Emotion Review http://emr.sagepub.

com/

Emotion Development in Infancy through the Lens of Culture

Amy G. Halberstadt and Fantasy T. Lozada
Emotion Review 2011 3: 158
DOI: 10.1177/1754073910387946

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://emr.sagepub.com/content/3/2/158

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for Research on Emotion

Additional services and information for Emotion Review can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://emr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://emr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://emr.sagepub.com/content/3/2/158.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 6, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012

 Emotion Review
Vol. 3, No. 2 (April 2011) 158–168
© The Author(s) 2011
ISSN 1754-0739
Emotion Development in Infancy through DOI: 10.1177/1754073910387946
er.sagepub.com

the Lens of Culture

Amy G. Halberstadt
Fantasy T. Lozada
Department of Psychology, North Carolina State University, USA

Abstract
The goal of this review is to consider how culture impacts the socialization of emotion development in infancy, and infants’ and
young children’s subsequent outcomes. First, we argue that parents’ socialization decisions are embedded within cultural
structures, beliefs, and practices. Second, we identify five broad cultural frames (collectivism/individualism; power distance; chil-
dren’s place in family and culture; ways children learn; and value of emotional experience and expression) that help to organize
current and future research. For each frame, we discuss the impact on parents’ socialization practices and infants’ subsequent
outcomes relating to emotion-related experience, expression, and understanding. We also generate testable hypotheses to further
our understanding of the relationships between the five frames and emotion development in infancy.

Keywords
culture, emotion, infancy, parents, socialization

Socialization processes are central to infant emotional
development. Despite the many ways our lives have changed
over the millennia, parents remain as first sources of influence
during infancy and toddlerhood. Parents are highly effective in
scaffolding emotional behaviors of infants and young children
(e.g., Campos, Thein, & Owen, 2003; Fernald, 1993), and
emotion-related socialization is possible even in the first days
of life, given newborns’ vocal and facial recognition abilities
(Mastropieri & Turkewitz, 1999) and infants’ early differential
recognition and responsivity to caregivers’ facial expressions
soon thereafter (e.g., Barrera & Maurer, 1981; Montague &
Walker-Andrews, 2002; Muir, Humphrey, & Humphrey, 1994;
Nielsen, 2006; Weir, Toland, King, & Martin, 2005). Further,
as infants’ cognitive, motoric, and physiological systems are
developing and becoming coordinated (Lewis, Hitchcock, &
Sullivan, 2004), parents’ role as external regulators of emotion
shifts to that of cocreating regulatory systems (Calkins, 1994;
Campos, Frankel, & Camras, 2004; Crockenberg & Leerkes,
2004; Kopp, 1982). These systems are influenced by infants’
genotypes modulated by parents’ skills, including maternal
sensitivity and supportive attachment (Kochanska, Philibert, &
Barry, 2009; Mills-Koonce et al., 2007; Propper & Moore,
2006). Thus, how caregivers communicate with and comfort
infants is likely to direct infants’ attention toward an interpreta-
tion of various features of their social and emotional worlds,
and their own and others’ placement in those social and
emotional worlds.
We contend that socialization processes occur within the
context of cultural systems that alter the very nature of infants’
and young children’s emotional experience, expression, and
understanding. Culture is known to be important to individuals’
overall psychological structure (Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Triandis,
1995), the development of self (Markus & Kitayama, 1994),
individuals’ emotional lives (Markus & Kitayama, 1991), and
the structure and character of parent–child relationships
(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998;
Keller, Borke, Yovsi, Lohaus, & Jensen, 2005; Super &
Harkness, 1986, 1997).
The role of culture in children’s emotional socialization has
been specifically described in four models (Cole & Tan, 2007;
Dunsmore & Halberstadt, 1997; Eisenberg, Cumberland, &
Spinrad, 1998; Garcia Coll et al., 1996), with culture providing

Authors’ note: We thank the FABB lab, especially Claire Blevins and Sable Watson, for their assistance in article retrieval, organization, and analysis. We thank Ashley Craig, Julie
Dunsmore, Michael Lewis, and Rebecca Stelter for their comments on this article.
Corresponding author: Amy G. Halberstadt, North Carolina State University, Department of Psychology, Box 7650, Raleigh, NC 27695-7650, USA. Email: amy_halberstadt@ncsu.edu

Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012

 Halberstadt & Lozada  Emotion Development in Infancy   159
both direct and indirect influences on parents’ emotion sociali-
zation behaviors (Dunsmore & Halberstadt, 2009). Culture
determines the type of environment in which infants develop
(Super & Harkness, 1986), and has indirect influence via par-
ents’ own individual beliefs and socialization goals. Keller
(2007) suggests that culture is infused in parent–child relations
through parents’ and infants’ cocreation of shared activity (e.g.,
cultural practices) and shared meaning (e.g., cultural beliefs
and interpretations). Further, infants absorb information pro-
vided by culture through experience-expectant (species typical
neural preparedness to integrate information from the environ-
ment) and experience-dependent (individual neural changes
due to learning and experience) processes (Greenough, Black,
& Wallace, 1987; Keller, 2007). With age, infants are also
increasingly able to integrate information across cognitive,
physiological, and motoric domains in the service of emotion
(e.g., Saarni, Campos, Camras, & Witherington, 2006). Although
we focus primarily on infancy, culture likely impacts the devel-
oping individual differently throughout the lifespan, as differ-
ent beliefs and practices are invoked for individuals and their
families during different developmental stages, and indeed,
because culture itself is dynamic and changing (Bronfenbrenner
& Morris, 1998).
In this review we identify and describe five “cultural
frames” (Markus & Kitayama, 1994) that we think are the most
important to consider with regard to emotion in infancy. Two of
these frames are well known; three are introduced for the first
time in this article. Within each frame we discuss variation
within cultures; how parent socialization practices may vary,
both generally and within the context of emotion; and how
infant outcomes vary in terms of the three domains of affec-
tive social competence: emotion experience, expression, and
understanding (Halberstadt, Denham, & Dunsmore, 2001).
Throughout, we attempt to extend the boundaries of what we
know by generating specific ideas for future research.
Collectivism/Individualism
Perhaps the most well-known frame that varies across cultures
is that of collectivism and individualism. Collectivist cultures
emphasize interdependence, group identity, interpersonal har-
mony, and achievement of shared goals; individualist cultures
emphasize independence, individual identity, personal asser-
tion, and achievement of personal goals (Hofstede, 1980, 2001;
Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, Bontempo, Villareal,
Asai, & Lucca, 1988). In collectivist cultures, emotions reflect
who a person is in relation to other group members or the world
at large; emotions are often characterized by self-control, so as
to promote interpersonal harmony and group goals; and emotions
may be identified on the basis of what other group members are
feeling (Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). In individualistic cultures,
emotions are perceived to be unique to the individual, expres-
siveness may be encouraged, and emotions are identified on the
basis of intrapersonal, subjective experience. Collectivism and
individualism were initially posed as bipolar ends of a single
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
dimension (Hofstede, 1980; Markus & Kitayama, 1991;
Mesquita, 2001), but recognition of within-culture variability
(Triandis, 1995), connections to context (Kağitçibaşi, 1996),
clusters of values within dimensions (Schwartz, 1994), and
simultaneous endorsement of both values (Tamis-LeMonda
et al., 2008) have expanded the frame considerably.
More nuanced descriptions of this frame are being devel-
oped, and these may be promising for future research with
infants. For example, two forms of individualism have been
identified (Kusserow, 2004). “Soft” individualism, which is
more characteristic of upper class American life, emphasizes
personal identity and the full exploration and development of
one’s unique abilities. “Hard” individualism, which is more
characteristic of less financially secure American life, empha-
sizes independence, assertion, and the ability to manage on
one’s own. Although both fit under the rubric of individualism,
one can imagine how parents with these different beliefs might
engage in very different practices with their infants. Soft
individualists, for example, might tenderly present toys and a
variety of wonders to their infants, thus promoting their
children’s sense of the world as a place that is emotionally
warm, secure, and theirs to explore. Hard protective individu-
alists, however, might engage in more active, rougher kinds of
play and teasing activities, thus promoting children’s emo-
tional toughness and a sense of the world as demanding and not
altogether benign. Collectivism may also have variants that
create other unique clusters, and identifying them may be a
useful endeavor.
Parents who are influenced by a culture that values interde-
pendence and shared family goals are likely to socialize their
children differently than parents who are influenced by a cul-
ture largely driven by values of independence and individuali-
zation. For example, the encouragement an infant receives for
throwing a toy, reaching for a toy, sharing a toy, giving a toy to
another, and, in fact, the very presence of a toy, may relate to
societal collectivism versus individualism. The first two acts of
self-assertion may be well supported in an individualistic cul-
ture; the second two acts of sharing and social harmony may be
better supported in a collectivist culture. The presence of toys
may also support self-exploration and individuation; after all,
infants in collectivist cultures may not have much need for toys
when they have family members who may be of much greater
importance. Finally, in individualistic cultures, toys might also
be tools for distracting infants in emotionally arousing situa-
tions; in collectivistic cultures, family members may be the
main source of emotion regulation. Work on translating cultural
beliefs to parenting behaviors has just begun; for example,
compared to European American mothers, Chinese mothers of
3-month-olds reported more allocentric values, and more
relational-related and less autonomy-related themes (Keller
et al., 2007). Additionally, the frequency of contingent respond-
ing by German mothers compared to Nso Cameroonian mothers
with their 3-month-olds was significantly different (Keller,
Kärtner, Borke, Yovsi, & Kleis, 2005), supporting one way in
which parental values for independence versus interdependence
might be inculcated in children.
160   Emotion Review Vol. 3 No. 2
Although collectivism and individualism are not yet known
to impact emotional experience, expression, and interpretations
of emotion in infancy, several studies have explored these
emotion-related domains with preschoolers. Using multiple
methodologies, consistent differences in these three domains
emerged between preschoolers in traditionally collectivist
versus traditionally individualistic cultures (Lewis, Takai-
Kawakami, Kawakami, & Sullivan, 2010; Masataka, 2002;
Zahn-Waxler, Friedman, Cole, Mizuta, & Hiruma, 1996). Thus,
in concert with the parenting differences noted just above, these
results invite further exploration of emerging differences of
emotion-related behaviors in infancy as a consequence of cross-
and within-cultural variability in collectivism and individualism.
Further, because contingent responsiveness is also associated
with early mirror self-recognition, one of the hallmarks of
understanding of self as an individual (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn,
1979), toddlers’ sense of self may mediate relationships between
parent practices of contingent responding and their emotion-
related experiences (e.g., the early advent of independent iden-
tity may allow young children to secure their own emotional
experiences rather than the experiences of those around them).
Power Distance
Another classic dimension concerns how power is structured
within cultures or families. Hofstede (1980, 2001) describes this
dimension as power distance; other researchers refer to interper-
sonal distance or verticality (Kağitçibaşi, 1996; Matsumoto, 1996;
Singelis, Triandis, Bhawuk, & Gelfand, 1995; Triandis & Gelfand,
1998). Power distant/vertical societies accept and expect inequal-
ity in status relationships, and emphasize the values of obedience,
respect for authority, and rule-following (Hofstede, 2001;
Matsumoto, 1996; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Less power distant/
more horizontal societies affirm the idea of equality across status
relationships, promote more democratic values, and allow more
discussion and greater permeability across hierarchical boundaries
(Baldwin, 1948; Hofstede, 2001; Matsumoto, 1996). Power dis-
tance initially looks simpler in horizontal societies because of the
proclaimed value for sameness in power. In actuality, it is likely to
be more complex because of the narrowly circumscribed levels of
status that exist within different domains but within the same
relationship, and complicit “blindness” to the evidence of vertical-
ity, thereby retaining the principle of equality across status, even
when it does not really exist (Hofstede, 2001; Much, 1997;
Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
Power distance may create emotional as well as social
structures that are likely to be reflected in parents’ socialization
goals, for example, in valuing obedience and attending to
parents’ rather than infants’ goals. In Latin American families,
the value of respeto encourages children to defer to, obey, and
honor family members (Cervantes, 2002; Delgado-Gaitan,
1994; Harwood, Schölmerich, Schulze, & González, 1999;
Zayas & Solari, 1994). Respeto requires that emotions such as
anger should not be expressed against adult family members,
particularly male figures (Gonzalez-Ramos, Zayas, & Cohen,
1998). Thus, emotion regulation may be greater for very young
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
children, and possibly older infants, in vertical compared to
horizontal societies, particularly when power distance is not
moderated by other frames that include indulgent beliefs about
children and their role in the family, as will be described below.
Power-distant parents might also utilize more top-down
conversational strategies to direct infant or toddler actions,
compared to egalitarian parents who might engage in more
dialogic, turn-taking strategies and invitations to infants to take
the conversational lead (Richman, Miller, & LeVine, 1992;
Super & Harkness, 1997). Although we know of no fine-
grained linguistic analyses comparing vertical societies versus
horizontal societies, hints of linguistic patterns differing by
culture are evident by parents and infants as early as the first
three months of life (Keller, Otto, Lamm, Yovsi, & Kärtner,
2008; Richman et al., 1992) and continue to change during
infants’ first year of life (Richman et al., 1992). In Germany, for
example, parents encourage a great deal of face-to-face interac-
tion, with turn-taking pauses so that infants may respond and
are strongly reinforced for doing so; this style of interaction is
very limited among the more power-distant Gusii of southwest
Kenya and the Nso of Cameroon (Dixon, Tronick, Keefer, &
Brazelton, 1981; Keller, 2003; Keller, Borke, et al., 2005;
Richman et al., 1992).
Power distance may overlap somewhat with the dimension
of collectivism/individualism, but it is also a distinctly differ-
ent dimension. For example, many of the collectivist societies
that are power distant tend to discourage anger; however, other
collectivist societies that are more egalitarian, including the
Ifaluk and Kaluli, do value anger (Lutz, 1983; Schieffelin,
1983, 1985). Furthermore, power distance becomes differently
integrated with other frames noted below, and may have its
own dynamic trajectories over historical time (Hofstede, 1980,
2001; Kağitçibaşi, 1996; Kağitçibaşi & Ataca, 2005; Lamm,
Keller, Yovsi, & Chaudhary, 2008; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998).
Children’s Place in Family and Culture
The first two cultural frames (collectivism and power distance)
were first considered within organizations and nations
(Hofstede, 1980). This third frame addresses family structures,
and specifically the role of children within families. Whereas
children seem to be valued in almost all cultures, they are val-
ued for different reasons. The relationships that parents have
with children also differ substantially by culture. These may
impact how emotions are organized within families and may
lead to very different goals and strategies regarding socialization
of emotion, and thus different emotion-related outcomes for
children.
The Value of Children
Historically, children provided an important economic contri-
bution to their families, and, today in many present-day cul-
tures, particularly those which are rural and agriculturally
based; one purpose of having children is to widen the economic
 Halberstadt & Lozada  Emotion Development in Infancy   161
base of the family (Kağitçibaşi & Ataca, 2005). However, other
reasons include the inherent value of children, in terms of the
psychological benefit derived by parents (e.g., the joy of chil-
dren; Keller, 2003), or as gifts from, or, indeed, the very pres-
ence of the gods (Diener, 2000; Kağitçibaşi & Ataca, 2005).
Parents who think of children as continuing and enhancing the
productivity of the family enterprise may socialize their chil-
dren to persevere in the face of hard work and, thus, may mini-
mize emotions that may distract a child from their work. During
infancy, these parents may not engage in socialization practices
that encourage high emotional arousal. Alternatively, they may
ignore emotions as irrelevant events. However, if parents
believe that children are gifts from the gods, they might engage
in socialization behaviors that encourage positive affect as a
means of giving thanks for the very existence of that child.
Relations with Children
Some ways in which children are regarded fit well within the
above frames, for example, the concept of children as obedient,
as noted above under the frame of power distance. However,
other ways in which children are regarded do not fit either frame
above. One component of Latino culture, familismo, encourages
strong familial bonds and concern for family members’ well-
being (Cervantes, 2002; Cristofaro & Tamis-LeMonda, 2008).
At first glance, familismo may appear to be a subdimension of
collectivism, as it includes the importance of family interde-
pendence. However, familismo is characterized by family affec-
tion, and a great deal of care and indulgence for young children,
values that can also be found in more individualistic societies.
In fact, American and Greek mothers of 3-month-old infants
report equivalent levels of familismo as Costa Rican and
Mexican mothers (Keller et al., 2006). Further, Latin American
culture encourages the concept of simpatía, which is a rela-
tional style among individuals that emphasizes the goal of social
harmony (Triandis, Marín, Lisansky, & Betancourt, 1984).
Cultures that practice simpatía prioritize creating personable
environments for others. Thus, each of the three frames—
collectivism (family interdependence), verticality/power distance
(children obeying parents), and child/familial devotion (family
affection and indulgence of children) are necessary to create the
unique cultural mix that is distinctive in Latin America.
Other non-Spanish-speaking cultures, for example, Italian,
Chinese, and Japanese, also emphasize a very special place of
children, characterized by love, devotion, and indulgence of
children, while also varying in the degree of their collectivist
and power-distance inclinations (Bornstein et al., 2008; Camras
et al., 1998). Implications for infants in these cultures are
numerous. In keeping with their tradition of devotion and indul-
gence for infants and young children, coupled with their rela-
tively low emphasis on power distance, Italian mothers seem
more emotionally sensitive than American or Argentinean
mothers in interactions with their infants. Further, Italian infants
responded in kind in those interactions, with greater responsive-
ness and interactivity toward their mothers, compared to the
American and Argentinean infants (Bornstein et al., 2008).
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
Ways Children Learn
Our fourth cultural frame concerns myriad beliefs about learning
as they pertain to children. We include four kinds of beliefs that
may be most related to emotion socialization and infants’ out-
comes: “when,” “whether,” “who,” and “how”. We believe this
frame is distinctly different from the frames above; yet because
there is so little empirical work, future research will have to test
the veracity of our claim for its independence.
Regarding the “when” of learning, the age at which infants
and young children are perceived as capable of learning various
tasks varies widely across cultures. Regarding language learn-
ing, for example, American parents scaffold words for babies as
early as 8 months of age, whereas Kipsigis mothers report that
infants don’t really learn language until they are about two years
old (Super & Harkness, 1986); British, Indian, and Japanese
mothers also report different ages at which infants become com-
petent (Joshi & MacLean, 1997). Kurdish and Yemenite Jewish
mothers living in Israel also had quite different timetables for
the onset of social smiling and the acquisition of various emo-
tions (Frankel, Roer-Bornstein, & LeVine, 1982).
With regard to the timelines for emotional control, many
American parents believe that very young children are quite
capable of learning about emotions, yet this viewpoint is also
held in conjunction with the belief that young children initially
have little control over their emotions, and, thus, one of the jobs
of parents is to scaffold the most supportive environment pos-
sible for their children’s well-being (Goodnow, Cashmore,
Cotton, & Knight, 1984; Parker et al., in press). This is an inter-
esting dialectic! The latter belief, that infants and young
children have little control over their emotions, is shared with
cultures which are considerably different from American culture
in terms of the other cultural frames described above. The Utku,
Javanese, and Ifaluk, for example, do not spend much time try-
ing to teach infants or toddlers about emotion, because they
perceive them as not yet socializable (Briggs, 1970; Geertz,
1959; Lutz, 1983). Comparisons between American and Italian
mothers, Japanese and American mothers, and Lebanese and
Australian mothers indicate different beliefs regarding when
children are capable of emotion-regulation related skills (e.g.,
controlling anger or expression of disappointment, resolving
disagreements), with American, Japanese, and Lebanese mothers
expecting earlier competency than their comparison counterparts
(Edwards, Gandini, & Giovaninni, 1996; Goodnow et al., 1984;
Hess, 1980). This provides evidence that beliefs about learning
do not match onto the other frames above, in that American and
Italian cultures have relatively similar beliefs regarding
individualism and power distance (Hofstede, 2001).
Cultural beliefs regarding timetables for developing compe-
tency may impact parental socialization efforts, including struc-
turing ecological niches that foster the development of those
competencies and expending effort with infants to scaffold
various skills. In the case of emotional control, when parents
believe infants are emotionally capable they may provide the
settings and scaffolding that allows infants to meet parental
goals, compared to when parents don’t believe infants are
162   Emotion Review Vol. 3 No. 2
emotionally capable. Thus, infants and young children might
initially achieve emotional control earlier in the United States
than in other countries. It might also be that the task is very time
consuming and/or becomes frustrating for American parents
when high expectations are not met (e.g., Donovan, Leavitt, &
Taylor, 2005). If so, the lack of success early on might lead to
lowered expectations in the United States at precisely the ages
at which emotional socialization is activated in other countries.
These conjectures have yet to be tested, and cross-cultural
research including parents’ specific beliefs about control, their
socialization behaviors, and their success as demonstrated in
children’s behavior may be a fruitful avenue of future research.
A second set of beliefs relates to the underlying structure by
which competencies are developed—whether children acquire
competencies via maturation or teaching. Again, cultures vary
widely with regard to this issue, and across many different types
of competencies. Chinese mothers in Taiwan, Tamang mothers
in Nepal, and Mayan mothers in Yucatan believe that develop-
ment is largely maturational and that children grow up “natu-
rally” (Chen & Luster, 2002; Cole & Tamang, 1998; Gaskins,
1996; Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002). In contrast, the
Chhetri and Brahmin in Nepal, the Tallensi in Ghana and the
Nso of Cameroon believe learning is a process that requires
teaching (Cole & Tamang, 1998; Fortes, 1938; Keller, 2003).
Historically, parents in the United States have shifted from a
rather maturationist perspective, which suggests that children’s
emotional lives develop over time and without need of scaffold-
ing (Gesell & Ilg, 1943; Hall, 1907), to a greater focus on what
can be done to further the emotional well-being of their infants
and children (Brazelton & Sparrow, 2006).
A third kind of belief, for cultures that do assume learning,
is “who is in charge?” For the Tallensi people in Africa, parents
are always on duty as teachers and guides (Fortes, 1938).
Although the Javanese and the Ifaluk differ from the Tallensi
regarding when infants and children are ready to learn, they do
perceive that it is the parents’ role to teach their children once
children are mature enough for that process to commence
(Geertz, 1959; Lutz, 1983). Yet other cultures, such as the
Kipsigis people in Kenya, assume that when children are ready
to learn, they will look to other children as guides to appropriate
emotion-related behaviors (Super & Harkness, 1982, 1986).
Kipsigis practices include a lot of energy toward teaching chil-
dren to sit and to walk, but neither emotions nor language are
things to be socialized by parents, thus talk with infants or
children about emotions seldom occurs. There is also variabil-
ity across class and ethnicity in the degree to which American
parents believe that children can be in charge of their own emo-
tional lives and also that parents need to guide and teach their
children about emotions (Craig, Stelter, & Halberstadt, 2010;
Parker et al., in press). With regard to infancy, Québécois and
Haitian immigrant mothers believe they play a significant role
in the affective development of their young infants in contrast
to Vietnamese immigrant mothers (Pomerleau, Malcuit, &
Sabatier, 1991).
These beliefs have obvious implications. For example, the
differences between Tamang and Chhetri and Brahmin mothers’
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
respective beliefs about maturation and learning may be reflected
in their children’s choices regarding emotional expression versus
masking in social situations (Cole & Tamang, 1998). Parental
beliefs that children can learn about emotions on their own
(rather than needing parental guidance) predicts relatively less
skill in their children’s emotion understanding (Perez-Rivera &
Dunsmore, in press). On the other hand, when parents believe
that they are in control and think that they are highly capable of
effecting change with their infants, they may actually have less
sensitivity to infants’ cries when confronted with frequent or
apparently inconsolable crying (Donovan et al., 2005; Donovan,
Leavitt, & Walsh, 1990). As Donovan et al. suggest, parents
with illusions of control may give up more easily when faced
with failure than parents who have more modest beliefs about
their own efficacy. Thus, curvilinear relations may emerge,
such that moderate levels of the belief that parents are important
guides for children’s emotional development and that children
are somewhat in control of their own emotional destinies may
be ideal. Finally, as alluded to above, “who is in charge” is not
restricted to parents; siblings, grandparents, peers, teachers, and
other community members are integral components of infants’
social networks across the world (e.g., Gaskins, 1996; Lamb,
2005; Lewis, 2005; Lewis, Feiring, & Kotsonis, 1984; Super &
Harkness, 1982, 1986).
A fourth kind of belief, for cultures that do assume learning,
concerns how one learns. This topic spans a wide array of learn-
ing theories, including using discipline to instruct, telling
children what to do and expecting that they will then do it,
providing children with opportunities to be active participants
in their learning, scaffolding children’s next steps, and cocreat-
ing knowledge through discussion. More than a superficial
naming of these beliefs is beyond the scope of this paper; nev-
ertheless it is important to note that cultures vary widely in their
beliefs about how individuals learn (see Keller, 2003).
With regard to emotion-related learning, we note briefly a
few differences previously identified. For example, Chinese
parents in Taiwan emphasize that “training” is important for
learning and development (Chao, 1994; Chen & Luster, 2002).
As noted above, discipline for these parents is an important
technique for guiding children (Chen & Luster, 2002; Miller
et al., 2002). Discussions about emotion, however, are not
perceived to be a useful strategy; in one sample, 40% of
European American mothers reported processing emotions with
their preschoolers, whereas no Taiwanese Chinese mothers
mentioned emotion-related conversations at all (Chao, 1995).
We note that Hofstede (2001) suggests that collectivists
assume that little needs to be said because information is read-
ily available in the context, and individualists assume that noth-
ing is clear because we are separate and distinct entities.
However, we consider this kind of belief to be conceptually and
pragmatically distinct from the collectivist/individualist cultural
frame. Although Chinese parents in Taipei (thought to be
collectivist) do not tend to discuss emotion-related topics with
their children, and American parents (thought to be individual-
istic) do, when it comes to moral transgressions Chinese parents
have a lot to say, building on events as they happen (Fung,
 Halberstadt & Lozada  Emotion Development in Infancy   163
1999; Miller, Wang, Sandel, & Cho, 2002). Thus the domain to
be considered (e.g., emotion, morality) is more predictive of the
strategies to be used in inculcating cultural norms than the
overarching framework of collectivism/individualism.
Value of Emotional Experience and Expression
Many differences between collectivist and individualistic cul-
tures have been identified regarding emotional experience and
expression (e.g., Eid & Diener, 2001; Kitayama, Markus, &
Kurokawa, 2000; Li, Wang, & Fischer, 2004; Markus &
Kitayama, 1991; Mesquita & Karasawa, 2004; Schimmack,
Oishi, & Diener, 2002; Scollon, Diener, Oishi, & Biswas-
Diener, 2004; Stipek, 1998; van Hemert, Poortinga, & van der
Vijver, 2007). As noted above, the frequency and organizational
structure of emotions may vary across the collectivist/individu-
alist and the power-distance frames. And beliefs about children
(e.g., infants as gifts from the gods, or as part of the family that
requires indulgence and “spoiling”) and learning (by discipline,
scaffolding, self-exploration, etc.) have implications for
emotion-related socialization with infants and children. In these
cases, emotional experience and expression vary as a conse-
quence of achieving other goals (e.g., successful individuation,
deference to authority, harmonious interpersonal relations), and
are appropriately embedded within those frames.
Nevertheless, a fifth frame devoted to the value of emotion
across cultures seems indicated, because emotion is sometimes
valued (or not) in its own right, as part of what it means to be
human and as part of life (Parker et al., in press), and so
the value of emotion is not linked to the goals identified in the
above frames. Further, there is substantial variability in the
values and frequency of emotional expression and experience
within collectivist and individualist cultures (e.g., Eid & Diener,
2001; Parker et al., in press), and possibly within vertical and
horizontal cultures, which provides additional evidence that
emotional experience is best considered as its own cultural
frame (Eid & Diener, 2001; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992). As one
brief example, anger is not accepted in many collectivist
societies, such as the Utku, Chinese, Taiwanese, and Japanese
(Briggs, 1970; Eid & Diener, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991),
but is valued in others, such as the Ifaluk and Kaluli (Lutz,
1988; Schieffelin, 1983, 1985). Likewise, happiness appears to
be valued more in individualistic versus collectivistic cultures,
and the preferred intensity level of happiness varies as well (Eid
& Diener, 2001; Tsai, Knutson, & Fung, 2006). In the broadest
way, cultures may value or devalue emotional experience in
general, may value certain emotions more so than other emo-
tions, may value certain levels of emotional arousal more than
other levels, or may value emotions contingent upon certain
social contexts. We take as an example the development of
positive affect across cultures.
First, cultural beliefs about the value and meaning of posi-
tive affect are likely to impact parental responsiveness to new-
borns’ gaze, including the frequency and magnitude of their
smiling, as well as the warmth and energy in their voices and
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
frequency of their vocalizations. With the onset of social smiling,
parents’ frequency and speed of contingent responsiveness to
infants’ positive expressions may be further magnified by
culture. For cultures that particularly value both positive affect
and parental sensitivity expressed visually (rather than by
physical contact), infants’ developmental shift to social smiling
likely functions as a reward for parents that further facilitates
their goals, whereas for cultures that de-emphasize the value of
positive affect, the onset of social smiling, while extremely
pleasant, is not perceived as a critical milestone, and an
opportunity to achieve more relational, emotional-bonding
goals (see Yovsi, Kärtner, Keller, & Lohaus, 2009, for an exam-
ple of how German and Nso mothers develop different trajecto-
ries of sensitivity during early infant–parent interactions).
Second, differences in infant–parent play across cultures
may have implications for acculturation of positive affect. In
American society, positive expression with associated arousal is
highly valued, as evidenced by “peek-a-boo,” a nationally played
infant–parent game. Additionally, most adults in the United
States exaggerate positive affect and intensify the contours of
their vocalizations when with young infants. In contrast, numer-
ous other cultures devalue the high positive arousal associated
with such games and parent–infant activity. For example, the
Gusii in southwest Kenya emphasize tremendous emotional
restraint with their children. First, Gusii mothers engage in very
little affect sharing and do not provide the big, open mouth smil-
ing displays so commonly noted in the northeastern United
States. Second, they avert eye gaze even with infants, which
functions as another means of reducing infant arousal (Dixon
et al., 1981; Richman et al., 1992). From the American stand-
point, these behaviors suggest such low maternal responsive-
ness and engagement as to be considered possibly pathological;
yet by other indices (e.g., tactile engagement and responsive-
ness to crying), the Gusii mothers are as responsive to their
infants as Bostonian mothers, and appear to be preparing their
infants as successfully as the Bostonian mothers for their own
cultures. Nso Cameroonian mothers also value calm infants, and
respond with anticipatory coping (preventive) so as to avoid
situations in which infants cry (Keller & Otto, 2009).
Cultures in other parts of the world also emphasize restraint
in positive affective arousal. Javanese mothers in Indonesia
rarely express strong positive emotion with their young chil-
dren, as emotional control is valued and strong positive emotion
is perceived as disruptive (Eisenberg, Pidada, & Liew, 2001).
Chinese and Japanese families also emphasize positive emo-
tional restraint (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Camras et al., 1998;
Chen et al., 1998; Eid & Deiner, 2001; Tsai et al., 2006).
Restraint in expression of positive affect seems more likely in
collectivist than individualistic societies; however, anecdotal
evidence suggests that upper class British society, which is
strongly individualistic, also downplays high-intensity displays
of positive affect (Super & Harkness, 1982).
Emotion-related values are also reflected in other cultural
manifestations, for example, preschool children’s picture books,
which then further support cultural messages being inculcated
by caregivers. Happiness is depicted differently cross-culturally,
164   Emotion Review Vol. 3 No. 2
with relatively calm exemplars such as serenity found in best-
selling picture books in Taiwan, compared to higher arousal
exemplars such as joy found in picture books in the United
States (Tsai, Louie, Chen, & Uchida, 2007). Thus, caregivers
seem to increase or decrease infants’ positive affect in at least
three ways: by modulating their own affective communications,
either by exaggeration or attenuation of affect; by modulating
their infants’ arousal, for example, by increasing or decreasing
eye gaze directed toward them; or by increasing or decreasing
involvement in activities that activate positive affect. In all
these cases, parents are engaging in socialization practices that
reflect the values of their culture, and are teaching their infants
and children culturally specific emotional meanings. In addi-
tion, the tools of the culture (e.g., picture books) contribute to
parents’ socialization goals.
Even within cultures, individual differences in parental
socialization emerge over the course of infancy. For example, in
the United States, mothers respond differently over time (from
4 to 24 weeks) to the emotional tones of their infants, with
approximately half increasing in their responsiveness, one quar-
ter reducing their responsiveness, and one quarter demonstrat-
ing little change over time (Hsu & Fogel, 2003). This type of
longitudinal study is ideal for exploring the relationship
between parents’ values and/or beliefs about infant emotionality
and their actual behavior with infants; we predict that beliefs
about the value of infant emotionality likely direct the trajectories
of parents’ responsiveness.
Because infants’ expression of emotion continues to retain
some of its undifferentiated characteristics throughout the first
year (Camras, Oster, Campos, & Bakeman, 2003), how infants
and young children learn the specific contours of emotions may
be largely dependent upon caregivers’ interpretations of contex-
tual cues and beliefs about what infants can and should be feel-
ing. Thus, parents’ pre-existing belief systems and values
regarding emotion may lead to various degrees of contingent
and noncontingent responses to infants’ emotional expressions.
These, in turn, may provide important guides to infants’ experi-
ence, expression, and understanding of emotion, with infants’
emotional experiences being shaped by caregivers’ interpretive
mirroring of their expressions (Campos et al., 2004; Gergely &
Watson, 1999), which subsequently leads to understanding
more about self- and others’ emotional experience and later,
appropriate expression thereof.
In cultures that emphasize knowing one’s own feelings and
emotional differentiation, caregivers may provide a great deal
of emotion-related guidance, including affective matching,
naming feelings, and appropriate responses to perceived feel-
ings. This type of information allows for substantial construc-
tion of emotion because infants’ undifferentiated responses
invite parental interpretation as to what the infant should be
feeling. In cultures that de-emphasize emotions or support only
the lowest levels of emotional intensity, caregivers may ignore
infant emotion expression, or attempt to distract attention away
from emotions, thereby increasing the time of undifferentiated
emotional expression and reducing attention for the complexity
of emotional experience. It is interesting to note that German
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
mothers in Berlin report that their infants show basic emotions
a good bit earlier than Nso mothers of Cameroon (Keller &
Otto, 2009). What we don’t know is whether German mothers
imbue cues with greater significance than supported by infants’
expressions or are relatively more sensitive to nascent expres-
sions of emotions compared to Nso mothers. Either pathway
might then lead to greater affective matching by parents and
constructing those emotions in infants. Infants’ experience,
expression, and understanding may all be influenced regarding
type of emotions as well as intensity of experience. Previous
work has included showing videotapes of parenting behaviors
to mothers for their assessment of other cultures’ parenting
styles (Keller, 2003). An important next step may be to show
videotapes of infant emotions to parents from cultures that vary
regarding the value of emotional expression; this methodology
would allow for an assessment as to whether parents of differ-
ent cultures actually do interpret infants’ emotion expressions in
keeping with their values regarding emotions.
Further, capturing these processes in early infancy would be
ideal in terms of identifying the transactional processes involved
in the inculcation of emotion-related values. As infants shift
from primarily sleep to more waking states, they begin to
become more active participants in creating their affective envi-
ronments. And, as they become more coordinated and controlled
in their reactions, there tends to be a pattern from global/diffuse
behaviors to specific coordinated behaviors (Sroufe, 1996).
These more coordinated behaviors are likely to increasingly
reflect the socialization messages communicated by parents
within their cultures. Undoubtedly, infants’ increased participa-
tion is accompanied by increases in the cognitive components of
memory (e.g., remembering what happens when the sheet comes
down during “peek-a-boo”) and anticipation (e.g., pulling away
that sheet and expecting to find one’s play partner). As external
stimulation elicits the coordination of these two systems, the
cognitive development results in more sophisticated affective
systems in which emotion is tied more to the context of the situ-
ation and not just independent stimuli (Sroufe, 1996).
Evidence for the influence of parents’ socialization
practices is accumulating in work with toddlers and preschool-
age children (Chen et al., 1998; Super & Harkness, 1986; Tsai
et al., 2007). Some suggestions of differential outcomes are
emerging now from the work of Keller and Otto (2009) in an
attachment paradigm adapted for use with 1-year-old Nso
infants. The ability to adjust to care from others in the commu-
nity is of some importance and is associated with mothers’
desire for calm infants. Perhaps because of the strong sociali-
zation emphasis on calm demeanor or because of maternal
preparation for infants to be cared by other adult women in the
community, the predominant response of Nso infants was to be
calm with few indices of stress (e.g., cortisol output), suggest-
ing that Nso mothers had successfully socialized their infants
for this highly important relational task (Keller & Otto, 2009).
And, that calmness was the predominant response for these
1-year-olds, in contrast to the distress and comfort-seeking
strategies of secure European or American infants, suggests
that the cultural values inculcated by parents’ socialization
 Halberstadt & Lozada  Emotion Development in Infancy   165
behaviors lead to very different emotion-related behavioral
patterns in infancy. Future longitudinal research beginning
with newborns would be desirable.
Conclusions
The five cultural frames described have been offered as organiza-
tional tools for current and future research. It is likely that as
research builds on these frames, some overlap will be uncovered.
Nevertheless, we propose exploring these frames first as inde-
pendent rather than overlapping structures so as capitalize on the
richness and diversity across cultures. Further, overlaps that occur
may be psychologically interesting, particularly if they predict dif-
ferent infant outcomes across cultures. These conceptual frames
can also be considered in combination. For example, a power-
distant culture that believes infants are capable of early learning
might, through simple instruction, expect infants to show a modi-
cum of emotional control within the first year of life, compared to
a power-distant culture that does not believe infants can learn
emotional control. In contrast, a more egalitarian society that
believes infants are capable of early learning might also expect
early emotion control, but via verbal dialogues that impart large
amounts of nuanced affective information. In the first society,
infants and young children might learn more about interpreting
others’ emotional expression, but their emotional experience will
be relatively simply structured. In the second society, infants and
young children might develop greater emotional complexity to
their emotional experience, but will expect people to talk about
what they are feeling and may not be as skilled at surmising the
feelings of others.
If another frame, such as children’s place in family and cul-
ture, is considered in conjunction with the previous two, another
layer is added to the cultural lens. For example, power-distant
parents who believe that infants learn about emotion later and
are a gift from the gods may socialize their children with an
emphasis on more positive affect, as this would be pleasant for
their child, and less negative affect, as this would be less disrup-
tive of relations with parents or other high-ranking family mem-
bers. Combining frames to focus on specific differences in
socialization across cultures can occur with all of the frames.
Although we assert that these frames are valuable for their
ability to categorize cross-cultural phenomena, there are some
limitations to what we have proposed. First, as some of these
frames have not been described previously, we have sometimes
extrapolated widely. Therefore, we rely on future research to help
validate and lend support to these frames. Second, we have not
woven in much about genetic processes or physiological outcomes
associated with emotional experience, expression, or understand-
ing; although few studies relate these to culture, there are intrigu-
ing hints in the adult literature (e.g., relations between autonomic
nervous system [ANS], facial expression, and self-report of
emotion; Levenson, Ekman, Heider, & Friesen, 1992). Third, we
do not intend to suggest that many of these frames or the parenting
practices associated with them are engaged in consciously or
intentionally by parents; in many ways these frames are so well
embedded within cultures that they are intuitively rather than
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
consciously chosen by parents on a day-to-day level (Papoušek &
Papoušek, 1991). Finally, we acknowledge that there may be other
cultural frames that can either better classify or further differenti-
ate cross-cultural differences found in the literature. Thus, the
cultural frames proposed here are offered as a starting point and as
part of a work in progress.
In conclusion, our overarching theme is that cultural frames
affect parents’ beliefs systems and socialization behaviors;
these, in turn, as well as the ways in which culture is infused in
every aspect of life, lead to demonstrated effects on developing
infants’ emotional experience, expression, and understanding.
In some ways, this message is not new, and, at the surface level,
is well recognized. However, it is not yet, in our opinion, well
integrated into the scientific endeavor. Our more specific contri-
butions are: (a) the delineation of five different frameworks,
three of which have not been previously named or described in
any detail, (b) the connection of each frame to emotion develop-
ment in infancy, and (c) the generation of ideas within each
frame for future assessment. We hope these contributions serve
to generate more systematic study of cultural socialization of
emotional development.
Infants’ emotion regulation, emotion communication, and
emotion understanding are differentially shaped not only by
infant characteristics (i.e., temperament), but contextually, via
transactions with their social environments—in particular, par-
ents and family members, who are themselves recipients and
conveyors of the meanings, values, and goals of their culture.
These caregiver–infant relationships, embedded within the cul-
tural context, lay the foundation on which socioemotional com-
petencies can be developed. As research continues to uncover
the biological and physiological underpinnings of infants’ emo-
tional outcomes, the true meaning behind intra and interindi-
vidual differences will continue to be intertwined within the
threads of cultural fabric.
References
Baldwin, A. L. (1948). Socialization and the parent–child relationship.
Child Development, 19, 127–136.
Barrera, M. E., & Maurer, D. (1981). The perception of facial expres-
sions by the three-month-old. Child Development, 52, 203–206.
doi: 10.2307/1129231
Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. K. (1986). The social psychology of Chinese
people. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The psychology of the Chinese people
(pp. 213–266). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bornstein, M. H., Putnick, D. L., Heslington, M., Gini, M., Suwalsky, J.,
Venuti, P., & Zingman de Galperín, C. (2008). Mother–child emotional
availability in ecological perspective: Three countries, two regions, two
genders. Developmental Psychology, 44, 666–680. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.44.3.666
Brazelton, T. B., & Sparrow, J. D. (2006). Touchpoints birth to 3: Your
child’s emotional and behavioral development (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
MA: Da Capo Press.
Briggs, J. L. (1970). Never in anger: Portrait of an Eskimo family.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. doi: 10.1037/0003-
066X.32.7.513
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental
processes. Handbook of child psychology: Volume 1: Theoretical models
166   Emotion Review Vol. 3 No. 2
of human development (5th ed., pp. 993–1028). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Calkins, S. D. (1994). Origins and outcomes of individual differences in
emotional regulation. Emotion regulation: Behavioral and biological
considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 2/3, 53–72.
Campos, J. J., Frankel, C. B., & Camras, L. A. (2004). On the nature
of emotion regulation. Child Development, 75, 377–394. doi: 10.1111/
j.1467-8624.2004.00681
Campos, J. J., Thein, S., & Owen, D. (2003). A Darwinian legacy to
understanding human infancy: Emotional expressions as behavior
regulators. In P. Ekman, J. Campos, R. Davidson & F. de Waal (Eds.),
Emotions inside out: 130 years after Darwin’s The expression of the
emotions in man and animals (pp. 110–134). New York, NY:
University Press.
Camras, L. A., Oster, H., Campos, J. J., & Bakeman, R. (2003). Emotional
facial expressions in European-American, Japanese, and Chinese
infants. In P. Ekman, J. Campos, R. Davidson & F. de Waal (Eds.),
Emotions inside out: 130 years after Darwin’s The expression of the
emotions in man and animals (pp. 1–17). New York, NY: New York
Academy of Sciences.
Camras, L., Oster, H., Campos, J., Campos, R., Ujiie, T., Miyake, K., . . .
Meng, Z. (1998). Production of emotional facial expressions in
European American, Japanese, and Chinese infants.  Developmental
Psychology, 34, 616–628. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.616
Cervantes, C. A. (2002). Explanatory emotion talk in Mexican immigrant
and Mexican American families. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral
Sciences, 24, 138–163. doi: 10.1177/0739986302024002003
Chao, R. K. (1994). Beyond parental control and authoritarian parenting
style: Understanding Chinese parenting through the cultural notion
of training. Child Development, 65, 1111–1119. doi: 10.2307/1131308
Chao, R. K. (1995). Chinese and European American cultural models of the
self reflected in mothers’ childrearing beliefs. Ethos, 23, 328–354. doi:
10.1525/eth.1995.23.3.02a00030
Chen, F., & Luster, T. (2002). Factors related to parenting practices in
Taiwan. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 413–430. doi:
10.1080/03004430214549
Chen, X., Hastings, P. D., Rubin, K. H., Chen, H., Cen, G., & Stewart, S. L.
(1998). Child rearing attitudes and behavioral inhibition in Chinese and
Canadian toddlers: A cross-cultural study. Developmental Psychology,
34, 677–686. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.34.4.677
Cole, P. M., & Tamang, B. L. (1998). Nepali children’s ideas about emo-
tional displays in hypothetical challenges. Developmental Psychology,
34, 640–646. doi: 10.1037/00121649.34.4.640
Cole, P. M., & Tan, P. Z. (2007). Emotion socialization from a cultural per-
spective. In J. E. Grusec & P. D. Hastings (Eds.), Handbook of socializa-
tion: Theory and research (pp. 516–542). New York, NY: Guilford.
Craig, A. B., Stelter, R. L., & Halberstadt, A. G. (2010). Parents’ beliefs
about children’s emotions cluster by gender, ethnicity, education, and
age. Unpublished manuscript.
Cristofaro, T. N., & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2008). Lessons in mother–child
and father–child personal narratives in Latino families. Spanish-
language narration and literacy: Culture, cognition, and emotion
(pp. 54–91). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Crockenberg, S. C., & Leerkes, E. M. (2004). Infant and maternal behaviors
regulate infant reactivity to novelty at 6 months. Developmental
Psychology, 40, 1123–1132.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Socializing young children in Mexican-
American families: An intergenerational perspective. In P. M. Greenfield
& R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child develop-
ment (pp. 55–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Diener, M. (2000). Gift from the gods: A Balinese guide to early child rear-
ing. In J. deLoache & A. Gottlieb (Eds.), A world of babies: Imagined
childcare guides for seven societies (pp. 91–116). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
Dixon, S. D., Tronick, E. Z., Keefer, C., & Brazelton, T. B. (1981). Mother–
infant interaction among the Gusii of Kenya. In T. M. Field, A. M. Sostek,
P. Vietze, & P. H. Leiderman (Eds.), Culture and early interactions
(pp. 149–170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Taylor, N. (2005). Maternal self-efficacy
and experimentally manipulated infant difficulty effects on maternal
sensory sensitivity: A signal detection analysis. Developmental
Psychology, 41, 784–798. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.41.5.784
Donovan, W. L., Leavitt, L. A., & Walsh, R. (1990). Maternal self-efficacy:
Illusory control and its effect on susceptibility to learned helplessness.
Child Development, 61, 1638–1647. doi: 10.2307/1130771
Dunsmore, J. C., & Halberstadt, A. G. (1997). How does family emotional
expressiveness affect children’s schemas? New Directions for Child
Development, 77, 45–66.
Dunsmore, J. C., & Halberstadt, A. G. (2009). The dynamic context
of children’s emotions: Family and cultural system influences. In
J. A. Mancini & K. A. Roberto (Eds.), Pathways of human deve­
lopment: Explorations of change (pp. 171–190). Boulder, CO:
Lexington Books.
Edwards, C. P., Gandini, L., & Giovaninni, D. (1996). The contrasting
developmental timetables of parents and preschool teachers in two
cultural communities. In S. Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.),  Parents’
cultural belief systems: Their origins, expressions, and consequences 
(pp. 270–288). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eid, M., & Diener, E. (2001). Norms for experiencing emotions in different
cultures: Inter- and intranational differences. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 81, 869–885. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.81.5.869
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socializa-
tion of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. doi:10.1207/
s15327965pli0904_1
Eisenberg, N., Pidada, S., & Liew, J. (2001). The relations of regulation and
negative emotionality to Indonesian children’s social functioning. Child
Development, 72, 1747–1763. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00376
Fernald, A. (1993). Approval and disapproval: Infant responsiveness to
vocal affect in familiar and unfamiliar languages. Child Development,
64, 657–674. doi: 10.2307/1131209
Fortes, M. (1938). Social and psychological aspects of education in
Taleland. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Frankel, D. G., Roer-Bornstein, D., & LeVine, R. A. (1982). Traditional and
modern contributions to changing infant-rearing ideologies of two
ethnic communities. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 47, 1–51. doi: 10.2307/1165998
Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization of shame
among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27, 180–209. doi: 10.1525/
eth.1999.27.2.180
Garcia Coll, C. T., Halpern, L., Seifer, R., Meyer, E., Kilis, E., Lester, B. M.,
. . . Oh, W. (1996). Behavioral intervention and post-natal growth in
full-term intrauterine growth retarded (IUGR) infants. Early Human
Development, 46, 105–116. doi: 10.1016/0378-3782(96)017483
Gaskins, S. (1996). How Mayan parental theories come into play. In
S. Harkness & C. M. Super (Eds.),  Parents’ cultural belief systems:
Their origins, expressions, and consequences (pp. 345–363). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Geertz, H. (1959). The vocabulary of emotion: A study of Javanese social-
ization processes. Psychiatry: Journal for the Study of Interpersonal
Processes, 22, 225–237.
Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early socio-emotional development:
Contingency perception and the social-biofeedback model. In P. Rochat
(Ed.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months
of life (pp. 101–136). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Gesell, A., & Ilg, F. (1943). Infant and child in the culture of today: The
guidance of development in home and nursery school. New York, NY:
Harper & Brothers.
Gonzalez-Ramos, G., Zayas, L., & Cohen, E. (1998). Child-rearing values
of low-income, urban Puerto Rican mothers of preschool children.
 Halberstadt & Lozada  Emotion Development in Infancy   167
Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 377–382. doi:
10.1037/0735-7028.29.4.377
Goodnow, J., Cashmore, J., Cotton, S., & Knight, R. (1984). Mothers’
developmental timetables in two cultural groups. International Journal
of Psychology, 19, 193–205. doi: 10.1080/00207598408247526
Greenough, W. T., Black, J. E., & Wallace, C. S. (1987). Experience and brain
development. Child Development, 58, 539–559. doi: 10.2307/1130197
Halberstadt, A. G., Denham, S. A., & Dunsmore, J. C. (2001). Affective
social competence. Social Development, 10, 79–119.
Hall, G. S. (1907). Aspects of child life and education. New York, NY:
D. Appleton & Co.
Harwood, R. L., Schölmerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & González, Z. (1999).
Cultural differences in maternal beliefs and behaviors: A study of
middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mother–infant pairs in four
everyday situations. Child Development, 70, 1005–1016. doi: 10.1111/
14678624.00073
Hess, R. (1980). Maternal expectations for mastery of developmental tasks
in Japan and the United States. International Journal of Psychology, 15,
259–271. doi: 10.1080/00207598008246996
Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International differences in
work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors,
institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hsu, H., & Fogel, A. (2003). Social regulatory effects of infant nondistress
vocalization on maternal behavior. Developmental Psychology, 39,
976–991. doi: 10.1037/00121649.39.6.976
Joshi, M. S., & MacLean, M. (1997). Maternal expectations of child devel-
opment in India, Japan, and England. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 28, 219–234. doi: 10.1177/0022022197282005
Kagitçibasi, Ç. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis.
European Psychologist, 1, 180–186. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.1.3.180
Kagitçibasi, Ç., & Ataca, B. (2005). Value of children and family change:
A three-decade portrait from Turkey. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 54, 317–337. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2005.00213
Keller, H. (2003). Socialization for competence: Cultural models of infancy.
Human Development, 46, 288–311. doi: 10.1159/000071937
Keller, H. (2007).  Cultures of infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Keller, H., Abels, M., Borke, J., Lamm, B., Lo, W., Su, Y., & Wang, Y.
(2007). Socialization environments of Chinese and Euro-American
middle-class babies: Parenting behaviors, verbal discourses and ethno-
theories. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31, 210–217.
doi: 10.1177/0165025407074633
Keller, H., Borke, J., Yovsi, R. D., Lohaus, A., & Jensen, H. (2005). Cultural
orientations and historical changes as predictors of parenting behavior.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 229–237.
Keller, H., Kärtner, J., Borke, J., Yovsi, R., & Kleis, A. (2005). Parenting
styles and the development of the categorical self: A longitudinal study
on mirror self-recognition in Cameroonian Nso and German families.
International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29, 496–504.
doi: 10.1080/01650250500147485
Keller, H., Lamm, B., Abels, M., Yovsi, R. D., Borke, J., Jensen, H., . . .
Chaudhary, N. (2006). Cultural models, socialization goals, and parent-
ing ethnotheories: A multi-cultural analysis. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 37, 155–172.
Keller, H., & Otto, H. (2009). The cultural socialization of emotion regula-
tion during infancy. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40, 996–1011.
doi: 10.1177/0022022109348576.
Keller, H., Otto, H., Lamm, B., Yovsi, R., & Kärtner, J. (2008). The timing
of verbal/vocal communications between mothers and their infants:
A longitudinal cross-cultural comparison. Infant Behavior &
Development, 31, 217–226. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2007.10.001
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion,
and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the United States. Cognition
& Emotion, 14, 93–124. doi: 10.1080/026999300379003
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
Kochanska, G., Philibert, R. A., & Barry, R. A. (2009). Interplay of genes
and early mother–child relationship in the development of self-regulation
from toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 50, 1331–1338. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.02050.x
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental per-
spective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214. doi: 10.1037/0012-
1649.18.2.199
Kusserow, A. (2004). American individualisms: Child rearing and social
class in three neighborhoods. New York, NY: Global Publishing at
St. Martin’s Press.
Lamb, M. E. (2005). Attachments, social networks, and developmental
contexts. Human Development, 48, 108–112. doi: 10.1159/000083222
Lamm, B., Keller, H., Yovsi, R., & Chaudhary, N. (2008). Grandmaternal
and maternal ethnotheories about early child care. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22, 80–88. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.1.80
Levenson, R. W., Ekman, P., Heider, K., & Friesen, W. V. (1992). Emotion
and autonomic nervous system activity in the Minangkabau of West
Sumatra. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 972–988.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.62.6.972
Lewis, M. (2005). The child and its family: The social network model.
Human Development, 48, 8–27. doi: 10.1159.000083213
Lewis, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1979). Social cognition and the acquisition
of self. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lewis, M., Feiring, C., & Kotsonis, M. (1984). The social networks of the
young child: A developmental perspective. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Beyond
the dyad (pp. 129–160). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Lewis, M., Hitchcock, D. F. A., & Sullivan, M. W. (2004). Physiological and
emotional reactivity to learning and frustration. Infancy, 6, 121–143.
doi: 10.1207/s15327078in0601_6
Lewis, M., Takai-Kawakami, K., Kawakami, K., & Sullivan, M. (2010).
Cultural differences in emotional responses to success and fail-
ure. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 34, 53–61. doi:
10.1177/0165025409348559
Li, J., Wang, L., & Fischer, K. W. (2004). The organization of Chinese
shame concepts. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 767–797. doi: 10.1080/
02699930341000202
Lutz, C. (1983). Parental goals, ethnopsychology, and the development of emo-
tional meaning. Ethos, 11, 246–262. doi: 10.1525/eth.1983.11.4.02a00040
Lutz, C. (1988). Unnatural emotions: Everyday sentiments on a Micronesian
atoll & their challenge to Western theory. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for
cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1994). A collective fear of the collective:
Implications for selves and theories of selves.  Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 568–579.
Masataka, N. (2002). Low anger-aggression and anxiety-withdrawal character-
istic to preschoolers in Japanese society where “hikikomori” is becoming a
major social problem. Early Education & Development, 13, 187–199.
Mastropieri, D., & Turkewitz, G. (1999). Prenatal experience and neonatal
responsiveness to vocal expressions of emotion. Developmental
Psychobiology,  35, 204–214. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(199911)
35:3<204::AID-DEV5>3.0.CO;2-V
Matsumoto, D. (1996). Culture & psychology. London, UK: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.
Mesquita, B. (2001). Emotions in collectivist and individualistic contexts.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 68–74. doi: 10.1037//
O022-3514.80.1.68
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review.
Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179–204. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.179
Mesquita, B., & Karasawa, M. (2004). Self-conscious emotions as dynamic
cultural processes. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 161–166.
Miller, P. J., Wang, S., Sandel, T., & Cho, G. E. (2002). Self-esteem as folk
theory: A comparison of European American and Taiwanese mothers’
168   Emotion Review Vol. 3 No. 2
beliefs. Parenting: Science and Practice, 2, 209–239. doi: 10.1207/
S15327922PAR0203_02
Mills-Koonce, W., Propper, C., Gariepy, J., Blair, C., Garrett-Peters, P., &
Cox, M. (2007). Bidirectional genetic and environmental influences of
mother and child behavior: The family system as the unit of analyses.
Development and Psychopathology, 19, 1073–1087. doi: 10.1017/
S0954579407000545
Montague, D., & Walker-Andrews, A. (2002). Mothers, fathers, and infants:
The role of person familiarity and parental involvement in infants’ per-
ception of emotion expressions.  Child Development,  73, 1339–1352.
doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00475
Much, N. C. (1997). A semiotic view of socialization, lifespan development
and cultural psychology: With vignettes from the moral culture of tradi-
tional Hindu households. Psychology and Developing Societies, 9,
65–106. doi: 10.1177/097133369700900104
Muir, D. W., Humphrey, D. E., & Humphrey, K. G. (1994). Pattern and
space perception in young infants. Spatial Vision, 8, 141–165.
Nielsen, M. (2006). Copying actions and copying outcomes: Social learning
through the second year. Developmental Psychology, 42, 555–565. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.42.3.555
Papoušek, H., & Papoušek, M. (1991). Innate and cultural guidance of
infants’ integrative competencies: China, the United States, and
Germany. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Cultural approaches to parenting
(pp. 23–44). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Parker, A. E., Halberstadt, A. G., Dunsmore, J. C., Townley, G. E., Bryant, A.,
Jr., Thompson, J. A., & Beale, K. S. (in press). “Emotions are a window
into one’s heart”: A qualitative analysis of parental beliefs about chil-
dren’s emotions across three ethnic groups. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development.
Perez-Rivera, M. B., & Dunsmore, J. C. (in press). Mothers’ acculturation and
beliefs about emotions, mother–child emotion discourse, and children’s
emotion understanding in Latino families. Early Education & Development.
Pomerleau, A., Malcuit, G., & Sabatier, C. (1991). Child-rearing practices
and parental beliefs in three cultural groups of Montréal: Québécois,
Vietnamese, Haitian. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Cultural approaches to
parenting (pp. 45–68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Propper, C., & Moore, G. A. (2006). The influence of parenting on infant
emotionality: A multi-level psychobiological perspective. Developmental
Review, 26, 427–460. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2006.06.003
Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M., & LeVine, R. A. (1992). Cultural and
educational variations in maternal responsiveness. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 614–621. doi: 10.1037/00121649.28.4.614
Saarni, C., Campos, J., Camras, L., & Witherington, D. (2006). Emotional
development: Action, communication, and understanding.  In
W. Damon, R. M. Lerner & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th
ed., pp. 226–299). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Schieffelin, E. L. (1983). Anger and shame in the tropical forest: On
affect as a cultural system in Papua New Guinea. Ethos, 11, 181–191.
doi: 10.1525/eth.1983.11.3.02a00060
Schieffelin, E. (1985). Anger, grief, and shame: Toward a Kaluli ethnopsy-
chology. In G. M. White & J. Kirkpatrick (Eds.), Person, self, and
experience: Exploring Pacific ethnopsychologies (pp. 168–182).
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Schimmack, U., Oishi, S., & Diener, E. (2002). Cultural influences on the
relation between pleasant emotions and unpleasant emotions: Asian
dialectic philosophies or individualism-collectivism? Cognition &
Emotion, 16, 705–719. doi: 10.1080/02699930143000590
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural
dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, C. Kagitcibasi, S. C. Choi
& G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and
applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener, R. (2004). Emotions
across cultures and methods. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35,
304–326. doi: 10.1177/0022022104264124
Downloaded from emr.sagepub.com by INARLTF Oundation on April 6, 2012
Singelis, T. M., Triandis, H. C., Bhawuk, D., & Gelfand, M. J. (1995).
Horizontal and vertical dimensions of individualism and collectivism:
A theoretical and measurement refinement. Cross-Cultural Research:
The Journal of Comparative Social Science, 29, 240–275.
doi: 10.1177/106939719502900302
Sroufe, A. L. (1996). Emotional development: The organization of
emotional life in the early years. New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Stipek, D. (1998). Differences between Americans and Chinese in the cir-
cumstances evoking pride, shame, and guilt. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 29, 616–629. doi: 10.1177/0022022198295002
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1982). The development of affect in infancy
and early childhood. In D. A. Wagner & H. W. Stevenson (Eds.),
Cultural perspectives on child development (pp. 1–19). San Francisco,
CA: Freeman.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1986). The developmental niche: A concep-
tualization at the interface of child and culture. International Journal of
Behavioral Development, 9, 545–569.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (1997). The cultural structuring of child
development. In J. W. Berry, P. R. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi
(Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2: Basic processes
and human development (pp. 1–39). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K.,
& Niwa, E. Y. (2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexis-
tence of individualism and collectivism in cultures and individuals.
Social Development, 17, 183–209.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., & Lucca, N.
(1988). Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives
on self–ingroup relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 323–338. doi: 0022-3514/88
Triandis, H. C., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of
horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.
74.1.118
Triandis, H. C., Marín, G., Lisansky, J., & Betancourt, H. (1984). Simpatía
as a cultural script of Hispanics. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 1363–1375. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1363
Tsai, J. L., Knutson, B., & Fung, H. H. (2006). Cultural variation in affect
valuation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 288–307.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.2.288
Tsai, J. L., Louie, J. Y., Chen, E. E., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Learning what
feelings to desire: Socialization of ideal affect through children’s story-
books. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 17–30.
doi: 10.1177/0146167206292749
van Hemert, D. A., Poortinga, Y. H., & van der Vijver, F. J. R. (2007).
Emotion and culture: A meta-analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 21, 913–
943. doi: 10.1080/02699930701339293
Weir, C., Toland, C., King, R. A., & Martin, L. M. (2005). Infant contingency/
extinction performance after observing partial reinforcement. Infancy,
8, 63–80. doi: 10.1207/s15327078in0801
Yovsi, R., Kärtner, J., Keller, H., & Lohaus, A. (2009). Maternal interac-
tional quality in two cultural environments: German middle class and
Cameroonian rural mothers. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 40,
701–707. doi: 10.1177/0022022109335065
Zahn-Waxler, C., Friedman, R. J., Cole, P. M., Mizuta, I., & Hiruma, N.
(1996). Japanese and United States preschool children’s responses to
conflict and distress. Child Development, 67, 2462–2477. doi: 10.2307/
1131634
Zayas, L. H., & Solari, F. (1994). Early childhood socialization in Hispanic
families: Context, culture, and practice implications. Professional
Psychology: Research and Practice, 25, 200–206. doi: 10.1037/0735-
7028.25.3.200