Dear Editor and Professor Yifeng Zhang
We sincerely thank Professor Yifeng Zhang for the thoughtful, systematic, and constructive comments on our manuscript entitled “The Association Between Mindful Parenting and Children’s Peer Social Competence in the Context of Chinese Families: A Moderated Mediation Model”. The comments, framed around measurement validity, process validity, and cultural validity, are highly valuable for improving the transparency of the present study and for guiding our future research. We have carefully considered each point and provide our responses below.
Response 1. Regarding the Concern That All Focal Constructs Relied on Parent Reports and the Potential Issue of Common Method Bias
We appreciate this important comment. We agree that the use of a single informant is a limitation of the present study and that common method bias should be carefully considered. However, we would like to clarify several points.
First, although the four focal variables were reported by parents, they do not represent the same construct. The Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire measures parents’ mindful parenting behaviors and attitudes; the Child–Parent Relationship Scale assesses the quality of the parent–child relationship; the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire evaluates children’s emotion recognition, understanding, regulation, expression, and utilization; and the Social Competence With Peers Questionnaire assesses children’s peer social competence. Thus, the first two constructs mainly concern parents and the parent–child relationship, whereas the latter two refer to children’s developmental competencies.
Second, parent reports have particular relevance in preschool child research. Parents are among the primary caregivers of preschool children and have extensive, long-term, and cross-situational knowledge of children’s emotional responses and everyday peer interactions. Importantly, the items assessing peer social competence are not restricted to kindergarten settings. For example, items such as “The child actively introduces himself/herself to new peers”, “The child is willing to help others”, and “The child never expresses his/her own opinions” may occur in family, community, park, playground, and other everyday social contexts in which parents accompany their children. Therefore, although teacher ratings, peer nominations, and structured observations would provide valuable additional evidence, the use of parent reports remains meaningful for capturing children’s social behavior in family and community ecologies.
Third, the present study did not rely solely on Harman’s single-factor test. We also adopted procedural and statistical controls, including anonymous responses, confidentiality statements, standardized instructions, response-time screening, and the inclusion of demographic covariates, namely children’s age, gender, primary caregiver, and parental educational level. Harman’s single-factor analysis showed that the first factor explained 34.25% of the variance, which was below the commonly used 50% threshold. In addition, the model included interaction effects, simple slope analyses, incremental R2, and Bootstrap tests of indirect effects. The significant interaction between close parent–child relationship and mindful parenting also suggests that the findings cannot be fully attributed to common method variance. Therefore, we acknowledge common method bias as a limitation, but we believe that it does not invalidate the main findings of the study.
Response 2. Regarding the Conceptual and Item Overlap Between the MIPQ and the ERQ
We thank Professor Zhang for raising this important issue. We agree that mindful parenting and children’s emotion regulation are theoretically related, particularly from the perspective of emotion socialization. However, the two constructs are conceptually distinct.
The MIPQ assesses parents’ mindful parenting practices, such as mindful discipline and being in the moment with the child. For example, items such as “Did you consider your feelings before disciplining your child?” and “Did you carefully listen and tune into your child when you two were talking?” focus on parental awareness and parenting behavior. By contrast, the ERQ assesses children’s emotional competencies, including emotion recognition, understanding, regulation, expression, and utilization. Items such as “The child can recognize when others are happy or angry” and “When having a conflict with peers, the child can control his/her anger” refer to children’s abilities rather than parental behavior. Therefore, although both questionnaires were completed by parents, their measurement targets differ.
We also acknowledge that the R2 value of 0.506 for the prediction of children’s emotion regulation is relatively high. However, this result is theoretically interpretable Emotion socialization theory suggests that parenting practices constitute an important emotional environment for children’s development. If mindful parenting and children’s emotion regulation were merely redundant constructs, children’s emotion regulation would not be expected to explain additional variance in peer social competence after mindful parenting was included. In the present study, however, the inclusion of children’s emotion regulation increased the model R2 to 0.748, with ΔR2 = 0.049 and f2 = 0.194, indicating a medium effect. The indirect effect was also significant, with an effect value of 0.222 and a 95% confidence interval of [0.118, 0.352]. These findings suggest that children’s emotion regulation has independent explanatory value as a mediating variable.
We agree that future studies should use independent informants, observational coding of parent–child emotional co-regulation, and multi-method, multi-trait designs to further distinguish these constructs. We will address this point more explicitly in the limitations section.
Response 3. Regarding the Reporting of the Moderated Mediation Effect
We appreciate this careful methodological comment. We agree that the reporting of the moderated mediation model could be more complete and more precise.
In the present study, our hypothesis focused on whether close and conflictual parent–child relationships moderated the association between mindful parenting and children’s emotion regulation. Thus, the moderation was specified on the first stage of the mediation pathway. The analysis was conducted using PROCESS Model 8, which is appropriate for testing a first-stage moderated mediation model.
The results showed that the interaction between close parent–child relationship and mindful parenting significantly predicted children’s emotion regulation, whereas the interaction between conflictual parent–child relationship and mindful parenting was not significant. The simple slope analysis further indicated that mindful parenting significantly predicted children’s emotion regulation at both high and low levels of parent–child closeness, with a stronger association under high closeness.
We acknowledge that the interaction effect was small, with ΔR2 = 0.006 and f2 = 0.036. Therefore, the finding should be interpreted cautiously. A more accurate interpretation is that close parent–child relationship positively moderates the first-stage pathway from mindful parenting to children’s emotion regulation, but the magnitude of this moderation is limited. We will revise the relevant statements in the abstract, discussion, and conclusion to avoid overstating the moderated mediation effect. We also agree that future research should report the index of moderated mediation and conditional indirect effects more fully.
Response 4. Regarding the Cross-Sectional Design and Process Validity
We fully agree with this comment. The cross-sectional design of the present study cannot establish causal relationships or capture the dynamic, transactional, and time-embedded processes of parent–child co-regulation. The present study was not intended to provide causal evidence. Rather, it aimed to conduct a theory-driven preliminary test of the associations among mindful parenting, children’s emotion regulation, and peer social competence in the Chinese cultural context.
In the manuscript, we have used terms such as “association”, “relationship”, “prediction”, and “mediation”, and we did not intend to imply causal inference. The mediation model should therefore be understood as a statistical model based on theoretical assumptions, rather than as evidence of temporal causality.
Nevertheless, the findings provide useful empirical evidence for hypothesis generation. Based on emotion socialization theory and sociocultural theory, the results suggest a meaningful pattern in which mindful parenting is associated with children’s emotion regulation, which in turn is related to peer social competence. We agree that future studies should use longitudinal, cross-lagged, intensive longitudinal, or micro-longitudinal designs to examine the temporal sequence and dynamic processes of parent–child co-regulation. We will emphasize this limitation more clearly in the revised manuscript.
Response 5. Regarding Cultural Validity and Localization
We thank Professor Zhang for highlighting the importance of cultural validity. We agree that mindful parenting should not be understood simply as a Western concept directly transferred into the Chinese context. Cultural interpretation and localization are essential.
In the manuscript, we have attempted to situate mindful parenting within the Chinese family context. For example, we discussed how Chinese parents’ understanding of acceptance and nonjudgment may be influenced by cultural values such as moderation, self-reflection, family responsibility, and relational harmony. We also discussed the roles of mothers, fathers, and grandparents in Chinese family caregiving, as well as how parent–child conflict may carry specific moral and relational meanings in Chinese culture.
Regarding measurement, the instruments used in the present study were not simple literal translations. The Social Competence With Peers Questionnaire was originally developed by Howes and later localized and revised by Chinese scholar Zhang Yuan. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire was developed by Zheng based on Chinese children. The Mindfulness in Parenting Questionnaire has also been used in Chinese samples. In the present study, the reliability coefficients were acceptable to high: the Cronbach’s α values were 0.96 for the total MIPQ, 0.926 for the total ERQ, 0.911 for the total SCPQ, and 0.74 and 0.86 for the closeness and conflict dimensions of the CPRS, respectively. These results provide preliminary support for the reliability of the measures in this sample.
We agree that future research should further examine cross-cultural measurement invariance, conduct qualitative studies on the cultural meaning of mindful parenting, and develop culturally adapted intervention programs. The present study should therefore be regarded as an initial empirical exploration of mindful parenting in the Chinese family context, rather than as a final validation of the construct across cultures.
Response 6. Regarding the Positioning of Practical Implications
We appreciate this constructive suggestion. We agree that practical implications based on the present findings should be presented cautiously. Because the study was cross-sectional and relied on parent-report data, family-based mindful parenting recommendations should be regarded as implications for future intervention development rather than as established causal prescriptions.
Accordingly, the practical implications of the present study are intended to provide a reference for identifying possible intervention targets, including mindful parenting, children’s emotion regulation, and the quality of the parent–child relationship. We agree that future intervention studies should use teacher ratings, peer nominations, structured observations, and other peer ecological indicators to evaluate intervention effects. Such studies should also examine the collaboration between families and kindergartens in supporting children’s emotional and social development.
We will revise the relevant parts of the manuscript to make clear that these implications are tentative and require further empirical testing.
Overall Response
In summary, we are grateful for the valuable comments concerning single-informant data, cross-sectional design, cultural adaptation, and the completeness of moderated mediation reporting. We agree that these issues represent important limitations and directions for future research. At the same time, we believe that the present study still has meaningful academic value. The study was based on a clear theoretical framework, included a sample of 531 families from 18 kindergartens, demonstrated acceptable to high reliability of the measures, controlled for key demographic variables, and used Bootstrap mediation analysis and PROCESS Model 8 to test the proposed model.
The core findings remain theoretically and empirically meaningful: mindful parenting was significantly associated with children’s emotion regulation and peer social competence; children’s emotion regulation partially mediated the relationship between mindful parenting and peer social competence; and close parent–child relationship moderated the first-stage pathway between mindful parenting and children’s emotion regulation. These findings provide preliminary evidence for understanding the family mechanisms associated with preschool children’s socioemotional development in the Chinese context.
Once again, we sincerely thank Professor Yifeng Zhang and the editor for their careful reading, constructive comments, and valuable suggestions. These comments have helped us clarify the limitations of the study, refine the interpretation of the findings, and identify important directions for future research.
Sincerely.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication.