The mediational roles of harsh and responsive parenting in the longitudinal relations between socioeconomic status and Turkish children’s emotional development

Abstract

This study examined the associations among the socioeconomic status (SES) of Turkish families when children (N = 340, Mean age = 83 months, SD = 3.59, 50.3% boys) were approximately 7 years of age (Time 1) and their emotional lability and emotion regulation tendencies 3 years later (Time 3). We also examined the mediating roles of mothers’ harsh and responsive parenting behaviors when children were 9 years of age (Time 2). Results revealed that family SES was positively linked to parental responsiveness and negatively linked to harsh parenting; harsh parenting was positively linked to children’s emotion lability and negatively linked to children’s emotion regulation (after controlling for prior levels of emotion regulation and emotional lability at Time 2). Further, harsh parenting significantly mediated the associations between family SES and children’s emotional lability and emotion regulation tendencies. The pattern of associations did not vary by child gender or community (e.g., Istanbul, Ankara, Bolu) in Turkey. The findings highlight the interplay among family SES, maternal parenting behaviors, and children’s self-regulation outcomes in a non-Western, collectivist society.

Keywords

Parenting parenting behaviors emotion regulation emotional lability socioeconomic status culture

Introduction

Emotional regulation abilities play a key role in children’s socioemotional functioning (e.g., social competence, adjustment), empathy and moral development, and academic achievement (Eisenberg, Hofer, Sulik, et al., 2014; Eisenberg, Smith, & Spinrad, 2016; Panfile & Laible, 2012; Thompson, 2011). However, children’s emotion regulation abilities are influenced by child-rearing experiences that might vary across sociocultural and socioeconomic context (Harkness & Super, 2002; Thompson & Meyer, 2007). Despite the recognition of the importance of understanding emotion regulation and its parenting correlates, most research has focused on middle- to upper-class families from Western, Christian-oriented societies of European American heritage (see Denham, Bassett, & Wyatt, 2007; Eisenberg, Smith, & Spinrad, 2016). Because families from other societies and from low-income households can espouse unique beliefs, customs, and expectations (Harkness & Super, 2002; Whiting & Edwards, 1988), one might expect that relations between parenting and children’s emotion regulation might differ from those reported in prior studies. Thus, it is important to understand the role that socioeconomic status (SES) plays in shaping children’s emotion regulation abilities, as well as the family processes by which that association operates in diverse societies.

Although Turkish culture is diverse and dynamic, Turkey remains a collectivist-oriented society and many Turkish families foster emotional dependence on family, strong intergenerational ties to family and kin, and strong gender stereotypes (Kağıtçıbaşı & Sunar, 1992; Sunar & Fişek, 2005). These values promote a strong hierarchical and authoritarian-oriented family structure that is manifested in high levels of parental control (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Turkey has a secular government but is a predominantly Muslim-oriented country. The strong religious values and Islamic beliefs also affect Turkish parents’ socialization attitudes and practices (Sunar & Fişek, 2005). Although there is limited available research, there is prior work that suggests that Turkish parents from lower socioeconomic backgrounds might use more harsh child-rearing practices than parents from higher socioeconomic background (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Therefore, we explored the links among SES, maternal responsive and harsh parenting behaviors, and children’s emotion regulation in such a unique non-Western, collectivist, and predominantly Muslim society.

Children’s emotion regulation abilities develop in the family setting. Parents (particularly mothers because children generally spend more time with mothers than fathers; Yeung, Sandberg, Davis-Kean, et al., 2001) are an important source of socioemotional support for their children. More specifically, the degrees of the expression of parental warmth, responsiveness, and support are the primary elements of the development of children’s emotion regulation (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994). Therefore, this study used a longitudinal sample of families from Turkey to examine associations among SES, maternal responsive and harsh parenting behaviors, and children’s emotional lability and regulation in middle childhood.

Additionally, although most of the extant research has focused on the emotion regulation of young children (see Thompson, 2014), middle childhood is a period during which children are increasingly able to self-regulate their emotions and behaviors (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006; Shields & Cicchetti, 1997). For example, impulsive behaviors, such as having trouble waiting for a turn in games, gradually decrease from early childhood to middle childhood whereas emotion regulation increases during middle childhood (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1992). Also, children become increasingly aware of their ability to regulate their emotions, which is influenced by their interpersonal relationships and their socioemotional development (Eisenberg et al., 2006). Therefore, middle childhood is a fundamental time period for children’s growing capacities of emotion regulation.

Children’s Emotion Regulation

Emotion regulation abilities allow children to monitor, evaluate, and alter their emotional responses to achieve goals and successfully adapt to the social context (Thompson, 1994). Children regulate their emotions by using self-management strategies (Thompson, 2011). For instance, emotion regulation includes maintaining and improving emotional arousal such as maintaining joyful emotions when children are doing enjoyable activities (Thompson, 2011). With age, children also learn to inhibit their emotions when it is not appropriate to express them (Saarni, 2000). For example, when children get angry with their friend, they may leave the playing scene. Furthermore, parents can teach or directly coach their children to learn self-management strategies to regulate their emotions (Thompson, 2014).

When children start to interact with peers, they rely on their emotion regulation abilities to build and maintain close relationships with friends (Denham, 2006). In later years, these capacities provide a foundation for complex forms of emotion management in which children successfully regulate their emotions to develop and maintain competent behaviors accordingly (Denham, 1998). As children increasingly interact with parents, teachers, and peers in their environment, their capacities and opportunities to regulate their negative emotions increase during middle childhood. For example, children continue with their familial relationships at a time when they are also starting to become aware of their peer groups in the school context. These developing multiple interpersonal relationships help children to understand their emotions and might result in better regulation.

SES, Parenting, and Children’s Emotion Regulation

Although parents can influence children’s emotion regulation skills, researchers have also documented links between childhood poverty and children’s poor outcomes, such as diminished social competence, self-esteem, greater internalizing and externalizing behavioral problems, and lower academic achievement (Bolger, Patterson, Thompson, et al., 1995; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Garner, 1996). Researchers examining the links between SES and children’s emotion regulation suggest that children coming from higher income families tend to have better emotional understanding, emotional expression, and emotion regulation skills than children coming from lower-income families (Garner, 1996; Garner, Jones, Gaddy, et al., 1997). For example, anger and aggression are more likely to be seen among low-income children (Herzberger & Hall, 1993). Similarly, Garner and Spears (2000) found that low-income children tended to express anger rather than sadness, particularly in situations such as having a conflict with sharing a toy.

In addition to direct effects of SES on children’s emotion regulation, there might be some indirect effects. Parenting might be one of the possible mediators that can promote or hinder children’s development of emotion regulation. Parents socialize their children’s emotion regulation skills by being responsive to their emotional needs, giving affective induction and modeling, and teaching strategies to regulate emotions (Thompson, 1994, 2014). Moreover, family stress theorists argue that parental stress affects parenting attitudes and behaviors and, ultimately, children’s outcomes (e.g., Belsky, 1984; Conger, Wallace, Sun, et al., 2002). Specifically, higher levels of parents’ economic hardship could result in additional burden and difficulties in engaging effective parenting, which in turn predicts poor child developmental outcomes (Conger, Conger, & Elder, 1992; Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Crnic & Greenberg, 1990; McLoyd, 1998). SES seems to be specifically related to parental warmth, responsiveness, and control (Belsky, 1984; Conger, Reuter, & Conger, 2000). Economic hardship can deplete parents’ resources, make them self-focused rather than child-focused, with parents being overwhelmed, impatient and irritable, and less able to regulate their own emotions (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Parents whose resources are depleted may become less warm and responsive, and less likely to be involved in children’s lives. Additionally, when parents cannot regulate their emotions, they may not be good role models for their children’s emotion regulation, which is then expected to lead to less effective parenting behaviors and predict more emotion dysregulation in children. Furthermore, parents’ stress may elevate the harshness and extenuate parental responsiveness (Deater-Deckard, 1998). Impatient and irritable mothers are more likely to use punitive disciplinary practices due to the depleted resources and less capable emotion regulations (Deater-Deckard, 1998; Muraven & Baumeister, 2000).

Some parenting styles and practices are specifically linked to children’s emotion regulation or dysregulation (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). For example, harsh parenting practices involve, but are not limited to, unquestioning compliance, power assertion, and punitive parental reactions to the children’s emotional expression. These parenting behaviors may increase children’s anger, anxiety, and fear of punishment (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Responsive parenting involves inductive and supportive parental reaction to children’s emotional expression. These parenting behaviors might reduce children’s physiological and emotional arousal (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). When children are exposed to responsive parental practices, they can learn how to regulate their emotion expressions (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Additionally, parental responsiveness to children’s distress has been negatively linked to children’s negative emotion regulation (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998).

Other studies also support the conceptual links between parenting practices and children’s emotion regulation. Mothers’ and fathers’ levels of responsiveness to 6- to 8-year-old children’s distress were associated with children’s negative emotion regulation (Davidov & Grusec, 2006). In a three-wave longitudinal study, Eisenberg and colleagues (Eisenberg, Zhou, Spinrad, et al., 2005) demonstrated that children’s effortful control mediated the links between parental warmth and early adolescents’ externalizing behavior problems. To summarize, responsive parents can teach affective emotion regulation strategies or become a role model for their children. In this way, children can learn how to deal with negative emotions and emotionally arousing events (Thompson, 1994).

Harsh parenting practices may also be linked to children’s emotion dysregulation (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Parents’ unfavorable and discouraging attitudes toward children’s distress, fear, sadness, and anger may lead children’s negative social and emotional competence (Eisenberg, Fabes, & Murphy, 1996). Furthermore, children, whose parents use punitive and power-assertive disciplinary practices, can learn how to overtly and negatively express negative emotions without any internal regulatory control (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Additionally, when parents do not support or otherwise punitively react to their children’s emotional expression, children may come to perceive emotions as negative and threatening; thus, such children cannot learn how to deal with them and not explore the meaning of emotions (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998). Mathis and Bierman (2015) showed that directive-critical parenting and parenting stress were negatively linked to children’s emotion regulation in a low-income population. Similarly, Shields and Cicchetti (2001) demonstrated that maltreated children tended to display emotion dysregulation and bullying more so than nonmaltreated children. Additionally, early maltreatment has long-lasting effects on children’s higher level emotional lability, which in turn predicts lower emotion regulation and internalization of problems (Kim-Spoon, Cicchetti, & Rogosch, 2013). However, these associations may vary across cultures. That is, economic hardship can have different effects on parenting behaviors and children’s outcomes in different cultures.

Culture and Parenting

Cross-cultural theorists suggest that parenting behaviors depend partly on cultural traditions, beliefs, rules, and values, which differentially contribute to children’s outcomes, including their emotion regulation abilities (Harkness & Super, 2002; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Notably, parenting behaviors can be perceived differently across cultures, and thus differentially impact children’s outcomes (Rothbaum & Trommsdorff, 2007). For instance, harsh parenting (e.g., physically punishing a child when s/he is late in coming home) is generally perceived negatively in European American culture and is linked to adverse child outcomes (e.g., regulation problems). However, it is deemed a relatively normative parenting practice in traditional Turkish culture (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Harsh parenting is usually accompanied with high levels of parental warmth, support, and responsiveness; therefore, it is thought that harsh parenting is not necessarily a cause of adverse outcomes in Turkish children (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). Parental acceptance-rejection theory suggests that if children perceive harsh parenting practices as a sign of care and acceptance, such harshness may not cause adverse child outcomes (Rohner, 1986). However, if children perceive harsh parenting practices as a sign of rejection, such harshness may cause adverse child outcomes.

Kağıtçıbaşı (2005, 2007) proposed a family model of relational-autonomous context in which urban, middle-class Turkish parents socialize their children to be autonomous and maintain emotional interdependence on their family. Additionally, children have their own developmental pathway, which can vary across distinct ecological-cultural contexts (Weisner, 2002). Daily routines (e.g., helping with household chores) are core elements of cultural developmental pathways (Weisner, 2002). These routine actions reflect the cultural rules, regulations, and values. For example, Sunar (2002) examined parenting practices in the three generations of urban middle-class Turkish families and found that Turkish parents increasingly encouraged emotional expression in their children whereas the tendency of suppression of negative emotions remained same across generations (see similar results in Çorapcı, Aksan, & Yağmurlu, 2012). These routine practices are believed to play a key role in socializing children according to Turkish cultural values. Showing respect and not speaking in a loud voice to their parents and not to fight or yell at siblings and friends are other expected behaviors from Turkish children (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007). These latter expected behaviors might be one particular way used to socialize children’s emotion regulation in Turkish culture. When children’s behavior deviates from Turkish cultural norms and conflicts with parents’ expectations, parents tend to become harsh toward their children and sometimes physically punish their children’s unwanted behaviors.

Although studies on the links among economic stress, parenting behavior, and children’s outcome are very limited in Turkish samples, low-SES Turkish parents were found to commonly use physical punishment and punishment-oriented control (Kağıtçıbaşı & Sunar, 1992). Specifically, Turkish parents from higher SES status were more likely to be responsive and less likely to use power assertion in the socialization of their children’s emotion regulation and effortful control (Gündüz, Yağmurlu, & Harma, 2015). Uçanok & Güre (2014) reported that perceived economic stress was positively linked to conflict with parents and negatively linked to communication with parents. Further, findings revealed that the quality of parent–adolescent relationships partially mediated the link between perceived economic stress and adolescents’ wellbeing (Uçanok & Güre, 2014). In another study, Turkish mothers who had less parenting stress used less punishment and displayed more warmth (Yağmurlu & Sanson, 2009). A similar study also yielded longitudinal evidence that Turkish parents with higher daily hassles tended to be less warm and tended to use physical punishment even 2 years later (Gülseven, Carlo, Streit, et al., 2017). When parents had higher daily hassles, their children tend to show more aggressive behaviors 3 years after. Additionally, parental warmth mediated the link between parenting daily hassles and children’s prosocial behaviors in that when parents had higher daily hassles, they tend to be less warm 2 years later, which in turn positively predicted children’s prosocial behaviors 1 year later (Gülseven, et al., 2017).

Mother’s responsive child-rearing practices (high-level warmth and inductive reasoning) were found to predict young Turkish children’s emotion regulation positively, whereas corporal punishment (punishment, demanding obedience) predicted children’s emotion regulation negatively (Altan-Aytun, Yağmurlu, & Yavuz, 2013). Likewise, Yağmurlu & Altan (2010) showed that maternal responsiveness positively predicted preschool children’s emotion regulations (see similar results in Orta, Çorapcı, Yağmurlu, et al., 2013). Taken together, similar to findings derived from Western and Christian-oriented cultures, parents’ stress and economic hardship are linked to less parental responsiveness and more harsh parenting practices in Turkish culture. Furthermore, responsive parenting is positively related to children’s emotion regulation skills, whereas harsh parenting is negatively associated with such skills even though harsh parenting is seen as normative. However, these studies are few in number and require further studies to test the generalizability of the findings. Moreover, the previous studies focused on parenting stress and parenting daily hassles rather than specifically examining the SES and harsh parenting.

This Study and Hypotheses

Using data gathered as part of a larger longitudinal study on Turkish children’s cognitive, emotional, and prosocial development, this study examined the extent to which the SES of Turkish families when children were 7 years of age contributed to children’s emotion regulation and lability 3 years later, and the extent to which their mothers’ responsive and harsh parenting behaviors mediated those associations. Based on the literature, we expected that higher SES would be positively related to responsive parenting and negatively related to harsh parenting. Also, we hypothesized that higher levels of responsive and lower levels of harsh parenting practices would be related to higher levels of emotion regulation ability. In addition, we hypothesized that responsive parenting positively mediated the relations between family’s higher SES and children’s emotion regulation. In contrast, a negative mediating role was expected for harsh parenting behavior on the relations between family’s lower SES and children’s emotion regulation.

Method

The data were gathered as part of a larger longitudinal study on Turkish children’s cognitive, emotional, and prosocial development, in which children and their mothers were seen at three times of assessment. The data relevant to this study were obtained across three time points of data collection: When children were 7, 9, and 10 years old (henceforth referred to as Time 1, Time 2, and Time 3). At Time 1, mothers answered questions about their own and the education level of children’s fathers, and income; at Time 2, mothers responded items about their parenting behaviors and children’s emotion regulation abilities; at Time 3, mothers reported on their children’s emotion regulation abilities.

Participants

Three-hundred-and-forty mothers residing in three cities of Turkey were recruited. One-hundred-and-thirty-two mothers were from Bolu (small city with a population of 291,095), 148 mothers were from Istanbul, and 60 mothers were from Ankara (metropolitan cities with a population of 14,657,434 and 5,270,575, respectively). In Time 1, children were on average 7 years of age (M _age = 83 months, SD = 3.59, range 76–90 months, 50.3% boys). They had mostly middle-class SES families. The mean of education years was 9.33 (SD = 4.39) for mothers and 10.41 for fathers. In terms of parental education level, Ankara is the highest, followed by Bolu, then Istanbul. Most (93%) mothers reported being married at Time 1. Also, 69% of the mothers were housewives, while 21% of the mothers had a job; 99% of the fathers had a job.

Procedure

We obtained consent from the Turkish Ministry of Education to collect data from public and private schools in Bolu, Ankara, and Istanbul. Then, with the principals’ knowledge and consent, we sent an invitation letter and a consent form to the parents through their school children. When parents signed and returned the informed consent forms, we sent parents the questionnaires via their children. Mothers filled out the questionnaires and returned them in a sealed envelope to the respective schools through their child.

Measures

Family SES. A family SES variable consists of the average of mother’s and father’s education levels, and families’ monthly total income. Mothers and fathers reported their education level on a 7-point scale (1 = Illiterate and 7 = Master’s degree and above, Specialization, Doctorate, etc.). Mothers also reported their actual monthly income.

Child rearing questionnaire (CRQ). The revised version of CRQ is a parent report measure (Patterson & Sanson, 1999) that includes 30 items on a 5-point scale (1 = Never and 5 = Always) and four subscales tap into: Warmth (10 items, e.g., “I express affection by hugging, kissing and holding my child”; Cronbach’s alpha was .75 in Time 2), Inductive Reasoning (six items, e.g., “I explain to my child the consequences of his/her behavior”; Cronbach’s alpha was .81 in Time 2), Punishment (nine items, e.g., “I believe that physical punishment is the best way to discipline my child”; Cronbach’s alpha was .78 in Time 2), and Obedience-Demanding Behavior (four items, e.g., “I expect my child to give his/her parents unquestioning obedience”; Cronbach’s alpha was .69 in Time 2). One item from the Obedience-Demanding subscale (“I let my child express his/her feelings about being punished or restricted”) was omitted due to low inter-item correlations. The Inductive Reasoning and Warmth subscale scores (r = .66, df = 288, p < .001) were averaged to create a “responsive parenting” score for each child, with higher values indicating greater parental responsiveness (16 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .85). The items indicate Parental Warmth, Support, and Inductive Reasoning, therefore the average score is labeled “responsive parenting.” The Punishment and Obedience-Demanding behavior (r = .38, df = 288, p < .001) subscale scores were averaged to create a “harsh parenting” score for each child, with higher values indicating greater parental harshness (11 items; Cronbach’s alpha = .79). The items indicate power assertion and corporal punishment, therefore the average score is labeled “harsh parenting.” A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine how well the responsive and harsh parenting subscale items measured those constructs (see Results for details). The Turkish version of the CRQ is commonly used in Turkey; its validity and reliability have been shown in various studies and Cronbach’s alphas were in acceptable range (see Altan-Aytun, Yağmurlu, & Yavuz, 2013; Yağmurlu & Sanson, 2009).

Emotion regulation checklist (ERC). The ERC is a 24-item mother report questionnaire developed by Shields & Cicchetti (1999). The ERC includes two subscales measuring Lability/Negativity and Emotion Regulation with positively and negatively weighted items on a 4-point scale (1 = Rarely/Almost Never and 4 = Always). The original lability/negativity subscale includes 15 items measuring lack of flexibility, mood swings, and dysregulated negative emotions and emotion regulation subscale includes eight items measuring empathy, appropriate emotional expression, and emotional understanding (one item does not load on any subscale). Although a Turkish language version of the ERC has been developed and validated (see Batum & Yağmurlu, 2007; Orta, Çorapcı, Yağmurlu, & Aksan, 2013; Yağmurlu & Altan, 2010), we conducted preliminary analyses to further validate the ERC to use with a Turkish sample.

First, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted with varimax rotation by setting eigenvalues greater than 1.0. The initial solution yielded six factors labeled as: affective lability (six items, Cronbach’s alpha = .74), appropriate affective displays (four items, Cronbach’s alpha = .60), valence (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .61), intensity (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .55), flexibility (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .56), and dysregulated negative affect/anger dysregulation (three items, Cronbach’s alpha = .40) based on original measurement article (Shields & Cicchetti, 1999). One item did not load on any factor and one item double-loaded. These two items were, therefore, excluded from analysis. In addition, the factor analysis showed that the reversed scored items in the original ERC scale loaded in the opposite direction than was theoretically expected in this study. To redress this issue, these items were not reversed-scored in this study.

Second, the ERC has previously been used in the Turkish sample with two valid and reliable subscales (see Orta, Çorapcı, Yağmurlu, et al., 2013). Therefore, we examined each item regarding their face validity, the alpha levels of these six factors, and the correlations among these six factors. In order to align the Turkish language version of the ERC with the original conceptual ERC measurement model (which has two subscales; see Shields & Cicchetti, 1999), based upon the correlations, low alphas, and face validity, we created a lability/negativity subscale (nine items) by combining affective lability and intensity items (r = .43, p < .001). We also created an emotion regulation subscale (10 items) by combining appropriate affective displays, valence, and flexibility items (r-values ranged from .30 to .35, p-values < .001). However, the dysregulated negative affect/anger dysregulation factor items (three items) was significantly correlated only with affective lability (r = .15, p < .01) but not with other factors. Therefore, based on the low alpha and these relations, this factor was not included in the analysis.

Third, a CFA was conducted to confirm newly created emotion regulation and lability/negativity scores (see Results for details). The final lability/negativity subscale items (Cronbach’s alphas were .77 for T2 and .76 for T3) and emotion regulation subscale items (Cronbach’s alphas were .72 for T2 and .70 for T3) are listed in Appendix 1. The ERC has previously been used in a Turkish sample with two valid and reliable subscales (see Orta, Çorapcı, Yağmurlu, et al., 2013).

Cost of living. To assess whether the pattern of associations among SES, maternal parenting behavior qualities, and children’s emotion regulation and emotion labilities varied based on the cost of living in Bolu, Ankara, and Istanbul, we used the Economic Index of Tüylüoğlu & Albayrak (2010). They calculated spatial price indexes across 26 provincial regions in Turkey using Principal Component Analysis to the 2008 average yearly prices of 375 products and services, such as food and non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages and tobacco, clothing and footwear, household appliances, and education. According to Tüylüoğlu & Albayrak (2010), Istanbul was the most expensive community, followed by Ankara and Bolu.

Results

We examined the associations between family SES at T1 and Turkish children’s emotional lability and regulation capabilities at T3, and whether those associations were mediated by mothers’ responsive and harsh parenting behaviors at T2. Preliminary analyses were conducted to assess the distribution of the study variables, identify covariates, and describe partial missing data patterns. We used path analysis to examine the associations among family SES, maternal parenting behaviors, and children’s emotional lability and regulation capabilities. Finally, multigroup analyses were conducted to examine whether the patterns of associations varied by child gender and across three communities in Turkey.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Child rearing. Two separate CFA models were tested by the construct of interest using maximum likelihood with robust SEs (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). After removing one item (i.e., “I let my child express his/her feelings about being punished or restricted”) due to a negative loading on the harsh parenting construct, the harsh parenting CFA model fit the data well: X² (62) = 121.66, root mean square of approximation (RMSEA) = .06, 90% confidence interval (CI) = .04–.07, comparative fit index (CFI) = .91, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = .88, standardized root mean-square residual (SRMR) = .06), and all factor loadings were significant, with most of them varying from .34 to .80. Two items (“I expect my child to do what s/he is told without me having to give reasons” and “I expect my child to do what he/she is told to do, without stopping to argue about it”) had factor loadings of .15 for both of them. These items were retained because they improved the measurement accuracy of the harsh parenting variable (as noted by the significant loadings). The responsive parenting model also fit the data well (X² (95) = 168.00, RMSEA = .05, 90% CI = .04–.06, CFI = .92, TLI = .90, SRMR = .06); all factor loadings were significant and standardized factor loadings were varying from .33 to .71.

Emotion regulation. A CFA model was tested by construct of interest to confirm newly created emotion regulation and lability/negativity scores by using maximum likelihood with robust SEs (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). The model fit the data well at age 9 (X ² (133) = 191.76, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI = .03–.05, CFI = .93, TLI = .90, SRMR = .05, and factor loadings varied between .39 and .70 at p < .001 significance level for lability/negativity factor and .30 and .54 at p < .001 significance level for emotion regulation factor) and at age 10 (X ² (137) = 188.89, RMSEA = .04, 90% CI = .02–.05, CFI = .93, TLI = .91, SRMR = .05, and factor loadings varied from .29 to .65 and .29 to .54 at p < .001 significance level for lability/negativity and emotion regulation factors, respectively).

Preliminary Analyses

The study variables were reasonably well distributed, with skewness values ranging from −1.63 to .45 (the range between −3 and +3 indicates a normal distribution; Kline, 2016). Mean comparisons showed that mothers’ T2 responsiveness varied by child gender. Mothers reported greater responsiveness toward boys (M = 4.50, SD = .39) than girls (M = 4.37, SD = .52), F (1,288) = 6.44, p = .012. In addition, T1 family SES and mothers’ T2 parenting behaviors varied by community. Least significant difference mean comparisons revealed that the families in Ankara (M = .31, SD = .84) and Bolu (M = .08, SD = .86) reported a higher SES than those in Istanbul (M = −.15, SD = .87), F (2,302) = 4.93, p = .008. Also, the mothers in Istanbul (M = 4.46, SD = .40) and Bolu (M = 4.50, SD = .36) reported greater T2 responsiveness toward children than those in Ankara (M = 4.23, SD = .69), F (2,287) = 6.53, p = .002. Yet, the mothers in Ankara engaged in greater T2 harsh parenting behaviors (M = 2.22, SD = .76) than those in Istanbul (M = 2.01, SD = .54) and Bolu (M = 1.96, SD = .64), F (2,288) = 3.19, p = .043. Children’s emotional lability and regulation did not vary by child gender or community. The degrees of freedom varied in these analyses due to partial missing data.

There were no cases with complete missing data across the main study variables. However, 30% of the cases were partially missing data across some of the main study variables. The missing data per variable ranged from 10 to 19%. Complete data were available for 70% of the study sample, with 90% (n = 306), 85% (n = 289), and 81% (n = 275) of the cases having complete data at T1, T2, and T3, respectively. Of the families who participated during T1, 76% were still participating during T2, and 78% of the T2 families continued participating during T3. Across all three time-points, the families with complete and partial missing data did not differ among the study variables, except for T1 SES. On average, the families with complete data reported a lower SES (M = −.07, SD = .86) than those with partial missing data (M = .26, SD = .88), F (1,303) = 7.29, p = .007, with a Cohen’s d effect size of .37 indicating a small-to-moderate difference (Cohen, 1988). Next, we performed a series of analyses of variance to test whether the mean of each main study variable differed by the missing data pattern of other main study variables. Some differences were observed as a function of missing data at random (see Enders, 2010). However, these differences did not appear to affect model parameters significantly because the effects sizes ranged from .02 to .03. The full information maximum likelihood estimation method was used for all analyses in Mplus to handle cases with partial missing data, allowing us to use the entire sample of 340 families (Muthén & Muthén, 2010).

Table 1 presents the means, SDs, ranges, and bivariate correlations of the variables. T1 family SES was positively correlated with mothers’ T2 responsive parenting and with children’s T2 and T3 emotion regulation. Conversely, it was negatively correlated with mothers’ T2 harsh parenting and with children’s T2 and T3 emotional lability. Mothers’ T2 responsive parenting was positively correlated with children’s T2 and T3 emotion regulation, and negatively correlated with children’s T2 and T3 emotional lability. Finally, the correlations among mothers’ T2 harsh parenting and children’s T2 and T3 emotion regulation and lability were negative.

Table 1.

Bivariate Correlations, Means, Standard Deviations, and Ranges of the Study Variables.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. T1 SES
2. T2 harsh parenting	−.50***
3. T2 responsive parenting	.18***	−.41***
4. T2 emotion regulation	.35***	−.39***	.38***
5. T2 emotion lability	−.30***	.41***	−.32***	−.57***
6. T3 emotion regulation	.25***	-.31***	.21***	.54***	−.48***
7. T3 emotion lability	−.32***	.38***	−.19***	−.36***	.61***	−.59***
M	.01	2.01	4.44	3.12	1.90	3.16	1.87
SD	.87	.63	.46	.42	.39	.44	.39
Range	−1.47–2.36	1.00–3.97	2.57–5.00	1.88–4.00	1.08–3.46	2.00–4.00	1.00–3.08

Note. Maximum likelihood estimation was used for handling cases with missing data.

N = 340. M: mean; SD: standard deviation; SES: socioeconomic status.

***p < .001.

Path Analyses

Hypothesized model. The hypothesized model tested the extent to which T2 maternal responsive and harsh parenting behaviors mediated the associations among T1 family SES and children’s T3 emotional lability and regulation. We tested two direct paths from family SES to children’s emotional lability and regulation. Four indirect paths were also tested: from family SES to children’s emotional lability and regulation via maternal harsh and responsive parenting behaviors. We also included two autoregressive paths between T2 and T3 emotional lability and emotion regulation to account for children’s prior levels of those variables and assess the unique contributions of maternal harsh and responsive parenting behaviors. Two direct paths were also included from T1 family SES to children’s T2 emotional lability and regulation. The residuals of the variables were allowed to co-vary within each time point. Based on the preliminary analysis results, in order to control for child gender, we tested a path from that variable to mothers’ T2 responsive parenting. To control for the community (and the varying costs of living), we included two direct paths from that variable to mothers’ T2 responsive and harsh parenting behaviors.

Maximum likelihood analyses with residual bootstrap resampling were used to estimate model parameters and test mediational effects (Bollen & Stine, 1990). Model fit was assessed by using multiple fit indices including RMSEA equal to or below .06, CFI greater than .90, and SRMR close to .08, which indicates good model fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).

Final model. The results of the hypothesized model fit the data well, RMSEA = .06, CFI = .98, and SRMR = .04. However, two covariates and three direct paths were nonsignificant, as well as two residual covariances among the exogenous variables. These paths and covariances were set to be zero and the model was retested. The final hypothesized model fit the data well (see Figure 1). After controlling for child gender, community, and children’s prior emotional lability and regulation tendencies, T1 family SES was negatively associated with children’s T3 emotional lability and positively associated with mothers’ T2 responsive parenting. Also, two indirect paths were found from T1 family SES to children’s T3 emotional lability and regulation through mothers’ T2 harsh parenting behaviors. Formal tests of mediation via residual bootstrap resampling revealed that mothers’ T2 harsh parenting mediated the association between T1 family SES and children’s T3 emotion regulation, β = .06, SE = .03, and p = .025, as well as the association between T1 family SES and children’s T3 emotional lability, β = −.07, SE = .03, and p = .026. Thus, high SES was associated with low maternal harsh parenting behaviors, which in turn were negatively associated with children’s emotion regulation and positively associated with their emotional lability.

Figure 1.

Mediated Effects of Family SES on Turkish Children’s Emotion Regulation and Emotional Lability Through Maternal Harsh and Responsive Parenting Behaviors.

Moderation by Community and Child Gender

To examine whether the pattern of associations in the hypothesized model varied by child gender or community, we conducted multi-group analyses. Separate multi-group models—a null and an alternative model—were tested for child gender and community. Given the comparable population densities and costs of living, we combined the families who lived in Ankara (n = 60) and Istanbul (n = 148) and compared them to the families who lived in Bolu, which has a lower population density and cost of living. However, the multigroup results were not significant.

Discussion

Overall, there was longitudinal evidence that family SES was significantly related to Turkish children’s emotional lability and emotion regulation tendencies. Also, family SES was positively associated with responsive parenting behaviors and negatively associated with harsh parenting behaviors. Maternal harsh parenting was negatively associated with children’s emotion regulation and positively associated with emotional lability. Perhaps, most importantly, maternal harsh parenting behavior (but not maternal responsiveness) significantly mediated the link between family SES and children’s emotion lability and regulations. Notably, these findings were robust for both boys and girls and for families who lived in large and small cities and after controlling for prior level of children’s emotional lability and emotion regulation. The findings extend support for theories that highlight the important roles of SES and parenting in families from a non-Western, predominantly Muslim country and are the first to demonstrate longitudinal links between SES and parenting practices and subsequent socioemotional development in Turkish children.

Prior research testing the impact of economic hardship suggests that children from low SES families are at risk for developing poor social emotional outcomes in Western cultures (Evans & Kim, 2013). However, research on the links between SES and children’s emotional development in non-Western cultures is sparse. As expected in this study, family SES was positively and directly related to Turkish children’s emotion regulation tendencies 2 years later, and negatively related to children’s emotion lability 2 years and 3 years later as well. Specifically, children from lower-SES families tended to show more emotion lability and children from higher-SES families tended to show more emotion regulation. These findings were robust even after statistically controlling for gender, community, and previous level of emotional lability and regulation. Given the importance of family in traditional Turkish culture, these findings are significant and highlight the possible deleterious role of family poverty.

Of particular interest, harsh parenting behaviors significantly mediated the longitudinal relation between family economic status and children’s emotional lability and emotion regulation tendencies. Specifically, parents who had higher economic hardship used more harsh parenting behaviors, and their children showed less emotion regulation and more emotional lability. These findings lend support to the family stress model (Conger et al., 2002) and cultural stress-based theories (Carlo & de Guzman, 2009) that emphasize how economic hardship can, directly and indirectly, influence both parenting practices and children’s emotion regulation tendencies. Previous studies on the mediating role of parenting in the relations between SES and children’s outcomes are mixed. One study, for example, found only partial significant mediation whereas another reported no such effects (Gündüz, Yağmurlu, & Harma, 2015; Uçanok & Güre, 2014). These findings provide support for these theories, and suggest an important interplay between family SES and parenting behaviors that are associated with Turkish children’s socioemotional development.

We also found that family SES was positively linked to mothers’ responsiveness and negatively linked to mothers’ harsh parenting behaviors 2 years later. Consistent with previous findings from Turkey and the findings derived from Western-based studies (Conger, Reuter, & Conger, 2000; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007), SES was linked to parental warmth, responsiveness, and harsh practices. High-SES parents tend to be more responsive and child-focused perhaps because they experience less stress and have fewer worries, thereby mitigating the depletion of coping resources. In contrast, families from relatively low-SES groups tend to display more harsh parenting practices, perhaps partly due to the associated burdens of economic hardship (Conger & Donnellan, 2007; Crnic & Greenberg, 1990; McLoyd, 1998). When economic hardship depletes parents’ resources, parents tend to be more self-focused, less likely to regulate emotions, and more likely to become overwhelmed, impatient and irritable (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000). Therefore, those parents may have more difficulties attending to their children’s needs.

Kağıtçıbaşı’s family model (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007) suggests three prototypical family contexts: relational context, autonomous context, and relational-autonomous context. Relational context is generally seen in rural areas in non-Western, collectivist societies; families are generally farmers and less educated, come from lower socioeconomic background, and live in extended families (see also Kärtner et al., 2007; Köster, Cavalcante, Vera Cruz de Carvalho, Dôgo Resende, & Kärtner, 2016). This relationship pattern emphasizes on interdependence on family and hierarchical relations (e.g., respect, obedience; Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007; Kärtner et al., 2007). Conversely, autonomous context is generally seen in urban families in Western, individualist societies; families are highly educated, come from middle to upper-middle socioeconomic background and live in nuclear families (see also Kärtner et al., 2007; Köster et al., 2016). This relationship pattern emphasizes on independence and psychological autonomy (Kärtner et al., 2007). Lastly, relational-autonomous context reflects a global pattern that is generally seen in middle-class, non-Western, collectivist societies (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007). This relationship pattern emphasizes on independence and interdependence together (Kağıtçıbaşı, 2005, 2007). Psychological or emotional interdependence is still important for family members however, economic interdependencies weaken as a result of modernization and child's autonomy has been recognized as a need.

Consistent with Kağıtçıbaşı’s family model (2005, 2007), low SES parents tend to be more punitive and power-assertive than high SES parents. Furthermore, Turkish families from traditional and lower SES backgrounds value old-age security in which parents expect from their children to take care of them when parents are of older age (Kağıtçıbaşı, 1982). Strong values of old age security could motivate Turkish parents to be stricter, overly controlling and harsh, and less responsive and supportive of autonomy. Such parents may want to keep their children physically and emotionally close to themselves to enhance the likelihood that their children will care for them when older (Kağıtçıbaşı & Sunar, 1992).

Only one previous study examined parenting practices and self-regulation in Turkish children. In this previous study, researchers explored the cross-sectional links between power-assertion disciplining and Turkish children’s effortful control (Gündüz, Yağmurlu, & Harma, 2015). Those investigators reported that higher levels of power-assertive practices were linked to lower effortful control. These longitudinal findings, in contrast, yield evidence that harsh parenting is positively associated with Turkish children’s emotion regulation 2 years later. These findings suggest that such parenting practices could have detrimental associations with Turkish children’s emotion regulation even though harsh parenting practices are deemed relatively normative in Turkish society. Thus, these findings are consistent with findings of studies from families of Western, predominantly Christian-dominant cultures (e.g., the USA). Given the very limited research on this issue in Turkish families, further research is needed to better understand the role of SES in parenting practices.

Study Limitations

There were some important study limitations. First, this study relied on questionnaire measures and information was collected only from mothers. Additional studies with multiple reporters (e.g., fathers) or using alternative methods (e.g., observations) will be needed to account for shared method variance and social desirability concerns. Such research can provide insights into the effect of fathers’ and mothers’ roles in children’s socioemotional development. Second, although the study was a longitudinal design and we controlled for children’s prior levels of emotion regulation, it is difficult to draw strong inferences about causality and directions of causality. Future research is needed using more sophisticated designs (e.g., fully prospective longitudinal studies, interventions) to better address these issues. Third, we adapted the emotion regulation measure to improve the cultural validity and reliability to use with Turkish families. However, further research will be needed to better assess the psychometric properties of the measure to use with Turkish samples. Fourth, due to attrition, the final sample was relatively lower in SES as compared to the original sample. Despite the relatively lower variability in SES, the findings were robust, which reduces concerns about sample selectivity. However, future studies would benefit from a broader range of SES families and more diverse samples (e.g., ethnicity, religious, single-parent households) from Turkey. Moreover, research on other non-Western, predominantly Muslim cultures is needed to further test the generalizability of the findings.

Despite these limitations, these and previous findings have important implications for prevention and intervention efforts of parenting in non-Western, collectivist, predominantly Muslim cultures. As noted previously, consistent with the earlier findings from Turkish culture (see Kağıtçıbaşı, 2007), many traditional Turkish parents frequently use strict control and physical punishment. However, these findings show that Turkish parents from low-SES households are at higher risk for the use of harsh parenting. Although harsh parenting may be deemed relatively normative in Turkish society, these findings suggest that such practices may adversely affect Turkish children’s emotional development. Moreover, it is important to acknowledge that, although responsive parenting was related to children’s emotional development in expected ways, it did not mediate the relations between SES and regulation (even though such parenting was positively related to such outcomes in the zero-order relations). These findings suggest that harsh parenting overwhelmed the positive effects of responsive parenting. Although further research is needed, future intervention programs may be needed to educate parents on the possible detrimental consequences of harsh parenting.

Footnotes

Funding

This study was supported by a research grant from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey – TUBITAK (SOBAG 104K068) to Dr. Asiye Kumru.

Appendix 1

References

Altan-Aytun

Ö.

Yağmurlu

Yavuz

H. M.

(2013). Turkish mothers’ coping with children’s negative emotions: A brief report. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 22, 437–443. doi:10.1007/s10826-012-9597-x.

Batum

Yagmurlu

(2007). What counts in externalizing behaviors? The contributions of emotions and behavior regulation. Current Psychology, 25, 272–294. doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02915236.

Belsky

(1984). The determinants of parenting: A process model. Child Development, 55, 83–96. doi:10.2307/1129836.

Bolger

K. E.

Patterson

C. J.

Thompson

W. W.

Kupersmidt

J. B.

(1995). Psychosocial adjustment among children experiencing persistent and intermittent family economic hardship. Child Development, 66, 1107–1129. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00926.x.

Bollen

K. A.

Stine

(1990). Direct and indirect effects: Classical and bootstrap estimates of variability. Sociological Methodology, 20, 115–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.2307/271084.

Carlo

de Guzman

M. R. T.

(2009). Theories and research on prosocial competencies among US Latinos/as. In Villarruel

Carlo

Grau

Azmitia

Cabrera

Chahin

T.J.

(Eds.), Handbook of U.S. Latino Psychology: Developmental and Community-Based Perspective (pp. 191–211). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cole

P. M.

Zahn-Waxler

Smith

K. D.

(1994). Expressive control during a disappointment: Variations related to preschoolers’ behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835–846. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.30.6.835.

Conger

R. D.

Conger

K. J.

Elder

G. H.

(1992). A family process model of economic hardship and adjustment of early adolescent boys. Child Development, 63, 526–541. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01644.x.

10.

Conger

Donnellan

(2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic context of human development. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 175–199. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085551.

11.

Conger

K. J.

Reuter

M. A.

Conger

R. D.

(2000). The role of economic pressure in the lives of parents and their adolescents: The family stress model. In Crockett

L. J.

Silbereisen

R. J.

(Eds.), Negotiating Adolescence in Times of Social Change (pp. 201–223). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Conger

Wallace

Sun

Simons

McLoyd

Brody

(2002). Economic pressure in African American families: A replication and extension of the family stress model. Developmental Psychology, 38, 179–193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.2.179.

13.

Çorapcı

Aksan

Yağmurlu

(2012). Socialization of Turkish children’s emotions: Do different emotions elicit different responses? Global Studies of Childhood, 2, 106–116. https://doi.org/10.2304/gsch.2012.2.2.106.

14.

Crnic

K. A.

Greenberg

M. T.

(1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Development, 61, 1628–1637. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1990.tb02889.x.

15.

Davidov

Grusec

J. E.

(2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development, 77, 44–58. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00855.x.

16.

Deater-Deckard

(1998). Parenting stress and child adjustment: Some old hypotheses and new questions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 5, 314–332. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1998.tb00152.x.

17.

Denham

S. A.

(1998). Emotional Development in Young Children. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

18.

Denham

S. A.

(2006). The emotional basis of learning and development in early childhood education. In Spodek

Saracho

(Eds.), Handbook of Research on the Education of Young Children (pp. 85–103). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Denham

S. A.

Bassett

H. H.

Wyatt

(2007). The socialization of emotional competence. In Grusec

J.E.

Hastings

P.D.

(Eds.), Handbook of Socialization: Theory and Research (pp. 614–637). New York: The Guilford Press.

20.

Duncan

G. J.

Brooks-Gunn

(2000). Family poverty, welfare reform, and child development. Child Development, 71, 188–196. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00133.

21.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Spinrad

T. L.

(1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s153279-65pli0904_1.

22.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

(1992). Emotion, self-regulation, and social competence. In Clark

(Ed.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 119–150). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

23.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2006). Prosocial development. In Damon (Series Ed.)

Eisenberg

(Volume Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology, Vol. 3: Social, Emotional, and Personality Development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). New York: John Wiley.

24.

Eisenberg

Fabes

R. A.

Murphy

B. C.

(1996). Parents’ reactions to children’s negative emotions: Relations to children’s social competence and comforting behaviors. Child Development, 67, 2227–2247. doi:10.2307/1131620.

25.

Eisenberg

Hofer

Sulik

M. J.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2014). Self-regulation, effortful control, and their socioemotional correlates. In Gross

J.J.

(Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd ed., pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

26.

Eisenberg

Smith

C. L.

Spinrad

T. L.

(2016). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In Vohs

K.D.

Baumeister

R.F.

(Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications (3rd ed., pp. 458–478). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

27.

Eisenberg

Zhou

Spinrad

T. L.

Valiente

Fabes

R. A.

Liew

(2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76, 1055–1071. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00897.x.

28.

Enders

C. K.

(2010). Applied Missing Data Analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

29.

Evans

G. W.

Kim

(2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 43–48. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12013.

30.

Garner

P.W.

(1996). The relations of emotional role-taking, affective/ moral attributions, and emotional display rule knowledge to low income school-age children’s social competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 19–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(96)90003-9.

31.

Garner

P. W.

Jones

D. C.

Gaddy

Rennie

(1997). Low income mothers’ conversations about emotions and their children’s emotional competence. Social Development, 6, 37–52. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00093.x.

32.

Garner

P. W.

Spears

F. M.

(2000). Emotion regulation in low-income preschoolers. Social Development, 9, 246–264. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00122.

33.

Gülseven

Carlo

Streit

Kumru

Selçuk

Sayıl

(2017). Longitudinal relations among parenting daily hassles, child rearing, and prosocial and aggressive behaviors in Turkish children. Social Development, 27, 45–57. doi:10.1111/sode.12247.

34.

Gündüz

Yağmurlu

Harma

(2015). Self-regulation mediates the link between family context and socioemotional competence in Turkish preschoolers. Early Education and Development, 26, 729–748. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409-289.2015.985148.

35.

Harkness

Super

C. M.

(2002). Culture and parenting. In Bornstein

M. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of Parenting: Vol. 2, Biology and Ecology of Parenting (2nd ed., pp. 253–280). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

36.

Herzberger

S. D.

Hall

J. A.

(1993). Consequences of retaliatory aggression against siblings and peers: Urban minority children’s expectations. Child Development, 64, 1773–1785. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb04212.x.

37.

L. T.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1–55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1070-5519909540118.

38.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ç.

(1982). Old-age security value of children cross-national socioeconomic evidence. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 29–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022182131004.

39.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ç.

(2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022105275959.

40.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Ç.

(2007). Family, Self and Human Development Across Cultures. Theory and Applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

41.

Kağıtçıbaşı

Sunar

(1992). Family and socialization in Turkey. In Roopnarine

J. P.

Carter

D. B.

(Eds.), Parent-child Relations in Diverse Cultural Settings: Socialization for Instrumental Competency (pp. 75–88). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

42.

Kärtner

Keller

Lamm

Abels

Yovsi

R. D.

Chaudhary

(2007). Manifestations of autonomy and relatedness in mothers’ accounts of their ethnotheories regarding child care across five cultural communities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38, 613–628. doi:10.1177/0022022107305242.

43.

Kim-Spoon

Cicchetti

Rogosch

F. A.

(2013). A longitudinal study of emotion regulation, emotion lability-negativity, and internalizing symptomatology in maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Child Development, 84, 512–527. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01857.x.

44.

Kline

R. B.

(2016). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling (4th ed.). New York: Guilford.

45.

Köster

Cavalcante

Vera Cruz de Carvalho

Dôgo Resende

Kärtner

(2016). Cultural influences on toddlers' prosocial behavior: How maternal task assignment relates to helping others. Child Development, 87, 1727–1738. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12636.

46.

Mathis

E. T.

Bierman

K. L.

(2015). Dimensions of parenting associated with child prekindergarten emotion regulation and attention control in low-income families. Social Development, 24, 601–620. doi:10.1111/sode.12112.

47.

McLoyd

(1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003066X.53.2.185.

48.

Muraven

Baumeister

R. F.

(2000). Self-regulation and depletion of limited resources: Does self-control resemble a muscle? Psychological Bulletin, 126, 247–259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.247.

49.

Muthén

L.K.

Muthén

B.O.

(1998–2017). Mplus User’s Guide (8th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

50.

Orta

I. M.

Çorapcı

Yağmurlu

Aksan

(2013). The mediational role of effortful control and emotional dysregulation in the link between maternal responsiveness and Turkish preschoolers’ social competency and externalizing symptoms. Infant and Child Development, 22, 459–479. doi:10.1002/icd.1806.

51.

Panfile

T. M.

Laible

D. J.

(2012). Attachment security and child’s empathy: The mediating role of emotion regulation. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 58, 1–21.

52.

Patterson

Sanson

(1999). The association of behavioral adjustment to temperament, parenting and family characteristics among 5-year-old children. Social Development, 8, 293–309. doi:10.1111/1467-9507.00097.

53.

Rohner

R. P.

(1986). The Warmth Dimension: Foundations of Parental Acceptance - Rejection Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

54.

Rothbaum

Trommsdorff

(2007). Do roots and wings complement or oppose one another: The socialization of relatedness and autonomy in cultural context. In Grusec

Hastings

(Eds.), Handbook of Socialization (2nd ed., pp. 461–489). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

55.

Saarni

(2000). Emotional competence: A developmental perspective. In Bar-On

Parker

J. D. A.

(Eds.), The Handbook of Emotional Intelligence: Theory, Development, Assessment, and Application at Home, School, and in the Workplace (pp. 68–91). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

56.

Shields

Cicchetti

(1997). Emotion regulation among school-age children: The development and validation of a new criterion Q-sort scale. Developmental psychology, 33, 906–916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.906.

57.

Shields

Cicchetti

(1999). Emotion Regulation Checklist. Unpublished manuscript.

58.

Shields

Cicchetti

(2001). Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 349–363. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15374424JC-CP3003_7.

59.

Sunar

(2002). Change and continuity in the Turkish middle-class family. In Ozdalga

Liljestrom

(Eds.), Autonomy and Dependence in Family: Turkey and Sweden in Critical Perspective (pp. 217–237). Istanbul, Turkey: Swedish Research Institute.

60.

Sunar

Fişek

G.O.

(2005). Contemporary Turkish families. In Roopnarine

J. L.

Gielen

U. P.

(Eds.), Families in Global Perspective (pp. 169–183). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.

61.

Thompson

R. A.

(1994). Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. In Fox

N. A.

(Ed.), The Development of Emotion Regulation: Behavioral and Biological Considerations (Vol. 59, pp. 25–52). Chicago, IL: Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development.

62.

Thompson

R. A.

(2011). Emotion and emotion regulation: Two sides of the developing coin. Emotion Review, 3, 53–61. doi:10.1177/1754073910380969.

63.

Thompson

R. A.

(2014). Socialization of emotion and emotion regulation in the family. In Gross

J.J.

(Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (2nd ed., pp. 173–186). New York, NY: Guildford Press.

64.

Thompson

R. A.

Meyer

(2007). Socialization of emotion regulation in the family. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of Emotion Regulation (pp. 249–268). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

65.

Tüylüoğlu

Ş.

Albayrak

A. S.

(2010). The most important factor that determines the Ridge Regression analysis by examining the life and city life rankings in Turkey [Hayat pahaliliği ve Türkiye’de illerin hayat pahaliliği siralamasini belirleyen en önemli faktörlerin Ridge Regresyon analiziyle incelenmesi]. Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Journal [Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi], 15, 63–91.

66.

Uçanok

Güre

A. E.

(2014). Perceived economic strain and psychological well-being: The mediational role of parental relations in Turkish early adolescents. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 34, 685–711. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431612450948.

67.

Weisner

T. S.

(2002). Ecocultural understanding of children’s developmental pathways. Human Development, 45, 275–281. https://doi.org/10.1159/000064989.

68.

Whiting

B. B.

Edwards

C. P.

(1988). Children of Different Worlds: The Formation of Social Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

69.

Yağmurlu

Altan

(2010). Maternal socialization and child temperament as predictors of emotion regulation in Turkish preschoolers. Infant and Child Development, 19, 275–296. doi:10.1002/icd.646.

70.

Yağmurlu

Sanson

(2009). Parenting and temperament as predictors of prosocial behaviour in Australian and Turkish Australian children. Australian Journal of Psychology, 61, 77–88. doi:10.1080/00049530802001338.

71.

Yeung

W. J.

Sandberg

J. F.

Davis Kean

P. E.

Hofferth

S. L.

(2001). Children’s time with fathers in intact families. Journal of Marriage and Family, 63, 136–154. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00136.