Next Article in Journal
Acupuncture for Pain Management in Pediatric Patients with Sickle Cell Disease
Previous Article in Journal
Analysis of Supporting Factors Associated with Exclusive Breastfeeding Practice in the Urban Setting during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Children
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/children9071075
children-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Caregivers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Associations with Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning

by
Carla Fernandes
,
Ana F. Santos
,
Marilia Fernandes
,
Manuela Veríssimo
and
António J. Santos
*
William James Center Research, ISPA-Instituto Universitário, 1149-041 Lisbon, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Children 2022, 9(7), 1075; https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071075
Submission received: 24 May 2022 / Revised: 7 July 2022 / Accepted: 12 July 2022 / Published: 19 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Pediatric Mental Health)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is a lack of knowledge regarding the connection between parental emotional responsiveness and children’s executive functioning (EF). This study aimed to explore the relations between caregivers’ reactions to their children’s distress and children’s EF. Mothers of 136 preschoolers reported their reactions to their children’s negative emotions using the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale. Children’s EF was assessed through the mothers and teachers’ reports using the Behavioral Inventory of Executive Functioning for Preschool Children. Results showed that the mothers’ perceived use of negative emotional regulation responses (i.e., punitive and minimizing reactions) was associated with lower levels of EF in children, as reported by both mothers and teachers. The association between the mothers’ use of positive emotional regulation responses (i.e., problem-focused, emotion-focused, and expressive encouragement reactions) and children’s EF was not significant. Multiple regression analyses revealed that the mothers’ use of negative emotional regulation responses accounted for significant proportions of variance in EF indexes. These findings suggest that parental socialization of emotion could be important for children’s EF. Specifically, caregivers’ negative emotional regulation responses to children’s distress may serve as a risk factor for poorer EF in children. Efforts to improve children’s EF may be more effective when parental emotional responsiveness to their distress is considered.

1. Introduction

The preschool years are critical for the development of executive functioning (EF) and emotion regulation, with important and rapid changes occurring during this period [1,2,3,4,5]. Even though a consensual definition is still lacking [6], EF generally is characterized as the set of cognitive higher-order processes involved in the self-regulation of thought and behavior and comprises the coordination of several capabilities [7,8]. EF involves three distinct but related functions: working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive or attentional flexibility [8,9,10,11,12]. Working memory refers to the ability to retain and manipulate information in the memory [13]. Inhibitory control is the ability to suppress an automatic or dominant response, replacing it with a more adaptive one [14]. Lastly, cognitive or attentional flexibility reflects the ability to focus and shift attention when changes in stimuli or goals occur [15,16,17]. This function requires both working memory and inhibitory control, so it is considered one of the most advanced components of EF and thus develops later [8]. Although several other functions could be considered part of EF, these three are the most studied and agreed upon [6]. Additionally, as supported by Diamond [9], they also are the basis of other functions, such as reasoning, planning, or problem-solving, which are considered more complex executive functions. Like EF, there are numerous definitions of emotion regulation, but it can be broadly conceptualized as the interplay between extrinsic (e.g., parental emotion socialization) and intrinsic processes (e.g., child temperament) required to monitor, evaluate, and modify emotional experiences and expressions [18,19,20,21].

1.1. The Relation between EF and Emotion Regulation

EF and emotion regulation are both considered domains of self-regulation [22,23,24], and growing research has focused on links between them (e.g., [25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32]). Most studies emphasize the supporting role of executive functions in emotion regulation [33,34,35,36]. In fact, executive functions are considered top-down cognitive processes that support cognitive, emotional, and behavioral regulation, whereas emotion regulation is considered a bottom-up process that involves the experience, expression, and management of emotional experiences (e.g., [9,12,37,38]). In this sense, research shows that impairments in EF negatively impact emotion regulation [39,40,41,42]. However, several researchers suggest that cognition and emotion are interwoven, and bidirectional influences are likely [38,39,43,44,45]. This approach is supported by neurological research that suggests EF and emotion regulation may share neural mechanisms in the brain [39,43,46,47,48]. Particularly, the two major subdivisions within the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), which are responsible for cognitive and emotional processes, have been identified as reciprocal [26,43,44,49]. These relations suggest that EF and emotion regulation are intricately connected and influence each other. Thus, as supported by Carlson and Wang [39], emotions can contribute to the organization of thinking, learning, and behavior, and in turn, cognition contributes to the regulation of emotions.
Furthermore, it is well known that children learn to regulate their emotional experiences through interactions in their immediate environment, so caregivers play a crucial role in socializing children’s emotion regulation [21,50,51]. Similarly, research also shows that caregivers impact the development of children’s EF, namely through the interactions they establish with children (e.g., [52,53,54]). Given emotion regulation and EF are linked and that caregivers have a significant influence on children’s development of emotion regulation, it is also possible that parental socialization of emotion could be related to children’s EF [55].

1.2. Parental Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions

According to Eisenberg, Cumberland, and Spinrad [56], one of the important components of parental socialization of emotion is caregivers’ reactions to children’s emotions. Emphasis has been placed on how caregivers react to children’s negative emotional expression [57,58]. Caregivers vary in their reactions, with research showing that they generally respond to their children’s negative emotions in a supportive or unsupportive manner [59]. Supportive responses, such as problem-focused responses, emotion-focused responses, and expressive encouragement, encourage children to express and discuss their emotions appropriately [56,60]. These types of responses are associated with early and later childhood socio-emotional competence, better emotion regulation skills, and lower levels of internalizing and externalizing problems [1,61,62,63,64,65,66,67]. On the contrary, unsupportive responses, such as distress responses, punitive responses, and minimization responses, communicate that emotional displays are undesirable or unacceptable and discourage children from expressing and discussing their negative emotions, which may result in difficulties managing their emotions appropriately [56,68]. Unsupportive responses are then associated with emotion dysregulation, lower socio-emotional competence, and the development of the internalizing and externalizing of problems [66,67,69,70,71,72,73,74].
As parental responses to children’s emotional expression are strongly related to children’s emotion regulation skills, and in turn, emotion regulation influences EF [44], we believe that it is also important to consider the contribution of these responses to children’s EF. Moreover, caregivers’ reactions to children’s negative emotions reflect caregivers’ emotional responsiveness, and responsive parenting is associated with advanced executive functions in children [53,54].

1.3. Current Study

To our knowledge, this is the first study to assess the relation between caregivers’ reactions to children’s negative emotions, using the CCNES [75], and children’s EF, using the BRIEF-P [76]. Only two studies have included both the CCNES and BRIEF-P. However, the only sub-scale used from BRIEF-P in these studies was the Emotional Control sub-scale, which was used to assess children’s emotion regulation, not EF functioning [55,77]. Even studies using different measures of EF tend to focus only on one single score or dimension, for instance, inhibitory control [78]. However, given its complexity, it is widely accepted that EF is better captured considering its multidimensional nature [79,80]. Thus, in this study, all sub-scales from BRIEF-P were considered. More specifically, we explored associations between the mothers’ reported responses to children’s negative emotions and the children’s components of EF as reported by mothers and teachers. The reports from teachers were also included because they could be more reliable reporters of children’s EF as the demand for children’s executive functions is higher at school than at home [81]. We hypothesized that mothers’ supportive emotion regulation responses to child’s distress would be associated with better EF in children, whereas unsupportive emotion regulation responses would be associated with poor EF in children. Additionally, as children’s executive functioning and the mothers’ responses to children’s negative emotions can be affected by different variables, namely demographic variables (e.g., [74,82,83,84,85]), we also examined possible differences regarding these variables.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Participants were mothers of 136 children. Children ranged in age from 2 to 6 years old (M = 3.60; SD = 1.14); 45.6% were girls and 54.4% were boys; 45.6% were firstborns, and 58.1% had siblings. Children were recruited from 6 schools from Lisbon and Cascais, in Portugal. They spend between 5 to 10 h at school (M = 7.97, SD = 1.11). Most of the parents (84.5%) were either married (46.3%) or cohabitating (38.2%), 4.4% were separated, and 5.9% in other situations. Mothers’ age ranged between 22 and 49 years (M = 35.46; SD = 5.53), whereas fathers’ age ranged between 24 and 59 years (M = 37.13; SD = 6.30). Regarding education levels, mothers’ ranged between 9 to 21 (M = 16.04; SD = 2.95), whereas fathers’ ranged between 5 and 21 (M = 14.76; SD = 3.44). Most of the parents work full time (mothers 81.6% and fathers 86.8%), 2.2% of both mothers and fathers work part-time, and 11.8 % of the mothers and 2.9% of the fathers were unemployed. For 87 of the children (46% were girls and 54% boys; age M = 45.49, SD = 13.12) teachers’ reports on their executive functions were available. The same teacher provided data for a maximum of 11 children (M = 5.73; SD = 2.71).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. Caregivers’ Reactions to Children’s Negative Emotions

Mothers’ responses to children’s negative emotions were assessed using the Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES) [75]. CCNES is a self-report questionnaire that measures parental (in our case mothers’) emotion socialization through 12 scenarios. All scenarios reflect typical situations in which children (from preschool to elementary school) experience distress and negative affect involving normative expressions of negative emotion for preschool (e.g., fear, anger, sadness, embarrassment, and disappointment). For each scenario, there are 6 possible parent responses to the children’s negative emotions. Parents are asked to answer each of six different ways using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “very unlikely” to 7 = “very likely”. Four items are inverted. Three types of response are more related to supportive reactions, which imply comforting, encouraging emotion expression, and looking for solutions to problem (Expressive Encouragement, Emotion-Focused Reactions, Problem-Focused Reactions), and three others are more related to unsupportive reactions, implying distress manifestations, minimization of emotion importance, and punishing the child’s emotional behavior (Distress Reactions, Punitive Reactions, Minimization Reactions). Subscales were computed by averaging their respective items. Distress Reactions (DR) focus on the degree to which parents experience negative emotional arousal concerning their child’s negative emotions. Punitive Reactions (PR) reflect parents’ verbal or physical punishment-based and controlling responses to the child’s emotional expression. Emotion-Focused Reactions (EFR) addresses parents’ ability to help children feel better in an emotional situation. Expressive Encouragement (EE) refers to parental support for the child’s emotional expression. Problem-Focused Reactions (PFR) reflect parents’ scaffolding and supporting children in problem-solving. Minimization Reactions (MR) refer to the degree to which parents minimize the seriousness of the situation or devalue the child’s problem or emotional response. In this study, all subscales presented good reliability with Cronbach alphas ranging between 0.72 and 0.91, except for DR (α = 0.50), which was excluded from the following analysis. As performed by Bost and colleagues [86], and since bivariate correlations revealed substantial associations between PR and MR (r = 0.68; p = 0.000) and between EE, EFR, and PFR (r = 0.48 to 0.66; all p = 0.000), composite scores of Positive and Negative Reactions were created to reflect total supportive emotion regulation (average of EE, EFR, and PFR subscales) and unsupportive emotion regulation strategies (average of PR and MR subscales). CCNES has been described as having good internal and test-retest reliability as well as good concurrent and construct validity [60].

2.2.2. Children’s EF

Preschoolers’ EF was assessed using the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Preschool Version (BRIEF-P) [76]. BRIEF-P is a rating scale used with caregivers (in our case mothers) to measure behavioral manifestations of preschool-aged children’s executive functions within everyday settings (home and preschool). It consists of 63 items, that evaluate 5 theoretical and empirical EF aspects: Inhibit assesses a child’s inhibitory control and impulsivity; Shift assesses the ability to move freely from one situation, activity, or aspect of a problem to another as the circumstances demand; Emotional Control measures the impact of EF difficulties on emotional expression; Working Memory measures the capacity to hold information for completing a task or generate goals and plans to achieve goals; and Plan/Organize measures the ability to manage current and future-oriented task demands within the situational context. The scales can form 3 indexes: Inhibitory Self-Control (ISCI), representing a child’s ability to modulate actions, responses, emotions, and behavior through appropriate inhibitory control; Flexibility (FI), representing a child’s ability to move flexibly among actions, responses, emotions, and behavior; and Emergent Metacognition (EMI), reflecting the child’s ability to maintain ideas and activities in working memory and to plan/organize problem-solving approaches. Caregivers are asked to answer each item regarding the behavior frequency in the last 6 months, using a 3-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 = “Never” to 3 = “Always”. Higher values indicate lower levels of EF. All scales presented good reliability (Cronbach alphas ranging between 0.74 to 0.87 for mothers and between 0.69 to 0.89 for teachers) as did the indexes (Cronbach alphas between 0.84 and 0.90 for mothers and between 0.88 to 0.91 for teachers).

2.3. Procedure

This study is part of an ongoing research project “ChildObesity—Child obesity risk: the role of attachment, child’s temperament and self-regulation”, approved by the Ethics Committee of the ISPA—Instituto Universitário. The study was presented to the school boards to obtain the necessary authorizations for data collection. Informed consent was requested from mothers. After obtaining the mothers’ consent, teachers sent them the questionnaires to be completed at home. After completion, the mothers returned the questionnaires to teachers in a closed envelope, and teachers completed the BRIEF-P for the respective children.

2.4. Analytic Plan

Before our main analyses, descriptive statistics were explored using both mothers’ and teachers’ reports. Differences between boys and girls were tested using independent t-tests. Associations between mothers’ and teachers’ BRIEF-P reports, as well as between CCNES and BRIEF-P scales, were tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient while controlling for child’s sex and age. Finally, a multiple regression was performed to explore negative emotion regulation contributions to child’s EF, where child’s sex, and age were included as covariables.

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. In general, mothers reported using more positive than negative reaction strategies. Both mothers and teachers described children as presenting good EF levels.
Significant sex differences were found for mothers’ BRIEF-P reports on Inhibit (t(134) = 3.28, p < 0.001; M = 1.62, SD = 0.29 for boys and M = 1.47, SD = 0.24 for girls), Shift (t(134) = 1.97, p < 0.05; M = 1.43, SD = 0.33 for boys and M = 1.33, SD = 0.24 for girls), and Emotional Control (t(134) = 2.92, p < 0.01; M = 1.55, SD = 0.31 for boys and M = 1.40, SD = 0.27 for girls) as well as for Inhibitory Self-Control (t(134) = 3.58, p < 0.001; M = 1.60, SD = 0.26 for boys and M = 1.45, SD = 0.22 for girls) and Flexibility index (t(134) = 2.77, p < 0.01; M = 1.49, SD = 0.28 for boys and M = 1.37, SD = 0.23 for girls); in all of them mothers described boys as presenting lower levels of EF. For teachers’ BRIEF-P reports, significant sex differences were also found but only for Inhibit (t(84) = 2.25, p < 0.05; M = 1.50, SD = 0.32 for boys and M = 1.35, SD = 0.29 for girls) and for Inhibitory Self-Control (t(84) = 2.00, p < 0.05; M = 1.46, SD = 0.31 for boys and M = 1.33, SD = 0.29 for girls). Teachers also described boys as showing lower levels of EF.
Results showed significant differences for firstborns, with mothers reporting the use of more Expressive Encouragement with them (t(121) = 3.06, p < 0.01; M = 5.57, SD = 1.11 for firstborns and M = 4.95, SD = 1.12 when not firstborns); no significant differences were found for either mothers’ or teachers’ BRIEF-P reports. There were significant differences when children had siblings, again only for CCNES, with mothers reporting using more Punitive Reactions (t(125) = 2.26, p < 0.05; M = 2.10, SD = 0.67 with siblings and M = 1.83, SD = 0.63 with no siblings) and Minimization Reactions when children had siblings (t(125) = 3.22, p < 0.01; M = 3.04, SD = 0.87 with siblings and M = 2.56, SD = 0.69 with no siblings). The same happened for the composite of Negative Reactions (t(125) = 3.09, p < 0.01; M = 2.57, SD = 0.70 with siblings and M = 2.19, SD = 0.59 with no siblings).
As children become older, mothers reported use of more Minimization Reactions (r = 0.21, p < 0.05; also reflected in the Negative Reactions composite, r = 0.19, p < 0.05), and attributed more Working Memory capacities to children (r = −0.27, p < 0.01; also reflected in the Emergent Metacognition index, r = −0.23, p < 0.01). Teachers described older children as having higher executive functions (Inhibit r = −0.27, p < 0.01, Shift r = −0.44, p < 0.001, Emotional Control r = −0.30, p < 0.01; as well as for the indexes Inhibitory Self-Control r = −0.32, p < 0.01 and Flexibility r = −0.41, p < 0.001).
Older mothers reported using more Negative Reactions (r = 0.24, p < 0.01), and this was true for both Punitive Reactions (r = 0.23, p < 0.01) and Minimization Reactions (r = 0.21, p < 0.05), but no significant correlations were found regarding BRIEF-P.
Finally, regarding the number of hours that the child spent in school, we found significant correlations with the mothers’ reports on using Positive Reactions (r = −0.29, p < 0.001) as well as for both Expressive Encouragement (r = −0.31, p < 0.001) and Problem-Focused Reactions (r = −0.24, p < 0.001), meaning that as children spend less time in school, more mothers report using positive strategies for dealing with children’s expression of distress. No other significant results were found for demographic variables.
In a smaller sample (n = 87), both mothers’ and teachers’ reports were used. Regarding BRIEF-P, as we can see in Table 2, mothers reported significantly higher scores for Inhibit, Shift, and Emotion Control scales (t(86) = 2.47, p < 0.05, t(86) = 4.10, p < 0.001 and t(86) = 2.64, p < 0.01, respectively) as well as for Inhibitory Self-control and Flexibility indexes (t(86) = 2.94, p < 0.01 and t(86) = 3.51, p < 0.001, respectively). There was a positive significant association between mothers’ and teachers’ reports on Inhibit and Working Memory scales (r = 0.36, p < 0.001 and r = 0.29, p < 0.01, respectively) as well as on Inhibitory Self-control and Emergent Metacognition indexes (r = 0.28, p < 0.01 and r = 0.28, p < 0.01, respectively).

3.2. Associations between CCNES and BRIEF-P

Correlations between mothers’ reactions to children’s distress and their reports on child EF were only significant for the Negative Reactions (including both Punitive Reactions and Minimization Reactions). Mothers reported using Punitive Reactions more as they described their children as having more EF problems (this was true for all BRIEF-P scales, as well as for the calculated indexes, r = 0.18 to 0.27). However, as we can see in Table 3, when controlling for the child’s sex and age, Emotion Control and Working Memory were no longer significant (r = 0.16, p > 0.05 and r = 0.17, p > 0.05, respectively). Regarding Minimization Reactions, we found a significant correlation with the Inhibit and Emotion Control scales as well as with the Inhibitory Self-Control and Flexibility indexes (r = 0.17 to 0.23). However, when we control for the child’s sex and age, only Inhibit and Inhibitory Self-Control remain significant (r = 0.23, p < 0.01 and r = 0.24, p < 0.01, respectively). Finally, as we can see in Table 3, Negative Reactions strategies were correlated with both the Inhibit and Emotion Control scales as well as with the Inhibitory Self-Control and Flexibility indexes, even when controlling for the child’s sex and age.
The associations between mothers’ reports on CCNES and teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P were also explored. As we can see in Table 4, there was a significant correlation for the Negative Reactions composite (including both Punitive Reactions and Minimization Reactions), even when controlling for the child’s sex and age. Additionally, for those children whose mothers report using more punitive strategies, teachers reported higher Working Memory problems (r = 0.31, p < 0.01). Teachers also reported lower Working Memory (r = −0.27, p < 0.05), Shift (r = −0.22, p < 0.05) and Emergent Metacognition (r = −0.22, p < 0.05) problems for those children whose mothers reported higher Problem-Focused Reactions.

3.3. Multiple Regressions with Mothers’ Negative Strategies

Regarding mothers’ reports, child’s sex and mother’s Negative Reactions (including both Punitive Reactions and Minimization Reactions) were significant predictors of the child’s Inhibitory Self-Control (β = 0.33; p < 0.01 and β = 0.30; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.19), Flexibility (β = 0.32; p < 0.01 and β = 0.28; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.17), and Emergent Metacognition (β = 0.25; p < 0.05, R2 = 0.14 and β = 0.26; p < 0.01, R2 = 0.16).
Regarding teachers’ reports, child’s age and mother’s Negative Reactions were significant predictors of children’s Inhibitory Self-Control (β = 0.18; p < 0.01 and β = 0.23; p < 0.05, R2 = 0.18). Flexibility was only significantly predicted by the child’s age (β = −0.40; p < 0.001, R2 = 0.19), whereas Emergent Metacognition was only significantly predicted by mothers’ Negative Reactions (β = 0.26; p < 0.05, R2 = 0.14).

4. Discussion

The main purpose of this study was to assess potential connections between caregivers’ reactions to children’s negative emotions and children’s EF. Partially consistent with our expectations, mothers’ use of negative emotion regulation responses to their children’s distress predicted children’s poor EF. When controlling for the child’s sex and age, we found the more mothers reported endorsing Punitive Reactions (i.e., use of verbal or physical punishment to control the child’s negative emotional expression), the more they described their children as having higher levels in almost all the BRIEF-P scales (except for the Emotion Control and Working Memory scales). When considering teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P, the results were similar, but with the addition that teachers also described children whose mothers reported higher use of punitive reactions as having more difficulties holding information in mind for completing a task or generating goals and plans to achieve goals (i.e., higher levels in the Working Memory scale). Furthermore, when controlling for the child’s sex and age, both mothers and teachers described children whose mothers reported higher use of Minimization Reactions (i.e., devaluation of the child’s negative emotional expression) as having more difficulties resisting impulses and inhibiting/modulating responses, emotions, and behavior (i.e., higher levels in the Inhibit scale and Inhibitory Self-Control index). In turn, mothers’ negative emotion regulation strategies—either punitive or minimization reactions—were also associated with more difficulties in impulse control, inhibition and modulation of responses, emotions, and behavior as well as the ability to move flexibly among those responses, emotions, and behavior (i.e., higher levels in the Inhibit and Emotion Control scales and in the Inhibitory Self-Control and Flexibility indexes). When considering teachers’ reports, mothers’ negative emotion regulation strategies were also associated with children’s poorer EF, namely higher levels in the Inhibit, Working Memory, and Plan/Organize scales, as well as the Inhibitory Self-Control and Emergent Metacognition indexes. Regression analyses indicated that mothers’ Negative Reactions accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in Inhibitory Self-Control (for both mothers and teachers), Flexibility (only for mothers), and Emergent Metacognition (for both mothers and teachers) indexes. Although this seems to be the first study to assess links between parental emotional responsiveness and children’s EF, these findings are consistent with previous studies supporting the role of caregivers in children’s EF (e.g., [53,54,82,87,88,89,90,91,92]). For example, Bernier and colleagues [53] proposed that parental responsiveness could promote higher levels of children’s EF by affecting children’s neurobiological structure development and providing a social environment for the child to observe and practice positive regulatory strategies related to EF. In this sense, as parental responsiveness to children’s emotions contributes to children’s development of emotion regulation (e.g., [1,62,66,67]), and, in turn, emotion regulation influences EF [44], we believe that caregivers’ responses to children’s emotions could have an important role in children’s EF. Therefore, it is possible that when caregivers use non-supportive emotional responses to deal with children’s negative emotions, they provide an inappropriate social environment for children to practice and develop their emotion regulation skills, which, in turn, could negatively affect their EF.
Contrary to what was expected, mothers’ use of positive emotion regulation responses was not linked to children’s EF. Only when considering teachers’ reports we found that mothers’ higher use of Problem-Focused Reactions (i.e., helping the child to solve the problem) was associated with children’s higher ability to shift from one situation/activity to another or solve problems flexibly as well as to hold information in mind for completing a task (i.e., lower levels in the Shift and Working Memory scales). Thus, this reflected children’s higher ability to initiate, plan, organize, implement, and maintain future-oriented problem solving (i.e., lower levels in the Emergent Metacognition index). A possible explanation for why only negative emotional responsiveness was related to children’s EF is that negative interactions may be more impactful than positive ones [93,94]. For example, Zemp and colleagues [94] suggest that parental positive interactions should be expressed at least twice as much as negative interactions to protect children from adjustment problems. Their results showed that when negativity outweighed positivity, children scored significantly higher in externalizing problems. In this sense, it is important to maintain a high ratio between caregivers’ supportive versus unsupportive responses to children’s distress to prevent the adverse effects of negative emotional responsiveness on children’s EF. Future studies are needed to assess the unique impact of caregivers’ positive and negative emotional responses on children’s executive functions.
Regarding sex differences in EF, both mothers and teachers described boys as presenting poorer EF. Mothers and teachers reported higher levels on the Inhibit scale and the Inhibitory Self-Control index, which could mean that they perceive boys as having more problems with impulse control and inhibition of responses, emotions, and behavior than girls. Mothers also reported higher levels on the Shift and Emotional Control scales and on the Flexibility index, which indicates they perceive boys as having more difficulties in transitions between situations/activities, controlling emotional responses, and moving flexibly among responses, emotions, and behavior. These findings corroborate previous studies in other cultures [83,95,96,97,98,99]. However, they are inconsistent with results from other Portuguese samples that found no significant sex differences [100]. This inconsistency could be due to the use of different EF measures (i.e., performance-based measures and rating measures).
We also found differences in mothers’ reactions to children’s negative emotions concerning children with and without siblings. Mothers reported higher use of negative emotion regulation strategies for children with siblings. This finding is consistent with previous research showing that children with no siblings receive more positive responses from their caregivers. Additionally, caregivers of children with no siblings tend to be more responsive to their children than caregivers with more than one child [101]. A possible explanation for this relies on the theory of resource dilution, which suggests that with the addition of each child, the family resources decline [102,103,104]. Consequently, the only child receives, for example, more attention, concern, care, support, and interaction from caregivers, which, in turn, could result in later better socio-emotional competence and emotion regulation skills [105,106].
Some limitations bear noting. First, this study used cross-sectional and concurrent data, not allowing for inferences about the causality or directionality of the relations assessed. Future longitudinal studies are needed to disentangle the relation between caregivers’ responses to children’s emotions and children’s EF over time, considering the possibility of bidirectional relationships and age effects [65]. Second, data are all self-report, and so may be susceptible to reporting bias [107,108]. Additionally, mothers may underestimate their use of particular responses to children’s emotions or be unaware of how often they use certain responses [109]. In this sense, future research would benefit from a multimethod approach that includes observational measures to obtain more accurate information about the emotion regulation strategies used by caregivers. Third, like most studies about parental reactions to children’s emotions, we only considered mothers’ responses to children’s negative emotions. However, responses to children’s positive emotions also have important implications for their development [110], so future research should consider parental responsiveness to children’s positive emotions. Lastly, as previously referred, other variables might play a role in the relationship between caregivers’ emotional responses and children’s EF, namely children’s emotion regulation and its multidimensional nature. Thus, future studies should consider the mediation role of emotion regulation. Despite these limitations, findings from this study are novel and have important implications for future research. Our data offer preliminary support for emerging research that takes into account the relationship between parental emotional responsiveness and children’s EF. Another strength of our study is that ratings from teachers were included. As previously mentioned, teachers may be more reliable reporters of children’s EF given the higher demand for children’s executive functions at school [81]. In addition, teachers may have a better knowledge of what behaviors are normative as they are more familiar with the type of behaviors expected at specific periods of development and have a group of other children for comparison [111]. Our data also have implications for practice. The preschool years are a time of rapid growth and development of executive functions, and it is important to assess difficulties during this period given the significant influence of early EF across development, including adulthood [6]. In this sense, the preschool period provides an opportunity for prevention and intervention programs targeting children’s EF, and findings from this study suggest that such programs could be enhanced by assessing parental emotional responsiveness.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.F., M.V. and A.J.S.; methodology, C.F., M.V. and M.F.; data collection, C.F. and A.F.S.; data analysis and drafting the manuscript C.F., A.F.S. and M.F.; data interpretation and editing the manuscript, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia: PTDC/PSI-GER/29636/2017, SFRH/BD/06367/2020, UIDB/04810/2020).

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by ISPA Ethics Committee (Approval code: I/038/06/2020, Approval Date: 8 June 2020).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Acknowledgments

Data collection and preparation of this article were supported in part by grants from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (PTDC/PSI-GER/29636/2017, UIDB/04810/2020). We acknowledge the support of all the colleagues who contributed to data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Cole, P.M.; Dennies, T.A.; Smith-Simon, K.E.; Cohen, L.H. Preschoolers’ emotion regulation strategy understanding: Relations with emotion socialization and child self-regulation. Soc. Dev. 2009, 18, 324–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Eskritt, M.; Walsh, K. Executive functioning and external symbols: The role of symbolic understanding and psychological distancing. J. Genet. Psychol. 2021, 182, 116–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Ruffini, C.; Marzocchi, G.M.; Pecini, C. Preschool executive functioning and child behavior: Association with learning prerequisites? Children 2021, 8, 964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Sala, M.N.; Pons, F.; Molina, P. Emotion regulation strategies in preschool children. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 32, 440–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Silkenbeumer, J.R.; Schiller, E.M.; Kärtner, J. Co- and self-regulation of emotions in the preschool setting. Early Child. Res. Q. 2018, 44, 72–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ahmed, S.F.; Kuhfeld, M.; Watts, T.W.; Davis-Kean, P.E.; Vandell, D.L. Preschool executive function and adult outcomes: A developmental cascade model. Dev. Psychol. 2021, 57, 2234–2249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Carlson, S.M. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2005, 28, 595–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Garon, N.; Bryson, S.E.; Smith, I.M. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychol. Bull. 2008, 134, 31–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Diamond, A. Executive Functions. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2013, 64, 135–1687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Hughes, C. Changes and challenges in 20 years of research into the development of executive functions. Infant Child Dev. 2011, 20, 251–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. McClelland, M.M.; Cameron, C.E. Self-regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing ecologically valid measures. Child Dev. Perspect. 2011, 6, 136–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 41, 49–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Gathercole, S.E.; Pickering, S.J.; Knight, C.; Stegmann, Z. Working memory skills and educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Appl. Cogn. Psychol. 2004, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dowsett, S.M.; Livesey, D.J. The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of ‘‘executive skills” training. Dev. Psychobiol. 2000, 36, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Blair, C. Executive function and early childhood education. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 2016, 10, 102–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Rothbart, M.K.; Posner, M.I. Genes and experience in the development of executive attention and effortful control. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2005, 2005, 101–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rueda, M.R.; Posner, M.I.; Rothbart, M.K. The development of executive attention: Contributions to the emergence of self-regulation. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2005, 28, 573–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Calkins, S.D.; Hill, A. Caregiver influences on emerging emotion regulation: Biological and environmental transactions in early development. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation; Gross, J.J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 229–248. [Google Scholar]
  19. Gross, J.J.; Thompson, R.A. Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation; Gross, J.J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
  20. Kopp, C.B. Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Dev. Psychol. 1989, 25, 343–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Thompson, R.A. Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 1994, 59, 25–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Calkins, S.D.; Howse, R.B. Individual differences in self-regulation: Implications for childhood adjustment. In The Regulation of Emotion; Philippot, P., Feldman, R.S., Eds.; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004; pp. 307–332. [Google Scholar]
  23. Jahromi, L.B.; Stifter, C.A. Individual differences in preschoolers’ self-regulation and theory of mind. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2008, 54, 125–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Smith-Donald, R.; Raver, C.C.; Hayes, T.; Richardson, B. Preliminary construct and concurrent validity of the Preschool Self-regulation Assessment (PSRA) for field-based research. Early Child. Res. Q. 2007, 22, 173–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Blankson, A.N.; O’Brien, M.; Leerkes, E.M.; Marcovitch, S.; Calkins, S.D.; Weaver, J.M. Developmental dynamics of emotion and cognition processes in preschoolers. Child Dev. 2013, 84, 346–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Calkins, S.D.; Marcovitch, S. Emotion regulation and executive functioning in early development: Integrated mechanisms of control supporting adaptive functioning. In Child Development at the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition; Calkins, S.D., Bell, M.A., Eds.; American Psychological Association: Wellesley, MA, USA, 2010; pp. 37–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dennis, T.A. Neurophysiological markers for child emotion regulation from the perspective of emotion–cognition integration: Current directions and future challenges. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2010, 35, 212–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Groves, N.B.; Wells, E.L.; Soto, E.F.; Marsh, C.L.; Jaisle, E.M.; Harvey, T.K.; Kofler, M.J. Executive functioning and emotion regulation in children with and without ADHD. Res. Child Adolesc. Psychopathol. 2021, 50, 721–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gyurak, A.; Goodkind, M.S.; Kramer, J.H.; Miller, B.L.; Levenson, R.W. Executive functions and the down-regulation and up-regulation of emotion. Cogn. Emot. 2012, 26, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Holley, S.R.; Ewing, S.T.; Stiver, J.T.; Bloch, L. The relationship between emotion regulation, executive functioning, and aggressive behaviors. J. Interpers. Violence 2015, 32, 1692–1707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Schmeichel, B.J.; Tang, D. Individual differences in executive functioning and their relationship to emotional processes and responses. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wante, L.; Mezulis, A.; Van Beveren, M.L.; Braet, C. The mediating effect of adaptive and maladaptive emotion regulation strategies on executive functioning impairment and depressive symptoms among adolescents. Child Neuropsychol. 2017, 23, 935–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Binder, A.S.; Brown, H.R.; Harvey, E.A. Executive function and trajectories of emotion dysregulation in children with parent-reported behavior problems. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2020, 48, 481–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lantrip, C.; Isquith, P.K.; Koven, N.S.; Welsh, K.; Roth, R.M. Executive function and emotion regulation strategy use in adolescents. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child 2016, 5, 50–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rutherford, H.J.V.; Booth, C.R.; Crowley, M.J.; Mayes, L.C. Investigating the relationship between working memory and emotion regulation in mothers. J. Cogn. Psychol. 2016, 28, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sperduti, M.; Makowski, D.; Arcangeli, M.; Wantzen, P.; Zalla, T.; Lemaire, S.; Dokic, J.; Pelletier, J.; Piolino, P. The distinctive role of executive functions in implicit emotion regulation. Acta Psychol. 2017, 173, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Landis, T.D.; Garcia, A.M.; Hart, K.C.; Graziano, P.A. Differentiating symptoms of ADHD in preschoolers: The role of emotion regulation and executive function. J. Atten. Disord. 2021, 25, 1260–1271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Zelazo, P.D.; Cunningham, W.A. Executive function: Mechanisms underlying Emotion Regulation. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation; Gross, J.J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 135–158. [Google Scholar]
  39. Carlson, S.M.; Wang, T.S. Inhibitory control and emotion regulation in preschool children. Cogn. Dev. 2007, 22, 489–510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dickson, K.S.; Ciesla, J.A. Executive functioning and negative affect: An examination of the meditational effects of emotion regulation. Int. J. Cogn. Ther. 2018, 11, 272–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Thibodeau-Nielsen, R.B.; Gilpin, A.T. The role of emotion regulation in the relationship between pretense and executive function in early childhood: For whom is the relationship strongest? Infant Child Dev. 2020, 29, e2193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ursache, A.; Blair, C.; Stifter, C.; Voegtline, K.; Family Life Project Investigators. Emotional reactivity and regulation in infancy interact to predict executive functioning in early childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 49, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bell, M.A.; Wolfe, C.D. Emotion and cognition: An intricately bound developmental process. Child Dev. 2004, 75, 366–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ferrier, D.E.; Basset, H.H.; Denham, S.A. Relations between executive function and emotionality in preschoolers: Exploring a transitive cognition–emotion linkage. Front. Psychol. 2014, 5, 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Ursache, A.; Blair, C.; Raver, C.C. The promotion of self-regulation as a means of enhancing school readiness and early achievement in children at risk for school failure. Child Dev. Perspect. 2012, 6, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Goldin, P.R.; McRae, K.; Ramel, W.; Gross, J.J. The neural bases of emotion regulation: Reappraisal and suppression of negative emotion. Biol. Psychiatry 2008, 63, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Ochsner, K.N.; Bunge, S.A.; Gross, J.J.; Gabrieli, J.D.E. Rethinking feelings: An fMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. J. Cogn. Neurosci. 2002, 14, 1215–1229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Ochsner, K.N.; Ray, R.D.; Cooper, J.C.; Robertson, E.R.; Chopra, S.; Gabrieli, J.D.E.; Gross, J.J. For better or for worse: Neural systems supporting the cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative emotion. NeuroImage 2004, 23, 483–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Bush, G.; Luu, P.; Posner, M.I. Cognitive and emotional influences in anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2000, 4, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Morris, A.S.; Silk, J.S.; Steinberg, L.; Myers, S.S.; Robinson, L.R. The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Soc. Dev. 2007, 16, 361–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  51. Thompson, R.A.; Meyer, S. Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In Handbook of Emotion Regulation; Gross, J.J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 249–268. [Google Scholar]
  52. Belsky, J.; de Haan, M. Annual research review: Parenting and children’s brain development: The end of the beginning. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2010, 52, 409–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Bernier, A.; Carlson, S.M.; Whipple, N. From external regulation to self-regulation: Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Dev. 2010, 81, 326–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rueda, M.R.; Paz-Alonzo, P.M. Executive function and emotional development. In Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development; Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development, Université de Montréal: Montréal, QC, Canada, 2013; Available online: https://www.child-encyclopedia.com/executive-functions/according-experts/executive-function-and-emotional-development (accessed on 17 March 2022).
  55. Khabir, L.; Ghasrodashti, M.F.; Rahimi, C. The study of relationship between maternal reactions to children’s negative emotions and children’s social skills: The role of mediational emotion regulation. Int. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2015, 2, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Eisenberg, N.; Cumberland, A.; Spinrad, T.L. Parental socialization of emotion. Psychol. Inq. 1998, 9, 241–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Denham, S.A.; Bassett, H.H.; Wyatt, T. The socialization of emotional competence. In Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research; Grusec, J.E., Hastings, P.D., Eds.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 590–613. [Google Scholar]
  58. Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Shepard, S.A.; Guthrie, I.K.; Murphy, B.C.; Reiser, M. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Dev. 1999, 70, 513–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Fabes, R.A.; Leonard, S.A.; Kupanoff, K.; Martin, C.L. Parental coping with children’s negative emotions: Relations with children’s emotional and social responding. Child Dev. 2001, 72, 907–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Fabes, R.A.; Poulin, R.E.; Eisenberg, N.; Madden-Derdich, D.A. The Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Psychometric properties and relations with children’s emotional competence. Marriage Fam. Rev. 2002, 34, 285–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Blair, B.L.; Perry, N.B.; O’Brien, M.; Calkins, S.D.; Keane, S.P.; Shanahan, L. The indirect effects of maternal emotion socialization on friendship quality in middle childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 566–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  62. Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; Murphy, B.C. Parents’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s social competence and comforting behavior. Child Dev. 1996, 67, 2227–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Hurrell, K.E.; Hudson, J.L.; Schniering, C.A. Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relationships with emotion regulation in children with an anxiety disorder. J. Anxiety Disord. 2015, 29, 72–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. McElwain, N.L.; Halberstadt, A.G.; Volling, B.L. Mother- and father-reported reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to young children’s emotional understanding and friendship quality. Child Dev. 2007, 78, 1407–1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Mirabile, S.P.; Oertwig, D.; Halberstadt, A.G. Parent emotion socialization and children’s socioemotional adjustment: When is supportiveness no longer supportive? Soc. Dev. 2016, 27, 466–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Shaffer, A.; Suveg, C.; Thomassin, K.; Bradbury, L.L. Emotion socialization in the context of family risks: Links to child emotion regulation. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2012, 21, 917–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Spinrad, T.L.; Stifter, C.A.; Donelan-McCall, N.; Turner, L. Mothers’ regulation strategies in response to toddlers’ affect: Links to later emotion self-regulation. Soc. Dev. 2004, 13, 40–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Yagmurlu, B.; Altan, O. Maternal socialization and child temperament as predictors of emotion regulation in Turkish preschoolers. Infant Child Dev. 2010, 19, 275–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Denham, S.A.; Mitchell-Copeland, J.; Strandberg, K.; Auerbach, S.; Blair, K. Parental contributions to preschoolers’ emotional competence: Direct and indirect effects. Motiv. Emot. 1997, 21, 65–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A. Mothers’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s temperament and anger behavior. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1994, 40, 138–156. [Google Scholar]
  71. Eisenberg, N.; Spinrad, T.L.; Valiente, C. Emotion-related self-regulation and children’s social, psychological, and academic functioning. In Diversity in Harmony—Insights from Psychology: Proceedings of the 31st International Congress of Psychology; Shigemasu, K., Kuwano, S., Sato, T., Matsuzawa, T., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018; pp. 268–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Jones, S.; Eisenberg, N.; Fabes, R.A.; MacKinnon, D.P. Parents’ reactions to elementary school children’s negative emotions: Relations to social and emotional functioning at school. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2002, 48, 133–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sanders, W.; Zeman, J.; Poon, J.; Miller, R. Child regulation of negative emotions and depressive symptoms: The moderating role of parental emotion socialization. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015, 24, 402–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Suh, B.L.; Kang, M.J. Maternal reactions to preschoolers’ negative emotions and aggression: Gender difference in mediation of emotion regulation. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2020, 29, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Fabes, R.A.; Eisenberg, N.; Bernzweig, J. Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale (CCNES): Description and Scoring; Arizona State University: Tempe, AZ, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  76. Gioia, G.A.; Espy, K.A.; Isquith, P.K. BRIEF-P: Behaviour Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning—Preschool Version Professional manual; Psychological Assessment Resources: Lutz, FL, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  77. Ambrose, H. Young Children’s Emotion Regulation and Social Skills: The Role of Maternal Emotional Socialization and Mother-Child Interactional Synchrony. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Windsor, Windsor, ON, Canada, 2013. Available online: https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/4927 (accessed on 27 March 2022).
  78. Doan, S.N.; Song, Q. Culture, emotion socialization and children’s inhibitory control. J. Cogn. Dev. 2022, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Anderson, P. Executive function in children: Introduction. Child Neuropsychol. 2002, 8, 69–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Welsh, M.C.; Friedman, S.L.; Spieker, S.J. Executive functions in developing children: Current conceptualizations and questions for the future. In Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development; McCartney, K., Phillips, D., Eds.; Blackwell Publishing: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006; pp. 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Tamm, L.; Peugh, J. Concordance of teacher-rated and performance-based measures of executive functioning in preschoolers. Child Neuropsychol. 2019, 25, 410–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Landry, S.H.; Miller-Loncar, C.L.; Smith, K.E.; Swank, P.R. The role of early parenting in children’s development of executive processes. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2002, 21, 15–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Olson, S.L.; Sameroff, A.J.; Kerr, D.C.R.; Lopez, N.L.; Wellman, H.M. Developmental foundations of externalizing problems in young children: The role of effortful control. Dev. Psychopathol. 2005, 17, 25–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  84. Cassano, M.C.; Zeman, J.L.; Sanders, W.M. Responses to children’s sadness: Mothers’ and fathers’ unique contributions and perceptions. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2014, 60, 1–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Song, J.H.; Trommsdorff, G. Linking maternal emotion socialization to boys’ and girls’ emotion regulation in Korea. Child Stud. Asia Pac. Contexts 2016, 6, 47–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Bost, K.K.; Wiley, A.R.; Fiese, B.; Hammons, A.; McBride, B.; SRONG KIDS Team. Associations between adult attachment style, emotion regulation, and preschool children’s food consumption. J. Dev. Behav. Pediatr. 2014, 35, 50–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Andrews, K.; Dunn, J.R.; Prime, H.; Duku, E.; Atkinson, L.; Tiwari, A.; Gonzalez, A. Effects of household chaos and parental responsiveness on child executive functions: A novel, multi-method approach. BMC Psychol. 2021, 9, 147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bernier, A.; Beauchamp, M.H.; Carlson, S.M.; Lalonde, G. A secure base from which to regulate: Attachment security in toddlerhood as a predictor of executive functioning at school entry. Dev. Psychol. 2015, 51, 1177–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Bernier, A.; Carlson, S.M.; Deschênes, M.; Matte-Gagné, C. Social factors in the development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment. Dev. Sci. 2012, 15, 12–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Hughes, C.; Ensor, R. Executive function and theory of mind in 2 year olds: A family affair? Dev. Neuropsychol. 2005, 28, 645–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kopp, C.B. Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Dev. Psychol. 1982, 18, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kraybill, J.H.; Bell, M.A. Infancy predictors of preschool and post-kindergarten executive function. Dev. Psychobiol. 2012, 55, 530–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Lam, C.B.; Chung, K.K.H.; Li, X. Parental warmth and hostility and child executive function problems: A longitudinal study of chinese families. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 1063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Zemp, M.; Merrilees, C.E.; Bodenmann, G. How much positivity is needed to buffer the impact of parental negativity on children? Fam. Relat. 2014, 63, 602–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Gestsdottir, S.; von Suchodoletz, A.; Wanless, S.B.; Hubert, B.; Guimard, P.; Birgisdottir, F.; McClelland, M. Early behavioral self-regulation, academic achievement, and gender: Longitudinal findings from France, Germany, and Iceland. Appl. Dev. Sci. 2014, 18, 90–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Kochanska, G.; Murray, K.T.; Harlan, E.T. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Dev. Psychol. 2000, 36, 220–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Liu, J.; Cheng, H.; Leung, P.W. The application of the preschool child behavior checklist and the caregiver– teacher report form to mainland Chinese children: Syndrome structure, gender differences, country effects, and inter-informant agreement. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2011, 39, 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  98. Silverman, I.W. Gender differences in inhibitory control as assessed on simple delay tasks in early childhood: A meta-analysis. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 2021, 45, 533–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Wanless, S.B.; McClelland, M.M.; Lan, X.; Son, S.-H.; Cameron, C.E.; Morrison, F.J.; Chen, F.-M.; Chen, J.-L.; Li, S.; Lee, K.; et al. Gender differences in behavioral regulation in four societies: The United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and China. Early Child. Res. Q. 2013, 28, 621–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Baptista, J.; Osório, A.; Martins, E.C.; Verissimo, M.; Martins, C. Does social–behavioral adjustment mediate the relation between executive function and academic readiness? J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 46, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Liu, R.X.; Lin, W.; Chen, Z.-Y. The effect of parental responsiveness on differences in psychological distress and delinquency between singleton and non-singleton Chinese adolescents. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2010, 19, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Blake, J. Family size and the quality of children. Demography 1981, 18, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Downey, D.B. When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1995, 60, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kalmijn, M.; van de Werfhorst, H.G. Sibship size and gendered resource dilution in different societal contexts. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  105. Chi, X.; Huang, L.; Wang, J.; Zhang, P. The prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of depressive symptoms in early adolescents in China: Differences in only child and non-only child groups. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  106. Liu, R.X.; Lin, W.; Chen, Z.-Y. School performance, peer association, psychological and behavioral adjustments: A comparison between Chinese adolescents with and without siblings. J. Adolesc. 2010, 33, 411–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Rothbaum, F. Patterns of maternal acceptance. Genet. Psychol. Monogr. 1986, 112, 435–458. [Google Scholar]
  108. Shaughnessy, J.J.; Zechmeister, E.B.; Zechmeister, J.S. Descriptive methods. In Research Methods in Psychology, 9th ed.; Shaughnessy, J.J., Zechmeister, E.B., Zechmeister, J.S., Eds.; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 91–182. [Google Scholar]
  109. Frankel, L.A.; Hughes, S.O.; O’Connor, T.M.; Power, T.G.; Fisher, J.O.; Hazen, N.L. Parental influences on children’s self-regulation of energy intake: Insights from developmental literature on emotion regulation. J. Obes. 2012, 2012, 327259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Moran, K.M.; Root, A.E.; Vizy, B.K.; Wilson, T.K.; Gentzler, A.L. Maternal socialization of children’s positive affect regulation: Associations with children’s savoring, dampening, and depressive symptoms. Soc. Dev. 2019, 28, 306–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Amador-Campos, J.A.; Forns-Santacana, M.; Guardia-Olmos, J.; Pero-Cebollero, M. DSM-IV attention deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms: Agreement between informants in prevalence and factor structure at different ages. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 2006, 28, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table
Table 1. Means and standard deviations regarding CCNES and BRIEF-P.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations regarding CCNES and BRIEF-P.
Mother (n = 136)Teacher (n = 87)
MSDMSD
CCNESDistress Reactions2.740.60
Punitive Reactions2.010.68
Minimization Reactions2.890.84
Expressive Encouragement5.261.12
Emotion-Focused Reactions5.970.69
Problem-Focused Reactions5.980.72
Negative Reactions2.440.70
Positive Reactions5.740.72
BRIEF-PInhibit1.560.281.440.32
Shift1.390.291.230.26
Emotional Control1.480.301.360.38
Working Memory1.410.301.400.33
Plan/Organize1.430.291.460.33
Inhibitory Self-Control1.530.251.400.30
Flexibility1.430.261.290.29
Emergent Metacognition1.420.281.420.31
M = mean; SD = standard deviation; CCNES = Coping with Children’s Negative Emotions Scale; and BRIEF-P = Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—Preschool Version.
Table
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for mothers’ and teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P.
Table 2. Means and standard deviations for mothers’ and teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P.
MotherTeacher
MSDMSDMean Differencetp
Inhibit1.530.281.430.320.092.47<0.05
Shift1.390.291.230.260.164.10<0.001
Emotional Control1.490.301.360.380.142.64<0.01
Working Memory1.370.281.400.33 n.s.
Plan/Organize1.390.281.460.33 n.s.
Inhibitory Self-Control1.510.261.400.300.112.94<0.01
Flexibility1.440.261.290.290.153.51<0.001
Emergent Metacognition1.380.261.420.31 n.s.
M = mean; SD = standard deviation; n.s. = no significant differences.
Table
Table 3. Associations between mother’s report on CCNES and BRIEF-P scales, controlling for child’s sex and age.
Table 3. Associations between mother’s report on CCNES and BRIEF-P scales, controlling for child’s sex and age.
BRIEF-P
InhibitShiftEmotional ControlWorking MemoryPlan/OrganizeInhibitory Self-ControlFlexibilityEmergent Metacognition
PN0.30 ***0.18 *0.160.170.19 *0.28 **0.19 *0.19 *
CNNESMR0.23 **0.090.170.120.120.24 **0.150.13
EE−0.07−0.040.00−0.08−0.04−0.05−0.02−0.07
EFR−0.06−0.03−0.11−0.08−0.04−0.09−0.08−0.07
PFR−0.02−0.08−0.07−0.08−0.07−0.05−0.09−0.08
NR0.29 **0.140.18 *0.160.170.28 **0.19 *0.17
PR−0.06−0.06−0.06−0.09−0.06−0.07−0.07−0.08
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; CNNES: PN = Punitive Reactions, MR = Minimization Reactions, EE = Expressive Encouragement, EFR = Emotion-Focused Reactions, PFR = Problem-Focused Reactions, NR = Negative Reactions Composite, PR = Positive Reactions Composite.
Table
Table 4. Associations between mothers’ reports on CCNES and teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P scales, controlling for child’s sex and age.
Table 4. Associations between mothers’ reports on CCNES and teachers’ reports on BRIEF-P scales, controlling for child’s sex and age.
BRIEF-P
InhibitShiftEmotional ControlWorking MemoryPlan/OrganizeInhibitory Self-ControlFlexibilityEmergent Metacognition
PN0.23 *0.23 *0.180.31 **0.25 *0.24 *0.23 *0.30 **
CNNESMR0.28 **0.070.100.160.140.23 *0.100.16
EE−0.11−0.02−0.06−0.14−0.11−0.10−0.05−0.14
EFR−0.21−0.02−0.05−0.05−0.04−0.16−0.03−0.01
PFR−0.20−0.22 *−0.12−0.27 *−0.11−0.18−0.16−0.22 *
NR0.28 **0.170.130.28 **0.23 *0.25 *0.170.27 *
PR−0.20−0.09−0.09−0.18−0.08−0.17−0.09−0.15
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; CNNES: PN = Punitive Reactions, MR = Minimization Reactions, EE = Expressive Encouragement, EFR = Emotion-Focused Reactions, PFR = Problem-Focused Reactions, NR = Negative Reactions Composite, PR = Positive Reactions Composite.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fernandes, C.; Santos, A.F.; Fernandes, M.; Veríssimo, M.; Santos, A.J. Caregivers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Associations with Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning. Children 2022, 9, 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071075

AMA Style

Fernandes C, Santos AF, Fernandes M, Veríssimo M, Santos AJ. Caregivers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Associations with Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning. Children. 2022; 9(7):1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071075

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fernandes, Carla, Ana F. Santos, Marilia Fernandes, Manuela Veríssimo, and António J. Santos. 2022. "Caregivers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Associations with Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning" Children 9, no. 7: 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071075

APA Style

Fernandes, C., Santos, A. F., Fernandes, M., Veríssimo, M., & Santos, A. J. (2022). Caregivers’ Responses to Children’s Negative Emotions: Associations with Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning. Children, 9(7), 1075. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9071075

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop