Child Development, March/April 1999, Volume 70, Number 2, Pages 513534

Parental Reactions to Childrens Negative Emotions: Longitudinal Relations

to Quality of Childrens Social Functioning
Nancy Eisenberg, Richard A. Fabes, Stephanie A. Shepard, Ivanna K. Guthrie,
Bridget C. Murphy, and Mark Reiser

Relations between self-reported parental reactions to childrens negative emotions (PNRs) and childrens so-
cially appropriate/problem behavior and negative emotionality were examined longitudinally. Evidence was
consistent with the conclusion that relations between childrens externalizing (but not internalizing) emotion
and parental punitive reactions to childrens negative emotions are bidirectional. Reports of PNRs generally
were correlated with low quality of social functioning. In structural models, mother-reported problem behav-
ior at ages 1012 was at least marginally predicted from mother-reported problem behavior, childrens regula-
tion, and parental punitive or distress reactions. Moreover, parental distress and punitive reactions at ages 68
predicted reports of childrens regulation at ages 810, and regulation predicted parental punitive reactions at
ages 1012. Father reports of problem behavior at ages 1012 were predicted by earlier problem behavior and
parental distress or punitive reactions; some of the relations between regulation and parental reactions were
similar to those in the models for mother-reported problem behavior. Parental perceptions of their reactions
were substantially correlated over 6 years. Some nonsupportive reactions declined in the early to mid-school
years, but all increased into late childhood/early adolescence.

INTRODUCTION situations due to prior repeated associations between

punishment and emotional expressivity. Such anxiety
Although socialization has been a central topic in de-
might be reflected in the presence of internalizing
velopmental psychology for decades, only recently
emotion. Analogously, Tomkins (1963) suggested that
have psychologists focused much attention on how
children learn to express distress without shame and to
parents socialize childrens emotion-related capaci-
respond sympathetically to others if their parents re-
ties and the relation of such socialization to childrens
spond openly with sympathy and nurturance to chil-
socioemotional competence (e.g., Denham, 1993; Dunn
drens feelings of distress and helplessness.
& Brown, 1994; Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994; Parke,
Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy. (1996) further sug-
Cassidy, Burks, Carson, & Boyum, 1992). Albeit infre-
gested that children who receive nonsupportive reac-
quently examined, an important aspect of emotion
tions (e.g., punitive or minimizing responses) to their
socialization may be parents negative reactions to
negative emotion are likely to remain emotionally
childrens experience and displays of normally occur-
aroused and become dysregulated in their behavior
ring negative emotion. Examples of such parental re-
when they experience negative emotions. Parental
actions include parental experience of aversive, self-
practices that heighten or extend childrens negative
focused emotion (which can lead to the expression of
emotional arousal, both in the specific context and in
negative emotion and parental avoidance) and ac-
future situations, would be expected to undermine
tions that punish or minimize the legitimacy of the
learning about emotions and their management dur-
childs emotional experience (e.g., Eisenberg & Fabes,
ing emotional events (Hoffman, 1983). In addition,
1994; Kliewer, Fearnow, & Miller, 1996).
the quality of parents reactions to childrens negative
Parents negative reactions to childrens experience
emotion likely affects childrens emotional security
of emotions such as distress, fear, anxiety, and sadness
and feelings about social interactions in general that, in
generally are believed to be associated with negative
turn, may influence the quality of their emotional re-
socioemotional outcomes for children (Eisenberg,
sponses and behavior in social encounters. Albrecht,
Fabes, & Murphy, 1996; Gottman, Katz, & Hooven,
Burleson, and Goldsmith (1994) suggested that nur-
1996). For example, Buck (1984) hypothesized that
turant communications during socialization encoun-
sanctions for emotional expressiveness are associated
ters foster a sense of security and self-confidence, a
with physiological but not external markers of emo-
secure attachment, and positive working models of
tional responding in adults. This purportedly is be-
relationships with others (also see Davies & Cum-
cause children who receive negative reactions to their
displays of emotion gradually learn to hide their emo- 1999 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
tions but feel anxious when in emotionally evocative All rights reserved. 0009-3920/99/7002-0018
514 Child Development
mings, 1994). Similarly, Bryant (1987) argued that dis-
tressing experiences increase childrens self-concern
and can undermine the development of satisfying so-
cial relationships; therefore, parental buffering of chil-
dren from stress (e.g., through acknowledging and le-
gitimizing childrens feelings of distress) may enhance
childrens empathic and prosocial development. One
would expect negative or punitive interactions to have
the reverse effect.
Gottman, Katz, and Hooven (1997) have specifi-
cally implicated childrens arousal and self-regulatory
skills in the process of emotion socialization and in
individual differences in childrens emotional and
social competence. They argued that parental philoso-
phies about the expression of emotion affect parents
inhibition of negative affect toward the child and fa-
cilitate positive parenting, as well as directly affect
childrens regulatory physiology and ability to regu-
late their own emotions. In their view, parents sup-
portive coaching of children in regard to their emo-
tions is nested within a web of warm parenting (p.
90) and does not especially promote the childs ex-
pressiveness. Rather, parental coaching helps children
to develop the ability to inhibit negative affect, to self-
sooth, and to focus attention (including attention in
social contexts). These skills are expected to enhance
socially skilled rather than unregulated problem be-
havior. In contrast, children whose parents dismiss
negative emotions and do not talk about them with
children in a supportive way are expected to be rela-
tively low in the ability to manage both their emo-
tions and their attention in social situations. This is es-
pecially true if parents belittle or mock the child.
Empirical evidence for the aforementioned asser-
tions is mixed. In general, punitive, nonsupportive
parenting (or parental report of such parenting) has
been associated with negative outcomes and problem
behavior for children (Gottman et al., 1996; Maccoby
& Martin, 1983; Parke & Buriel, 1998; Patterson,
1982). Of direct relevance, Carson and Parke (1996)
found that children whose fathers tended to respond
with negative emotion to their childrens displays of
negative emotion were less socially skilled (i.e.,
shared less, avoided others more, and were more ag-
gressive) than were their preschool peers. Moreover,
Gottman et al. (1996, 1997) found that parents who
were relatively aware and supportive of the expres-
sion of emotion (rather than the reverse) had children
who were physiologically well regulated and there-
fore could manage their emotional arousal in social
contexts. In addition, well-regulated children were
less aggressive with peers. Also of interest, Gottman
et al. (1996) found that general parenting, as reflected
in parental derogation or scaffolding/praising, did
not affect childrens regulationa finding that sug-
gests that how parents deal with children around
emotional issues is not simply a reflection of their
more general style of interaction in teaching or social-
ization contexts.
In a recent study of parents reported reactions to
third through sixth graders negative emotions (Eisen-
berg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996), maternal minimizing
of childrens negative emotions or punitive reactions
were related to low levels of childrens socially appro-
priate behavior, constructive coping, and teacher-
reported popularity, and high levels of mother-reported
avoidant coping. However, maternal reports of dis-
tressed or upset reactions were not correlated with
childrens coping or social competence. Moreover,
there were few significant findings for fathers.
In a study with 4- to 6-year-olds (the same sample
as in the present study), parental negative reactions
were correlated with childrens real-life reactions when
angered or frustrated (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994). Pu-
nitive and minimizing reactions (combined) were as-
sociated with low venting of negative emotion and
high levels of escape behavior when angered; paren-
tal distressed/upset reactions to their children nega-
tive emotions also were associated with low levels of
venting. However, parental reactions were not exam-
ined in relation to quality of childrens social behavior
or problem behavior.
A primary goal of the present longitudinal study
was to examine the relation of parental reports of neg-
ative reactions to childrens negative emotions with
childrens socially appropriate and problem behavior,
both concurrently and across time. Primary caregiv-
ing parents (usually mothers) reports of their reac-
tions to childrens negative emotions such as anxiety
and sadness in everyday contexts were obtained at
several points in time, as were teachers, mothers,
and fathers reports of quality of social functioning
(socially appropriate and/or externalizing problem
behavior). Thus, unlike in previous work, we could
examine the direction of relations between parental
reactions and the childs behavior and characteristics
(i.e., negative emotionality or regulation) over time.
Based on the aforementioned reasoning, parental
nonsupportive reactions, especially those that were
punitive, were expected to predict externalizing prob-
lem behavior and inappropriate social behavior. It
was further hypothesized that at least part of the rela-
tion of PNRs (parental negative reactions to chil-
drens negative emotions) to quality of social func-
tioning would be indirect through their effect on
childrens regulation. If Buck (1984) is correct in his
theorizing, children who receive negative reactions to
their expression of normal negative emotion are likely

to become overly emotionally aroused and, hence,
less regulated, in situations involving negative emo-
tion. As discussed previously, Gottman et al. (1996)
argued that parental coaching in regard to emotion
and support of emotion directly affects childrens reg-
ulatory physiology and ability to regulate their own
emotions. Although they found evidence consistent
with this view, in their structural equation models
physiological regulation also predicted parental coach-
ing when the path was reversed. Because Gottman et
al.s measures of regulation and parental coaching
were taken at the same point in time, they could not
examine whether earlier parental variables predicted
later child regulation, if early child regulation pre-
dicted later parental coaching, or whether there ap-
peared to be bidirectional causation (i.e., both paths
held across time).
Based on prior theory and findings such as those
obtained by Gottman et al. (1996), parental reactions
to childrens negative emotions were hypothesized to
influence childrens regulation, which would be ex-
pected to affect the quality of childrens social behav-
ior at home and school (i.e., childrens regulation was
expected to mediate the effects of PNRs on social
functioning). Of course, it also is plausible that indi-
vidual differences in childrens regulation influence
the degree to which parents react negatively to chil-
drens negative emotions, which might then affect
childrens social behavior (Bell, 1977; see Bugental &
Goodnow, 1998). Thus, bidirectional relations be-
tween PNRs and childrens regulation were predicted
and we hypothesized that both childrens regulatory
capacities and PNRs would have unique effects on
the quality of childrens social behavior. Relations
from PNRs to regulation, and vice versa, were pitted
against one another, as was the possibility that child
regulation and PNRs were correlated at each time pe-
riod, by including all of these possibilities in struc-
tural equation models with longitudinal data. Thus,
this is one of the few studies in which bidirectional
parent-child effects were examined over time.
A second goal was to examine the relation of chil-
drens dispositional negative emotionality to PNRs.
These two constructs have been found to be posi-
tively correlated when measured concurrently (Eisen-
berg & Fabes, 1994; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy,
1996; cf. Gottman et al., 1996). Some psychologists
have noted that despite the stability obtained for
measures of temperament (including negative emo-
tionality), it is important to identify environmental
factors that influence change in childrens expression
of temperament (Belsky, Fish, & Isabella, 1991; Gott-
man et al., 1997; Thomas, 1984). One such factor is
likely to be parental reactions to childrens expression
Eisenberg et al. 515
of negative emotions. Parents who typically react
negatively to childrens expression of normal dis-
plays of negative emotion (especially those that do
not harm others) may elicit anger and frustration
from children. Of course, children who are prone to
intense and frequent negative emotions also may
elicit relatively high levels of parental distress, upset,
and punitive and minimizing reactions in response to
these emotions.
Indeed, it is likely that the relation between chil-
drens dispositional negative emotionality and PNRs
is bidirectional. Given that negative emotionality ap-
pears to have a strong temperamental basis (Emde et
al., 1992; Plomin & Stocker, 1989), it is logical to expect
childrens negative emotionality at a young age to have
some effect on parents negative reactions to chil-
drens emotions. As evidence of this, in one study
mothers engaged in more comforting of their toddlers
if the children avoided a fear-eliciting stimulus, a
finding consistent with the view that mothers altered
their behavior as a function of the childs fearfulness
(Diener, Mangelsdorf, Fosnot, & Kienstra, 1997; see
also Fabes et al., 1994). Moreover, Cook, Kenny, and
Goldstein (1991) found that adolescents expression
of negative affect toward their parents seemed to
elicit negative parental affect directed toward them.
However, as children develop, it also is likely that
their negative emotionality is influenced to some de-
gree by interactions with parents. Belsky et al. (1991)
found that infants who changed from high to low
negative emotionality from 3 to 9 months of age had
greater than expected frequencies of complementary,
responsive, and sensitive interactions with mothers
and fewer than expected disharmonious, unrespon-
sive, and poorly coordinated exchanges. The reverse
was true of mother-infant dyads in which the infant
was highly distressed at ages 3 and 9 months (also see
Matheny, 1986). Thus, it was predicted that the rela-
tion between PNRs and school-aged childrens nega-
tive emotionality would be bidirectional over time.
Moreover, because childrens externalizing nega-
tive emotions (e.g., anger, hostility) are likely to be
more aversive and worrisome to parents than are
childrens internalizing negative emotions, relations
of parent-reported PNRs with childrens negative
emotionality were expected to be more consistent for
childrens externalizing than internalizing negative
emotions.
The third goal of the present study was to examine
interindividual consistency over time in parents re-
ports of various reactions to childrens negative emo-
tions, as well as change in mean levels of parents re-
ports of their reactions. Parents reported reactions
were expected to be relatively consistent over time
516 Child Development
due to consistencies in their own philosophies about
emotions, in their emotion-related temperamental or
personality characteristics, and in childrens temper-
amentally based emotionality, which could serve to
elicit consistent parental responding (Murphy, Eisen-
berg, Fabes, Shepard, & Guthrie, 1998; Plomin &
Stocker, 1989). Parents beliefs about their own reac-
tions likely are more consistent than their actual be-
havior; nonetheless, consistency in parental beliefs
about their own child rearing reactions probably is re-
lated to consistency in actual behavior.
We were not sure what to hypothesize in regard to
changes in mean level of parental negative reactions
with age of the child. On the one hand, it is possible
that parents negative reactions become less negative
or less frequent in occurrence as children become
more regulated, especially when moving from the
preschool into the elementary school years. Parents in
this sample reported that their children displayed
somewhat less negative emotionality with age in the
elementary school years (Murphy et al., in press);
thus, it was reasonable to hypothesize that parental
nonsupportive/negative reactions decline in fre-
quency as children age. On the other hand, parents
may feel that with age it is increasingly important for
children to regulate their negative emotions and, con-
sequently, parents may become less tolerant of nega-
tive emotional reactions as children develop. In either
case, early adolescence may be a time in which paren-
tal reactions become somewhat more negative due to
increases in both negative conflictual exchanges be-
tween parents and children (Collins, 1990) and chil-
drens negative emotionality (Larson & Richards,
1991; Murphy et al., 1998). Thus, a quadratic pattern
of change was predicted such that PNRs were ex-
pected to decrease with age in middle childhood
and then start to increase as children move into pre-
and early adolescence.
Although gender differences generally were not
predicted, one reasonable possibility was that the pat-
terns of relations would differ for fathers reports of
boys and girl problem behavior in late childhood.
When children were 68 and 810 years old, relations
of negative emotionality and regulation with father-
reported problem behaviors held primarily for boys
(whereas relations were found for both sexes for
mothers reports of problem behavior; Eisenberg et
al., 1995, 1997). It is possible that boys externalizing
negative emotion and unregulated behavior are more
overt or evocative for adults than are girls. Moreover,
fathers may be more concerned about, or restrictive
with, sons than daughters behavior (Power & Shanks,
1989; Rothbart & Maccoby, 1966). In addition, in anal-
yses with this sample at a younger age, negative emo-
tionality sometimes predicted negative outcomes for
boys but not girls (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy,
Karbon, et al., 1996). Thus, sex differences were exam-
ined in some analyses.
METHOD
Participants. Participants were involved in a longi-
tudinal study that included five assessments, two of
which were close in time and combined (see Eisen-
berg, Fabes, Nyman, Bernzweig, & Pinuelas, 1994;
Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997; Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994).
The initial sample of 94 children was studied for two
consecutive semesters (henceforth called T1 and T2)
when in preschool or kindergarten (the kindergarten
was at a preschool; see Eisenberg, Fabes, Nyman, et
al. 1994). The first follow-up was 2 years after the be-
ginning of T1 (henceforth called T3); at this time the
sample included 82 kindergarten to second grade
children. The families were followed up again 2 and 4
years later (at T4 and T5). At T4, participants were 77
children (36 girls, 41 boys). Sixty-five came to the lab-
oratory; data were obtained by mail from teachers
and parents for 12 more children (5 girls, 7 boys). At
T5, all data were obtained by mail from either parents
(61) or teachers (59) on 64 children (33 girls, 31 boys).
Only children with parental reports of socializa-
tion of negative emotion could be included in the
analyses in the present study. Numbers of children
with these data were 79 at T1/T2 and T3 (37 girls, 42
boys), 71 at T4 (34 girls, 37 boys), and 58 at T5 (31
girls, 27 boys). Parental reports of their reactions to
childrens negative emotions were available for at
least one time period for 90 children (44 girls, 46
boys). Mean ages for children with the focal paren-
tal reactions measure were 58 months at T1/T2
(halfway through; SD 5 7), 88 months at T3 (SD 5
7), 107 months at T4 (SD 5 7), and 132 months at T5
(SD 5 7). The age range of the children at each time
period was approximately 2 years, although there
were relatively few children at the extremes in
terms of age.
The children participating were predominantly
Caucasian. For example, the sample of 79 children
with parental data on reactions at T1/T2 was 89%
Caucasian; 3% black, 4% of Asian heritage, 1% His-
panic, and 3% of mixed origin. Mean numbers of
years of maternal and paternal education at each of
the time periods were approximately 16.5 (the range
of Ms across the four time periods was 16.46 to 17.12)
and 17.5 years (the range of Ms across time periods
was 17.65 to 17.69), respectively. Family income
ranged from $15,000 to $200,000 (M 5 $70,000, SD 5

$37,000) at the first assessment, and from $12,000 to
$200,000 (M 5 $80,000; SD 5 $31,000) at the last as-
sessment (see Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997, for more in-
formation on the sample at T3 and T4).1
Procedure
As discussed previously, the first data collection
for this sample took place over two academic semes-
ters (T1 and T2); this data collection preceded later as-
sessments by 2 (T3), 4 (T4), and 6 (T5) years. Measures
of social functioning, regulation, and negative emo-
tionality were obtained at all time periods. However,
because relations between anger behavior or regula-
tion and parental reactions at T1/T2 were reported pre-
viously (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994), and the measures of
regulation, social functioning, and negative emotion-
ality differed somewhat between T1/T2 and later as-
sessments, analyses of the variables of regulation and
negative emotionality in the present study involved
primarily T3, T4, and T5 data. T1/T2 data were used
only in correlations of T1/T2 parental reactions data
with problem behaviors at older ages, in correlational
analyses of T2 internalizing negative emotion with
parental reactions scores, and when examining con-
sistency in PNRs over time.
At T1/T2, parent reporters were mothers. At T3
and T4, mothers usually completed the questionnaire
measure of PNRs and the measures of childrens neg-
ative emotionality, regulation, and problem behavior
(see Eisenberg et al., 1995, for more detail about T3).
However, at T3 and T4, two and one fathers, respec-
tively, completed the entire packet of measures. At T5,
questionnaires were mailed to all families and teach-
ers (with parental permission); all parent respon-
dents except five who provided data on regulation,
emotionality, and PNRs were mothers. Father data
were kept in the sample because the few fathers who
responded generally were the primary care-givers
(we obtained mothers reports if they were the pri-
mary care-giving parent but did not come to the lab-
oratory).2 At T3, T4, and T5, both parents were asked
to provide data on problem behaviors, even if they
1 T-tests were used to compare study participants who had
parental reactions measures at T5 with those who did not (i.e.,
had dropped from the sample or had missing data on the target
parent reactions measure) on all of the major variables used in
the analyses. There were no significant differences, although
children without data at T5 were marginally higher on teacher-
reported internalizing negative emotion at T4, p , .08.
2 T-tests were used to compare the five fathers respondents
with mother respondents at T5 on all variables. All ts were less
than .84 with the exception that the t for parental minimizing
was 1.62, ns. Thus, these fathers did not seem to differ from the
mother respondents.
Eisenberg et al. 517
provided no other data. Teacher questionnaires per-
taining to childrens socially appropriate behavior
and problem behavior were sent out near the end of
the semester at T3, T4, and T5.
Measures
Parents Reactions to Childrens Negative Emotions
In the present study, parents reports of their nega-
tive reactions to childrens negative emotion were ob-
tained. Parents reports, rather than observational
data, were used because it would be quite difficult to
obtain sufficient observations of real-life PNRs (espe-
cially for families who had moved away). Parental re-
actions to negative emotions probably are expressed
relatively infrequently, especially in response to emo-
tions besides anger and when family members are be-
ing observed. Self-report measures of parental social-
ization appear to be most valid when parents are
asked to respond to questions about their behavior in
specific situations (Holden & Edwards, 1989). This
was the format of the questionnaire measure used in
this study.
Parental reactions to their childrens negative emo-
tion were assessed with the Coping with Childrens
Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES; Fabes, Eisenberg,
& Bernzweig, 1990; see also Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994;
Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996). Parents (usually
mothers) were presented with 12 typical situations in
which children are described as experiencing distress
and negative affect (e.g., being scared of injections,
being nervous about possibly embarrassing him/
herself in public). All situations involved relatively
normative expressions of negative emotion for chil-
dren aged 4 to 12; only one vignette pertained to anger
(about being sick and unable to go to a party). For
each situation, parents were asked to indicate how
likely (on a 7-point scale from very unlikely to very
likely) they would be to react in each of six different
ways. The three types of responses included in this
study are as follows (alpha coefficients are in paren-
theses): (1) parental distress reactions, reflecting the de-
gree to which parents experience negative emotion
when children express negative affect (e.g., feel upset
and uncomfortable because of my childs reaction;
NOT be annoyed with my child for being rude [re-
verse coded]; .79, .79, .77, and .73 for T1/T2, T3, T4,
and T5, respectively), (2) punitive responses, indicating
the degree to which parents respond with punitive re-
actions that decrease their exposure or need to deal
with the negative emotions of their children (tell my
child that if he/she starts crying then shell have to go
to her room right away; .78, .75, .68, and .71), and (3)
518 Child Development
minimization responses, reflecting the degree to which
parents minimize the seriousness of the situation or
devalue the childs problem or distressed reaction
(e.g., tell my child that he/she is overreacting; .86,
.83, .72, and .83). Although parental distress reactions
are not always observed by children, over time it is
likely that children sometimes observe or intuit their
parents negative emotion; thus, parental distressed/
upset reactions can be expected to have some impact
on children. Items in the scales were averaged.
The CCNES scales used in this study have been
found to have good internal and test-retest reliability
(Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994; Eisenberg, Fabes, & Mur-
phy, 1996). Additionally, in regard to concurrent and
construct validity, the negative responses scales of the
CCNES have been found to correlate in the predicted
manner with other conceptually relevant indexes.
Specifically, nonsupportive parental reactions were
inversely related to parental empathy, and positively
related to measures of personal distress, parental anger,
harsh parental control, and parental control of emo-
tions, usually at r 5 .30 or higher (Poulin, 1997). Fur-
thermore, scores on this questionnaire have been re-
lated to measures of quality of social functioning in
prior research (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1994; Eisenberg,
Fabes, Carlo, & Karbon, 1992; Eisenberg, Fabes, &
Murphy, 1996).
Quality of Social Functioning
Parents. Mothers and fathers completed the Loch-
man et al. (1995) Child Problem Behavior Checklist.
All 24 items except one pertaining to setting fires
were included (e.g., teases other children, breaks
things on purpose, defiant toward adults). Items
were rated on a 4-point scale (1 5 never to 4 5 often).
Alphas for mothers and fathers were .86 and .87 at T3,
.91 and .90 at T4, and .91 and .91 at T5.
Teachers. Teachers reports of social functioning
pertained to socially appropriate, aggressive, or dis-
ruptive behavior. These behaviors were chosen be-
cause they seemed most likely to depend on childrens
regulation of emotion.
To assess childrens socially appropriate behavior,
teachers completed four items (e.g., This child is
usually well-behaved versus This child is not well-
behaved) using a 4-point response scale (i.e., se-
lected a statement and then indicated if the item was
really true or sort of true; as 5 .76, .84, and .86 at
T3, T4, and T5; see Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997).
At T3, T4, and T5, teachers completed subscales
from Coie, Terry, Dodge, and Underwoods (1993)
Teacher Checklist, including disruptive behavior (This
child bothers others kids when they are trying to
work; eight items, as 5 .90, .85, and .89 at T3, T4, and
T5), and aggression (This child says mean things to
peers, such as teasing or name calling; eight items,
as 5 .93, .94, and .90 at T3, T4, and T5). Items were
rated from 1 5 never to 7 5 almost always. Given
that the aggression and disruptive subscales were
highly intercorrelated (rs ranged from .69 .82), es-
pecially at T5, they were standardized and aver-
aged at each assessment.
The aggression/disruptive behavior composite
was highly negatively correlated with the index of so-
cially appropriate behavior at T3, T4, and T5 (rs 5 .76,
ps , .001, at all times). To further reduce the data,
standardized scores for aggression/disruptive be-
havior were subtracted from those for socially appro-
priate behavior to construct an aggregate index of so-
cial functioning. This score was used in all analyses.
Dispositional Negative Emotionality
Internalizing negative emotion. At T2, teachers and
mothers (all respondents were mothers at T2) rated
childrens emotional intensity with eight items adapted
from Larsen and Dieners (1987) Affective Intensity
Measure. Two items pertained primarily to internaliz-
ing emotions (This [my] child tends to get nervous,
tense, or distressed easily and When this [my] child
feels anxiety, it normally is very strong; rated from
1 5 never to 7 5 always). Frequency of negative emo-
tionality was assessed with items adapted from
Derryberry and Rothbarts (1988) scale pertaining to
autonomic reactivity (four items; e.g., This [my] childs
palms usually sweat during an important event.),
sadness (five items; e.g., This [my] child rarely feels
sad, even when things are not going well for him/
her.), and fear (five items; e.g., This [my] child often
worries about things that turn out to be unimpor-
tant.) These 16 internalizing items were combined
into an internalizing scale (as 5 .90 for teachers and
.74 for mothers).
At T3, T4, and T5, teachers and parents rated chil-
drens emotional intensity with eight items adapted
from Larsen and Diener (1987). Two items pertained
primarily to internalizing emotion (When this [my]
child gets nervous or distressed, he/she gets very
nervous/upset and When this [my] child feels anx-
iety, it normally is very strong; rated from 1 5 never
to 7 5 always). In addition, adults reported on chil-
drens dispositional affectivity with 15 items slightly
modified from the PANAS (Positive and Negative Af-
fect Schedule; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Re-
spondents were asked to report how this (your) child
feels on the average (1 5 very slightly or not at all, to
5 5 extremely). Childrens dispositional internalizing

negative emotion was assessed using six emotions
(afraid, nervous, scared, jittery, sad, and distressed).
Because the emotional intensity and PANAS items
were rated on different scales, each item was stan-
dardized and then the eight items were combined
into a single internalizing scale. Alphas for teachers
and parents were .86 and .85 at T3; .88 and .83 at T4;
and .83 and .80 at T5.
Externalizing negative emotion. At T3, T4, and T5,
teachers and parents reports of childrens externaliz-
ing negative emotion were assessed with one item
from the emotional intensity scale (When this [my]
child gets angry, it is easy for him/her to still be ratio-
nale and not overreact.) and three items from the
PANAS (hostile, irritable, and angry). These items
were reversed when appropriate, standardized, and
averaged (as 5 .85, .93, and .76 at T3, T4, and T5 for
teachers and .75, .80, and .82 for parents).
Regulation
Parental report data on childrens regulation at T3,
T4, and T5 were used in the structural equation mod-
els (SEMs). In earlier work with this data set, compos-
ites of regulation were formed based on correlations
and factor analyses (Eisenberg et al., 1995, 1997); these
composites were used in the present study and are
described briefly.
For parents, the regulation composite included at-
tention focusing and several measures of behavioral
regulation. As is discussed later, teachers reports of
regulation did not correlate with PNRs and, thus,
were not tested as mediators in the SEMs. Hence, they
are not presented in the method (see Eisenberg et al.,
1995, for information on teacher-reported regulation).
Only as not presented in Eisenberg et al. (1995) are
provided below.
At T3, T4, and T5, parents rated childrens attention
focusing on a 7-point scale (from 1 5 extremely untrue
to 7 5 extremely true) with 10 items from the CBQ
(Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994; e.g., Has difficulty
leaving a project he/she has begun, as 5 .72 and .75 at
T4 and T5; see Eisenberg et al., 1995, for T3 as).
To assess aspects of behavioral regulation, at T3,
T4, and T5 parents also were administered the follow-
ing 13-item subscales of the CBQ (see Eisenberg et al.,
1995, for T3 alphas): impulsivity (e.g, Usually rushes
into an activity without thinking about it; as 5 .83 at
both T4 and T5), and inhibition control (e.g., Can wait
before entering into new activities if he/she is asked
to; as 5 .79 and .77 at T4 and T5). In addition, at T3,
T4, and T5, parents rated childrens self-control using
22 items from Kendall and Wilcoxs (1979) 33-item
Self-Control Rating Scale (the entire scale was not
Eisenberg et al. 519
used to reduce the burden on mothers). Items were
rated on a 7-point scale. To create a purer scale of be-
havioral regulation, items concerning misbehavior
(e.g., breaking rules), clearly negative behaviors in
peer interaction (e.g., disrupting games), and aca-
demic performance were dropped. The remaining 11
items pertained to childrens ability to inhibit behav-
ior (e.g., Does your child think before he or she
acts?, Does your child sit still?), although a few
items could pertain to attentional control (as at T4
and T5 5 .84).
As described in Eisenberg et al. (1995, 1997), paren-
tal measures of behavioral inhibition, impulsivity (re-
versed), attention focusing, and self-control grouped
together in principle components factor analyses
with a varimax rotation at T3, T4, and T5, and were
averaged (after standardizing). (Attention shifting
was not used in the parental regulation composite be-
cause it did not factor with the other indexes of regu-
lation [see Eisenberg et al., 1995].)
RESULTS
Consistency of Reported Parental Reactions
Across Time
Consistency of parental reactions across time
was examined with correlational analyses. Because
fathers occasionally supplied these data, reporters
occasionally varied across time, which would be
expected to lower consistency slightly. Age at the
time of assessment (within each time period) was
not significantly related to any of the variables in
the study; thus, it was not considered further in any
analyses.
There was considerable consistency in reported re-
actions across time, even over a 6-year period. Corre-
lations for parental reactions ranged from .33 to .75,
with all correlations significant at p , .01 or better
(see Table 1).
Sex Differences and Changes with Age
Two (sex) 3 4 (time of assessment) repeated mea-
sures multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs)
were used to examine sex differences and change in
parents reported practices over time. None of the ef-
fects involving sex approached significance. The multi-
variate F was at least marginally significant (at p ,
.061 or better) for the effect of time for minimizing
and parental distress, Fs(3, 47) 5 2.63 and 6.58, ps ,
.001 and .061, as well as punitive responses, F(3, 46) 5
5.69, p , .002. According to univariate analyses, dis-
tress and punitive reactions increased linearly with
520 Child Development

Table 1 Correlations and Trends Across Time for Parental Reactions

Time Periods
Type of
Reaction T1/T2T3 T3T4 T4T5 T1/T2T4 T3T5 T1/T2T5 Trends

Punitive .33** .45*** .61*** .49*** .65*** .42** Lin I; Cubic

Minimizing .35** .59*** .41** .44*** .55*** .41*** Quad
Parental distress .58*** .66*** .70*** .59*** .75*** .68*** Lin I

Note: Lin I 5 an increasing linear trend over time, Quad 5 quadratic trend, Cubic 5 a cubic
trend.
* p , .05; ** p , .01; *** p , .001.

age, Fs(1, 49; 1, 48) 5 17.50 and 11.13, ps , .001 and Relations of Parental Reactions to Adults Reports
.002, respectively (see means in Table 2). There also of Internalizing and Externalizing Emotion
was a cubic effect for punitive reactions, F(1, 48) 5
To determine if childrens negative emotionality
9.41, p , .004. Reports of punitive responses in-
was related to parents reported reactions, parents re-
creased from ages 46 to 68; dropped somewhat
ports of reactions to childrens negative emotion first
from 68 to 810; and then increased again from ages
were correlated with parents and teachers reports of
810 to 1012.
childrens internalizing and externalizing emotion
Only a quadratic effect was obtained for minimiz-
(the latter was assessed at only T3, T4, and T5).
ing reactions, F(1, 49) 5 5.50, p , .023. Parents re-
ported using less minimizing as children aged until
ages 810, followed by a substantial increase in min-
Correlations for Parents Reports of Childrens
imizing reactions at ages 1012. Thus, in general, pu-
Negative Emotionality
nitive and minimizing responses decreased until
sometime in mid-elementary school years; however, Externalizing emotion. There were numerous con-
as children entered pre-adolescence, nonsupportive current and across-time relations between parental
parenting reactions increased. Moreover, parental reactions and parental reports of negative emotion. In
distress reactions increased with the age of the child. regard to externalizing negative emotion, the correla-

Table 2 Means and Standard Deviations for the Major Variables

Variable T1/T2 T3 T4 T5

Parental reactionsa
Punitive 1.77 (.63) 2.02 (.64) 1.92 (.54) 2.16 (.70)
Minimizing 2.22 (.91) 2.14 (.76) 2.11 (.62) 2.36 (.90)
Distress 2.48 (.64) 2.84 (.78) 2.80 (.82) 2.96 (.82)
Social functioning
Problem behavior (M)b 2.11 (.36) 2.04 (.42) 2.00 (.42)
Problem behavior (F)b 2.01 (.34) 1.98 (.38) 1.96 (.42)
Social functioning (T)c .03 (1.82) .06 (1.84) .00 (1.80)
Child emotionalityd
Internalizing (P) 2.03 (.46) 2.01 (.72) .00 (.68) .02 (.70)
Internalizing (T) 2.03 (.64) 2.01 (.72) .04 (.74) .02 (.70)
Externalizing (P) 2.03 (.75) .00 (.79) 2.01 (.82)
Externalizing (T) .00 (.85) .03 (.84) .01 (.78)
Regulation (P) .01 (.80) .00 (.84) 2.02 (.82)

Note: M 5 maternal report, F 5 paternal report, P 5 primary care givers report (usually
mothers), T 5 teacher report.
a Scores ranged from 1 to 7.
b Scores ranged from 1 to 4.
c Scores were ratings for aggression and disruptive behavior (standardized and averaged)

minus scores for socially appropriate behavior (standardized).

d Scores were composed of individual items, standardized within the total sample at each time

period, averaged together.

 Eisenberg et al. 521

Table 3 Relations of Parental Reactions to Parental Ratings of tion and minimizing reactions for the total sample.
Externalizing and Internalizing Emotion Although correlations for boys and girls were signifi-
Parental Externalizing Emotion cantly different in only two cases (probably due in
Reaction part to small sample sizes), it should be noted that for
and Age T3 T4 T5 boys only, reported externalizing emotion at T4 was
positively related to minimizing at T3, T4, and T5,
Punitive rs(32, 35, 25) 5 .35, .32, and .41, ps , .04, .053, and .037.
46 (T1/T2) .231 .221 .21
68 (T3) .17 .11a .29*
Moreover, boys externalizing emotion and parental
810 (T4) .28* .20*b .47*** minimizing at T5 were correlated, r(25) 5 .46, p ,
1012 (T5) .241 .21c .49***d .016. Thus, there was some relation between parental
Minimizing reports of externalizing emotion and minimizing, but
46 (T1/T2) .25* .231 .231 primarily for boys, and this relation was less consis-
68 (T3) .09 .08e .00 tent than for punitive or distress reactions.
810 (T4) .16 .11 .211
Internalizing emotion. In regard to parental reports
1012 (T5) .10 .03f .241
of internalizing emotion, parental reports of dis-
Distress
46 (T1/T2) .00 .10 .231
tressed (including upset) reactions and childrens in-
68 (T3) .16 .231 .35** ternalizing emotion generally were positively related
810 (T4) .24* .25* .41*** both concurrently and across time (see Table 3). In
1012 (T5) .231 .32* .51*** contrast, there were no significant correlations be-
tween internalizing emotion and either punitive or
Internalizing Emotion
minimizing reactions for the total sample. However,
T1/T2 T3 T4 T5 for girls, reported internalizing negative emotion at
Distress T3 was significantly positively related to parental pu-
46 (T1/T2) .34** .201 .221 .31* nitive reactions at T4 and T5, rs(32, 29) 5 .35 and .37,
68 (T3) 2.02 .27* .31** .231
ps , .045 and .041, and internalizing emotion at T5
810 (T4) .26* .34* .25* .221g
1012 (T5) .18 .241 .30* .33** was positively related to punitive reactions at T4,
r(28) 5 .38, p , .041. Correlations were not significant
a The correlations for boys, r(35) 5 .33, p , .049, was marginally for boys (and the sex difference in the correlations was
significantly larger than that for girls, r(31) 5 2.12, ns, z 5 1.85, significant for the relation between T3 internalizing
p , .10. emotion and T5 punitive reactions, z 5 2.01, p , .05).
b The correlation for boys, r(35) 5 .44, p , .006, was marginally sig-

nificantly larger than that for girls, r(32) 5 .04, ns, z 5 1.76, p , .10.
c The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .46, p , .006, was marginally sig-
nificantly larger than that for girls, r(27) 5 2.05, ns, z 5 1.93, p , .10.
d The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .67, p , .001, was marginally
significantly different than that for girls, r(29) 5 .31, p , .09, z 5
1.76, p , .10.
e The correlation for boys, r(35) 5 .32. p , .053, was significantly
different than that for girls, r(39) 5 2.16, ns, z 5 1.96, p , .05.
f The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .40. p , .037, was significantly
different than that for girls, r(27) 5 2.28, ns, z 5 2.51, p , .05.
g The correlations for boys, r(27) 5 2.02, ns, was marginally sig-
nificantly smaller than that for girls, r(28) 5 .47, p , .008, z 5
1.93, p , .10.
1 p , .10; * p , .05; ** p , .01.
tions were primarily for parental punitive (especially
for boys) and distress reactions (see Table 3), although
the numbers of correlations that were at least margin-
ally significant were greater than chance even for min-
imizing reactions. For the punitive and distress reac-
tions, the pattern of positive associations appeared to
become somewhat more consistent with age.
In contrast, there were fewer significant correla-
tions between parental reports of externalizing emo-
Correlations for Teachers Reports of Childrens
Negative Emotionality
There were relatively few findings for teacher-
reported negative emotion, although those that were
significant generally were consistent with expectations.
Externalizing emotion. Teacher-reported externaliz-
ing negative emotion at T3 was positively related to
punitive reactions at T4 and T5, rs(67, 54) 5 .26 and
.29, ps , .03, and T4 externalizing emotion predicted
T5 punitive reactions, r(55) 5 .27, p , .042. Given
that 12 correlations were computed between teacher-
reported externalizing emotion and parental punitive
reactions, the number of significant correlations was
more than would be expected by chance. This pattern
of relations was consistent with the possibility of child
externalizing emotion eliciting parental punitiveness.
Teachers reports of externalizing behavior were
not significantly related to parental minimizing reac-
tions for the total sample, although for boys, T3 and
T4 reports of externalizing were associated with
parental minimizing at T5 and T3, respectively,
rs(24, 36) 5 .39 and .40, ps , .05 and .014. Even
522 Child Development
though these correlations are consistent with those
for parent-reports of externalizing emotion, they may
be chance findings. Moreover, teachers reports of ex-
ternalizing emotion at T4 were positively correlated
at p , .06 or better with parental report of distress at
T3 and T5, rs(71, 55) 5 .22 and .28, ps , .058 and .032
(.7 correlations would be expected to be significant by
chance at p , .06 or better).
Internalizing emotion. There were relatively few
significant correlations between teacher-reported in-
ternalizing emotion and parental punitive and dis-
tress reactions. T4 reports of internalizing emotion
were positively correlated with T5 punitive parental
reactions for the total sample, r(55) 5 .30, p , .024 (as
well as with T4 punitive reactions for boys only,
r(33) 5 .34, p , .049). The only significant correlation
for parental distress reactions was between internal-
izing emotion at T3 and parental distress at T5, r(54) 5
.27, p , .047. These findings may be due to chance.
A few more findings were obtained for parental
minimizing reactions, although the pattern of find-
ings was mixed and relations held primarily for boys.
For the total sample, a positive correlation was ob-
tained between T4 internalizing emotion and T5 pa-
rental minimizing, r(55) 5 .36, p , .005. However, a
negative correlation was found between T1/T2 pa-
rental minimizing reactions and T1/2 and T5 inter-
nalizing emotion, rs(76, 51) 5 2.22 and 2.29, ps ,
.033 and .053. For boys, although the relation between
T1/T2 internalizing emotion and minimizing was neg-
ative, r(39) 5 2.35, p , .024, T4 teacher-reported inter-
nalizing emotion was positively related to parental
minimizing reactions at T3, T4, and T5, rs(36, 34, 26) 5
.45, .38, and .52, ps , .005, .021, and .006. None of
these correlations was significant for girls, although
T3 internalizing emotion was positively related with
girls T4 minimizing, r(31) 5 .44, p , .01. Thus, there
was some evidence that by mid- to late elementary
school, internalizing emotion was associated with pa-
rental minimizing over a period of time, but primarily
for boys. However, minimizing reactions when the
children were young seemed to be linked to low inter-
nalizing. Although more findings were significant
than would be expected by chance, the findings on
parental minimizing and childrens internalizing emo-
tion should be interpreted with caution until replicated.
Structural Equation Modeling Analyses
Bentlers (1989) EQS structural equation modeling
program was used to examine the direction of the re-
lations over time between childrens negative emo-
tionality and parental reactions to childrens negative
emotion. Although structural equation modeling
(SEM) can only test the plausibility of specific causal
relations over time (and cannot prove causality), SEM
can be used to indicate whether the pattern of rela-
tions in a given data set supports one set of causal re-
lations versus another, or bidirectionality of relations.
Ideally, all the variables in the study would be tested
in a single model but we could not do so due to the
relatively small sample size.
Models were tested only when there were numer-
ous correlations between childrens negative emo-
tionality and a given parental reaction. Thus, models
were tested for the relations of parent-reported exter-
nalizing negative emotion with parental punitive and
distress reactions, as well as for the relation between
parental reports of childrens internalizing negative
emotion and parental distress reactions. No models
were computed for (1) relations of parental minimiz-
ing reactions with parental reports of externalizing or
internalizing emotion, or (2) teachers reports of chil-
drens negative emotions. For these sets of data, cor-
relations were limited in number and tended to be
confined to a few time periods or one sex.
In the three models that were tested, paths from
PNRs to negative emotion at the next assessment
were included, as were paths from negative emotion-
ality to PNRs at the next assessment (see Figure 1).
Data from T3, T4, and T5 were included. Data from
T1/T2 were not for two reasons: (1) externalizing
negative emotion was not assessed at T1/T2, and (2)
the measure of internalizing negative emotion at T1/
T2 differed from those at later assessments. In addi-
tion to the cross-lagged effects, contemporaneous re-
lations between PNRs and childrens negative emo-
tionality were included in the model at the time points
where they could be an alternative to prediction from
cross-lagged effects.
Composite scale scores of parental socialization
and child emotionality were used as indicators of the
latent constructs in the analyses. Thus, there were
single indicators of each construct at each time period
(i.e., the scales for parental punitive, minimizing, or
parental distress was used, as well as the scales of child
internalizing or externalizing emotion at each time
period). Errors for the indicators and the latent con-
structs were estimated by the program. In all the
models, paths between negative emotion from T3 to
T4 and from T4 to T5 (as well as their error terms) ini-
tially were constrained to be equal (i.e., the same), as
were the analogous across time paths for PNRs.
Moreover, the measurement errors for measures of a
given construct (i.e., PNR or negative emotionality)
were constrained to be equal at all three assessments
(this is typical of a Markov longitudinal model). The
contemporaneous correlations between PNRs and
 Eisenberg et al. 523

Figure 1 Relation of parental punitive and distress reactions to parents reports of externalizing emotion: Dots represent hypoth-
esized but nonsignificant paths. Unstandardized coefficients for punitive reactions are not in parentheses; unstandardized coef-
ficients for parental distress are in parentheses. Values on curved lines with double-headed arrows are unstandardized covari-
ances between the two connected constructs. Numbers in the circles are ages in years. p , .10; *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

childrens emotionality at T4 and T5 also were con-
strained to be equal to one another.3 LaGrange Multi-
plier Tests for releasing constraints were examined to
determine if these constraints should be removed and
they were not problematic.
It should be noted from the onset that a model such
as this is a very stringent test of the across time (cross
lagged) relations between PNRs and child negative
emotionality. Any across time relation between PNR
and child negative emotion (or vice versa) must hold
even when the effects of consistency over time in each
construct are taken into account. Moreover, cross-
lagged effects are, in a sense, pitted against contem-
3 T3 punitive reactions were not significantly correlated with
T3 externalizing negative emotion, although T3 distress reac-
tions were positively correlated with T3 internalizing emotion.
Because adding the correlation between parental negative PNRs
and child negative emotion sometimes resulted in obviously er-
roneous results (e.g., reversal of positive relations of a construct
over time) or the model would fail to converge in 30 iterations,
the T3 contemporaneous correlation was fixed at 0 if it did not
approach significance. However, because T3 internalizing nega-
tive emotion was significantly correlated related to parental dis-
tress reactions at T3, the T3 contemporaneous correlation was
included in the model for internalizing emotion.
poraneous correlations between PNRs and child neg-
ative emotionality in the model. Especially given the
relatively small sample size in this study, it is difficult
for cross-lagged paths to obtain statistical significance.
For externalizing negative emotionality, the mod-
els for both parental punitive and distress reactions fit
well, x2s(2, N 5 31) 5 5.15 and 3.64, ps , .08 and .16,
CFIs (comparative fit index) 5 .973 and .988. As can
be seen in Figure 1, in general, PNRs were predicted
by PNRs at the prior assessment whereas childrens
externalizing emotion similarly was predicted by
such emotion 2 years earlier. This pattern was to be
expected given the relatively strong consistency of
ratings of PNRs and childrens emotionality over
time. Moreover, childrens externalizing negative
emotion at ages 68 predicted parental punitive reac-
tions at ages 810, and parental report of punitive re-
actions at T4 (ages 810) predicted externalizing emo-
tion at T5 (ages 1012). Thus, punitive parental
reactions and children externalizing negative emotion
appeared to influence one another across time. For
parental distress reactions, there also was a marginally
significant path from externalizing negative emotion
at ages 68 to parental distress reactions at ages 810;
524 Child Development
however, the path from parental reactions to external-
izing emotion was not significant. It is not surprising
that the R2s in the models were high given the fact
that each construct was predicted by multiple vari-
ables, including the same construct at an earlier period,
and most of the data came from the same reporter.4
A similar model with the same constraints was
tested for the relation between parental reports of
childrens internalizing negative emotion and paren-
tal distress reactions (except the correlation between
internalizing emotion and parental distress was in-
cluded at ages 68 because the zero-order correlation
was significant). This model would not produce rea-
sonable values with all paths in it (e.g., the path from
parental distress at T3 to T4 became significant and
negative). Even without the contemporaneous corre-
lations, the model did not fit until, based on the Wald
Test statistic (which indicates paths that could be
dropped), the path from T4 internalizing emotion to
T5 parental distress was dropped, x2(3, N 5 51) 5
5.29, p , .14, CFI 5 .98. Even then, however, there was
no evidence of significant cross-lag correlations; the
only paths that were significant were those paths
within a construct over time (i.e., prior parental dis-
tress predicted parental distress two years later and
prior child internalizing predicted later internaliz-
ing). Thus, there was no evidence that the two con-
structs causally affected one another in the longitudi-
nal model, even though parental distress and childrens
internalizing negative emotion often were signifi-
cantly correlated within and across time.
Relations of Parental Reactions to Social Functioning
The relations of PNRs with parental reports of
problem behavior and teachers reports of socially ap-
propriate behavior versus aggressive/disruptive be-
havior (henceforth labeled socially appropriate behav-
ior) initially were examined with correlational analyses.
In all cases, the numbers of correlations that were sig-
nificant or marginally significant were considerably
greater than would be expected by chance. If numer-
ous correlations were obtained, SEM was used to ex-
amine whether regulation may have mediated the re-
4 Occasionally the program would not compute the R2 for a
construct because the disturbance (error for a latent construct)
had been set to 0 by the program. In these cases, the disturbance
was estimated with the value of the same construct 2 years be-
fore or after. Then the program was rerun to ascertain that the
path values were highly similar to the run in which the program
estimated the disturbance. Assuming this was the case, the R2
value (but not the path coefficients) was taken from program
output in which the disturbance was estimated in the aforemen-
tioned manner.
lation of PNRs to parental report of problem behavior
(or vice versa).
Parents Reports of Problem Behavior
Correlations. As presented in Table 4, parental re-
ports of punitive reactions generally were positively
related to mothers reports of problem behavior. In
addition, they were positively correlated with fa-
thers reports of problem behavior, particularly at
older ages and for boys. Parental reports of distress
reactions also tended to be associated with both
mothers and fathers reports of problem behavior, al-
beit primarily for problem behaviors reported at ages
810 and older.
There were relatively few significant correlations
for parental minimizing reactions, albeit more than
would be expected by chance. Parental reports of
minimizing reactions at ages 46 (all reports were
from mothers) often predicted mothers and fathers
reports of problem behavior at later assessments.
Moreover, reports of minimizing at ages 1012 were
associated with fathers reports of boys problem be-
haviors, concurrently and at T3. There were no signif-
icant relations between minimizing reactions at T3 or
T4 and problem behavior.
SEM with parental reports of problem behavior. The
general structure of the models tested can be seen in
Figure 2. As for the models for negative emotionality,
data from T3, T4, and T5 were used in the analyses.
Single indicators of each latent construct were avail-
able. Cross-lagged paths were included between the
given PNR and childrens regulation, and contempo-
raneous correlations between parental PNRs and chil-
drens regulation were included at the times being
predicted (i.e., T4 and T5; contemporaneous correla-
tions were not significant at T3 and did not compete
with the cross-lagged paths). Moreover, T5 PNR (pu-
nitive or distress) and regulation were predictors of
T5 mother- or father-reported problem behavior. T3
mother-reported problem behavior also was included
in the model to control for the effects of parents (al-
most always mothers) perceptions of problem be-
havior at ages 68 on contemporaneous perceptions
of regulation and PNRs at the youngest age in the
model, as well as to assess the relation of such percep-
tions to later problem behavior. In all models, T3 re-
ports of problem behavior were assumed to be corre-
lated with T3 PNRs or regulation (so paths for
covariation of predictors at T3 were included). Be-
cause we were interested in the relations of fathers
reports of problem behavior with PNRs reported by
mothers, different models were computed for moth-
ers and fathers reports of problem behavior at T5
 Eisenberg et al. 525

Table 4 Concurrent and Across Time Relations of Parental Reactions to Maternal and
Paternal Report of Childrens Problem Behavior: Zero-Order and Partial Correlations

Report of Problem Behavior

Age 6 8 (T3) Age 810 (T4) Age 1012 (T5)

Type of Parental
Reaction Mother Father Mother Father Mother Father

Punitive
46 (T1/T2) .29* .14 .35**a .07 .241 .17
68 (T3) .23* .02 .13 .11 .35** .241
8 0 (T4) .28* .07 .31** .06b .45***c .31*
1012 (T5) .21 .13d .14e .10 .41** .18f
Minimizing
46 (T1/T2) .32** .21 .42*** .30* .23 .30*
68 (T3) .09 .09 .02 .02 2.01 .08
8 10 (T4) .06 .02 .12 .06 .231 .19
10 12 (T5) .21 .14g .04h .04 .13 .17i
Parental distress
46 (T1/T2) .15 .26* .221 .29* .18 .34*
68 (T3) .25* .32* .29* .42*** .40** .38**
810 (T4) .14 .21 .33** .31* .53*** .34*
1012 (T5) .21 .20 .29* .38** .39** .33*

a The correlation for boys, r(32) 5 .50, p , .002, was greater than that for girls, r(26) 5 .02, ns,
z 5 1.99, p , .05.
b The correlation for boys, r(32) 5 .29, p , .094, was marginally greater than the correlation for

girls, r(30) 5 2.14, ns, z 5 1.69, p , .10.

c The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .62, p , .001, was marginally greater than that for girls, r(25) 5

.23, ns, z 5 1.74, p , .10.

d The correlation for boys, r(21) 5 .40, p , .059, was marginally greater than that for girls, r(22) 5

2.09, p , .10.
e The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .36, p , .066, was marginally greater than that for girls, r(27) 5

2.10, ns, z 5 1.65, p , .10.

f The correlation for boys, r(23) 5 .50, p , .011, was marginally greater than that for girls,

r(25) 5 2.02, ns, z 5 1.93, p , .06.

g The correlation for boys, r(21) 5 .52, p , .011, was greater than that for girls, r(22) 5 2.05, ns,

z 5 2.00, p , .05.
h The correlation for boys, r(25) 5 .36, p , .066, was greater than that for girls, r(27) 5 2.22, ns,

z 5 2.18, p , .05.
i The correlation for boys, r(24) 5 .45, p , .02, was marginally greater than that for girls, r(25) 5

.02, ns, z 5 1.76, p , .10.

1 p , .10; * p , .05; ** p , .01; *** p , .001.

(correlations between mothers and fathers reports
ranged from .50 at T3 to .56 at T5). The same constraints
were included in these models as in the externalizing
emotionality models (in regard to constraining paths,
measurement errors, and contemporaneous correla-
tions to be the same across time). Models were tested
for parental punitive and distress reactions; they were
not computed for minimizing reactions due to the rel-
atively low numbers of correlations between such re-
actions and problem behavior at T3 and T4.
The first model was for the prediction of T5
mother-reported problem behavior from regulation
and punitive reactions (usually based on mothers re-
ports; see Methods), as well as T3 mother-reported
problem behavior; N 5 50). The initial model did not
fit well and two changes were made based on the
Wald test (which indicates paths that can be dropped)
and Lagrange Multiplier test (which provides infor-
mation on paths that would improve the model if
added) statistics. First, a path was added from T3 pu-
nitive reactions to T5 punitive reactions (see Figure 2).
In addition, the constraint that the path from T3 to T4
regulation had to be equal to the path from T4 to T5
regulation did not hold and was removed. After these
changes, the model fit well, x2(10, N 5 50) 5 14.19,
p , .17; the CFI (fit) was .983. As in previous models
(and in all other models to be presented), punitive re-
actions were predicted by earlier punitive reactions
and regulation was predicted by earlier regulation
(see Figure 2). Moreover, T3 problem behavior and
526 Child Development

Figure 2 Prediction of mother- or father-reported (for boys only) problem behavior at T5 from primary care-giving parents re-
ports of punitive reactions and regulation, as well as mothers reports of problem behavior at ages 68. Note: Dotted lines repre-
sent hypothesized paths that were nonsignificant at p . .10 for both mothers and fathers reports of problem behavior. Unstand-
ardized coefficients for mother-report of problem behavior data are not in parentheses; unstandardized coefficients for father-
report of problem behavior data at T5 for boys are in parentheses. Values on curved lines with double-headed arrows are unstand-
ardized covariances between the connected constructs. NA 5 not applicable because the path was not necessary. Ages are 6 8, 8
10, and 10 12. p , .10; *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.

regulation were significantly correlated at T3. T5
problem behavior was significantly predicted by low
regulation at T5 and by T3 problem behavior, and was
marginally, directly predicted by T5 punitive reac-
tions. Of the most interest, regulation at ages 68 pre-
dicted parental punitive reactions at ages 810, which
in turn predicted regulation at ages 1012. Thus, the
pattern was consistent with the view that there was
bidirectional causality between childrens regulation
and parental punitive reactions, and that the relation
of punitive reactions to T5 problem behavior was par-
tially mediated by childrens level of regulation (and
perhaps, to a limited degree, vice versa). Mediation
could be assumed because punitive reactions at T3
were significantly correlated with T5 problem behavior.
The same model was tested for the relation of pa-
rental punitive reactions and regulation to T5 father-
reported problem behavior (N 5 50). In this model, it
was not necessary to add a path from T3 to T5 puni-
tive reactions. The model fit, x2(11, N 5 50) 5 19.063,
p , .06, CFI 5 .96. However, in this model, only moth-
ers earlier reports of problem behavior predicted T5
problem behavior (path coefficient 5 .434, p , .05).
None of the cross-lag paths for prediction between
punitive reactions and regulation was significant.
Thus, for father-report of problem behavior at ages
1012 for the combined sample of girls and boys,
there was no evidence of cross-lagged prediction or of
PNRs predicting childrens problem behavior.
The fact that punitive reactions did not predict T5
father-reported problem behavior was to be expected
because punitive reactions predicted fathers reports
of problem behavior at T5 only for boys. Thus, the
model was recomputed using only boys in this model
(the constraint that the T3/T4 and T4/T5 paths were
equal was dropped in the prior models did not need
to be dropped in this model). Although the sample
size was small (N 5 25), the model converged and fit
well, x2(11, N 5 25) 5 14.79, p , .19, CFI 5 .978. Gen-
erally a model will not converge easily or the param-
 Eisenberg et al. 527

eter estimates are unstable or cannot be computed if
the sample is too small to test the model. With a small
sample, the x2 is affected (i.e., with a small sample, there
is low power for the x2 test). However, the CFI is not
affected much by small (or large) sample size
(Bentler, 1990) and, due to lack of power, it is more
difficult for path coefficients to attain significance in
small than large samples.
As can be seen in Figure 2, in this model, both T5 pu-
nitive reactions and mothers reports of T3 problem be-
havior positively predicted boys T5 father-reported
problem behavior. In addition, there was a significant
negative path between regulation at age 68 and puni-
tive reactions at age 810. Thus, as in the mother-report
of problem behavior model, there was evidence that
regulation affected later parental punitive reactions. Ef-
fects of regulation on problem behavior may not have
been significant because the correlation between father-
reported T5 problem behavior and regulation for the
boys in this model was not significant (the two con-
structs were significantly correlated for the sample of
both boys and girls at T5, r(38) 5 .40, p , .008).
The models for punitive reactions were then com-
puted replacing parental punitive reactions with pa-
rental distress reactions. In neither model was it nec-
essary to make the two modifications described above
in punitive reactions model for mother-reported prob-
lem behavior (i.e., adding a path from T3 to T5 dis-
tress reactions and releasing the constraint that the
two paths between measures of regulation be equal).
The fit was good for both models using the total sam-
ple of boys and girls, x2s(11, 12, Ns 5 50) 5 19.30 and
8.61, ps , .056 and .73, CFIs 5 .97 and 1.00, for
mother-report and father-report of T5 problem be-
havior models, respectively. As can be seen in Figure
3, for both mother-report and father-report of prob-
lem behavior at T5, the path from parental distress re-
actions at ages 68 to childrens regulation at ages 8
10 was at least marginally significant. Moreover, the
paths from T5 distress reactions and T3 problem be-
havior to T5 problem behavior were significant and
positive for both models. Regulation negatively pre-
dicted mother-reported, but not father-reported,
problem behavior. Thus, much of the relation of

Figure 3 Prediction of mother- or father-reported problem behavior at ages 10 12 from primary care-giving parents reports of
parental distress reactions and childrens regulation, as well as mothers reports of problem behavior at ages 6 8. Note: Dotted
lines represent hypothesized paths that were nonsignificant for both models. Unstandardized coefficients for mother-report of
problem behavior at ages 10 12 are not in parentheses; unstandardized coefficients for father-report of problem behavior at ages
10 12 are in parentheses. Values on curved lines with double-headed arrows are unstandardized covariances between the two
connected constructs. Ages are 6 8, 8 10, and 10 12. See text for findings on model including fathers reports of problem behavior
at age 68. p , .10; *p , .05; **p , .01; ***p , .001.
528 Child Development

parental distress reactions to problem behavior ap- Table 5 Concurrent and Across Time Relations of Parental Re-
actions to Teachers Reports of Childrens Socially Appropriate
peared to be independent of regulation. Behavior
In summary, mothers reports of problem behavior
at ages 1012 were predicted by both childrens low Report of Social Functioning
regulation and by parental punitive and distress reac-
Type of Age 68 Age 810 Age 1012
tions (albeit marginally for the former). For punitive Parental
reactions and mothers reports of problem behavior, Reaction Girls Boys Girls Boys Girls Boys
there was clear evidence of a bidirectional relation be-
tween regulation and punitive reactions, with part of Punitive
the relation between punitive reactions and T5 prob- 46 (T1/T2) .00 .00 .22 2.05 .25 2.40*b
68 (T3) 2.27 2.17 2.11 2.18 2.06 2.351
lem behavior being indirect through regulation (even 810 (T4) 2.24 2.23 .14 2.26 .29 2.43*a
when the effects of contemporaneous correlations be- 1012 (T5) 2.341 2.42* 2.44* 2.361 2.25 2.50*
tween reports of punitive reactions and child regula- Minimizing
tion were controlled). In the model for T5 father- 46 (T1/T2) 2.28 .01 .01 2.07 .20 2.50**a
reported problem behavior for the total sample, only 68 (T3) 2.35* 2.19 .02 2.39* .04 2.19
earlier maternal reports of problem behavior pre- 810 (T4) 2.26 2.16 .01 2.22 .24 2.351b
1012 (T5) 2.321 2.25 2.27 2.45* 2.04 2.401
dicted T5 father reports of problem behavior. How-
ever, parental punitive reactions did predict father- Distress
46 (T1/T2) .21 2.22 .26 2.281b .371 2.40*a
reported problem behavior for boys and in this model, 68 (T3) 2.12 2.01 2.25 2.17 2.14 2.38*
any effect of regulation on T5 problem behavior was 810 (T4) 2.10 2.04 2.21 2.04 .09 2.33
through parental punitive reactions. Finally, parental 1012 (T5) 2.15 2.341 2.341 2.45* 2.03 2.381
reports of distress reactions predicted mothers and
fathers reports of T5 problem behavior and there was Note: High scores on the index of socially appropriate behavior in-
dicate low aggressive and disruptive behavior and high levels of
evidence that parental distress reactions at ages 68
socially appropriate behavior. Ns ranged from 2537 for girls and
predicted low regulation at ages 810. Because regu- from 2542 for boys.
lation was significantly related to T5 problem behav- a The correlation for girls and boys differed at p , .01.

ior only for mothers reports, there may have been in-
direct effects of parental distress on later problem
behavior for mothers, but not fathers, reports of
problem behavior.
Correlations with Teachers Reports of Social Behavior
As would be expected, parental reactions to chil-
drens negative emotions were less frequently related
to teachers than to parents reports of social behavior.
Because of clear sex differences in the pattern of find-
ings (including a number of significant sex differ-
ences), the data are presented by sex (see Table 5). Re-
call that different teachers provided information on
quality of social functioning at each time period, so a
pattern of correlations involving several time periods
is likely to be quite reliable. In all cases, the numbers
of correlations significant at p , .10 or better were
considerably greater than would be expected by chance.
Parental punitive reactions frequently were associ-
ated with low quality of boys social functioning, es-
pecially for teachers reports of socially appropriate
behavior at ages 1012. For example, parental reports
of punitive reactions at all ages were at least margin-
ally related to low socially appropriate behavior at
ages 1012; this pattern is consistent with the notion
that parental punitive reactions have an effect over
time on boys social functioning. There were few find-
b The correlation for girls and boys differed at p , .05.
1 p , .10; * p , .05; ** p , .01; *** p , .001.
ings for girls: Punitive reactions reported at ages 10
12 were associated with girls (and boys) low social
functioning at younger ages (at p , .10 or better), sug-
gesting that children who exhibit problematic behav-
ior at school elicit punitive reactions from parents by
ages 1012.
Parental reports of minimizing childrens negative
emotion generally predicted low levels of socially ap-
propriate behavior for boys at ages 810 and 1012.
There were few significant findings for girls, although
girls who were low in social functioning at school at
ages 68 had parents who reported minimizing their
daughters negative emotion at ages 68.
Correlations of parental distressed reactions with
teacher-reported social functioning held primarily for
older boys. Parents who reported distressed reactions
to their sons negative emotion at younger ages had
sons who were relatively low in quality of social func-
tioning by age 1012. The pattern of association ap-
peared to strengthen with age because distressed re-
actions at earlier ages were not significantly related
with social functioning at ages 68. Moreover, boys
who were relatively low in socially appropriate be-
havior at T3, T4, or T5 tended (at p , .10 or better) to

have parents who reported distressed reactions by
the time their sons were 1012 years of age.
SEMs were not computed for teachers reports of
socially appropriate behavior because parental re-
ports of regulation seldom were significantly related
to teachers reports of socially appropriate behavior.5
DISCUSSION
In this study, we obtained some evidence consistent
with the hypothesis that parents reported reactions
to childrens negative emotions, especially punitive
reactions, affect children regulation and externalizing
negative emotion. Moreover, when children were rel-
atively young, their regulation and externalizing neg-
ative emotion (as perceived by parents) predicted pa-
rental report of punitive negative reactions. Although
SEM cannot provide conclusive evidence of causality,
the findings from this longitudinal sample provide
considerable support for bidirectional parent-child
influences.
It was predicted that there would be correlational
associations, as well as bidirectional relations over
time, between childrens negative emotionality and
parents negative reactions to childrens negative
emotion, especially for childrens externalizing emo-
tion. There were numerous significant positive corre-
lations of both parental punitive and distress reac-
tions with parental reports of childrens externalizing
emotion. Fewer significant correlations were obtained
for parental minimizing reactions, although there were
some positive relations, especially for boys. Moreover,
although there were fewer significant correlations be-
tween teachers (than parents) reports of childrens
externalizing emotion and PNRs, the pattern of cor-
relations, especially for punitive reactions, was sim-
ilar in direction to that for parent-reported external-
izing emotion.
In models for both parental punitive and distress
reactions, childrens reported externalizing emotion
at age 6 8 at least marginally predicted parental
negative reactions at age 8 10. In addition, punitive
reactions at age 8 10 predicted childrens parent-
reported externalizing negative emotion at age 10
5 Moreover, parent and teacher reports of quality of social
functioning were not combined in analyses because the two
were weakly related, rs ranged from .05 (for teachers and fathers
at T3) to .28, p , .035 (for mothers at T3). Only one of the six cor-
relations was significant. Furthermore, only one correlation was
significant when parents reports of problem behavior were cor-
related with teachers reports of aggression/disruptive behavior
(not combined with socially appropriate behavior). This pattern
is not surprising given the lack of consistency across reporters in
other work (e.g., Fagot, 1995).
Eisenberg et al. 529
12. Thus, as children approached early adolescence, it
appeared that parental nonsupportive reactions to
childrens expression of negative emotion were associ-
ated with, or contributed to, expressions of external-
izing emotion in children. The rise in negative emo-
tion (Larson & Richards, 1991; Murphy et al., 1998)
and in parent-child conflict in early adolescence (Col-
lins, 1990) noted in the literature may be particularly
evident for families in which parents are nonsupport-
ive and intolerant of childrens expression of negative
emotion (at least when its expression is not highly in-
appropriate). In addition, the path from externalizing
emotion at age 68 to later parental reactions sug-
gests that childrens externalizing negative emotion
affected parental reactions at younger ages. Because
we do not have data from the earliest years, it is im-
possible to know who influenced whom first, but it
appears that there is a bidirectional relation between
parental reactions and childrens temperament, as
least as viewed and reported by parents. The fact that
contemporaneous correlations between parents re-
ports of their own reactions and childrens externaliz-
ing emotion were controlled in the analyses is consis-
tent with the view that these across time relations did
not occur primarily because parents who report puni-
tive reactions also tend to report high levels of exter-
nalizing emotion in their children.
Only parental distress reactions were correlated
consistently with childrens parent-reported internal-
izing emotion. Childrens internalizing reactions, be-
cause they often are subtle and less aversive to others
than externalizing emotions, may be relatively un-
likely to elicit punitive responses from parents. More-
over, it is likely that teachers often do not notice chil-
drens sadness and anxiety, which could account for
the modest numbers of relations between teacher-
reported internalizing emotion and PNRs. Based on
the model for internalizing emotion, it did not appear
that the consistent pattern of association between pa-
rental distress reactions and childrens internalizing
emotion was due to one of these variables having a
causal influence on the other. Rather, the findings are
consistent with the view that a third variable was re-
sponsible for the association between childrens inter-
nalizing negative emotion and parental distress. Two
possible scenarios readily come to mind. First, it is
likely that the association is due, in part, to tempera-
mental tendencies toward negative emotionality, es-
pecially internalizing emotionality, in both parents
and children. There appears to be a genetic compo-
nent to negative emotionality (Plomin & Stocker, 1989),
and this genetic tendency could underlie the parent-
child similarity. In addition, parents who are prone to
distress may be more aware of, and more likely to re-
530 Child Development
port, internalizing emotions in themselves and their
children. For whatever reason, the pattern of relations
between childrens internalizing emotion and paren-
tal distress differed from that for externalizing emo-
tion in regard to evidence of causal relations.
The results of the correlations and structural equa-
tion models based on the longitudinal data provide
interesting insights regarding the relations of PNRs
with childrens socially externalizing problem behav-
ior (rather than externalizing emotion) and socially
appropriate behavior. In the correlations, parents who
reported punitive or distress reactions tended to have
children with problem behaviors by age 810 or 10
12, even when mothers usually provided data on
their reactions and fathers provided information on
problem behaviors (although there were somewhat
fewer significant correlations between fathers than
mothers reports of problem behavior and punitive
reactions). Findings for parental minimizing reac-
tions were in the same direction, but fewer in number.
Consistent with findings for the parent-report data,
nonsupportive parental reactions were correlated
with low social functioning at school (problem behav-
ior and low socially appropriate behavior), although
the findings for teachers reports of social functioning
were primarily for boys (especially older boys).
In the structural equation models for punitive and
distress reactions, maternal report of problem behav-
ior at age 1012 was at least marginally predicted by
regulation and parental punitive or distress reactions,
as well as by mothers reports of childrens problem
behavior at age 68. In the model for punitive reac-
tions, fathers reports of boys (but not combined
boys and girls) problem behavior were predicted by
parental punitive reactions and earlier problem be-
havior. Parental distress reactions (as well as earlier
problem behavior) also predicted fathers reports of
problem behavior for the total sample.
In the punitive reaction models, there also was ev-
idence of across-time relations between punitive reac-
tions and childrens regulation. Regulation at age 68
predicted punitive reactions at age 810 (for mother-
report of problem behavior for the total sample and
for boys for fathers reports of problem behavior),
which in turn predicted childrens regulation at age
10 12 for the model including mother-report of
problem behavior at T5. Thus, for the model predict-
ing mother-report of problem behavior, there was ev-
idence of bidirectional causality between punitive re-
actions and regulation. For both mothers and fathers
reports of problem behavior, there was evidence that
some of the effect of childrens regulation on problem
behavior was indirect through punitive reactions.
This pattern of findings mirrors that for the model of
punitive parental reactions and externalizing nega-
tive emotion. Child characteristics may elicit punitive
parenting in the early school years, but by age 1012,
punitive parental reactions appear to elicit externaliz-
ing behavior and emotion from children. Because it is
very difficult in SEM models to get paths in both di-
rections at the same time, especially with a relatively
small sample, it is quite possible that there are bidi-
rectional effects at all ages, but that child characteris-
tics have the stronger influence in the early school
years, whereas punitive parenting behavior and be-
liefs have a substantial impact later.
In the models including parental distress there was
evidence that parental distress reactions at age 68
predicted childrens regulation at age 810 and, for
mothers reports of problem behavior, that some of
the effect of early parental distress on problem behav-
ior was indirect through regulation. Parental distress
could have a negative impact on childrens regulation
because parents who easily become distressed or upset
by their childs negative emotion may tend to disen-
gage from the distressing interaction rather than help
their children learn to manage emotions. However,
the findings for parental distress generally were less
consistent than those for reports of parental punitive
reactions. The effects of disengaging from the child
likely differ from punitive responses.
The models for parents reports of problem behav-
ior provide several important insights. First, PNRs
tended to be associated with problem behaviors at
age 1012, even when the effects of early problem
behavior and childrens regulation were controlled.
Second, the findings provide some support for the bi-
directionality of relations between PNRs and chil-
drens regulation (at least as perceived by parents)
over time, and for the notion that there often are indi-
rect or mediated effects of each for the other when
predicting problem behavior. The findings in the pu-
nitive models (including both externalizing emotion
and regulation) are consistent with prior work on
conduct disorders (Lytton, 1990) in suggesting that
child characteristics and behaviors often elicit non-
supportive, negative reactions from parents, which
then predict quality of childrens social functioning.
Moreover, it is likely that the bidirectional relation be-
tween parental punitive reactions and childrens
regulationthat predicts mothers reports of prob-
lem behaviorreflects a history of interactions simi-
lar to those reported by Patterson (1982), in which co-
ercive maternal reactions to sons behaviors lead to a
cycle of ineffective parenting and inappropriate be-
havior on the part of the child.
The finding that parental punitive reactions pre-
dicted childrens regulation is consistent with theory

(e.g., Buck, 1984; Gottman et al., 1996) and research
(Gottman et al., 1996; Patterson, 1982) discussed pre-
viously. However, there has been little direct empiri-
cal evidence that parental socialization of emotion
has an effect on childrens regulatory capacities. In
addition, parental distress reactions, which some-
times are similar to personal distress reactions to an-
others negative emotion in the empathy literature
(Batson, 1991; Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, et al., 1994),
often may result in parents attempts to avoid the child
and in nonsupportive behavior. These behaviors would
be expected to undermine childrens sense of security
and regulation (Davies & Cummings, 1994).
Unlike in the punitive reactions model, there was
no evidence of childrens regulation affecting paren-
tal distress reactions. The lack of a path from regula-
tion to PNRs in the distress model may be because pa-
rental distress reactions reflect, to a greater degree
than parental punitive reactions, parental characteris-
tics such as temperamental or personality-based neg-
ative emotionality and reactivity. Thus, parental dis-
tress may be somewhat more intra-individually
stable than parental punitive reactions (an assump-
tion consistent with the pattern of correlations in Ta-
ble 1) and vary less as a function of characteristics of
the child (e.g., the childs regulation).
Fathers reports of problem behavior at T5 were re-
lated to reports of punitive parental reactions only for
boys. This is not surprising given that at T3 and T4, fa-
thers reports of problem behavior were correlated
with childrens regulation and emotionality primarily
for boys. As discussed in previous papers (Eisenberg
et al., 1995; Eisenberg et al., 1997), it is possible that fa-
thers attend more to boys than girls problem behav-
ior. However, parental distress reactions did predict
fathers reports of problem behaviors at age 1012 for
the total sample of boys and girls (and correlations
between T5 parental distress and father-reported
problem behaviors did not differ markedly across
sex). The father-report data provide some evidence
that the links between problem behavior at age 1012
and parental reports of their reactions were not due
solely to the same parent providing information on
both problem behaviors and parental reactions.
The cross-lagged effects that were obtained are no-
table given the fact that contemporaneous correla-
tions were accounted for in the model, as were effects
from consistency of measures over time. Because of
the relatively small sample size in this study, models
fit relatively easily (i.e., models were relatively un-
likely to be rejected based on the x2). However, the
high fit index in most models suggests that the
models are reliable because the CFI is not affected
much by sample size. Moreover, the relatively small
Eisenberg et al. 531
sample size made it difficult to obtain significant
cross-lag correlations, so those that were significant oc-
curred despite a lack of power. It also should be em-
phasized that it is very difficult to obtain two cross-
time paths between PNRs and child variables in the
same direction. For example, to obtain two significant
cross-lags from parental punitive reactions to chil-
drens regulation (from T3 punitive reactions to T4
regulation and from T4 punitive reactions to T5 regu-
lation) would require that there be substantial change
in parental reactions from T3 to T4 and that this
change would have an effect on regulation above and
beyond the effect of parental punitive reactions at T3.
Moreover, this effect must be stronger than the con-
temporaneous correlation at T4. Thus, out of the four
theoretically possible cross-lags, one would not ex-
pect more than one or two lags at most to be signifi-
cant, unless the time between assessments was large
and the sample size was quite substantial.
Although parental reports of minimizing were less
frequently related to childrens problem behavior
than were punitive and distress reactions, there were
some findings of interest. Parental minimizing at ages
46 predicted maternal and/or paternal reports of
problem behavior even 4 or 6 years later. There also
was some evidence of a relation between earlier child
problem behavior and parental minimizing reactions
at ages 1012, but only for boys. Moreover, parental
minimizing often predicted low social functioning
years later (or concurrently) at school for boys aged
810 and 1012. Because minimizing likely is a more
benign parental reaction than punitive reactions, and
often may be meant to be helpful by the parent, per-
haps it is less likely than some other nonsupportive
parental reactions to undermine the quality of chil-
drens social behavior. It is unclear why the findings
for minimizing were primarily for boys; however, in
another study, parental emphasis on childrens con-
trol or denial of their emotions was related to physi-
ological arousal in an emotion-eliciting situation
only for boys (Eisenberg, Fabes, Schaller, Carlo, &
Miller, 1991). Perhaps, due to gender stereotypes in
regard to the expression of emotion, parental verbal-
izations that urge children to ignore or suppress
negative emotions have more impact on boys.
There was considerable consistency, even over 6
years, in the degree to which parents viewed them-
selves as reacting in the various ways to childrens
negative emotions (i.e., in correlations across time).
Thus, parents perceptions of their own reactions to
their childrens negative emotions were relatively
stable. This is not altogether surprising given the con-
sistency in some other aspects of self-reported parent-
ing (e.g., McNally, Eisenberg, & Harris, 1991). The fact
532 Child Development
that parental reactions to childrens negative emo-
tions sometimes were related to childrens problem
behavior years later, even as reported by adults
who did not provide information on parental reac-
tions (i.e., fathers or teachers), suggests that the differ-
ences among parents in reported PNRs have some
basis in reality.
There also were age-related changes in mean levels
of parents reports of their reactions. Punitive and
minimizing reactions dropped in frequency from age
68 to age 810, and then increased somewhat from
age 810 to 1012 (punitive responses also increased
from age 46 to 68, showing a cubic trend). Parental
distress reactions increased in a linear fashion with
age. The increase in nonsupportive reactions to chil-
drens negative emotions in early adolescence is con-
sistent with decreases in positive maternal expres-
siveness with children as they enter early adolescence
(McNally et al., 1991), as well as with research indicat-
ing that there is an increase in negative conflictual in-
teractions between parents and children in early ado-
lescence (Collins, 1990). Moreover, because there is
some evidence that children experience and exhibit
an increase in negative emotion in early adolescence
(Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Larson & Rich-
ards, 1991; Murphy et al., 1998), parents may feel that
they need to use more coercive or negative, rather
than supportive, reactions to control their childrens
expressions of negative emotion.
There are several limitations of the present study.
As in any longitudinal work, it is possible that histor-
ical changes could contribute to age-related changes
in parental reports of their reactions to childrens neg-
ative emotions. For example, exposure to ideas through
the mass media (e.g., a show on child rearing) could
affect parents actual or reported reactions to their
childrens negative emotion. However, one might ex-
pect exposure to information on child rearing to re-
sult in less report of nonsupportive child rearing, a
pattern that generally was not obtained. Nonetheless,
it is impossible to determine if historical factors con-
tributed to the pattern of findings in some way.
Moreover, most children in the sample were Cau-
casian and from relatively affluent families; thus, the
findings may not be generalizable to other popula-
tions. In addition, the measure of parental reactions
was self-report and data were obtained primarily
from mothers. It is important to keep in mind that pa-
rental reports represent their beliefs about their reac-
tions to childrens negative emotions and may not be
identical to their actions. Observational data and data
on fathers reactions to their childrens negative emo-
tions would be useful in future work. In addition, be-
cause the data were correlational, it was impossible to
assess causal relations, although the fact that the
study was longitudinal with repeated measures of
critical variables enables one to make some tentative
inferences about causal relations.
Despite these limitations, the data from the present
study are consistent with the conclusion that parents
perceptions of their own reactions to childrens nega-
tive emotions are fairly stable and enduring over time
and predict significant social outcomes. Thus, paren-
tal reactions to childrens negative emotions and their
beliefs about these actions may be an important as-
pect of the socialization of socioemotional compe-
tence. Moreover, because the sample in the present
study included relatively few children with serious
problem behaviors, it is reasonable to predict that
more and stronger relations would be obtained with
heterogeneous samples including children with rela-
tively extreme behavioral problems.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by grants from the Na-
tional Science Foundation (DBS-9208375) and the
National Institutes of Mental Health (1 R01 HH55052)
to the first two authors and by Research Scientist De-
velopment and Research Scientist Awards from the
National Institute of Mental Health (K02 MH00903
and K05 M801321) to Nancy Eisenberg. The authors
wish to thank the many students that assisted in this
study (particularly Sarah Jones, Pat Maszk, and
Rick Poulin), the parents and children involved, and
the principals and teachers in the Tempe, Kyrene,
Mesa, and Scottsdale School Districts. We also thank
Sandra Losoya for assistance with the analyses.
ADDRESSES AND AFFILIATIONS
Corresponding author: Nancy Eisenberg, Psychology,
Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104; e-mail:
nancy.eisenberg@asu.edu. Richard A. Fabes, Stepha-
nie A. Shepard, Ivanna K. Guthrie, and Mark Reiser
are also at Arizona State University. Bridget C. Mur-
phy was at Arizona State University during the
course of this work, and is currently at the Univer-
sity of Oklahoma.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T. L., Burleson, B. R., & Goldsmith, D. (1994). Sup-
portive communication. In M. L. Knapp & G. R. Miller
(Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed.,
pp. 419449). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Batson, C. D. (1991). The altruism question: Toward a social-
psychological answer. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bell, R. (1977). Socialization findings reexamined. In R. Bell
& R. Harper (Eds.), Child effects on adults. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Belsky, J., Fish, M., & Isabella, R. (1991). Continuity and dis-
continuity in infant negative and positive emotionality:
Family antecedents and attachment consequences. De-
velopmental Psychology, 27, 421431.
Bentler, P. M. (1989). EQS: Structural equations program man-
ual. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural
models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238246.
Bryant, B. K. (1987). Mental health, temperament, family,
and friends: Perspectives on childrens empathy and so-
cial perspective taking. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer
(Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 245270). Cam-
bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Buck, R. (1984). The communication of emotion. New York:
Guilford Press.
Bugental, D. B., & Goodnow, J. J. (1998). Socialization pro-
cesses. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Hand-
book of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotionality, and per-
sonality development (5th ed., pp. 389462). New York:
Wiley.
Carson, J. L., & Parke, R. D. (1996). Reciprocal negative af-
fect in parent-child interactions and childrens peer com-
petency. Child Development, 67, 22172226.
Coie, J. D., Terry, R., Dodge, K. A., & Underwood, M. K.
(1993). A teacher checklist of childrens social behavior. Un-
published manuscript, Duke University.
Collins, W. A. (1990). Parent-child relationships in the transi-
tion to adolescence: Continuity and change in interaction,
affect, and cognition. In R. Montemayor, G. R. Adams, &
T. P. Gullotta (Eds.), From childhood to adolescence: A transi-
tional period? (pp. 85106). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cook, W. L., Kenny, D. A., & Goldstein, M. J. (1991). Parental
affective style risk and the family system: A social rela-
tions model analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100,
492501.
Davies, P. T., & Cummings, E. M. (1994). Marital conflict
and child adjustment: An emotional security hypothesis.
Psychological Bulletin, 116, 387411.
Denham, S. A. (1993). Maternal emotional responsiveness
and toddlers social-emotional competence. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 34, 715728.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (1988). Arousal, affect,
and attention as components of temperament. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 958966.
Diener, M., Mangelsdorf, S., Fosnot, K., & Kienstra, M.
(1997, April). Effects of maternal involvement on toddlers
emotion regulation strategies. Paper presented at the bien-
nial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Devel-
opment, Washington DC.
Dunn, J., & Brown, J. (1994). Affect expression in the family,
childrens understanding of emotions, and their interac-
tions with others. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 120137.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation
to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and
personality development 10171095. New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg et al. 533
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion, regulation,
and the development of social competence. In M. S.
Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol.
14. Emotion and social behavior (pp. 119150). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1994). Mothers reactions to
childrens negative emotions: Relations to childrens
temperament and anger behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quar-
terly, 40, 138156.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Carlo, G., & Karbon, M. (1992).
Emotional responsivity to others: Behavioral correlates
and socialization antecedents. In N. Eisenberg & R. A.
Fabes (Eds.), Emotion and its regulation in early develop-
ment: New directions in child development (pp. 5774). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents
reactions to childrens negative emotions: Relations to
childrens social competence and comforting behavior.
Child Development, 67, 22272247.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Maszk,
P., Smith, M., OBoyle, C., & Suh, K. (1994). The relations
of emotionality and regulation to dispositional and situ-
ational empathy-related responding. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 66, 776797.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B., Karbon, M., Smith,
M., & Maszk, P. (1996). The relations of childrens dispo-
sitional empathy-related responding to their emotional-
ity, regulation, and social functioning. Developmental
Psychology, 32, 195209.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, M., Maszk, P., Smith,
M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and
regulation in childrens social functioning: A longitudi-
nal study. Child Development, 66, 12391261.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., &
Pinuelas, A. (1994). The relations of emotionality and
regulation to childrens anger-related reactions. Child
Development, 65, 109128.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Schaller, M., Carlo, G., & Miller,
P. A. (1991). The relations of parental characteristics and
practices to childrens vicarious emotional responding.
Child Development, 62, 13931408.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C.,
Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., Friedman, J., Poulin, R., &
Maszk, P. (1997). Contemporaneous and longitudinal
prediction of childrens social functioning from regula-
tion and emotionality. Child Development, 68, 642664.
Emde, R. N., Plomin, R., Robinson, J., Corley, R., DeFries, J.,
Fulker, D. W., Reznick, J. S., Campos, J., Kagan, J., &
Zahn-Waxler, C. (1992). Temperament, emotion, and
cognition at fourteen months: The MacArthur Longitu-
dinal Twin Study. Child Development, 63, 14371455.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., & Bernzweig, J. (1990). The Cop-
ing with Childrens Negative Emotions Scale: Description
and Scoring. Unpublished scale, Department of Family
Resources and Human Development, Arizona State
University.
Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Karbon, M., Bernzweig, J., Speer,
A. L., & Carlo, G. (1994). Socialization of childrens vicar-
ious emotional responding and prosocial behavior: Rela-
534 Child Development
tions with mothers perceptions of childrens emotional
reactivity. Developmental Psychology, 30, 4455.
Fagot, B. I. (1995). Classification of problem behaviors of
young children: A comparison of four systems. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, 16, 95106.
Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Social com-
petence among low-income preschoolers: Emotion so-
cialization practices and social cognitive correlates. Child
Development, 65, 622637.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental
meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of fam-
ilies: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of
Family Psychology, 10, 243268.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F., & Hooven, C. (1997). Metaemo-
tion: How families communicate emotionally. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Hoffman, M. L. (1983). Affective and cognitive processes in
moral internalization. In E. T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble &
W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social cognition and social develop-
ment: A sociocultural perspective (pp. 236274). Cam-
bridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Holden, G. W., & Edwards, I. A. (1989). Parental attitudes
toward child rearing: Instruments, issues, and implica-
tions. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 2958.
Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in chil-
dren: The development of a rating scale. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 10201030.
Kliewer, W., Fearnow, M. D., & Miller, P. A. (1996). Coping
socialization in middle childhood: Tests of maternal
and paternal influences. Child Development, 67, 2339
2357.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1987). Affect intensity as an indi-
vidual difference characteristic: A review. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 21, 139.
Larson, R., & Richards, M. H. (1991). Daily companionship
in late childhood and early adolescence: Changing de-
velopmental contexts. Child Development, 62, 284300.
Lochman, J. E., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research
Group. (1995). Screening of child behavior problems for
prevention programs at school entry. Journal of Consult-
ing and Clinical Psychology, 63, 549559.
Lytton, H. (1990). Child and parent effects in boys conduct
disorder: A reinterpretation. Developmental Psychology,
26, 683697.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the
context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E. M.
Hetherington (Ed.), P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook
of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and so-
cial development (pp. 1101). New York: Wiley.
Matheny, A. P., Jr. (1986). Stability and change of infant tem-
perament: Contributions from the infant, mother, and
family environment. In G. Kohnstamm (Ed.), Temperament
discussed (pp. 4958). Berwyn, PA: Swets North America.
McNally, S., Eisenberg, N., & Harris, J. D. (1991). Consis-
tency and change in maternal child-rearing practices
and values: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 62,
190189.
Murphy, B. C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S., &
Guthrie, I. K. (in press). Consistency and change in chil-
drens emotionality and regulation: A longitudinal study.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly.
Parke, R. D., & Buriel, R. (1998). Socialization in the family:
Ethnic and ecological perspectives. In N. Eisenberg
(Ed.), W. Damon (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychol-
ogy: Vol. 3. Social, emotionality, and personality develop-
ment (5th ed., pp. 463 552). New York: Wiley.
Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L., &
Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contributions to peer compe-
tence among young children: The role of interactive and
affective processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.),
Family-peer relationships: Modes of linkage (pp. 107134).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Patterson, G. R. (1982). Coercive family processes. Eugene, OR:
Castilla Press.
Plomin, R., & Stocker, C. (1989). Behavioral genetics and
emotionality. In J. S. Reznick (Ed.), Perspectives on behav-
ioral inhibition (pp. 219240). Chicago: University of Chi-
cago Press.
Poulin, R. (1997). Psychometric properties of the Coping with
Childrens Negative Emotions Scale. Unpublished mas-
ters thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe.
Power, T. G., & Shanks, J. A. (1989). Parents as socializers:
Maternal and paternal views. Youth and Youth and Adoles-
cence, 18, 203220.
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Tem-
perament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 40, 2139.
Rothbart, M. K., & Maccoby, E. E. (1966). Parents differen-
tial reactions to sons and daughters. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 4, 237243.
Thomas, A. (1984). Temperament research: Where we are,
where we are going. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 30, 103109.
Tomkins, S. S. (1963). Affect, imagery, consciousness: Vol. 2.
Negative affects. New York: Springer.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development
and validation of brief measures of positive and nega-
tive affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 10631070.