices and children’s social competence will

be mediated by their emotion regulation.
Question 3: Are positive or negative parental expressivity related to children’s social

competence through children’s emotional regulation?
H0 1: Positive or negative parental expressivity will have no direct effects on children’s
social competence.

Ha 1: Positive or negative parental expressivity will have a direct effect on children’s

social competence.

H0 2: The effects Of children’s emotionality on their social competence will not be

mediated by their emotion regulation and positive or negative parental expressivity.

H32: The effects Of children’s emotionality on their social competence will be mediated

by their emotion regulation and positive or negative parental expressivity.

H0 3: The relationships between positive or negative parental expressivity and children’s

social competence will not be mediated by their emotion regulation.

Ha 3: The relationships between positive or negative parental expressivity and children’s

social competence will be mediated by their emotion regulation.
Research Design
A correlational design was used to achieve the Objectives of this study. The study

contained four major categories of independent variables: 1) children’s emotionality,

23

which includes negative, general, and positive emotional intensity, and distress, 2)
children’s emotion regulation, which includes emotional and behavioral regulation, 3)
parenting practices, which include expectations and nurturing, and 4) parental
expressivity, which includes negative and positive parental expressivity. The dependent
variable is children’s social competence. Social skills would be studied. The units of
analysis are mother and her child or father and his child, teacher and the child, and peer
and the child.
M

The subjects for the current analysis were 214 children (108 girls and 106 boys;
mean age = 57 months, SD = 6.06) who were recruited from the Head Start early
childhood development program in Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, and Shiawassee counties,
Michigan. At least one of their parents or guardians and teachers were included in this
study as well. Ninety-two percent of the data was reported by mothers and 12% by
fathers. Seventy-four percent Of participants used English as a primary language. Forty-
four percent Of the children were from African American families; 23% were Hispanic;

21% were European American; and 10% were others. F orty-three percents Of the children

lived in a single family household; 42.5% were married couples; and 9.8% were divorced.

Parents were under-educated with 15.8% of mothers and 24.8% Of fathers who had less
than a high school, 38.4% of mothers and 28.6% of fathers who graduated high school,
21% of mothers and 14.3% of fathers who had some college education, 1 1.6% of mothers
and 11.4% of fathers who had 2 years college,12.1% of mothers and 20% of fathers who

had 4-year college degree, and 1.1% of mothers and 1% of fathers who had post graduate

work.

24

Procedures

Consent forms were sent home to parents of children whose teachers agreed to
participate. Parents who consented received questionnaires regarding their parenting
practices and their parental expressivity, their children’s emotionality, and their
children’s emotion regulation, and their children’s social competence. Teachers also
completed questionnaires regarding children’s emotionality, their emotion regulation, and
their social competence.
Instruments

Ten instruments were used in this study. A multiple-reporter methodology (i.e.,
parent and teacher) and multiple instruments were also used to gather data with regard to
given constructs. Instruments are listed and described below under the constructs they
represent.

Demographics

Parents completed a questionnaire asking for basic demographic information.
Specifically, they were asked to provide (1) child’s birth date, (2) child’s birth order, (3)
number of other siblings living at home, (4) number of adults living at home, (5) marital
status, (6) number of times the child had moved since he/she was born, (7) mother’s age,
(8) mother’s type of employment, (9) Spouse’s age ( if applicable), (10) spouse’s type of
employment (if applicable), (1 l) racial/ethnic background, (12) mother’s education, (1 3)
spouse’s education (if applicable), (14) religion, and (15) primary language.

Emotionality
The Emotionality. Activity. and Sociabilitv Temperament Survey for Children TEAS).

The Emotionality, Activity, and Sociability Temperament Survey for children was

25

developed by Buss and Plomin (1984). Parents and teachers completed this 20-item
assessment to measure children’s emotionality. This instrument consisted of 4 subscales:
emotionality (a measure of distress), activity, sociability, and shyness based on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from not characteristic or typical of your child (1) to very
characteristic or typical of your child (5). Sample items included “Child often fusses and
cries” (Emotionality), and “Child is very energetic” (Activity), “Child likes to be with
people” (Sociability), and “Child takes a long time to warm up to strangers” (Shyness).
The higher scores indicate greater negative emotionality. The internal consistencies of the
scales averaged .83.

The Affective Intensity Scale (AM shortened version). The AIS, developed by
Larsen and Diener (1987), was revised by Eisenberg et al. (1993). As a 19-item scale
measuring the intensity with which children experience positive and negative emotions
such as happiness, anxiety, anger, and being upset. This instrument used a 7-point Likert
scale ranging from never (1) to always (7). Negative emotional intensity (6 items),
positive emotional intensity (6 items), and general emotional intensity (7 items) were
used to assess children’s emotional intensity. Sample items include: “When my child gets
nervous or distressed, he/she gets very nervous/upset” (negative emotional intensity),
“My child responds very emotionally to things around him/her” (general emotional
intensity), and “When my child is happy, he/she bubbles over with emotion” (positive
emotional intensity). The higher scores indicate greater emotional intensity.

Emotion Regulation

The Emotional Regulation Checklist (ERC). The ERC instrument was developed

by Shields Cicchetti (1997). The ERC is a 24-item adult-report assessment of children’s

26

emotional regulation, which was completed by parents and teachers. This measurement
included both positively and negatively weighted items rated on a 4-point Likert scale
ranging from rarely/never (l) to almost always (4). This measure consists of two
subscales, Negativity/Lability and Emotion Regulation. The Negativity/Lability scale
contained 10 items that referred to the child's tendency to become distressed (Cronbach's
alpha = .77). The Regulation scale that referred to the child's ability to inhibit, enhance,
maintain, and modulate emotional reactivity under a variety of conditions. However, in
this study, only Emotion Regulation subscale was used to measure children’s emotional
regulatory skills. Sample items include: “Responds positively to neutral or friendly
overtures by adults” and “IS empathic towards others; concern when others are upset or
distressed?”

The Children’s BeMr Ouestionnflre (CBQ). The CBQ was developed by
Gold-smith and Rothbart (1991). As a 100-item adult-report assessment of children’s
emotion regulation, the CBQ was rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from extremely
untrue to extremely true. The items are presented in 8 subscales: parent rating of child’s
anger (13 items), inhibitory behavior control (13 items), attention shifting (11 items),
attention focus (9 items), shyness (13 items), fear (13 items), impulsiveness (13 items),
and sadness (13 items). However, parents and teachers completed inhibitory behavior
control and impulsiveness subscales to measure children’s behavioral regulation. Sample
items include: “Usually rushes into an activity without thinking about it” (Impulsiveness)
and “Can lower his/her voice when asked to do so” (Inhibitory behavior control). The
higher scores in inhibitory behavior control and the lower scores in impulsiveness

indicate higher behavioral regulation.

27

Social Competence

The 80031 Skills Rating System forlarents and for Teachers (SSRS-P and SSRS-
D. The SSRS-P and the SSRS-T were developed by Gresham and Elliott (1990). The
SSRS-P is a 49-item assessment of children’s social competence, was completed by
parents. The items are presented in two scales, Social Skills (items 1 - 39) and Problem
Behaviors (items 40 - 49). The Social Skills scale consists of 4 subscales: Cooperation,
Assertion, Responsibility, and Self-control. The Problem Behaviors scale consists of 2
subscales: Extemalizing Problems and Intemalizing Problems. Social Skill and Problem
Behavior items are rated on a 3-point Likert scale (Never, Sometimes, Very Often). And
the SSRS-T is a 40-item checklist of items comprising two scales: Social Skills (items 1-
30) which consist of 3 subscales: Cooperation, Assertion, and Self-control and Problem
Behaviors (items 31-40) which consist of 2 subscales: Extemalizing Problems and
Intemalizing Problems. Similar to SSRS-P, this measurement used a 3- point Likert-type
scale (Never, Sometimes, Very Often). Sample items include: “Give compliments to
friends or other children in the family” (Responsibility); “Control temper in conflict
situations with you” (Self-Control); “Appropriately expresses feelings when wronged”
(Assertion); and “Attempts household tasks before asking for your help” (Cooperation).
In this study, social Skills scale was used to assess children’s social competence.

Parenting Practices

The Parent Behavior Checklist (PBC). The PBC, developed by Fox (1994)
assesses parenting behaviors. Three subscales, expectations (50 items that measure
parents’ developmental expectations), discipline (30 items that assess a parental

responses to children’s problem behaviors and nurturing (20 items that measure specific

28

parents’ behaviors that promote children’s psychological growth) were used to assess
parenting practices. Each item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale, ranging from
almost never/never (1) to almost always/always (4). Sample items include: “My child
should be able to use the toilet without help” (Expectation); “When my child doesn’t do
what I tell him/her to do, I spank him/her” (Discipline); and “I read to my child at
bedtime” (Nurturing).

Parental Expressivity

The Self-Exgessiveness in the F amflv Questionnaire (SEFQ). The Self-
Expressiveness in the Family Questionnaire was developed by Halberstadt et al. (1995).
Parents rated their own emotional expressivity within their family by completing the Self-
Expressiveness in the Family Questionnaire, which measured the frequency with which
positive and negative emotions are expressed in a variety of settings typical for most
families. This instrument used 9-point Likert scales, ranging from not at all fiequently (l)
to very fiequently (9). Negative emotional expressiveness subscale (10 items) and
positive emotional expressiveness subscale (30 items) were used to assess negative and
positive parental expressivity. Sample items include “Expressing dissatisfaction with
someone else’s behavior” (Negative parental expressivity) and “Praising someone for
good work” (Positive parental expressivity).

A graphical presentation of the constructs and the respective instruments used to
measure them summarizes the information discussed above in Figure 2. As a
confirmatory factor analysis 6 subscales (discipline, sociability, shyness, activity, and

impulsiveness) were omitted. The factor loadings are also presented in Figure 2.

29

cote ”mood .mozmtg 5953 538:: gnmwm: 332:8 m:m_m
Acetamitonomok Em notoaocbgcmmg chwoq 38:: gm Eco: “55233:

.

 

 

 

3363::me bgmmoaxm
13:98: Diamon— Egcmm gumwmz

 

 

 

8:33:80 5
Boom

 

 

 

   

 

      

:osflsmom
:onoEm

 

 

 
    

 

88.: So.»\ / met... :42
_ob:ou
FEES—om gum—swam
DBEEE 35:05

 

 

 

 

    
   

moo.

 

 

  

$288:
m:u:o._mm

83R m .
8:83:32 :ouflumnxm

 

 

 

 

 

56:35 _w:oEoEm am .ou:mtm>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.N 953m

:53 E: a 228..
Hmfiag

52:53:55 I E 38:8
MELEEO 8a.

82: Se. Essa;
8H3 Se.

mmobma

 

 

-. “E: 58.26 2,28: 2323.. Ema .+. .383: .3658... ”$355.6:

3:.
cm

CHAPTER FOUR
Results
Descriptive Analysis

Means and standard deviations were calculated for all scaled scores used in the
current study as seen in Table 1.

The children reported by parents and teachers exhibited as many social skills as
the average for the standardized sample comparison group, comparing parent- and
teacher- reported average raw scores of 47.73 (vs. 42 - 61) and 40.76 (vs. 29 — 50.5),
respectively. Parents’ average Expectation T score of 47 (an average raw score of 159.94)
and Nurturing T score of 54 (an average raw score of 63.29) for children were in the
average range (35-65). Therefore, parents with average expectation T scores were more
likely to have reasonable parental developmental expectations. The positive parental
expressivity mean score of 155.66 (SD = 26.76) is higher than median score (3 131). So,
the results showed that parents tended to respond more positively to children’s emotions.
Negative parental expressivity mean score Of 67.94 (SD = 21.29) is lower than median
score (3 71). The results from descriptive statistics indicated that parents were more
likely to respond less negatively to children’s emotions. As to general, negative, and
positive emotional intensity reported by parents, children were in the above average
range (Mean = 4.26, 4.20, and 5.05; SD = .93, .87, and .88, respectively). Teacher-rated
positive emotionality score was in a little high average range (Mean = 4.0, SD = .87).
Parent- and teacher-rated inhibitory behavior control scores were in the high average

range (Mean = 4.71, SD = .92 and Mean = 4.59, SD = 1.25, respectively). However, other

31

scores as to emotionality and emotion regulation were in the average or below average

range.

32

66:33:50 Eoom Em .b_>_mmo.axm 3:33 .8263: $35.8: .:o:m_=mom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:oroEm .b:m:obo::m MEG—Eu Co £8336. Em £85535 .mmwfimm .m:obm_>mo 6:355 @582 .H 292.

Hmmd mnmd- mad Sud- «Nada mud: 8.3 3.: SN 2.37 :38
Hmmd coed- mead mamd mama mm.m cod 3.: 3m E235 .mcozoEm o>3mmmz
Hmmd mmad- mmad wmud ~56 mo...~ 36 3d SN 33:35 .mcozoEm 62:3:
Hmmd Rod- mmad ~m~.o mmoé mm.m ~m.m mmd 3~ 37:35 .mcozoEm .mcwcmw
Hmmd mead- 03.: ~36 m2: Nm.~ 3d mmd- :3 3.320
Hmmd ommd- mmad med- mmmé mmé was med :3 .328 $8323 332:.
Hmmd Red- mwfid mmmd- ~36 mmém oo.~m «.03 SN :23:me .mcozoEw

035:3

-558...
Hmmd Did mead mmmd- Rama mndm oodw 8.3 3N m___xm .mBOm
Hmmd ~36- Goad omdo 03.3 3.5 8.34 8.3 v3 333853 ~26me
Hmmd mood- mad mwmd- nmndw 8.9.: oo.~o~ 8.2 EN 5233qu 62:3“.
Hmmd 2%.: mad mmmd- SNmH vmdmfi 8.me SANH 3N cozmuomnxm
Hmmd 8.0.6- Goad coed- mums m~.mo 3.2 8.3 SN 3:23.32
Hmmd mmmd mmfid wmod mmwd omé omd 84 EN 33:35 .mcozoEm m>zmmmz
Hmmd ~86- Goad NHNd- mnwd mo.m cos SN :3 >323... .mcozoEm 62:3:
Hmmd mowd Goad Hm~d mwmd 3.: 8K 3A :3 E235 58:95 .3950
Hmmd mmmd- Goad 3&6 mfimd 2N com 84 SN $3.35
Hmmd mend- 33.: Sad. 03.: and $6 end SN .035... .2255: B325
Hmmd 93.0. 8:. Had- mmm.m NméN oo.~m 8.3 SN c2533: .mcozoEm

03.33

3:33

Btu £3.33...“ .95 uzmzmum uzmsmum ozmzmum 333m uzmzmum uzmzmum
3m 3m
$89.3. mmmcgmxm .Bm cum—2 E:E_xm.2 63823 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.85sz 3:968:

mm

Correlations

In order to examine the relationships between variables, Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients were calculated for all measures used in the study. The results
from the correlation matrix demonstrated the relationships between variables as seen in
Table 2 and 3.

Teachers’ reports showed that the general emotional intensity and distress
subscales of children’s emotionality were positively correlated with negative parental
expressivity. All the subscales of children’s emotionality were negatively correlated with
children’s social skills and their emotion regulation (see Table 3). However, parents’
reports indicated that the positive emotional intensity subscale was positively correlated
with children’s emotional regulation. All the subscales of children’s emotionality were
positively correlated with negative parental expressivity, and the general and positive
emotional intensity subscales of children’s emotionality were positively correlated with
positive parental expressivity (see Table 2). The distress and negative emotional intensity
subscales of children’s emotionality were negatively correlated with their social skills
and their emotion regulation in parents’ reports. Children’s positive emotional intensity
was positively correlated with children’s social skills, positive and negative parental
expressivity, and their emotional regulation (but not their behavioral regulation).
Children’s general emotional intensity was positively correlated with negative and
positive parental expressivity.

With respect to the relationship between children’s emotionality and parenting
practices, the children’s positive emotional intensity subscale was positively correlated

with parenting practices, but their negative emotional intensity was negatively correlated

34

with parents’ expectation subscale in parents’ reports (see Table 2). The children’s
general emotional intensity subscale was positively correlated with the parents’
nurturance subscale, but their negative and positive emotional intensity subscales were
not significant correlated with parenting practices in teachers’ reports (see Table 3).

As to children’s emotion regulation, the results indicated that children’s emotional
and behavioral regulatory skills were positively correlated with parenting practices in
parents’ reports, but that there were no correlations between children’s emotion
regulation, parental expressivity, and parenting practices in teachers’ reports. Parents’
reports, however, demonstrated that the emotional regulation subscale of children’s
emotion regulation was positively correlated with positive parental expressivity, but that
their behavioral regulation subscale of emotion regulation was negatively correlated with
negative parental expressivity. Both parents’ and teachers’ reports indicated that the
relationships between children’s emotion regulation and social skills were positive.

Teachers’ reports showed that positive expressivity and negative expressivity
were not correlated with children’s social skills. Parents’ reported demonstrated that
positive parental expressivity was positively correlated with children’s social skills, but
that negative parental expressivity was negatively correlated with their social skills.

In addition, parenting practices were positively correlated with children’s social
skills in parents’ reports, but there was no evidence of correlations between parenting

practices and children’s social skills in teachers’ reports.

35

Eva-sqva:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ $666- !..mmm6 m¢m6 13.66 2.66N6- tug-.6 :66- Imvmr .5366 2.6666 0:20.308 :
3:306:30 .305
_ :93 23. .33 :33 :56 2:36 :83 :32. ES. 6308.65 ozawoz 2
6 1.93.6 3.6.3.6 6666 .3306 3666.6 6:6 626 2.6666 5582608 03:36 6
3:523”.— .38....—
_ 1.636 m6_6- .626 MN66 E66- Immm6 1.6mm6 00:83.52 6
_ 1.626- 0636 n66.6- N666- 36606 :m6m6 =o_§006xm w
8050.26 Maw-.936
6 *odcmd gin—m6 006:6 {03616- icomNd- 53:35 0
3:28:00 0360602
_ 2.656 .26 «~66- :3N6 30:02: n
6286050 03:86
_ :81: .38.? .86 6525 6.
356080 30050
6 2.6666- ..626- 000.85 m
5:23:05”.—
_ .33on 35:8 N
303206 6.9525
_ 60:230.. ficoonm _
noun—sue”— eaten—m
: 66 6 w 6. 6 w v m N _

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3:806:80 Eoom 6:0 56>mmmoh6xm 3:036
£02886 £55606 down—:36 coonm .bzmcouofim 0.5.6330 60 6:0Emm0mm< .3586 66 macaw—0.260 N 0306.

cm

.3536 .3 .0068 0803 53.30.65 .8536 .053 000.6086 mag—036 ”30.36-3 m6. v 6 _.. ”GEE-NV .6. V 6 .1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. $.6- m666- v.66 6666- :686- _..6m.6- 1.6666- :6mm6- 2.66.6 1.366 0:20.808 ..
3:806:30 Eucm
. 1.0.6.66 6.6.6 .636 36.6 :66 ...~v.6 $6.6 666.6- 366- 66.30.00.668 032mg. 6.
. 1.366 2.6.2.6 626 2.66 666.6 66.6 6666- 366. 3.3002608 026.006 6
b.3323..— .3536
. 1.636 666.6 6666 $6.6 666.6 ....6- v.66 00:86.32 6
. 6.666- 966. .666- N666- .36 6666- 5.380686 6.
0003086 9560.36
. 363.6 3.366 1.6666 8.6666- 13606- b.0282. 6
35.880 03352
_ :80... £2... :83- 23.. 6.83:. m
3.8.860 036.86
. 2.366 1.6666- ...mmm6- 3.33:. 6.
35.880 .8050
. 1.86.6- 1.66m6- 30.3.6. m
5:30.386—
. 2.66.6 .9800 N
353%.. boxes...
. 60.3.39. 3.5.88.6 .
acts—sug— 66.35”.—
.. 6. 6 w \- 6 n v m m .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0060606860 Boom 6.3
66.3.33”. :owofim fizficosoEm. $203.20 60 660830316 .806030H 6o 0:23.080U m 0.63..-

mm

Structural Eguation Models

The structural equation modeling with latent and observed variables method of
data analysis was used in this study. The statistical program AMOS 7.0 was designed to
perform the structural equation modeling analyses.

In order to examine the relationships among children’s emotionality, emotion
regulation, social competence, parenting practices, and parental expressiveness, two
separate models were estimated because parents and teachers measured children’s
emotionality, emotion regulation, and social competence. The data that teachers rated
were smaller than parent-rated data by 26%.

Because the data set with incomplete values can lead to inefficient analyses, the
Amelia II software package (Honaker, King, & Blackwell, 2007) was used to handle
missing data. Amelia [1 allows users to get the results with complete cases through a
bootstrapping-based EM (expectation-maximization) algorithm. Amelia II is able to
“impute many more variables, with many more observations, in much less time” (p. 4).
In addition, Amelia II can allow researchers to get the valid and accurate imputation for
cross-sectional data. After imputation with Amelia II, the mean scores of data are much
closer to original data than the mean of data afler imputation with SPSS. The data was
examined for distribution qualities. Skewness and kurtosis values for all the variables
used in the two models can be seen in Table 1.

Model 1: Parents-report Model Specification

Amos 7.0 was used to obtain maximum likelihood estimates of the model

coefficients. Confirmatory factor analyses (CF A) procedures are used in testing the

validity of the indicator variables. First, children’s emotionality model was designed to

38

test for the factorial validity of parents’ reports of measurement. The CFA model of
children’s emotionality, which includes 7 indicators (shyness, distress, sociability,
activity, and positive, negative, and general emotional intensity) represented an ill-fitting
model to the data on the basis of the value of GFI = .777 and CF I = .554 which indicate a
very poor fit to the data. In order to determine a model that better represents the sample
data, items that loaded significantly on their factor (p < .05) and that standardized
parameter estimates with less than .30 were removed from the model. Afier deleting
shyness, activity, and sociability items from the CFA model, the model was improved.
However, there were still misspecifications in the model. A respecification model was
determined within the framework of post hoc analyses. To test the extents to which
hypothesized model adequately describes the sample data (in order words, “fit”), X2
(indicated as CMIN in AMOS output), non-significant P (probability value > .05), the
goodness-of-fit index (GFI > .90), the comparative fit index (CF 1 >90), and the root
mean square error of approximation (.05 < RMSEA < .08) were taken into accounts
(Byme, 2001). On the basis of information of Modification lndices which indicate
suggested covariances between error terms and factors and suggested regression paths
among the observed variables, an initial hypothesized model was respecified. An
alternative model included correlated errors (e3/e7) between the items of distress and
negative emotional intensity. The maximum Mls would consider the indicators of model
misspecification. However, because of Heywood cases (negative estimates of
measurement error) for the item of general emotional intensity, its error had to be set

to .005. When this was done, the model represented a best fit to the data on the basis of

model fit indices: X2 = 1.339 (df = 1), non-significant probability value (p = .247), the

39

goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .997), the comparative fit index (CFI = .998), and root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA = .040).

The other CFA model of parenting practices was designed to test for the factorial
validity of the parenting practices which include three indicators of discipline,
expectation, and nurturance. Because there were Heywood cases for the indicator of
nurturance, its error had to be set to .005. When this was done, according to the
procedures which delete items that loaded significantly on their factor (p < .05) and that
standardized parameter estimates with less than .30 were removed from the model, an
item of discipline was removed from the CFA model of parenting practices. The
respecified model represented exactly the identified items with no degrees of freedom.

Based on these CFA models, the hypothesized model was presented in Figure 3.

The overall initial hypothesized model represented a bad fit to the data on the
basis of the model fit indices: X2 = 244.121 (df = 36), significant probability value (p
= .000), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .827), the comparative fit index (CFl = .717),

and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .165). In addition, the rule of

thumb is that an acceptable fit to the data exists if two times the degree of freedom is
larger than X2 , however X2 was larger than two times the degree of freedom [ 244.121 >

(df = 36) x 2 = 72]. Taken all together, the model fit indices provide evidences for a very
poor fit to the data.

A subset of indexes related to the covariances was included in Table 4. The
alternative model included correlated errors (d1/e15) between parenting practices and

parental positive expressiveness. The value of 41.004 indicated that the overall X2 would

drop by at least this amount, but in practice the overall X2 would drop by more than the

40

value of 4 l .004. The results still represented a bad fit to the data based on the model fit
indices: X2 = 198.578 (df = 35), significant probability value (p = .000), GFI value of .854,

CFI value of .778, and RMSEA value of .148.

Although the alternative model improved the initial model on the basis of the

evidence [Smaller/1’2 value of 198.578 (vs. 244.121), OF I value of .854 (vs. 827), CFI

value of .778 (vs. 717), and RMSEA value of .148 (165)], there still existed

misspecification in the model.

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

M.l. Par Change
e15 <--> d1 41.004 86.726
e15 <--> e14 11.590 128.317
e10 <--> e15 10.792 35.354
e8 <--> e14 10.167 50.229
e8 <--> e15 11.363 66.065
e5 <--> e14 9.081 -2.857
e7 <--> d2 13.098 -.115
e6 <--> e15 14.726 5.325
e6 <--> d2 9.405 .109
e6 <--> e8 5.982 1.418
e6 <—-> e17 12.093 1.771
e3 <--> e14 4.657 2.353
e3 <--> d2 6.690 -.090
e13 <—-> e15 5.270 -2.702
e13 <--> e6 5.897 -.085
e12 <--> Children's Emotionality 14.920 .339
e12 <--> e14 4.085 8.844
e12 <--> e15 13.418 19.942
e12 <--> e5 4.445 .293
e12 <--> e7 5.486 -.338
e12 <--> e6 6.414 .408
Table 4. Modification lndices (Hypothesized Model I).

To further improve the model and to recover two negative estimates of measurement

error (Heywood cases) for the latent constructs of parenting practices and children’s

41

emotionality, 13 more correlated errors were added. The improved goodness-of-fit index
(GFI) value of .975 (vs. .854) and comparative fit index (CFI) value of .988 (vs. .778),
and the drop in root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value .045 (vs. .148)
was better fitting than the alternative model. In addition, the ECVI (expected cross-
validation index) value was .564 (vs. 1.223) indicated that the final model is the better
fitting one. The ECVI value is used within a relative framework: the smaller, the better.

In addition, the final model represented the best fitting model on the basis of non-

significant chi-square [X2 = 30.081 (df = 21), p = .090]. The model differences are shown

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

in Table 5.

Model X? A ,2 DP ADF P-value GFI CFI RMSEA ECVI

Initial 244.121 36 .000 .827 .717 .165 1.428

Alter. 198.578 35.543 35 l .000 .854 .778 .148 1.223

Final 30.081 214.040 21 15 .090 .975 .988 .045 .564
Table 5 The differences between Initial Model and Final Model.

The standardized path coefficients for model 1 are presented in Figure 3. All the
relationships among variables were in the expected direction, but the relationships
between children’s emotionality and social competence as well as between positive
parental expressiveness and children’s emotion regulation were not in the expected
direction. The results indicated that there were not significant paths from children’s
emotionality to parenting practices, from negative parental expressivity and parenting
practices to children’s social competence, and from positive parental expressivity to
children’s emotion regulation and their social competence (standardized coefficient = -

.034, -.0]3, .029, -.091, and .046, respectively). Children’s emotionality, however, was

42

 

significantly related to their emotion regulatory skills, their social competence, and
positive or negative parental expressiveness. Thus, emotional intensity positively affected
negative or positive parental expressivity and socially appropriate behaviors
(standardized coefficient = .572, .220, and .229, respectively), but negatively affected
emotion regulation (standardized coefficient = -.251). Negative parental expressivity
inversely predicted children’s emotion regulation. Therefore, the results showed that high
levels of negative parental expressivity caused children to regulate their emotions and
behaviors less (standardized coefficient = -.176). Parenting practices significantly,
positively predicted emotion regulation. Therefore, more positive parenting practices was
associated with high levels of emotion regulation (standardized coefficient = .562).
Children’s emotion regulation positively affected their social competence (standardized
coefficient = .789). Thus, more positive parenting practices caused their children to
regulate their emotions and behaviors better, which caused increased social competence.
In summary, children’s emotionality was related directly and indirectly to their
social competence by their subsequent emotion regulatory skills and negative parental
expressivity. Thus, low levels of children’s emotionality were associated with high levels
of regulatory skills and low levels of negative parental expressivity, and low levels of
negative parental expressivity was associated with high levels of regulatory skills, which
resulted in more socially appropriate behaviors. Parenting practices and positive parental
expressivity were not found to play any mediating role in the relationship between

children’s emotionality and their social competence.

43

660.0508 60.000306 6686.668 n... 8506 “6606.665 ”06.. 2.8.0.606 3506 6686.66.06.02 “06.. 60366 “3.0686. E60668... ”.m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

56066660666066... H .0662 .06.... 606005666: .m 0.56....
35.000666“... 5.230665
6360606 6360.56
026.86 02.0602
000. 100. 00.0090
0090 .00 000 o
04o. .... .. ..... .omm. .fim.
coo cor. .m 0.5.86
0 G
k. 28$... «.68.- .02.- .06..
000 o
. . . . E .2056
00606066606 5 .. .62 3.666.365 .. . H6
66% . l . $8.220 .
v . 0m“ EDEN—smug * mN I *MNW —m Q>flfimmz
O. . O.
.... .80 .5625 .36 .... .08.
o. o. 08me
0009 .8650 K 099
O
090.9 fiW¢nmuMw . 66.66.6606 099 .
6N6 .. *N6m .8285 $6 -
000
O. .0

 

 

0060.63.52

 

 

 

      

000.6026
66.660606

 

  

6663006....

 

 

6...

Model 2: Teacher-report Model Specification

On the basis of the same procedures as the parent-rated hypothesized model 1,

model 2 was designed with parents’ reports of parenting practices and parental

expressivity and teachers’ reports of children’s emotionality, their emotion regulation,

and their social competence. Unlike the parent-rated hypothesized initial model 1, an

observed variable, general emotional intensity, did not have a negative error variance.

The initial model 2 represented a bad fit to the data, resulting in X2 = 216.054 (df = 36),

significant probability value (p = .000 < .05), UPI = .842, RMSEA = .153, and CF I

= .875. To acquire the better fitting model, modification indices were reviewed. The final

model 2 was subsequently respecified on the basis of modification indices as seen in

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 6.
Covariances: Group number 1 - Default model)
M.I. Par Change
e15 <--> d1 38.969 85.244
e15 <--> e14 14.140 146.421
e10 <--> e15 10.961 37.390
e8 <--> e14 10.264 51.433
e8 <--> 615 11.189 66.459
65 <--> d1 7.317 .638
65 <--> e17 20.071 .893
e7 <--> d2 15.626 -.070
C7 <--> 68 7.394 -.943
e7 <--> e17 15.679 -.797
C6 <--> d2 11.843 .096
e6 <--> e5 9.770 .069
e13 <--> e5 25.041 -.117
e13 <--> 67 9.515 .072
e12 <--> d2 5.890 .286
612 <--> e10 4.398 2.692
e12 <--> e8 5.588 -5.341
e12 <--> e5 4.561 .202
e12 <--> e6 10.849 .489
Table 6 Modification lndices (Hypothesized Initial Model 2: Teacher-rated)

45

After the specification of 11 more correlated error terms to get a better fitting
model, the final model 2 exhibited improvement in model fit: X2: 36.954 (df = 25), non-

significant probability value (p = .058 > .05), the GFI value of .969 (vs. 842), RMSEA

value of .047 (vs. .153); the ECVI value was .558 (vs. 1.296), and CF I value of .992 (vs.
875). In addition, two times the degree of freedom was larger than X2 [(df = 25) x 2 = 50

> 36.954]. Taken all together, the alternative final model represented a good fit to the

data. Comparison of the hypothesized initial model 2 to the final model 2 was seen in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 7.

Model A? M) DF ADF P-value GFI CFl RMSEA ECVI

Initial 216.054 36 .000 .842 .875 .153 1.296

Final 36.954 179.100 25 1 1 .058 .969 .992 .047 .558
Table 7. Comparison of the Hypothesized Initial Model 2 to the Final Model 2.

The standardized path coefficients for model 2 are presented in Figure 4. The relations of
children’s emotionality to parenting practices (positive vs. negative) and their social
competence (positive vs. negative) were not in the expected direction. The relations of
negative parental expressivity (positive vs. negative), positive parental expressivity
(negative vs. positive), and parenting practices to children’s emotion regulation (negative
vs. positive) were not in the expected direction, either. Consistent with the hypothesized
model 1, children’s emotionality was significantly, directly related to their emotion
regulation, their social competence, and negative parental expressivity. Their emotion
regulation was significantly, directly related to their social competence. Furthermore, the

relationships between children’s emotionality and parenting practices, between parenting

46

 

practices and their social competence, between positive parental expressivity and their
emotion regulation, and between positive parental expressivity and their social
competence were not significant. Unlike the model 1, while negative parental
expressivity was significantly associated with children’s social competence, negative
parental expressivity was not significantly related to their emotion regulation. Moreover,
the relationships between children’s emotionality and positive parental expressivity and
between parenting practices and their emotion regulation were not significant. The results
indicated that children’s emotionality negatively predicted emotion regulation
(standardized path coefficient = -.804), but positively predicted negative parental
expressivity (standardized path coefficient = .197) and children’s social competence
(standardized path coefficient = .518). And children’s emotion regulation positively
predicted their social competence (standardized path coefficient = 1.345). Thus, high
levels of children’s emotion regulation caused children to behave well socially, which
resulted in mediating effects of their emotionality on social competence. In order words,
low levels of children’s emotionality were associated with high levels of emotion
regulatory skills, which predicted more socially competent behaviors. Furthermore,
negative parental expressivity also played a mediating role in the relationships between
children’s emotionality and their social competence. That is, children’s emotionality was
positively associated with negative parental expressivity, which negatively predicted

social competence for children (standardized path coefficient = -.140).

47

«8523955 oatmea— u:: @233: £388: m:n:o.=3 6833: 3:98:
€065.68 :ofimohwm: ESE—Ema u... “93:: E8555 6:: 2.8.1.50 65:: u::oE:m_m-:oz "6:: 3309 53:35 _m:o_uo_:m gm
93:38-3533 N 6:22 35". venues—8%:

 

 

 

EEmmEme
5:95: 3E8:

3:539:95
3:98: 35:32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

$3....
000
O.
*3.
8:83:80
Egom
J.
9. *m.vm.H

 

 

  

:onflzwmm
:oboEm

  

 

 

 

 

 

0. *Omo.
0
00¢ _ob:ou -
coo .mhogmnmm n :obflzmom
. o be: _ :_ .i- :oDoEm 0
2: o... a: wee u a ooo
O I O

   

 
     

3:23.52

 

$288:
wEEEwm

 

:oufluonxm

   

 

 

    

3:20:05
MEEEU

.4 8%:

*NNO.

    

*mH¢.

*¢ho.

*woo.

 

 

a 2,28:

 

 

 

 

—m _EQ=OU

 

 

 

 

E o>DmMoz

 

 

 

mmmme

 

 

m:

In summary, children’s emotion regulation and negative parental expressivity
played mediating roles in the relationships between children’s emotionality and their
social competence. Therefore, high levels of children’s emotionality positively predicted
negative parental expressivity, which negatively predicted their social competence
whereas high levels of children’s emotionality negatively predicted their emotion
regulation, which positively predicted their social competence.

Alternative Models

The importance of parental expressivity and parenting practices are considerably
argued in the child development literature. The hypothesized models (parent- and
teacher-reported models) failed to identify positive parental expressivity and parenting
practices as mediators of the deleterious effects of children’s emotionality on their social
competence. Alternative models with post hoc analyses were conducted in an attempt to
understand why parent expectation and nurturance and negative parental expressivity did
not mediate the relationship between children’s emotionality and their social competence
through children’s emotion regulation. All alternative models used parent-reported data.

Alternative Model 1. An alternative model 1 was designed to test indirect effects
of children’s emotionality on social competence through parenting practices, parental

expressivity, and children’s emotion regulation. The alternative initial model 1
represented a poor fit to the data on the basis of the model fit indices: X2 = 303.598 (df =

40), significant probability value (p = .000 < .05), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .786),

root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .176), and comparative fit index
(CFI = .642). In addition, two times the degree of freedom was not larger than X2 [(df =

40) x 2 = 80 < 303.598]. The alternative final model was respecified on the basis of the

49

modification indices as seen in Table 8. The final model was subsequently respecified
with the specification of 17 more correlated error terms and factors to get a better fitting

model and to improve the negative error variance of parenting practices.

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

M.l. Par Change
e15 <--> d1 41.012 86.739
e15 <--> e14 11.591 128.324
d2 <--> d1 27.121 2.253
d2 <--> e15 11.301 5.035
e8 <--> e14 10.169 50.234
e8 <--> e15 11.362 66.064
e7 <--> d2 22.917 -.190
e6 <--> e15 14.737 5.328
e6 <--> e17 11.870 1.776
e3 <--> e14 4.654 2.352
e3 <--> d2 7.039 -.115
e13 <--> Children’s Emotionality 15.416 -.079
e13 <--> d1 6.439 .910
e13 <--> e14 9.146 -3.020
e12 <--> e15 24.695 27.534
e12 <--> e6 8.787 .486
Table 8. Modification lndices (Alternative Initial Model 1).

The alternative final model exhibited improvement in model fit: X2 = 31.940 (df =

22), non-significant probability value (p = .078 > .05), the GFI = .974, RMSEA = .046;

the ECVI value was .563, and CFI = .987. In addition, two times the degree of freedom

was larger than X2 [(df = 22) x 2 = 44 > 31.940]. Taken all together, the alternative final

model represented a good fit to the data. Comparison of the alternative initial model to

the model was seen in Table 9.

50

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model A} A} DF ADF P-value GFI CFI RMSEA ECVI

Initial 303.598 40 .000 .786 .642 .176 1.669

Final 31.940 271.658 22 18 .078 .974 .987 .046 .563
Table 9. Comparison of Alternative Initial Model 1 to Final Model 1.

The standardized path coefficients for the alternative model 1 are presented in
Figure 5. The relationship between children’s emotionality and their emotion regulation
was not in the expected direction (positive vs. negative), but the others in the model were
in the expected direction. The paths from children’s emotionality to negative and positive
parental expressivity were found to be statistically significant. In addition, the paths from
children’s emotion regulation and negative parental expressivity to their social
competence were found to be statistically significant. However, the paths from children’s
emotionality to their emotion regulation and parenting practices as well as from parenting
practices and positive parental expressivity to children’s social competence were found to
be non-significant. Children’s emotionality was positively associated with negative and
positive parental expressivity (standardized coefficient = .269 and .188, respectively).
Negative parental expressivity was negatively associated with children’s social
competence (standardized coefficient = -191), but children’s emotion regulation was
positively associated with their social competence (standardized coefficient = .653).
Comparing this final model 1 to the hypothesized final model, there were non-significant
and lower standardized direct effects of children’s emotionality on their emotion
regulation (.077 vs. -.251) but significant and lower standardized direct effects of their
emotion regulation on their social competence (.653 vs. .789). Furthermore, this model
was not able to explain the role of children’s emotion regulation, positive parental

expressivity, and parenting practices in predicting children’s social competence.

51

308508 gammy—mm: ESEFQm u... umfim: u:qu:w_m 8:: 263th 65:: 58558-52 8:: “atom 56:35 13338.: ”E

mumtogbugfifi H .322 RE: 33:58?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

335855 bEmmE:xm
3:98: «>28: 3:96: «Sammoz
ooooo<
mHH. oooo
O.
ooo
ooo. L3: ammfi.
)1
8:88:88 :23?me
=83 . mmo. cosoem . “Mm.
‘1 a
..... 48E.
0
oooo 35:8
oo o .2952»: gnu—awe:
oo o EBEEE .mEEoEm ooo
m8. .... ... So. -
O

   
   

   

mourn—E:
wEEEw:

*¢mn.\ 4N5.

8:23.52 :obfluwnxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.m 6.5»:
30m. 5 9,28:
MBV.
3:26:65: 3:. a .228
€225 .. .
HNm
.m 2:592
00
ooo *N©.v.
o mmobma

 

 

Nm

Therefore, additional exploration was conducted. Model comparison was seen in Table

 

 

10.

Model x? M2 DF ADF P-value GFI CFl RMSEA ECVI
Hypothesized 1 30.081 21 .090 .975 .988 .045 .564
Altemativel 31.940 -l.859 22 -1 .078 .974 .987 .046 .563

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 10. Comparison of Hypothesized Model 1 to Alternative Model 1.

Alternative Model 2. An alternative model 2 was designed to test the indirect
effects of parenting practices and parental expressivity on children’s social competence
through their emotion regulation, because alternative model 1 failed to explain the direct
effects of parenting practices and positive parental expressivity on children’s social
competence.

The alternative initial model 2 represented a bad fit to the data on the basis of the

model fit indices: X'2 = 251.394 (df = 40), significant probability value (p = .000 < .05),

the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .823), root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA = .158), and comparative fit index (CFI = .713). In addition, two times the

degree of freedom was not larger than X2 [(df = 40) x 2 = 80 < 251.394]. Therefore, to

improve the model fit, the alternative initial model 2 was respecified on the basis of the

modification indices as seen in Table 11.

53

 

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

M.l. Par Change
e15 <--> d1 41.004 86.726
e15 <--> e14 11.590 128.317
e8 <--> e14 10.167 50.229
e8 <--> e15 11.363 66.066
e8 <--> d2 10.180 1.680
e7 <--> e14 6.106 2.467
e7 <--> d2 14.093 -.125
e6 <--> e15 14.727 5.325
e12 <--> e6 6.396 .401
e6 <--> e8 5.980 1.418
e6 <--> e17 11.908 1.781
e3 <--> e14 4.656 2.353
e3 <--> d2 6.725 -.094
e13 <--> Children's Emotionality 18.385 -.084
e12 <--> e15 13.045 19.360
e12 <--> e6 6.396 .401
Table 11.

Modification lndices (Alternative Initial Model 2).

The final model was subsequently respecified with the specification of 15 more

correlated error terms and factors to get a better fitting model. Alternative final model 2

represented the best fit to the data on the basis of the model fit indices: X2 = 36.482 (df =

25), non-significant probability value (p = .065 > .05), the goodness-of-fit index (GFI

= .969), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA = .046); the ECVI value

of .556, and comparative fit index (CFI = .984). In addition, two times the degree of

freedom was larger than X2 [(df = 25) x 2 = 50 > 36.482]. Model comparison was seen in

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 12.

Model A} A} DF ADF P-value GFI CFI RMSEA ECVl

Initial 251.394 40 .000 .823 .713 .158 1.424

Final 36.482 214.912 25 15 .065 .969 .984 .040 .556
Table 12. Comparison of Alternative Initial Model 2 to Final Model 2

54

 

The standardized path coefficients for this alternative model 2 are presented in
Figure 6. The paths from children’s emotionality to their emotion regulation and
parenting practices were found to be non-significant, but the other paths were found to be
significant. As in alternative model 1, there were still significant direct effects of
children’s emotionality on negative and positive parental expressivity. Negative and
positive parental expressivity and parenting practices were significantly associated with
children’s emotion regulation. Children’s emotion regulation was significantly related to
their social competence. Therefore, children’s emotionality positively predicted negative
parental expressivity (standardized coefficient = .254), which negatively predicted
children’s emotion regulation (standardized coefficient = -.362). However, children’s
emotionality positively positive parental expressivity (standardized coefficient = .198),
which caused children to regulate their emotions and behaviors well (standardized
coefficient = .173). Parenting practices positively predicted children’s emotion regulation
(standardized coefficient = .320), which led children to have more socially competent
behaviors (standardized coefficient = .745).

In summary, children’s emotionality was indirectly related to their social
competence through negative or positive parental expressivity and children’s emotion
regulation. And parenting practices were indirectly associated with children’s social

competence through their emotion regulation.

55

3:86:88 5:88.58 58:55 N... 85:: 5855?. 8:: 23323 83:: 58556-5 2 8:: 83°C 5:53:— _m:oDoEm :m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gato:8-u:8m:u N 8:22 55: 82553:: .c 85:.—
bEmmmExm 35889":
8:88: 82:8: 13:88: 823582
*mofi.
*VmN.
4mg. .55.. amt:

 

 

 

 

  
 
   
  

 

 

8:38:58 3:52:55 . moo.
Boom . 8.88:5 ..
ooo:
5:. 8:23am . moo. . .83.
5:05”: ooo
EEK Jaifi. ooo 43¢.
O
.228 ooo
825:8: 5:258: ooo
ESEEE acouoem oo
0

 

 

 

 

 

 

*omm. oo mmo.

 

      

  

8388:
5:585:

nocoé *Nmm.

 

8:8352 53835

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:— «>28:

 

 

 

 

a :58:

 

 

 

 

E 23582

 

 

 

88.85

 

 

om

Alternative Model 3. Because previous models failed to identify the original
hypotheses of parenting practices and parental expressivity as mediators, alternative
model 3 was designed. The mediating effects of children’s emotion regulation on the
relationships between children’s emotionality and their social competence and of
parenting practices and negative or positive parental expressivity and on the relationships
between children’s emotion regulation and their social competence were tested. The

alternative initial model 3 represented a poor fit to the data on the basis of the model fit
indices: X2 = 266.928 (df = 39), significant probability value (p = .000 < .05), the

goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .809), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA

= .166), and comparative fit index (CFI = .691). In addition, two times the degree of
freedom was not larger than X2 [(df = 39) x 2 = 78 < 266.928]. To improve the

alternative initial model 3 the modification indices were reviewed as seen in Table 13.

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model]|

 

 

 

 

 

M.l. Par Change
e14 <--> Children's Emotionality 13.611 2.318
e15 <--> Children's Emotionality 8.407 2.237
e15 <--> d1 40.260 87.719
e15 <--> e14 15.722 157.637
e8 <--> e14 7.768 45.384
e7 <--> d2 13.089 -.115
e6 <--> e15 14.231 5.343
e6 <--> e17 12.087 1.771
e3 <--> e14 4.390 2.361
83 <--> d2 6.682 -.090
e12 <--> Children's Emotionality 14.861 .338
e12 <--> e14 8.597 13.262
e12 <--> e15 18.991 24.209
e12 <-—> e5 9.867 .450
e12 <--> e6 6.441 .409
Table 13. Modification lndices (Alternative Initial Model 3)

S7

 

The final model was subsequently respecified with the specification of 15 more

correlated error terms and factors in Table 12 to get a better fitting model. The
alternative final model exhibited improvement in model fit: X2 = 30.968 (df = 23), non-
significant probability value (p = .124 > .05), the CF I = .974, RMSEA = .040; the ECVI
value was .549, and CFI = .989. In addition, two times the degree of freedom was larger
than X2 [(df= 23) x 2 = 46 > 30.968].

Taken all together, the alternative final model 3 represented a best fit to the data.

Comparison of the alternative initial model with final model is found in Table 14.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model X2 M2 DF ADF P-value GFI CFI RMSEA ECVI

Initial 3 266.928 39 .000 .809 .691 .166 1.507

Final 3 30.968 235.960 23 16 .l24 .974 .989 .040 .549
Table 14. Comparison of Alternative Initial Model 3 to Final Model 3.

The standardized path coefficients for the alternative final model 3 are presented
in Figure 7. All paths were in the expected direction and significant except the paths from
parenting practices to children’s social competence and from negative and positive
parental expressivity to children’s social competence. The results indicated that
children’s emotionality had direct effects on their social competence. Children’s negative
emotionality was negatively associated with emotion regulatory skills (standardized
coefficient = -.199), but positively associated with socially competent skills (standardized
coefficient = .194). Children’s emotion regulation also had direct effect on their social
competence. That is, children’s emotion regulation positively related to their social
competence (standardized coefficient = .818). Thus, the relationships between children’s
emotionality and their social competence were mediated by their emotion regulation. In

addition, parenting practice had a direct effect on children’s emotion regulation

58

826588 :28882 “88585 n... 8:8: 88588 8:: 23312— 858: 88588.82 8:: 8389 58:82 8:286: :m

nuoto:m:-u:o8:v m 8:22 82: «2853?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
    

 

 

3:388:82: 5:288:86
8:88: @228: .388: 82832
00091 do. 6.0%
O O G.
O. .O O.
O O
00 .9 09¢
. ooo . 0.0..
m3 .. mmo .. .
.9 .0 ‘
p 0.09 9o
O . o
5.... o8 - .Nmm -
8:88:58 4 ... l . -
88cm . .
d
.88. 8:228: .53.-
... :oBoEm
... 3.8. .8:
... /
O
... 68.8
..o 88388: . gnu—awe:
Hmo ...... b.3325 ...mHm 3:88.”:

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

  

8288::
83:88:

  

#3:. Emu.

 

 

oucfistaz :oufioonxm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

s 2:9:
8 «>28:

. Ex...
3:82:08: . a .888

€225 A.
*mH m. E 9:832
33.
88me

 

 

om

(standardized coefficient = .515) and an indirect effect on social competence through
children’s emotion regulation. Therefore, parenting practices positively predicted
children’s emotion regulation, which positively predicted socially competent behaviors
for children. In addition, low levels of children’s emotionality and negative parental
expressivity resulted in high levels of emotion regulation, which led to high levels of
socially competent behaviors. Therefore, parenting practices and negative parental
expressivity were indirectly related to children’s social competence through emotion
regulation.

In summary, low levels of children’s negative emotionality and more positive
parenting practices were associated with high levels of children’s emotion regulation,
which predicted more socially competent behaviors. The results indicated that children’s
emotion regulation as a mediator was a potential buffer of children’s emotionality and
negative parental expressivity on their social competence. The results also indicated that
the effects of children’s emotionality on their social competence were moderated by

parenting practices and negative parental expressivity.

 

Alternative Model 4. Alternative model 4 was designed to test the bi-directional
effects of children’s emotion regulation on parenting practices and parental expressivity.

Alternative initial model 4 generally represented a poor fit to the data on the basis of the
model fit indices: X2 = 231.838 (df = 36), significant probability value (p = .000), the

goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .831), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA

= .160), and comparative fit index (CFI = .734). In addition, two times the degree of
freedom was not larger than X2 [(df = 36) x 2 = 72 < 231.838]. To improve the alternative

initial model 4, the modification indices were reviewed as seen in Table 15. The final

60

model was subsequently respecified with the specification of 9 more correlated error

terms and factors in Table 14 to achieve a better fitting model. The Alternative final

model exhibited improvement in model fit: X2= 35.990 (df = 27), non-significant

probability value (p = .1 I6> .05), the CPI = .971, RMSEA = .040; the ECVI value

was .535, and CFI = .988. In addition, two times the degree of freedom was larger than

X2 [(df = 27) x 2 = 54 > 35.990]. Taken all together, the alternative final model 4

represented a good fit to the data.

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M.l. Par Chang
815 <--> d1 11.568 34.260
e15 <--> e14 22.321 158.333
e8 <--> d2 7.864 1.390
e8 <--> e14 11.956 54.245
e8 <--> e15 5.930 42.608
e5 <--> e14 13.259 -3.422
e5 <--> e15 9.019 -3.160
67 <--> d2 17.069 -.130
e6 <--> d2 22.972 .168
e6 <--> e8 5.979 1.418
e6 <--> e17 10.640 1.668
e13 <--> Children's Emotionality 7.419 -.055
e13 <--> e14 16.153 -4.024
e13 <--> e15 13.132 -4.040
e13 <--> 86 5.486 -.087
e12 <--> Children's Emotionality 12.116 .300
e12 <--> e5 10.274 .435
e12 <--> e7 6.914 -.372
Table 15. Modification lndices (Alternative Initial Model 4).
Comparison of the alternative initial model to the final model is seen in Table 16.
Model X2 M2 DF ADF P-value GFI CFI RMSEA ECVI
Initial4 231.838 36 .000 .831 .734 .160 1.370
Final 4 35.990 195.848 27 9 .116 .971 .988 .040 .535
Table 16. Comparison of Alternative Initial Model 4 to Final Model 4.

61

 

The standardized path coefficients for the alternative final model 4 are presented in
Figure 8. All paths in the model were significant, but the direct paths from children’s
emotionality to parenting practices and their social competence, from parenting practices
and positive family expressiveness to children’s social competence, and from children’s
emotion regulation to negative family expressivity were not in the expected direction.
Children’s emotionality was positively associated with negative and positive parental
expressiveness, parenting practices, and their social competence (standardized coefficient
= .676, .797, .578, and 1.447, respectively), but negatively associated with children’s
emotion regulation (standardized coefficient = -.707). In addition, children’s emotion
regulatory skills was positively related to parenting practices, negative and positive
parental expressivity, and their social competence (standardized coefficient = 1.104, .410,
1.049, and 2.434, respectively). Parenting practices and negative and positive parental
expressivity were negatively associated with children’s social competence (standardized
coefficient = -.544, -.311, and —.631, respectively). The results indicated that when
comparing the parents’ report hypothesized model 1 to the alternative model 4: the
effects of parenting practices and negative parental expressivity on children’s emotion
regulation and of children’s emotion regulation on parenting practices and negative
parental expressivity were found to be significant and the latter was much stronger
(standardized coefficient = .562 vs. 1.104, and -.176 vs. .410, respectively).

In summary, the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social
competence were mediated by their emotion regulation, negative and positive parental
expressivity, and parenting practices. The associations between children’s emotionality,

parenting practices, and negative and positive family expressiveness were mediated by

62

80858: 8.888.. 88586 .... 8:8: E8586 8:: 2.33.89 8:8: 88588-82 8:: 8800 ”3.83:. 8:288: ..m

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

988088-883. ¢ .28.). .82: 3.888? .m 88.:
3.288me 3.28892
.888: 2,58: .888: 2:882
Lmor ...:m...

 

 

8:88:28
.mBom

 

b.8588
“.8228

 

 

 

 

88.58:
8.85:

*¢m¢.m

      
        

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....Voo. I» ES.
.9555
.8288: 88.58.:
333...... .8885:
3%.- ...wnm.

 

  

8288:
9588:

*mm:.

 

8:83.52 8.888%:

 

 

 

 

 

      

HwH.

*GNO.

*hwb.

...:mo.

 

.m 26.8:

 

 

 

—m FLOGGU

 

 

 

 

.m 3.882

 

 

 

88.85

 

 

me

their emotion regulation. The relationships between children’s emotion regulation and
their social competence were mediated by negative and positive parental expressivity and
parenting practices.

Altemflve Model 5. Taking all significant paths in the alternative models

 

together, alternative model 5 was designed to test that the effects of children’s
emotionality on their social competence were mediated by parenting practices, children’s
emotion regulation, and parental expressivity, and that the relation between parenting
practices and children’s emotion regulation was bi-directional. However, the bi-
directional relationships between negative parental expressivity and positive parental
expressivity were not included in this model because the existing research could not find
any evidence that the relationships between positive parental expressivity and children’s
emotion regulation were bi-directional.

Alternative initial model 5 represented a bad fit to the data on the basis of the
model fit indices: X2 = 207.201 (df = 35), significant probability value (p = .000 < .05),
the goodness-of-fit index (GFI = .849), root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA = .152), and comparative fit index (CFl = .766). In addition, two times the
degree of freedom was larger than X2 [(df = 35) x 2 = 70 < 207.201]. Still alternative
initial model 5 was needed to improve and achieve a better fitting model, modification
indices were reviewed as seen in Table 17. On the basis of M13 in Table 17, the final
model was subsequently respecified with the specification of 12 more correlated error

terms and factors to get a better fitting model and not to have negative error variances of

two observed indicators, nurturance and general emotional intensity. The Alternative

final model exhibited improvement in model fit: X2 = 24.868 (df = 21), non-significant

64

probability value (p = .253 > .05), the GFI = .980, RMSEA = .029; the ECVI value

was .539, and the CF] = .995. In addition, two times the degree of freedom was larger

than X2 [(df: 21) x 2 = 42 > 28.868].

Covariances: (Group number 1 - Default model)

 

 

 

 

 

 

MJ. Par Chang:
e8 <--> e14 10.170 50.233
88 <--> e15 11.361 66.058
e5 <--> d2 4.694 -.810
e7 <--> e15 6.100 2.466
e7 <--> e5 9.590 -.145
e6 <--> e8 14.725 5.325
e6 <--> d2 6.267 .131
e6 <--> eS 5.980 1.418
e3 <--> e14 4.654 2.352
e3 <--> d1 6.077 1.046
e12 <--> Children's Emotionality 14.770 .333
e12 <--> e5 4.038 .258
Table 17 Modification lndices (Alternative Initial Model 5).

Taken all together, the alternative final model 5 represented an adequate fit to the

data. Comparison of the alternative initial model to the final model is seen in Table 18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model ,7 M2 DF ADF P-value GFI CFl RMSEA ECVI

Initial 5 207.201 35 .000 .849 .766 .152 1.264

Final 5 24.868 182.333 21 14 .253 .980 .995 .029 .539
Table 18. Comparison of Alternative Initial Model 5 to Final Model 5.

The standardized path coefficients for the alternative model 5 are presented in Figure 9.

The paths from children’s emotionality to parenting practices and their social competence,

from parenting practices and negative parental expressivity to their emotion regulation,

and from positive parental expressivity to their social competence were not in the

65

 

.EmUEoou 2238mm.— ucmucfimfi u... 353 28555 6:: 2.8-:ch 65$ acmucEmfiéoz 8:: umflon 53:35 .mconoEm am

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fluotoamzcocmn: m Eco: .mEm 252.8“? d ocswE
333.85% bwzmmoaxm
3:23 02:8; .3523 gummoz
9‘11 4
ooo on
o o
0060 to
.35.... $9... .. .. .52.. ER.
.OOGOO .0.
§.... .83. .. 53. m3.
8:369:00 A . bzmcosofim 2%.
.288. . €825 ..
v
.82 535% .83- Law.
... :osoEm
Itoooé .02..
3.528 -
38323. n scum—gum
9:525 H 3.285
m 52.. .35.

   
      

 

 

mmuzumi
wcscohmm

  

*Nmo.

 

3:83.52

 

 

confluenxm

 

 

 

 

 

m. 2,28.“

 

 

 

 

—m Rum—hmo

 

 

 

 

_m gummmz

 

 

 

mmobma

 

 

no

expected direction. The results indicated that the paths from parenting practices and
negative parental expressivity to children’s emotion regulation and social competence
were found to be non-significant (standardized coefficient = -. 127, .086, .157, and -.087,
respectively). Children’s emotionality, however, directly affected their emotion
regulation, their social competence, negative and positive parental expressivity, and
parenting practices. Thus, children’s emotionality positively predicted parenting practices,
negative and positive parental expressivity, and socially competent behaviors
(standardized coefficient = .764, .576, .469, and .1046, respectively), but negatively
predicted emotion regulation (standardized coefficient =-l.196). Furthermore, there were
significant direct effects of children’s emotion regulation on parenting practices and their
social competence (standardized coefficient = 1.114 and 1.503, respectively). The path
from parenting practices to children’s emotion regulation is not significantly related and
much weaker (-.127 vs. 1.119). Whereas negative parental expressivity was not
significantly associated with children’s emotion regulation and social competence,
positive parental expressivity was significantly associated with their emotion regulation
and social competence (standardized coefficient = .693 and -.485, respectively). Thus,
positive parental expressivity positively predicted children’s emotion regulation, which
positively predicted more socially competent behaviors for children. However, positive
parental expressivity negatively predicted children’s social competence.

In summary, the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social
competence were indirectly affected by positive parean expressivity and their emotion
regulatory skills. Thus, children’s emotionality was positively associated with positive

parental expressivity, which predicted high levels of emotion regulatory skills.

67

In addition, children’s emotionality was negatively associated with their emotion

regulatory skills, which positively predicted children’s socially competent behaviors.

Best Fitting Model

In order to determine which of the six models is best fit to the data, Chi-square,

the expected cross-validation index (ECVI, the model having the smallest ECVI value

exhibits the best fit to the data), and the RMSEA comparisons were conducted among the

models as seen in Table 19.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Model X2 M? DF ADF P-value GFI CFl RMSEA ECVI
Hypothesized 1 30.031 21 .090 .975 .933 .045 .564
Altemativel 31.940 -1.359 22 -1 .073 .974 .937 .046 .563
Alternative 2 36.482 3.401 25 -4 .065 .969 .934 .040 .556
Alternative 3 30.968 -o.337 23 -2 .124 .974 .939 .040 .549
Alternative 4 35.990 -5.909 27 -6 .1 16 .971 .933 .040 .535
Alternative 5 24.868 5.213 21 o .253 .930 .995 .029 .539
Table 19. Comparison of Hypothesized Model 1 to Alternative Models.

Taken all together, the alternative model 5 with the lowest X2 and RMSEA
represented the non-significantly best fit to the data. Compared to the alternative model 4,
the alternative model 5 had a little bit larger ECVI value (.539 vs. .535). The model fit
indices except the ECVI value represented the best fit to the data. That is, adding the
paths between children’s emotion regulation and parenting practices to the parent-
reported hypothesized model 1 significantly improved the model’s fit, and in
consequence the alternative model 5 turned out to be the best fitting one.

Parent-rated hypothesized model 1 indicated that children’s emotionality was
related directly and indirectly to their social competence. Parenting practices and positive
parental expressivity were not found to play any mediating role in the relationship

between children’s emotionality and their social competence.

68

The results from the alternative model] supported evidence that children’s
emotionality was indirectly related to their social competence through negative parental
expressivity. However, children’s emotion regulation, parenting practices, and positive
parental expressivity were not indirectly related to their social competence in this model.

In addition, the findings from the alternative model 2 showed that children’s
emotionality was indirectly related to their social competence through negative or
positive parental expressivity and children’s emotion regulation. And the relationships
between parenting practices and children’s social competence were indirectly affected by
children’s emotion regulation.

The findings from the alternative model 3 demonstrated that the associations
between parenting practices, negative parental expressivity, and children’s social
competence were mediated by children’s emotion regulation. And the relationships
between children’s emotionality and their social competence were indirectly affected by
emotion regulation.

The findings from the alternative model 4 indicated that the effects of children’s
emotionality on their social competence were indirectly affected by positive parental
expressivity and their emotion regulatory skills. However, children’s emotion regulation
did not have any mediating effects on parental expressivity and parenting practices.

The alternative model 5 showed that the relationships between children’s
emotionality and their social competence were mediated by their emotion regulation,
negative and positive parental expressivity, and parenting practices. The associations
between children’s emotionality, parenting practices, and negative and positive parental

expressiveness were mediated by children’s emotion regulation. The effect of children’s

69

emotion regulation on their social competence was indirectly affected by negative and
positive parental expressivity, and parenting practices.

In summary, taken all together, the findings indicated that children’s emotionality
was directly or indirectly related to social competence through emotion regulation,

parental expressivity, or parenting practices.

70

CHAPTER FIVE
Discussion

The results of this study are consistent with the evidence from several studies,
including many longitudinal studies. Children’s social and emotional development has
been linked to individual, family, and social contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). In regard
to the familial environmental influences, as the family is the primary context where
children first learn about social and emotional interactions, one of the more broad and
consistent findings is that children who have warm and supportive parents are more likely
to be learned emotionally and socially competent behaviors through interactions with
parents (Davidove & Grusec, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2003). According to Spinrad et al.
(2007), children’s emotion regulation mediated the relation between warm and supportive
parenting and high social competence, thus the supportive family environment is likely to
serve as a fostering factor on children’s social outcome. However, a familial factor, alone,
is not sufficient to predict socially competent behaviors (Eisenberg et al., 1997; Rothbart
& Bates, 2006; Spinrad et al., 2007). The view that individual differences in familial
interactions and emotion-related regulations play an important role in children’s
socioemotional functioning is included in the research.

The main purpose of this study was to examine the hypotheses that children’s
emotion regulation mediates the relationships among children’s emotionality, parenting
practices, and parental expressivity, and their social competence and that parenting
practices and parental expressivity mediate the relationships between children’s

emotionality and their social competence.

71

Overall, the findings from all of the hypothesized and alternative models support
the notion that the relationships among children’s emotionality, their emotion regulation,
and their social competence are mediated by parenting practices and parental expressivity.

First, the findings from the parent- and teacher- reported hypothesized models or
parent-reported alternative models (alternative 1 & 2 were excluded because they were
designed to test only indirect relationships between children’s emotionality and their
social competence) support the hypothesis that children’s emotionality and their
regulatory skills are directly or indirectly related to their social competence, thus the
relationships between children’s emotionality and their social competence are mediated
by their emotion regulation. The findings indicate that children with low levels of
emotionality demonstrate high levels of emotional and behavioral regulation, and
consequently, children with high levels of emotional and behavioral regulation show high
levels of social competence. In turn, children’s emotionality negatively predicts their
emotion regulation, and their emotion regulation positively predicts their socially
competent behaviors as expected.

Consistent with these findings, researchers have indicated that toddlers and
preschoolers or school-aged children who demonstrate high levels of emotion control are
those with high levels of social competence (Eisenberg etal., 2003; Spinard et al., 2006).
As suggested by Eisenberg et al. (2003), children who can manage or regulate their
emotions and behaviors are more likely to have the skills to manage to get along with
others, whereas children who have low levels of emotion regulatory skills are less likely
to behave inappropriately. Eisenberg et al. (1997) have demonstrated that children’s

social competence is predicted by children’s negative emotionality and their emotion

72

regulation. Children with low levels of negative emotionality demonstrate high levels of
emotion regulation and social competence. Combination of children’s emotionality and
their emotion regulation may be a robust predictor of children’s socially competent
behaviors. Consistent with this study, parents’ and teachers’ reports of emotionality and
emotion regulation are more likely to predict children’s social competence better in
combination than in separation (Eisenberg et al., 1997).

Surprisingly, the relationships between children’s emotionality and their social
competence are consistently in the positive direction. However, in the correlation matrix
of teachers’ reports, the relationships among children’s distress, negative and general
emotional intensity, and their social competence are in a negative direction (see Table 3).
The correlations between children’s positive emotional intensity and their social
competence are positive, but the correlations between the distress and negative
emotionality subscales of children’s emotionality and their social competence are
negative in parents’ reports as seen Table 2. Unlike other studies, the findings from this
study demonstrate that parents’ and teachers’ reports of children’s emotionality have
significantly positive effects on their socially competent behaviors. But, in existing
studies, researchers have indicated that children with a temperamental proneness to
negative and internalizing emotional intensity displayed lower levels of social
competence (Denham, 1991; Eisenberg et al., 1997). For example, Eisenberg et a1. (1997)
have reported in their longitudinal study that parents’ reports of negative emotionality are
negatively correlated with school-based social competence. That is, low negative
emotionality predicts an increase in social competence for children. The discrepancy

between past findings and those from the current study may be attributed to cultural

73

differences in racial/ethnic groups and in additional ecological risk factors such as low
socioeconomic status and coming from a single family household whereas prior studies
used middle-income status and European American children residing in a two-family
household. Mesquita (2007) suggested that cultural models of self and relating, which are
defined as the meanings and practices of relationships that vary across cultures, should
explain that emotions are culturally situated and thus function within a specific social
context. Also, the status of being economic disadvantaged is related to various behavioral
problems as suggested by Ackerman, Brown, & Izard (2003). In their study, factors that
may contribute to maintain maladjustment were addressed with children from
economically disadvantaged families. Moreover, Mendez, Fantuzzo, and Cicchetti (2002),
in their study to investigate relationships among multiple dimensions of preschoolers’
social competence in African American children who were attending Head Start,
indicated that children who more likely refrained from overexcitement or overactivity
had higher scores on the Prosocial-Resilient profile. The constructs of approach/
withdrawal temperament were positively correlated to play interactions, which consist of
items that represent “creative, cooperative, and helpfill behaviors that facilitate successful
peer play interactions” (Mendez, Fantuzzo, & Cicchetti, 2002, p. 1089-1090). In addition,
the approach/withdrawal construct was also positively loaded both on interactive
competence and overactive-disruptive pair (.81 and .47, respectively). Therefore, the
results showed that the approach/withdrawal construct was cross-loaded on Interactive
competence and Overactive-Disruptive pair (Mendez, Fantuzzo, & Cicchetti, 2002).
Second, the findings from this study support partial evidence of the hypothesis

that parenting practices mediate the relationships between children’s emotionality and

74

their social competence through their emotion regulation. Unlike other studies (Eisenberg,
Fabes, Shepard, Guthrie, Murphy, & Reiser, 1999; Spinrad etal., 2007), the results from
the alternative model 4 and 5 indicate that children’s emotionality negatively predict
parenting practices. It is noteworthy that the correlations between children’s positive
emotional intensity and parents’ expectation and nurturance are found to be significant
and positive (see Table 2). Also, the correlations between negative emotional intensity
and parent’s expectation subscale are found to be significant but negative in parents’
reports as seen in Table 2. The results show that general emotional intensity is positively
correlated to parents’ nurturance subscale (see Table 3). However, the remainder of the
correlations among children’s general emotional intensity, distress, and parent’s
expectation and nurturance are non-significant and negative, or non-significant and
positive.

Consistent with many researchers’ findings that the family context affects
children’s social and emotional development (Brody et al., 1996; Eisenberg, Fabes,
Shepard, Guthrie, Murphy, & Reiser, 1999; MacDonald & Parke, 1984; Morris, Silk,
Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007; Karrass & Walden, 2005; Spinrad et al., 2007;
Putallaz, 1987), the findings from this study support that more positive parenting
practices predicted high levels of emotion regulatory skills, which caused children to
behave more socially competently toward others. Therefore, parenting practices had
indirect effects of children’s emotion regulation on their social competence. For example,
Karrass & Walden (2005) indicated that warm, responsive care-giving was likely to
enhance trust and a sense of reciprocity in the children, which helped children learn how

to interact with other people inside as well as outside family, showing that warm,

75

responsive, nurturing care-giving affects social behaviors: positive emotion (e.g.,
happiness). Furthermore, Spinrad et al. (2007) in their longitudinal study found that the
effects of mother’s supportive behaviors on children’s social competence were mediated
by effortful control. MacDonald & Parke (1984) reported that moderate control, high
expectations, high nurturance, high responsiveness, and the use of reasoning were
positively related to children’s emotion regulation and social competence. Therefore,
parents may foster an increase in children’s effortful control, which may contribute to
children displaying socially competent behaviors: as models for ways to handle with
emotions and behaviors, maternal supportive, sensitive, and warm reaction to their
children may provide opportunities for them to learn skills to manage and modulate their
emotions and behaviors (Spinrad et al., 2007).

In terms of the effect of children’s emotionality on their social competence, there
was evidence of a moderating effect of parenting practices on the relationships between
children’s emotionality and their social competence. Use of more positive parenting
practices increased the effect size on children’s emotion regulation to their social
competence, which strengthened the relationships between two variables.

Contrary to findings in other studies, there is no evidence of a positive and direct
effect of parenting practices on children’s social competence. However, the findings from
parent-rated alternative model 4 illustrate that the effects of parenting practices on
socially appropriate behaviors are negative. The findings from the correlation study
indicate that the correlations among parent’s expectation, nurturance, and children’s
social competence are significant and positive. Although parent’s expectation and

nurturance are supportive and positive, children behave less socially toward others. This

76

unique relation between parenting practices and social competence is taken into account
by their racial/ethnic differences which may be explained by differences in cultural
variation in terms of parenting practices (McAdoo, 1999). With respect to parenting,
McAdoo (1999) mentioned that Hispanic parents who had traditional values of respect
for males and the elderly were more likely to practice authoritarian or permissive child-
rearing styles. In addition to a cultural variation, exposure to an additional ecological risk,
such as a single parent household or living in poverty, was associated with negative
effects of parenting practices on social competence (Li-Grining, 2007; McLoyd, 1990;
Mistry, Vandewater, Huston, & McLoyd, 2002). According to McLoyd (1990), in black
female-headed households, the tendency of parents to be nonsupportive of their children
was increased under conditions of economic hardship, which affected children’s
socioemotional functioning. Furthermore, Mistry, Vandewater, Huston, & McLoyd,
(2002) studied the linkage of economic well-being to child well-being in ethnically
diverse, low-income elementary school—age children. They found that lower levels of
family economic well-being influenced parenting behaviors characterized as low in
responsiveness and discipline efficacy, which resulted in less socially competent
behaviors for children.

Interestingly, the findings in this study demonstrate that there is a reciprocal
relationship between children’s emotion regulation and parenting practices. High levels
of emotion regulation promote more positive parenting practices and vice versa. The
findings also support evidence that the effects of children’s emotionality and their
emotion regulation on social competence are more likely to be mediated by parenting

practices. This is consistent with findings of Belsky (1984) who found that the child’s

77

characteristics of individuality influenced parental functioning. Children’s emotional
intensity and their emotion regulation shaped parenting practices, which in turn
influenced their social competence. On the other hand, parenting practices influenced
children to regulate their emotions and behaviors well, which also affected their social
competence. Because most of mothers live in a single household, they do not have
enough support from husbands, which results in undermining parenting practices, and
thus negatively influences children’s social competence.

Finally, the findings from this study partially support the hypothesis that parental
expressivity has mediating effects of emotionality and emotion regulation on social
competence for children. Consistent with other studies, the findings from the teacher-
reported hypothesized model 2 and parent-reported alternative model 4 demonstrate that
children’s emotionality positively predicted negative family expressivity, which predicted
low levels of social competence for children. Therefore, the effects of emotionality on
social competence for children are indirectly affected by negative parental expressivity.
In addition, there is evidence of the direct effects of children’s emotionality on negative
and positive parental expressivity on children’s emotion regulation in parent-reported
hypothesized model 1. Therefore, the findings illustrate that children’s emotionality
positively predicted negative parental expressivity, which negatively predicted children’s
emotion regulatory skills. In other words, the relationships between children’s
emotionality and their emotion regulation are mediated by negative parental expressivity.
With respect to the effects of parental expressivity on children’s social competence,
Eisenberg et al. (2003) found in the longitudinal study that the relationships between

maternal negative expressiveness and children’s social competence were marginally

78

mediated by emotion regulation, and that negative expressivity was negatively related to
emotion regulation and social competence for children. Similarly to used instruments, the
Self-Expressiveness in the Family Questionnaire (SEF Q) and the CBQ were used to
assess parental expressivity and children’s emotion regulation, respectively. Unlike the
participants of this study, their participants were children residing in European American
working- and middle-income families, but the findings that negative family
expressiveness was negatively related to children’s emotion regulation and their social
competence are consistent with other studies (Eisenberg et al., 2003). However,
inconsistent with other findings, there is evidence that children’s emotionality positively
predicts positive parental expressivity, which negatively predicts socially competent
behaviors for children in parent-reported alternative model 4 and 5. For example,
Eisenberg et al. (2003) have found that positive maternal expressivity was positively
related to children’s social competence. It is unclear why this was true, but perhaps
ethnicity could explain the discrepancy between this study and others.
Limitations of the Sttfiv and Implications for Future Directions

The measurement model included self-reports of the parents’ behavior, which
may result in method bias in parents’ outcomes. By not using multiple informants such as
interviewer’s observations and self-reports of the parents’ behaviors prevent from
maximizing outcomes and avoiding bias. Also, because cross-sectional research design
has certain limitations in generalizing results, a longitudinal design may be required to
capture more completely the dynamic interplay between contextual factors and family
and child functioning. Although there are limitations to this study, the findings make a

unique contribution to the existing research on the impact of parenting practices and

79

family expressiveness on children’s socioemotional development in diverse low-income
families. Also, the findings suggest that intervention programs for parents and teachers
should be designed to increase the skills of rearing practices and expressivity, because
these factors help low-income minority children to promote social competence in the

home and school environments.

Conclusions

The main goal of this study is to investigate the relations of children’s
emotionality on their social competence as mediated by their emotion regulation,
parenting practices, and family expressiveness. The present study indicates that family as
a proximal environment plays an important role in children’s socioemotional
development. The findings from correlational analyses support all relationships depicted
in the hypothesized model. Furthermore, the findings from structural equation modeling
analyses demonstrate that the relationships between children’s emotionality and their
social competence are indirectly affected or mediated by their emotion regulation. In
other words, children’s emotionality is negatively associated with their emotion
regulatory skills, which positively predicted more socially competent behaviors for
children.

In addition, the results indicate that parenting practices and family expressiveness
are potential buffers or accelerators of children’s emotionality on their social competence.
The findings support evidence that the effects of children’s emotion regulation on their
social competence are mediated by parent practices, and that the relationships between

parenting practices and children’s emotion regulation are reciprocity. With respect to

80

familial expressivity, the findings demonstrate that negative and positive parental
expressivity played mediating roles in the associations between emotionality, emotion
regulation, and social competence for children.

Taken all together, these findings support that children’s social and emotional
development should take into account individual, family, and social contextual factors
(Bronfenbrenner, 1989). Furthermore, combining characteristics of the person, process,
and context leads to a more accurate picture of the complexity of children’s
socioemotional development. To illustrate the findings from this study, children with
high levels of emotional intensity regulated their emotions and behaviors less, and are
more negatively associated with parenting practices. Parenting practices and parental
expressivity exert a more powerful influence on individual differences (e.g., highly
nurture and responsive vs. less nurture and responsive) in children’s socio-emotional
development in more stable, resource-rich environments (e.g., a two-family household
with more than middle income, as suggested by other studies) than in a less stable and
resource-rich environments (e.g., a single-family household with low income). Also, the
levels of parental expressivity and parenting practices vary across ecological niches (e.g.,
ethnicity and family structure), yet the benefits to children’s emotion regulation and

social competence are relatively constant.

81

REFERENCES

82

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Attachment as related to mother-infant interaction. In J .S.
Rosenblatt, R. A. Hinde, C. Beer, & M. Busnel (Eds.), Advances in the study of
behavior, 9, (pp. 2-51). New York: Academic Press.

Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to study
of the family. Marriage & Family Review, 3(1/2), 28-49.

Asendorpf, J. B., & Meier G. H. (1993). Personality effects on children’s speech in
everyday life: Sociability-mediated exposure and shyness-mediated reactivity to
social situations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 1072-1083.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). The social foundation of thought and action: A Social cognitive
theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A., & Walters, R. H. (1963). Social learning and personality development. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Beelmann, A., Pfingsten, U., & Losel, F. (1994). Effects of training social competence in
children: A meta-analysis of recent evaluation studies. Journal of Clinical Child
Psychology, 23, 260-271.

Belsky, J., Youngblade, L., Rovine, M., & Volling, B. (1991). Patterns of marital change
and parent-child interaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(2), 487-498.

Belsky, J ., & MacKinnon, C. (1994). Transition to school: Developmental trajectories
and school experiences. Early Education and Development, 5, 106-119.

Berk, L. E. (1993). Infants, children and adolescents. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the
organization of Behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Development of cognition, affect,

and social relations. The Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 13, pp.
39-101). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Books, J. B. (1981). The process of parenting. Mountain View: Mayfield publishing
company.

Bomstein, M. H., Haynes, O. M., O’Reilly, A. W., & Painter, K. M. (1996). Solitary and
collaborative pretense play in early childhood: Sources of individual variation in

the development of representational competence. Child Development, 67, 2910-
2929.

Boucher, B. H., Doescher, S. M., & Sugawara, A. I. (1993). Preschool children’s motor
development and self-concept. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 76, 1 1-17.

83

Breen, C. G., & Haring, T. G. (1991). Effects of contextual competence on social
initiations. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 337-347.

Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Gauger, K. (1996). Parent-child relationships, family
problem-solving behavior, and sibling relationship quality: The moderating role
of sibling temperaments. Child Development, 67, 1289-1300.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature
and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development:
Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723-742.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological system theory. In R. Vasta (Ed.), Annals of Child
Development (Vol. 6, pp. 187-249). Greenwich: Jaipress Inc.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1995). Developmental ecology through time and space: A future
perspective. In P. Meon, G.H. Elder, & K. Luscher (Eds.), Examining lives in
context, (pp. 619-647). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morries, P. (1997). The ecology of developmental processes. In
W. Damon (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, (pp. 993-1028). New York:
Wiley.

Byme, B. M. (2001 ). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts,
applications, and programming. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1991). Human ecology theory. In P.G. Boss, W.J.
Doherty, R. LaRossa, W.R. Schumm, & S.K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of
family theories and methods: A contextual approach (pp. 419-448). New York:
Plenum Press.

Buehler, C., & Legg, B. H. (1992). Selected aspects of parenting and children’s social
competence post-separation: The moderating effects of child’s sex, age, and
family economic hardship. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 18(3/4), 177-195.

Carlo, G., Eisenberg, N., Troyer, D., Switzer, G., & Speer, A. L. (1991). The altruistic
personality: In what contexts is it apparent? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 450-458.

Cavell, T. A. (1990). Social adjustment, social performance, and social skills: A tri-
component model of social competence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19,
1 11-122.

Centerwall, B. S. (1993). Television and violent crime. The Public Interest, 1 l 1, 56-71.

84

Chandler, L. K., Lubeck, R. C., & Fowler, S. A. (1992). Generalization and maintenance
of preschool children’s social skills: A critical review and analysis. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 415-428.

Cicchetti, D., & Lynch, M. (1993). Toward an ecological/transactional model of
community violence and child maltreatment: Consequences for children's
development. Psychiatry, 56, 96-118.

Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., & Kupersmidt, J. B. (1990). Peer group behavior and social
status, In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 17-59).
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cole, D. A. (1990). Relation of social and academic competence to depressive symptoms
In childhood. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 422-429.

Cole, D. A., Martin, J. M., Powers, B., & Truglio, Ruth. (1996). Modeling causal
relations between academic and social competence and depression: A multitrait-

multimethod longitudinal study of children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105,
25 8-270.

Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1993). The development of children. New York: W. H. Freeman
and Company.

Coley, R. L. (1998). Children’s socialization experiences and filnctioning in single-
mother households: The importance of fathers and other men. Child Development,
69, 219-230.

Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487-496.

Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to
distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44-58.

Denham, S. A. (1986). Social cognition, prosocial behavior, and emotion in preschoolers:
Contextual validation. Child Development, 56, 194-201.

Denham, S. A., Renwick, S. M., & Holt, R. W. (1991). Working and playing together:
Prediction of preschool social-emotional competence from mother-child
interaction. Child Development, 62, 242-249.

Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J ., Sawyer, K., & Auerbanch-Major,
S. (2003). Preschool emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child
Development, 74(1), 238-256.

Derryberry, D. (1988). Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 958-966.

85

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1997). Reactive and effortfill processes in the
organization of temperament. Development and Psychopathology. 9, 633-652.

Dorr, A., & Robin, B. E. (1995). Parents, children, and television. In M. Bernstein (Ed.),
Handbook of parenting (Vol. 4, pp. 323-351). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

Duncan, G. J ., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of growing up poor. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.

Eisenberg, N., Cameron, E., Tryon, K., & Dodez, R. (1981). Socialization of

prosocial behavior in the preschool classroom. Developmental Psychology, 17,
773-782.

Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1990). Empathy: Conceptualization, measurement, and
relation to prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 14, 131-149.

Eisenberg, N., & Mussen P. H. (1989). The roots of prosocial behavior in children. New
York: Cambridge university press.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Fultz, J., Shell, R., & Mathy, R. M., et al.
(1989). Relation of sympathy and personal distress to prosocial behavior: A
multimethod study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 55-66.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Miller, P. A., Shell, R., Shea, C., & May-Plumlee, T. (1990).
Preschoolers’ vicarious emotional responding and their situational and
dispositional prosocial behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36, 507-529.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Miller, P. A., Carlo, G., & Poulin, R., et al.
(1991). Personality and socialization correlates of vicarious emotional responding.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 459-470.

Eisenberg, N. & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation, and the development of social
competence. In a M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology:
Emotion and social behavior (Vol. 14, pp] 19-150). Newbury Park: Sage.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., Troyer, D., Speer, A. L., & Karbon, M., et al.
(1992). The relations of maternal practices and characteristics to children’s
vicarious emotional responsiveness. Child Development, 63(3), 538-602.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Bemzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R., & Hanish, L. (1993).

The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and
sociometric status. Child Development, 64, 1418-1438.

86

O

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk, P., & Smith, M., et al.
(1994). The relations of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and

situational empathy-related responding. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 66, 776-797.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bemzweig, J ., & Pinuelas, A. (1994).
The relations of emotionality and regulation to children’s anger-related reactions.
Child development, 65, 109-128.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995).
The role of emotionality and regulation in children’s social functioning: A
longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1360-1384.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski, M., & Polazzi, L., et
al. (1996). The relations of children’s dispositional prosocial behavior to

emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 974-
992.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., & Jones, S., et
al. (1997). Contemporaneous and longitudinal prediction of children’s social
functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68(4), 642-664.

Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Murphy, B. C., & Holgren, R., et
al. (1997). The relations of regulation and emotionality to resiliency and

competent social functioning in elementary school children. Child Development,
68(2), 295-311.

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Reiser, M.
(1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations
to quality of children’s social firnctioning. Child Development, 70(2), 513-534.

Eisenberg, N. Cumberland, A., Spinrad, T. L., Fabes, R. A., Shephard, S. A., & Reiser,
M., et al. (2001). The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s

externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors. Child Development, 72, 1112-
1134.

Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., Fabes, R. A., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M.,
Gershoff, E. T., Shepard, S. A., & Losoya, S. (2003). Longitudinal relations
among parental emotional expressivity, children’s regulation, and quality of
socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 3-9.

Elder, G., Caspi, A., & VanNguyen, T. (1986). Resourceful and vulnerable children:

Family influences in hard times. In R. K. Silbereisen et al. (Eds.), Development as
Action in Context, (pp. 167-186). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

87

Fabes, R. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Young children’s coping with interpersonal anger.
Child Development, 63, 116-128.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Troyer, D., & Switzer, G. (1994). The relations
of children’s emotion regulation to their vicarious emotional responses and
comforting behaviors. Child Development, 65, 1678-1693.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Smith, M. C., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Getting angry at

peers: Associations with linking of the provocateur. Child Development, 67, 942-
956.

Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Martin, C. L. (1997). Roles of
temperamental arousal and gender-segregated play in young children’s social
adjustment. Developmental Psychology, 33, 693-702.

Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Jones, S., Smith, M., Guthrie, I. K., & Poulin, R., et al.
(1999). Regulation, emotionality, and preschoolers’ socially competent peer
interactions. Child Development, 70(2), 432-442.

Ford, D., & Lerner, R. M. (1992). Developmental systems theory. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.

Fox, N. A. (1989). Psychological correlates of emotional reactivity during the first year
of life. Developmental Psychology, 25, 364-37.

Fox, N. A. (Ed.). (1994). The development of emotion regulation: Biological and
behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development (Vol. 59).

Frankel, F., & Myatt, R. (1994). A dimensional approach to the assessment of social
competence in boys. Psychological Assessment, 6, 249-254.

Honaker, J ., King, G., & Blackwell, M. (2007). Amelia II: A program for missing data.
Retrieved March 15, 2008, from http://gking.harvard.edu/amelia/docs/amelia.pdf

Garbarino, J. (1995). Raising children in socially toxic environment. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Garbarino, J ., & Abramowitz, R. H. (1992). The ecology of human development. In J.
Garbrino (Ed.), Children and families in the social environment (pp. 11-32). New
York: Aldine De. Gruyter.

Garrnezy, N. (1991). Resiliency and vulnerability to adverse developmental outcomes
associated with poverty. American Behavioral Scientist, 34, 416-430.

88

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, 622-637.

Garner, P. W, & Power, T. G. (1996). Preschoolers’ emotional control in the
disappointment paradigm and its relation to temperament, emotional knowledge,
and family expressiveness. Child Development, 67, 1406-1419.

Goldberg, W. A. (1990). Marital quality, parental personality, and spousal agreement
about perceptions and expectations for children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 36,
531-556.

Gump, P. (1981). Big school, small school. In E. M. Hetherington and R. D. Parke (Eds.),
Contemporary readings in child psychology, (2mI ed., pp. 315-320). New York:
McGraw Hill.

 

Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Family socialization of emotional expression and nonverbal
communication styles and skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 827-836.

Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifier, C. A., Parke, R. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Self-
expressiveness within the family context: Psychometric support for a new
measure. Psychological Assessment, 7, 93-103.

Halberstadt, A. G., Crisp, V. W., & Eaton, K. L. (1999). Family expressiveness: A
retrospective and new directions for research. In P. Philippot, R. S. Feldman, & E.
Coats (Eds.), The social context of nonverbal behavior (pp. 109-155). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Hart, D., & Edelstein, W. (1992). The relationship of self-understanding in childhood to
social class, community type, and teacher-rated intellectual and social competence.
Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 23, 353-365.

Hatzichristou, C., & Hopf, D. (1996). A multiperspective comparison of peer sociometric
status groups in childhood and adolescence. Child Development, 67, 1085-1102.

Hernandez, D. J. (1997). Poverty trends. In G. .1. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.),
Consequences of growing up poor (pp. 18-34). New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.

Hodges, J ., & Tizard, B. (1989). IQ and behavioral adjustment of ex-institutional
adolescents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 30, 53-75.

Hubbard, J. A., & Coie, J. D. (1994). Emotional correlates of social competence in
children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 1-20.

89

lronsmith, M., & Poteat, G. M. (1990). Behavioral correlates of preschool sociometric
status and the prediction of teacher ratings of behavior in kindergarten. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 17-25.

Kain, E. (1990). The myth of family decline: Understanding families in a world of rapid
social Change. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Karras, J ., & Walden, T. A. (2005). Effects of nurturing and non-nurturing caregiving on
child social initiatives: An experimental investigation of emotion as a mediator of
social behavior. Social Development, 14, 685-700.

Kochanska, G. (1991). Toward a synthesis of parental socialization and child
temperament in early development of conscience. Child Development, 64, 325-
347.

Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2004). Development of mutual responsiveness between
parents and their young children. Child Development, 75, 1657-1676.

Kohlberg, L. ( 1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive=developmental approach to
socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research (pp. 325-480). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Kohlberg, L. (1976). Moral stage and moralization: The cognitive-developmental
approach. In T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory,
research, and social issues (pp. 84-107). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Kohlberg, L. (1984). Essays on moral development. 11: The psychology of moral
development. New York: Harper & Row.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 1 8, 199-2 14.

Kurdek, L. A. (1996). Parenting satisfaction and marital satisfaction in mothers and
fathers with young children. Journal of Family Psychology, 10, 331-342.

Ladd, G. W., & Price, J. M. (1987). Predicting children’s social and school adjustment
following the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development, 58,
1168-1189.

LaFreniere. P. J. & Dumas, J. E. (1996). Social competence and behavior evaluation in
children ages 3 to 6 years: The short form (SCBE-30). Psychological Assessment,
8, 369-377.

Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Miller-Loncar, C. L., & Swank, P. R. (1998). The relation of

change in maternal interactive styles to the developing social competence of full-
term and preterm children. Child Development, 69, 102-123.

90

Lerner, R. M. (1991). Changing organism-context relations as the basic process of
development: A developmental contextual perspective. Developmental
Psychology, 27, 27-32.

Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three
cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology,
43, 208-221.

MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: parent-child play interaction
and peer interaction competence. Child Development, 55, 1265-1277.

Maslow, A. H. (1970). Motivation and personality (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Matejcek, Z., Dytrych, Z., & Schuller, V. (1979). The Prague study of children born from
unwanted pregnancies. International Journal of Mental Health, 7, 63-77.

McAdoo, H. P. (1999). Family Ethnicity: Strength in diversity (2"ded.).Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications Ltd.

McLanahan, S. & Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts,
what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. The
American psychologist, 53, 185-205.

McLoyd, V. C., & Wilson, L. (1990). Maternal behavior, social support, and economic
conditions as predictors of distress in children. New directions for child
development, 46, 49-66.

Mendez, J. L., Fantuzzo, J ., & Cicchetti, D. (2002). Profiles of social competence among
low-income African American preschool children. Child Development, 73, 1085-
1100.

Mesquita, B., & Albert, D. (2007). The cultural regulation of emotions. In J .J . Gross (Ed.),
Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 486-503). New York: The Guilford Press.

Miller, R. S. (1995). On the nature of embarrassability: Shyness, social evaluation, and
social skill. Journal of Personality, 63, 315-339.

Mistry, R., Vandewater, E. A., Huston, A. C., & McLoyd, V. C. (2002). Economic well-
being and children’s social adjustment: the role of family process in a ethnically
diverse low-income sample. Child Development, 73, 935-951.

Mize, J ., & Pettit, G. S. (1997). Mothers’ social coaching, mother-child relationship style,

and children’s peer competence: Is the medium the message? Child Development,
68, 312-332.

91

Moen, P., Elder, G. H., & Luscher, K. (1995). Examing lives in context. Washington, D.
C.: American Psychological Association.

Munger, R. L. (1998). The ecology of troubled children. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.

Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Guthrie, I. K. (1999).
Contemporaneous and longitudinal relations of young adolescents’ dispositional
sympathy to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning. Journal of
Early Adolescence. 19, 66-97.

Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1994). Socialization in the family: Ethnic and ecological
perspectives. In R. D. Parke et al (Eds.), A Century of developmental psychology
(pp. 463-552).

Pence, A. R. (1988). Ecological research with children and families. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Piaget J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children (2nd ed). New York: Norton.
Piaget J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child. New York: Free Press.

Plomin, R. (1990). Nature and nurture: An introduction to human behavioral genetics.
Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole.

Putallaz, M. (1987). Maternal behavior and children’s sociometric status. Child
Development, 58, 323-340.

Ramsden, S. R., & Hubbard, J. A. (2002). Family expressiveness and parental emotion
coaching: Their role in children’s emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 657-667.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social
behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21-39.

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of
temperament at three to seven years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire.
Child Development, 72, 1287-1604.

Rowe, D. (1994). The limits of family influence. New York: Guilford Press.

Rubin, K. H., Hastings, P., Chen, X., Stewart, 8., & Mcnichol, K. (1998). Intrapersonal

and maternal correlates of aggression, conflict, and externalizing problems in
toddlers. Child Development, 69, 1614-1629.

92

Rubin, K. H., Coplan, R. J ., Fox, N. A., & Calkins, S. (1995) Emotionality, emotion
regulation, and preschoolers’ social adaptation. Development and
Psychopathology, 7, 49-62.

Rubin, K. H., & Daniels-Beimess, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive correlates of
sociometric status in kindergarten and Grade 1 children. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 29, 337-351.

Rudolph, K. D., Hammen, C., & Burge, D. (1995). Cognitive representations of self,
family, and peers in school-age children: Links with social competence and
sociometric status. Child Development, 66, 1385-1402.

Sameroff, A., Seifer, R., Zax, M., & Greenspan, S. (1987). Intelligence Quotient Scores
of 4-year-old children: social-environmental risk factors. Pediatrics, 79, 343-3 50.

Settlage, C. F. (1972). Cultural values and the superego in late adolescence.
Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 27, 74-97.

Shields, A., & Cicchetti, D. (1997). Emotion regulation among school-aged children: The

development (1 validation of a new criterion q-sort scale. Developmental
Psychology, 33, 906-916.

Smith, M., & Walden, T (2001). An exploration of African American preschool-aged
children’s behavioral regulation in emotionally arousing situations. Child Study
Journal, 31, 13-45.

Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., F abes, R., Valiente, C., Shepard, S. A., et
al. (2006). Relation of emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence:

A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6, 498-510.

Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Gaertner, B., Popp, T., Smith, C. L., Kupfer, A., et al.
(2007). Relations of maternal socialization and toddlers’ effortfill control to
children’s adjustment and social competence. Developmental Psychology, 43,

1170-1186.

Sroufe, L. A., & Fleeson, J. (1986). Attachment and the construction of relationships. In
W. Hartup & Z. Rubin (Eds.), Relationships and development, (pp. 51-71).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Stipek, D. (1992). The child at school. In M. Bomstein and M. Lamb (Eds.),
Developmental Psychology: An advanced text, (pp. 579-625). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

Strauss, C. C., Lease, C. A., Kazdin, A. E., Dulcan, M. K., & Last C. G. (1989).
Multimethod assessment of the social competence of children with anxiety
disorders. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 184-189.

93

Taylor, A. R. (1989). Predictors of peer rejection in early elementary grades: Roles of
problem behavior, academic achievement, and teacher preference. Journal of
Clinical Child Psychology, 18, 360-365.

Thomas, R. M. (1992). Comparing theories of child development. Belmont: Wadsworth
publishing company.

VanderZanden, J. W. (1993). Human development (5th ed). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Vaughn, 8., Hogan, A., Lancelotta, G., Shapiro, S., & Walker, J. (1992). Subgroups of
children with severe and mild behavior problems: Social competence and reading
achievement. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 98-106.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge: Harvard University.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The
collected works of Vygotsky, L. S. (Vol. 1): Problems of General Psychology.
New York: Plenum.

Walden, T. A., & Smith, M. C. (1997). Emotion regulation. Motivation and Emotion. 21,
7-21.

Zahn-Waxler, C., Iannotti, R. & Chapman, M. (1982). Peers and prosocial development.
In K. H. Rubin & H. S. Ross (Eds). Peer relationships and social skills in
childhood (pp. 133-162). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., & Guthrie, I. K., et al.
(2002). The relations of parental warmth and positive expressiveness to children’s

empathy-related responding and social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 73(3), 893-915.

94