Emotional Distance and Educational Confrontation as Correlates of Higher Emotional Intelligence in Primary School Children: A Paradox of Child–Parent Relationships

Background and Objective. The interplay between emotion and intelligence has long attracted researchers’ attention because their integration facilitates adaptive functioning and effective social reasoning. This study examined the relationship between child–parent relationship parameters and emotional intelligence (EI) in primary school children (9–11 years old, N=80N=80 mother–child dyads from Moscow). Methods. EI was assessed using the EmIn questionnaire (Lyusin, adapted by Semenov), projective subtests based on Lyusin’s model, and a sociobiographic questionnaire. Child–parent relationships were measured with the Parent–Child Interaction Questionnaire (Markovskaya). Correlational (Pearson, Spearman) and comparative (Mann–Whitney UU, chi square) analyses were applied. Results. Most children showed average global EI (65% of third graders, 50% of fourth graders). Significant gender differences emerged in intrapersonal EI, emotion understanding, expressive control, and emotion regulation. Correlational analysis revealed that high EI, especially the ability to manage others’ emotions, was associated with parental demandingness, emotional distance, lack of cooperation, and educational confrontation (correlations ranged from r=−0.833 to r=0.641, all p<0.05). Low EI was linked to low parental demandingness, emotional closeness, cooperation, and absence of confrontation. Conclusion. Contrary to the hypothesis that warm, close relationships foster EI, the findings suggest that a distant parental stance with educational confrontation may promote certain EI components (e.g., managing others’ emotions). The results highlight the nonlinear influence of family environment on child EI and call for further research with larger samples and longitudinal designs.

Эмоциональный интеллект у детей младшего школьного возраста: когда дистанцирование и конфронтация со стороны родителей важнее тепла и сотрудничества

М.Н. Швецова, А.А. Тарасевич

Московский педагогический государственный университет, Москва, Россия

Резюме. Актуальность и цель. Взаимосвязь эмоций и интеллекта давно привлекает внимание исследователей, поскольку их интеграция способствует адаптивному функционированию и эффективному социальному взаимодействию. Цель настоящего исследования состояла в анализе взаимосвязей между параметрами детско-родительских отношений и эмоциональным интеллектом (ЭИ) у детей младшего школьного возраста (9-11 лет). Методы. В исследовании приняли участие младшие школьники (n=80) и их матери, проживающие в г.Москве. Диагностический комплекс включал: опросник «ЭмИн» Д.В. Люсина в адаптации В.Ю. Семенова; серия проективных субтестов, основанных на модели Д.В. Люсина; социобиографическая анкета, для получения дополнительных данных о детях и родителях; опросник «Взаимодействие родитель-ребенок» (ВВР) И.М. Марковской. Применялись корреляционный (коэффициенты Пирсона, Спирмена) и сравнительный (U-критерий Манна–Уитни, хи-квадрат) анализы. Результаты. Большинство детей показали средний уровень общего ЭИ (65% третьеклассников, 50% четвероклассников). Обнаружены значимые гендерные различия по показателям внутриличностного ЭИ, понимания эмоций, контроля экспрессии и управления эмоциями. Корреляционный анализ выявил, что высокий ЭИ, особенно способность управлять чужими эмоциями, связан с требовательностью родителей, эмоциональной дистанцией, отсутствием сотрудничества и воспитательной конфронтацией (коэффициенты корреляции варьировали от r=−0.833 до r=0.641, все p <0.05). Низкий ЭИ был связан с нетребовательностью родителей при существующей эмоциональной близости родителя с ребенком и попытках сотрудничества без воспитательной конфронтации. Заключение. Вопреки гипотезе о том, что тёплые, близкие отношения способствуют развитию ЭИ, полученные данные позволяют предположить, что дистанцированная позиция родителей с воспитательной конфронтацией может стимулировать определённые компоненты ЭИ (например, управление чужими эмоциями). Результаты подчёркивают нелинейный характер влияния семейной среды на детский ЭИ и указывают на необходимость дальнейших исследований на расширенных выборках с использованием лонгитюдных дизайнов.

Ключевые слова: эмоциональный интеллект, младший школьный возраст, детско-родительские отношения

Introduction

The relationship between emotion and intelligence has been of longstanding interest to researchers. Although the term “emotional intelligence” (EI) appeared before the 20th century, it gained scientific currency through the work of American psychologists Mayer, Salovey, and Caruso (Mayer et al., 2004), who defined EI as a cognitive ability encompassing the perception, assimilation, understanding, and regulation of emotions.

From the mid‑20th century, psychologists began to focus on the cognitive aspects of emotions and their representation as a subsystem of consciousness (e.g., Lazarus, cited in Ilyin, 2001). During this period, Bar-On (2006) introduced the emotional quotient (EQ), and EI was often studied as part of social intelligence. Towards the end of the 20th century, researchers concentrated on empirical validation through measurement instruments; Goleman’s (2017) Emotional Intelligence presented a new perspective on the construct.

In Russian psychology, the connection between affect and intelligence was emphasized by Vygotsky (1982), who introduced the concept of “sense‑based experience,” by Rubinstein (2008), who argued for the inseparability of emotional and intellectual processes, and by Leontiev (2005), who showed that thinking is mediated by affective regulation. Contemporary Russian research on EI is associated with Lyusin (2004, 2006) and Andreeva (2006, 2011).

Two main models of EI exist: the ability model (Mayer et al., 2004) and mixed models (Goleman, 2009, 2017; Bar-On, 2006; Petrides & Furnham, 2000), which combine cognitive abilities with personality traits. The present study follows Lyusin’s (2006) mixed approach, in which EI is seen both as a cognitive capacity and as a personal disposition. Lyusin distinguishes intrapersonal EI (understanding and regulating one’s own emotions) and interpersonal EI (understanding and influencing others’ emotions), drawing on Gardner’s (2007) theory of multiple intelligences.

Emotional development is shaped by the immediate environment, especially parents. Child–parent relationship characteristics, such as emotional closeness, cooperation, and educational confrontation, may determine how children recognize, understand, and regulate emotions (Averin, 2011; Andreeva, 2011). Social antecedents of EI include parental education, family income, marital relations, and parenting styles (Andreeva, 2011). Shvetsova and Markova (2025) found that higher parental education was associated with higher parental EI.

Modern Russian psychology defines EI as the ability to control one’s emotional states and influence others’ emotional background (Andreeva, 2021); its structure includes cognitive skills and personality traits (Nikitina, 2020; Pankratova, 2020). Primary school age is considered a sensitive period for EI development because children begin to master social interactions and voluntary mental processes (Odnolenko, 2024).

Recent studies show contradictory links between parental EI and child–parent relationships. Ivanova (2023) found that parents of older preschoolers may have high intrapersonal EI but low interpersonal EI, leading to parenting difficulties. Dobrin (2017) reported that higher EI in 7‑ to 8‑year‑olds is associated with greater parasympathetic activity, indicating optimal emotional regulation. Filippova et al. (2021) emphasized that EI develops through joint activities and enriched environments, even though the preschool period lays the foundation.

Fatikhova (2023) showed that intellectual disabilities in children affect maternal attitudes, underscoring the need to analyze specific interaction parameters (emotional closeness, cooperation, confrontation). Sitoiu and Panisoara (2023), in a large international sample, found that parental EI positively correlates with authoritative parenting and parental competence (r=0.24, p<0.001; r=0.45, p<0.001).

Empirical evidence also links EI to academic motivation (Sevostyanova, 2025), creativity (Grizun & Ignatovich, 2024), and communicativeness (Vardanyan, Vdovina, & Semenyuk, 2022) in primary school children. Traditional parenting styles (authoritarian, authoritative, permissive, uninvolved) have differential effects on emotional development, with authoritative parenting generally considered most favourable (Bakhronova, 2024). However, most studies have not examined how specific interaction parameters contribute to distinct EI components.

Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between child–parent relationship parameters and EI in primary school children. We hypothesised that closer emotional relationships would be associated with higher EI, whereas parental distance and lack of involvement would be linked to lower EI.

Method

• Participants

The sample comprised 40 mother–child dyads from Moscow. Children were in Grades 3 and 4, aged 9–11 years (n=40n=40, 20 boys, 20 girls). The age group was chosen because previous research (Sevostyanova, 2025) shows that EI–motivation links are most pronounced at this stage.

• Measures

1. EmIn Questionnaire (Lyusin, adapted by Semenov).A 46‑item self‑report with a 4‑point scale, measuring interpersonal EI (IEI), intrapersonal EI (IAEI), emotion understanding (EU), emotion regulation (ER), and subscales: understanding others’ emotions (UOE), managing others’ emotions (MOE), understanding own emotions (UOE‑self), managing own emotions (MOE‑self), and expressive control (EC).
2. Projective Subtests Based on Lyusin’s Model (Lyusin, 2015).
   • Subtest A(individual): Identification of emotions from facial expressions (stimuli from Semago & Semago, 2007).
   • Subtest B: Teacher ratings and the “Person in the Rain” drawing test (Shevchenko, 2015).
   • Subtest C(individual interview): Six vignettes about relationships with parents, peers, and teachers, addressing both positive and negative emotions.
3. Sociobiographic Questionnaire– collected background data on family conditions.
4. Parent–Child Interaction Questionnaire (Markovskaya, 2005).Assesses parental perception of emotional closeness, cooperation, and educational confrontation.
   • Procedure and Statistical Analysis

Data were collected individually and in groups. SPSS Statistica was used for Pearson and Spearman correlations, contingency tables, chi‑square tests, and Mann–Whitney UU tests. Significance level was set at p=0.05p=0.05.

Results

Global EI levels are shown in Table 1. No significant differences were found between third and fourth graders (Mann–Whitney UU, p>0.05p>0.05), so they were combined for further analysis. Most children had average EI.

Table 1

Projective subtest data confirmed that most children had high or average emotion concepts and an emotional orientation toward people, consistent with Dobrin (2017). Gender differences were significant for intrapersonal EI, understanding of own emotions, expressive control, and emotion regulation (U<137U<137, p=0.05p=0.05). Girls scored lower on understanding own emotions and expressive control; boys scored higher on intrapersonal EI and emotion regulation.

In Subtest A, 80% of children described emotions through situations (“when…, then I feel…”), and 20% through facial expressions. On average, children named 5–7 emotions, with negative emotions (anger, sadness) being more frequent (26–33%) than positive ones (2 emotions, 52%).

Correlational analysis (Pearson) revealed significant relationships between child–parent relationship parameters and EI components (Table 2). Parameters that did not correlate (EC, MOE‑self) are omitted.

Table 2. Pearson Correlations Between EI Components and Child–Parent Relationship Parameters

Note. Bold coefficients are significant at p≤0.05p≤0.05. UOE = understanding others’ emotions, MOE = managing others’ emotions, UOE‑self = understanding own emotions, IEI = interpersonal EI, IAEI = intrapersonal EI, EU = emotion understanding, ER = emotion regulation.

The strongest correlation was between emotional distance–closeness and MOE (r=−0.833r=−0.833, p<0.05p<0.05). As shown in descriptive analysis, when parents perceived emotional distance, children showed high MOE; when emotional closeness was present, children showed low MOE. Similarly, lack of cooperation was associated with high MOE, and cooperation with average MOE. Educational confrontation showed positive correlations with MOE and other EI components: higher confrontation was linked to higher EI (especially interpersonal).

Thus, high EI (particularly managing others’ emotions) was associated with parental demandingness, emotional distance, lack of cooperation, and educational confrontation. Low EI was associated with parental undemandingness, emotional closeness, cooperation, and absence of confrontation.

Discussion

Contrary to our hypothesis, the results indicate that emotional distance and educational confrontation, rather than warmth and closeness, are linked to higher levels of some EI components, especially managing others’ emotions. This unexpected pattern may be explained by an adaptive mechanism: children growing up in demanding, distant environments may develop heightened sensitivity to others’ emotional states as a way to navigate family stressors and maintain relational stability. In contrast, children whose needs are fully met without challenge may have less motivation to understand and regulate emotions.

Psychophysiological data support this interpretation. Dobrin (2017) found that children with high EI show greater parasympathetic activity at rest but sympathetic activation during negative emotional recall, suggesting flexible regulation. Children in distant, confrontational families might frequently mobilize such resources, thereby strengthening interpersonal EI.

Our findings parallel the contradictory maternal attitudes reported by Fatikhova (2023) for mothers of children with intellectual disabilities, who simultaneously displayed optimal emotional contact and excessive distance. Ivanova (2023) also noted that even parents with relatively high EI can exhibit demandingness and educational uncertainty, which may have dual effects on child EI. Sitoiu and Panisoara (2023) showed that parental competence is only weakly predicted by EI (R2=0.15), implying that parents may not translate their own EI into supportive parenting behaviours.

Importantly, alternative developmental pathways exist. Sevostyanova (2025) demonstrated that high academic motivation is associated with better MOE and UOE, indicating that school engagement can foster interpersonal EI independently of family climate. Filippova et al. (2021) showed that structured, supportive educational interventions can also boost EI. Thus, while a demanding family environment may accidentally enhance some EI skills, it is not a recommended or necessary condition; rather, it highlights the plasticity of EI development.

However, our results should be considered preliminary and tentative. Bayanova, Shishova, and Volkova (2025) found that high child EI is associated with emotionally empathic mothers who accurately recognize their children’s emotions. This discrepancy underscores the need for further research.

Additionally, contemporary factors such as cyber‑dependence may moderate EI development. Gusarova and Ldokova (2024) reported that excessive internet use reduces non‑verbal cue processing, potentially impairing interpersonal EI. Future studies should account for digital environment variables.

Limitations. The study has several limitations: a relatively small, geographically restricted sample (Moscow only); a correlational design that precludes causal inferences; reliance on maternal reports for relationship parameters and on self‑reports for child EI (potential social desirability bias); lack of data on paternal roles, family income, parental education, or cyber‑dependence; and no longitudinal follow‑up. The unexpected findings require replication with larger, more diverse samples and multi‑method assessments.

Conclusions

Contrary to expectations, higher emotional intelligence in primary school children, especially managing others’ emotions, was associated with parental demandingness, emotional distance, lack of cooperation, and educational confrontation. Lower EI was linked to emotional closeness, cooperation, and low demandingness. These results suggest a non‑linear effect of family environment on EI and highlight the need for further longitudinal and cross‑cultural research.

Practical Implications. The findings can inform psycho‑educational family support programmes. While emotional warmth remains important, moderate demandingness and boundary setting may also contribute to certain EI skills (e.g., managing others’ emotions). Practitioners should help parents reflect on their emotional patterns and critically evaluate parenting information, avoiding over‑simplified recommendations.

References

1. Andreeva, I. N. (2006). Emotional intelligence: Research on the phenomenon. Voprosy Psychologii, 3, 78–86. [in Russian]
2. Andreeva, I. N. (2011). Emotional intelligence as a phenomenon of modern psychology. Novopolotsk. [in Russian]
3. Andreeva, I. N. (2021). The concept and structure of emotional intelligence. In Socio‑psychological problems of mentality(pp. 22–26). Smolensk State Pedagogical University. [in Russian]
4. Averin, V. A. (2011). On the relationship between non‑verbal and emotional intelligence in children aged 8 to 11 years. Bulletin of South Ural State University. Series: Psychology, 42(259), 60–65. [in Russian]
5. Bakhronova, K. Ya. (2024). The role of parental parenting style in the development of emotional intelligence in children. Oriental Renaissance: Innovative, Educational, Natural and Social Sciences, 4(6), 79–88. [in Russian]
6. Bar-On, R. (2006). The Bar-On model of emotional‑social intelligence (ESI). Psicothema, 18, 13–25.
7. Bayanova, L. F., Shishova, E. O., & Volkova, S. V. (2025). The effects of emotional interactions between parents and children on the emotional intelligence of primary school children. Education & Pedagogy Journal, 2(14), 59–73. https://doi.org/10.23951/2782-2575-2025-2-59-73
8. Dobrin, A. V. (2017). Comparative analysis of cardiac rhythm variability parameters in primary school children with different levels of emotional intelligence. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 14(1), 88–98. [in Russian]
9. Fatikhova, L. F. (2023). Parental attitude of mothers of children with intact and impaired intelligence to different aspects of family life. Bulletin of Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series “Pedagogy and Psychology”, 17(1), 206–222. [in Russian]
10. Filippova, O. G., Tereshchenko, M. N., Batenova, Yu. V., & Prokhorova, A. A. (2021). Development of emotional intelligence in preschool children. Azimuth of Scientific Research: Pedagogy and Psychology, 10(4(37)), 371–374. [in Russian]
11. Gardner, H. (2007). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences(Trans.). Moscow. [in Russian]
12. Goleman, D. (2009). Emotional intelligence. Moscow. [in Russian]
13. Goleman, D. (2017). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ(6th ed., A. P. Isaeva, Trans.). Moscow. [in Russian]
14. Grizun, D. Yu., & Ignatovich, S. S. (2024). The relationship between emotional intelligence and creative abilities of primary school children: Theoretical prerequisites and empirical evidence. Pedagogy: History, Prospects, 7(3‑4), 37–54. [in Russian]
15. Gusarova, A. A., & Ldokova, G. M. (2024). The influence of cyber‑dependence on emotional intelligence of primary school children. In Current problems of psychology and pedagogy: Collection of articles(pp. 1–3). Elabuga Institute of Kazan Federal University. [in Russian]
16. Ilyin, E. P. (2001). Emotions and feelings. St. Petersburg. [in Russian]
17. Ivanova, K. A. (2023). The relationship between emotional intelligence of parents of older preschoolers and characteristics of child–parent relationships. World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, 11(2). https://mir-nauki.com/PDF/29PSMN223.pdf[in Russian]
18. Krasnov, A. V. (2016). Emotional intelligence and parenting style of older preschool girls. RUDN Journal of Psychology and Pedagogics, 4, 55–66. [in Russian]
19. Leontiev, A. N. (2005).  Consciousness. Personality. Moscow. [in Russian]
20. Lyusin, D. V. (2006). A new method for measuring emotional intelligence: The EmIn questionnaire. Psychological Diagnostics, 4, 3–22. [in Russian]
21. Lyusin, D. V. (2015). Modern views on emotional intelligence. In D. V. Lyusin & D. V. Ushakov (Eds.), Social intelligence: Theory, measurement, research(pp. 29–36). Moscow. [in Russian]
22. Markovskaya, I. M. (2005). Parent–child interaction training. St. Petersburg. [in Russian]
23. Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., & Caruso, R. (2004). Emotional intelligence: Theory, findings, and implications. Psychological Inquiry, 15(3), 197–215.
24. Nikitina, E. L. (2020). Features of emotional intelligence development in primary school children. In Prospects for the development of science in the field of pedagogy and psychology: Collection of scientific papers(pp. 13–15). [in Russian]
25. Odnolenko, E. A. (2024). The problem of emotional intelligence development in primary school children. Pedagogical Forum, 1(13), 141–143. [in Russian]
26. Pankratova, A. A. (2020). Emotional intelligence: Mixed ability models and diagnostic methods. Voprosy Psychologii, 1, 154–164. [in Russian]
27. Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 29(2), 313–320.
28. Plotnikova, O. V., Flotskaya, N. Yu., & Kharkova, O. A. (2025). Characteristics of the relationships between emotional intelligence of primary school children and their parents. Scientific Opinion, 6, 38–47. https://doi.org/10.25807/22224378_2025_6_38[in Russian]
29. Rubinstein, S. L. (2008). Fundamentals of general psychology. St. Petersburg. [in Russian]
30. Semago, N. Ya. (2007). Diagnostic kit of a psychologist. “Emotional faces” method. Moscow. [in Russian]
31. Semenov, V. Yu. (2015a). Three‑factor model of socio‑emotional intelligence in primary school children and adolescents. Izvestia of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen, 174, 148–153. [in Russian]
32. Semenov, V. Yu. (2015b). Construction of an operational model of socio‑emotional intelligence. Scientific Research: From Theory to Practice, 1(2), 162–164. [in Russian]
33. Sevostyanova, I. V. (2025). Specificity of emotional intelligence of primary school children with different levels of school motivation. Bulletin of Science, 1(9), 124–131. [in Russian]
34. Shevchenko, M. A. (2015). Psychological colour and drawing tests for adults and children. Moscow. [in Russian]
35. Shvetsova, M. N., & Markova, M. D. (2025). Emotional intelligence of parents of adolescents in the context of child–parent relationships. Problems of Modern Education, 6, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.31862/2218-8711-2025-6-83-94[in Russian]
36. Sitoiu, A., & Panisoara, G. (2023). The emotional intelligence of today’s parents – influences on parenting style and parental competence. Frontiers in Public Health, 11, 1120994. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1120994
37. Tikhonova, I. M. (2022). Family‑oriented support for the development of emotional intelligence in primary school children. In Current issues of psychology and pedagogy: Collection of articles(pp. 1–3). South Ural State Humanitarian Pedagogical University. [in Russian]
38. Vardanyan, Yu. V., Vdovina, N. A., & Semenyuk, A. A. (2022). Study of emotional intelligence and communicativeness of primary school children. World of Science. Pedagogy and Psychology, 10(5), 1–10. [in Russian]
39. Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Collected works in 6 vols. Vol. 2. Problems of general psychology. Moscow. [in Russian]