behavioral

sciences
Systematic Review
Social-Emotional Development of Children in Asia: A
Systematic Review
Geok Har Yong 1, * , Mei-Hua Lin 1 , Teck-Hock Toh 2 and Nigel V. Marsh 3

1 Department of Psychology, School of Medical and Life Sciences, Sunway University,

Bandar Sunway 47500, Malaysia
2 Department of Paediatrics & Clinical Research Centre, Sibu Hospital, Ministry of Health Malaysia,
Sibu 96000, Malaysia
3 School of Social and Health Sciences, James Cook University, Singapore 387380, Singapore
* Correspondence: 07038474@imail.sunway.edu.my

Abstract: There has been growing interest in the social-emotional development of children. However,
the social-emotional development of children in Asia remains a knowledge gap. This systematic
review identifies and summarizes existing studies on children’s social-emotional development in
Asia. We conducted a systematic review using the Guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA). We reviewed 45 studies that met the inclusion
criteria, and they were from 12 Asian countries, primarily the East Asia region (China and Hong Kong).
Most of the studies were cross-sectional in design (n = 28, 62.2%). Six themes emerged, including
(a) social-emotional development (overall) (n = 24, 53.3%); (b) social competence (n = 7, 15.6%);
(c) emotional development (n = 5, 11.1%); (d) social-emotional learning (n = 3, 6.7%); (e) problem
behavior (n = 3, 6.7%); (f) self-regulation (n = 2, 4.4%); and (g) both social-emotional learning
and problem behavior (n = 1, 2.2%). The findings highlighted the paucity of studies, the need for
examining more diverse variables in a similar population, and the low quality of intervention studies
in social-emotional research in Asia. Research gaps indicate the need for more social-emotional and
ethnocultural studies in other Asian regions. Parent and teacher knowledge of children’s social-
emotional functioning should be examined more closely in future research.

Keywords: social-emotional development; children; Asia; culture; social competence; emotional

Citation: Yong, G.H.; Lin, M.-H.; Toh, development
T.-H.; Marsh, N.V. Social-Emotional
Development of Children in Asia: A
Systematic Review. Behav. Sci. 2023,
13, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390 1. Introduction
/bs13020123 Social-emotional development is a process where an individual acquires and applies
Academic Editor: Marialaura Di Tella the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to develop healthy identities, manage emotions, achieve
personal goals, show and feel empathy, build positive relationships, and make responsible
Received: 29 December 2022 decisions [1]. The social-emotional domain is an important developmental milestone in
Revised: 18 January 2023
early childhood [2]. Bronfenbrenner’s social-ecological model illustrated that the family
Accepted: 25 January 2023
environment closest to the child might influence the child’s development status, including
Published: 1 February 2023
social-emotional development [3]. Bronfenbrenner’s model has proposed five levels, known
as systems, that can impact the child’s development; the microsystem, mesosystem, exosys-
tem, macrosystem, and chronosystem. These five systems are interrelated and influence the
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
child’s development [4]. The microsystem, the first level of the system, includes influences
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. such as family, school, peers, neighborhood, health services, and religious entities that
This article is an open access article directly impact the child’s development. Within this system, the child has a bidirectional
distributed under the terms and relationship with their environment. The child’s immediate environment can influence how
conditions of the Creative Commons the child learns, reacts, and behaves toward the environment and people [4,5]. A positive
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// or negative home environment might influence the child’s social-emotional development.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Parental perception of social-emotional development may directly influence the child’s
4.0/). development. The child’s social-emotional development may differ based on their parent’s

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs13020123 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 2 of 25

norms or culture. Thus, it is crucial to understand the child’s social-emotional development

within a cultural context.
Many studies have also shown that social-emotional development is associated with
children’s success in school, academic grades, and adulthood [2,3,6,7]. Recent studies
have reported that social-emotional competence is a strong predictor of school readiness,
academic achievements, and the psychological well-being of a child [8–10]. Children
high in social-emotional competence were reported to have the ability to form positive
relationships with others and regulate and express emotions in a culturally appropriate way,
and they displayed assertive self-regulatory behavior that led to success in school, work,
and daily life [11]. In contrast, children with low social-emotional competence experience
delinquency issues, academic failure, behavioral problems in school, and substance use and
abuse in later life [12]. Furthermore, poor social-emotional competence is also associated
with poorer physical health, higher risk of financial struggles, more mental health issues,
and increased criminal offenses in adulthood [6,13].
Cultural differences in social-emotional development are a vital aspect to consider
in early childhood development research. Appropriate social behavior and emotional
expressivity in a particular country depends largely on that country’s cultural norms and
values [14]. For example, emotions and feelings are rarely explicitly communicated in
public among East Asian culture. Group harmony and relatedness, with the associated
moderation in all matters of the heart, is one of the core values within the East Asian
culture [15]. However, in another culture, the cultivation of emotional expression may be
highly encouraged as it is viewed positively, representing individuality, autonomy, and
truth to self.
Similarly, parental beliefs and parenting practices are also shaped by cultural values
and norms [16]. Most East Asian cultures, particularly Chinese, often use authoritarian
parenting, where parents are strict, have high control, and show low warmth toward their
children. This type of parenting within East Asian cultures is heavily influenced by Confu-
cianism teaching that focuses on filial piety, the lifelong obligation to the family, and inter-
personal harmony [17]. From young, children are taught to have self-control, be obedient to
their parents, respect the elderly, and be modest [18]. In contrast, Western cultures often use
authoritative parenting, where the parent is not as controlling and expresses more warmth
toward their children [17]. Many studies have reported that parenting styles influence
children’s development, particularly social-emotional development [17,19,20]. Children
with authoritarian parenting are often reported to have higher internalizing problems,
poor social competence, and maladaptive development, while children with authoritative
parenting exhibit independence and better social competence. It should be noted, however,
that the definitions of social-emotional competence are derived from Western cultures [21].
In contrast, based on the Western cultures’ definitions of social competence, children that
experienced authoritarian parenting may have maladaptive social-emotional development
within the East Asian culture, being quiet, shy, and reserved in front of authority, such as
teachers and the elderly, and obeying instructions are perceived as socially well-mannered.
Other international studies have reported cultural differences between Eastern and Western
cultures. Thus, it is vital to understand and interpret children’s emotions and behavior
within the context of the children’s culture itself [17,22].
Social-emotional behavior may be valued and perceived differently across different
contexts and cultural groups [23,24]. However, research on social-emotional development
is mainly from North America, Europe, the United Kingdom, and Australia [25,26]. As
the importance of social-emotional development in children has become more widely
acknowledged by parents, teachers, researchers, and policymakers outside of Asia, studies
on social-emotional development have begun to gain attention in Asia, in terms of both the
impact of cultural differences and the social-emotional development itself [27]. Although
there are studies published on children’s social-emotional development in Asia, these
have not been systematically summarized. A synthesis of these studies will help identify
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 3 of 25

and map the findings of these studies of social-emotional development in Asia, thereby
providing a more precise understanding of the research findings to date.
This review aims to explore and summarize the studies of social-emotional develop-
ment conducted in Asian countries. This review answers the questions: (1) What are the
Asian countries that have conducted studies on social-emotional development in children?
(2) What are the types of study designs used to examine the social-emotional development
of children in Asia? (3) What domains of social-emotional development have been studied
in Asia? (4) What are their key findings? This review aims to summarize the existing
peer-reviewed social-emotional research conducted in “Asia” and provide suggestions for
future research.

2. Materials and Methods

This review utilized a systematic review process to explore the social-emotional de-
velopment research conducted with children in Asia. We conducted this systematic re-
view based on the Guidelines for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-analyses (PRISMA) [28]. The protocol for this review was registered in PROSPERO
(CRD42021238826). The systematic review involved the four stages below:

2.1. Stage 1: Identify the Search Strategy

An electronic search was conducted by GHY and JX in four electronic databases and
one web search engine interface, including PubMed, ScienceDirect, Ebscohost, and Google
Scholar, on 4 January 2021, using the following search terms:
(“social-emotional” OR “socioemotional” OR “emotional intelligence” OR “social in-
telligence”) AND (“children” OR “toddler”) AND (“Asia”). The complete search strategies
are provided in Supplementary File S1.
Besides the databases search, the reviewers further searched the reference lists of
retrieved studies for other potentially relevant studies. The reviewers (GHY and JX) only
included primary research articles that were in line with the aims of this review. The
reviewers did not restrict the years of the publication to minimize introduction to bias.
The reviewers screened the databases for eligible studies based on titles and abstracts.
Following that, the reviewers independently screened for full texts for potentially eligible
studies. The reviewers used the Mendeley software to verify the existence of duplicate
references. The selection procedure was documented according to PRISMA and reported in
a flowchart (see Figure 1). The reviewers (GHY and JX) contacted the authors if the relevant
articles were not available in full-text. All discrepancies among reviewers (GHY and JX)
were resolved through discussion and guidance from the third reviewer (MHL).

2.2. Stage 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were: (1) original studies (both ob-
servational and experimental); (2) study participants aged ≤18 years; (3) social-emotional
functioning must be either the main focus of the study or one of the main domains studied;
(4) studies conducted within Asia; and (5) this systematic review study will also include
studies related to social-emotional constructs (e.g., self-regulation). The exclusion criteria
were: (1) dissertations, book chapters, unpublished manuscripts, conference abstracts, and
review articles; and (2) non-English articles. The definition of children varies across Asia.
Thus, this review study defined children as any person aged 0–18 years old. This definition
is consistent with the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child definition [30]. Asia
is the world’s largest and most populous continent with about 60% of the world’s popu-
lation [31]. The Asia continent consists of six main geographical regions: Northern Asia,
Western Asia, Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, and Southeast Asia [32]. This
review includes all regions of Asia to reduce the definition bias of “Asia”.
Behav. Sci. 2023,
Behav. 13,
Sci. x FOR
2023, 13, PEER
123 REVIEW 4 of 33 4 of 25

FigureFigure
1. PRISMA flow diagram
1. PRISMA of the literature
flow diagram reviewreview
of the literature on social-emotional development
on social-emotional of chil-of chil-
development
dren in Asia. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
dren in Asia. Based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
framework [29].
framework [29].

2.2. Stage
2.3. 2: Inclusion
Stage and
3: Data Exclusionand
Extraction Criteria
Quality Assessment
The inclusion criteria conducted
The reviewers for this systematic reviewsteps
the following were:to(1)decide
originalonstudies (both ob-
the inclusion studies:
servational and experimental); (2) study participants aged ≤ 18 years; (3)
(1) search the four databases and web search engine using the search strategy mentioned social-emotional
functioning
above;must be eitherduplication
(2) remove the main focusandofmerge
the studythe or one of
search the main
results domains
using Mendeleystudied;
software;
(4) studies conducted
(3) remove within Asia;
non-eligible studiesand (5) this
using systematic
titles review
and abstract; study will
(4) retrieve andalso include
examine eligible
studiesstudies
relatedfor
to social-emotional
full-text potential; constructs
(5) apply(e.g.,the self-regulation).
inclusion criteria Theandexclusion
shortlistcriteria
the studies;
were: (6)
(1)discussion
dissertations,
and book chapters,
resolution unpublished
between the reviewers manuscripts, conference
on study inclusion and abstracts,
exclusion.
and reviewAll articles; and (2)
data were non-English extracted
independently articles. The definition
by the reviewersof children
(GHY and varies
JX) across
and entered
Asia. Thus, this review
into Microsoft study
Excel. Datadefined children
extracted included as the
anycharacteristics
person aged 0–18 of theyears
studiesold. This year
(author,
definition is consistentcountry
of publication, with the ofUNICEF Convention
the study, aims of theonstudy),
the Rights of the Child
the methods used definition
in the studies
(age is
[30]. Asia range, disabilities
the world’s or special
largest population,
and most populous subjects involved,
continent screening
with about 60%orofdiagnostic
the
world’smeasures, type[31].
population of study
The design, social-emotional
Asia continent consists domains studied),
of six main as well asregions:
geographical the summary
and Asia,
Northern key findings
WesternofAsia,the studies.
Central Three corresponding
Asia, Eastern authors Asia,
Asia, Southern were contacted
and Southeast via e-mail
to obtain
Asia [32]. additional
This review includesinformation when
all regions necessary,
of Asia to reduce andthe
only one author
definition responded.
bias of “Asia”. The
reviewers (GHY and JX) conducted an inter-rater reliability check based on ten papers
to ensure
2.3. Stage 3: Dataappropriate
Extraction and categorizations,
Quality Assessmentconsistency, and credibility of the data. Any dis-
agreements
The reviewersamong
conductedthe reviewers weresteps
the following discussed to reach
to decide on thea inclusion
consensus. The reviewers
studies: (1)
(GHY and JX) then independently assessed the studies’
search the four databases and web search engine using the search strategy mentionedquality using the Strengthening
above;the(2)Reporting of Observational
remove duplication Studies
and merge the in Epidemiology
search results using(STROBE)
Mendeley statement
software; assessment
(3)
tool [33]. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion
remove non-eligible studies using titles and abstract; (4) retrieve and examine eligible and guidance from the third
reviewer (MHL). The STROBE statement assessment tool is a 22-item checklist that should
studies for full-text potential; (5) apply the inclusion criteria and shortlist the studies; (6)
be included in articles reporting for observational research such as cohort, case-control, and
discussion and resolution between the reviewers on study inclusion and exclusion.
cross-sectional studies to ensure adequate reporting and assessment of the strengths and
All data were independently extracted by the reviewers (GHY and JX) and entered
weaknesses of the study. Eighteen checklist items are common to all three observational
into Microsoft Excel. Data extracted included the characteristics of the studies (author,
research designs, and the other four items (i.e., items 6, 12, 14, and 15) are specific variations
year of publication, country of the study, aims of the study), the methods used in the stud-
according to the study design (see Supplementary File S2). The STROBE checklist score
ies (age range, disabilities or special population, subjects involved, screening or diagnostic
is a summation of the total number of items applicable, with minimum scores of 23 and
measures, type of study design, social-emotional domains studied), as well as the sum-
maximum scores of 25.
mary and key findings of the studies. Three corresponding authors were contacted via e-
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 5 of 25

2.4. Stage 4: Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting the Results

All study findings were entered into Microsoft Excel. Data extraction and analysis
was performed using Microsoft Excel. The reviewers (GHY and JX) were unable to perform
a meta-analysis due to the clinical heterogeneity of the study characteristics and findings.
Based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, performing
meta-analysis with clinically diverse studies can be meaningless and the genuine differences
may be obscured [34].

2.5. Search Results

The initial search yielded 3377 records in total, with 3360 records found from the
four electronic search databases (2992 from Google Scholar, 183 from PubMed, 184 from
ScienceDirect, and one from Ebscohost), and 17 studies found by reviewing the reference
lists and citation searching. There were 3117 records after the duplicates were removed.
Following screening of the titles and abstracts, 117 studies were selected for further evalua-
tion. After further review and application of the selection criteria, 45 studies were selected
for inclusion in this review. A PRISMA flow diagram is prepared to illustrate the study
selection process (see Figure 1).
The extracted data were summarized by the study’s country, the type of study design,
and the social-emotional domains studied. From the extracted data, six themes emerged;
which were (1) social-emotional development; (2) social competence; (3) emotional devel-
opment; (4) problem behavior; (5) self-regulation; and (6) social-emotional learning. One
study that could not be categorized as it coded into more than one category. Three studies
were collated into one category as they measured the same social-emotional domain but
differed in the definition used.

3. Results
3.1. Summary of the Included Study Characteristics
The majority of the studies were published in 2020 (n = 11, 24.4%), followed by seven
(15.6%) studies in 2018 and 2019 and six (13.3%) studies in 2017. From 2010 to 2016,
one to four (2.2–8.9%) studies were published annually (see Supplementary File S3). A
total of 46,625 participants involved in these social-emotional studies were children with
typical development, parents and teachers, and 689 were children with disabilities (physical
or developmental). A majority of these studies involved only children as an informant
(n = 18, 40.0%), followed by 17 studies (37.8%) that involved either parent or teacher with
the child, five studies (11.1%) that included all three (parent, teacher, child) as informants,
three studies (6.7%) that involved teacher only, and two studies (4.4%) involved the parent
only. Table 1 presents a summary of the characteristics of the included studies and their
key findings.

3.2. Summary of Social-Emotional Research in Asian Countries

All 45 studies included for qualitative synthesis were primary studies on social-
emotional development published in English and were within the Asia continent. Out of
the 45 studies, 13 originated in China, seven in Hong Kong (HK), 3 each in India, South
Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and Turkey, and 1 study each in Japan, Pakistan, and
Taiwan. Two studies compared social-emotional development in two countries (India and
China, U.S. and South Korea) (see Supplementary File S4).

3.3. Summary of the Type of Study Design

Among the 45 studies, 28 (62.2%) were cross-sectional, 7 (15.6%) were cohort/longitudinal
studies, 7 (15.6%) were experimental research, and 3 (6.7%) were mixed-method studies
(see Supplementary File S5).
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 6 of 25

Table 1. A summary of included social-emotional development studies from Asia (n = 45).

Social-Emotional
Author, Year Country Age Range Samples Description Study Design Summary of Key Findings
Domains Studied
A project conducted in early childhood environmental education setting
Abshor, U. that effectively raised children’s social-emotional development by 22% at
Indonesia 3–4 years old 15 children (6 boys, 9 girls) Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2017 [35] the end of cycle-2.
Arslan Ciftci et al., The Turkish Social-Emotional Assessment/Evaluation Measure (SEAM)
Turkey 48–66 months old 394 children and their parent Cross-sectional Social-emotional showed suitable linguistic equivalence, validity, and reliability.
2019 [36]
Goh et al., 49 students, their parent, and Preschool Social-Emotional Competency Inventory (P-SECI) showed high
Malaysia 5–6 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional reliability index of 0.98 for Teachers and 0.95 for Parents.
2019 [37] teacher
Mixed- method Children with dyslexia showed 20.5% improvement in the Southampton
Hamzah, M. 6 dyslexia students and their Emotional Literacy Scales (SELS) scores after attending the Speech and
Singapore 7–11 years old (Quantitative and Social-emotional
2019 [38] parent, and 2 teachers Drama Arts (SDA) program for one year.
Qualitative)
Viewing of 20–30 min/day was associated with a decreased risk of low
Intusoma et al., social-emotional competence (SEC) compared to non-viewers after
Thailand 1 and 3 years old 4157 children Cohort study Social-emotional
2013 [39] adjustments for confounding factors.
The adaptability of infants showed a negative correlation with
Kim et al., 51 infants and their parent externalizing problem behaviors.
Korea 1–2 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional The boys’ social competence scores were significantly lower than the girls’
2011 [40] (30 boys 21 girls)
scores when controlled for similar age and gender.
The anger-aggression scores of boys from a non-Cantonese-speaking
Lam et al., 1326 children and background were higher than girls, rated by their Cantonese-speaking
Hong Kong 3–6 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2016 [21] 106 early child educators teachers.
990 children (87 clinical diagnoses The Social-Emotional Well-Being of Early Childhood (SEWEC)
2-months Intervention Project developed based on the Wisconsin Pyramid Model
of autism, ADHD, Asperger’s,
Lam et al., Intervention significantly improved social competence and reduced
Hong Kong 3–6 years old dyslexia, and intellectual Social-emotional
2017 [41] (Experimental anxiety-withdrawal and anger-aggression in kindergarten children aged
disabilities) and
research) 2.5–6 years old.
106 teachers
Chinese Inventory of Children’s Socioemotional Competence (CICSEC)
demonstrated excellent internal consistencies.
Li et al., The criterion validity was positively correlated with school readiness (rs
Hong Kong 3–6 years old 1731 children Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2020 [42] ranging from 0.32 to 0.68) and negatively with problem behaviors (rs
ranging from −0.27–0.07).
Malaysian early childhood educators have a moderate perception of
Mohamed et al., social-emotional development, and demonstrated a poor understanding
Malaysia 332 early childhood educators Cross-sectional Social-emotional of the factors associated with social-emotional development and how
2020 [43]
social-emotional strengths can be taught in the classroom.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 7 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

Social-Emotional
Author, Year Country Age Range Samples Description Study Design Summary of Key Findings
Domains Studied
Children’s level of social-emotional development was closely associated
Mohamed et al., with mother’s education level, mother’s occupation, and father’s income,
Malaysia 3–4 years old 237 children Cross-sectional Social-emotional showed an average relationship to the father’s education level, and a poor
2018 [44]
relationship with the father’s occupation.
Perceived parental care was found associated with the quality of
Ong et al., Longitudinal socioemotional development, while optimal parenting by the father was
Singapore 7–9 years old 445 children and their parent Social-emotional
2017 [45] (9 years) essential for children with more externalizing problems in childhood.
Mixed-method Parents placed more importance on children’s social-emotional skills and
Ren et al.,
China 3–5 years old 154 parents of preschool children (quantitative and Social-emotional compliance than academic skills.
2016 [7]
qualitative)
Relation between co-parenting quality and children’s academic readiness
Ren et al., 336 Chinese children and their Longitudinal was mediated by children’s behavioral regulation, except for the father’s
China 5–6 years old Social-emotional
2020 [26] parents (7 months) parenting practices.
Children’s withdrawn behaviors and attention problems were negatively
Ren et al., 154 parents (133 mothers related to their preacademic skills.
China 3–6 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional Parent- and teacher-reported positive social behaviors were positively
2016 [25] 21 fathers)
related to children’s preacademic skills.
Extra-curricular involvement was positively associated with children’s
Ren et al., Longitudinal cognitive and language development, but not with social-emotional
China 3–6 years old 695 preschoolers and their parent Social-emotional development, after controlling for demographic variables and children’s
2020 [46] (1 year)
prior performance.
The Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Intervention
group (IG) teachers reported more improvement in children’s
Bilir Seyhan et al., social-emotional skills, interpersonal relationship skills, and emotion
Turkey 4–6 years old 560 students and 41 teachers Experimental study Social-emotional regulation.
2017 [47]
IG children showed a higher level of prosocial behavior, increased
compliance, better problem-solving skills, and more positive feelings.
37.2% of left-behind children had social-emotional problems, and 40% of
847 left-behind children (either caregivers reported depressive symptoms.
Tan et al., Caregiver depressive symptoms positively correlated with
China 0–3 years old one or both parents have migrated Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2020 [48] social-emotional problems in left-behind children, and the mediation by
for work)
the home environment was 15.6% of the total effect.
201 parents/caregivers of children
Van Driessche et al., with hearing impairment and 104 Low educational attainment and domestic violence were associated with
India 3–16 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional caregiving strain.
2014 [49] parents/caregivers of
normal-hearing children
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 8 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

Social-Emotional
Author, Year Country Age Range Samples Description Study Design Summary of Key Findings
Domains Studied
54.0% of children were at risk of developmental delay, 60.3% at risk of
language delay, 36.3% at risk of motor delay, and 40.6% at risk of the
Wang et al., social-emotional problem.
China 6–24 months 1809 infants Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2020 [50] Quality of the family environment was significantly associated with the
child’s development.
975 students of single-parent and
Wang et al., two-parent families Children from two-parent families scored significantly higher on
China 10–13 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional measures of social-emotional development than single-parent families.
2019 [51] (431 single-parent and
544 two-parent)
A break every 2–3 weeks had positive impacts on boarding school
students, while every four weeks or more had negative effects on
Wang et al., boarding school students.
China 9–14 years old 6638 boarding school students Cross-sectional Social-emotional Taking a break every 2–3 weeks had a more positive effect on both
2020 [14]
left-behind children and commuting daily between home and school
students.
Left-behind children’s social-emotional competence was significantly
lower than those under parental guardianship.
Wang et al., Left-behind children living on campus had a higher negative
China 9–14 years old 6638 boarding school students Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2017 [52] social-emotional competence than left-behind children that
commute daily.
Children with physical disabilities met academic expectations in school
Yeo et al., 60 children (30 physical disability and had comparable self-esteem but experienced peer problems and
Singapore 8–16 years old Cross-sectional Social-emotional
2018 [53] and 30 typical development) participated less in school activities.
Interaction Rating Scale (IRS) is a reliable, valid, feasible, and
Anme et al., 18–42 months,
Japan 823 children and their caregivers Cohort study Social competence practical tool.
2010 [54] 7 years old
Bimla et al., There was a significant increase in social competence with self-concept.
India 9–13 years old 44 children Cross-sectional Social competence
2012 [55]
Gifted students positively perceived their interpersonal ability and peer
relationships at a level comparable to or higher than non-gifted students.
Lee et al., U.S. and 740 gifted students Female students in both the Korean and American samples were
12–17 years old Cross-sectional Social Competence
2012 [56] Korea (373 U.S., 367 Korea) reportedly more positive in rating their profiles of interpersonal ability
and peer relationships compared to male students.
Roh et al., 7-weeks intervention The social skills training program significantly increased peer relations.
Korea 10–12 years old 90 students Social skills
2018 [57] (experimental study)
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 9 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

Social-Emotional
Author, Year Country Age Range Samples Description Study Design Summary of Key Findings
Domains Studied
Most teachers believed that behavioral and social skill programs should
be implemented in schools at an early stage.
Mixed-method Teacher’s professional development in social skills training, teacher’s
Tong et al., Social
Hong Kong 60 teachers (quantitative and belief and attitude, and the contextual support within the school for the
2012 [58] competence
qualitative) school-wide intervention was found to influence the effectiveness of the
school-wide interventions.
Social competence level had significant positive relationship with the
persistence and rhythmicity level of temperament traits.
Yoleri, S. 112 children, their mothers, A significant positive relationship was between the level of
Turkey 5–6 years old Cross-sectional Social competence anger-aggression and the reactivity temperament trait subscales on the
2014 [59] and teachers
Social Competence and Behavior Evaluation Scale for Children (STSC).
Social competence had a significant relationship with temperament traits.
The Adaptive Emotional Abilities Scale (AEAS) was found to have
Akram et al., 469 hearing impairment students Emotional acceptable face and content validity, internal and test-retest reliability.
Pakistan 12–18 years old Cross-sectional Participants with normal hearing scored significantly higher on the AEAS
2014 [60] and 1050 normal-hearing students development
than participants with hearing impairment.
Gifted students had better emotional adjustment than the normal students.
Social-emotional development positively correlated with the intellectual
255 gifted students over-excitability, but were negatively correlated with over-excitability
Chang et al., Emotional
Taiwan 15–18 years old (123 mathematically gifted and Cross-sectional (EOE).
2019 [61] development
132 regular students) Intensive emotional over-excitability (EOE) significantly predicted
personal maladjustment.
Children’s emotional understanding was negatively correlated with
teacher-reported behavior problems and positively associated with social
competence.
Controlling maternal attitude toward children’s positive emotional
Lee et al., 70 preschoolers, their mother, and Emotional expressions was negatively correlated only with teacher-reported
Korea 4–6 years old Cross-sectional
2017 [62] teachers development behavior problems.
Maternal attitude toward children’s positive emotional expressiveness
moderated the relationship between emotional understanding ability, and
behavior problems and social competence.
Suburban Indian mothers were more likely to endorse relational
socialization goals than autonomous socialization goals.
Raval et al., Emotional Children’s self-reported dysregulation partially mediated the positive
India 11–12 years old 110 mothers and their children Cross-sectional
2014 [63] development association between the report of the mother’s non-supportive behaviors
and child behavior problems.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 10 of 25

Table 1. Cont.

Social-Emotional
Author, Year Country Age Range Samples Description Study Design Summary of Key Findings
Domains Studied
Mothers’ supportive responses and child emotional regulation
sequentially mediated maternal relational socialization goals and child
Raval et al., India and 305 mothers and their children Emotional internalizing problems.
10–12 years old Cross-sectional
2018 [64] China (147 India 158 China) development Children’s emotion dysregulation mediated the relation between maternal
non-supportive responses and child externalizing problems.
No significant difference in social-emotional learning competencies
Iaosanurak et al., 8-weeks intervention Social-emotional between the Thailand and Cambodia students.
Thailand 11–12 years old 23 children Only female students in both countries showed a significant increase in
2015 [65] (experimental study) learning
empathy and responsibility at post-intervention.
5-months Improvement in the L2B group and deterioration in the control group
Lam et al., Social-emotional (IAU) was observed on emotional control, working memory,
Hong Kong 11–15 years old 115 students intervention
2020 [66] learning self-monitoring and anxiety/depression.
(experimental study)
There were significant differences in teachers’ perceptions of
Ye et al., Social-emotional social-emotional learning based on teacher qualification and the
China 375 teachers Cross-sectional type of school.
2020 [67] learning
No significant differences in school location and teaching experience.
Asri Dewi et al., Traditional game Magoak-goakan has a positive influence on the
Turkey 5–6 years old 52 children Experimental study Prosocial behavior development of prosocial behavior in the intervention group.
2018 [68]
Children’s prosocial behavior positively predicted their academic
Guo et al., achievement, and peer acceptance played a mediating role in the pathway.
China 11–12 years old 456 students Cross-sectional Prosocial behavior
2018 [69]
Cool self-regulation was found to predict children’s
achievement differently.
Cool self-regulation was found to predict children’s early academic
Sun et al., learning, general knowledge, and fine and gross motor skills.
Hong Kong 3–5 years old 951 children and their mothers Cross-sectional Self-regulation
2020 [70] Hot self-regulation only positively predicted children’s gross motor skills.
Both cool and hot self-regulation were found to negatively predict
children’s hyperactivity level.
Zhi et al., Family savings for children were positively associated with children’s
China 10–15 years old 2182 children and their parent Cohort study Self-regulation level of self-control.
2020 [71]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 11 of 25

3.4. Summary of the Social-Emotional Domain Studied

The vast majority of the studies focused on the social-emotional (overall) development
domain (n = 24, 53.3%), followed by the specific social competence (n = 7, 15.6%), emotional
development (n = 5, 11.1%), social-emotional learning (n = 3, 6.7%), problem behavior
(n = 3, 6.7%), self-regulation (n = 2, 4.4%), and social-emotional learning and problem
behavior (n = 1, 2.2%) (see Supplementary File S6).

3.5. Summary of the Key Findings of the 45 Included Studies

This systematic review study included studies on the social-emotional properties scale
because both reviewers (GHY and JX) agreed that these studies are still relevant to one
of the inclusion criteria, which is that the study focus should be on the social-emotional
domain or either one of the social-emotional constructs. Moreover, there has been a lack
of studies on the development and validation of social-emotional measures for young
children, especially in Asian countries [9]. The studies on social-emotional properties
included in this systematic review may help increase the understanding of the type of
social-emotional measures validated in Asia and provide insights into the reliability and
validity of the social-emotional measures used in Asian countries.
The reviewers (GHY and JX) read the full-text studies, and discussed and agreed
on the six themes identified from the data extraction while considering specifically the
purpose of this systematic review study. The reviewers (GHY and JX) ensured the coding
consistency to review these 45 included studies systematically. The coding consistency
was completed based on the social-emotional development domains studied. Under the
emotional development theme, the reviewers reported the key findings of studies that
examine children’s emotional development domain; the social-emotional learning and self-
regulation themes were handled similarly. However, for the social-emotional development
(overall), social competence, and problem behavior themes, the reviewers coded similar
terms or definitions into one theme for simpler key findings. Some included studies in
this systematic review may use different terms to describe and examine the same social-
emotional domains. Under the social-emotional development (overall) theme, the reviewers
reported the key findings for studies that do not specify a specific social-emotional domain
construct. For the social competence theme, the reviewers collated studies that examined
the social skills and social competence domains and reported their key findings. Thus, the
six themes that were identified from the data that was extracted were: (1) social-emotional
development (overall); (2) social competence; (3) emotional development; (4) problem
behavior; (5) self-regulation; and (6) social-emotional learning. These six themes were then
further divided into the names of the countries where the studies were conducted.

3.5.1. Theme 1: Social-Emotional (Overall)

Social-emotional development (overall) was the most studied domain (n = 24, 53.3%)
among the 45 studies reviewed. In China, social-emotional (overall) development in
this systematic review referred to studies that do not specify a specific construct within
social-emotional development. There are nine studies conducted in China that examined
social-emotional (overall) development, of which five examined the association between
social-emotional development and children’s academic skills [15,25,26].
The remaining three studies were on the family structure and home environment [50,52,53].
One study developed a social-emotional development scale for the Chinese population to
measure boarding schools’ effect on left-behind children and their development [54].
Of the five studies that examined the association between social-emotional and chil-
dren’s academic skills, most of the key findings were consistent with other studies, whereby
there is a negative correlation between children’s social-emotional development and aca-
demic skills. Ren et al. [47] found that the father’s parenting does not mediate the outcomes
of children’s social-emotional development and academic skills. This finding is inconsistent
with the studies from other parts of the world, whereby parenting was reported to be one
of the mediators in children’s social-emotional functioning and academic skills [72,73].
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 12 of 25

Ren et al. [47] reported that the lack of correlation with fathers’ parenting found in this
study could be due to the self-reporting of idealistic parents rather than actual parenting
practice. Many studies have reported gender biases in the parenting roles of children’s
development within the Chinese culture [74,75]. Mothers are often the primary carer for
the child, while fathers are less of the carer for the child and work toward providing for the
family within the Asian culture [76]. Thus, it is possible that within the Chinese culture,
Chinese fathers may be less involved in children’s development than Chinese mothers.
In Malaysia, there are two studies conducted on children’s social-emotional (overall)
development. Mohamed et al. [42] conducted a cross-sectional study to examine the
influence of family socioeconomic status on children’s social-emotional development. The
researchers concluded that family socioeconomic status played a vital role in influencing
children’s social-emotional development. Similar to Ren et al. [26], this study also reported
no significant difference in children’s level of social-emotional development with the
father’s income. However, there is a strong relationship between children’s level of social-
emotional development and the mother’s education level and occupation (i.e., professional,
semi-professional, non-professional, or unemployed) and the family’s income status. The
findings from Ren et al. [47] and Mohamed et al. [42] further supported the suggestion that
fathers might have a less significant parenting role within the Asian parenting culture that
is the traditional parenting model of mothers as the primary carer for the family might still
be dominant in Asia.
Mohamed et al. [43] conducted a cross-sectional study with 332 early childhood edu-
cators in Malaysia. This study found that the early educators in Malaysia had a suitable
overview and knowledge of social-emotional development but needed knowledge of
the factors that influenced the children’s development and how to foster it in the class-
room. This study also reported a need to improve and equip teachers’ knowledge of
social-emotional development. Goh et al. [37] developed and examined the feasibility
of a Preschool Social-Emotional Competency Inventory to screen for children with poor
competency. The Preschool Social-Emotional Competency Inventory (P-SECI) has a re-
liability score of 0.95 to 0.98 and proved valid in predicting children’s social-emotional
competencies. Although this study reported high reliability scores, the researchers did not
provide information on how the reliability and validity scores of the P-SECI were achieved.
Furthermore, there was no information on whether the participant’s social-emotional com-
petencies were measured before the pilot study. Thus, the reliability and validity of the
P-SECI remain questionable as the information provided by the researchers was lacking.
In Singapore, Hamzah [38] conducted an interventional study that examined the effi-
cacy of a speech and drama program on the social-emotional development of children with
dyslexia [38]. The children who attended the intervention program showed improvement
in their social-emotional functioning. However, this interventional study did not include a
control group. Thus, this study might suffer from low internal validity. Moreover, partici-
pants in this study were aware of the purpose of the intervention program. Therefore, the
results might have been affected by criterion contamination.
Ong et al. [45] conducted a 9-year longitudinal study on social-emotional development
in Singapore to investigate whether parenting moderates between children’s early social-
emotional competence and later mental health. The authors concluded that perceived
parental care was associated with the early development of social-emotional functioning,
while paternal care was especially important for children with more externalizing problems.
In another study in Singapore, Yeo et al. [53] reported that children with physical disabilities
were comparable in their self-esteem and academic achievements with typically developing
children. However, children with physical disabilities experienced peer problems and were
likely to participate less in school activities. This study’s findings were crucial as there has
been scant research on inclusive education in the Asian context.
In Hong Kong, Li et al. [42] developed and validated a teacher-reported Chinese In-
ventory of Children’s Socioemotional Competence scale (CICSEC) for Chinese kindergarten
children. The CICSEC was reported to have demonstrated suitable psychometric properties,
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 13 of 25

whereby the overall CICSEC and the four subscales had excellent internal consistencies. The
criterion validity analysis against the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaires (SDQ) [77]
was positively correlated with school readiness and negatively with problem behavior.
The CICSEC is one of the culturally relevant social-emotional scales developed in Asia,
where the questionnaire items are consistent with the collectivistic culture in Asia. The
exploratory and confirmatory analyses on the CICSEC have found that the children’s social-
emotional competence was best represented by a four-factor model that included cognitive
control, emotion expressivity, empathy and prosocial behaviors, and emotion regulations
across child gender and grade level. This both exploratory and confirmatory finding of
the four-factor model further confirmed (currently debated) view that children’s social,
emotional, and cognitive skills are interdependent yet distinct [2,23,78]. Lam et al. [21]
examined family characteristics associated with social-emotional development and found
that boys had lower social-emotional competence than girls and that having more siblings
positively enhanced social-emotional competence in children. Lam et al. [21] reported an
interesting finding whereby boys from a non-Cantonese-speaking background were rated
higher on the anger-aggression score than girls by their teachers who are mainly from a
Cantonese-speaking background. Lam et al. [21] indicate that the differences found in
the scores were possibly due to cultural differences in interpreting the student’s behavior.
This finding is crucial as it indicates the need for more cultural studies to be conducted
across Asia to understand social-emotional development in children. Another study by
Lam et al. [41] was a Social-Emotional Well-Being of Early Childhood (SEWEC) interven-
tional study that evaluated the social-emotional well-being of participants in an early
childhood project in a Hong Kong kindergarten. The intervention program significantly im-
proved social-emotional competence and reduced anxiety-withdrawal and anger-aggression
in children post-intervention.
In Turkey, Bilir Seyhan et al. [47] examined the effects of the Promoting Alterna-
tive Thinking Strategies (PATHS) preschool program, which measured children’s social-
emotional development, the perceived relationship between teachers and children, and the
teachers’ ability to create positive classroom environments. This experimental study found
that students in the intervention group significantly improved their social-emotional skills,
interpersonal relationship skills, and emotion regulation compared to students in the con-
trol group. Furthermore, students and teachers in the intervention group perceived more
positivity and dependency in their relationships than those in the control group. However,
it is important to note that the observer in this experiment was not blinded to the study,
and these findings might therefore be subject to observer bias. Another Turkish researcher
performed a validation study on the Social-Emotion Assessment/Evaluation Measure-
Preschool (SEAM) [36]. The confirmatory factor analysis for the Turkish SEAM supported
the original factor structure. The researchers concluded that the SEAM measurement was a
reliable and valid measure for the Turkish population.
In Thailand, Intusoma et al. [39] reported that educational television viewing benefits
children’s social-emotional development. The study reported that 30 to 120 min of an edu-
cational program per day reduced the risk of poor social-emotional competence relative to
non-viewers. However, television viewing for more than 2 h was reported to be unhealthy
for social-emotional competence. Unfortunately, the researchers did not indicate whether
the educational television program in this study was consistent across all participants. It
is unclear which educational television program benefited the children’s social-emotional
competencies. Van Driessche et al. [49] conducted a cross-sectional study in India to assess
the predictive factors of caregiver burden and psychological comorbidities in families of
children with hearing impairments. This study found that low educational attainment
and domestic violence were associated with caregiver burden in parents of children with
hearing disabilities. Dissatisfaction with family support, behavioral problems in children,
and domestic violence were strong predictors for parental psychological morbidities, in-
fluencing social-emotional development in children with hearing disabilities. However,
no formal hearing assessments were conducted on the participants involved in this study;
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 14 of 25

thus, it is possible that children with mild hearing impairment were not recognized in this
study and were considered to be of normal hearing.
In Korea, a cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the relationship between
social-emotional development, gender, age, temperament, and maternal parenting behav-
iors [61]. Consistent with most studies, this study found that caregivers evaluated boys as
having more externalizing behavior problems than girls. This study also found a negative
correlation between children’s adaptability and behavior problems. Kim et al. reported that
overprotective or permissive parenting is associated with low social ability in children [40].
On the other hand, refusal or neglect in parenting is associated with externalizing problem
behaviors in children. In Indonesia, an observational study was conducted to examine
the effect of an environmental education project approach on children’s social-emotional
development [35]. This study found that the approach significantly improved children’s
social-emotional development by 22% and increased children’s opportunities to interact
with others.

3.5.2. Theme 2: Social Competence

The social competence domain is the second social-emotional domain studied in Asia
(n = 7, 15.6%). Five out of the seven studies on social competence used the term social
competence, while the other two studies in Hong Kong used the term social skills to
measure children’s social domain [58,79].
In Hong Kong, Ren et al. [79] conducted a longitudinal study to examine the an-
tecedents, such as the child’s gender, family socioeconomic status, and extra-curricular
activities involvement, associated with the children’s social skills. This study found that
only children from a lower socioeconomic status who participated in extra-curricular
activities had significant improvement in mathematics and reading skills and not those
from a higher socioeconomic status. Moreover, this study also reported that parents of
children from a higher socioeconomic status were more likely to enroll their children in
non-academic extra-curricular activities than those of a lower socioeconomic status. This
finding highlighted a possible connection between the socioeconomic background of par-
ents and a preference for extra-curricular activities for their children (i.e., academic versus
non-academic). However, Ren et al. [79] reported that there is no correlation between
extra-curricular activities and the development of social skills.
Tong et al. [58] conducted a mixed-methods study to examine school-wide behavior
interventions implemented in Hong Kong schools and explore teachers’ beliefs about
the social skills programs implemented in schools. This study found that most teachers
were aware of the benefit of the intervention and supported the school-wide behavior
intervention implementation for children with social-emotional behavior difficulties. The
findings in this study were consistent with the study in Malaysia, where teachers were
aware of the benefit of social-emotional development. However, they lacked the training to
implement the intervention in school [43]. The teacher’s knowledge of social-emotional
development was not examined in the Hong Kong study.
In Korea and the United States, Lee et al. [56] conducted a cross-sectional study and
found that both the Korean and United States students in the gifted group have a higher
level of social competence than in the non-gifted groups. This study also found differences
between Korean and United States gifted children in how they rated their social competence
ability. The gifted Korean students rated themselves as better at resolving conflicts. In
contrast, the gifted United States students rated themselves as better at asserting influence
and getting along well with others. Furthermore, Lee et al. reported that female students
were more able to make close friends than male students. This study’s finding contrasts
with the other studies, which reported that gifted children could experience more difficulty
creating relationships with their peers [80,81]. It is possible that the gifted students in this
study could make friends with others because the samples were recruited from the same
academic center so that the students may have the same level of giftedness. It is unclear
whether gifted students can establish relationships with non-gifted students as easily.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 15 of 25

In India, Bimla et al. [55] examined the association between social competency and
children’s self-concept among rural children in India. This study found a significant
positive relationship between children’s self-concept and social competence. Children who
score higher on the self-concept scale were also found to have higher social competence
scores on the Social Attributes Checklist. However, the findings from this study were not
generalizable because the samples were too small. Moreover, this study did not elaborate
on how the children were recruited from the schools. Yoleri [59] found a significant
positive relationship between children’s temperament traits and social competence in
Turkey. Yoleri also reported a significant positive relationship between the level of anger
and the reactivity/withdrawal temperament. The findings from both studies were in
line with past research from outside of Asia [82]. Thus, these findings suggested that
children’s temperament and self-concept might predict their level of social competence
despite cultural differences.
In Japan, Anme et al. [54] carried out a cohort study to describe the Interaction Rating
Scale (IRS) features as an evidence-based index of children’s social skills and the quality of
parenting. This study found that the IRS can measure children’s social skill development
and the quality of parenting with high validity. However, there is no information on
how the validity of the IRS was measured. Furthermore, there is also no demographic
information on the clinical population in this study. This study could not be generalized
as the validation for IRS used a cohort sample from the Japan Science and Technology
Agency (JST) project. In Korea, Roh et al. [57] found that children who participated in
a 7-week school-based social skill program significantly increased the quality of their
peer relationships. Additionally, children from middle school who did not have peer
relationships prior to the 7-week program were able to establish peer relationships with
children of the same age. It is important to note that the effect of the school-based social
skills program was measured using the Name Generator Question, where the participants
were required to nominate the name of their peer that corresponded to each question, so
a participant might nominate the name of a fellow peer without having established any
relationship. Furthermore, this was a pre-post-intervention study. Hence, other factors
might contribute to the result of this study.

3.5.3. Theme 3: Emotional Development

Five studies in Asia studied the children’s emotional development domain (n = 5,
11.1%). Three out of the five studies on emotional development focused on maternal
attitudes and children’s emotional development. All three studies reported that poor
maternal attitude negatively correlated with children’s emotional development.
In India, two studies reported that children’s self-reported emotional dysregulation
partially mediated the relationship between the mother’s self-reported non-supportive
attitude and children’s behavioral problems. Additionally, a factor analysis that compared
maternal socialization behavior in the Asian context (India and China) found that parental
expressive encouragement was unrelated to children’s problem behavior [64]. However,
in a Western context, parental expressive encouragement was a supportive response. The
findings of Raval et al. [64] were consistent with a study conducted in Korea [62]. The
researchers in Korea reported that children with controlling maternal attitudes were nega-
tively correlated with teachers’ reported behavior problems only [62]. Thus, these findings
highlighted the normal differences in parental emotional expression and the importance of
understanding children’s functioning in a cultural context.
In Pakistan, Akram et al. [60] compared the levels of adaptive emotional abilities
between adolescents with hearing disabilities and normal-hearing adolescents. This study
also examined the sociodemographic variables that might predict the emotional devel-
opment of adolescents with hearing disabilities. Consistent with past studies, this study
found that adolescents with hearing disabilities scored significantly lower on the adaptive
emotional abilities scale than normal-hearing adolescents. Akram et al. [60] noted that
hearing disability was not the only factor leading to poor adaptive emotional ability. The
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 16 of 25

sociodemographic variables showed that the accessibility and availability of hearing and
speech services, the presence of hearing-impaired family members, and the preferred com-
munication language between the adolescent and family members were all associated with
the adolescents’ adaptive emotional abilities.
In Taiwan, Chang et al. [61] carried out a study that assessed the level of emotional
development among Taiwanese children based on Dabrowski’s theory [83]. The researchers
also assessed whether emotional development and over-excitability predict personal ad-
justment in gifted and normal students. There were 123 mathematically gifted students and
132 normal students aged 16 to 18 years old involved in this study. Based on Dabrowski’s
theory [83], emotional over-excitability is the most important characteristic that effectively
predicts the level of emotional development among gifted students. However, this study
found a negative correlation between emotional development and over-excitability. The
researchers reported that cultural-specific variables might explain the discrepancy found in
this study. Given the discrepancy in findings, it is important to note that this Taiwanese
study only included mathematically gifted students, and the findings did not represent
other gifted students in Taiwan.

3.5.4. Theme 4: Social-Emotional Learning (SEL)

In China, Ye et al. [67] carried out a cross-sectional study with 375 early childhood
educators to examine teachers’ perceptions of SEL in early childhood centers in China.
This study found that teachers’ perceptions of SEL in China were at a moderate level. In
addition, this study found that female teachers with both higher qualifications and teaching
in a private school are more supportive of SEL than male or female teachers with lower
qualifications or those teaching at public schools. These findings were consistent with the
Malaysian study that examined teachers’ perceptions of social-emotional development
in children [43]. However, Malaysian teachers had a lower understanding of the factors
associated with social-emotional development in children, and the teachers reported that
they did not know how social-emotional skills could be taught in a classroom setting.
In Thailand, Pinchumphonsan et al. [84] reported that a 15-week SEL intervention
program significantly reduced the number of problem behaviors and increased positive
behaviors in children who completed the program. However, similar to the other pre-post-
intervention studies mentioned above, the improvement in participants’ behaviors could
be attributed to other factors unrelated to the intervention program. Iaosanurak et al. [65]
developed an SEL intervention program to compare Thai and Cambodian cultural groups
and gender differences. However, the only significant finding was for gender differences in
emotional intelligence, as Iaosanurak et al. found that the female participant’s empathy and
responsibility scores increased after the intervention program while the male participant’s
did not. Thailand and Cambodia are neighboring countries; the cultures in Thailand and
Cambodia may be so similar that comparison across cultures led to a non-significant result.
In Hong Kong, Lam et al. [66] implemented and evaluated the effectiveness of a
mindfulness program among four of the lowest academic tier groups in a public secondary
school. This study found significant differences between the intervention and control
groups with medium to large effect sizes on emotional control, working memory, self-
monitoring, and anxiety/depression. The finding from Lam et al.’s study implied that
the mindfulness program used, Learning to BREATHE (L2B), may be cross-culturally
effective among the Asian population, and more studies in Asia are needed to validate the
program further.

3.5.5. Theme 5: Problem Behavior

Three studies among those reviewed studied children’s problem behavior (n = 3, 6.75%).
In China, Yang et al. [85] conducted a cross-sectional study to estimate the prevalence
of behavioral problems and their risk factors among school children aged 6 to 16 years
old in Beijing. There were 9295 students from urban and suburban districts in Beijing
who participated in this study, and the detection rate of behavioral problems was 16.7%.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 17 of 25

However, the incidence of behavioral problems decreased with age. The researchers
reported that behavioral problems were more significant in children aged 6–11 years and
not significant in children aged 12–16 years. The researchers found that girls experienced
more internalizing behavioral problems (e.g., depression, withdrawal, anxiety), and boys
experienced more externalizing behavioral problems (e.g., aggressive behavior, social
problems, hyperactivity). Yang et al. [85] also found that older children had a better level of
social competence than younger children and theorized that the behavioral problems in the
younger age groups might be due to China’s one-child policy. These children did not have
siblings and might have had fewer opportunities to interact with other children outside
school. In another study in China, Guo et al. [71] found prosocial behavior as a predictive
factor for academic success and that peer acceptance mediated between prosocial behavior
and academic success. These findings were consistent with the literature in the Western
cultural context [86].
In Indonesia, Asri Dewi et al. [68] conducted a quasi-experimental study to assess the
effect of playing a traditional game (Magoak-goakan) on developing prosocial behavior in
preschool children in Bali. Fifty-two preschool children aged 5–6 years old were involved
in this placebo control study (1:1 ratio). This study reported a significant increase in the
intervention group’s prosocial behavior, while no changes were found in the control group.
Although this is a small sample size study, it is worth noting that situational factors such
as traditional game playing might influence the development of prosocial behavior. More
research is required to examine the situational factors in children’s prosocial behavior
in Asia.

3.5.6. Theme 6: Self-Regulation

Two studies examined children’s self-regulation in Asia (n = 2, 4.4%).
Self-regulation is one of the domains in children’s development. Hot and cold self-
regulation are the two aspects of self-regulation proposed by early researchers to avoid over-
simplifying the self-regulation process and include the cognition and emotion domains [87].
Cool self-regulation requires the individual to solve emotionally neutral problems such
as color or number sorting tasks. The cool self-regulatory task is similar to the executive
function task. In contrast, hot self-regulation requires the individual to solve emotionally
arousing problems, such as those involving delayed gratification. The hot self-regulatory
task is often similar to the effortful control task [70,87].
In Hong Kong, Sun et al. [70] examined the development of cool and hot self-regulation
in a Chinese sample of preschoolers in Hong Kong. This study also examined the relation-
ships between cool and hot self-regulation and children’s academic achievement, behav-
ioral problems, general knowledge, and fine motor and gross motor skills. Sun et al. [70]
found that the cool self-regulation domain positively predicts children’s academic achieve-
ments, general knowledge, and fine motor and gross motor skills. In contrast, the hot
self-regulation domain positively predicted children’s gross motor skills only. Both cool
and hot self-regulation negatively predicted children’s hyperactivity.
Sun and Kang [70] also reported that cool and hot self-regulation might have a distinct
structure among Chinese preschoolers. Sun and Kang could not find the exploratory factor
analysis and confirmatory factor analysis fit that showed the relationship between cool and
hot self-regulation that has been found in Western samples. The researchers concluded
that Chinese culture differed from Western culture, whereby Chinese culture emphasized
children’s behavioral conformity, obeying adults, and inhibiting inner impulses. The
cultural differences found in this study might explain why most Chinese sample children
in this study, as young as three years, could regulate their behaviors despite the emotional
or motivational triggers in the hot self-regulation experimental task.
In China, Zhi et al. [71] explored the relationship between children’s self-control and
family savings for children’s future education using the China Family Panel Studies data.
This study found that children who lived in families with savings for their future education
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 18 of 25

had higher self-control than families without savings. The effect size for this study was
small (d = 0.06).

4. General Discussion
This systematic review aims to summarize the existing social-emotional research in
Asia and provide suggestions for future research. In general, this systematic review found
that although there are social-emotional development studies from various Asian countries,
most of the studies were from East Asia (e.g., China and Hong Kong). There is a dearth of
social-emotional development studies from other parts of Asia, such as Southeast, North,
West, and Central Asia. The social-emotional behavior acceptable in a particular culture
can vary across cultural groups and countries [25]. Most of the population in China and
Hong Kong are of Chinese ethnicity, and these countries may have similar values for
social-emotional competence. However, in other parts of Asia, acceptable social behavior or
expression of emotions can be perceived differently by other cultural groups. For instance,
Quah [88] reported that Malay and Indian parents were more likely to display affection
toward their children than Chinese parents. Quah [88] also found that Chinese parents
from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds were more inclined toward a parenting
style in which the parent is always right, and children should be seen and not heard [89].
Culture plays a role in children’s social-emotional development and guidance from parents.
Collie et al., Torrente et al., and Humphrey [90–92] have also called for more evidence-based
practice and evaluations of the social-emotional development studies conducted in Asia,
particularly among unique populations such as children with disabilities and ethnographic
population groups. Therefore, more studies from different parts of Asia can provide a fuller
picture of children’s social-emotional development throughout Asia.
Culture can affect parenting beliefs, values, and practices in raising children in a par-
ticular context [91]. A few studies (n = 10, 22%) in this review reported cultural differences
in social-emotional development [25,45,46,52,61–63,65,70]. One study reported significant
cultural differences in how children perceived social competence between Eastern and
Western cultures [62]. Another study also reported that because of the heavy emphasis on
behavioral conformity within Asian cultures, children in Asian cultures were reportedly
able to regulate their behavior from as young as three years old [70]. These studies had their
limitations in generalizing the results, albeit the significant findings in cultural differences.
For example, the study by Sun et al. [70] only measured the cool and hot self-regulation
domain among Hong Kong preschoolers. The extent to which the cultural differences
found in this study occur in other Asian countries, where populations often have more than
one ethnicity, remains unknown. The findings of this systematic review called for more
cross-cultural comparison studies to better understand the possible cultural differences in
children’s social-emotional development across Asia.
This systematic review also found that most social-emotional development studies in
Asia focused on children’s academic achievement and family environment. These studies
were mainly from China and Hong Kong and showed mixed findings on parenting and
children’s academic achievement, especially between the urban and rural populations
and the middle and lower socioeconomic status groups [54,76]. Ren et al. [79] reported
that parents from lower socioeconomic status were more likely to enroll their children in
academically related extra-curricular activities than in non-academically related activities.
In contrast, Tan et al. [48] reported that caregivers from the rural population prioritized
their children’s social-emotional development rather than academic achievement. Other
studies have shown that children’s academic achievement might have been highly valued
in Chinese cultures. Perhaps this is why many studies conducted in Asia are related
to children’s academic achievement [69,93]. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of studies
from other parts of Asia. Thus, it remains inconclusive that social-emotional development
predicts academic achievement or that the family environment influences social-emotional
development in all Asian cultures.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 19 of 25

Gender differences in social-emotional competence have been reported in many inter-

national studies [94,95]. In many of the reviewed social-emotional development studies in
Asia, consistent findings determined that boys had lower social-emotional competence than
girls [22,40,85]. Both Kim et al. [40] and Yang et al. [85] reported that gender discrepancies
in social-emotional development could be attributed to biological development in boys
and girls. Both studies found that boys exhibited poor social behavior while girls exhibited
emotional problems (i.e., depression and anxiety). Guo et al. [69] reported that the gender
discrepancies in social-emotional development were dependent on the informant (i.e.,
parent, teacher, peers) and the social-emotional assessment used (i.e., rating, observation,
nomination). This explanation is consistent with other studies where the parents were
likely to report internalizing problems, and teachers were likely to report externalizing
problems [85,96,97].
This systematic review also found that most of the intervention studies implemented as
part of the various studies significantly improved children’s social-emotional development.
However, most of these intervention studies were pre-post-intervention designs and did
not have a control group [38,57,65,68]. There are possibilities for other confounding factors
that might have been responsible for improving the social-emotional development post-
intervention. In addition, only one or two intervention studies were conducted in each
country, for example, Indonesia and Korea. Asri Dewi et al.’s [68] study consisted of only
52 samples, and Roh et al.’s [57] study used only the Name Generator Questionnaires to
evaluate the effectiveness of the school-based social skills training program. Both studies
have their limitations. The intervention’s effectiveness may not be generalized, as it has not
been tested with a broader population.
Besides the paucity and uneven distribution of social-emotional development studies
in Asia, this systematic review also found a need for high-quality studies. For instance,
there was no information on the study samples except for the participants’ ages in Anme
et al.’s study from Japan [54]. The study by Anme et al. [54] should have at least reported
the participant’s gender distribution to prevent the premature conclusion that gender
differences do not exist in any research [98]. Other information, such as the caregiver’s age
and educational background, is also important as it could be a confounding variable in the
research. Another study in this review also lacked information on how the samples were
grouped into an intervention or control group [68]. The inadequate quality of the studies
that have been conducted may lead to barriers to understanding children’s social-emotional
development in Asia [99,100].

4.1. Research Gaps

This review identified several research gaps in the literature on children’s social-
emotional development in Asia. First, there is a lack of ethnocultural studies and unevenly
distributed studies across Asian countries. The Asian continent also includes other eth-
nicities besides Chinese culture. For instance, Singapore and Malaysia are multicultural
countries that largely consist of Malay, Chinese, and Indian ethnicities. However, most
social-emotional development studies in Asia were from East Asia, such as Hong Kong
and China, where the culture is predominantly Chinese. The exceptions were from Japan
and Korea. More studies are needed to provide an overall picture of social-emotional
development in a multicultural country. Furthermore, the ethnocultural theory showed
that cultural ethnicity might influence parental beliefs and behavior, guiding parenting
practices and indirectly influencing children’s social-emotional development [89,101].
Secondly, there is a gap in the literature regarding whether the parental perception
of social-emotional development differs between higher and lower socioeconomic status
groups, as reported by Ren et al. [79]. The lower socioeconomic status group is reported to
emphasize children’s academic achievement more than the higher socioeconomic group,
which prioritizes children’s social-emotional development. As only one study explored
this, the finding remained inconclusive. The differing view in parental perception of
social-emotional development may be because of a lack of understanding of children’s
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 20 of 25

social-emotional development among the lower socioeconomic status group. Given the
importance of children’s social-emotional development and its long-term effect on chil-
dren, more studies on parental perception of social-emotional development are needed.
Parents’ perceptions can enhance or hinder children’s social-emotional development, so it
is important to address this issue when examining social-emotional development across
different cultures. There is an obvious need for more evidence-based studies in Asia,
especially outside of East Asia. More quality studies in Asia may enrich the literature on
children’s social-emotional development and provide directions for future research and
improvements in approaches for prevention and intervention.
Lastly, three studies reported a lack of knowledge about children’s social-emotional
development among teachers in Asia [43,58,67]. There is a need for more studies in Asia
to understand teachers’ knowledge about social-emotional development. Besides parents,
school teachers spend large amounts of time with children and are thus well-placed to
identify problem behaviors early and to provide timely interventions for children at risk of
poor social-emotional development [41]. However, early identification can only take place
if teachers are well-equipped with the knowledge of social-emotional development and
interventions. Thus, there is a need for interventional studies that improve and evaluate
teachers’ knowledge of children’s social-emotional functioning in Asia.

4.2. Limitations
This review has several limitations. First, this review is limited to studies published
only in English. There are potentially other relevant studies in other languages that may
not have been included in this review. Second, this systematic review only included quanti-
tative studies, which may have overlooked some studies in social-emotional development
conducted using qualitative methods. Finally, there is a lack of information in some studies.
Hence, the reviewers were unable to appraise some studies critically.

5. Conclusions
Despite these limitations, this systematic review contributes to the existing research
on children’s social-emotional development in Asia by summarizing key knowledge areas
and identifying critical gaps and directions for future research. It is important to note that
most of the social-emotional development studies and theories are based on European and
Western families [102]. Future studies should include more culturally diverse samples,
especially from the Asian regions, so as to further explore the various aspects of social-
emotional development within culturally relevant contexts.
Given that social-emotional development has gained increased attention from re-
searchers, future studies should also consider collaboration between stakeholders to stan-
dardize the terms and definitions used to describe the domains of social-emotional func-
tioning. Finally, parents and teachers play an important role in children’s social-emotional
development [25]. Future research should consider filling the knowledge gap regarding
parent and teacher perceptions of children’s social-emotional development in the Asian
regions where there is a paucity of studies.

Supplementary Materials: The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https:
//www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/bs13020123/s1. Supplementary File S1: The Complete Search
Strategy; Supplementary File S2: STROBE Statement Assessment Tool; Supplementary File S3: Num-
ber of Social-Emotional Development studies by Year Published; Supplementary File S4: Number
of Social-Emotional Development studies by Country; Supplementary File S5: Number of Social-
Emotional Development studies by the Type of Study Design; Supplementary File S6: Number of
Social-Emotional Development studies by the Type of Study Design.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization—G.H.Y. proposed the original topic. M.-H.L., N.V.M. and
T.-H.T. assisted in refining the topic and focus of the review; Methodology—G.H.Y. developed the
initial search strategy. G.H.Y. carried out the search strategy. M.-H.L., N.V.M. and T.-H.T. provided
assistance and ideas to refine the search strategy; Writing of the review—G.H.Y. wrote the initial draft
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 21 of 25

of the review. M.-H.L., N.V.M. and T.-H.T. provided critical and editorial contributions to the review.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: The authors declare that this review study did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Jia Xin (J.X.) for her assistance in retrieving the full-text
potential eligible studies, extracting and entering the data in Microsoft Excel, and assessing the
studies’ quality using the STROBE statement assessment tool.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Collaborative for Academic Social and Emotional Learning. What Is SEL? 2021. Available online: https://casel.org/what-is-sel/
(accessed on 15 December 2020).
2. Darling-Churchill, K.E.; Lippman, L. Early childhood social and emotional development: Advancing the field of measurement.
J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 45, 1–7. [CrossRef]
3. Fiese, B.H.; Spagnola, M.A.; Everhart, R. Family Context in Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. In Handbook of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics; Wolraich, M.L., Drotar, D., Dworkin, P.E., Perrin, E., Eds.; University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign:
Champaign, IL, USA, 2007; pp. 79–108.
4. Bronfenbrenner, U. Developmental Research, Public Policy, and the Ecology of Childhood. Child Dev. 1974, 45, 144109396.
[CrossRef]
5. Ranson, K.E.; Urichuk, L.J. The effect of parent–child attachment relationships on child biopsychosocial outcomes: A review.
Early Child Dev. Care 2008, 178, 129–152. [CrossRef]
6. Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L.; Belsky, D.; Dickson, N.; Hancox, R.J.; Harrington, H.; Houts, R.; Poulton, R.; Roberts, B.W.; Ross,
S.; et al. A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2011, 108,
2693–2698. [CrossRef]
7. Ren, L.; Knoche, L.L.; Edwards, C.P. The Relation between Chinese Preschoolers’ Social-Emotional Competence and Preacademic
Skills. Early Educ. Dev. 2016, 27, 875–895. [CrossRef]
8. Campbell, S.B.; Denham, S.A.; Howarth, G.Z.; Jones, S.M.; Whittaker, J.V.; Williford, A.P.; Willoughby, M.T.; Yudron, M.; Darling-
Churchill, K. Commentary on the review of measures of early childhood social and emotional development: Conceptualization,
critique, and recommendations. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 45, 19–41. [CrossRef]
9. Gridley, N.; Blower, S.; Dunn, A.; Bywater, T.; Bryant, M. Psychometric Properties of Child (0–5 Years) Outcome Measures as
used in Randomized Controlled Trials of Parent Programs: A Systematic Review. Clin. Child Fam. Psychol. Rev. 2019, 22, 388–405.
[CrossRef]
10. Jones, D.E.; Greenberg, M.; Crowley, M. Early Social-Emotional Functioning and Public Health: The Relationship Between
Kindergarten Social Competence and Future Wellness. Am. J. Public Health 2015, 105, 2283–2290. [CrossRef]
11. Houri, A.K.; Miller, F.G. A Systematic Review of Universal Screeners Used to Evaluate Social-Emotional and Behavioral Aspects
of Kindergarten Readiness. Early Educ. Dev. 2019, 31, 653–675. [CrossRef]
12. Halle, T.G.; Darling-Churchill, K.E. Review of measures of social and emotional development. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 45, 8–18.
[CrossRef]
13. Eisenberg, N.; Pidada, S.; Liew, J. The relations of regulation and negative emotionality to Indonesian children’s social functioning.
Child Dev. 2001, 72, 1747–1763. [CrossRef]
14. Wang, S.; Zhang, D. The impact of time while boarding on students’ academic achievement and social emotional competence: A
propensity score matching analysis. Stud. Educ. Eval. 2020, 65, 100851. [CrossRef]
15. Liew, J.; Zhou, Q. Parenting, Emotional Self-Regulation, and Psychosocial Adjustment across Early Childhood and Adolescence
in Chinese and Chinese-Immigrant Sociocultural Contexts. In The Oxford Handbook of Emotional Development; Oxford University
Press: Oxford, UK, 2022; pp. 420–436.
16. Ren, Y.; Wyver, S. Social-Emotional Adjustment of Chinese Immigrant Children in Western Countries. Va. Rev. Asian Stud. 2014,
16, 231–242.
17. Liew, J. Parenting and Emotion Regulation in the Adaptive and Academic Competencies of Chinese American Youth. In
International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development (ISSBD) Bulletin; Texas A&M University: College Station, TX, USA,
2014; pp. 10–12.
18. Bibi, F.B.F. Contribution of Parenting Style in life domain of Children. IOSR J. Humanit. Soc. Sci. 2013, 12, 91–95. [CrossRef]
19. Tam, C.S.Y.; Phillipson, S.N. Parenting and the Social-Emotional Development of Gifted Students in Hong Kong: A Review of the
Literature Based on the Actiotope Model of Giftedness. Australas. J. Gift. Educ. 2013, 22, 51–61.
20. Lau, E.Y.; Li, H.; Rao, N. Parental involvement and children’s readiness for school in China. Educ. Res. 2011, 53, 95–113. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 22 of 25

21. Lam, L.T.; Wong, E.M.Y. Factors associated with the social competence and emotional well-being among young children in an
Asian urban city. Early Child Dev. Care 2016, 188, 336–344. [CrossRef]
22. Halle, T.G.; Whittaker, J.V.; Zepeda, M.; Rothenberg, L.; Anderson, R.; Daneri, P.; Wessel, J.; Buysse, V. The social–emotional
development of dual language learners: Looking back at existing research and moving forward with purpose. Early Child. Res. Q.
2014, 29, 734–749. [CrossRef]
23. Kwong, E.; Lam, C.B.; Li, X.; Chung, K.K.H.; Cheung, R.Y.M.; Leung, C. Fit in but stand out: A qualitative study of parents’ and
teachers’ perspectives on socioemotional competence of children. Early Child. Res. Q. 2018, 44, 275–287. [CrossRef]
24. Broekhuizen, M.L.; Slot, P.L.; van Aken, M.A.G.; Dubas, J.S. Teachers’ Emotional and Behavioral Support and Preschoolers’
Self-Regulation: Relations with Social and Emotional Skills During Play. Early Educ. Dev. 2016, 28, 135–153. [CrossRef]
25. Ren, L.; Edwards, C.P. Contemporary Chinese parents’ socialization priorities for preschoolers: A mixed methods study. Early
Child Dev. Care 2016, 186, 1779–1791. [CrossRef]
26. Ren, L.; Cheung, R.Y.; Boise, C.; Li, X.; Fan, J. Fathers’ perceived co-parenting and children’s academic readiness among Chinese
preschoolers: Longitudinal pathways through parenting and behavioral regulation. Early Child. Res. Q. 2020, 53, 77–85. [CrossRef]
27. Chung, K.K.H.; Lam, C.B.; Liew, J. Studying Children’s Social-Emotional Development in School and at Home through a Cultural
Lens. Early Educ. Dev. 2020, 31, 927–929. [CrossRef]
28. Liberati, A.; Altman, D.G.; Tetzlaff, J.; Mulrow, C.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Ioannidis, J.P.A.; Clarke, M.; Devereaux, P.J.; Kleijnen, J.; Moher,
D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions:
Explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2009, 62, e1–e34. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.;
Brennan, S.E.; et al. The PRISMA 2020 Statement: An Updated Guideline for Reporting Systematic Reviews. BMJ 2021, 372, n71.
[CrossRef]
30. Frequently Asked Questions on the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available online: https://uni.cf/3hSUTBs (accessed
on 20 May 2020).
31. National Geographic Society Asia: Physical Geography. Available online: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/
asia/ (accessed on 4 January 2021).
32. Kaestle, K. Guide to the Countries of the World: Nations Online Project. Available online: https://www.nationsonline.org/
oneworld/asia.html (accessed on 15 April 2021).
33. von Elm, E.; Altman, D.G.; Egger, M.; Pocock, S.J.; Gøtzsche, P.C.; Vandenbroucke, J.P.; STROBE Initiative. The Strengthening the
Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies. PLoS
Med. 2007, 4, e296. [CrossRef]
34. Higgins, J.P.T.; Thomas, J. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.2, 2021. Cochrane. 2021.
Available online: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current (accessed on 29 September 2021).
35. Abshor, U. The Project Approach on Environmental Education: An Action Research for Children’s Social-Emotional Development.
Pac. Early Child. Educ. Res. Assoc. 2017, 11, 1–20. [CrossRef]
36. Arslan Çiftçi, H.; Uyanik Balat, G. Social-Emotional Assessment/Evaluation Measure (SEAM): Turkish Adaptation Study for
Children 48-66 Months. Inonu Univ. J. Fac. Educ. 2019, 19, 74–87.
37. Goh, W.I.; Yeo, K.J.; Talib, R. Development of Preschool Social Emotional Inventory for Preschoolers: A Preliminary Study. Int. J.
Eval. Res. Educ. 2019, 8, 158. [CrossRef]
38. Hamzah, M.; Dyslexia Association of Singapore. An evaluation of the effectiveness of using drama as a tool to build social-
emotional development of children with dyslexia in Singapore. Asia Pac. J. Dev. Differ. 2019, 6, 127–149. [CrossRef]
39. Intusoma, U.; Mo-Suwan, L.; Ruangdaraganon, N.; Panyayong, B.; Chongsuvivatwong, V. Effect of television viewing on
social–emotional competence of young Thai children. Infant Behav. Dev. 2013, 36, 679–685. [CrossRef]
40. Kim, M.-H.; Moon, H. Infants’ social-emotional adjustment within a childcare context of Korea. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2011, 31,
487–502. [CrossRef]
41. Lam, L.T.; Wong, E.M.Y. Enhancing social-emotional well-being in young children through improving teachers’ social-emotional
competence and curriculum design in Hong Kong. Int. J. Child Care Educ. Policy 2017, 11, 5. [CrossRef]
42. Li, X.; Lam, C.B.; Chung, K.K.H.; Cheung, R.Y.M.; Leung, C.; Fung, W.K. Development and Validation of the Chinese Inventory of
Children’s Socioemotional Competence (CICSEC). Early Educ. Dev. 2020, 31, 854–872. [CrossRef]
43. Mohamed, S.; Satari, N.; Mohd Yasin, M.H.; Toran, H. Malaysian Early Childhood Educators’ Perceptions Regarding Children’s
Social–Emotional Development. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Innovation and Quality
Education (ICLIQE 2019), Surakarta, Indonesia, January 2020; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 106–113.
44. Mohamed, S.; Toran, H. Family Socioeconomic Status and Social-emotional Development among Young Children in Malaysia.
J. Appl. Sci. 2018, 18, 122–128. [CrossRef]
45. Ong, M.Y.; Eilander, J.; Saw, S.M.; Xie, Y.; Meaney, M.J.; Broekman, B.F.P. The influence of perceived parenting styles on
socio-emotional development from pre-puberty into puberty. Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2017, 27, 37–46. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
46. Ren, L.; Kutaka, T.S.; Chernyavskiy, P.; Fan, J.; Li, X. The linear and nonlinear effects of organized extracurricular activities on
Chinese Preschoolers’ development. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 60, 101845. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 23 of 25

47. Bilir Seyhan, G.; Ocak Karabay, S.; Arda Tuncdemir, T.B.; Greenberg, M.T.; Domitrovich, C. The Effects of Promoting Alternative
Thinking Strategies Preschool Program on Teacher-Children Relationships and Children’s Social Competence in Turkey. Int. J.
Psychol. 2017, 54, 61–69. [CrossRef]
48. Tan, C.; Zhao, C.; Dou, Y.; Duan, X.; Shi, H.; Wang, X.; Huang, X.; Zhang, J. Caregivers’ depressive symptoms and social–emotional
development of left-behind children under 3 years old in poor rural China: The mediating role of home environment. Child. Youth
Serv. Rev. 2020, 116, 105109. [CrossRef]
49. van Driessche, A.; Jotheeswaran, A.T.; Murthy, G.V.S.; Pilot, E.; Sagar, J.; Pant, H.; Singh, V.; Dpk, B. Psychological well-being of
parents and family caregivers of children with hearing impairment in south India: Influence of behavioural problems in children
and social support. Int. Rev. Psychiatry 2014, 26, 500–507. [CrossRef]
50. Wang, B.; Luo, X.; Yue, A.; Tang, L.; Shi, Y. Family Environment in Rural China and the Link with Early Childhood Development.
Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 192, 617–630. [CrossRef]
51. Wang, M.; Victor, B.G.; Wu, S.; Perron, B.E. Associations between family structure and social-emotional development among
school-aged children in mainland China. Asia Pac. J. Soc. Work. Dev. 2019, 29, 249–263. [CrossRef]
52. Wang, S.; Dong, X.; Mao, Y. The impact of boarding on campus on the social-emotional competence of left-behind children in
rural western China. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 2017, 18, 413–423. [CrossRef]
53. Yeo, L.S.; Tan, S.-L. Educational inclusion in Singapore for children with physical disabilities. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 2018, 38, 175–186.
[CrossRef]
54. Anme, T.; Shinohara, R.; Sugisawa, Y.; Tong, L.; Tanaka, E.; Watanabe, T.; Onda, Y.; Kawashima, Y.; Hirano, M.; Tomi-saki, E.; et al.
Japan Children’s Study Group: Interaction Rating Scale (IRS) as an Evidence-Based Practical Index of Children’s Social Skills and
Parenting. J. Epidemiol. 2010, 20 (Suppl. S2), S419–S426. [CrossRef]
55. Bimla, D.; Singh, C.K. Dimensions of Self-Concept as Predicator of Social Competence of Children. Adv. Res. J. Soc. Sci. 2012, 3,
105–106.
56. Lee, S.-Y.; Olszewski-Kubilius, P.; Thomson, D. The social competence of highly gifted math and science adolescents. Asia Pac.
Educ. Rev. 2012, 13, 185–197. [CrossRef]
57. Roh, H.-S.; Shin, J.-U.; Lee, J.-W.; Lee, Y.-W.; Kim, T.-W.; Kim, J.-Y.; Park, M.-R.; Song, G.-S.; Seo, S.S. Effect of School-Based
Social Skills Training Program on Peer Relationships: Preliminary Study. J. Korean Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2018, 29, 14–25.
[CrossRef]
58. Tong, A.M.H.; Zhan, K.C. Supporting Social Competence among Secondary Students in Hong Kong: Teachers’ Beliefs about
School-Wide Interventions. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2012, 27, 148–157.
59. Yoleri, S. The Role of Child’s Temperament Predictor on Preschool Social Competence. Creative Educ. 2014, 05, 1160–1169.
[CrossRef]
60. Akram, B.; Hameed, A. Adaptive Emotional Abilities of Adolescents with Hearing Impairment. Pakistan J. Psychol. Res. 2014, 1,
103–123.
61. Chang, Y.-P.; Kuo, C.-C. The Correlations among Emotional Development, Overexcitabilities and Personal Maladjustment. Arch.
Psychol. 2019, 3, 1–27. [CrossRef]
62. Lee, J.H.; Eoh, Y.; Jeong, A.; Park, S.H. Preschoolers’ Emotional Understanding and Psychosocial Adjustment in Korea: The
Moderating Effect of Maternal Attitude towards Emotional Expressiveness. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2017, 26, 1854–1864. [CrossRef]
63. Raval, V.V.; Raval, P.H.; Deo, N. Mothers’ Socialization Goals, Mothers’ Emotion Socialization Behaviors, Child Emotion
Regulation, and Child Socioemotional Functioning in Urban India. J. Early Adolesc. 2014, 34, 229–250. [CrossRef]
64. Raval, V.V.; Li, X.; Deo, N.; Hu, J. Reports of maternal socialization goals, emotion socialization behaviors, and child functioning
in China and India. J. Fam. Psychol. 2018, 32, 81–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Iaosanurak, C.; Chanchalor, S.; Murphy, E. Social and emotional learning around technology in a cross-cultural, elementary
classroom. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2015, 21, 1639–1662. [CrossRef]
66. Lam, K.; Seiden, D. Effects of a Brief Mindfulness Curriculum on Self-reported Executive Functioning and Emotion Regulation in
Hong Kong Adolescents. Mindfulness 2020, 11, 627–642. [CrossRef]
67. Ye, W.; Gurnam, K.S. Teachers’ Perceptions of Social Emotional Learning in Early Childhood Centers in Shanghai, China. J. Arts
Sci. Educ. Res. 2020, 7, 1.
68. Asri Dewi, N.L.M.; Suryati, Y.; Rudhiati, F.; Mediani, H.S. The Effect of Traditional Game of Magoak-Goakan to the Prosocial
Behavior among Preschool Children (5-6 Years Old) at Maria Fatima Kindergarten Jembrana Bali. IOSR J. Nurs. Health Sci. 2018,
7, 1–7. [CrossRef]
69. Guo, Q.; Zhou, J.; Feng, L. Pro-social behavior is predictive of academic success via peer acceptance: A study of Chinese primary
school children. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2018, 65, 187–194. [CrossRef]
70. Sun, J.; Kang, R. Cool and hot self-regulation predict early achievement in Chinese preschoolers. Early Child Dev. Care 2020, 192,
1092–1107. [CrossRef]
71. Zhi, K.; Chen, Y.; Huang, J. Children’s self-control and family savings for education: An empirical examination from China. Child.
Youth Serv. Rev. 2020, 119, 105575. [CrossRef]
72. Cabrera, N.J.; Scott, M.; Fagan, J.; Steward-Streng, N.; Chien, N. Coparenting and Children’s School Readiness: A Mediational
Model. Fam. Process. 2012, 51, 307–324. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 24 of 25

73. Kwon, K.-A.; Jeon, H.-J.; Elicker, J. Links among Coparenting Quality, Parental Gentle Guidance, and Toddlers’ Social Emotional
Competencies: Testing Direct, Mediational, and Moderational Models. J. Fam. Stud. 2013, 60, 2596–2635. [CrossRef]
74. Lau, E.Y.H.; Power, T.G. Coparenting, Parenting Stress, and Authoritative Parenting among Hong Kong Chinese Mothers and
Fathers. Parenting 2019, 20, 167–176. [CrossRef]
75. Kwan, R.W.H.; Kwok, S.Y.C.L.; Ling, C.C.Y. The Moderating Roles of Parenting Self-Efficacy and Co-parenting Alliance on Marital
Satisfaction Among Chinese Fathers and Mothers. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015, 24, 3506–3515. [CrossRef]
76. Lau, E.Y.H. A Mixed-methods Study of Paternal Involvement in Hong Kong. Br. Educ. Res. J. 2016, 42, 1023–1040. [CrossRef]
77. Goodman, R. The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 1997, 38, 581–586.
[CrossRef]
78. Zelazo, P.D.; Carlson, S.M. Hot and Cool Executive Function in Childhood and Adolescence: Development and Plasticity. Child
Dev. Perspect. 2012, 6, 354–360. [CrossRef]
79. Ren, L.; Zhang, X. Antecedents and consequences of organized extracurricular activities among Chinese preschoolers in Hong
Kong. Learn. Instr. 2019, 65, 101267. [CrossRef]
80. Cross, J.R.; Cross, T.L. Clinical and Mental Health Issues in Counseling the Gifted Individual. J. Couns. Dev. 2015, 93, 163–172.
[CrossRef]
81. Eren, F.; Çete, A.Ö.; Avcil, S.; Baykara, B. Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics of Gifted Children and Their Families. Arch.
Neuropsychiatry 2018, 55, 105–112. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
82. Houck, G.M. The measurement of child characteristics from infancy to toddlerhood: Temperament, developmental competence,
self-concept, and social competence. Issues Compr. Pediatr. Nurs. 1999, 22, 101–127. [CrossRef]
83. Dabrowski,
˛ K. Theory of Levels of Emotional Development, 1st ed.; Dabor Science Publications: Oceanside, NY, USA, 1977; Volume 2.
84. Pinchumphonsang, S.; Chanchalor, S. The development of social emotional learning programs in a cross-cultural elementary
classroom. Int. J. Innov. Learn. 2020, 27, 58. [CrossRef]
85. Yang, Y.; Qi, Y.; Cui, Y.; Li, B.; Zhang, Z.; Zhou, Y.; Chen, X.; Zhu, D.; He, F.; Zheng, Y. Emotional and behavioral problems, social
competence and risk factors in 6–16-year-old students in Beijing, China. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223970. [CrossRef]
86. Gerbino, M.; Zuffianò, A.; Eisenberg, N.; Castellani, V.; Kanacri, B.P.L.; Pastorelli, C.; Caprara, G.V. Adolescents’ Prosocial
Behavior Predicts Good Grades Beyond Intelligence and Personality Traits. J. Pers. 2018, 86, 247–260. [CrossRef]
87. Willoughby, M.; Kupersmidt, J.; Voegler-Lee, M.; Bryant, D. Contributions of Hot and Cool Self-Regulation to Preschool Disruptive
Behavior and Academic Achievement. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2011, 36, 162–180. [CrossRef]
88. Quah, S.R. Ethnicity and Parenting Styles Among Singapore Families. In Parent-Youth Relations; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2012;
pp. 59–78.
89. Heng, J.; Quan, J.; Sim, L.W.; Sanmugam, S.; Broekman, B.; Bureau, J.-F.; Meaney, M.J.; Holbrook, J.D.; Rifkin-Graboi, A. The
role of ethnicity and socioeconomic status in Southeast Asian mothers’ parenting sensitivity. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2018, 20, 24–42.
[CrossRef]
90. Collie, R.J.; Martin, A.J.; Frydenberg, E. Social and Emotional Learning: A Brief Overview and Issues Relevant to Australia and
the Asia-Pacific. In Social and Emotional Learning in Australia and the Asia-Pacific; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017;
pp. 1–13. [CrossRef]
91. Torrente, C.; Alimchandani, A.; Aber, J.L. International Perspectives on SEL. In Handbook of Social and Emotional Learning: Research
and Practice; Durlak, J.A., Domitrovich, C.E., Weissberg, R.P., Gullotta, T.P., Eds.; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015;
pp. 566–587.
92. Humphrey, N. Social and Emotional Learning: A Critical Appraisal; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2013.
93. Jerrim, J. Why do East Asian children perform so well in PISA? An investigation of Western-born children of East Asian descent.
Oxf. Rev. Educ. 2015, 41, 310–333. [CrossRef]
94. Maguire, L.K.; Niens, U.; McCann, M.; Connolly, P. Emotional development among early school-age children: Gender differences
in the role of problem behaviours. Educ. Psychol. 2016, 36, 1408–1428. [CrossRef]
95. Romer, N.; Ravitch, N.K.; Tom, K.; Merrell, K.W.; Wesley, K.L. Gender differences in positive social-emotional functioning. Psychol.
Sch. 2011, 48, 958–970. [CrossRef]
96. Makol, B.A.; Youngstrom, E.A.; Racz, S.J.; Qasmieh, N.; Glenn, L.E.; De Los Reyes, A. Integrating Multiple Informants’ Reports:
How Conceptual and Measurement Models May Address Long-Standing Problems in Clinical Decision-Making. Clin. Psychol.
Sci. 2020, 8, 953–970. [CrossRef]
97. Reyes, A.D.L.; Augenstein, T.M.; Wang, M.; Thomas, S.A.; Drabick, D.A.G.; Burgers, D.E.; Rabinowitz, J. The validity of the
multi-informant approach to assessing child and adolescent mental health. Psychol. Bull. 2015, 141, 858–900. [CrossRef]
98. Rich-Edwards, J.W.; Kaiser, U.B.; Chen, G.L.; Manson, J.E.; Goldstein, J.M. Sex and Gender Differences Research Design for Basic,
Clinical, and Population Studies: Essentials for Investigators. Endocr. Rev. 2018, 39, 424–439. [CrossRef]
99. Alemayehu, C.; Mitchell, G.; Nikles, J. Barriers for conducting clinical trials in developing countries- a systematic review. Int. J.
Equity Health 2018, 17, 37. [CrossRef]
100. Maulik, P.K.; Darmstadt, G.L. Childhood Disability in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: Overview of Screening, Prevention,
Services, Legislation, and Epidemiology. Pediatrics 2007, 120, S1–S55. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 123 25 of 25

101. Park, N.; Huebner, E.S.; Laughlin, J.E.; Valois, R.F.; Gilman, R. A Cross-Cultural Comparison of the Dimensions of Child
and Adolescent Life Satisfaction Reports. In Quality-of-Life Research on Children and Adolescents; Social Indicators Research
Series; Dannerbeck, A., Casas, F., Sadurni, M., Coenders, G., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Nethrelands, 2004; pp. 61–79;
ISBN 978-1-4020-2312-5.
102. Quintana, S.M.; Aboud, F.E.; Chao, R.K.; Contreras-Grau, J.; Cross, W.E.; Hudley, C.; Hughes, D.; Liben, L.S.; Gall, S.N.-L.; Vietze,
D.L. Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Child Development: Contemporary Research and Future Directions. Child Dev. 2006, 77,
1129–1141. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright of Behavioral Sciences (2076-328X) is the property of MDPI and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.