Parental Control and Affect as Predictors of

Childrens Display Rule Use and Social

Competence with Peers
David J. McDowell, University of Rochester, and Ross D. Parke,
University of California, Riverside

Abstract
Seventy-six fourth-grade children and their parents participated in a study of the link-
ages among parental control and positive affect, childrens display rule use, and
childrens social competence with peers. Using observational measures of parental
behavior and childrens display rule use, it was found that parental positive affect and
control were related to childrens display rule use (including both positive and nega-
tive responses). Moreover, the links between parental affect and control and childrens
social competence one year later (as rated by teachers and peers) were found to be
mediated by childrens display rule use. Finally, fathers behavior was found to be par-
ticularly important in the prediction of childrens display rule use. The importance of
fathers in childrens social and emotional development and the importance of exam-
ining multiple parental behaviors are discussed.

Keywords: emotion; social competence; parenting

Childrens understanding and regulation of emotional displays and their associations

with childrens social competence have received a great deal of attention in the liter-
ature over the last decade (Cassidy, Parke, Butkovsky & Braungart, 1992; Denham,
1998; Hubbard & Coie, 1994; Parke, 1994). Childrens successful management and
display of emotions can be thought of as a form of emotional competence (Saarni,
1999). Halberstadt, Denham, and Dunsmore (2001) have articulated a useful distinc-
tion between the constructs of emotional competence and social competence. Emo-
tional competence is focused on aspects of using emotions to send and receive
messages that are important to social interactions; in contrast, social competence refers
to childrens ability to function effectively in social interactions, usually with other
children (Halberstadt et al., 2001). Although it is often recognized that there is some
overlap between emotional competence and social competence, the latter is usually
defined by ones social skills and peer status, whereas the former focuses on more
intrapersonal qualities, such as the ability to understand or produce appropriate
emotion signals (Halberstadt et al., 2001; Rose-Krasnor, 1997). In the current study,

Correspondence should be sent to David J. McDowell, Department of Clinical and Social

Psychology, University of Rochester, RC Box 270266, Rochester, NY 14627-0266, USA. Email:
wolf@psych.rocehster.edu

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street,
Malden, MA 02148, USA.
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 441
we evaluate the relation between childrens socially appropriate use of emotion skills
(aspects of emotional competence) and childrens behavioral attributes rated by teach-
ers and peers (social competence). Second, we examine the parental correlates of both
emotional (i.e. display rule use) and social competence. Third, as part of our exami-
nation of this issue, we test a mediational model which suggests that parental social-
ization is related to childrens emotional competence (i.e. display rule use) that in turn
is related to childrens social competence with peers.

Relations Between Social and Emotional Competence

Hubbard and Coie (1994) noted the ways in which childrens emotional competence
is related to their social competence with peers. In general, children who are better
able to manage their emotional displays and exhibit more positive affect are rated by
both teachers and peers as more socially competent. For example, young children who
display more positive affect were found to be given more attention by play partners
(Sroufe, Schork, Motti, Lawroski & LaFreniere, 1984). Similarly, when parents report
that their children display lower levels of negative affect, children tend to be rated
more favorably by teachers (Eisenberg, Fabes, Bernzweig, Karbon, Poulin & Hanish,
1993). Finally, observed positive affect among kindergarten-age children is related to
children being rated by teachers and peers as more socially competent both concur-
rently and one year later in first grade (Isley, ONeil, Clatfelter & Parke, 1999).
Other aspects of childrens emotional competence in addition to the positive or neg-
ative nature of their affective displays are also related to social competence with peers.
Specifically, researchers have been interested in the role of childrens emotion regula-
tion as a predictor of social competence. It is assumed that children who are able to
regulate the intensity of their emotional displays will be a more acceptable social inter-
active partner. Eisenberg and her colleagues have found that non-constructive coping
styles in 4- to 6-year-old boys is related to being rated as less socially competent by
teachers (Eisenberg et al., 1993; Eisenberg, Fabes, Murphy, Maszk, Smith & Karbon,
1995). Similarly, in a study of fifth-grade children, childrens emotional intensity and
constructive coping strategies were related to more positive teacher ratings of social
behavior (Contreras, Kerns, Weimer & Gentzler, 2000).
A specific form of emotional competence that requires a blend of appropriate
expression and appropriate regulation of emotions is the use of display rules. A
common definition of display rules is that they are the expression of culturally appro-
priate responses to a given situation regardless of the felt emotions (Davis, 1995;
Saarni, 1984; Underwood, Coie & Herbsman, 1992). For example, the culturally
appropriate display rule for receiving a gift is to react positively even when one is not
particularly pleased with the item. Moreover, researchers have identified instances
where display rules are more likely to be followed. Specifically, Zeman and Garber
(1996) found that for feelings of anger and sadness, children indicate controlling their
emotions (thus, adhering to cultural display rules) with their peers more than with
their parents. In recent years, researchers have examined the relation between chil-
drens use of display rules and aspects of social development (Davis, 1995; McDow-
ell, ONeil & Parke, 2000; Saarni, 1984). Specifically, researchers have found that
display rule use by fourth-grade children was related to both teacher and peer ratings
of social competence (McDowell et al., 2000). That is, when children reacted to a dis-
appointing gift with more positive and fewer negative responses, they were seen as
more socially competent by teachers and peers.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
442 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
In the display rule literature, researchers have examined both knowledge and use
of display rules as correlates of childrens social competence. Specifically, children
with a better understanding and ability to use display rules have been viewed as less
aggressive and withdrawn and more prosocial and friendly. In a study of the links
between display rule knowledge and social competence, Underwood et al. (1992)
found that when 8- to 13-year-old children were rated as more aggressive, they demon-
strated a lack of knowledge about display rules based on vignette methodology. Sim-
ilarly, Garner (1996) reported that school-aged childrens increasing knowledge of
display rules was related to higher levels of peer-rated social preference and teacher-
rated prosocial behavior. Jones, Abbey, and Cumberland (1998) found that childrens
knowledge of prosocial display rule use (as opposed to self-protective display rule use)
was related to children being rated as more positive by teachers and higher in social
acceptance by peers. Others have examined the links between display rule use and
social competence. Using an observational measure of childrens display rule use,
McDowell et al. (2000) found that children who used more positive and less negative
emotional displays during a disappointing gift situation were rated by teachers and
peers as more positive and less negative, supporting the notion that children who are
better able to use display rules are viewed as more socially competent.
There are two reasons to be concerned about the knowledge/use distinction with
respect to childrens social competence. First, because it is possible for children to
acquire knowledge of display rules without actually using them, it is necessary to
examine display rule use as a predictor of childrens social competence with peers.
Second, the assumptions made about the relation between emotional competence and
social competence rest on the ability of ones social partner to detect differences in
emotional displays, not the ability to infer ones understanding of social conventions.
The current study uses an observational measure of childrens display rule use to inves-
tigate the relations between childrens emotional and social competence. Specifically,
it is hypothesized that childrens observed use of display rules will be related to pos-
itive teacher and peer ratings of social competence. To date, research has examined
the link between display rules and social competence at a single point in time. In order
to better understand the potential of display rule use as an antecedent to social com-
petence, these relations are examined both concurrently and longitudinally in the
current study.

Parental Behaviors and Childrens Display Rule Use

Parents influences on childrens emotional abilities have been examined and described
by a number of researchers (Eisenberg, Cumberland & Spinrad, 1998; Parke, Cassidy,
Burks, Carson & Boyum, 1992). Emotions researchers have suggested several ways
in which parents may influence their childrens emotional competence (Eisenberg et
al., 1998) including modeling of emotional competence, coaching, and control. Most
work in this area has focused on the links between parental behaviors and childrens
reporting of the regulation or understanding of emotions. For example, Denham and
Grout (1992) found that as mothers levels of anger and contempt increased, childrens
anger was higher whereas their happiness levels were lower. More recently, McDow-
ell, Kim, ONeil, and Parke (2002) report that when parents modeled more positive
affect, children reported higher levels of socially appropriate ways of dealing with
stressful, emotion-inducing events.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005

 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 443
Another way in which parents may influence their childrens emotional competence
is the amount of acceptance or control of childrens emotional displays during
parentchild interactions. Some researchers have suggested that parents who are more
controlling of their childrens emotions may be depriving their children of opportuni-
ties for learning about the causes and consequences of inappropriate emotional dis-
plays (McDowell & Parke, 2000). Conversely, parents who used more constructive
coaching as opposed to more control over childrens emotions had children who were
better able to regulate emotions and engage in self-soothing (Gottman, Katz &
Hooven, 1996, 1997). Other researchers have demonstrated that less parental control
is related to more positive aspects of childrens emotional functioning. For example,
Eisenberg, Fabes, and Murphy (1996) have reported that when parents were more
accepting of their childrens emotional displays, children developed more positive
coping strategies. Isley and her colleagues found that parental controlling behavior
was negatively related to both social acceptance and childrens own affective displays
(Isley, ONeil & Parke, 1996; Isley et al., 1999).
The role of parents in the socialization of one aspect of emotion regulation, namely,
childrens display rules, has also been examined in recent years. Malatesta and Havi-
land (1982) suggest that infants are being socialized to use positive emotional displays
by mothers who are less likely to behaviorally reinforce negative expressions. These
investigators suggest that this pattern of maternal reinforcement is a rudimentary form
of display rule socialization that implicitly informs the infant to display more positive
affect. Jones et al. (1998) examined the link between family expressiveness and chil-
drens endorsement of display rules in kindergarten and third-grade children and found
that parents who were higher in negative expressiveness had children who endorsed
fewer prosocial display rules. In a related study, McDowell and Parke (2000) found
that parents self-reported control of childrens emotions (rather than being more
accepting of childrens emotional displays) was related to lower levels of display rule
knowledge in third-grade children.
Although these studies have moved our understanding of parental influences on chil-
drens display rules forward, several issues remain. First, most researchers have
focused on children in the preschool or early elementary school years. It is important
to investigate how parents influence older childrens emotional and social competence.
Older children are less likely to have parents available during peer interactions; thus
the goal of parental socialization to have an emotionally and socially competent child
is best examined in situations where the child must act independently of his/her
parents. Second, because it is assumed to be a combination of parental behaviors rather
than a single behavior that influences childrens social and emotional behavior (Eisen-
berg et al., 1998), it is important to examine the multiple ways by which parents can
influence childrens display rule use. The current study examines several parent behavi-
ors in an effort to determine the relative importance of different parental behaviors for
the socialization of childrens display rule use. As previous research has found that
both parental affect and parental control are related to the development of display rule
in children, it is hypothesized that both parental control and parental affect will con-
tribute to childrens use of display rules. More specifically, it is hypothesized that these
parental behaviors will contribute to childrens display rule use in unique, non-
overlapping ways with parents positive affect being related to childrens observed use
of more positive behaviors and parents controlling behaviors being related to chil-
drens more negative behaviors.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005

444 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
Although mothers are more commonly the focus in much of the earlier work, it has
been suggested that the fatherchild context is an emotionally charged one that offers
many opportunities for the socialization of emotions (Parke, 1994). There is a small
group of studies that point to the particular importance of fathers in the development
of childrens emotional and social competence. Researchers have found that fathers
observed negative affect was related to children in kindergarten and first grade being
rated as less socially accepted after controlling for mothers contribution (Isley et al.,
1996). Moreover, Gottman et al. (1997) found stronger links between fathers accep-
tance of childrens emotions and childrens social competence than between mothers
acceptance and childrens social competence. Other studies have shown that fathers
who were more controlling of childrens emotions had children who give less complex
responses about the consequences of emotion management (Saarni, 1985) and had less
knowledge about the appropriate use of display rules (McDowell & Parke, 2000).
Again, much of this previous work has involved younger children and it remains to
be seen what differential effects fathers may have on older childrens emotional com-
petence. In the current study, it is hypothesized that fathers affect and control will
contribute to the prediction of childrens emotional and social competence even after
mothers behaviors are included.

The Role of Emotion Regulation in Mediating Between Parental Socialization

and Social Competence
A final goal of the study is to examine a mediational model of the links between
parental socialization strategies (affect and control) and childrens social competence
outcomes in which emotional display rule use serves as a mediator. According to this
model, parental behaviors impact upon childrens display rule use, which in turn is
related to childrens social competence. Childrens display rule use serves as a medi-
ator between parenting indices and childrens social competence outcomes.
This mediational model contrasts with a direct effects model which posits that
parental behaviors may be directly related to childrens social competence rather than
being mediated by this measure of emotional competence (display rule use). Some
support for the mediational model comes from Contreras et al. (2000) who found that
a self-report-based index of emotion regulation ability served as a mediator between
childparent attachment and teachers reports of childrens social competence. Our
goal is to extend this work in several ways by focusing on social interactional indices
of parenting, rather than a measure of attachment, by examining an observationally
based measure of emotion regulation, namely, display rule use, and by including both
teacher and peer ratings of social competence. This model, as depicted in Figure 1,
suggests that parenting operates through variations in display rule use to account for
differences in levels of peer social competence.

The Current Study

The current study builds on the foundation of earlier work in a number of ways. First,
this study examines parents positive affect and control concurrently as predictors of
childrens display rules. Previous work in this area typically uses a single parental
behavior to address parental influences even though it is likely that parents influence
on childrens emotional competence is determined by a variety of parental behaviors
such as affect and parental control. Second, in the current study we examine the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 445

Peer Ratings of
Parental Positive Social
Affect Competence
Childrens
Display Rule
Use

Parental Control Teacher Ratings

of Social
Competence

Figure 1. A Mediational Model of the Links Between Parental Socialization and Chil-
drens Social Competence.

relations among parental behaviors, childrens emotional competence, and childrens

social competence both concurrently and across time. Third, in the current study we
use an observational measure of parental behavior. The studies described above by
Jones et al. (1998) and McDowell and Parke (2000) used parents self-reports of
expressiveness and control. Although these are valuable research tools, it is not clear
whether parental reports of their own expressiveness and control are sufficient for
addressing these issues. Parents may feel that they are being more or less expressive
(or controlling) than are actually being conveyed by facial expressions and body lan-
guage. Fourth, the current study uses an observational disappointing situation to assess
childrens use of display rules. Similar to the methods used to determine parental
behaviors, many studies in this area rely on childrens responses to vignettes and thus
only measure childrens knowledge of display rules rather than the actual use of display
rules. In addition, the use of an observational procedure allows the baseline levels of
the behaviors under study to be taken into account. This is particularly important in
light of evidence that general levels of positive and negative behaviors are associated
with variations in childrens social competence with peers (Sroufe et al., 1984). Finally,
the mediational role of childrens display rule use as a link between parental social-
ization and childrens social competence with peers will be examined.

Method
Participants
Seventy-six fourth-grade children (37 males, 39 females) with a range of social accep-
tance levels participated in the current study and again one year later when the chil-
dren were in the fifth grade. These 76 children are from an original sample of 98
children who participated in the fourth grade. Only children with complete data at
both time points were used for these analyses. There are no significant differences
between the 76 children included here and the 22 children no longer participating at
Time 2 on the study variables. Children attended nine elementary schools in two West
Coast communities and together with their parents were participants in a longitudinal
study of childrens social development. These families were recruited in kindergarten
based on sociometric ratings of the entire school district. All participating parents were
married and resided in two-parent households with their children. The socioeconomic
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
446 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
status of the families ranged from lower- to upper-middle class. Median family income
was approximately $40 500 (ranging from under $10 000 to greater than $58 000), and
the educational attainment of parents averaged 12.6 years for mothers and 13.0 years
for fathers. Approximately 50% of the sample was Euro-American, 40% was Latino,
and 10% was African-American, Asian-American, or other ethnicity. Teachers of each
of the children also participated by completing paper-and-pencil measures (described
below).

Procedure and Measures

Childrens Social Competence. When the children were in the fourth and fifth grades,
the teachers completed a 12-item classroom behavior inventory originally developed
by Cassidy and Asher (1992) and adapted for the current study. Teachers used 5-point
rating scales ranging from 1 (not at all like this child) to 5 (very much like this child)
to assess childrens likability (how well liked or not well liked the child was by their
classmates) and behavioral attributes, which included prosocial, friendliness, looking
sad, disruptiveness, shyness, verbal and physical aggression, exclusion of peers from
activities, and avoidance. The scores from these individual items were then reduced
to composites using a principal-axis factor analysis. The resulting composites were
created by combing the following variables: Teacher negative (created from the four
items: not well liked, verbally aggressive, physically aggressive, disruptive) and
Teacher positive (created from the three items: liked, prosocial, friendly).
Sociometric interviews (Asher, Singleton, Tinsley & Hymel, 1979) were conducted
in classrooms at both Time 1 and Time 2 in order to assess each childs likability by
asking students to nominate three classmates with whom they liked to play or spend
time, and three classmates with whom they disliked playing or spending time. Chil-
dren also nominated up to three classmates for each of the following: prosocial behavi-
ors (those good at sharing, helping, and taking turns), looking/acting sad, avoidance,
having a good sense of humor, verbal and physical aggression, and keeping others
from being included in their group. These nominations were tallied and standardized
within each classroom. To parallel the teacher data, the sociometric data were also
reduced to composites using a principal-axis factor analysis. The sociometric nomi-
nations were combined to form the following scales: Peer negative (created from the
three items: disliked, looking sad, spending time alone) and Peer positive (created from
the three items: liked, humor, prosocial). A passive permission process was used so
participation within the classrooms was very high (in many cases 100% of children
participated).
The reliability of these composites is good (alphas for teacher and peer composites
range from .75 to .80) and the validity of these composites has been demonstrated by
their relations to childrens emotional outcomes (McDowell & Parke, 2000) and par-
enting behaviors (McDowell, Parke & Wang, 2003) in expected directions. Because
the correlations between Time 1 and Time 2 social competence measures were mod-
erate (rs average .36 for teachers and .51 for peers, ps < .05), the Time 1 social com-
petence variables are statistically controlled for in all Time 2 analyses.

Assessment of Display Rule Use. In order to examine childrens use of socially appro-
priate display rules, a disappointing gift paradigm was used. This observational task
developed by Saarni (1984) has been used successfully to examine childrens dis-
play rule use (Davis, 1995; McDowell et al., 2000; Saarni, 1984). Children were
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 447
individually interviewed three times during their laboratory visit at Time 1. Following
the first interview session, children were told that for their participation they would
receive a gift at the end of the second and third sessions.
At the end of the second interview session, the experimenter gave what was expected
to be an age- and gender-appropriate desirable gift in a paper bag (e.g., a toy car for
boys or a necklace filled with bubbles for girls). Childrens baseline reactions before
and after removal of the gift from the bag were videotaped. Similar to Saarnis (1984)
study, the duration was allowed to vary in order for the situation to unfold naturally.
Before moving to the next task in the visit, the experimenter promised that another gift
would be given later in order to create the expectation for another pleasant experience.
After the third interview session, the experimenter presented another bag containing
what was intended by the researchers to be an age- and gender-inappropriate gift (dis-
appointing gift). For boys, the gift was a pair of pink, toddler-sized, girls socks. For
girls, the gift was a pair of black, toddler-sized, boys socks. After the gift presentation,
the experimenter remained in the room and pretended to review the completed ques-
tionnaires in order to give the child an opportunity to respond to the gift. Childrens
reactions to this gift were videotaped as described previously. The experimenter then
told the children that the gift was intended for someone else, and that he/she would find
the correct gift. The experimenter then left the child in the room with the disappointing
gift to retrieve the correct gift. The coding session ended when the experimenter
returned to the room with the correct gift. All children were given a second age- and
gender-appropriate desirable gift in order to ameliorate any negative feeling associated
with the receipt of the age- and gender-inappropriate gift.
Each segment of the gift-giving paradigm was videotaped and childrens affective
and behavioral reactions were coded by a trained coder using a system described by
McDowell et al. (2000). In the current study each of the two videotaped segments was
coded for behaviors on four dimensions: positive (e.g., smiling, positive tone of voice),
negative (e.g., knit brows, negative comments), tension (e.g., hand fidgeting, mouthing
objects), social monitoring (e.g., staring at the experimenter when nobody is talking).
Each of the segments was coded using one second as the coding unit. Each second could
contain as many codes as were seen by the coder. Frequencies for each of the behaviors
were then calculated and converted into percentage of time spent exhibiting each of the
four dimensions. Twenty per cent of the videotaped interactions were coded for relia-
bility by a second trained coder. Each coder was blind to the sociometric ratings of the
children. Correlations between raters for each of the scales were as follows: positive
r = .97, negative r = .71, tension r = .65, social monitoring r = .85.
A distinction between general expressiveness and display rules is necessary. Display
rules were adhered to when more positive and fewer negative responses were demon-
strated during the disappointing gift presentation. Moreover, the analyses in this study
control for general levels of positive and negative behavior (baseline) during the pre-
sentation of the more desirable gift.

ParentChild Discussion Interaction. A seven-minute, triadic discussion task among

the mother, father, and child was adapted from a similar task by Conger and his col-
leagues (Rueter & Conger, 1995) and completed by the families at Time 1. For the
present study, parents and children were individually given a questionnaire of family
issues (see Appendix A for a complete list of issues), which asked each family member
to rate how difficult it would be for the child to handle each of the 34 situations.
Ratings were based on a 5-point scale for adults and a 3-point scale for children with
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
448 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
higher numbers indicating more difficulty for the family. Seven issues were then
chosen by the experimenter for the family to discuss. At least one family member had
to identify the situation as being difficult for the family to deal with in order to be
presented for discussion. Thus, each family was presented with issues that were salient
to that family, rather than a standard set that may or may not have been relevant to the
triad. The average difficulty of the issues presented to the families (as rated by parents)
was 3.7. There were no significant correlations between average difficulty and the
study variables presented here. A second set of trained coders, who were also blind to
the study hypotheses, independently rated each of the family members on several
affective and behavioral dimensions. Coders used a 15 scale (1 = not at all charac-
teristic; 5 = very characteristic) to assess parent behaviors.1 These codes were global
assessments based on the entire interaction. Using a principal-axis factor analysis, the
parent discussion behaviors were converted to composite variables. These composites
are listed along with the original variables coded in parentheses: Positive affect (pos-
itive affect, negative affect (reverse coded), clarity of expression, intensity of expres-
sion, and awareness of childs feelings), with an alpha = .71, and Control (parental
regulation of childs emotions, controlling/directive interaction style) with alpha = .78.
These codes were adapted from the Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales (Melby &
Conger, 2001). Interrater reliability was established on 20% of the videotapes chosen
at random. Interrater reliabilities for the original scales were calculated by correla-
tions and ranged from .62 to .70 for the dimensions listed above. The validity of these
behavioral codes has been demonstrated elsewhere by their relations to childrens self-
reports of emotional competence with more positive parental behavior being related
to childrens more constructive coping strategies (McDowell et al., 2002). These mea-
sures have also been related to childrens social competence with peers with higher
parental control being related to poorer peer and teacher ratings (McDowell et al.,
2003).

Results
Initial Analyses
Descriptive Statistics. Table 1 shows the mean percentage of time spent displaying
each behavior during the baseline and display rule assessments. Table 1 also shows
the mean levels of parental positive affect and control.
There were no statistically significant differences between boys and girls on any of
the parent variables or display rule variables.
Parental behaviors assessed in the interaction task were not strongly related.
The only significant correlation was between mothers positive affect and mothers
control (r = -.27, p < .05). All other correlations were in the .03.17 range (all
non-significant).
With respect to childrens behavior during the disappointment, positive behaviors
were negatively related to both negative behaviors (r = -.43, p < .001) and tension
behaviors (r = -.29, p < .01). There were no significant relations between social mon-
itoring and any other child behavior assessed.

Childrens Display Rules and Parental Behaviors

Parental Behaviors and Display Rule Use. Table 2 shows the partial correlations
between parental emotion variables (positive affect and control) and childrens display
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 449

Table 1. Means and Standard Deviations of Major Study Variables

Disappointing
Baseline Situation

Childrens Display Rule Usea M SD M SD

Positive .59 .28 .35 .16

Negative .13 .07 .20 .10
Tension .12 .26 .17 .15
Social monitoring .07 .13 .03 .06

Mothers Fathers

Parental Emotion Variables M SD M SD

Positive affect 2.78 .84 2.48 .86

Control 2.54 .93 2.47 .95

Time 1 Time 2

Childrens Social Competence Variables M SD M SD

Teacher positive -.17 .79 -.10 .92

Teacher negative -.02 .32 .00 .36
Peer positive .29 .93 .31 .76
Peer negative -.06 .70 .00 .84

Note: a Values are the proportions of time spent displaying each of the behaviors.

Table 2. Childrens Display Rule Use and Parents Emotion Variables

Mothers Fathers

Childrens Behavior Control Positive Affect Control Positive Affect

Positive .04 .18 -.30** .35***

Negative .21* -.41*** .12 -.36***
Tension .28** .03 -.04 .06
Social monitoring -.10 -.13 .03 .06

Note: All values are controlling for baseline levels of the behaviors.
* p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

rule use. These correlations are all controlling for baseline measures of the same con-
struct. Partial correlations indicate that mothers positive affect was related to fewer
negative responses. Mothers controlling behavior was related to more negative and
more tension behaviors in the disappointing situation. Similarly, fathers positive affect
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
450 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke

Table 3. Regression Analyses Predicting Childrens Display Rule Use from

Parental Positive Affect and Control

Measure Beta R2 F

Dependent: Childrens Positive Responses

Baseline .40***
Positive affect: mother .14
Positive affect: father .29**
Control: mother .09
Control: father -.24** .30
6.96***
Dependent: Childrens Negative Responses
Baseline .09
Positive affect: mother -.33***
Positive affect: father -.29**
Control: mother .10
Control: father .07 .27
5.88***
Dependent: Childrens Tension Responses
Baseline .21*
Positive affect: mother .11
Positive affect: father .06
Control: mother .31**
Control: father -.01 .16 3.00*

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

was related to more positive and less negative behaviors during the disappointing gift
situation. Fathers controlling behavior was related to less positive responses to
disappointment.

Relative Contributions of Parental Positive Affect and Control. Regression analyses

were conducted to assess the relative contributions of parental positive affect and
parental control in predicting childrens display rule use. Table 3 shows the results of
these regression analyses. For positive, negative, and tension behaviors, parental
behaviors predicted childrens display rule use. Specifically, parents positive affect
predicted childrens positive and negative responses to disappointment even when chil-
drens general levels of positivity and negativity were entered into the regression equa-
tion. Moreover, parental control predicted childrens positive and tension behaviors
over and above baseline measures and parental affect.

Relative Contributions of Mothers and Fathers. Tests examining the differences

between mothers and fathers behavior revealed that there were no differences in
levels of control. However, differences in positive affect were seen with mothers level
slightly higher (2.78 on a 5-point scale) than fathers (2.48 on a 5-point scale) (t(76)
= 2.10, p < .05). In the regression analyses, fathers positive affect and control
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 451

Table 4. Partial Correlations Between Display Rule Use and Parental Behavior
and Childrens Social Competence

Social Competence Measures

Teachers Peers

Positive Negative Positive Negative

Childrens Display Rules

Positive .25* -.16 .34*** -.07
Negative -.44*** .15 -.23* .30**
Tension .04 -.04 -.14 .20+
Social monitoring .14 .05 -.07 .13
Parental Behavior
Mother: positive affect .40*** -.16 .07 -.32**
Mother: control -.25* .06 .07 .15
Father: positive affect .32** -.42*** .14 -.11
Father: control -.10 -.05 -.09 -.02

Note: * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001.

predicted childrens positive responses to the disappointment whereas mothers behav-

ior did not predict childrens positive responses. For childrens negative responses, both
mothers and fathers positive affect (but not control) predicted child behavior.

Childrens Display Rules, Parental Behaviors, and Childrens Social Competence

Childrens Display Rules and Later Social Competence. Partial correlations were used
to assess the relation between childrens display rule use in the fourth grade and their
social competence with peers one year later. Table 4 shows these results. Even after
controlling for baseline levels of behavior and for the previous years social compe-
tence variables, several relations between display rule use and social competence
emerged. Specifically, children exhibiting more positive behaviors were rated by both
peers and teachers as more positive. Children who exhibited more negative behavior
during the disappointment were rated by teachers as less positive. Similarly, children
who exhibited more negative behaviors were rated by peers as less positive and more
negative. There were no relations between social monitoring and childrens subsequent
social competence.

Parental Behavior and Childrens Later Social Competence. Partial correlations as

shown in Table 4 were used to assess the relations between parental behavior and chil-
drens social competence one year later. Results indicated that even when the previ-
ous years sociometric variables were controlled for, parental behavior was related to
childrens social competence with peers. Specifically, children whose mothers were
more positive in the interaction were rated by peers as less negative and by teachers
as more positive. Maternal controlling behavior was related to children being rated as
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
452 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
less positive by teachers. Fathers who were more positive in the interaction had chil-
dren who were rated by teachers as more positive and less negative. There were no
relations between fathers controlling behavior and childrens social competence with
peers.

Mediation Analyses
Regression analyses were conducted in order to assess the role of childrens display
rule use as a mediator of parental control and positive affect in relation to childrens
social competence one year later. Following the recommendations of MacKinnon,
Lockwood, Hoffman, West, and Sheets (2002), the z statistic was computed to test for
mediation. To test mediation, two regressions were computed with one equation
showing the independent variables predicted the mediator and the second equation
showing the independent variables and the mediator predicted the dependent variable.
In this method a product of path coefficients was evaluated, rather than a change in
significance when variables were introduced to the model. This method has greater
power to detect smaller effects than the more common Baron and Kenny (1986)
approach. MacKinnon et al. (2002) provide the critical value for z at the .05 level as
.97. We tested models in which parental behavior was associated with childrens
behaviors during the disappointment, which in turn were related to childrens social
competence. This made it appropriate to test mediation in four models. The first two
models tested childrens positive responses as a mediator between parental positive
affect and positive social competence ratings by teachers and peers. The second two
models tested childrens negative responses as a mediator between parental positive
affect and positive social competence ratings by teachers and peers. For the models
tested, all were found to be significant with childrens display rule use mediating the
relations between parents behavior and childrens social competence with peers with
the z values ranging from 1.16 to 2.16.

Discussion
One of the main purposes of this study was to determine the relative contributions of
parental control and expressiveness to childrens use of display rules. Our results
support the notion that both aspects of parental behavior are important for examining
aspects of childrens emotional competence, such as use of display rules. Parental
affect was found to play a particularly strong role in predicting childrens display rule
use. Both mothers and fathers positive affect were related to more childrens behavi-
ors during the disappointing situation. Specifically, mothers and fathers positive
affect was related to children using fewer negative, and for fathers, more positive
responses to the disappointing situation. Although it might be argued that parents who
are generally more positive may have children that share the same proclivity for pos-
itive expression, our results show that this pattern is present even after accounting for
baseline measures of general positivity. It may be that parents, especially fathers, who
exhibit more positive affect during a discussion of family problems are sending a
message to their children that even when things are not perfect, one can maintain a
more positive disposition. This maintenance of positive affect may generalize to other
contexts including mild disappointments such as the one presented in this study. It is
also possible that these results could reflect the bidirectionality of emotional exchanges
in social interaction. Children who are more positive and less disruptive during the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 453
interaction with their parents may have parents who exhibit more positive and less
negative affect in return. Moreover, when children are not being particularly disrup-
tive, parents may feel less inclined to use controlling behaviors. Further investigation
is necessary in order to determine the direction of effects and address the issue of bi-
directional effects where childrens more positive expressivity may increase parents
positive affect in interactions with that child.
With respect to parental control, our results indicate that parents controlling behavi-
or predicted childrens responses to the disappointing situation, but in slightly differ-
ent ways. Specifically, more controlling fathers had children who responded to the
disappointment with fewer positive behaviors. When mothers used more controlling
behavior, children responded to the disappointment with more tension behaviors.
In contrast to the results for parental affect, parents who control childrens emotions
less may be providing children with more information about how to negotiate the dis-
appointing situation in an acceptable manner. Interestingly, controlling behavior by
mothers and fathers was related to different emotional response by the child. Fathers
controlling behavior was related to children using fewer positive behaviors when faced
with disappointment and mothers controlling behavior was related to children using
more tension responses. This can be interpreted in one of two ways. First, children
may be seen as less skilled emotionally because they are not adhering to the socially
proscribed reaction when receiving a gift. If this is the case, then the explanation pro-
vided by McDowell and Parke (2000) may be appropriate: controlling parents may
deprive their children of the natural consequences of violating expected emotional
responses and thus, opportunities to learn appropriate responses. On the other hand,
these results could be interpreted in a more positive light, namely, that children using
fewer positive responses during the disappointment are sending more accurate signals
about their emotional state (without becoming completely negative), which may
prompt a social partner to re-evaluate or change their own responses to the situation.
If this explanation is valid, then fathers controlling behavior may serve as a mecha-
nism to highlight aspects of the social interaction that merit particular attention on
the part of the child. It is likely that the former explanation is more accurate given
the many associations across studies between display rule use and childrens social
competence.
A second goal of the study was to examine the relative contributions of mothers
and fathers to childrens emotional and social competence. This issue has been
assessed in previous research (McDowell & Parke, 2000; Roberts & Strayer, 1987),
but not using observational measures of parental behaviors in relation to specific emo-
tional competencies. Our results support the expectation that fathers play an impor-
tant role in childrens emotional development that is not redundant with mothers
influences. Regression analyses show that for both positive and negative behaviors,
fathers positive affect and control predict even when mothers affect and control are
entered into the analyses. Specifically for childrens positive responses, examination
of the regression coefficients reveals that fathers positive affect and control are the
only significant predictors of child behavior, not mothers. Our analyses confirm the
finding that men tend to be less expressive than women in many social contexts (see
Brody, 1993). Given these gender differences noted for adults, it may be that by middle
childhood, mothers are seen as too emotional and not appropriate models of emotion
expression. Conversely, it may be that because fathers are typically less involved with
their children, their emotional reactions are more novel and thus, more salient than
the reactions of mothers. Further research is needed to understand more fully the
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
454 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
processes by which fathers are influencing their children but our results underscore
the importance of including fathers in studies of childrens emotion socialization.
Moreover, these findings are consistent with the recent challenges to traditional views
of fathers as emotionally insignificant agents in the family relative to mothers (Parke
& McDowell, 1998).
Another goal of the study was to assess the effects of display rule use on childrens
social competence one year later. Previous research exploring the links between chil-
drens display rules and social competence with peers has relied on concurrent analy-
ses. The implicit assumption that individuals who are more positive and regulated in
their displays of emotion will be seen as more socially competent requires a longitu-
dinal assessment. Our results show that childrens display rule use is related to social
competence one year later. These results are especially encouraging because these
associations remain after controlling for both baseline levels of behavior and the pre-
vious years social competence. Specifically, children who used more positive and less
negative behaviors during the disappointing situation in the fourth grade were rated
more favorably by both teachers and peers in the fifth grade. These results suggest that
the implicit assumption underlying much of the research on display rules and social
competence is a reasonable one. Again, there is more work to be done in order to dis-
cover the processes that account for this relation. Specifically, assessments should be
completed to address how much peers and teachers actually notice childrens emo-
tional displays and how much this affects subsequent ratings of social competence.
Finally, this study was designed to address the potential mediation of the relations
between parental behavior and childrens social competence. Analyses used to test chil-
drens display rule use as a mediator revealed that in all six instances of potential medi-
ation, childrens display rule use mediated this link. Specifically, for teacher ratings of
positivity, both mothers control and mothers positive affect were mediated by chil-
drens negative behavior. A similar relationship was found for fathers positive affect.
In the middle childhood period, parents influences on childrens peer relations are less
likely to be of a direct nature as parents are often not present during peer interactions.
These findings confirm the notion that parents are potential influences on childrens
social competence through more distal processes, namely, childrens emotional com-
petence. More research is needed that addresses the ways in which parents and chil-
dren act as combined forces to promote childrens social competence with peers.

Limitations and Conclusions

As with most studies, there are limitations that should be acknowledged. A primary
limitation is the duration of the study. Its short-term longitudinal design could be
improved by expanding the examination across many years rather than one year. Also,
it would be helpful to have measures of parental behavior and childrens display rule
use across several years to address the direction of effects issue. Of course, the problem
with designing a study in this fashion is the practicality of using the disappointment
paradigm more than once. Emotions researchers need to develop methods of testing
for display rules over multiple assessment periods that do not lend themselves to prac-
tice effects.
Second, as mentioned before, one of the expectations of socialization is to have chil-
dren behave in an appropriate manner when direct intervention by parents is not pos-
sible (or desirable). Our results support this idea in that childrens behavior in contexts
without parents (i.e. with an adult stranger) is related to aspects of parentchild
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 455
interaction. Future work in this area would benefit from an examination of whether
this extends to childpeer interactions more specifically. Moreover, examination of
childrens use of display rules in situations that are more likely to occur in peer con-
texts would be useful (i.e. masking disappointment at not being chosen for a team or
modulating excitement at winning an award).
Although our method for assessing display rule use has a strong history in the lit-
erature, there is only limited evidence that children are actually expressing an alter-
nate emotion from the one they are feeling. This evidence comes from the decrease
of positive and increase of negative behaviors exhibited from baseline to the
disappointing situation. Future research could examine more directly the relation
between feeling states and expression, perhaps by asking children to describe what
they felt while receiving the gifts and comparing these responses to the observed
expressions.
Even with these limitations, the current study adds to our understanding of the rela-
tions between parental behavior and childrens emotional and social competence. First,
our study adds to the growing body of literature which shows that it is necessary to
consider fathers in developmental research, and to examine the processes by which
fathers contribute to childrens emotional and social development. Future studies
should examine the differences in maternal emotional behavior in households with
fathers present and absent in order to better understand the unique role that fathers
seem to play in emotional development. Moreover, research is needed to determine
what aspects of parental emotional functioning are being perceived by the child and
how those relate to subsequent emotional and social competence.

References
Asher, S. R., Singleton, L. C., Tinsley, B. R. & Hymel, S. (1979). A reliable sociometric measure
for preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 79, 443 444.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderatormediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.
Brody, L. R. (1993). On understanding gender differences in the expression of emotion: Gender
roles, socialization, and language. In S. L. Ablon & D. Brown (Eds.), Human Feelings: Ex-
plorations in Affect Development and Meaning (pp. 87121). Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press,
Inc.
Cassidy, J. & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer relations in young children. Child Devel-
opment, 63, 350365.
Cassidy, J., Parke, R. D., Butkovsky, L. & Braungart, J. M. (1992). Familypeer connections:
The roles of emotional expressiveness within the family and childrens understanding of emo-
tions. Child Development, 63, 603618.
Contreras, J. M., Kerns, K. A., Weimer, B. L. & Gentzler, A. L. (2000). Emotion regulation as
a mediator of associations between motherchild attachment and peer relationships in middle
childhood. Journal of Family Psychology, 14, 111124.
Davis, T. (1995). Gender differences in masking negative emotions: Ability or motivation?
Developmental Psychology, 31, 660667.
Denham, S. A. (1998). Emotional Development in Young Children. New York: Guilford Press.
Denham, S. A. & Grout, L. (1992). Mothers emotional expressiveness and coping: Relations
with preschoolers social-emotional competence. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 118, 73101.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A. & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psy-
chological Inquiry, 9, 241273.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A. & Murphy, B. C. (1996). Parents reactions to childrens negative
emotions: Relations to childrens social competence and comforting behavior. Child Devel-
opment, 67, 22272247.
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005
456 David J. McDowell and Ross D. Parke
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Bernzweig, J., Karbon, M., Poulin, R. & Hanish, L. (1993). The rela-
tions of emotionality and regulation to preschoolers social skills and sociometric status.
Child Development, 64, 14181438.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R., Murphy, B., Maszk, P., Smith, M. & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of
emotionality and regulation in childrens social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child
Development, 66, 13601384.
Garner, P. W. (1996). The relations of emotional role taking, affective/moral attributions, and
emotional display rule knowledge to low-income school-age childrens social competence.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 17, 1936.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F. & Hooven, C. (1996). Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the
emotional life of families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 10, 243268.
Gottman, J. M., Katz, L. F. & Hooven, C. (1997). Meta-emotion: How families communicate
emotionally. Mahwah: NJL Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A. & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective social competence.
Social Development, 10, 79119.
Hubbard, J. A. & Coie, J. D. (1994). Emotional correlates of social competence in childrens
peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 120.
Isley, S. L., ONeil, R. & Parke, R. D. (1996). The relation of parental affect and control behavi-
ors to childrens classroom acceptance: A concurrent and predictive analysis. Early Educa-
tion and Development, 7, 723.
Isley, S. L., ONeil, R., Clatfelter, D. & Parke, R. D. (1999). Parent and child expressed affect
and childrens social competence: Modeling direct and indirect pathways. Developmental
Psychology, 35, 547560.
Jones, D. C., Abbey, B. B. & Cumberland, A. (1998). The development of display rule know-
ledge: Linkages with family expressiveness and social competence. Child Development, 69,
12091222.
MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G. & Sheets, V. (2002). A com-
parison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological
Methods, 7, 83104.
McDowell, D. J. & Parke, R. D. (2000). Differential knowledge of display rules for positive
and negative emotions: Influences from parents, influences on peers. Social Development, 9,
415432.
McDowell, D. J., Kim, M., ONeil, R. & Parke, R. D. (2002). Childrens emotional regulation
and social competence in middle childhood: The role of maternal and paternal interactive
style. Marriage and Family Review, 34, 345365.
McDowell, D. J., ONeil, R. & Parke, R. D. (2000). Display rule application in a disappoint-
ing situation and childrens emotional reactivity: Relations with social competence. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 46, 306324.
McDowell, D. J., Parke, R. D. & Wang, S. J. (2003). Differences between mothers and fathers
advice giving style and content: Relations with social competence and psychological func-
tioning in middle childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49, 5576.
Malatesta, C. & Haviland, J. (1982). Learning display rules: The socialization of emotion
expression in infancy. Child Development, 53, 9911003.
Melby, J. N. & Conger, R. D. (2001). The Iowa Family Interaction Rating Scales: Instrument
summary. In P. Kerig & K. Lindahl (Eds.), Family Observational Coding Systems: Resources
for Systematic Research (pp. 3358). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Parke, R. D. (1994). Progress, paradigms, and unresolved problems: A commentary of
recent advances in our understanding of childrens emotions. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40,
157169.
Parke, R. D. & McDowell, D. J. (1998). Towards an expanded model of emotion socialization:
New people, new pathways. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 303307.
Parke, R. D., Cassidy, J., Burks, V. M., Carson, J. L. & Boyum, L. (1992). Familial contribu-
tion to peer competence among young children: The role of interactive and affective
processes. In R. D. Parke & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), FamilyPeer Relationships: Modes of Linkage
(pp. 107134). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Roberts, W. L. & Strayer, J. (1987). Parents responses to the emotional distress of their chil-
dren: Relations with childrens competence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 415422.

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005

 Childrens Display Rules and Social Competence 457
Rose-Krasnor, L. (1997). The nature of social competence: A theoretical review. Social Devel-
opment, 6, 111135.
Rueter, M. A. & Conger, R. D. (1995). Interaction style, problem-solving behavior, and family
problem-solving effectiveness. Child Development, 66, 98115.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of childrens attempt to monitor their expressive
behavior. Child Development, 55, 15041513.
Saarni, C. (1985). Indirect processes in affect socialization. In M. Lewis & C. Saarni (Eds.),
The Socialization of Emotions (pp. 187209). New York: Plenum.
Saarni, C. (1999). The Development of Emotional Competence. New York: Guilford Press.
Sroufe, L. A., Schork, E., Motti, F., Lawroski, N. & LaFreniere, P. (1984). The role of affect in
social competence. In C. E. Izard, J. Kagan & R. B. Zanjonc (Eds.), Emotions, Cognition,
and Behavior (pp. 289319). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D. & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger and aggres-
sion in school-age children. Child Development, 63, 366338.
Zeman, J. & Garber, J. (1996). Display rules for anger, sadness, and pain: It depends on who
is watching. Child Development, 67, 957973.

Acknowledgments
This study was supported by NICHD Grant HT 32391 to Ross D. Parke and Robin ONeil. We
are especially grateful to teachers and staff of the elementary schools, and the children and
families that participated in our project for their involvement. Finally, we thank Dr. Karen
Harshman, Superintendent of the Fontana Unified School District and Bonita Roberts, Super-
intendent of the Jurupa Unified School District for their support.

Note
1. Several aspects of child behavior were also coded for during the triadic discussion. Childrens pos-
itive affect, negative affect, and disruptive behaviors were not significantly correlated with the parent
behaviors with the exception of childrens positive affect related to mothers positive affect (r = .25,
p < .05).

Appendix A
List of Family Issues
Money Talking on the phone
School grades Bedtime
Homework Cleaning room/picking up
Childs choice of friends Time in the bathroom
How child spends free time Music
Curfews Computer/computer games
Chores at home Privacy/enough room in house
School activities Pets
Family time together Swearing
Clothes and/or appearance Permission to do things
Choice of TV shows Not getting home on time
Church Lessons
Fighting with brothers or sisters Taking responsibility
Childs attitude/respect Health habits
Discipline Honesty/lying
Transportation to places Problems with teacher
Eating habits Problems with other adults

Blackwell Publishing Ltd. 2005 Social Development, 14, 3, 2005