Next Article in Journal
Elevating Student Voice and Levelling Traditional Power Hierarchies Through Open Textbook Co-Creation: What Do Students Say?
Previous Article in Journal
A Review of the Healthcare and Social Care Needs of the Older Prisoner Population in England and Wales
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Social Sciences
Volume 14
Issue 1
10.3390/socsci14010005
socsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions in France and the United States: Links to Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Outcomes

by
Kathryn Li
1,
Claire Hofer
2,
Aya I. Williams
3 and
Qing Zhou
1,*
1
Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
2
Psychologie: Interactions Temps Émotions Cognition (PSITEC, ULR 4072), Université de Lille, F-59000 Lille, France
3
Department of Counseling Psychology, Santa Clara University, Santa Clara, CA 95053, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Soc. Sci. 2025, 14(1), 5; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010005
Submission received: 25 October 2024 / Revised: 19 December 2024 / Accepted: 24 December 2024 / Published: 26 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Second Edition of Social-Emotional Development and Learning in Early Childhood across Cultures)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions (PRCNEs), a type of emotion socialization, has been theorized to shape children’s socioemotional development. Few studies have examined cultural variations in PRCNE among Western/Minority World cultures. The present study used a cross-cultural, preschool-based sample of 101 parent–child dyads (child age = 36–79 months, 42% females; parent age = 19–58 years, 89% mothers) from two countries: U.S. (n = 33, 58% White/European American, 87% with college or above education) and France (n = 68, 61% French or other European origin, 40% with college or above education). Parents self-reported PRCNEs across 12 hypothetical scenarios. Children’s behavioral problems and prosocial behaviors were rated by parents and preschool teachers. Children’s emotion knowledge was measured by a behavioral task. We examined (1) cultural group variations in PRCNEs, and (2) the relations between PRCNE and children’s socioemotional outcomes. Controlling for demographics, French parents endorsed more non-supportive PRCNE than U.S. parents. Across both cultures, parents’ higher use of distress and punitive reactions were linked to lower parent-rated child prosocial behaviors. These findings revealed differences and similarities in PRCNEs between French and U.S. families and have implications for early childhood education practices promoting socioemotional competence.

1. Introduction

Socioemotional development in early childhood has a long-term impact on children’s social relationships, psychological wellbeing, and educational attainment (Valiente et al. 2020). Emotion socialization, or socialization practices aimed at shaping children’s experience, expression, and regulation of emotion, is theorized as a key mechanism influencing children’s socioemotional development (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Consistent with the theory, a recent meta-analytic study reported small yet significant associations between parental modeling, teaching, and reactions to children’s emotional displays, and children’s socioemotional outcomes (Zinsser et al. 2021).
Despite the increasing attention to cultural variations in emotion socialization, existing cross-cultural studies commonly compared Western/Global North/Minority World (North America, Europe, Oceania) samples with non-Western/Global South/Majority World (Africa, Asia, Latin America) samples (Draper et al. 2023; Raval and Walker 2019). As a result, few studies have examined intercultural variations in emotion socialization within Western/Minority World or within non-Western/Majority World cultures (e.g., between U.S. and Italy, (Denham et al. 2022); between Chinese immigrant and Taiwanese families, (Chan et al. 2023)). Studying intercultural variations in emotion socialization beyond the macro classification of Western vs. non-Western cultures can provide more nuanced understanding of the elements of sociocultural contexts shaping socioemotional development globally.

1.1. Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions: Links to Children’s Socioemotional Development Across Cultures

According to social learning theory, parents can shape children’s socioemotional behaviors through modeling, such as by how parents react to children’s emotions (Eisenberg et al. 1998; Spinrad and Eisenberg 2023). Researchers have been particularly interested in parental reactions to children’s negative emotions (PRCNEs), as negative emotions are often viewed as disruptive, undesirable, or needing to be controlled (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Past research has typically grouped PRCNEs into two clusters: (a) supportive reactions, including emotion-focused reactions, problem-focused reactions, and expressive encouragement, and (b) non-supportive reactions, including parents’ own distress reactions, punitive reactions, and minimization of negative emotions. In studies primarily conducted with Western samples, parental supportive reactions that model or teach adaptive ways of coping with negative emotions (e.g., problem-focused or emotion-focused reactions) or encourage open expression of emotions have been associated with children’s better psychological adjustment. In contrast, parental non-supportive reactions (e.g., punitive and minimizing reactions) that invalidate children’s negative emotions or disrupt children’s emotion regulation have been associated with poorer child adjustment (see Spinrad and Eisenberg 2023, for a review). Similar pattern of results has been reported in studies of non-Western samples (e.g., Asian samples: Hong and Wang 2023; Raval et al. 2018; Tao et al. 2010; and Latino sample: Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015).
However, there are some inconsistencies in this literature. In line with the view that Western cultures value/encourage an open expression of emotions (Matsumoto et al. 2008), Asian and Latino immigrant parents in the U.S. endorsed higher use of minimizing reactions than European American parents (Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2020). In contrast to the finding that higher parental minimizing reaction was associated with poorer child adjustment in Western samples (e.g., Eisenberg et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2002), non-significant relations between minimizing reaction and children’s psychological adjustment were reported in non-Western samples (e.g., Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015; Tao et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2024). Similarly, while parental encouragement of emotion expression was associated with kindergarteners’ better socioemotional competence in European American families, expressive encouragement was associated with children’s poorer academic performance and socioemotional competence in African American families (Nelson et al. 2013). The authors interpreted that systemic racism and discrimination experienced by African Americans in the mainstream society has shifted the adaptive functions of emotional suppression: African American parents likely discourage children’s open display of negative emotions to protect them from the negative social consequences of such displays (Nelson et al. 2013). Together, these cross-cultural findings support the theory that cultural norms and display rules can shape emotion socialization strategies (Friedlmeier et al. 2011; Raval and Walker 2019).
Although prior cross-culture research on emotion socialization tended to focus on Western vs. non-Western cultures, some researchers have examined intercultural variations among Western/Minority/Global North or non-Western/Majority/Global South cultures. For example, Denham and colleagues compared teachers’ reactions to children’s emotions between U.S. and Italian preschool classrooms (Denham et al. 2022). They found that Italian teachers showed less tenderness and positive emotional responsiveness but more supportive reactions to children’s emotions in classrooms compared to U.S. teachers. They speculated that US–Italy differences in early childhood education policy and programming for socioemotional competence might have contributed to the cultural variations in teachers’ emotion socialization practices. Moreover, Chan et al. (2023) examined parent–child emotion talk (another emotion socialization practice) in two subgroups of low-income Chinese-heritage families: Chinese immigrant families in the U.S. and urban Chinese families in Taiwan. They found that the Taiwanese parent–child dyads engaged in more emotion talk than the Chinese immigrant counterparts. Differences in acculturative stress and engagement in traditional Chinese cultural elements were thought to account for cultural variations in emotion talk. Together, these studies highlight the values of intercultural comparisons beyond the macro classification of Western and non-Western cultures. In the present study, we examined PRCNE and its links to children’s socioemotional outcomes in two Western/Global North/Minority World cultures: France and U.S.

1.2. Existing Research on Parenting and Emotion Socialization in France and United States

There has been limited research on parenting and emotion socialization in French families and comparative research on parenting between French and US families. An exception is the work by Suizzo and colleagues (Suizzo 2002, 2004; Suizzo and Bornstein 2006). Based on the mixed methods research conducted with Parisian parents of young children from birth to age 3, Suizzo (2002) identified three core components of parenting beliefs that constitute French cultural models of parenting: (a) “awakening and exposing children to diverse stimuli”, which involves playing with and talking to one’s child to stimulate cognitive, language, and emotional development, (b) “ensuring proper presentation of the child”, which involves teaching children socially appropriate behaviors, and (c) “responding to and bonding with child”, which involves attending to the child’s emotional needs. Although there are similarities in parenting beliefs between French and European American parents, some cultural variations were observed. Compared to European American mothers, French mothers placed greater values on and had higher expectations for children’s emotional self-control (e.g., children should be “discreet” in public and control their negative emotions, (Suizzo 2004)). In contrast, European American mothers placed higher values on supporting children’s emotion expressions and emotion-related behaviors (e.g., expressing encouragement through verbal praise). In an observational study of mother–toddler dyadic play, Suizzo and Bornstein (2006) found that European American mothers offered more verbal praise and solicited their children verbally to engage in symbolic play more than French mothers did, although no cultural differences were found in the mothers’ social play or physical display of affection. The findings suggest that European American parents may be actively scaffolding children toward higher level play through speech rather than through physical behaviors (Suizzo and Bornstein 2006). However, despite the cultural differences in parental expressive behaviors, the associations between parenting and children’s socioemotional behaviors in French families were largely consistent with those found in European American samples (Hofer et al. 2010), suggesting that the socialization functions of positive and negative parenting (including parental expressivity) are similar across cultures.
In summary, the limited literature on France–U.S. variations in parenting beliefs and behaviors suggests that French culture places higher values on children’s emotional self-control, whereas U.S. culture places higher value on open expression of emotions. However, no prior study has examined parental reactions to children’s negative emotions across U.S. and French cultures and their associations with children’s socioemotional outcomes.

1.3. Consideration of Sociodemographic Factors and Informants of Children’s Socioemotional Outcomes

When examining cultural group variations in PRCNEs, it is important to control for sociodemographic factors (e.g., socioeconomic indicators, parent gender, child gender, and child age) that have been linked to parental emotion socialization theoretically and empirically. First, in line with the observation that parents from lower-SES families endorsed/displayed higher authoritarian parenting than those from higher-SES families (Hastings et al. 2015; Teng et al. 2018), socioeconomic status (income or education) has been negatively associated with non-supportive reactions (e.g., minimizing and punitive reactions, (Sun et al. 2021)). Second, researchers found that mothers and fathers differ in PRCNEs. For example, fathers reported more punitive reactions than mothers (Engle and McElwain 2011), and fathers reported fewer supportive reactions than mothers (Hurrell et al. 2015). Third, researchers also found that PRCNEs varied by child gender, although the pattern of gender differences varied according to the reporter of the PRCNE (Cassano et al. 2014). Fourth, longitudinal research has shown that PRCNE changed with child age such that non-supportive reactions declined from early to middle childhood but increased in late childhood/early adolescence (Eisenberg et al. 1999).
A methodological strength of the present study is the measurement of children’s socioemotional behaviors from both parent and teacher reports and behavioral tasks. As young children’s socioemotional behaviors depend on the social context and interactive partner (e.g., caregivers, siblings, teachers, and peers), informant discrepancy between parent and teacher reports of children’s socioemotional behaviors has been extensively documented in the literature (see De Los Reyes 2011, for a review). Moreover, due to the transactional nature of parent–child relationships, the relations between PRCNEs and children’s socioemotional behaviors are bidirectional (Eisenberg et al. 1998). Thus, we expected PRCNEs to be more strongly related to parent-rated socioemotional behaviors than teacher-rated outcomes.

1.4. The Present Study

The present cross-sectional study examined the relations of parental reactions to children’s negative emotions (PRCNEs) to preschool-age children’s socioemotional behaviors in two cultural samples: urban families with preschool-age children in France and United States. There are two specific aims:
Aim 1 was to examine culture group (U.S. vs. France) differences and similarities in PRCNE, controlling for sociodemographic factors. Based on our literature review, we hypothesized that U.S. parents would endorse higher use of expressive encouragement and emotion-focused reactions and lower use of minimizing reactions than French parents.
Aim 2 was to examine the associations between PRCNEs and children’s socioemotional outcomes, controlling for sociodemographic factors. We assessed multiple child socioemotional outcomes, including emotional and externalizing problems and prosocial behaviors (rated by both parents and teachers), and emotion understanding (measured by a behavioral task). We hypothesized that regardless of culture groups, higher parental endorsement of supportive PRCNEs (emotion-focused, problem-focused, and expressive encouragement reactions) would be linked to children’s lower behavioral problems, more prosocial behaviors, and higher emotion understanding, whereas the opposite relations would be expected for non-supportive PRCNEs (especially parental distress and punitive reactions) and socioemotional behaviors.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample included 101 parent–child dyads recruited from university and community preschool centers in northern California, United States, (n = 33), or Lille, France (n = 68). Data collection occurred in 2015–2016. The children were between 36 and 79 months of age (mean = 55 months, SD = 11.34), and 42% were females. The participating parents (mean age = 35 years) consisted of mostly biological mothers (85.6%), with the rest being biological fathers (8.2%), adoptive mothers (3.1%), stepfathers (1.0%), and other caregivers (1.0%). Regarding race/ethnicity/culture, in the U.S. sample, 58% of parents self-identified as White/European American, 15% Black/African American, 12% Asian, 9% Hispanic/Latino, and 6% identified as another race/ethnicity. In the French sample, 44% of parents self-identified as French-origin, 17% other European-origin, 13% Moroccan, 10% Algerian, 3% identified as another culture/ethnicity, and 12% did not specify. Regarding parental education, in the U.S. sample, 3.1% of the parents had less than high school education, 9.4% had vocational/technical school certificates, 3.1% had some college education, 15.6% had associate degrees, 15.6% had bachelor’s degrees, and 53.1% had master’s or doctorate degrees. In the French sample, 1.5% had less than high school education, 58.5% had some high school education or high school diplomas, 1.5% had some college education, 16.9% had associate degrees, 7.7% had bachelor’s degrees, and 13.8% had master’s or post-graduate degrees. In addition, children’s preschool teachers (ns = 17 in U.S. and 6 in France) were invited to participate in the teacher surveys.

2.2. The Broader Preschool Contexts in France and the United States

As both the U.S. and French samples were recruited from preschools, it is useful to consider differences and similarities in the broader preschool contexts in France and the U.S. French preschools, or “écoles maternelles”, serve children ages 2 to 6 years old and, in contrast to the U.S., are mostly public-funded and usually do not require tuition. Most French children attend preschool 24 h a week, now more than ever, as the French government lowered the compulsory school age to 3 in 2019 (OECD 2020). Preschool teachers follow a national curriculum that focuses on language and communication, physical activities, artistic expression, mathematics, and exploring the world (e.g., time, space, nature). Reference to emotional learning is limited to the “physical activities” unit; however, there is variability among teachers, and some might focus more on social and emotional learning than others (Bouysse et al. 2011). Preschool teachers in France tend to emphasize “consignes”, or a desire for rules and rule-following, and “travail”, or work (Leroy 2019; Bouysse et al. 2011). This is reflected by French early childhood education policy highlighting the need to prepare young children for formal education and academic programs by engaging them in structured, academic settings before school entry, and promoting their development of self-regulatory skills (Gestsdottir et al. 2014).
In contrast, preschools in the United States typically serve children ages 3 to 5 years. With the exception of Head Start preschools (which are federally funded preschools for families living under the poverty line), preschools in the U.S. are a mix of public- and private-funded (Center for Disease Control 2021; Childcare.gov 2024; Dumas and Lefranc 2012). School readiness in the U.S. is similarly conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of physical, cognitive, social, and emotional readiness. Depending on the focus of the program (e.g., play-based programs, academic-focused programs, or Montessori education), there is significant heterogeneity in U.S. preschool curriculums related to promoting social and emotional competence. In contrast to the emphasis on “consignes” and “travail” or rule-following in French preschools, U.S. preschools tend to value exposing children to child-centric “choice” and encourage self-expressions (Brougère et al. 2008; Tobin et al. 2009). The cultural variations in preschool educational emphases have implications for emotion socialization in French and U.S. families.

2.3. Procedures

As part of the larger study, the participants were recruited from local and university preschool classrooms from California, United States, and Lille, France. The project was described as a cross-cultural study on teachers’ and parents’ emotion socialization and their links to children’s socioemotional competence in French and U.S. preschools. The present paper used data on PRCNE alongside children’s emotion understanding and socioemotional adjustment.
To assess children’s socioemotional competence, we collected data from three sources: parent-report, teacher-report, and child behavioral assessment. Parents and teachers were asked to complete questionnaires rating children’s socioemotional outcomes (e.g., prosocial behaviors, externalizing, and emotional problems), and with parental permission, children participated in a behavioral assessment of their emotion knowledge (i.e., a game-like Emotion Matching Task run and assessed by research assistants at the preschools). Informed consent was obtained from parents and teachers prior to their participation. Parents and teachers were paid for their participation.

2.4. Measures

All assessment materials were administered in English for participants in the United States and in French for participants in France. The French version of the questionnaires and assessment materials were translated, back-translated, and piloted before administering to participants. Parents reported on parent and child demographics, their endorsement of different PRCNEs, and children’s socioemotional behaviors. Second, with parental permission, teachers filled out a questionnaire for each participating child in their class. With parental permission, each child was individually administered a behavioral assessment of emotion knowledge by trained undergraduate research assistants in a quiet area of the preschool. The same assessment procedures were used at U.S. and French sites.

2.5. Parent and Child Demographics (Parent Report)

The present paper used data on parent and child demographics, including parent and child age, gender, child age at the start of preschool, parent relationship to child, race/ethnicity, highest level of education, employment status, and marital status. We also created a “cultural/racial majority/minority status” variable to facilitate comparability between U.S. and France race/ethnicity responses.

2.6. Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions (Parent Report)

Parents self-reported their PRCNEs using the CCNES (Fabes et al. 2002). The CCNES presents 12 hypothetical situations to parents where their child experiences negative emotions like distress or anger. Parents were asked to indicate the likelihood to which they would use each of the six types of reactions to children’s negative emotions: (a) parents’ own distress reactions (e.g., “Feel upset and uncomfortable because of my child’s reactions”); (b) punitive reactions (e.g., “Scold my child for being insensitive to the friend’s feelings”); (c) minimizing reactions (e.g., “Tell my child that he/she is overreacting”); (d) emotion-focused reactions (e.g., “Comfort my child and try to get him/her to think about something happy”); (e) problem-focused reactions (e.g., “Help my child think of places he/she hasn’t looked yet”); and (f) expressive encouragement (e.g., “Encourage my child to talk about his/her nervous feelings”). Distress, punitive, and minimizing reactions (response types (a) through (c)) constitute “non-supportive” reactions, while emotion-focused, problem-focused, and expressive encouragement reactions (response types (d) through (f)) constitute “supportive” reactions. Each response was rated on a Likert scale from 1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely. In the present study, the U.S. sample alpha reliabilities for the six CCNES reaction type subscales were 0.77 for distress, 0.86 for punitive, 0.84 for minimizing, 0.85 for emotion-focused, 0.78 for problem-focused, and 0.86 for expressive encouragement. Alpha reliabilities in the French sample were 0.45 for distress, 0.79 for punitive, 0.76 for minimizing, 0.81 for emotion-focused, 0.60 for problem-focused, and 0.78 for expressive encouragement. The alpha reliabilities for the full sample were 0.68 for distress, 0.85 for punitive, 0.84 for minimizing, 0.85 for emotion-focused, 0.68 for problem-focused, and 0.80 for expressive encouragement. Composite scores in all 6 reaction categories were computed by averaging the corresponding item scores.

2.7. Child Emotion Knowledge: Emotion Matching Task

The Emotion Matching Task (Morgan et al. 2010) was used to assess children’s emotion knowledge. The EMT comprises four subscales, each assessing an element of a child’s comprehension and understanding of emotions: (a) matching expressions with similar emotions, (b) matching emotion expressions with situations, (c) labeling emotions, and (d) matching labels with emotion expressions. In the validation study by Morgan et al. (2010), the alphas for the four subscales were 0.65, 0.54, 0.76, and 0.80, respectively, and the alpha for overall “emotion knowledge” (4 subscales combined) was 0.88. We first computed the child’s performance score for each subscale. Then, because the children’s performance scores across the four subscales were moderately and positively correlated with each other (rs ranged from 0.26 to 0.59), we computed a total emotion knowledge score by summing together all four of the children’s performance subscale scores, with a higher composite score indicates greater emotion knowledge and understanding.

2.8. Child Socioemotional Adjustment (Parent and Teacher Report)

Parents and teachers filled out the corresponding versions of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ, Goodman 1997). In the present study, three subscales were analyzed, including (a) emotional symptoms (5 items, e.g., “Often unhappy, depressed, or tearful”); (b) externalizing problems (10 items, e.g., “Often loses temper”); and (c) prosocial behaviors (5 items, e.g., “Often offers to help others (parents, teachers, other children)”). For the parent-reports, the alpha reliabilities of the 3 subscales in the present study were 0.57, 0.80, and 0.76, respectively, for the U.S. sample; 0.71, 0.79, and 0.74, respectively, for the French sample; and 0.67, 0.80, and 0.75, respectively, for the combined U.S.–French sample. For the teacher-reports, the alpha reliabilities of the 3 subscales in the present study were 0.79, 0.90, and 0.87, respectively, for the U.S. sample; 0.81, 0.85, and 0.87, respectively, for the French sample; and 0.79, 0.86, and 0.88, respectively, for the combined U.S.–French sample. One item (“Many worries or often seems worried”) was dropped from the parent-reported emotional symptoms subscale (for both samples) due to a negative item-total correlation in the U.S. sample.
In addition, parents rated children’s social skills using a 4-item subscale from a modified version of Harter’s Perceived Competence Scale for Children (Harter 1982; adapted by Eisenberg et al. (1993, 1996). This measure assesses children’s socially appropriate behaviors (e.g., “My/This child is usually well behaved”). The alpha reliabilities for the social skills subscale were 0.95 for the U.S. sample, 0.54 for the French sample, and 0.83 for the full sample.

2.9. Analytic Plan

Data cleaning and statistical analyses were conducted in IBM SPSS (version 27) and R (version 4.3.1, R Core Team 2023). Descriptive statistics for parent and child demographics were computed first.
For Aim 1, we used ordinary least squares (OLS) linear regressions to test whether culture group (1 = U.S., 2 = French) was associated with each type of parental reaction to children’s negative emotions, controlling for parent and child demographics (i.e., child age, child gender, parent age, parent gender, and parent education). Although children were clustered in classrooms, the small number of classrooms and small sample size of the study do not allow us to examine classroom-level variations in children’s socioemotional outcomes.
For Aim 2 we used a series of OLS linear regressions to test whether each type of CCNES parental reaction was associated with each of the eight child socioemotional outcomes controlling for parent and child demographics. A total of 48 OLS regressions (6 CCNES reactions X 8 child socioemotional outcomes) were run. Due to the large number of regression coefficients tested, the p values for the regression coefficient for CCNES reactions predicting each socioemotional outcome were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg method (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995) to control for the false discovery rate.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive Statistics and Cultural Group Differences in Demographic Variables

All study variables (PRCNE, parent- and teacher-reported child socioemotional adjustment, and child emotion knowledge) were screened for univariate normality. Based on the cutoff of 2 (absolute value) for skewness and 7 (absolute value) for kurtosis (West et al. 1995), all the variables were normally distributed. Descriptive statistics (ranges, means, and SDs) of all continuous demographic variables, PRCNEs, and socioemotional outcome variables by cultural groups are reported in Table 1.
To compare cultural group (French vs. U.S.) variations in continuous demographic variables (parent age, child age, child age at the start of preschool, and parent education level), we conducted independent sample t tests. Our analysis revealed cultural group differences in three demographic variables: parent education, children’s age, and children’s age when starting preschool. Compared to the French sample, the U.S. sample had higher parent education levels (means = 6.97 and 4.25, approximate years of high school education and beyond, for U.S. and French samples, respectively) and younger children (average child age = 51 months for U.S. sample, and 57 months for French sample). The higher parental education level in the U.S. sample was likely due to fact that the U.S. sample was primarily recruited from a university preschool serving largely faculty, staff, and student families affiliated with the university, whereas the French sample was recruited from community preschools. Moreover, the children in the U.S. sample started preschool at an earlier age than the children in the French sample (average child age when starting preschool = 32 months for U.S., and 36 months for French). The differences in parent education levels were consistent with the differences in the types of preschool schools sampled (the U.S. sample was recruited from a university preschool and the French sample was recruited from community preschools). The variation in children’s current age and age when starting preschool differed from typical differences in preschool entry ages between the United States and France. In France, although compulsory preschool enrollment at age 3 was not introduced until 2019, enrollment at age 3 in early childhood education was still “near-universal” (>95%) in 2015, in contrast to only approximately 45% in the United States (OECD 2017, 2020).
To compare cultural group variations in discrete demographic variables (parent gender and child gender, race/ethnicity, parental employment status, and marital status), we conducted chi-square tests. To facilitate comparability between the two groups’ race/ethnicity data, we created a “cultural/racial minority” variable to indicate the family’s cultural minority status. Specifically, we categorized non-Whites/European Americans in the U.S. sample as belonging to the racial/cultural minority group. Similarly, we categorized those of non-European origin (such as Moroccan, Algerian, etc.) into the racial/cultural minority group in the French sample. The results of the chi-square tests indicated no statistically significant cultural group differences in discrete demographic variables.

3.2. Data Analysis for Aim 1: Testing Culture Group Variations in Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions

For Aim 1, OLS linear regressions were used to predict PRCNEs from their culture group, controlling for parent and child demographics. As we were interested in cultural group and sociodemographic variations in specific types of PRCNEs, we ran six OLS regressions to predict each of the six PRCNE variables from the same set of predictors (culture group, parent and child age, parent and child gender, and parent education). All predictors were entered in one step. The results are reported in Table 2.
For the regressions predicting non-supportive PRCNEs (see Table 2), culture group was a unique and significant predictor of parental distress reactions (β = 0.535, p ≤ 0.001), parental punitive reaction (β = 0.373, p ≤ 0.001), and minimizing reaction (β = 0.525, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to U.S. parents, French parents endorsed greater use of non-supportive PRCNE. In addition to culture group, parent education negatively and significantly predicted punitive reactions (β = −0.247, p = 0.035), such that more highly educated parents were less likely to endorse punitive reactions.
For the regressions predicting supportive PRCNEs (see Table 2), culture group was not a significant predictor of parental emotion-focused reactions or problem-focused reactions, although culture group significantly predicted expressive encouragement (β = −0.263, p = 0.039), with U.S. parents endorsing significantly more frequent use than French parents. Aside from culture group, parent education was a significant negative predictor of emotion-focused reactions (β = −0.409, p ≤ 0.001), with higher-educated parents endorsing less use of emotion-focused reactions. However, it should be noted that the regressions for expressive encouragement and problem-focused reactions had near-zero and negative adjusted R2 values, respectively, suggesting that overall, the cultural group and sociodemographic variables were poor predictors of supportive PRCNE.
In summary, cultural group differences were found in non-supportive PRCNEs: compared to U.S. parents, French parents endorsed higher use of parental distress and minimizing reactions. Moreover, parental education was a significant predictor of PRCNE, such that the more educated parents endorsed lower use of punitive and emotion-focused reactions than the less educated parents.

3.3. Data Analysis for Aim 2: Testing Concurrent Relations Between PRCNE and Child Socioemotional Outcomes Controlling for Culture Group and Demographic Variables

Before conducting OLS regressions, we first computed zero-order correlations between parental reactions and children’s socioemotional behaviors. In the full sample, the non-supportive PRCNE variables were positively correlated with maladaptive socioemotional outcomes. Specifically, parental endorsement of distress (r = 0.310, p = 0.002), punitive (r = 0.209, p = 0.042), and minimizing reactions (r = 0.244, p ≤ 0.001) were positively correlated with parent-reported child externalizing problems. Moreover, parental endorsement of distress (r = −0.288, p = 0.002), punitive (r = −0.372, p = 0.042), and minimizing reactions (r = −0.242, p ≤ 0.001) were negatively correlated with parent-reported child prosocial behaviors. No significant correlations were found between PRCNE and teacher-reported child outcomes or the behavioral measure of children’s emotion knowledge.
Next, we conducted OLS regression models to predict child socioemotional outcomes from PRCNE while controlling for sociodemographic covariates (culture group, child age, child gender, parent gender, and parent education). As the six PRCNE variables were interrelated, entering them in the same model as simultaneous predictors would result in substantial overlap in shared variances. Thus, each regression model included only one PRCNE variable as the predictor (although all the sociodemographic variables were controlled for in all models). In sum, we ran a total of 48 OLS regression models (6 PRCNE predictors × 8 socioemotional outcomes). To control the false discovery rate, we adjusted the p values for the regression coefficient relating to PRCNE variables predicting each socioemotional outcome using the Benjamini–Hochberg method (Benjamini and Hochberg 1995). The regression results are summarized in Table 3 (for parent-reported socioemotional outcomes) and Table 4 (for teacher-reported socioemotional outcomes and the emotion knowledge behavioral assessment).
Regarding the unique relations between PRCNE and children’s socioemotional outcomes, two significant predictors by PRCNE variables were found after the false discovery rate adjustment, punitive PRCNE (β = −0.425, adjusted p = 0.006) and distress PRCNE (β = −0.350, adjusted p = 0.012), which were both negatively associated with parent-reported child prosocial behaviors.
Regarding the effects of covariates, several demographic variables significantly predicted children’s socioemotional outcomes. Specifically, parent gender (β = 0.266, p = 0.010) was associated with parent-reported prosocial behaviors, with mothers rating children as higher on prosocial behaviors than fathers did. Parent education (β = 0.518, p ≤ 0.001) positively predicted teacher-reported prosocial behavior, with children of more educated parents scoring higher on teacher-rated prosocial behaviors. In contrast, parent education (β = −0.300, p = 0.017) negatively predicted teacher-reported externalizing problems, such that children of more educated parents displayed fewer externalizing problems, as rated by teachers. Finally, child age (β = 0.595, p ≤ 0.001) and culture group (β = −0.397, p ≤ 0.001) significantly predicted children’s emotion knowledge scores, with older children scoring higher than younger children, and U.S. children scoring higher than French children on emotion knowledge.
In summary, we found significant and negative relations between two types of PRCNEs (punitive and distress reactions) and parent-reported child prosocial behaviors. Moreover, among the sociodemographic variables examined, parental education was associated with better teacher-reported socioemotional outcomes. Mothers rated children higher on prosocial behaviors than fathers. Older children displayed higher emotion knowledge than younger children. U.S. children displayed higher emotion knowledge and French children.

4. Discussion

This study examined cultural group variations in parental reactions to children’s negative emotions (PRCNEs) between U.S. and French parents, and the links between PRCNEs and children’s socioemotional behaviors. In partial support of our hypotheses, we found that compared to U.S. parents, French parents endorsed greater use of non-supportive PRCNEs (parental distress, minimizing, and punitive reactions), although no cultural group differences were found in parental endorsement of supportive PRCNEs (problem-focused, emotion-focused, and expressive encouragement). Moreover, we found that parental endorsement of distress and punitive reactions were associated with lower parent-reported child prosocial behaviors. Together, our study has extended previous cross-cultural research on emotion socialization by showing culturally based differences in emotion socialization among Western/Global North/Minority World cultures. Moreover, our study has demonstrated cross-cultural similarities in the socialization functions of non-supportive parental reactions for children’s socioemotional outcomes.

4.1. Cultural Variations in PRCNE Between France and U.S.

Consistent with our hypotheses, after controlling for demographic factors and false discovery rate adjustment, we found that French parents endorsed significantly higher minimizing, distress, and punitive reactions than U.S. parents, and significantly lower expressive encouragement. The higher endorsement of punitive and minimizing reactions in French parents compared to U.S. parents are consistent with the cultural model of French parenting emphasizing teaching children socially appropriate behaviors (Suizzo 2002, 2004; Suizzo and Bornstein 2006). Moreover, the greater endorsement of minimizing reactions and lower endorsement of expressive encouragement in French parents compared to U.S. parents is consistent with cultural variations in values toward expression of negative emotions: while French parents place greater values on children’s emotional self-control (Suizzo 2004), U.S. parents seem to be more supportive of an open expression of negative emotions. It is possible that the French cultural valuing of self-control of negative emotions also partly accounted for French parents’ higher endorsement of distress reactions to children’s negative emotions compared to U.S. parents, as the cultural norm of emotional control might place higher pressure on parents to manage their children’s negative emotions. Moreover, the pattern of cultural variations in parental emotion socialization is in line with France–U.S. differences in preschool cultures, with the value of “consignes” (or instructions on rule-following) emphasized in French preschools and the value of “choice” (or individualized and child-focused teaching practices) emphasized in U.S. preschools (Brougère et al. 2008; Tobin et al. 2009).
It is interesting to note that prior cross-cultural research has shown that European American parents endorse higher expressive encouragement and lower minimizing reactions than Asian and Latino parents (Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2020). The current finding extends this work by showing that compared to France, which is also a Western/Global North/Minority World culture, the American/European American culture stands out as being more encouraging and supportive of open expression of negative emotions.
In contrast, we did not find cultural group variations in parental supportive reactions. This result is in line with prior cross-cultural studies comparing European American parents with Asian or Latino parents, which also did not find cultural group differences in supportive PRCNEs (Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015; Yang et al. 2020). It is possible that supportive PRCNEs (e.g., problem-solving and emotion-focused reactions) are shaped by other individual (e.g., parent and child characteristics) and contextual (e.g., family socioeconomic factors) factors beyond cultural values/norms.
Although the two samples did not differ on most socioemotional behaviors, U.S. children scored higher than French children on emotion knowledge. Cultural group variations in young children’s emotion knowledge measured by the EMT have been previously reported. Wang (2013) found U.S. children scored higher on emotion situation knowledge than same-aged Chinese children. Wang (2013) speculated that U.S. parents’ more frequent engagement in emotion talk (conversations about emotions and emotion-related mental state) with children might have contributed to cultural group variations in children’s emotion knowledge. Although we did not measure parental emotion talk in the present study, the U.S. culture’s greater encouragement of open emotion expression across home and preschool contexts (Tobin et al. 2009) may partly account for the cultural group variation in children’s emotion knowledge. Future research should replicate the findings and investigate potential mechanisms underlying the cultural differences in emotion socialization and children’s socioemotional development.

4.2. Relations Between PRCNEs and Children’s Socioemotional Outcomes

Consistent with the previous literature, we found that regardless of cultural groups, non-supportive reactions (especially parental distress and punitive reactions) were associated with children’s lower prosocial behaviors (rated by parents). The results are consistent with the emotion socialization theory (Eisenberg et al. 1998) and past findings obtained with ethnically diverse samples in the U.S. (e.g., Jones et al. 2002; Shorer et al. 2023). Moreover, the finding is consistent with the within-culture study of French adolescents showing negative parenting (including negative expressivity) negatively associated with French adolescents’ self-regulation and ego resiliency (Hofer et al. 2010). Together, these findings suggest that punitive and emotionally negative parenting practices have adverse implications for children’s socioemotional outcomes across cultures.
Interestingly, minimizing reactions were unrelated to children’s socioemotional outcomes, which is inconsistent with previous findings in Western samples (Eisenberg et al. 1999; Jones et al. 2002), but consistent with findings based on Asian or Latino samples (Lugo-Candelas et al. 2015; Tao et al. 2010; Yang et al. 2020). As our study had two cultural groups (France and U.S.) and the U.S. sample was ethnically diverse, the greater cultural heterogeneity might partly explain the lack of association between minimizing reactions and child outcomes. Together, these results indicate that the socialization function of parental minimizing reactions depends more on the cultural values/norms compared to other non-supportive PRCNEs (e.g., punitive and parental distress reactions).
It is also notable that PRCNE was only associated with parent-rated child outcomes but not teacher-rated or behavioral measures of socioemotional outcomes. Informant discrepancies in ratings of children’s socioemotional behaviors have been extensively reported in the literature, including in studies using the SDQ (Murray et al. 2021), which may be related to differences in behavioral expectations and interpersonal contexts between school and home settings (De Los Reyes 2011). Moreover, because PRCNEs and children’s socioemotional behaviors are dynamically and reciprocally related, it is possible that PRCNEs are more closely related children’s socioemotional behaviors at home, whereas teachers’ or peers’ reactions to emotions are more consequential for children’s socioemotional behaviors in school settings (Denham et al. 2022).

4.3. Links of Sociodemographic Factors to PRCNEs and Socioemotional Outcomes

We found a few SES-related variations in PRCNEs and children’s socioemotional outcomes. Since income was not directly comparable in cross-cultural samples, we used parental education as the family SES index. The finding that parental education was negatively associated with their endorsement of punitive reaction is consistent with previous findings on SES and non-supportive reactions (Sun et al. 2021) as well as the findings on SES and authoritarian/coercive parenting (Hastings et al. 2015; Teng et al. 2018). However, the negative association between parental education and emotion-focused reaction was unexpected. It is possible that the more educated parents provided less comforting or emotion-focused reactions to foster preschoolers’ independence in managing negative emotions. The associations between higher parental education and better socioemotional adjustment at school (as indicated by lower teacher-rated externalizing behaviors and higher teacher-rated prosocial behaviors) were generally consistent with previous findings on SES–socioemotional adjustment across culturally diverse samples (Dubow et al. 2009; Hastings et al. 2015; Teng et al. 2018).
Interestingly, we found that mothers rated children higher on prosocial behaviors than fathers. In a study of Korean parents with preschool-age children, Yuh (2017) similarly found that mothers and fathers differed in their reports of children’s prosocial behaviors, although they showed similarities in reports of children’s problems. It is possible that mothers have more opportunities to observe children’s prosocial behaviors (e.g., social interactions with siblings and other family members) than fathers.
Moreover, we found that older children performed better than younger children on the behavioral measure of emotion knowledge, which is consistent with the well-documented age-related growth in children’s emotion understanding (Denham and Couchoud 1990).

4.4. Limitations and Implications

This study has several important limitations. First, our sample size was small and unequal by cultural groups (33 U.S. children vs. 68 French children). The small sample size limits the study’s statistical power to detect small effect sizes regarding both cultural group variations in PRCNE and relations between PRCNE and children’s socioemotional outcomes. Furthermore, the small sample size did not allow us to test whether culture group moderates the relation between PRCNE and socioemotional outcomes.
The second methodological limitation is the low alpha reliabilities of the parent-reported CCNES Distress Reaction subscale (0.45) and Social Competence scale (0.54) in the French sample. The results related to these measures should be interpreted with caution. Third, because the relations between PRCNE and children’s socioemotional outcomes can be bidirectional, the cross-sectional design of the study does not allow for testing the directional relations between PRCNE and children’s socioemotional outcomes. Future longitudinal research is needed to further establish measurement equivalence in measures of PRCNE and socioemotional outcomes in diverse samples and examine both the direction and the long-term relations between PRCNE and socioemotional outcomes. Fourth, the U.S. and French samples differed in parental education (the U.S. sample had more educated parents than the French sample) and preschool type (university- vs. community- based preschools), which might account for cultural group differences in PRCNE and socioemotional outcomes. Future research should sample children from diverse family SES backgrounds and different types of preschools in both cultures to replicate the cultural group comparisons. Fifth, the present study did not measure cultural processes (e.g., emotion control values), which is useful for investigating both cross-cultural and within-cultural heterogeneity in emotion socialization practices. Sixth, the statistical analyses involved performing a large number of statistical tests (as each PRCNE reaction and socioemotional variable was treated as individual predictor or outcomes). Future studies with larger sample sizes should consider data reduction (e.g., with factor analysis) or latent variable models (e.g., structural equation models) to limit multiple testing.
In conclusion, our study revealed cultural group variations in family emotion socialization practices between the U.S. and France (two Western/Global North/Minority World cultures). Despite the cultural variations in parental endorsement of different reactions to children’s negative emotions, punitive and distress reactions were linked to fewer prosocial behaviors in children. The findings suggest that psychoeducation programs educating parents about the potential negative consequences of punitive and distress reactions to children’s negative emotions can be a strategy to foster socioemotional competence in early childhood. On the other hand, when implementing these interventions in culturally diverse families, it is important to recognize and be sensitive to cultural variations in how caregivers react to children’s emotions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Methodology, C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Software, Q.Z.; Validation, K.L. and Q.Z.; Formal analysis, K.L. and Q.Z.; Investigation, C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Resources, C.H. and Q.Z.; Data curation, C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Writing—original draft, K.L. and Q.Z.; Writing—review and editing, K.L., C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Visualization, K.L. and Q.Z.; Supervision, C.H. and Q.Z.; Project administration, C.H., A.I.W., and Q.Z.; Funding acquisition, C.H. and Q.Z. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by France-Berkeley Fund 2014–2015.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the authors’ institution on 11 March 2015.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all families, preschool teachers, staff, and directors who have participated in or assisted with the study, as well as the graduate and undergraduate students who have assisted with the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Benjamini, Yoav, and Yosef Hochberg. 1995. Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 57: 289–300. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101 (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  2. Bouysse, V., P. Claus, and C. Szymankiewicz. 2011. L’école maternelle: Rapport à monsieur le ministre de l’éducation nationale de la jeunesse et de la vie associative. Paris: Ministère de l’éducation nationale, de la jeunesse et de la vie associative. [Google Scholar]
  3. Brougère, Gilles, Nacira Guénif-Souilamas, and Sylvie Rayna. 2008. Ecole maternelle (preschool) in France: A cross-cultural perspective. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 16: 371–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Cassano, Michael C., Janice L. Zeman, and Wesley M. Sanders. 2014. Responses to children’s sadness: Mothers’ and fathers’ unique contributions and perceptions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 59: 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Center for Disease Control. 2021. Child Development: Preschoolers. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/child-development/positive-parenting-tips/preschooler-3-5-years.html (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  6. Chan, Megan, Aya I. Williams, Aya I. Williams, and Qing Zhou. 2023. Links between parent-child emotion talk and preschoolers’ socioemotional behaviors in Chinese-heritage families. Early Education and Development 34: 366–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Childcare.gov. 2024. Pre-Kindergarten Programs. Available online: https://childcare.gov/consumer-education/prekindergarten-programs (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  8. De Los Reyes, Andres. 2011. Introduction to the special section: More than measurement error: Discovering meaning behind informant discrepancies in clinical assessments of children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology 40: 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Denham, Susanne A., and Elizabeth A. Couchoud. 1990. Young preschoolers’ understanding of emotions. Child Study Journal 20: 171–92. [Google Scholar]
  10. Denham, Susanne A., Luigina Mortari, and Roberta Silva. 2022. Preschool teachers’ emotion socialization and child social-emotional behavior in two countries. Early Education and Development 33: 806–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Draper, Catherine E., Lisa M. Barnett, Caylee J. Cook, Jorge A. Cuartas, Steven J. Howard, Dana C. McCoy, Rebecca Merkley, Andres Molano, Carolina Maldonado-Carreño, Jelena Obradović, and et al. 2023. Publishing child development research from around the world: An unfair playing field resulting in most of the world’s child population under-represented in research. Infant and Child Development 32: e2375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dubow, Eric F., Paul Boxer, and L. Rowell Huesmann. 2009. Long-term effects of parents’ education on children’s educational and occupational success: Mediation by family interactions, child aggression, and teenage aspirations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 55: 224–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Dumas, Christelle, and Arnaud Lefranc. 2012. Early schooling and later outcomes: Evidence from pre-school extension in France. In From Parents to Children: The Intergenerational Transmission of Advantage. Manhattan: Russel Sage Foundation. [Google Scholar]
  14. Eisenberg, Nancy, Amanda Cumberland, and Tracy L. Spinrad. 1998. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry 9: 241–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, and Bridget C. Murphy. 1996. Parents’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s social competence and comforting behavior. Child Development 67: 2227–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, Jane Bernzweig, Mariss Karbon, Rick Poulin, and Laura Hanish. 1993. The relations of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status. Child Development 64: 1418–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Eisenberg, Nancy, Richard A. Fabes, Stephanie A. Shepard, Ivanna K. Guthrie, Bridget C. Murphy, and Mark Reiser. 1999. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development 70: 513–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Engle, Jennifer M., and Nancy L. McElwain. 2011. Parental reactions to toddlers’ negative emotions and child negative emotionality as correlates of problem behavior at the age of three. Social Development 20: 251–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Fabes, Richard A., R. E. Poulin, N. Eisenberg, and D. A. Madden-Derdich. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Friedlmeier, Wolfgang, Feyza Corapci, and Pamela M. Cole. 2011. Emotion socialization in cross-cultural perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 5: 410–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Gestsdottir, Steinunn, Antje von Suchodoletz, Shannon B. Wanless, Blandine Hubert, Philippe Guimard, Freyja Birgisdottir, Catherine Gunzenhauser, and Megan McClelland. 2014. Early behavioral self-regulation, academic achievement, and gender: Longitudinal findings from France, Germany, and Iceland. Applied Developmental Science 18: 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goodman, Robert. 1997. The strengths and difficulties questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38: 581–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Harter, Susan. 1982. The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development 53: 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Hastings, Paul D., Jonas G. Miller, and Natalie R. Troxel. 2015. Making good: The socialization of children’s prosocial development. In Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research. Edited by Joan E. Grusec and Paul D. Hastings. New York: The Guilford Press, pp. 637–60. [Google Scholar]
  25. Hofer, Claire, Nancy Eisenberg, and Mark Reiser. 2010. The role of socialization, effortful control, and ego resiliency in French adolescents’ social functioning. Journal of Research on Adolescence 20: 555–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hong, Xiumin, and Mei Wang. 2023. The challenge of Chinese children’s emotion regulation: Child number, parental emotion regulation, and its relationship with reactions to children’s negative emotions. Sustainability 15: 3812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Hurrell, Katherine E., Jennifer L. Hudson, and Carolyn A. Schniering. 2015. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relationships with emotion regulation in children with an anxiety disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 29: 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Jones, Sarah, Nancy Eisenberg, Richard A. Fabes, and David Peter MacKinnon. 2002. Parents’ reactions to elementary school children’s negative emotions: Relations to social and emotional functioning at school. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 48: 133–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Leroy, Ghislain. 2019. The work of children’s emotions in French preschools: Contribution to the study of child socializations. Les Sciences de l’Éducation—Pour l’Ère Nouvelle 52: 53–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lugo-Candelas, Claudia I., Elizabeth A. Harvey, and Rosanna P. Breaux. 2015. Emotion socialization practices in Latina and European-American mothers of preschoolers with behavior problems. Journal of Family Studies 21: 144–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Matsumoto, David, Seung Hee Yoo, and Johnny Fontaine. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Morgan, Judith K., Carroll E. Izard, and Kristen A. King. 2010. Construct validity of the emotion matching task: Preliminary evidence for convergent and criterion validity of a new emotion knowledge measure for young children. Social Development 19: 52–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Murray, Aja Louise, Lydia Gabriela Speyer, Hildigunnur Anna Hall, Sara Valdebenito, and Claire Hughes. 2021. Teacher versus parent informant measurement invariance of the strengths and difficulties questionnaire. Journal of Pediatric Psychology 46: 1249–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nelson, Jackie A., Esther M. Leerkes, Nicole B. Perry, Marion O’Brien, Susan D. Calkins, and Stuart Marcovitch. 2013. European-American and African-American mothers’ emotion socialization practices relate differently to their children’s academic and social-emotional competence. Social Development 22: 485–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. OECD. 2017. Indicator C2: How do early childhood education systems differ around the world? In Education at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing, pp. 260–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. OECD. 2020. Education Policy Outlook in France: Equity and Quality. Paris: OECD Education Policy Perspectives. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. R Core Team. 2023. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available online: https://www.R-project.org/ (accessed on 12 April 2024).
  38. Raval, Vaishali V., and Bethany L. Walker. 2019. Unpacking ‘culture’: Caregiver socialization of emotion and child functioning in diverse families. Developmental Review 51: 146–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Raval, Vaishali V., Xu Li, Neeraj Deo, and Jinsheng Hu. 2018. Reports of maternal socialization goals, emotion socialization behaviors, and child functioning in China and India. Journal of Family Psychology 32: 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Shorer, Maayan, N. Zilker, A. Salomon, and N. Spiegelman. 2023. Parental playfulness as a mediator of the association between parents’ emotional difficulties and children’s psychosocial adjustment. Early Child Development and Care 193: 1173–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Spinrad, Tracy L., and Nancy Eisenberg. 2023. Parental Socialization of Children’s Emotion and Its Regulation. In Emotion Regulation and Parenting. Studies in Emotion and Social Interaction. Edited by Isabelle Roskam, James J. Gross and Moira Mikolajczak. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 166–168. [Google Scholar]
  42. Suizzo, Marie-Anne. 2002. French parents’ cultural models and childrearing beliefs. International Journal of Behavioral Development 26: 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Suizzo, Marie-Anne. 2004. French and American mothers’ childrearing beliefs: Stimulating, responding, and long-term goals. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 35: 606–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Suizzo, Marie-Anne, and Marc H. Bornstein. 2006. French and European American child–mother play: Culture and gender considerations. International Journal of Behavioral Development 30: 498–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sun, Yao, Chun Bun Lam, and Kevin Kien Hoa Chung. 2021. Associations between maternal reactions to child negative emotions and child social competence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology 35: 671–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tao, Annie, Qing Zhou, and Yun Wang. 2010. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Prospective relations to Chinese children’s psychological adjustment. Journal of Family Psychology 24: 135–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Teng, Yin-Ping Teresa, Li Tsung-Wen Kuo, and Qing Zhou. 2018. Maternal employment and family socioeconomic status: Unique relations to maternal stress, parenting beliefs, and preschoolers’ adjustment in Taiwanese families. Journal of Child and Family Studies 27: 3506–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Tobin, Joseph, Yeh Hsueh, and Mayumi Karasawa. 2009. Preschool in Three Cultures Revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
  49. Valiente, Carlos, Jodi Swanson, Dawn DeLay, Ashley M. Fraser, and Julia H. Parker. 2020. Emotion-related socialization in the classroom: Considering the roles of teachers, peers, and the classroom context. Developmental Psychology 56: 578–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wang, Mengjiao, Xi Chen, and Shanyun Zheng. 2024. Parental reactions to child negative emotions and child behavioral adjustment: The moderating role of child inhibitory control. Men and Masculinities 48: 638–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Wang, Qi. 2013. Chinese socialization and emotion talk between mothers and children in native and immigrant Chinese families. Asian American Journal of Psychology 4: 185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. West, S. G., J. F. Finch, and P. J. Curran. 1995. Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Edited by Rick H. Hoyle. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc., pp. 56–75. [Google Scholar]
  53. Yang, Yang, Qingfang Song, Stacey N Doan, and Qi Wang. 2020. Maternal reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s socio-emotional development among European American and Chinese immigrant children. Transcultural Psychiatry 57: 408–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Yuh, Jongil. 2017. Do mothers and fathers perceive their child’s problems and prosocial behaviors differently? Journal of Child and Family Studies 26: 3045–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Zinsser, Katherine M., Rachel A. Gordon, and Xue Jiang. 2021. Parents’ socialization of preschool-aged children’s emotion skills: A meta-analysis using an emotion-focused parenting practices framework. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 55: 377–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of continuous sociodemographic and study variables by cultural groups.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of continuous sociodemographic and study variables by cultural groups.
U.S. Sample
(N = 33)		French Sample
(N = 68)
VariablesMinMaxMeanSDMinMaxMeanSD
1. Sociodemographic factors
Parent age (years)194836.56.6265834.55.7
Child age (months)367051.39.3387957.011.8
Child age starting preschool (months)155731.87.8217135.97.2
2. PRCNE (P)
Distress reaction0.63.82.30.91.54.53.20.6
Punitive reaction0.03.31.50.81.05.82.60.9
Expressive encouragement2.96.85.60.93.16.95.30.9
Emotion-focused reaction2.97.05.61.14.27.06.20.6
Problem-focused reaction4.36.85.80.74.86.95.90.6
Minimizing reaction0.03.61.60.81.35.52.80.9
3. Socioemotional behaviors
Externalizing problems (T)0.012.04.04.10.018.04.24.1
Emotional problems (T)0.07.01.61.90.09.01.82.2
Prosocial behaviors (T)1.010.07.22.70.010.05.72.6
Externalizing problems (P)0.011.03.83.10.015.05.93.7
Emotional problems (P)0.06.01.41.30.06.01.71.8
Prosocial behaviors (P)2.010.08.11.92.010.07.12.0
Social skills (P)1.04.02.91.12.04.03.30.5
Emotion knowledge (B)16.044.032.88.79.042.028.58.2
Notes. T = teacher report, P = parent report, B = behavioral tasks.
Table 2. OLS results: predicting non-supportive and supportive PRCNEs from culture group and demographic factors.
Table 2. OLS results: predicting non-supportive and supportive PRCNEs from culture group and demographic factors.
Distress Reaction
(Adj. R2 = 0.316)		Punitive Reaction
(Adj. R2 = 0.253)		Minimizing Reaction
(Adj. R2 = 0.308)		Emotion-Focused Reaction
(Adj. R2 = 0.219)		Problem-Focused Reaction
(Adj. R2 < 0.00)		Expressive Encouragement
(Adj. R2 < 0.000)
CovariatesBβBβBβBβBβBβ
Culture Group0.937 ***0.5350.791 **0.3731.144 ***0.5250.2760.152−0.083−0.065−0.489 *−0.263
Parent Education−0.028−0.081−0.102 *−0.247−0.030−0.070−0.144 **−0.409−0.057−0.231−0.057−0.159
Parent Age0.0040.0270.0010.006−0.002−0.009−0.002−0.012−0.010−0.0940.0130.084
Child Age−0.005−0.070−0.016−0.182−0.007−0.081−0.001−0.019−0.003−0.052−0.003−0.036
Parent Gender0.4790.1560.2980.0850.6110.1600.5610.1870.2080.098−0.143−0.047
Child Gender−0.145−0.085−0.168−0.082−0.230−0.1090.3240.1580.1360.1100.1450.081
Notes. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001. Culture group: 1 = U.S., 2 = French; parent and child gender: 1 = male, 2 = female. Bold numbers indicate significant regression coefficients.
Table 3. OLS regressions predicting parent-reported child socioemotional outcomes from PRCNEs.
Table 3. OLS regressions predicting parent-reported child socioemotional outcomes from PRCNEs.
Child Social CompetenceParent SDQ Externalizing ProblemsParent SDQ Emotional SymptomsParent SDQ Prosocial Behavior
B (95% CI)B (95% CI)B (95% CI)B (95% CI)
Step 1: Covariates
Child Age (a)−0.01 [−0.02–0.01]−0.03 [−0.09–0.04]−0.03 [−0.06–0.01]−0.01 [−0.04–0.03]
Child Gender (b)0.00 [−0.33–0.34]−0.98 [−2.51–0.56]0.07 [−0.66–0.79]0.51 [−0.32–1.34]
Country (c)0.38 [−0.01–0.80]1.79 [0.00–3.57]0.45 [−0.39–1.30]−0.68 [−1.64–0.29]
Parental Education (d)−0.05 [−0.13–0.03]−0.20 [−0.56–0.16]0.07 [−0.10–0.24]0.11 [−0.08–0.31]
Parent Gender (e)0.41 [−0.19–1.01]−0.02 [−2.73–2.69]0.99 [−0.29–2.27]−1.93 * [0.47–3.40]
Step 2: PRCNE (measured by CCNES)
Distress Reaction0.19 [−0.04–0.43]1.05 [−0.01–2.11]0.33 [−0.18–0.84]−0.83 * [−1.38–−0.27]
Punitive Reaction0.17 [−0.01–0.36]0.32 [−0.53–1.18]0.18 [−0.22–0.58]−0.83 ** [−1.26–−0.40]
Minimizing Reaction0.13 [−0.06–0.32]0.45 [−0.42–1.32]0.37 [−0.03–0.78]−0.47 [−0.93–−0.02]
Emotion-Focused Reaction0.21 [−0.001–0.42]0.17 [−0.81–1.15]−0.21 [−0.67–0.25]0.47 [−0.05–1.00]
Problem-Focused Reaction−0.03 [−0.29–0.24]−0.13 [−1.35–1.10]−0.32 [−0.89–0.26]0.57 [−0.09–1.22]
Expressive Encouragement−0.07 [−0.25–0.12]−0.02 [−0.86–0.83]−0.07 [−0.47–0.33]0.09 [−0.37–0.55]
R2 Range0.131 to 0.1700.132 to 0.1760.084 to 0.1120.160 to 0.285
R2 Adjusted Range0.068 to 0.1100.070 to 0.1150.017 to 0.0460.099 to 0.233
Notes. (a) Child age in months; (b) child gender: male = 1, female = 2; (c) country: U.S. = 1, France = 2; (d) parent education: highest level of education; (e) parent gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01. Significance values of regression coefficients for PRCNE predictors were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. The sociodemographic variables were entered in the same step as the PRCNE predictor. Bold numbers indicate significant regression coefficients.
Table 4. OLS regressions predicting behavioral assessment and teacher-reported child socioemotional outcomes from PRCNEs.
Table 4. OLS regressions predicting behavioral assessment and teacher-reported child socioemotional outcomes from PRCNEs.
Child Emotion KnowledgeTeacher SDQ Externalizing ProblemsTeacher SDQ Emotional SymptomsTeacher SDQ Prosocial Behavior
B (95% CI)B (95% CI)B (95% CI)B (95% CI)
Step 1: Covariates
Child Age (a)0.46 *** [0.32–0.60]−0.02 [−0.09–0.05]0.00 [−0.04–0.04]0.01 [−0.03–0.06]
Child Gender (b)1.9 [−1.23–5.05]−0.97 [−2.69–0.76]−0.15 [−1.09–0.79]1.03 [−0.02–2.10]
Country (c)−7.17 *** [−10.89–−3.45]−0.78 [−2.77–1.21]0.64 [−0.44–1.72]0.17 [−1.04–1.39]
Parent Education (d)0.08 [−0.66–0.82]−0.50 * [−0.90–−0.09]0.21 [−0.01–0.43]0.59 *** [0.35–0.84]
Parent Gender (e)3.36 [−2.87–9.59]−2.68 [−5.70–0.35]−0.78 [−2.42–0.87]−0.64 [−1.20–2.49]
Step 2: PRCNE (measured by CCNES)
Distress Reaction−1.10 [−3.42–1.22]−0.28 [−1.50–0.94]−0.44 [−1.10–0.21]−0.03 [−0.77–0.71]
Punitive Reaction−0.50 [−2.46–1.46]−0.60 [−1.57–0.36]−0.33 [−0.85–0.20]0.17 [−0.42–0.76]
Minimizing Reaction−0.12 [−2.01–1.76]−0.56 [−1.55–0.44]−0.22 [−0.76–0.32]0.44 [−0.16–1.04]
Emotion-Focused Reaction1.17 [−0.98–3.32]−0.13 [−1.27–1.01]0.14 [−0.47–0.76]−0.16 [−0.85–0.53]
Problem-Focused Reaction0.29 [−2.22–2.81]−0.36 [−1.72–1.00]0.51 [−0.22–1.24]−0.58 [−1.40–0.23]
Expressive Encouragement0.01 [−1.83–1.86]0.35 [−0.64–1.34]0.25 [−0.28–0.79]−0.40 [−1.30–1.19]
R2 Range0.428 to 0.4380.146 to 0.1710.050 to 0.0700.347 to 0.371
R2 Adjusted Range0.382 to 0.3920.084 to 0.109<0.0020.299 to 0.325
Notes. (a) Child age in months; (b) child gender: male = 1, female = 2; (c) country: U.S. = 1, France = 2; (d) parent education: highest level of education; (e) parent gender: 1 = male, 2 = female; * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001. CCNES regressions were run separately but presented together. CCNES significance values presented were adjusted using the Benjamini–Hochberg method. Covariate regressions were run together, and we have presented the unadjusted significance values. Bold numbers indicate significant regression coefficients.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, K.; Hofer, C.; Williams, A.I.; Zhou, Q. Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions in France and the United States: Links to Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Outcomes. Soc. Sci. 2025, 14, 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010005

AMA Style

Li K, Hofer C, Williams AI, Zhou Q. Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions in France and the United States: Links to Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Outcomes. Social Sciences. 2025; 14(1):5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Kathryn, Claire Hofer, Aya I. Williams, and Qing Zhou. 2025. "Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions in France and the United States: Links to Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Outcomes" Social Sciences 14, no. 1: 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010005

APA Style

Li, K., Hofer, C., Williams, A. I., & Zhou, Q. (2025). Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions in France and the United States: Links to Preschoolers’ Socioemotional Outcomes. Social Sciences, 14(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci14010005

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop