Journal of Family Psychology
2010, Vol. 24, No. 2, 135–144
© 2010 American Psychological Association
0893-3200/10/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/a0018974
Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions:
Prospective Relations to Chinese Children’s Psychological Adjustment
Annie Tao and Qing Zhou
Yun Wang
University of California
Beijing Normal University
The prospective relations between five types of parental reactions to children’s negative
emotions (PRCNE) and children’s psychological adjustment (behavioral problems and social
competence) were examined in a two-wave longitudinal study of 425 school-age children in
China. Parents (mostly mothers) reported their own PRCNE. Parents, teachers, and children
or peers reported on children’s adjustment. Parental punitive reactions positively predicted
externalizing problems (controlling for baseline), whereas emotion- and problem-focused
reactions were negatively related to internalizing problems. Parental minimizing and encouragement of emotion expression were unrelated to adjustment. Concurrent relations were
found between PRCNE and parents’ authoritative and authoritarian parenting dimensions.
However, PRCNE did not uniquely predict adjustment controlling for global parenting
dimensions. The findings have implications for cultural adaptation of parent-focused interventions for families of Chinese origin.
Keywords: culture, parental reactions to children’s emotions
Children of all ages experience negative emotions in daily
life. How parents respond to children’s negative emotions is an
important pathway to socialize children’s emotion regulation
and expression (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998).
Previous research based on Western samples has documented
systematic relations between parental reactions to children’s
negative emotions (henceforth labeled as PRCNE) and children’s adjustment (see Eisenberg et al., 1998 for a review).
However, it is unclear whether these findings can be generalized to other cultures, especially the cultures with different
values on emotion expression. Moreover, few researchers have
examined whether PRCNE (i.e., context-specific parenting behaviors) have unique relations to adjustment above and beyond
global parenting dimensions. The present study addressed
these gaps by examining the prospective relations of PRCNE
to Chinese children’s adjustment. We also tested the relations
of PRCNE to global parenting dimensions, and whether
PRCNE uniquely predict children’s adjustment controlling for
global parenting.
PRCNE
In research based on Western samples, two clusters of
PRCNE have been identified: a) unsupportive PRCNE,
which include punitive and minimizing responses, and b)
supportive PRCNE, which include emotion-focused responses or comforting, problem-solving, and encouraging
emotion expression (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994). Unsupportive PRCNE are expected to predict poorer adjustment because they invalidate children’s emotional experience,
thereby teaching them to suppress negative emotions (e.g.,
Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996; Gottman, Katz, &
Hooven, 1997). Suppression of emotional expression may
be adaptive in the moment to evade punishment, but over
time, unexpressed or “stored” negative emotions may accumulate and become more difficult to manage (Roberts &
Strayer, 1987). Moreover, punitive responses increase tensions in the parent-child relationship (Power, 2004), which
in turn impairs children’s emotion regulation. Indeed, punitive and minimizing responses have been related to children’s lower social competence and higher externalizing
problems (Eisenberg et al., 1998).
Supportive PRCNE are hypothesized to predict better adjustment because they promote positive parent-child relationships, which foster children’s emotional security (Cassidy,
1994). Moreover, supportive PRCNE enable children to accept
and learn to manage emotions through modeling and coaching
(Gottman et al., 1997; Power, 2004). Indeed, problem-focused
and emotion-focused responses have been positively related to
children’s social skills (Eisenberg et al., 1999; Gottman et al.,
1997). However, the findings for parental encouragement of
expression are relatively weak (Eisenberg et al., 1998). Some
researchers found that it related negatively to preschoolers’
aggression (e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994) and positively to
Annie Tao and Qing Zhou, Department of Psychology, University
of California, Berkeley; Yun Wang, National Key Laboratory of
Cognitive Neuroscience and Learning (Beijing Normal University).
This research was supported by American Psychological Association Dissertation Award, Arizona State University Graduate and
Professional Student Association Research Grant Award, and a Faculty Research Grant from the University of California, Berkeley to
Qing Zhou. The authors wish to thank all the children, parents, and
teachers who participated or contributed to this project.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Qing Zhou, Department of Psychology, 3210 Tolman Hall #1650,
University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720-1650. E-mail:
qingzhou@berkeley.edu
135
136
TAO, ZHOU, AND WANG
preschoolers’ social competence (e.g., Denham, MitchellCopeland, Strandberg, Auerbach, & Blair, 1997), whereas others found it unrelated to school-age children’s adjustment
(Eisenberg et al., 1996,1999; Jones, Eisenberg, Fabes, &
MacKinnon, 2002).
There are at least two limitations in existing research.
First, with the exception of Eisenberg et al. (1996 and
1999), most studies focused on toddlers and preschoolers.
Longitudinal studies suggested as children grow older, parents change in their frequency of using various PRCNE
(Eisenberg et al., 1999). Thus, one should examine whether
the PRCNE-adjustment relations found among younger
children can generalize to school-age children. Second,
most studies were conducted with primarily EuropeanAmerican (EuA) samples. Because cultural differences exist
in the values regarding emotion expression, it is important
to examine whether Western findings can be generalized to
Eastern families.
Culture and PRCNE
In Eastern cultures that value collectivism, hierarchy, and
embeddedness (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Matsumoto et
al., 2008), there is a general emphasis on control/inhibition
of emotion expression due to the importance of maintaining
interpersonal harmony. Correspondingly, cultural differences were found in the norms (means) of individuals’
emotion expressivity. For example, adults from East Asian
cultures reported less intense emotions than adults from
Western cultures (Soto, Levenson, & Ebling, 2005). Individualistic values were positively associated with countrylevel means of individuals’ expressivity (Matsumoto et al.,
2008).
Cultural values with respect to certain behaviors may
influence the development of such behaviors through shaping the social interaction (Chen & French, 2008). Thus,
cultural values on emotion control/inhibition may affect
how parents socialize children’s emotion regulation/ expression and its effects on child adjustment. In one of the few
cross-cultural studies on parental socialization of emotions,
U.S. mothers scored higher than Japanese mothers on a
broad dimension of encouragement of emotional expressivity (Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma,
1996). However, no studies have examined parents’ specific
responses to children’s emotions and their relations to child
adjustment in a non-Western sample.
Although a within-culture study like the present one
cannot test hypotheses on cultural differences in the means
of PRCNE, we can at least test whether the hypothesized
relations between PRCNE and adjustment based upon
Western samples can be generalized to a non-Western sample. These analyses test whether there are cross-cultural
differences/similarities in the socialization function of
PRCNE. We expect that cultural differences in values on
emotion expression are most likely to affect the relations of
minimizing reactions and encouragement of expression to
child adjustment. Specifically, in contrast to the EuA culture
in which minimizing responses are negatively related to
child adjustment (see Eisenberg et al., 1998 for a review),
we hypothesized that it might be unrelated or positively
related to Chinese children’s adjustment due to the general
restraint on emotion expression. Similarly, in contrast to the
EuA culture in which encouragement of expression was
found to predict children’s positive adjustment (Denham et
al., 1997; Fabes, Poulin, Eisenberg, & Madden-Derdich,
2002), we hypothesized that it might be unrelated or negatively related to Chinese children’s adjustment.
In contrast, we hypothesized that the relations of
problem-focused, emotion-focused, and punitive reactions
to Chinese children’s adjustment would show similar patterns as those found in EuA samples. These hypotheses
were developed largely based on the research on global
parenting. First, PRCNE are expected to be associated with
the “authoritative” (characterized by high parental warmth,
and the use of reasoning in discipline; Baumrind, 1996) and
“authoritarian” (characterized by low warmth, high restrictiveness, and harsh discipline) parenting dimensions.
Problem-focused reactions are consistent with the use of
reasoning in authoritative parenting, and emotion-focused
reactions reflect parental warmth and responsiveness (Fabes
et al., 2002). Furthermore, punitive reactions are consistent
with the coercive and harsh discipline style of authoritarian
parenting. Second, recent cross-cultural research shows that
authoritative parenting is associated with positive child adjustment, whereas the opposite relations are found for authoritarian parenting in both Chinese and Western families.
Although some researchers have argued that authoritative
parenting may not have the same benefits for child adjustment in the Chinese culture (Chao, 1994, 2001), the latest
empirical investigations, particularly those that utilized
large samples, a longitudinal design, and examined multiple
domains of adjustment, suggest that both the attributes of
authoritative and authoritarian parenting and their relations
to Chinese children’s adjustment are similar to those found
in EuA samples (Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997; Sorkhabi,
2005; Zhou, Eisenberg, Wang, & Reiser, 2004; Zhou et al.,
2008). Therefore, we expected problem- and emotionfocused reactions to relate positively to Chinese children’s
adjustment, whereas the opposite relations were expected
for punitive reactions.
PRCNE and Global Parenting Dimensions
Global parenting dimensions (e.g., authoritative and authoritarian parenting) reflect “the constellation of parental
attitudes toward the child” (Darling & Steinberg, 1993).
Holden and Miller (1999) theorized that global parenting
dimensions are determinants of situation-specific parenting
practices because parents’ general childrearing attitudes
would influence their behaviors in specific contexts. Thus,
PRCNE and global parenting are expected to relate to each
other. Specifically, we expect problem- and emotionfocused reactions to be positively related to authoritative
parenting and negatively related to authoritarian parenting.
Punitive reactions are expected to relate positively to authoritarian parenting and negatively to authoritative parenting. Because of the cultural emphasis on emotion inhibition,
Chinese parents might tend to use minimizing reactions or
PARENTAL REACTIONS, NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, CHINESE
avoid using encouragement of emotion expression regardless of their overall parenting tendencies. Thus, these two
PRCNE might be unrelated to global parenting.
In addition to the interrelations between PRCNE and
global parenting, it is also important to examine whether
they have unique and/or overlapping relations to child adjustment. These analyses can shed light on the potential
developmental mechanisms. Prior research has indicated
that children’s emotion-related processes (e.g., emotion regulation and expression) are key mechanisms through which
emotion-related parenting practices (such as PRCNE) influence child adjustment (Eisenberg et al., 1998). If PRCNE
and global parenting overlap with each other in predicting
adjustment, the emotion-related processes might be a
common/shared mechanism underlying these socialization
factors. If global parenting but not PRCNE uniquely predicts adjustment, other mechanisms besides emotion-related
processes (e.g., children’s neurocognitive development)
might further explain the link between global parenting and
adjustment. If PRCNE but not global parenting uniquely
predicts adjustment, PRCNE might mediate the relation
between global parenting and child adjustment.
In summary, the first goal of the study was to examine the
prospective relations of PRCNE to Chinese school-age children’s adjustment (externalizing and internalizing problems
and social competence). We expected the relations of
problem-focused, emotion-focused, and punitive reactions
and Chinese children’s adjustment to be similar to those
found with Western samples, whereas the Western findings
on minimizing reactions and encouragement of emotion
expression might not generalize to Chinese families. The
second goal was to examine the associations between
PRCNE and global parenting dimensions, and to test their
unique relations to child adjustment. We expected problemand emotion-focused reactions to be positively related to
authoritative parenting and negatively related to authoritarian parenting. Punitive reactions were expected to relate
negatively to authoritative parenting and positively to authoritarian parenting. Because of the cultural expectation to
inhibit emotional expression, we expected that encouragement of emotion and minimizing reactions might be unrelated to global parenting. Because research has shown that
socioeconomic status (SES) likely influences the relations
between parenting and child adjustment (Dodge, Pettit, &
Bates, 1994), the effect of SES was controlled in the analyses.
Method
Participants
The sample came from a two-wave (3.8 years apart)
longitudinal study of 1st and 2nd grade children in Beijing,
China (Zhou et al., 2004, 2008). At Wave 1 (W1, summer
2000), 425 children (55.5% girls, 49.4% 1st-graders, M
age ! 7.7 years, SD ! .6, age range ! 6.6 –9.1 years) were
recruited from two public elementary schools. Children
were recruited from 14 classes, with 25– 40 students in each
class. Ninety-one percent of the children had no siblings.
137
Seventy-five percent of children came from two-parent families, 22% from extended families, and 3% from singleparent families. Monthly family income ranged from 200 to
10,000 RMB (M ! 2,456.3 RMB, SD ! 1454.4). The
currency exchange rate between U.S. dollar and Chinese
RMB was about 1:8.3 at W1. Parental education was reported on the following scale: 1 ! ! 9 years (middle school
or lower), 2 ! 10 to 12 years (high school), 3 ! 13 to 16
years (college), and 4 ! " sixteen years (graduate school).
Mean maternal and paternal education were 2.46 (SD ! .66)
and 2.49 (SD ! .67) (i.e., high school diploma to some
college education). The sample represented primarily lowto middle-income families based on the local demographic
statistics (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2000).
At Wave 2 (W2, spring 2004), 89.9% of the children from
W1 were reassessed (N ! 382; 52.9% girls, M age ! 11.6
years, SD ! .6, age range ! 10.1–12.9) while either in the
5th (50%) or 6th grades. There were no new participants at
W2. The children who were assessed at both waves (N !
382) were compared to those assessed at W1 only (N ! 43)
on W1 demographics, parenting, and child adjustment.
Children who had only participated during W1 came from
families with higher maternal education, paternal education,
and family income than those who were assessed at both
waves, ts (dfs ! 393, 383, and 354) ! #2.7, #3.3, and
#2.2, ps $ .01, .01, and .05; their parents also reported
higher authoritative parenting, t(df ! 394) ! #2.59, p $
.02. No significant group differences were found on any
child adjustment variable. Most of the children who
dropped out of the study (86%) could not be located because
they left the original school after W1. Like many metropolitan cities in China, children are assigned to public schools
according to their home residence in Beijing. However, for
a higher tuition cost, some families can enroll their children
in private schools or public schools (often of better quality
or reputation) that are outside their area of residence. It is
possible that the children from families with higher SES
were more likely to change schools during the course of the
study because their families had the financial resources to
send them to private or public schools of better quality.
Procedure
At both waves, an introductory letter and consent form
were given to the parents of all 1st and 2nd graders (at W1,
N ! 589) or eligible 5th and 6th graders who participated at
W1 (at W2, N ! 387). Four hundred and twenty-five
parents (72%) at W1 and 382 parents (99%) at W2 gave
consent. Data were obtained through questionnaires completed by parents, teachers, children or peers. The parent
questionnaire was asked to be completed by the mother if
possible. Seventy-eight percent and 82% of the parent questionnaires were completed by mothers at W1 and W2, 16%
and 12 % by fathers, and 6% and 6% by other caregivers. A
Box’s M test was conducted to examine whether the variance and covariance matrix of study variables differed between the children whose mothers completed the reports
and those for whom fathers or other caregivers completed
the reports. The test was not significant, indicating that the
138
TAO, ZHOU, AND WANG
associations between parenting and child adjustment were
not moderated by the parent figure. The head teacher (Ns !
14 at both W1 and W2; children had different head teachers
at W1 and W2) completed the teacher questionnaires (return
rates ! 98.9% at W1 and 97.9% at W2). The child and peer
questionnaires were group-administered in class by two
research assistants after written assent was obtained. Adults
were paid for their participation, and children were given a
small gift.
Measures
The measures that had not been previously used in Chinese samples were forward- and back-translated by bilingual speakers fluent in both Chinese and English. Englishspeaking researchers assisted in providing clarifications
regarding difficult-to-translate items.
Parental reaction to children’s negative emotions (W1).
The Chinese translation of the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes et al., 2002) was used.
The scale presented parents with 12 typical situations in
which children are experiencing negative affect (e.g., being
scared of injections, being nervous about possibly embarrassing him/herself in public). All situations pertain to normative expressions of negative emotion for children ages 4
to 12. For each situation, parents were asked to indicate how
likely (on a 7-point scale from 1 ! “very unlikely” to 7 !
“very likely”) they would be to react in each of five different
ways: (a) punitive reactions that decrease parents’ exposure
or need to deal with children’s negative emotions (% ! .72);
(b) emotion-focused reactions that help children feel better
(% ! .76); (c) problem-focused reactions that help or encourage children to solve or cope with the problem (% !
.68); (d) minimizing reactions that diminish the seriousness
of the situation or devalue the child’s problem or distressed
reaction (% ! .74), and (e) reactions that encourage children
to express negative affect or validate children’s negative
emotional states (% ! .78). Two situations were modified to
make them more applicable to Chinese families (e.g., “my
child is sick and can’t go to his friend’s birthday party” was
changed to “my child is sick and can’t go to the school’s
field trip,” “If my child is playing with other children and
one of them calls him/her names” was changed to “If my
child is nervous about a test”). The item scores were averaged to create the composite for each subscale. In a study of
primarily EuA children (Fabes et al., 2002), the CCNES
showed satisfactory alpha reliabilities (.69#.85) and testretest reliabilities (.56 to .83 over 4 months), and predicted
observed children’s emotional competence.
Global parenting (W1). Global parenting was assessed
using the authoritative and authoritarian scales of the Chinese version of the Parenting Styles and Dimensions scale
(PSD; Robinson, Mandleco, Olsen, & Hart, 1995). The
authoritative scale includes: (a) warmth/acceptance (9
items, % ! .76); (b) reasoning/induction (9 items, % ! .70);
(c) democratic participation (4 items, % ! .72); and (d)
easy-going/responsiveness (4 items, % ! .70). The authoritarian scale includes: (a) non-reasoning/punitive strategies
(4 items, % ! .61), (b) corporal punishment (5 items, % !
.80); (c) directiveness (4 items, % ! .49); and (d) verbal
hostility (4 items, % ! .72). The dimensions of authoritative
parenting were positively and moderately correlated with
each other, rs(dfs ! 394 to 401) ranged from .51 to .63, as
were the dimensions of authoritarian parenting, rs(dfs !
394 to 400) ranged from .38 to .61. Thus, the subscale
scores were averaged to form composites of authoritative
(% ! .89) and authoritarian (% ! .82) parenting.
Child externalizing problems (W1 and W2). At W1, parents (% ! .87) and teachers (% ! .96) rated children’s
externalizing problems (from 1 ! never to 4 ! often) on the
24-item Child Behavior Checklist (CBC; Lochman & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1995). Peer
nominations of aggressive/disruptive behaviors were obtained using a 7-item subscale from the Chinese version of
the Revised Class Play (Chen, Rubin, & Sun, 1992; Masten,
Morison, & Pelligrini, 1985). Children were provided with
a form containing 21 behavioral descriptors and a list of the
names of all students in the class. After the research assistant read each descriptor, children nominated up to three
classmates who could best play the role if they were to
direct a class play. Nominations of all classmates were used
to compute each item score for each child. The item scores
were standardized within the class to adjust for differences
in the number of nominators. A composite (% ! .92) was
computed by averaging the item scores.
At W2, parent-, teacher-, and child-reported externalizing
problems were assessed with the externalizing subscale of
the Child Behavioral Checklist (CBCL; Achenbach, 2001;
% ! .84); Teacher Report Form (TRF; Achenbach, 2001;
% ! .92); and Behavior Problem Index (BPI; Peterson &
Zill, 1986; % ! .76). The CBCL and TRF externalizing
scales include two subscales: (a) rule-breaking behaviors,
and (b) aggressive behaviors. The BPI externalizing scale
includes 11 items, all of which are represented in the CBCL
and TRF.
Child internalizing problems (W2). At W2 only, the internalizing subscale of the CBCL (Achenbach, 2001; % !
.82), the TRF (Achenbach, 2001; % ! .84); and children’s
self-reports of the BPI (Peterson et al., 1986; % ! .70) were
used. The CBCL and TRF internalizing scales include three
subscales: (a) anxious/depressed, (b) withdrawn/depressed,
and (c) somatic complaints. The BPI internalizing scale
includes 8 items, all of which are represented in the CBCL
and TRF.
Child social competence (W1 & W2). Parents and teachers
completed a 4-item subscale from the adapted version of
Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale for Children
(HPCSC; Harter, 1979; Eisenberg et al., 1995), which assesses children’s socially appropriate behaviors. The items
were rated on a 4-point scale (from 1 ! really false to 4 !
really true). The %s were .63 and .67 for parent reports at
W1 and W2, and .63 and .84 for teacher reports at W1 and
W2. At W1 only, peer nominations of child sociabilityleadership were obtained using the 14-item sociabilityleadership subscale (% ! .95 in our sample) in the Chinese
version of the Revised Class Play (RCP; Chen et al., 1992;
Masten et al., 1985).
PARENTAL REACTIONS, NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, CHINESE
Results
Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. A stepwise approach was taken to test the hypotheses. First,
zero-order correlations between PRCNE and W2 child adjustment and between PRCNE and global parenting were
tested. Second, when significant zero-order correlations
were found between a PRCNE and a child adjustment
outcome at W2, structural equation modeling (SEM) was
conducted to examine whether the PRCNE predicted W2
child adjustment controlling for W1 adjustment (if available) and SES. Third, for the models indicating a significant
prospective relation between one type of PRCNE and child
adjustment outcome, W1 global parenting dimensions were
added to test the unique predictions.
Correlation Analyses
W1 PRCNE and W2 child adjustment. W1 punitive reaction was positively correlated (r ! .12) with W2 parent
report of externalizing problems, and negatively correlated
(–.19) with W2 parent and teacher report of social competence (Table 2). W1 problem-focused reaction was negatively
correlated (–.12) with W2 teacher report of internalizing problems. W1 emotion-focused reaction was negatively correlated (–.12) with W2 parent and child report of internalizing
problems.
W1 PRCNE and global parenting. Punitive reaction was
negatively correlated (–.21) with authoritative parenting and
positively correlated (.47) with authoritarian parenting.
Problem- and emotion-focused reactions and encouragement of expression were positively correlated (.39 and .45)
with authoritative parenting, and negatively correlated
(#.24 and #.19) with authoritarian parenting. Minimizing
139
reaction was positively correlated (.30) with authoritarian
parenting (Table 2).
Predicting W2 Child Adjustment from W1 PRCNE:
Structural Equation Modeling
Based on the results of the correlation analyses, SEM was
conducted to test the following models: a) W1 punitive
reaction predicts W2 externalizing problems; b) W1 punitive reaction predicts W2 social competence; c) W1
problem-focused reaction relates to W2 internalizing problems; and d) W1 emotion-focused reaction relates to W2
internalizing problems. W1 SES and child adjustment (if
available) were the covariates.
The variables were screened for normality and outliers.
Using the cutoffs of 2 and 7 (absolute value) for high
skewness and kurtosis suggested by West, Finch, and Curran (1995), six variables were positively skewed (i.e., W1
peer nominations of aggression and leadership/ sociability,
W2 parents’ and teachers’ reports of child externalizing and
internalizing problems), and two variables had a high positive kurtosis (i.e., W1 peer nomination of aggression and
W2 teacher report of externalizing problems). It is not
uncommon for behavioral problem variables to be positively skewed in school-based samples. Because of the
presence of non-normal variables, we conducted the SEM
analyses using the MLR estimator of Mplus, which provides
the standard errors and chi-square statistics for data with
non-normal outcomes (the robust statistics, see Muthen &
Muthen, 1998 –2008). In addition, Cook’s distance was
used to screen the data for outliers, and no outliers were
found using the cutoff of one (Cook, 1977; Stevens, 1984).
Given that the data were clustered within school classrooms,
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables
For the whole sample
For boys
For girls
Variable
Mean
SD
Skewness
Kurtosis
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
PRCNE punitive W1
PRCNE problem-focused W1
PRCNE minimizing W1
PRCNE emotion-focused W1
PRCNE encouragement W1
Authoritative parenting W1
Authoritarian parenting W1
Externalizing problems (P) W1
Externalizing problems (T) W1
Externalizing problems (PE) W1
Externalizing problems (P) W2
Externalizing problems (T) W2
Externalizing problems (C) W2
Internalizing problems (P) W2
Internalizing problems (T) W2
Internalizing problems (C) W2
Social competence (P) W1
Social competence (T) W1
Social competence (PE) W1
Social competence (P) W2
Social competence (T) W2
3.10
5.57
4.33
5.64
4.63
3.76
2.30
2.07
1.66
#.04
.12
.09
.32
.16
.09
.30
3.15
2.90
.05
3.31
3.13
.86
.69
.98
.75
.93
.52
.46
.38
.56
.77
.14
.16
.27
.18
.14
.30
.51
.52
.79
.50
.65
.47
#.73
#.14
#.63
#.28
#.33
.73
#.02
.52
2.91
2.01
3.16
1.12
2.00
2.53
1.25
#.67
#.85
2.37
#.67
#.44
.10
1.01
.02
.74
.34
#.13
.77
#.04
#.61
9.24
5.12
11.92
1.08
4.63
8.00
1.13
.58
.31
6.39
.14
#.51
3.12
5.55
4.36
5.63
4.58
3.72
2.35
2.15
1.87
.28
.16
.13
.38
2.87
.11
.34
3.07
2.72
#.15
3.19
2.90
.85
.69
.97
.76
.88
.51
.51
.38
.58
1.03
.16
.19
.29
.65
.15
.33
.52
.58
.61
.54
.67
3.08
5.58
4.30
5.65
4.65
3.79
2.27
2.02
1.48
#.30
.09
.05
.26
3.06
.09
.26
3.22
3.04
.21
3.42
3.32
.87
.68
.99
.75
.97
.53
.42
.38
.47
.29
.10
.12
.23
.50
.13
.27
.51
.43
.88
.45
.58
Note.
P ! parent report; T ! teacher report; PE ! peer report; C ! child report.
140
TAO, ZHOU, AND WANG
Table 2
Correlations Among Study Variables
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
PUN-P1
PRO-P1
MIN-P1
EMO-P1
ENC-P1
AUT-P1
AUR-P1
EXT-P1
EXT-T1
EXT-PE1
EXT-P2
EXT-T2
EXT-C2
INT-P2
INT-T2
INT-C2
SC-P1
SC-T1
SC-PE1
SC-P2
SC-T2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
—
#.05
.53!!!
#.10!
.05
#.21!!!
.47!!!
.21!!!
.04
.11
.12!
.10
.07
.10
.06
.05
#.32!!!
#.13!
#.07
#.19!!
#.13!
—
.17!!
.65!!!
.54!!!
.43!!!
#.24!!!
#.07
#.02
.04
#.02
#.02
#.03
#.07
#.12!
#.10
.19!!!
.01
.05
.08
.01
—
.17!!
.23!!!
.05
.30!!!
.15!!
.00
#.02
.03
.04
.02
#.01
.00
#.06
#.09
#.03
#.02
#.07
#.06
—
.49!!!
.45!!!
#.23!!!
#.11!
#.03
.03
#.09
#.01
#.04
#.11!
#.09
#.12!
.21!!!
#.02
.08
.09
.07
—
.39!!!
#.19!!!
#.11!
.02
#.02
.00
.01
#.02
#.07
#.08
#.03
.13!!
#.04
.05
.03
#.09
—
#.18!!!
#.11!
#.02
#.07
#.22!!!
#.06
#.13!
#.21!!!
#.13!
#.16!!
.32!!!
.06
.11!
.25!!!
.12!
—
.37!!!
.12!
.04
.26!!!
.16!!
.14!
.19!!!
.14!
.09
#.37!!!
#.20!!!
#.15!!
#.27!!!
#.14!
—
.22!!!
.11!
.29!!!
.14!!
.21!!!
.12!
.11!
.15!!
#.42!!!
#.15!!
#.06
#.29!!!
#.21!!!
—
.43!!!
.32!!!
.34!!!
.21!!!
.21!!!
#.01
.14!!
#.23!!!
#.39!!!
#.13!
#.29!!!
#.31!!!
Note. PUN ! Punitive reactions; PRO ! Problem-focused reactions; MIN ! Minimizing reactions; EMO ! Emotion-focused reactions;
ENC ! encouragement of emotion expression; AUT ! authoritative parenting; AUR ! authoritarian parenting; EXT ! externalizing
problems; INT ! internalizing problems; SC ! social competence; p ! parent report; T ! teacher report; C ! child report; PE ! peer
nomination; 1 ! Wave 1; 2 ! Wave 2.
!
p $ .05. !! p $ .01. !!! p $ .001.
the standard errors of parameter estimates and the chisquare test of model fit were computed using a special
feature in Mplus 5.2 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998 –2008),
which takes into account non-independence of observation.
In Mplus maximum likelihood estimation, missing data due
to attrition are allowed but missing values are not imputed;
rather, the method uses all information that is available to
estimate the model (Muthen & Muthen, 1998 –2008).
The model predicting externalizing from punitive reactions
fit the data well (Figure 1, Model A), &2(df ! 13, N ! 423) !
20.4, p " .05, comparative fit index (CFI) ! .97, root mean
square error of approximation (RMSEA) ! .037, standardized
root mean square residual (SRMR) ! .038. All the modelestimated loadings were significant in the positive direction.
The autoregressive path for externalizing problems was significant in the positive direction. W1 SES negatively predicted
W2 externalizing. As predicted, punitive reaction positively
predicted W2 externalizing. The model in which child social
competence is predicted by punitive reaction fit the data well,
&2(df ! 7, N ! 423) ! 12.6, p " .05, CFI ! .97, RMSEA !
.043, SRMR ! .021. However, W1 punitive reaction did not
uniquely predict W2 social competence.
Because internalizing problems were not assessed at W1,
it could not be controlled in the analyses. The model relating
W1 problem-focused reaction with W2 internalizing problems fit the data well (Figure 1, Model B), &2(df ! 4, N !
423) ! 4.75, p " .05, CFI ! .99, RMSEA ! .021,
SRMR ! .025. The model-estimated loadings were at least
marginally significant. Controlling for W1 SES, W1
problem-focused reaction was negatively related to W2
internalizing problems. Finally, the model relating parental
emotion-focused reaction to W2 internalizing problems also
fit the data well (Figure 1, Model C), &2(df ! 4, N ! 423) !
1.73, p " .05, CFI ! 1.00, RMSEA ! .000, SRMR ! .016.
Emotion-focused reaction was negatively related to internalizing problems when controlling for W1 SES.1,2
1
Because some researchers (Robert & Strayer, 1987) suggested that
the relations between PRCNE and children’s adjustment might be curvilinear such that optimal child adjustment is associated with moderate (but
not high) levels of supportive parental reactions, we also tested the
quadratic relations between PRCNE and Chinese children’s adjustment
using hierarchical regression analyses. The dependent variables were
children’s W2 externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and social
competence (averaged across reporters), respectively. The independent
variables were entered in three steps: a) the covariates (child sex, age,
family SES, and if available, the corresponding W1 adjustment), b) the
linear term for a PRCNE, and c) the quadratic term of PRCNE. All the
predictors and covariates were centered. None of the quadratic terms of
PRCNE were significant, suggesting that a curvilinear relation between
PRCNE and child adjustment was not detected.
2
To examine the unique relations of different types of PRCNE to
multiple types of child adjustment outcomes, we also tested an omnibus
model in which we predicted W2 child externalizing problems, internalizing problems, and social competence simultaneously from the five types
of PRCNE. The relations of family SES and corresponding W1 adjustment factor on W2 adjustment factors were controlled. Although this
omnibus model fit the data adequately, &2(df ! 75) ! 137.9, p $ .001,
CFI ! .94, RMSEA ! .044, SRMR ! .067, none of the paths from W1
PRCNE to W2 adjustment factor were significant. Because different
types of PRCNEs were moderately correlated with each other (see Table
2), these results suggested that they likely overlapped with each other in
their relations to children’s adjustment.
PARENTAL REACTIONS, NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, CHINESE
141
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
—
.26!!!
.42!!!
.25!!!
.13!
#.06
.09
#.18!!
#.42!!!
.01
#.30!!!
#.33!!!
—
.29!!!
.46!!!
.69!!!
.13!
.27!!!
#.26!!!
#.30!!!
#.21!!!
#.48!!!
#.31!!!
—
.17!!
.19!!!
.46!!!
.05
#.05
#.33!!!
#.11!
#.21!!!
#.53!!!
—
.36!!!
.06
.49!!!
#.18!!
#.26!!!
#.18!!
#.34!!!
#.21!!!
—
.15!!
.32!!!
#.25!!!
#.21!!!
#.17!!
#.32!!!
#.20!!!
—
.12!
#.09
#.08
#.13!
#.11!
#.32!!!
—
#.22!!!
#.18!!
#.17!!
#.31!!!
#.13!!!
—
.25!!!
.24!!!
.45!!!
.19!!!
—
.32!!!
.37!!!
.43!!!
—
.31!!!
.32!!!
—
.31!!!
Testing the Unique Relations of PRCNE and Global
Parenting to Child Adjustment
We added W1 authoritative and authoritarian parenting as
additional predictors into the models in Figure 1. Because
punitive reaction did not predict child social competence,
the extended model was not tested. The extended models for
Models A, B, and C fit the data well, &2s(dfs ! 20, 8, and
8, Ns ! 423) ! 26.5, 5.14, and 4.50, ps " .05; CFIs ! .98,
1.00, and 1.00; RMSEAs ! .028, .000, and .000; SRMRs !
.035, .025, and .021. However, W1 PRCNE no longer
predicted W2 child adjustment after controlling for W1
global parenting. Instead, W1 authoritative parenting had a
unique and negative relation, and W1 authoritarian parenting had a unique and positive relation to W2 externalizing
and internalizing problems.
Discussion
As one of first studies on parental reactions to children’s
emotions in a non-Western sample, this study has several
strengths. First, because multiple domains of adjustment
were assessed from multiple-reporters, the study conducted
a relatively objective test of the relations between PRCNE
and child adjustment. Second, the longitudinal design allowed a more stringent test of the directional relations
between PRCNE and child adjustment than those in crosssectional studies. Third, we also tested the relations between
PRCNE and global parenting and their unique relations to
child adjustment. Finally, while previous studies on PRCNE
focused on toddlers or preschoolers, this study examined
PRCNE for school-aged children.
Parental Punitive, Problem-Focused, and
Emotion-Focused Reactions
Chinese parents’ punitive reactions positively predicted
children’s externalizing problems 4 years later. This relation
was robust after controlling for SES and baseline problems.
Moreover, punitive reactions were negatively correlated
with Chinese children’s social competence at W2, although
it did not predict social competence controlling for baseline
competence. This might be due to the high rank-order
consistency in social competence over time (as indicated by
the high autoregressive path coefficient). It is also possible
that the relation between punitive reaction and social competence becomes established by middle-childhood and remains stable from middle to late childhood. Overall, the
findings on punitive reactions are similar to previous findings based on Western samples. In two Western studies of
similar child age group that used comparable measures of
PRCNE and child adjustment as our study, parental punitive
reactions were positively related to children’s problem behaviors and negatively related to social competence (Eisenberg et al., 1996, 1999; Jones et al., 2002).
We also found that Chinese parents’ problem- and
emotion-focused reactions were negatively related to internalizing problems 4 years later. However, because we did
not measure internalizing problems at W1, baseline internalizing problems could not be controlled. Thus, the
142
TAO, ZHOU, AND WANG
PRCNE Punitive
Reactions W1
.07*
Family SES
W1
Parent
Teacher
-.19***
.28
.74***
.56***
Parent
.86
Child
Externalizing
Problems W1
.54***
Child
Externalizing
Problems W2
.36***
Teacher
.52***
Child
Peer
Model A. Predicting externalizing problems from parental punitive reactions.
PRCNE EmotionFocused Reactions
W1
Family SES
W1
-.19***
-.30***
Child
Internalizing
Problems W2
Parent
.70
.22**
Teacher
.47***
Child
Model B. Predicting internalizing problems from parental emotion-focused reactions.
PRCNE ProblemFocused Reactions
W1
-.17*
Parent
.68
-.30
***
Family SES
W1
Child
Internalizing
Problems W2
.23
+
Teacher
.48**
*
Child
Model C. Predicting internalizing problems from parental problem-focused reactions.
Figure 1. The models predicting W2 child adjustment from W1 PRCNE. Note. The numbers are
standardized loadings or path coefficients. ! p $ .05. !! p $ .01. !!! p $ .001.
PRCNE-internalizing relations might be overestimated. Although we did not find a comparable Western study that
examined PRCNE and internalizing problems using similar
measures as our study, the pattern of associations of
problem- and emotion-focused reactions in our sample was
consistent with what would be expected from Western samples. For example, emotion- and problem-focused reactions
were positively related to EuA children’s emotional decoding, attention and anger control skills (Eisenberg & Fabes,
1994; Fabes et al., 2002).
It is important to note that the size of the significant
correlations between PRCNE and child adjustment found in
the present sample were in the small to medium range,
which is not surprising given the 4-year time interval of the
study. In fact, the size of correlations was generally similar
to those in a longitudinal study of EuA children (Eisenberg
et al., 1999). Moreover, there were more within-reporter
than across-reporter PRCNC-adjustment correlations (although there were a few cross-reporter correlations), which
is also similar to the results from Western studies (Eisenberg et al., 1996, 1999; Jones et al., 2002).
The findings on the relations between punitive, problemfocused, and emotion-focused reactions and global parenting are also consistent with Western theory. Chinese par-
ents’ punitive reaction was positively related to their
authoritarian parenting and negatively related to authoritative parenting, whereas the opposite relations were found
for problem- and emotion-focused reactions. Thus, punitive
reactions to children’s negative emotions are consistent with
the style of harsh and coercive discipline, and problem- and
emotion-focused reactions are consistent with the style of
warm, responsive, and reasoning-focused discipline in Chinese families. Together, these findings suggest that there are
cross-cultural similarities in the meanings of punitive,
problem-, and emotion-focused reactions and their socialization functions.
Parental Minimizing Reactions and Encouragement of
Emotion Expression
In contrast to the Western studies that showed negative
relations between parental minimizing reactions and children’s social competence, and positive relations between
encouragement of expression and constructive coping and
social competence (Eisenberg et al., 1996, 1999; Jones et
al., 2002), we did not find any relation between minimizing
reactions or encouragement of emotion expression and Chinese children’s adjustment. Our sample had sufficient
PARENTAL REACTIONS, NEGATIVE EMOTIONS, CHINESE
power (".95) to detect small to moderate size correlations.
The measure for PRCNE showed comparable reliabilities
across subscales. Descriptive statistics showed greater variability in these two types of PRCNE than others. Thus, the
lack of association is unlikely to be fully explained by
power, measurement error, or restricted range of variability.
These results likely suggest there are some cultural differences in the meanings and socialization functions of minimizing reactions and encouragement of expression. It is
interesting to note that although the Chinese parents who
reported more minimizing reactions were higher on authoritarian parenting, they were not necessarily lower on authoritative parenting, which further suggests ambiguity in the
meaning of minimizing reactions. Because inhibition of
emotion expression is considered adaptive in Eastern cultures (Matsumoto et al., 2008), if parents use minimizing
reactions (e.g., “it is not a big deal”) to make children feel
better, they might be beneficial for children’s emotion regulation and adjustment. In contrast, if parents use minimizing reactions to dismiss or punish children’s negative emotions, they might be detrimental to children’s adjustment.
Thus, perhaps it is not minimizing reaction per se but its
socialization goal that determines its implications for child
adjustment. Future research should investigate this hypothesis.
The Chinese parents who reported more encouragement
of expression also reported higher authoritative parenting
and lower authoritarian parenting, suggesting that encouragement of expression is generally consistent with warm
and supportive parenting in Chinese families. Contrary to
Western findings, the Chinese children who are shy, inhibited, and reserved (who likely have lower expressivity) were
found to score higher on social competence and adjustment
than their peers (Chen, Dong, & Zhou, 1997). Thus, it is
possible that parental encouragement of expression positively predicts adjustment if the child has low or moderate
expressivity, whereas the relation might be reversed if the
child is highly expressive. Because children’s expressivity
was not assessed in the present study, we were unable to
examine the moderation hypothesis.
The Unique Relations of PRCNE and Global Parent
Styles to Child Adjustment
None of the PRCNE uniquely predicted adjustment controlling for global parenting. Instead, authoritative and authoritarian parenting uniquely predicted adjustment controlling for PRCNE. The finding that PRCNE overlapped with
global parenting in their prediction of child adjustment
suggests that the developmental mechanisms that underlie
the socialization influence of PRCNE (e.g., children’s emotion regulation, emotion understanding, and expression,
Eisenberg et al., 1998) might also contribute to the socialization influence of global parenting. However, the result
that global parenting (but not PRCNE) had unique relations
to child adjustment suggests that other developmental
mechanisms (e.g., child neurocognitive processes and selfesteem) should be investigated in order to fully explain the
socialization influence of global parenting.
143
Implications for Intervention and Limitations
Teaching parents how to respond to children’s emotions
is a widely used intervention strategy for improving parentchild relationship (e.g., Wolchik et al., 2000). The present
findings have implications for adapting these interventions
for families of Chinese origin. Specifically, our findings
suggest that the intervention components targeting parental
problem- and emotion-focused and punitive reactions are
applicable to Chinese families. In contrast, the intervention
components that discourage parental minimizing reactions
and/or promote parental encouragement of expression
should be modified for Chinese families because of the
ambiguity in their socialization functions.
The study has several limitations. First, the small number
of children who dropped out after W1 were more likely to
come from higher-SES families. However, our attrition rate
is low (10% across 4 years), and no attrition-related group
difference was found on child adjustment. Thus, it is unlikely that the attrition resulted in significant alternation of
the study sample (which represented primarily working- to
middle-class families living in industrialized urban China).
Second, PRCNE were only assessed by parent report, which
might not fully capture parents’ actual behaviors in real-life
situations. Future research should assess PRCNE from multiple perspectives and with multiple methods. Third,
PRCNE were primarily reported by mothers. Because researchers have shown differences between mothers’ and
fathers’ PRCNE, future studies should aim to include reports by both parents. Fourth, because baseline internalizing
problems were not assessed and could not be controlled in
the analyses, the models might have overestimated the relations between PRCNE and internalizing problems. Fifth,
because the instrument for PRCNE was adapted from a
Western measure, it might not tap the parental reactions that
are unique to Chinese families. Finally, because different
PRCNE were tested in separate socialization models (rather
than one omnibus model simultaneously including all dimensions), the study might have failed to capture the interrelated features of PRCNE, and how parents’ patterns of
engaging in an array of PRCNE might predict children’s
adjustment.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (2001). The Manual for the ASEBA School-Age
Forms & Profiles. Burlington, VT: Research Center for Children,
Youth, & Families.
Baumrind, D. (1996). The discipline controversy revisited. Family
Relations, 45, 405– 414.
Cassidy, J. (1994). Emotion regulation: Influences of attachment
relationships. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 59, 228 –283.
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian
parenting style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the
cultural notion of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119.
Chao, R. K. (2001). Extending research on the consequences of
parenting style for Chinese Americans and European Americans.
Child Development, 72, 1832–1843.
Chen, X., Dong, Q., & Zhou, H. (1997). Authoritative and Au-
144
TAO, ZHOU, AND WANG
thoritarian parenting practices and social and school performance
in Chinese children. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 21, 855– 873.
Chen, X., & French, D. C. (2008). Children’s social competence in
cultural context. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 591– 616.
Chen, X., Rubin, K. H., & Sun, Y. (1992). Social reputation and
peer relationships in Chinese and Canadian children: A crosscultural study. Child Development, 63, 1336 –1343.
Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear
regression. Technometrics, 19, 15–19.
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An
integrative model. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 487– 496.
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach,
S., & Blair, K. (1997). Parental contributions to preschoolers’
emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects. Motivation
and Emotion, 21, 65– 86.
Dodge, K. A., Petit, F. S., & Bates, J. E. (1994). Socialization
mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child
conduct problems. Child Development, 65, 649 – 65.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental
socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1994). Mothers’ reactions to
children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s temperament and anger behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 138 –
156.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents’
reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s
social competence and comforting behavior. Child Development,
67, 2227–2247.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, M., Maszk, P., Smith, M., &
Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and regulation in
children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 1239 –1261.
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 functioning. Child Development, 70, 513–534.
Fabes, R. A., Poulin, R. E., Eisenberg, N., & Madden-Derdich,
D. A. (2002). The Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions
Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage & Family Review, 34,
285–310.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion:
How families communicate emotionally. Hillsdale, NJ, England:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Harter, S. (1979). Perceived competence scale for children: Manual. Denver: University of Denver.
Holden, G. W., & Miller, P. C. (1999). Enduring and different: A
meta-analysis of the similarity in parents’ child rearing. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 223–254.
Jones, S., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2002).
Parents’ reactions to elementary school children’s negative emotions: Relations to social and emotional functioning at school.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 133–159.
Lochman, J. E., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group.
(1995). Screening of child behavior problems for prevention
programs at school entry. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 63, 549 –559.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self:
Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224 –253.
Masten, A., Morison, P., & Pelligrini, D. (1985). A revised class
play method of peer assessment. Child Development, 21, 523–
533.
Matsumoto, D., Yoo, S. H., Fontaine, J., Anguas-Wong, A. M.,
Arriola, M., Ataca, B., Bond, M. H., et al. (2008). Mapping
expressive differences around the world: The relationship between emotional display rules and individualism versus collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 55–74.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (1998 –2008). Mplus: Statistical
Analyses with Latent Variables. User’s Guide. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthen & Muthen.
National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2000). China Statistical
Yearbook 2000. Beijing, China: China Statistics Press.
Peterson, J., & Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child
relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of the
Marriage & the Family, 48, 295–307.
Power, T. G. (2004). Stress and coping in childhood: The parents’
role. Parenting: Science and Practice, 4, 271–317.
Roberts, W. L., & Strayer, J. (1987). Parents’ responses to the
emotional distress of their children: Relations with children’s
competence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 415– 422.
Robinson, C. C., Mandleco, B., Olsen, F. S., & Hart, H. C. (1995).
Authoritative, authoritarian, and permissive parenting practices:
Development of a new measure. Psychological Reports, 77,
819 – 830.
Sorkhabi, N. (2005). Applicability of Baumrind’s parent typology
to collective cultures: Analysis of cultural explanations of parent
socialization effects. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 552–563.
Soto, J. A., Levenson, R. W., & Ebling, R. (2005). Cultures of
moderation and expression: Emotional experience, behavior, and
physiology in Chinese Americans and Mexican Americans. Emotion, 5, 154 –165.
Stevens, J. P. (1984). Outliers and influential data points in regression analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 334 –344.
West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural
equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56 –75). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Wolchik, S. A., West, S. G., Sandler, I. N., Tein, J., Coatsworth,
D., Lengua, L., Weiss, L., et al. (2000). An experimental evaluation of theory-based mother and mother-child programs for
children of divorce. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 843– 856.
Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., &
Hiruma, N. (1996). Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to conflict and distress. Child Development, 67,
2462–2477.
Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Wang, Y., & Reiser, M. (2004). Chinese
children’s effortful control and dispositional anger/frustration:
Relations to parenting styles and children’s social functioning.
Developmental Psychology, 40, 352–366.
Zhou, Q., Wang, Y., Deng, X., Eisenberg, N., Wolchik, S. A., &
Tein, J. (2008). Relations of parenting and temperament to Chinese children’s experience of negative life events, coping efficacy, and externalizing problems. Child Development, 79, 493–
513.
Received April 29, 2009
Revision received December 22, 2009
Accepted January 3, 2010
!