The Pennsylvania State University
The Graduate School
College of the Liberal Arts
PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR IN EARLY CHILDHOOD: THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
PARENTAL EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIVENESS AND CHILDREN’S
PHYSIOLOGICAL REGULATION
A Thesis in
Psychology
by
Leigha A. MacNeill
© 2016 Leigha A. MacNeill
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Science
May 2016
ii
The thesis of Leigha A. MacNeill was reviewed and approved* by the following:
Alysia Y. Blandon
Assistant Professor of Psychology
Thesis Adviser
Kristin A. Buss
Associate Professor of Psychology
Ginger A. Moore
Associate Professor of Psychology
Melvin M. Mark
Professor of Psychology
Head of the Department of Psychology
*Signatures are on file in the Graduate School.
iii
ABSTRACT
Prosocial development in early childhood plays an important role in children’s social
adjustment throughout the lifespan (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006). The family is a
proximal socialization context that teaches children about the emotional states of others and how
to respond to such states (Valiente, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Cumberland, & Losoya, 2004).
Emotional expressiveness, emotions that parents express in the presence of their children,
influences how their children respond in social events, such as ones that encourage prosocial
behavior (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). There is some research to suggest that
parents’ emotion socialization contributes to the physiological mechanisms that regulate
children’s social engagement (e.g., Hastings & De, 2008). It is important to address that
studying one parent and one child in the family does not fully capture children’s emotion
socialization environment, thus the current study examined whether the associations between
mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior differed for
two children in the same family. Additionally, it examined if children’s baseline RSA moderated
the associations between parents’ emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior.
This study utilized data from a larger study of 70 families, including mothers, fathers, older
siblings, and younger siblings. The results indicated that higher levels of mothers’ positive
emotional expressiveness were associated with greater sharing. Further, significant interactions
between parental emotional expressiveness and sibling, as well as between parental emotional
expressiveness and baseline RSA, emerged. The results also indicated significant relations
between ratios of parents’ emotional expressions and children’s sharing. The current study
stresses the importance of examining emotion socialization and physiological regulation in the
development of prosocial behavior from a family systems perspective.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………………...v
List of Figures…………………………………………………………………………………….vi
Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..1
Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...16
Results……………………………………………………………………………………………21
Discussion………………………………………………………………………………………..31
References………………………………………………………………………………………..43
Appendix A: Tables……………………………………………………………………………...54
Appendix B: Figures……………………………………………………………………………..63
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………………54
Table 2. Correlations among Study Variables…………………………...………………………55
Table 3. Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s helping behavior…………………………..59
Table 4. Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s sharing behavior…………………………...60
Table 5: Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of emotional expressiveness
and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s helping behavior………………………61
Table 6: Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of emotional expressiveness
and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s sharing behavior………………………62
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The interaction between mothers’ negative-dominant emotional expressiveness and
sibling predicting children’s sharing……………………………………………………………..63
Figure 2. The interaction between mothers’ negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing…………………………………………..64
Figure 3. The interaction between the ratio of mothers’ positive to negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness and sibling predicting children’s sharing………………………………………..65
1
Introduction
Early prosocial behavior is an important contributor to how children form and maintain
positive relationships with others (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 1996).
Prosocial behavior is generally defined as voluntary behavior intended to benefit another
individual, in ways that include helping, cooperation, sharing, comforting, and showing concern
for others. Children who engage in higher levels of prosocial behavior are often better liked by
their peers and are generally more socially competent (Denham, McKinley, Couchoud, & Holt,
1990; Hastings, Utendale, & Sullivan, 2007). In contrast, children who demonstrate less
prosocial behavior are more likely to be rejected by their peers and act aggressively and
antisocially (Denham et al., 1990; Eron & Huesmann, 1984).
The family is a proximal socialization context that provides an important foundation for
how children learn about the emotional states of others and how to engage in prosocial behavior
in response to these states (Valiente, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Cumberland, & Losoya, 2004).
Emotional expressiveness, the emotions that parents generally express in front of their children,
is associated with how children engage in social situations, such as circumstances that promote
prosocial behavior (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Although research largely
focuses on maternal emotional expressiveness, fathers provide experiences for children that are
not the same as the experiences in the mother-child relationship (Cox & Paley, 1997). Thus,
including fathers allows for the opportunity to explore whether children respond differentially to
mothers’ and fathers’ parental socialization. Research has suggested that the degree to which
parents’ emotional expressiveness impacts children’s social and emotional development may be
due in part to children’s physiological regulation (Hastings, Nuselovici, Utendale, Coutya,
McShane, & Sullivan, 2008; Hastings & De, 2008). The current study therefore examined how
2
two children within the same family differentially respond to parents’ emotional expressiveness,
and whether or not these associations with prosocial behavior differ depending on children’s
physiological regulation.
Prosocial Development across Early Childhood
Across toddlerhood and into early childhood, children’s prosocial behavior undergoes
considerable transformation (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Some research suggests that the occurrence
of prosocial behaviors increases as children get older (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998). For instance,
across ages 2, 3, and 4, rates of mother-reported prosocial behaviors have been shown to increase
(Ensor, Spencer, & Hughes, 2011). However, there has been some work to suggest that
prosocial behavior becomes more selective as children get older, in that they begin drawing on
past experiences to determine with whom they want to engage prosocially. For instance, 4- and
5-year-old children are more likely than 3-year-old children to share with friends than with peers
that they dislike (Paulus & Moore, 2014).
The discrepancies in the development of prosocial behaviors across early childhood may
be in part due to researchers examining prosocial behavior as a composite of many behaviors,
despite evidence suggesting that different types of prosocial behavior have unique developmental
trajectories (Dunfield, Kuhlmeir, O’Connell, & Kelley, 2011; Brownell, Svetlova, Anderson,
Nichols, & Drummond, 2013; Dunn & Munn, 1986; Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980). Prosocial
behaviors can be differentiated by the individual needs to which a person is responding (Dunfield
et al., 2011). Helping and sharing behaviors are two key types of prosocial behavior that show
up early in childhood, yet have different underlying response needs and progress at different
rates across development (Radke-Yarrow, Zahn-Waxler, & Chapman, 1983; Dunfield et al.,
2011). For instance, helping behaviors involve the ability to decipher the instrumental need of
3
another by recognizing the other’s difficulty completing an action and knowing a possible
solution to the problem. On the other hand, for an individual to engage in sharing behavior, they
must be able to interpret that an inequality exists between them and the other person and
additionally be willing to sacrifice a resource to satisfy the problem (Dunfield et al., 2011).
Research suggests that engaging in sharing behaviors requires greater emotional and cognitive
development on the part of the benefactor, such that giving up one’s own material item is more
costly to younger children and requires a more developed other-orientation (Yarrow et al., 1976;
Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979).
The intention to help another individual is one of the earliest developing prosocial
behaviors (Warneken & Tomasello, 2006). Children have been found to engage in helping
behaviors, such as handing over objects that another individual has expressed interest in, as early
as 14 months old (Warneken & Tomasello, 2007). In the toddler years, children have been
shown to use pointing in order to direct an adult’s attention to an item that they dropped
(Liszkowski, Carpenter, Striano, & Tomasello, 2006). In addition to helping others retrieve
objects, young children may assist others in achieving their social goals. When noticing an
experimenter trying to capture the attention of another individual, 3-year-old children were able
to engage in social helping by assisting the experimenter in their attention-seeking actions (Beier,
Over, & Carpenter, 2014). Research has suggested that although the reasoning behind helping
behavior may change across development (e.g., it was required, self-initiated, imitation, in
anticipation of reward; Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Leiser, 1980), the frequency of helping behaviors does
not significantly increase between 18 and 76 months of age (Bar-Tal, Raviv, & Goldberg, 1982).
Sharing behavior is generally defined as behavior meant to assuage another individual’s
material need (Dunfield et al., 2011). Between 12 and 18 months of age, children have been
4
observed to spontaneously share their food and toys within a short amount of time on several
occasions, regardless of the recipient (e.g., mother, father, unfamiliar person) and the behavior
demonstrated by the recipient (Rheingold, Hay, & West 1976). Relative to 1-year-old children,
at 24 months, children are more inclined to share their toys because they desire to, rather than
because they had been pressured by other individuals to do so (Hay, Caplan, Castle, & Stimson,
1991). However, sharing can still be difficult even throughout preschool and typically occurs
less often than helping and cooperative behaviors (Eisenberg, 2005). For instance, 3 year olds
have been found to share equally with people who were potentially able to reciprocate sharing, as
well as with those who were unable to share. Meanwhile, 5 year olds were more likely to share
with others they knew had the potential to reciprocate sharing (Sebastián-Enesco & Warneken,
2015). In a study of 3- to 5-year-old children, when asked to share stickers with another
individual, there was no difference across age in sharing when the child was told they could get
one sticker right away or the child and the experimenter could each get a sticker right away.
However, when children were told that they could have one sticker for themselves now or that
both the child and other experimenter could get one sticker later, 3 year olds were significantly
different from the 4-and 5-year-old children, in that they were more likely to take the immediate
gratification option (Thompson, Barresi, & Moore, 1997). These results suggest that there are
age-related differences in future-oriented sharing behaviors that emerge at 4 years of age,
requiring a more developed cognitive capacity to understand and take into consideration the
wants of others.
Parental Emotional Expressiveness and Children’s Prosocial Behavior
The early development of children’s helping and sharing behaviors is associated with
children’s socialization experiences (Brownell et al., 2013; Yarrow et al., 1976; Hastings et al.,
5
2007; Knafo & Plomin, 2006). Parents socialize their children’s emotions in a myriad of ways,
all of which can impact children’s prosocial behavior. While some emotion socialization efforts
are in direct response to the child (e.g., parent comforts child when he is crying), other
socialization strategies are indirect. One key aspect of parents’ indirect emotion socialization is
their emotional expressiveness. Parental emotional expressiveness is defined as the emotions
that parents generally express in the family context, but it does not necessarily pertain to
situations involving the child, nor is the emotion child-directed (Eisenberg et al., 2001).
Parents’ consistent patterns of verbal and nonverbal emotional expressions contribute to
the emotional climate in the family (Eisenberg et al., 1998). It has been argued that the
emotional climate of the family relates to how children appraise and engage in emotional
situations within the family context and other social settings (Halberstadt, Cassidy, Stifter, Parke,
& Fox, 1995; Eisenberg, et al., 1998). Specifically, how often parents express emotions and
what emotions they express given the situation foster children’s emotional understanding and
teach children how they are expected to respond during emotionally salient events. Children’s
emotional understanding is thought to be an important contributor to the development of
children’s prosocial behavior (Ensor et al., 2011; Eisenberg, 2000). More specifically, the ability
to infer the emotional states and needs of others better enables an individual to quickly respond
to those situations in prosocial ways (Iannotti, 1985).
A family context characterized by positive emotional expressiveness may matter for
children’s development of prosocial behavior. Positive expressiveness includes displays of joy,
enthusiasm, delight, and pleasant surprise, and their positive associations with children’s social
adjustment have been clearly established in the literature (Eisenberg et al., 1998). When the
broader emotional climate that parents provide is more positive, children feel less self-concern
6
and are more likely to respond to the emotions of others (Janssens & Gerris, 1992). Research
has found that higher levels of positive parental expressiveness were related to higher levels of
kindergarten children’s prosocial behaviors including helping, sharing, and taking turns (Boyum
& Parke, 1995). Mothers’ positive emotional expressiveness has been associated with preschool
children’s prosocial caregiving behavior toward a younger sibling (Garner, Jones, & Miner,
1994), and children whose mothers express more positive emotion have shown greater levels of
self-reported empathy and empathic facial expressions (Zhou et al., 2002). More broadly,
research has found a link between parents’ positive expressiveness and children’s greater social
competence when engaging with peers (MacDonald & Parke, 1984). These findings demonstrate
that parents who express more positive emotions in the family afford children greater social
competence and the necessary skills for engaging with others in prosocial ways.
Parents’ negative emotional expressiveness, on the other hand, may hinder children’s
development of prosocial behaviors. Negative emotional expressiveness is generally
characterized by manifestations of anger, sadness, and anxiety. Heightened exposure to negative
emotional expressiveness has been found to increase children’s distress and harm their
attentional capacities, where they have difficulties learning strategies for appropriately dealing
with their emotionally driven behavior. These difficulties children experience, in turn, limit their
levels of other-oriented behavior (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998; Eisenberg et al., 2001). Parents’
negative emotional expressiveness has also been found to contribute to heightened emotional
arousal in children, restricting how much attention they can give to the needs of others
(Hoffman, 1977). One study found that preschoolers and kindergartners with lower levels of
prosocial behavior were more likely to have parents who expressed greater observed levels of
spontaneous negative affective expressions (Boyum & Parke, 1995; Denham & Grout, 1992).
7
Even after controlling for children’s levels of negative affect, parents’ negative expressiveness
has been associated with deficits in teacher-rated social competence, which includes verbal
aggression, physical aggression, and disruptive behaviors, as well as lower levels of prosocial
behaviors (Isley, O’Neil, Clatfelter, & Parke, 1999).
It is important to note that negative emotions are a normal part of daily life, therefore,
some parental expression of negative emotion that is not high-intensity or long-lasting may help
children learn about situations involving negative emotions (Valiente et al., 2004). For instance,
mothers’ low-intensity anger, as well as anger unrelated to children’s disobedience, have been
linked to preschoolers’ greater overall prosocial behavior in reaction to their peers’ emotions in
the classroom (Denham & Grout, 1992). Additionally, the clarity of mothers’ negative
emotional expressiveness has been found to be the best predictor of girls’ helping and sharing
behaviors (Boyum & Parke, 1995). Parents who demonstrate clear expressions of negative affect
may assist their children in regulating their negative expression, which in turn, allows them to
more adaptively affiliate with their peers.
The type of negative emotion expressed may also influence its relation to child outcomes,
and the literature has so far differentiated between dominant and nondominant types of negative
emotional expressiveness (Eisenberg et al., 1998). The negative-dominant type is characterized
by hostile and assertive verbal and nonverbal expressions that are often associated with the
emotion of anger, while the nondominant type is comprised of more submissive negative
expressions that have been associated with the emotions of sadness or worry. Generally, more
dominant negative emotions have been related to children’s displays of negative emotions, while
more submissive forms have been unrelated to children’s negative emotional expressions
(Eisenberg et al., 1998; Halberstadt, 1986). Parental dominant, negative expressiveness has been
8
linked to 55- to 79-month-old children’s lower social competence as mediated by children’s
effortful control (Eisenberg et al., 2001). One study examining children’s emotion regulation in
response to an undesired gift found that mothers who used more dominant negative
expressiveness had children who had more difficulties regulating their negative emotional
responding (Garner & Power, 1996). Submissive negative emotional expressiveness in this
study, however, was not associated with children’s regulation or social competence. One study
found that parents’ submissive negative expressions, such as sadness, fear, and pain, were related
to higher levels of sympathy in toddlers (Crockenberg, 1985). These findings suggest that more
harsh negative emotions, as opposed to all negative emotions, may deleteriously impact
children’s social adjustment. Children who experience a more negative-dominant emotional
climate may be more likely to demonstrate negative expressions themselves, limiting their
abilities and opportunities for engagement in prosocial behaviors. Although there is a dearth of
literature on these two types of negative emotional expressiveness, the available research
underscores the need to examine constructs beyond the more simplistic dimensions of positive
and negative expressiveness.
The literature has often conceptualized an individual’s emotional expression on a
continuum from negative to positive, but it should not be assumed that a parent who is high in
positive emotional expressiveness is necessarily low in negative emotional expressiveness, or
vice versa (Diener, Larsen, Levine, & Emmons, 1985). Thus, the relative proportions of parents’
emotional expressiveness in the home may matter for the development of children’s prosocial
behavior. Some work has acknowledged that distinct patterns of emotional expressiveness
emerge for parents, categorizing them as high positive and low negative, very low positive and
average negative, or average positive and very high negative expressiveness. This work has also
9
found links to children’s emotional development, where higher levels of positive expression
accompanied by low levels of negative expression have been associated with less child-displayed
negative affect and use of more positive emotion words with others (Nelson, O’Brien, Calkins,
Leerkes, Marcovitch, & Blankson, 2012). In addition, parents characterized by higher levels of
negative emotional expression when compared to their positive emotional expression had less
socially-competent preschool children (Denham, Mitchell-Copeland, Strandberg, Auerbach, &
Blair, 1997). Elucidating the relative contributions of each parent’s emotional expressiveness to
the family climate may help to resolve discrepancies related to how much negative affect
exposure is considered optimal for prosocial development with respect to how much positive
emotion is being expressed. The current study is the first to explore how ratios of parents’
emotional expressiveness, that include the two subtypes of negative emotional expressiveness
(i.e., negative-dominant and negative-nondominant), contribute to young children’s emerging
prosocial behavior.
Research has primarily focused on the links between mothers’ positive and negative
emotional expressiveness and children’s socioemotional development. Family systems theory
conceptualizes the family as a complex system composed of multiple subsystems (Cox & Paley,
1997), and the focus on one parent and one child in the family provides limited information
regarding the socialization influences children experience (e.g., Feinberg & Hetherington, 2001).
The mother-child dyad alone cannot depict a full understanding of how children are impacted by
parental socialization, so we need to consider both parents to comprehend how the parent-child
subsystem is associated with prosocial behavior in children. Further, the associations between
parental emotional expressiveness and children’s social and emotional development are different
for maternal and paternal expressiveness (Lamb & Lewis, 2010; Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky, &
10
Braungart, 1992). For instance, it has been shown that fathers’ positive affect, and not mothers’,
was associated with kindergarteners’ helping and sharing behaviors, while mothers’ positive
expressiveness was related to greater overall sociometric ratings for girls (Boyum & Parke,
1995). Some research has suggested that males in general show less recognizable facial
expressions than their female counterparts (Brody, 1985). When placed in the parenting context,
children have found it more difficult to read fathers’ emotional expressions over their mothers’,
even though children’s greater general emotion recognition skill of basic emotional expressions
(i.e., happiness, sadness, fear, and anger) has been related to fathers’, and not mothers’,
emotional expressions (Dunsmore, Her, Halberstadt, & Perez-Rivera, 2009). These findings
suggest that although mothers may be more skilled at communicating their emotions, fathers’
emotional expressions, when communicated clearly, may be more salient to children in their
development of emotional understanding. Arguably, both parents may facilitate children’s
abilities to interpret and respond to a variety of different emotional contexts, which are skills that
are necessary for the development of prosocial behavior. Although there is some work
delineating the differences between mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness in shaping
children’s social adjustment, these effects have yet to be studied in relation to how different
children in the same family engage in prosocial behaviors specifically.
Another assumption of studies that only include one parent in the family is that the
influence of parental expressiveness is the same for multiple children in the same family. Sibling
differences in prosocial behavior, however, are likely affected by the differential effects of
parents’ emotion socialization. Parental socialization strategies have been found to have a
greater influence on children across childhood, which can be partially attributed to the
acquisition of greater emotional competence and cognitive ability that allow children to better
11
understand the reasoning behind parents’ behaviors (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994). However,
sibling differences in prosocial behavior are likely due to factors apart from age. For instance,
one study found that mothers and fathers report differential levels of negative affect toward
siblings within the same family, and the sibling to whom more negative affect was expressed
experienced more social adjustment problems (Deater-Deckard, 1996). However, this literature
has primarily focused on differential treatment and has yet to study how mothers’ and fathers’
general emotional expressiveness uniquely impact the prosocial behavior of multiple children
within the family. One of the goals of the current study was to elucidate the within-family
variability of mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and their differential associations
with older and younger siblings who are at different stages in their development of prosocial
behavior.
The Role of Physiological Regulation in Children’s Prosocial Behavior
Responding prosocially to others is dependent upon an individual’s dispositional ability
to self-regulate (Porges & Furman, 2011). Those individuals who have difficulties self-
regulating are more likely to experience protracted stress responses to demanding situations,
which for some young children may be interacting with unfamiliar individuals or being prosocial
toward a sibling. This difficulty to regulate can then impede children’s capabilities to access
adaptive coping strategies that would allow them to engage positively in social interactions
(Calkins & Fox, 2002). Therefore, individual differences in prosocial tendencies may be
partially explained by one’s trait physiological regulation. Porges’ polyvagal theory proposes
that the functioning of the parasympathetic nervous system is an important aspect of
physiological regulation, where the vagal system facilitates flexibility in responding to
environmental challenges through variability in heart rate, or respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA;
12
Porges, 2007). When vagal tone is engaged, it allows an individual to maintain a lower heart rate
and thus interact with others in adaptive and prosocial ways. This system orients the individual
toward the facial expressions and vocal signs of emotion of another conspecific, allowing that
individual to respond in reflexive and adaptive ways in the social situation, and more precisely,
to engage in behaviors intended to promote social affiliation and friendship. Individuals with
greater vagal regulation have an increased likelihood to behave in socially skilled and prosocial
ways.
Baseline RSA, measured under conditions of little environmental demand, is often
considered a physiological marker of the individual’s dispositional ability to self-regulate
(Porges, 2007). In studies done with adults, individuals with higher levels of baseline RSA had
increased levels of positive emotions and feelings of social connectedness (Kok & Fredrickson,
2010; Kok et al., 2013). In young children, high resting RSA has been linked to more
appropriate emotional reactivity (Stifter & Fox, 1990). 8- to 12-year-old children with lower
baseline RSA have been found to have more emotional and behavioral problems (Hinnant & El-
Sheikh, 2009). Children who regulate their arousal states effectively have more of the
physiological resources necessary for engaging in positive relationships with others, as well as
responding to the distress of others. However, an individual with dispositional low baseline
RSA will most likely have a more highly engaged defensive system, hampering that individual’s
ability to engage in other-oriented behavior and opportunities for social bonding (Porges &
Furman, 2011).
How a child’s physiological regulation impacts the associations between parental
emotion socialization and children’s prosocial behavior may additionally be influenced by the
age of the child. Baseline RSA has been shown to increase during the period between 2 months
13
and 5 years of age, suggesting that, as children get older, their physiological capacity to regulate
is improving (Bornstein & Suess, 2000; Porges, Doussard-Roosevelt, Portales, & Suess, 1994).
These increases in baseline RSA suggest that the myelination of the vagal fibers throughout the
time period lend to heightened hierarchical organization of one’s physiological systems to
promote more stable self-regulation. Still, individual differences in baseline RSA often maintain
rank order differences across the first few years of life (Porges et al.,1994; Bar-Heim, Marshall,
& Fox, 2000). Therefore, by early childhood, an individual’s typical level of arousal can be
viewed as a protective factor against, or risk factor for, social adjustment problems (Hastings &
De, 2008), and potentially for children’s difficulties engaging in prosocial behavior.
Parents’ emotional expressiveness may differentially relate to children’s abilities to
engage in prosocial behavior depending on the child’s physiological regulation levels.
Children’s baseline RSA has been found to moderate the relation between marital conflict and
children’s social adjustment, suggesting that higher baseline RSA can buffer children from the
detrimental effects of a negative emotional climate on children’s socioemotional outcomes (El-
Sheikh, Harger, & Whitson, 2001). For preschoolers with lower baseline RSA, the effects of
direct parental socialization on externalizing and internalizing problems were stronger than for
those children with higher levels of baseline RSA, demonstrating that children with low baseline
RSA may be more vulnerable to the effects of parents’ socialization efforts (Hastings & De,
2008).
This research on vagal regulation as a process that moderates parental socialization and
children’s outcomes has primarily relied on the negative consequences of maladaptive
socialization. Yet, hardly any research exists on the positive emotions and behaviors (e.g.,
prosocial behavior) that children may demonstrate that are associated with parents’ emotional
14
expressiveness, and whether these differences are contingent upon children’s levels of
physiological regulation. The role of physiological regulation in the relation between parental
emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior may differ depending on whether the
socializer is the mother or father. While most of the current literature examines mothers, the
limited research on fathers has suggested that fathers are uniquely related to children’s social
functioning. For instance, when fathers responded to children’s fear and sadness with warm and
comforting behaviors, children with lower baseline RSA were more socially competent, and this
interaction was not significant for mothers (Hastings & De, 2008). Although research has yet to
investigate emotional expressiveness, and specifically the subtypes of emotional expressiveness
dimensions (i.e., positive, negative-dominant, negative-nondominant expressiveness), it is
expected that the types of emotions mothers and fathers express within the family context are
differentially associated with children’s prosocial behavior, dependent upon children’s
physiological regulation. Finally, the effects of parental emotional expressiveness and children’s
physiological regulation on children’s prosocial behavior may differ for older and younger
siblings. Young children’s prosocial behavior develops within the context of the family, and
individual differences in physiological regulation may heighten or dampen the effects of parental
emotional expressiveness on these differences in prosocial behavior development.
The Current Study
The current study investigated whether children’s physiological regulation moderated the
association between parents’ emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior, and
whether these effects differed for older and younger siblings in the family. By utilizing a family
systems perspective, this study examined how different children in the same family uniquely
responded to parental emotional expressiveness, as previous research has suggested that parents’
15
general socialization efforts impact within-family variability of children’s prosocial behavior
(Brody, Stoneman, & Burke, 1987; Dunn & Munn, 1986). The current study examined four
aims.
Aim 1: Assessed if there were differences in the levels of mothers’ and fathers’
emotional expressiveness. It was hypothesized that, given the existing literature, mothers would
express higher levels of positive emotion.
Aim 2: Examined whether mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness were
associated with children’s prosocial behavior. It was hypothesized that parents who expressed
more positive emotions, as well as more positive emotions relative to their negative-dominant
emotions, would be more likely to have children with higher levels of prosocial behavior.
Additionally, it was predicted that there would be a positive relation between negative-
nondominant emotional expression and children’s prosocial behavior. It was also predicted that
parents’ expressions of negative-dominant emotions, as well as greater negative-dominant
emotions relative to negative-nondominant emotions, would be inversely related to children’s
prosocial behavior.
Aim 2a: Explored whether the associations between mothers’ and fathers’ emotional
expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior differed for older and younger siblings. Due to
the lack of research on within-family differences in prosocial behavior in the context of parental
emotional expressiveness, the differential associations with older and younger siblings’ prosocial
behavior were exploratory.
Aim 3: Examined whether children’s baseline RSA was associated with their prosocial
behavior. It was hypothesized that higher levels of children’s baseline RSA would be related to
higher levels of prosocial behavior in children.
16
Aim 3a: Explored whether the association between children’s baseline RSA and their
prosocial behavior differed for older and younger siblings. Because of the lack of research on
within-family variability in prosocial behavior as associated with baseline RSA, these relations
were exploratory.
Aim 4: Examined if children’s baseline RSA moderated the relations between mothers’
and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior. It was hypothesized
that children with lower levels of baseline RSA would be more susceptible to the effects of both
positive and negative emotional expressiveness demonstrated by the parents, which would
impact their prosocial tendencies. For instance, lower RSA would act as a vulnerability factor
exacerbating the influence of negative-dominant parental emotional expressiveness, or less
positive emotional expressiveness relative to negative-dominant emotional expressiveness, on
children’s prosocial behaviors. Children who come from homes with higher negative-dominant
expressiveness and who have lower baseline RSA could be more reactive to the negative
emotional climate and thus find it more difficult to be prosocial toward others. Alternatively,
higher parental positive emotional expressiveness and negative-nondominant expressiveness
relative to their negative-dominant emotional expressiveness, in conjunction with lower baseline
RSA, could be protective in terms of demonstrating greater levels of prosocial behavior.
Aim 4a: Explored whether these associations differed for older and younger siblings.
Due to the dearth of research on emotional expressiveness and child RSA within the context of
the family system, the differential associations with older and younger siblings’ prosocial
behavior were exploratory.
Method
Participants
17
Mothers, fathers, and their two children participated in a study that investigated
children’s social and emotional development within the context of the family (N = 70 families).
In order to participate in the study, parents had to be married or cohabitating (N = 3) and have
two children between the ages of 2 and 5 years. Newspaper birth announcements, flyers posted
at daycares, and a database of local families who have interest in participating in research studies
were used for recruitment. Mothers were 32 years old on average (SD = 4.15 years) and 55.7%
of them were employed. Fathers were on average 34 years old (SD = 4.15 years) and 94.3% of
them were employed. The sample was primarily Caucasian (fathers: 92.9% Caucasian, 4.3%
Hispanic/Latino, and 2.9% Other; mothers: 90% Caucasian, 7.1% Hispanic/Latino, 1.4% Asian
American, and 1.4% Other). The older sibling (OS) was on average 57.6 months old (SD = 7.58
months; Range = 37.50 – 74.10 months) and the younger sibling (YS) was on average 32.6
months (SD = 6.98 months; Range = 23.90 – 58.70). The average household size was 5 family
members (Range = 4 – 8), and the median family income was $70,000 (Range = $10,000 –
$250,000). There were 17 girl/girl dyads, 21 boy/boy dyads, 15 older boy/younger girl, dyads
and 17 older girl/younger boy dyads.
Procedure
Families participated in a 2.5-hour laboratory visit that included tasks not mentioned in
the current thesis. Parents completed informed consent procedures, after which electrodes for
cardiac data recording were placed on all four family members. Cardiac data were collected over
the 5-minute baseline session, during which all four family members sat quietly on the couch.
Prosocial behaviors were coded from a 7-minute videotaped sibling interaction task. During this
task, children were instructed to take turns using a plastic screwdriver to put bolts in a board to
make a design, and they were given only one screwdriver so they had to work together. The
18
experimenter and the parents were not in the room during the task. Parents completed
questionnaires throughout the visit and any unfinished questionnaires were sent home with them
to send back to the lab at their convenience. The Institutional Review Board approved this study.
Measures
Parental emotional expressiveness. Mothers (M) and fathers (F) completed the Self-
Expressiveness in the Family Questionnaire (SEFQ; Halberstadt et al., 1995). This 40-item scale
included two subscales that measure adults’ positive and negative verbal and nonverbal
emotional expressiveness within a family setting. Each item was scored on a scale from 1 to 9 (1
= not at all to 9 = very frequently). The positive expressiveness subscale included 20 items such
as, “expressing excitement for one’s future plans” and “expressing deep affection of love for
someone.” The literature suggests that hostile negative emotions and submissive negative
emotions may have different implications for multiple aspects of social adjustment, thus the
negative emotional expressiveness items were categorized into two subscales, according to the
recommendations of Halberstadt (1986). The negative-dominant expressiveness subscale
included 10 items that assess the dominant, typically anger-related aspects of negative emotional
expressiveness. Example items include, “expressing dissatisfaction with someone else’s
behavior” and “quarreling with a family member.” The negative-nondominant expressiveness
subscale included 10 items that demonstrate the more submissive aspects of negative
expressiveness. Example items include, “telling a family member how hurt you are” and
“apologizing for being late.” The positive (M α = .90; F α = .80), negative-dominant (M α = .76;
F α = .86), and negative-nondominant (M α = .80; F α = .75) subscales were found to be reliable
for both mothers and fathers. Mean scores for each of the emotional expressiveness subscales
19
were calculated separately for mothers and fathers. Higher scores indicated greater emotional
expressiveness.
Ratios of each parent’s emotional expressiveness were also calculated by dividing one
type of emotional expression by another type of emotional expression. Thus, mothers and
fathers each had three ratio scores: positive to negative-dominant, positive to negative-
nondominant, and negative-dominant to negative nondominant emotional expressiveness.
Higher scores on the positive to negative-dominant ratio of emotional expressiveness indicated
greater positive relative to negative-dominant emotional expressiveness. Higher scores on the
positive to negative-nondominant ratio of emotional expressiveness indicated greater positive
relative to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness. Lastly, higher scores on the
negative-dominant to negative-nondominant ratio of emotional expressiveness indicated greater
negative-dominant relative to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness.
Physiological regulation. To collect cardiac data, three disposable pregelled spot
electrodes were placed on the children’s torsos. The electrocardiograph (ECG) signal was
acquired with Mindware Technologies LTD ambulatory Impedance Cardiographs (MW1000a)
using the WiFi ACQ software, Version 3.0.1 (Gahanna, OH). The ECG signal was sampled at
500 Hz and the ECG time series was transmitted wirelessly to a computer for offline processing.
The Mindware HRV analysis program (Version 3.0.17) was used to process the data. First, the
interbeat intervals (IBIs) were identified. Second, physiologically improbable intervals were
detected based on the overall IBI distribution using a validated algorithm (Berntson, Quigley,
Jang, & Boysen, 1990). A team of editors then visually inspected the data to identify artifacts
and erroneous or missing beats, which were manually corrected. Next, data were detrended
using a first-order polynomial to remove the mean and any linear trends, then cosine tapered, and
20
submitted to Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). Finally, RSA was defined as the natural log integral
of the .24 to 1.04 Hz power band and calculated in 30s epochs. Inter-editor reliability (RSA
values obtained by coders that fell within 0.10) was calculated for 20% of the cases, and coders
achieved 88% agreement for older siblings and 90% for younger siblings. Missing data were due
to technical problems (OS = 7; YS = 8), data that were too messy to edit (OS = 3), crying or
extremely fussy behavior (YS = 1), and because children refused to wear the electrodes (OS = 1;
YS = 3).
Prosocial behavior. Children’s prosocial behaviors were coded from the videotaped
sibling interaction task (M task length = 6.4 min, Range = 2.77 – 7.53 min). The frequencies of
four different types of prosocial behavior were coded. Sharing captured children giving away or
allowing temporary use of an object that was previously in the child’s possession (e.g., the older
sibling hands the screwdriver to the younger sibling). Helping behavior captured explanations or
physical aid, or attempts to alleviate another’s non-emotional needs (e.g., the older sibling tells
the younger sibling how to make the screwdriver work). Comforting behavior was coded when
one sibling demonstrated verbal or physical consolation when the other sibling was distressed
(e.g., the older sibling puts their arm around the younger sibling). Sharing, helping, and
comforting behaviors were coded separately for each sibling. Cooperation was a dyadic code
that captured when children engaged in a behavior that required both individuals (e.g., younger
siblings puts bolts in the board and the older sibling uses the screwdriver to screw in a bolt). The
current study focused on sharing and helping behavior to capture individual prosocial behavior.
Comforting behavior was not examined because it occurred very infrequently (OS M frequency
= 0.09%; YS M frequency = 0%), and cooperation was not examined because it was coded per
dyad. Inter-rater reliability was calculated on 20% of the cases for both the older and younger
21
sibling. Inter-rater agreement was 85.5% (κ = .92) for older siblings and 92.5% (κ = .97) for
younger siblings.
Because the duration of the sibling interaction task varied for each family, the proportion
of helping and sharing was calculated. The frequencies of helping and sharing were divided by
the duration of the task, and that proportion was converted back to a standard frequency by
multiplying each proportion score by the maximum task length. Higher scores indicated higher
frequency of that behavior occurring.
Results
The preliminary analyses are presented first, including missing data analyses and
descriptive statistics. Following are the multilevel models that examined the within-family
correlates of children’s helping and sharing behaviors, as well as the associations between
mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior.
Missing Data. The percentages of missing data in the questionnaires were 16.8% and
10.9% for mothers and fathers, respectively. The percentage of missing data for the sibling
interaction task was 17%. Multiple imputation (N = 75 imputations) was performed in Mplus 7.3
(Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010; Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2012). All analyses were conducted
using the imputed data.
Preliminary Analyses. Mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness, older and
younger siblings’ baseline RSA, and older and younger siblings’ prosocial behavior were
examined for distribution normality and skewness. Due to the high positive skewness of both the
older and younger siblings’ helping and sharing behavior, the outcome variables were recoded.
Both older and younger siblings’ helping behavior was dichotomized, such that 0 = child
demonstrated no helping behavior during the task, and 1 = child showed one or more helping
22
behaviors during the task. Older and younger siblings’ sharing behavior was recoded on a scale
from 0 to 5, as there was greater variability in the frequency of sharing than there was in the
frequency of helping. 0 = child demonstrated no sharing behavior, and 5 = child demonstrated 5
or more acts of sharing.
The means and standard deviations for the study variables are presented in Table 1 and
the correlations are presented in Table 2. There was a positive cross-sibling correlation of
helping behavior, but no significant cross-sibling correlation of sharing behavior. The cross-
sibling correlation of baseline RSA was significant, where older siblings’ sharing was positively
correlated with younger siblings’ baseline RSA.
For older siblings, their baseline RSA was positively correlated with mothers’ positive
emotional expressiveness. Older sibling sharing was positively correlated with mothers’ positive
emotional expressiveness and negatively correlated with mothers’ negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness. Older siblings’ sharing was positively correlated with the ratio of mothers’
positive to their negative-dominant emotional expressiveness. Additionally, older siblings’
sharing was negatively correlated with the ratio of mothers’ negative-dominant to their negative-
nondominant emotional expressiveness. No older sibling variables were correlated with any
father variables.
For younger siblings, their baseline RSA was positively correlated with mothers’
negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness. Younger siblings’ sharing was negatively
correlated with the ratio of mothers’ negative-dominant to negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness. No younger sibling variables were correlated with any father variables.
The positive cross-parent correlation of positive emotional expressiveness was
significant. Cross-parent correlations of negative-dominant, negative-nondominant, and the
23
ratios of emotional expressiveness were not significant.
Mothers’ positive emotional expressiveness was positively correlated with their negative-
nondominant emotional expressiveness and their ratio of positive to negative-dominant
emotional expressiveness. Additionally, their positive emotional expressiveness was negatively
correlated with their ratio of negative-dominant to negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness. Mothers’ negative-dominant and negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness were strongly positively correlated. Mothers’ negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness was also strongly negatively correlated with their ratio of positive to negative-
dominant emotional expressiveness, as well as their ratio of positive to negative-nondominant
emotional expressiveness. There was a negative correlation between mothers’ negative-
nondominant emotional expressiveness and their ratio of positive to negative-dominant
emotional expressiveness. Additionally, it was strongly negatively correlated with their ratio of
positive to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and their ratio of negative-dominant
to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness. The ratio of mothers’ positive to negative-
dominant emotional expressiveness was strongly positively correlated with their ratio of positive
to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness, and negatively correlated with their ratio of
negative-dominant to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness. Mothers’ ratio of
positive to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness was strongly positively correlated
with their ratio of negative-dominant to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness.
Fathers’ negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness was strongly positively
correlated with their own positive and negative-dominant emotional expressiveness. The ratio of
their positive to negative-dominant emotional expressiveness was strongly positively correlated
with their positive expressiveness and strongly negatively correlated with their negative-
24
dominant expressiveness. The ratio of fathers’ positive to negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness was strongly negatively correlated with both their negative-dominant and
negative-nondominant expressiveness. Finally, their ratio of negative-dominant to negative-
nondominant emotional expressiveness was strongly negatively correlated with their positive
expressiveness and their ratio of positive to negative-dominant expressiveness. Additionally, it
was positively correlated with their dominant expressiveness and negatively correlated with their
negative-nondominant expressiveness.
Differences between mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness. To address aim
1, I examined whether there were differences in emotional expressiveness for mothers and
fathers. Paired t-tests were conducted and revealed that there was a significant difference in
mothers’ (M = 6.77, SD = 1.06) and fathers’ (M = 6.31 SD = 1.19) positive expressiveness, t = -
3.86, p < .001. There was no significant difference between mothers’ (M = 3.13, SD = 1.0) and
fathers’ (M = 3.34, SD = 1.13) negative-dominant emotional expressiveness, t = 1.54, p = .12,
nor a difference between mothers’ (M = 4.09, SD = 1.36) and fathers’ (M = 3.99, SD = 1.14)
negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness, t = -1.45, p = .15. The difference between
mothers’ (M = 2.40 SD = .90) and fathers’ (M = 2.16 SD = 1.05) ratios of positive to negative-
dominant emotional expressiveness was not significant, t = 1.44, p = .15. There was no
significant difference between mothers’ (M = 1.85 SD = .76) and fathers’ (M = 1.67, SD = .43)
ratios of positive to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness, t = .86, p = .39. The
difference between mothers’ (M = .81, SD = .27) and fathers’ (M = .87 SD = .28) ratios of
negative-dominant to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness was also not significant, t
= -1.89, p = .06.
Multilevel models. To examine whether parents’ emotional expressiveness and
25
children’s baseline RSA were associated with children’s prosocial behavior, multilevel models
were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0. Multilevel models were used to account for the
nested structure of the data, specifically the interdependence between the older and younger
siblings’ prosocial behavior. Models were estimated with restricted maximum likelihood, as it
yields less biased estimates and standard errors when using small sample sizes (Snijders &
Bosker, 2012). Data were handled as repeated within the dyad, and heterogeneous compound
symmetry was used to permit errors to vary between the older and younger siblings (Kenny,
Kashy, & Cook, 2006). All continuous variables were grand mean centered. Sibling, the
distinguishing variable, was effect coded (OS = 1; YS = -1).
A series of models were conducted to explore the predictors of children’s helping and
sharing behavior. For each outcome variable (i.e., helping and sharing), due to the small size and
the need to limit the number of predictors, separate models were conducted for each dimension
of parents’ emotional expressiveness (i.e., positive, negative-dominant, and negative-
nondominant expressiveness).
To investigate whether the association between parental emotional expressiveness and
baseline RSA differed for older and younger siblings, interaction terms were created by
multiplying parents’ emotional expressiveness and baseline RSA variables by sibling (Aiken &
West, 1991). The power to detect interactions in non-experimental studies is low (McClelland
& Judd, 1993), and therefore it is recommended that interactions with p values of .10 and lower
should be probed (Kenny, 2014). Nonsignificant (greater than p = .10) interactions were
trimmed using a backward elimination method (Snijders & Bosker, 2012). Specifically, a full
model including all predictors was fit then nonsignificant interactions were subsequently
removed individually starting with the three-way interactions. Significant interactions were
26
plotted and simple slopes were calculated at +/- 1 SD from the mean (Aiken & West, 1991).
First, unconditional models were estimated to assess the interdependence between older
and younger siblings’ helping and sharing behaviors. Second, models were fit to determine
whether older and younger siblings’ sex, older and younger siblings’ age, children’s birth order,
age space between children, and sibling dyad gender composition needed to be included as
covariates in the subsequent analyses. Third, full models were estimated that included: (a) the
direct effects of mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA to
determine whether emotional expressiveness (Aim 2) and baseline RSA (Aim 3) were associated
with children’s prosocial behavior, (b) the emotional expressiveness x sibling interactions to
determine whether the associations between mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and
children’s prosocial behavior differed for older and younger siblings (Aim 2a), (c) the baseline
RSA x sibling interactions to determine whether the association between baseline RSA and
children’s prosocial behavior differed for older and younger siblings (Aim 3a), (d) the emotional
expressiveness x baseline RSA interactions (e.g., baseline RSA x fathers’ expressiveness) to
determine whether baseline RSA moderated the association between parents’ emotional
expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior (Aim 4), and (e) the emotional expressiveness x
baseline RSA x sibling interactions (e.g., mothers’ expressiveness x baseline RSA x sibling) to
examine whether the moderating effect of baseline RSA differed for older and younger siblings
(Aim 4a). Fourth, full models were estimated to include ratios of emotional expressiveness in
Aims 2, 3, and 4 to examine the relative proportions of each parent’s use of the different types of
emotional expressiveness.
Interdependence between older and younger siblings’ helping and sharing. The
interdependence between older and younger siblings’ helping behavior, as well as their sharing
27
behavior, was modeled as a covariance as opposed to a variance to allow for the potential
interdependence to be negative (Kenny et al., 2006). The results demonstrated that the
interdependence between older and younger siblings’ helping behavior was not significant, but
the interdependence between older and younger siblings’ sharing behavior was significant. For
helping, the intraclass correlation was .01 (SE = .13, p = .92; intercept estimate = .50, SE = .06, t
= 10.98, p < .001). For sharing, the intraclass correlation was .25 (SE = .13, p = .05; intercept
estimate = 2.13, SE = 1.98, t = 10.78, p < .001).
Covariates. Older and younger siblings’ sex, older and younger siblings’ age, children’s
birth order, age space between children, and sibling dyad gender composition were not
associated with children’s helping behavior or their sharing behavior. Therefore, no covariates
were included in the subsequent analyses.
Parental emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA in association with
helping behavior. The final model of parents’ emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline
RSA predicting children’s helping behavior is presented in Table 3. Sibling was significantly
associated with children’s helping, demonstrating that older siblings showed more helping
behavior than younger siblings.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ positive emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior, there were no associations that
were significant. In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness and baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior, no significant
associations emerged. Lastly, for the model that included parents’ negative-nondominant
emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior,
there were no significant associations that emerged.
28
Parental emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA in association with
sharing behavior. The final model of parents’ emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline
RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior is presented in Table 4.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ positive emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior, there was a significant positive
association between mothers’ positive expressiveness and children’s sharing. This suggests that
children shared more when mothers reported expressing more positive emotions. The relation
between fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s sharing behavior was not significant,
nor was the relation between baseline RSA and children’s sharing significant. No significant
interactions emerged from this model.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior, the main
effects of mothers’ as well as fathers’ emotional expressiveness on children’s sharing were not
significant. Sibling moderated the association between maternal negative-dominant
expressiveness and children’s sharing behavior. The simple slope for the older sibling indicated
that older siblings shared less when mothers reported higher levels of negative-dominant
expressiveness (b = -.66, t = -2.46, p = .014; Figure 1). Younger siblings’ simple slope was not
significant (b = -.02, t = -.06, p = .95), demonstrating that there was no association between
mothers’ negative-dominant emotional expressiveness and younger siblings’ sharing. No other
interactions in the model were significant.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior, the main
effects of mothers’ as well as fathers’ emotional expressiveness on children’s sharing were not
29
significant. Baseline RSA moderated the association between mothers’ negative-nondominant
expressiveness and children’s sharing. The simple slope for children with low baseline RSA
indicated that they shared more when mothers had higher levels of negative-nondominant
emotional expressiveness (b = .39, t = 2.12, p = .036; Figure 2). The simple slope for children
with high baseline RSA was not significant (b = -.19, t = -1.12, p = .27), demonstrating that there
was no association between mothers’ negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and
children’s sharing for children with high baseline RSA. The association between children’s
baseline RSA and children’s sharing behavior was not significant.
Ratios of parental emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA in
association with helping behavior. The final model of emotional expressiveness ratios and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior is presented in Table 5.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of positive to negative-dominant
emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior,
there were no associations that were significant. In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’
ratios of positive to negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and baseline RSA
predicting children’s helping behavior, no significant associations emerged. Lastly, for the
model that included ratios of mothers’ and fathers’ negative-dominant to negative-nondominant
emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s helping behavior,
there were no significant associations that emerged.
Ratios of parental emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA in
association with sharing behavior. The final model of emotional expressiveness ratios and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior is presented in Table 6.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of positive to negative-dominant
30
emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior,
the results indicated that mothers’ emotional expressiveness was positively related to children’s
sharing behavior. This finding suggests that when mothers reported expressing more positive
emotion relative to their negative-dominant emotion, children shared more. The association
between fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s sharing was not significant. The
interaction between the ratio of mothers’ positive emotional expressiveness to her negative-
dominant emotional expressiveness and sibling predicting children’s sharing behavior was
marginally significant. The simple slope for the older siblings indicated that they shared more
when the ratio of mothers’ positive to negative-dominant emotional expressiveness was high, or
when mothers’ positive emotional expressiveness was relatively greater than her negative-
dominant expressiveness (b = .91, t = 2.58, p = .01; Figure 3). The simple slope for the younger
siblings was not significant (b = .21, t = .65, p = .52). No significant interactions with fathers’
emotional expressiveness emerged.
In the model that included mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of positive to negative-
nondominant emotional expressiveness and baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing behavior,
no significant associations emerged.
Lastly, for the model that included ratios of mothers’ and fathers’ negative-dominant to
negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA predicting
children’s sharing behavior, mothers’ emotional expressiveness was negatively related to
children’s sharing. This finding suggests that when mothers had greater negative-dominant
emotional expressiveness relative to their negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness,
children shared less. This association for fathers was not significant. No significant interactions
emerged.
31
Discussion
The emergence of prosocial behavior in early childhood is an important contributor to
children’s social competence when interacting with their family members and peers (Eisenberg
et al., 2006; Garner, Robertson, & Smith, 1997; Denham et al., 1990; Hastings et al., 2007).
Helping and sharing behaviors have been found to be distinct forms of prosocial behavior that
emerge early in life and follow different developmental trajectories (Dunfield et al., 2011;
Brownell et al., 2013; Dunn & Munn, 1986; Bryant & Crockenberg, 1980). The family’s
emotional climate contributes to young children’s social adjustment, exposing them to a variety
of emotions and teaching them how to respond to both positive and negative emotional stimuli
(Eisenberg et al., 1998; Ramsden & Hubbard, 2002). Parents’ reports of their own emotional
displays have been shown to influence children’s prosocial actions with their siblings more
specifically (Garner, Jones, & Miner, 1994). Further, it has been argued that children who have
higher levels of baseline RSA may be less sensitive to parents’ socialization than children with
lower baseline RSA (Hastings & De, 2008), which has important implications for the
development of prosocial behavior in the family context. The current study examined the
associations between parents’ emotional expressiveness and children’s helping and sharing
behaviors dependent upon children’s physiological regulation. Moreover, I investigated how
these relations differed for older and younger siblings, given that they are at different places in
their development of these prosocial behaviors.
The first aim was to investigate whether mothers and fathers differed in their levels of
emotional expressiveness. Consistent with what was hypothesized, I found that mothers
expressed more positive emotions than fathers. Past work has found that mothers report
displaying higher levels of positive emotion more frequently than fathers (Garner et al., 1997).
32
In contrast, mothers and fathers did not differ in their negative-dominant and negative-
nondominant expressiveness. These findings are somewhat surprising, given that other studies
have found that mothers report expressing more sadness (a negative-nondominant emotion), and
fathers often report demonstrating more anger (a negative-dominant emotion; Garner et al.,
1997). However, the literature on the types of emotions mothers and fathers express and to what
extent is mixed. For instance, past research has found that while mothers report displaying more
positive emotions, they also report more emotions overall, including negative emotions (Cassidy
et al., 1992). Future research would benefit from collecting both parents’ perceived levels of
emotional expressiveness as well as observational measures of emotional expression to more
comprehensively capture the emotional climate both mothers and fathers provide in the family
context. For instance, parents’ perceptions of how they express emotions around their children
may inform interventions to improve parental emotion socialization, especially if perceptions of
their expressions diverge from what they actually express.
Correlates of Children’s Sharing Behavior
The second aim of the study examined the relations between mothers’ and fathers’
emotional expressiveness and children’s sharing behavior, and whether these associations
differed for older and younger siblings. Consistent with what was expected, when mothers
reported expressing more positive emotions, children shared more. The existing literature has
found that mothers who show positive behavior in general have children who are prosocial with
their siblings (Howe & Ross, 1990; Garner et al., 1994). When mothers express more positive
emotions in the family context, children may experience less self-concern and be more adept at
responding to others’ emotions (Janssens & Gerris, 1992), particularly with other members of the
family, such as siblings. More specifically, children’s recognition of opportunities to share, as
33
well as their willingness to share with their siblings, may be heightened by a context in which
mothers show higher levels of positive expressiveness. Inconsistent with expectations, however,
was that fathers’ emotional expressiveness was not significantly related to children’s sharing
behavior. In past work, fathers’ positive emotional expressiveness, and not mothers’, has been
associated with kindergarteners’ helping and sharing behaviors (Boyum & Parke, 1995).
Additionally, children’s recognition of others’ emotions, which may be helpful in identifying
when situations warrant prosocial behavior, has been associated with fathers’ affective
expressions (Dunsmore et al., 2009). However, previous research on the roles of mothers’ and
fathers’ emotion socialization has found that mothers may have a greater influence on their
children’s socioemotional development than fathers (Morris et al., 2007). Mothers’ emotional
displays may be more salient to young children, particularly if mothers are reporting greater
levels of positive emotional expressiveness relative to fathers. Greater positive emotional
expression provided by mothers can afford children more resources for interacting positively
with others.
While the main effects of mothers’ negative-dominant and negative-nondominant
emotional expressiveness in association with children’s sharing were not significant, the second
aim of the study also investigated whether sibling influenced the relations between parental
emotional expressiveness and sharing. The results indicated that the relations between mothers’
negative-dominant emotional expressiveness and children’s sharing were different for older and
younger siblings, such that when mothers reported expressing more hostile negative emotions,
older siblings in the family shared less. In general, heightened distress in the family context,
such as exposure to harsh negative emotions, not unlike the negative-dominant emotions
reported in the current study, has been found to deter children’s attention away from situational
34
cues and the facial expressions of others (Eisenberg et al., 1990). Additionally, parents may
model their distress for their children through their higher levels of negative emotional
expressiveness, thus hampering their own abilities to appropriately regulate and demonstrate
effective expression strategies for their children. Higher levels of mothers’ negative-dominant
emotional expressiveness may be especially relevant for the older sibling in the family. Past
work has found that in the preschool years, older siblings initiate more prosocial behaviors
during sibling interactions and younger siblings respond to prosocial behaviors more positively
than older siblings (Abramovitch, Pepler, & Corter, 1980). These findings suggest that in early
childhood, younger siblings may be accustomed to watching the older sibling take the lead on
tasks and participating when the older sibling initiates a prosocial action, such as a sharing bid.
In general, older siblings are most likely, relative to the younger sibling, expected to be prosocial
in the family and model prosocial behavior for others in the family (Cicirelli, 1975; Eisenstadt,
1956). Therefore, they are perhaps more sensitive to parental emotion socialization than their
younger sibling might be. Given that they may be more susceptible to the parental socialization
of harsh emotions, they may not have the appropriate positive modeling from parents to engage
in prosocial behaviors with their younger siblings. Relatedly, the negative emotional climate
provided by mothers may cause them distress and harm their attentional capacities for tending to
the needs of others (Janssens & Gerris, 1992), which is required for engaging in sharing behavior
(Dunfield et al., 2011).
The association between mothers’ negative-nondominant expressiveness and children’s
sharing behavior did not differ for older and younger siblings. This suggests that there may be
an important distinction between the two types of negative expressiveness that mothers
demonstrate in the family context, given there were sibling differences in the association
35
between negative-dominant expressiveness and children’s sharing. In one study, mothers’
reported and observed negative-dominant emotional expressiveness were inversely related to
children’s effortful control, but the relations with negative-nondominant expressiveness were not
significant (Eisenberg et al., 2001). Negative emotional displays that are more submissive in
nature (i.e., expressions of worry or sadness) may neither help nor hinder sharing for a particular
sibling in the family, in that they may not provide the same level of distress in the emotional
climate as more hostile displays do.
The third aim of the current study was to investigate whether children’s baseline RSA
was associated with children’s sharing behavior, and if this relation differed for the older and
younger sibling in the family. I found that there was no link between baseline RSA and
children’s sharing and that there were no differences for siblings. This is similar to the research
of Hastings and De (2008), who found no direct relation between baseline RSA and children’s
social competence. Some work has found RSA withdrawal, rather than baseline RSA, to be
associated with children’s social functioning, such that children with greater withdrawal during
challenging tasks also had poorer social adjustment (Calkins, Graziano, & Keane, 2007). It has
also been established that when mothers use more negative control, children demonstrate poorer
physiological regulation during difficult social situations, in that vagal withdrawal during these
tasks was associated with more mobilized, defensive responding in the safe context (Hastings et
al., 2008). This supports the notion that parents may impact children’s physiological
mechanisms for effectively regulating their physiological state. Thus, changes in RSA may add
to our understanding of how children respond in the moment to social challenges (Porges, 1995),
such as sacrificing their own resource to satisfy the material need of another (i.e., sharing).
My fourth aim was to explore whether the link between parents’ emotional
36
expressiveness and children’s prosocial behavior differed as a function of children’s level of
baseline RSA, and whether these relations differed by sibling. The results demonstrated that
baseline RSA moderated the association between mothers’ negative-nondominant emotional
expressiveness and children’s sharing behavior, such that children with lower baseline RSA
shared more when mothers had higher levels of expressed submissive, negative emotions. In
contrast, parental emotional expressiveness was not associated with sharing for children with
higher baseline RSA. Expressions characterized by worry and low-level sadness can teach
children appropriate ways of expressing and recognizing negative affect without fostering
personal distress likely caused by events that are more hostile in nature (Cummings, 1987).
Further, these socialization experiences may be particularly important for children who have low
baseline RSA, as they are expected to have both a greater need for effectual parental emotion
socialization and a greater vulnerability for poor social engagement given an ineffective
socialization environment (Hastings & De, 2008). Previous work has delineated that children
with higher baseline RSA don’t have as substantial a need to rely on their parents’ cues for
socially engaging with their environment (Hastings & De, 2008). Baseline RSA may therefore
act as a protective or vulnerability factor that predisposes children toward certain social
functioning given how the emotional climate of the family operates.
Still, the broader literature on the role of parents’ negative-nondominant expressiveness
in children’s social and emotional development is largely mixed (Eisenberg et al., 1998).
Maternal submissive negative emotions, such as sadness, pain, and fear, have been associated
with toddlers’ greater observed concern for others (Crockenberg, 1985). On the other hand, high
levels of sadness, a submissive, negative expression in the family context, have been linked to
less caregiving behavior with siblings, such as physical and verbal comforting (Garner et al.,
37
1994). Relatedly, research has found evidence in support and in opposition of how children of
depressed parents engage in prosocial behavior (Hay& Pawlby, 2003). Children may internalize
their parents’ distress, limiting their capacities to engage with others prosocially. They also may
learn to be more empathetic toward others through a preoccupation with acting prosocial toward
the parent. This may be particularly relevant for promoting prosocial behavior in sibling
relationships, as the need to be prosocial may already be salient in the family context and
siblings may be more inclined to put aside their own material needs to share with one another.
Future work should examine prosocial behavior among siblings in families with a depressed
parent to better characterize the role that high submissive negative emotion plays in affecting
multiple family subsystems. In the current study, parents did not report high levels of negative-
nondominant expressiveness, which could explain the positive association, as moderated by
baseline RSA, between mothers’ negative-nondominant expressiveness and children’s sharing.
This finding highlights the need to examine how the parental expression of submissive negative
emotions may be particularly important for children with low RSA in terms of their prosocial
behavior, emphasizing the notion that compositing all negative emotional displays from parents
runs of the risk of overlooking important nuances of parents’ emotion socialization.
The extant literature has often made the assumption that negative and positive emotional
expressiveness fall on opposite sides of a continuum, but it important to acknowledge that an
individual’s level of one type of expression is not always correlated with other ways that they
express emotion (Diener et al., 1985). Recent work has delineated the need to investigate the
complexity of parental emotional expression, particularly the balance of emotions a parent
displays within the family context, and how it relates to children’s adjustment (e.g., Edwards,
2014). Thus, the current study was interested in examining ratios of parents’ own
38
expressiveness to better understand how relative levels of expression in the emotional climate
related to children’s prosocial behavior, and whether physiological regulation and sibling
contributed to these associations. The results supported the hypotheses of the second aim of the
study, indicating that when the ratio of mothers’ positive emotional expressiveness to their
negative-dominant emotional expressiveness was larger (i.e., mothers who had higher positive
expressiveness relative to their negative-dominant expressiveness), children engaged in more
sharing behavior. This is consistent with previous work on relations between parents’ emotional
balance and child outcomes, such that mothers with high levels of positive displays and low
levels of hostile negative displays in the family context have been found to have 4-year-old
children who express less negative affect and have greater emotion regulation (Nelson et al.,
2012). Children who come from homes where mothers demonstrate higher levels of positive
emotional expressiveness may feel more comfortable expressing positive emotions themselves
and engage in proper regulation strategies that allow them to adaptively interact in social
settings, such as ones that promote prosocial behavior. In conjunction, the low levels of negative
expressiveness mothers show may decrease the amount of distress in the home that could have
otherwise harmed children’s abilities to perform prosocial behaviors.
Also in support of what was predicted for the second aim of the study, results showed
that when the ratio of mothers’ negative-dominant to her negative-nondominant expressiveness
was high (i.e., mothers who had higher hostile negative expressiveness relative to their
submissive negative expressive), children displayed less sharing behavior. There is a dearth of
empirical literature on the relative proportions of these two types of negative expressiveness in
the family context. However, research has delineated that differentiating these forms of
expressiveness is important, given that they may have unique associations with children’s social
39
functioning. Children from homes high in hostile negative expressiveness have shown lower
levels of prosocial behavior (Boyum & Parke, 1995; Denham & Grout, 1992). Low levels of
submissive negative emotions such as sadness, on the other hand, may be helpful for the
development of children’s empathy (Crockenberg, 1985). It is suggested that children should be
exposed to some negative emotion in early childhood to learn how to express, understand, and
regulate their emotions in ways that are most adaptive for engaging in positive social situations
(Eisenberg et al., 1998), such as putting aside one’s own wants to share with another. Little is
known, however, on how much negative emotion, and perhaps more importantly, how much of
each type of negative emotion, is critical for socioemotional development. When taken together,
the levels of negative-dominant and negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness can inform
research on the ways in which certain negative emotions in the home can either be advantageous
or deleterious for children’s prosocial behavior development.
The associations between ratios of fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s
sharing were not significant. Again, the absence of relations among fathers’ emotional displays
and children’s sharing behavior was surprising, as there has been evidence to suggest that
fathers’ emotional expressiveness, over and above mothers’ emotional expressiveness, is related
to how their young children engage in challenging peer situations (Garner et al., 1997).
However, there has been some work suggesting that only mothers’ reported balance of emotional
expressiveness (i.e., their positive emotional expressiveness minus their negative emotional
expressiveness) is negatively related to children’s emotion knowledge, while only fathers’
balance of observed reactions to children’s greater emotional expressions is linked to children’s
emotion knowledge (Denham, Bassett, & Wyatt, 2010). Perhaps fathers’ reactions to children’s
emotions may be more salient to children than the degree to which fathers say they express
40
balanced levels of emotions in the family more generally.
Finally, the interaction of the ratio of mothers’ positive to negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness and sibling predicting children’s sharing behavior was marginally significant. In
other words, when mothers showed more positive emotional expressiveness relative to their
negative-dominant expressiveness, older siblings shared more. This is similar to the finding that
older siblings shared more when mothers had higher levels of negative-dominant expressiveness.
An emotional climate that is provided by the mother and characterized by high positivity
compared to negativity may be particularly important for the older sibling in the family. More
specifically, it may be more adaptive for the older sibling to pick up on positive emotional
displays that are not overridden by a hostile family environment as to promote prosocial behavior
toward their younger sibling.
Correlates of Children’s Helping Behavior
None of the associations with helping behavior were significant, with the exception of the
sibling predictor, such that older siblings were found to help more frequently than younger
siblings. Although the literature suggests that helping behavior typically does not increase across
18 to 76 months (Bar-Tal et al., 1982), older siblings, given the possibility of being expected to
help more, may engage in more helping behavior.
How little helping behavior occurred in the current study was surprising, given that
helping behavior typically comes online earlier in development than sharing. This is largely
because sharing requires the child to recognize that there is an equality between them and the
other individual, and they must be willing to sacrifice a resource in the process (Dunfield et al.,
2011). However, in the present study, there was limited variability for child helping. Helping
behavior was dichotomized because it occurred very infrequently with many instances of no
41
helping for the younger sibling. This limited the ability to detect associations between children’s
helping and parental emotional expressiveness, as well as with children’s physiological
regulation.
Limitations and Conclusions
The current study was one of the first to investigate, from a family systems perspective,
the roles of the family’s emotional climate and children’s baseline RSA in explicating
differences in the development of prosocial behavior in early childhood. Although interesting
results emerged, limitations need to be discussed. First, the sample was small for detecting
interaction effects. The sample was predominantly Caucasian thus it cannot generalize to
different populations. Because the study occurred at one point in time, it cannot be assumed that
parents influenced children’s development of prosocial behavior. It is important to note that the
conclusions drawn for explaining sibling differences are speculative, given that the variability of
younger siblings’ prosocial behavior was low. The lack of variability may be partially attributed
to lower levels of prosocial behavior that occur at this time in development (Eisenberg, 2005).
The current study was unique in that it examined helping and sharing behavior as
exclusive constructs, given the literature demonstrating their differentiated developmental
pathways (Dunfield et al., 2011). However, there were no significant associations between the
study’s predictor variables (with the exception of sibling) and children’s helping behavior.
Future work should observe prosocial behavior over a variety of sibling interactions to begin to
understand in what sibling contexts helping and sharing abilities are likely to arise. The present
study adds to the investigation of within-family processes that underpin children’s prosocial
development. Further, it examined the role of children’s dispositional physiological regulation in
moderating the association between mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and
42
children’s prosocial behavior, and how these relations differed for the older and younger siblings
in the family. Despite the notion that a majority of children in the United States live in families
with more than one parent and grow up with at least one sibling, psychological research
overwhelmingly represents family processes within the confines of mother-child relationships.
This neglects the other pertinent relationships that influence a child’s environment and their
experiences within it. These results underscore the importance of a family systems perspective
in elucidating how parental emotional expressiveness and physiological regulation relate to
children’s emerging prosocial behavior.
43
References
Abramovitch, R., Pepler, D., & Corter, C. (1982). Patterns of sibling interaction among
preschool-age children. In M. E. Lamb & B. Sutton-Smith (Eds.), Sibling relationships:
Their nature and significance across the lifespan (pp. 61-86). New York, NY: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2010). Multiple imputation with Mplus. Technical Appendix.
Retrieved July 13, 2013, from: http://www.statmodel.com/download/Imputations7.pdf
Bar-Haim, Y., Marshall, P. J., & Fox, N. A. (2000). Developmental changes in heart period and
high-frequency heart period variability from 4 months to 4 years of age. Developmental
Psychobiology, 37(1), 44-56.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Goldberg, M. (1982). Helping behavior among preschool children: An
observational study. Child Development, 396-402.
Bar-Tal, D., Raviv, A., & Leiser, T. (1980). The development of altruistic behavior: Empirical
evidence. Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 516-524. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.16.5.516
Beier, J. S., Over, H., & Carpenter, M. (2014). Young children help others to achieve their social
goals. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 934-940.
Berntson, G. G., Quigley, K. S., Jang, J. F., & Boysen, S. T. (1990). An approach to artifact
identification: Application to heart period data. Psychophysiology, 27(5), 586-598.
Bornstein, M. H., & Suess, P. E. (2000). Child and mother cardiac vagal tone: continuity,
stability, and concordance across the first 5 years. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 54-
65. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.36.1.54
44
Boyum, L. A., & Parke, R. D. (1995). The role of family emotional expressiveness in the
development of children's social competence. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57(3),
593-608.
Brody, L. R. (1985). Gender differences in emotional development: A review of theories and
research. Journal of Personality, 53(2), 102-149.
Brody, G. H., Stoneman, Z., & Burke, M. (1987). Child temperaments, maternal differential
behavior, and sibling relationships. Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 354-362.
Brownell, C. A., Svetlova, M., Anderson, R., Nichols, S. R., & Drummond, J. (2013).
Socialization of early prosocial behavior: parents’ talk about emotions is associated with
sharing and helping in toddlers. Infancy, 18(1), 91-119. doi: 10.1111/j.1532-
7078.2012.00125.x
Bryant, B. K., & Crockenberg, S. B. (1980). Correlates and dimensions of prosocial behavior: A
study of female siblings with their mothers. Child Development, 51(2), 529-544.
Calkins, S. D., & Fox, N. A. (2002). Self-regulatory processes in early personality development:
A multilevel approach to the study of childhood social withdrawal and
aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 14(3), 477-498. doi:
10.1017/S095457940200305X
Calkins, S. D., Graziano, P. A., & Keane, S. P. (2007). Cardiac vagal regulation differentiates
among children at risk for behavior problems. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 144–153.
doi: 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.09.005
Cassidy, J., Parke, R. D., Butkovsky, L., & Braungart, J. M. (1992). Family‐peer connections:
the roles of emotional expressiveness within the family and children's understanding of
emotions. Child Development, 63(3), 603-618. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01649.x
45
Cicirelli, V. G. (1975). Effects of mother and older sibling on the problem-solving behavior of
the younger child. Developmental Psychology, 11(6), 749–756. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.11.6.749
Cox, M. J., & Paley, B. (1997). Families as systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 48(1), 243-
267. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Crockenberg, S. (1985). Toddlers’ reactions to maternal anger. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 31,
361-373.
Cummings, E. M. (1987). Coping with Background Anger in Early Childhood. Child
Development, 58(4), 976–984. doi: 10.2307/1130538
Deater-Deckard, K. (1996). Within family variability in parental negativity and control. Journal
of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 407-422.
Denham, S. A., Bassett, H. H., & Wyatt, T. M. (2010). Gender differences in the socialization of
preschoolers' emotional competence. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 2010(128), 29-49. doi: 10.1002/cd.267
Denham, S. A., & Grout, L. (1992). Mothers' emotional expressiveness and coping: Relations
with preschoolers' social-emotional competence. Genetic, Social, and General
Psychology Monographs, 118(1), 73-101.
Denham, S. A., McKinley, M., Couchoud, E. A., & Holt, R. (1990). Emotional and behavioral
predictors of preschool peer ratings. Child Development, 61(4), 1145-1152. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02848.x
Denham, S. A., Mitchell-Copeland, J., Strandberg, K., Auerbach, S., & Blair, K. (1997). Parental
Contributions to Preschoolers’ Emotional Competence: Direct and Indirect Effects.
Motivation and Emotion, 21(1), 65–86. doi: 10.1023/A:1024426431247
46
Diener, E., Larsen, R. J., Levine, S., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). Intensity and frequency:
Dimensions underlying positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 48(5), 1253–1265. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.5.1253
Dunfield, K., Kuhlmeier, V. A., O’Connell, L., & Kelley, E. (2011). Examining the diversity of
prosocial behavior: Helping, sharing, and comforting in infancy. Infancy, 16(3), 227-247.
doi: 10.1111/j.1532-7078.2010.00041.x
Dunn, J., & Munn, P. (1986). Siblings and the development of prosocial behaviour. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 9(3), 265-284. doi: 10.1177/016502548600900301
Dunsmore, J. C., Her, P., Halberstadt, A. G., & Perez-Rivera, M. B. (2009). Parents’ beliefs
about emotions and children’s recognition of parents’ emotions. Journal of Nonverbal
Behavior, 33(2), 121-140.
Eisenberg, N. (2000). Emotion, regulation, and moral development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 51(1), 665-697. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.665
Eisenberg, N. (2005). The development of empathy-related responding. In G. Carlo & C. P.
Edwards (Eds.), Nebraska symposium of motivation: Vol. 51. Moral motivation through
the life span (pp. 73-117). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of
emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9(4), 241-273. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0904_1
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N.
Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, Emotional, and
Personality Development (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.
47
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Karbon, M., Murphy, B. C., Wosinski, M., Polazzi, L., ... & Juhnke,
C. (1996). The relations of children's dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality,
regulation, and social functioning. Child Development, 67(3), 974-992.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg
(Vol. Ed) and W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646-718). New York,
New York: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Gershoff, E. T., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A. J., Losoya, S. H., ...
& Murphy, B. C. (2001). Mother's emotional expressivity and children's behavior
problems and social competence: Mediation through children's regulation. Developmental
Psychology, 37(4), 475-490.
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers' reasoning about
prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior. Child Development, 50(2), 356-363.
Eisenberg, N., & Miller, P. A. (1987). The relation of empathy to prosocial and related
behaviors. Psychological Bulletin, 101(1), 91-119. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.101.1.91
Eisenstadt, S. N. (1956). From Generation to Generation: Age Groups and Social Structure.
Transaction Publishers.
El-Sheikh, M., Harger, J., & Whitson, S. M. (2001). Exposure to interparental conflict and
children's adjustment and physical health: The moderating role of vagal tone. Child
development, 72(6), 1617-1636.
Ensor, R., Spencer, D., & Hughes, C. (2011). ‘You Feel Sad?’ Emotion understanding mediates
effects of verbal ability and mother–child mutuality on prosocial behaviors: findings from
48
2 years to 4 years. Social Development, 20(1), 93-110. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2009.00572.x
Eron, L. D., & Huesmann, L. R. (1984). The relation of prosocial behavior to the development of
aggression and psychopathology. Aggressive Behavior, 10(1), 201-211.
Feinberg, M., & Hetherington, E. M. (2001). Differential parenting as a within-family
variable. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 22-37. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.15.1.22
Garner, P. W., Jones, D. C., & Miner, J. L. (1994). Social competence among low‐income
preschoolers: Emotion socialization practices and social cognitive correlates. Child
Development, 65(2), 622-637.
Garner, P. W., & Power, T. G. (1996). Preschoolers' emotional control in the disappointment
paradigm and its relation to temperament, emotional knowledge, and family
expressiveness. Child Development, 67(4), 1406-1419. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-
8624.1996.tb01804.x
Garner, P. W., Robertson, S., & Smith, G. (1997). Preschool children's emotional expressions
with peers: The roles of gender and emotion socialization. Sex Roles, 36(11-12), 675-691.
Grusec, J. E., & Goodnow, J. J. (1994). Impact of parental discipline methods on the child's
internalization of values: A reconceptualization of current points of view. Developmental
Psychology, 30(1), 4-19. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.30.1.4
Halberstadt, A. G. (1986). Family socialization of emotional expression and nonverbal
communication styles and skills. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(4),
827-836. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.51.4.827
49
Halberstadt, A. G., Cassidy, J., Stifter, C. A., Parke, R. D., & Fox, N. A. (1995). Self-
expressiveness within the family context: Psychometric support for a new
measure. Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 93-103.
Hastings, P. D., & De, I. (2008). Parasympathetic regulation and parental socialization of
emotion: Biopsychosocial processes of adjustment in preschoolers. Social
Development, 17(2), 211-238. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00422.x
Hastings, P. D., Nuselovici, J. N., Utendale, W. T., Coutya, J., McShane, K. E., & Sullivan, C.
(2008). Applying the polyvagal theory to children's emotion regulation: Social context,
socialization, and adjustment. Biological Psychology, 79(3), 299-306.
Hastings, P. D., Utendale, W. T., & Sullivan, C. (2007). The socialization of prosocial behavior.
In J. E. Grusec, & P. D. Hastings (Eds.) Handbook of socialization: Theory and research
(pp. 638-664). New York and London: The Guildford Press.
Hay, D. F., Caplan, M., Castle, J., & Stimson, C. A. (1991). Does sharing become increasingly"
rational" in the second year of life? Developmental Psychology, 27(6), 987-993. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.27.6.987
Hay, D. F., & Pawlby, S. (2003). Prosocial Development in Relation to Children’s and Mothers’
Psychological Problems. Child Development, 74(5), 1314–1327.
Hinnant, J. B., & El-Sheikh, M. (2009). Children’s externalizing and internalizing symptoms
over time: The role of individual differences in patterns of RSA responding. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(8), 1049-1061.
Hoffman, M. L. (1977). Empathy, its development and prosocial implications. In C. B. Keasey
(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 25). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
50
Howe, N., & Ross, H. S. (1990). Socialization, perspective-taking, and the sibling relationship.
Developmental Psychology, 26(1), 160–165. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.26.1.160
Iannotti, R. J. (1985). Naturalistic and structured assessments of prosocial behavior in preschool
children: The influence of empathy and perspective taking. Developmental
Psychology, 21(1), 46-55.
Isley, S. L., O'Neil, R., Clatfelter, D., & Parke, R. D. (1999). Parent and child expressed affect
and children's social competence: Modeling direct and indirect pathways. Developmental
Psychology, 35(2), 547. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.35.2.547
Janssens, J. M. A. M., & Gerris, J. R. M. (1992). Childrearing, empathy, and prosocial
development. In J. M. A. M. Janssens, & J. R. M. Gerris (Eds.), Childrearing: Influence
on prosocial and moral development (pp. 57-77). Amsterdam: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kenny, D. A. (2014). Moderation: Effect size and power [Webinar]. From
http://davidakenny.net/webinars/Moderation/Power/Power.html
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guildford
Press.
Knafo, A., & Plomin, R. (2006). Prosocial behavior from early to middle childhood: Genetic and
environmental influences on stability and change. Developmental Psychology, 42(5),
771-786. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.771
Kok, B. E., Coffey, K. A., Cohn, M. A., Catalino, L. I., Vacharkulksemsuk, T., Algoe, S. B., ...
& Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). How positive emotions build physical health perceived
positive social connections account for the upward spiral between positive emotions and
vagal tone. Psychological Science, 24(7), 1123-1132. doi: 10.1177/0956797612470827
51
Kok, B. E., & Fredrickson, B. L. (2010). Upward spirals of the heart: Autonomic flexibility, as
indexed by vagal tone, reciprocally and prospectively predicts positive emotions and
social connectedness. Biological psychology, 85(3), 432-436. doi:
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.09.005
Lamb, M. E., & Lewis, C. (2010). The development and significance of father-child relationships
in two-parent families The role of the father in child development (5th ed., pp. 94-153).
Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Liszkowski, U., Carpenter, M., Striano, T., & Tomasello, M. (2006). 12-and 18-month-olds point
to provide information for others. Journal of Cognition and Development, 7(2), 173-187.
doi: 10.1207/s15327647jcd0702_2
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer
interactive competence. Child Development, 55(4), 1265-1277.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and
moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376-390. doi: 10.1037/0033-
2909.114.2.376
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus user's guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Nelson, J. A., O’Brien, M., Calkins, S. D., Leerkes, E. M., Marcovitch, S., & Blankson, A. N.
(2012). Maternal Expressive Style and Children’s Emotional Development. Infant and
Child Development, 21(3), 267–286. http://doi.org/10.1002/icd.748
Paulus, M., & Moore, C. (2014). The development of recipient-dependent sharing behavior and
sharing expectations in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 50(3), 914-921.
52
Porges, S. W. (1995). Cardiac vagal tone: A physiological index of stress. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 19(2), 225–233. doi: 10.1016/0149-7634(94)00066-A
Porges, S. W. (2007). The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology, 74(2), 116-143. doi:
10.1016/j.biopsycho.2006.06.009
Porges, S. W., Doussard‐Roosevelt, J. A., Lourdes Portales, A., & Suess, P. E. (1994). Cardiac
vagal tone: Stability and relation to difficultness in infants and 3‐ year‐
Olds. Developmental Psychobiology, 27(5), 289-300. doi: 10.1002/dev.420270504
Porges, S. W., & Furman, S. A. (2011). The early development of the autonomic nervous system
provides a neural platform for social behaviour: A polyvagal perspective. Infant and
Child Development, 20(1), 106-118.
Radke-Yarrow, M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Chapman, M. (1983). Children's prosocial disposition
and behavior. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Socialization,
personality, and social development (Vol. 4, pp. 469-545). New York: Wiley.
Ramsden, S. R., & Hubbard, J. A. (2002). Family Expressiveness and Parental Emotion
Coaching: Their Role in Children’s Emotion Regulation and Aggression. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(6), 657–667. doi: 10.1023/A:1020819915881
Rheingold, H. L., Hay, D. F., & West, M. J. (1976). Sharing in the second year of life. Child
Development, 47(4), 1148-1158.
Sebastián-Enesco, C., & Warneken, F. (2015). The shadow of the future: 5-Year-olds, but not 3-
year-olds, adjust their sharing in anticipation of reciprocation. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 129, 40-54.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and
advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
53
Stifter, C. A., & Fox, N. A. (1990). Infant reactivity: Physiological correlates of newborn and 5-
month temperament. Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 582-588. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.26.4.582
Thompson, C., Barresi, J., & Moore, C. (1997). The development of future-oriented prudence
and altruism in preschoolers. Cognitive Development, 12, 199–212.
Valiente, C., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Cumberland, A., & Losoya, S. H.
(2004). Prediction of children's empathy-related responding from their effortful control
and parents' expressivity. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 911. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.40.6.911
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Altruistic helping in human infants and young
chimpanzees. Science, 311(5765), 1301-1303. doi: 10.1126/science.1121448
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2007). Helping and cooperation at 14 months of
age. Infancy, 11(3), 271-294. doi: 10.1080/15250000701310389
Yarrow, M. R., Waxler, C. Z., Barrett, D., Darby, J., King, R., Pickett, M., & Smith, J. (1976).
Dimensions and correlates of prosocial behavior in young children. Child Development,
47(1), 118-125.
Zhou, Q., Eisenberg, N., Losoya, S. H., Fabes, R. A., Reiser, M., Guthrie, I. K., ... & Shepard, S.
A. (2002). The Relations of Parental Warmth and Positive Expressiveness to Children's
Empathy‐Related Responding and Social Functioning: A Longitudinal Study. Child
Development, 73(3), 893-915. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00446
54
Appendix A: Tables
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics.
Older Sibling Younger Sibling
M SD M SD
Helping .73 .46 .28 .44
Sharing 2.28 2.01 1.98 1.91
BLRSA 5.81 1.29 4.91 1.46
Mother Father
M SD M SD
Pos. EE 6.77 1.06 6.31 1.19
N-D EE 3.13 1.0 3.34 1.13
N-ND EE 4.09 1.36 3.99 1.14
Pos. to N-D EE Ratio 2.40 .90 2.16 1.05
Pos. to N-ND EE Ratio 1.85 .76 1.67 .43
N-D to N-ND EE Ratio .81 .27 .87 .28
Note. Descriptive statistics for helping and sharing were calculated using the recoded
weighted frequencies. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional expressiveness, Pos. =
positive, N-D = negative-dominant, N-ND = negative-nondominant.
55
Table 2
Correlations among Study Variables.
Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. OS Helping ---- .148 .071 .264* -.132 .017 .129 -.189
2. OS Sharing ---- ---- .025 .175 .255 .329* .311* -.315*
3. OS BLRSA ---- ---- ---- .040 .173 .277* .503** .142
4. YS Helping ---- ---- ---- ---- .160 .154 .137 -.136
5. YS Sharing ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- .260 .178 -.011
6. YS BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- .244 .057
7. Pos. EE .163 .121 -.118 .074 -.055 -.150 .313* .062
8. N-D EE -.131 -.084 -.239 .126 -.001 -.052 -.057 .132
9. N-ND EE .040 .002 -.158 .165 .011 -.007 .524** .518**
10. Ratio Pos. to N-D EE .152 .028 .196 -.075 -.065 -.054 .512** -.769**
11. Ratio Pos. to N-ND EE .050 .031 .069 -.170 -.041 -.094 .178 -.577**
12. Ratio N-D to N-ND EE -.169 -.121 -.072 -.067 -.020 -.066 -.618** .497**
Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for the mother and below the diagonal are for the father. Cross-parent
56
correlations are on the diagonal (bolded). OS = older sibling, YS = younger sibling. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE =
emotional expressiveness, Pos. = positive, N-D = negative-dominant, N-ND = negative- nondominant. * p < .05. ** p <
.01.
57
Table 2 (continued)
Correlations among study variables.
Measure 9 10 11 12
1. OS Helping -.109 .136 .191 .005
2. OS Sharing -.086 .380** .106 -.270*
3. OS BLRSA .207 .093 .042 -.107
4. YS Helping .002 .191 .040 -.150
5. YS Sharing .203 .096 -.119 -.257*
6. YS BLRSA .271* .080 -.176 -.272
7. Pos. EE .354** .393** .115 -.334*
8. N-D EE .637** -.812** -.510** .259
9. N-ND EE .044 -.355* -.772** -.512**
10. Ratio Pos. to N-D EE -.142 .023 .520** -.407**
11. Ratio Pos. to N-ND EE -.693** .557** -.009 .516**
12. Ratio N-D to N-ND EE -.429** -.704** .046 .171
Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for the mother and below the diagonal
58
are for the father. Cross-parent correlations are on the diagonal (bolded). OS =
older sibling, YS = younger sibling. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional
expressiveness, Pos. = positive, N-D = negative-dominant, N-ND = negative-
nondominant. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
59
Table 3
Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s helping behavior.
Positive Negative-Dominant Negative-Nondominant
Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept .50** .05 11.05 .50** .05 11.14 .50** .05 11.05
Sibling .21** .04 5.40 .21** .04 5.40 .21** .04 5.34
BLRSA .04 .03 1.04 .04 .03 1.38 .05 .03 1.40
M EE .02 .05 .47 -.08 .05 -1.75 -.03 .04 -.88
F EE .04 .04 1.06 .02 .04 .41 .05 .04 1.16
Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x F EE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Note. Estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. SE = Standard Error. M = mother, F = father. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional expressiveness. † p < .10. *
p < .05. ** p < .01.
60
Table 4
Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s sharing behavior.
Positive Negative-Dominant Negative-Nondominant
Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept 2.13 ** .19 11.17 2.13** .19 11.12 2.22 ** .20 11.09
Sibling .14 .17 .78 .07 .17 .44 .10 .16 .58
BLRSA .03 .15 .19 .17 .14 1.21 .08 .14 .57
M EE .44* .21 2.12 -.37 .21 -1.76 .10 .16 .62
F EE -.07 .18 -.40 -.01 .17 -.04 .09 .17 .52
Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x F EE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- -.33* .16 -2.03 ---- ---- ----
M EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -.20* .08 -2.51
M EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Note. Estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. SE = Standard Error. M = mother, F = father. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional expressiveness. † p < .10. *
p < .05. ** p < .01.
61
Table 5
Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s helping behavior.
Positive Negative-Dominant Negative-Nondominant
Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept .50** .05 11.09 .50** .05 11.04 .50** .05 10.99
Sibling .21** .04 5.53 .21** .04 5.45 .21** .04 5.49
BLRSA .03 .03 1.07 .04 .03 1.25 .03 .03 1.06
M EE .08 .06 1.46 .08 .07 1.17 -.06 .19 -.99
F EE .01 .05 .29 -.06 .10 -.56 -.16 .17 -.33
Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x F EE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Note. Estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. SE = Standard Error. M = mother, F = father. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional expressiveness. † p < .10. *
p < .05. ** p < .01.
62
Table 6
Multilevel models examining mothers’ and fathers’ ratios of emotional expressiveness and children’s baseline RSA as correlates of children’s sharing behavior.
Positive Negative-Dominant Negative-Nondominant
Variable Estimate SE t Estimate SE t Estimate SE t
Intercept 2.13 ** .19 11.36 2.13** .20 10.91 2.13 ** .19 11.37
Sibling .10 .17 .59 .09 .17 .50 .11 .17 .63
BLRSA .11 .14 .82 .14 .14 1.00 .09 .14 .65
M EE .56* .27 2.04 -.02 .32 -.05 -1.90* .82 -2.31
F EE -.06 .20 -.27 -.02 .44 -.05 -.15 .68 -.22
Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x F EE ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling .35† .20 1.74 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
M EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
F EE x Sibling x BLRSA ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Note. Estimates are unstandardized regression coefficients. SE = Standard Error. M = mother, F = father. BLRSA = baseline RSA, EE = emotional expressiveness. † p < .10. *
p < .05. ** p < .01.
63
Appendix B: Figures
Figure 1. The interaction between mothers’ negative-dominant emotional expressiveness and
sibling predicting children’s sharing.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low High
Chil
dre
n's
Shar
ing
Mother N-D EE
YS
OS
64
Figure 2. The interaction between mothers’ negative-nondominant emotional expressiveness and
children’s baseline RSA predicting children’s sharing.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low High
Chil
dre
n's
Shar
ing
Mother N-ND EE
Low
Blrsa
High
Blrsa
65
Figure 3. The interaction between the ratio of mothers’ positive to negative-dominant emotional
expressiveness and sibling predicting children’s sharing.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Low High
Chil
dre
n's
Shar
ing
Ratio of Mother Pos. to N-D EE
YS
OS