Emotion-Related Self-Regulation: The Construct and Developmental Correlates in Children

1. Emotion-Related Self-Regulation:The Construct and Developmental Correlates in Children Nancy Eisenberg Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center February, 2006

2. Collaborators • Tracy Spinrad Claire Hofer • Mark Reiser Sri Pidada • Cindy Smith • Sandra Losoya • Elizabeth Gershoff • Amanda Morris • Amanda Cumberland • Ivanna Guthrie • Jeffrey Liew • Bridget Murphy • Carlos Valiente • Qing Zhou

3. Emotion-related regulation the process of initiating, avoiding, maintaining, modulating, or changing the occurrence, intensity, form, or duration of internal feeling states, emotion-related goals and physiological processes, or the behavioral concomitants of emotion, generally in the service of affect-related biological or social adaptation or accomplishing goals

4. Emotion-related regulation involves: • control of perceptual and experiential input through processes such as attention and selection or modification of contexts that the individual encounters • modifying the meaning and significance of the relations between the person and the environment • changing behavioral responses such as facial expressions and interactions with the environment • e.g., Campos et al. (1994)

5. Operationalizations • attentional processes such as the abilities to shift and focus attention as assessed in temperament work (e.g.,Rothbart’s work) • cognitive coping processes such as cognitive distraction and positive cognitive restructuring • active, instrumental coping • the abilities to voluntarily inhibit and activate behavior, including facial and gestural responses and other behaviors stemming from, or associated with, internal emotion-related psychological or physiological states

6. Distinction: Control vs. Regulation • overlapping constructs but not identical • control = inhibition or constraint • regulation includes optimal levels of control and other abilities (e.g., activation control) • well-regulated individuals are not overly controlled or undercontrolled

7. well-regulated people have the ability to respond to the ongoing demands of experience with a range of responses that are socially acceptable and sufficiently flexible to allow for spontaneity as well as for the delay of spontaneous reactions as needed (Cole et al., 1994) • regulation generally is adaptive; control can be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on its flexibility and if it can be voluntarily modulated

8. a related distinction is between more effortful (i.e., voluntary) and reactive (less voluntary) types of control • voluntary control includes what Rothbart has labeled as effortful control • "the efficiency of executive attention, including the ability to inhibit a dominant response and/or to activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors” (Rothbart & Bates, in press) • involves attentional regulation (e.g., executive attention) & behavioral regulation • usually translates into adaptive regulation

9. Development of Effortful Control • the executive attention involved in effortful attentional control develops a little in infancy and at 18 months but is still quite immature at 24 months • there is a dramatic improvement in attentional regulation in the 3rd year of life • in 2nd year, infants show increases in the ability to slow down their walking or to stop an activity when asked to do so • effortful inhibition of behavior improves greatly at about 44 months and is fairly good by age 4 • effortful control appears to be fairly well developed by 4 or 5 years and continues to improve across childhood and into adulthood

10. Less Voluntary or Reactive Control • some aspects of control, or the lack thereof, seem involuntary or so automatic that they are not usually under voluntary control • types of impulsivity pulled by environmental rewards/cues • very low impulsivity or behavioral inhibition • overcontrolled children who are timid, constrained, and lack flexibility in novel or stressful situations (Kagan’s work) • called reactive control; reflects motivational tendencies • not necessarily totally involuntary, but seem to be more difficult to modulate

11. Neurological correlates of effortful control and more reactive, less voluntary aspects of control (or the lack thereof) likely differ • effortful control believed to be based in the midline of the frontal lobe of the cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex, especially the anterior cingulate gyrus (Posner) • Gray and others have argued that reactive systems are associated with subcortical systems (e.g., amygdala & mesolimbic dopamine pathways)

12. many projections between subcortical structures into cortical structures, forging connections between them

13. Heuristic Styles of Control: Highly Inhibited • high in involuntary reactive overcontrol (e.g., behavioral inhibition) • low to average in the ability to effortfully inhibit behavior (i.e., inhibitory control) • relatively low in effortful attentional control

14. low in the ability to effortfully activate behavior as needed (activational control) and planful active coping • prone to internalizing problems, especially if predisposed to negative emotionality

15. Undercontrolled • low in all types of effortful control (attentional, inhibitory, activational) • low in reactive overcontrol and high in reactive approach tendencies (low in behavioral inhibition/overcontrol and high in impulsivity) • relatively low in social competence and prone to externalizing problems

16. Optimally Regulated • high in various modes of adaptive effortful control (attentional, inhibitory, activational) • in regard to involuntary control, neither overcontrolled nor undercontrolled • well adjusted, socially competent, and resilient to stress

17. Hypothesized Relations of Effortful and Reactive Control To Adjustment • externalizing problems are linked to low effortful and low reactive control • internalizing problems associated with low effortful control (especially attentional & activational) and high reactive overcontrol (or low impulsivity) • although impulsivity & effortful control tend to be negatively related, we expect both to be negatively related to internalizing

18. Empirical findings • Kochanska--observed effortful control & reported child inhibitory control in the early years predict internalized compliance, moral behavior and moral reasoning, lower anger, and adjustment • Mischel--ability to delay gratification (often through attentional mechanisms) predicts positive outcomes decades later (e.g., academic & social competence, coping with frustration/stress, drug use)

19. preschoolers’ attentional regulation predicted quality of real-life coping with negative emotions, sociometric status, and adult-reported social skills, as well as adjustment and social competence 4 and/or 6 years later • observed effortful control and low impulsivity predict low concurrent externalizing problems in numerous labs

20. Eisenberg, Cumberland, Spinrad et al. (2001) • 4- to 7-year-old sample with externalizing &/or internalizing children and nondisordered children • obtained a teacher’s and a parent’s reports of effortful attention shifting and focusing, inhibitory control, and impulsivity • mothers’, fathers’, & teachers’ reports of externalizing & internalizing problems • observed measures of primarily regulation, including sitting still when asked, exhibiting positive rather than negative reactions to a disappointing prize, persisting at a puzzle task

23. compared children with at least borderline levels of externalizing (with or without comorbid internalizing) with nondisordered control children (Achenbach T < 60 for internalizing and externalizing) • EXTs/COMORBIDs < CONTROLs on parents' & teachers' reports of effortful attention shifting, attention focusing, & inhibitory control • EXTs/COMORBIDs had more difficulty than controls sitting still when asked and in persisting on the puzzle task • EXTs/COMORBIDs >CONTROLs in reported impulsivity • findings generally held across reporters

24. examined differences between internalizing children and externalizing or nondisordered children • adult-rated effortful attentional control • INTs < CONTROLs; INTs > EXT • adult-rated impulsivity • INTs < EXTs & CONTROLs

25. teacher/parent-rated inhibitory control • INTs > EXTs • INTs = CONTROLs • observed measures of control • INTs only slightly (nonsignificantly) less controlled than CONTROLs; INTs > EXTs • INTS < EXTs in negative emotion in response to a disappointing gift • INT boys > EXT boys in persistence on the puzzle task • INTs were low in effortful attentional (but not inhibitory) control and high in reactive overcontrol (low impulsivity)

26. 2-year follow-up • externalizing problems still clearly linked to low effortful control and high impulsivity • change in status related to negative emotionality and levels of effortful control and impuslvity • internalizing problems no longer associated with problems in attentional regulation (and still not associated with deficits in inhibitory control) • internalizing problems still associated with low impulsivity • change in status linked to degree of impulsivity (and anger and sadness)

27. Examining additive, multiplicative, & mediated relations Hypothesized: • prediction of socioemotional outcomes is greater when both effortful and reactive control are predictors (unique effects) • negative emotionality moderates the relations of effortful control--and perhaps reactive control--to developmental outcomes • personality resiliency--the ability to cope with and rebound from stress--mediates some relations between effortful control and socioemotional functioning Tested for potential causal relations by controlling stability of variables across time

28. Moderator Model Predictor Outcome Variable Moderator Predictor X Moderator ..Baron & Kenny, 1986

29. Mediational Model Mediator Outcome Variable Independent Variable Baron & Kenny, 1986

30. Computed SEMs for adjustment (or social competence) • in our high-risk sample, in initial measurement models, the fit was better when effortful control and reactive control were separate constructs • in SEMs on adjustment, resiliency was treated as a mediator between impulsivity or effortful control and internalizing or externalizing problems

31. Time 1 Puzzle Parent Resiliency Teacher Resiliency Teacher Inhibitory Parent Inhibitory Mother Internalize Effortful Control + - Internalizing Father Internalize Resiliency Parent Atten-Reg Teacher Atten-Reg - - + + + Father Externalize Impulsivity Externalizing Parent Impulsive Teacher Impulsive Mother Externalize Teacher Externalize Chisq (52, N=214)=60.017, p>.208, CFI= .994; RMSEA=.027

32. Time 2 Puzzle Parent Resiliency Teacher Resiliency Teacher Inhibitory n.s. Parent Inhibitory Mother Internalize Effortful Control + - Internalizing Father Internalize Resiliency Parent Atten-Reg Teacher Atten-Reg n.s. - - - + + Father Externalize Impulsivity Externalizing marginal Parent Impulsive Teacher Impulsive Mother Externalize Teacher Externalize Chisq (55, N=193)=86.846, p>.004, CFI= .974’ RMSEA=.055

33. to construct the longitudinal model, multiple indicators of constructs in the T1 and T2 concurrent SEMs were weighted and aggregated • error variances for the linear combinations were calculated from measurement error variances in concurrent models • within-time and cross-lagged paths were included in the model

34. Longitudinal Model Time 2 Time 1 + Effortful Control Effortful Control - - + + Impulsivity + Impulsivity + + - + Resiliency Resiliency ns - - - - + + Internalizing Internalizing + + + Externalizing Externalizing Chisq (24, n=214)=23.70. p < .48; CFI= .1.0; RMSEA = .00.

35. relations held at T2 even when controlling for levels of the various constructs at T1 except the path from impulsivity to externalizing became nonsignificant • so most relations at T2 not due merely to the consistency of relations and variables over time • impulsivity was a weaker unique predictor of externalizing problems at T2

36. .61*** Effort-2 Effort-1 -.08*** -.39*** .34* -2.8** .76*** Implsv-2 .13*** Implsv-1 .22*** -.92*** -1.29*** .17*** .42*** Resil-1 Resil-2 -2.77*** -.71* 3.93*** -.03* -.76** -.02* -4.33*** Int-2 -1.78** Int-1 .70*** 3.98* 23.40*** Ext-1 Ext-2 .42*** Chisq (9, n=214)=10.59. p < .30; CFI= .999; RMSEA = .03. Evidence of bi-directionality in relations

37. Moderation by negative emotionality • in regressions, teacher-reported anger moderated the path of EC to low externalizing at both T1 and T2 and the path from impulsivity to externalizing problems at T2 • effortful regulation or low impulsivity was negatively related to externalizing problems for most children, but this relation was strongest for children higher in teacher-reported anger

38. Teacher 1.00 (.77) T3 Effortful Control Parent .61** (.63) Teacher -.50** (-.96) 1.00 (.71) Puzzle Box T3 Externalizing Behaviors .14** (.35) .49** (.83) Parent R2 = .83 .51** (.47) Teacher 1.00 (.59) T3 Over Control .04 (.06) Parent 1.23** (.86) Findings replicated in a sample of typical school children for externalizing problems (with different measure of reactive control)

39. Teacher Parent Puzzle Box Teacher Parent Puzzle Box .57** (.62) .57** (.48) .24** (.52) 1.00 (.61) 1.00 (.87) 12** (.32) T1 Effortful Control 1.18 ** (.72) T3 Effortful Control R2 = .52 -.39** (-.43) T1 Over Control T3 Over Control 1.09 ** (.85) -39 ** (-.69) R2 = .73 .74** (.70) 1.00 (.71) .74** (.68) 1.00 (.78) Parent Teacher .07 (.12) Parent Teacher -.27 ** (-.41) T1 Externalizing Behaviors T3 Externalizing Behaviors .57 ** (.56) R2 = 1.00 R2 = .78 1.00 (.79) .39** (.48) 1.00 (.86) .39** (.43) Teacher Parent Teacher Parent

40. Why is resiliency related to high impulsivity? Block & Kremen (1996) noted, "the human goal is to be as undercontrolled as possible and as overcontrolled as necessary. When one is more undercontrolled than is adaptively effective or more overcontrolled than is adaptively required, one is not resilient."

41. efffortful control would be expected to relate positively to resiliency • high reactive control (overcontrol) expected to predict rigidity & low resiliency • moderate to moderately high reactive undercontrol (i.e., a bit impulsive & spontaneous) expected to relate positively to resiliency

42. found positive linear relations between reactive undercontrol and resiliency in 3 samples of young children, as well as quadratic relations in two samples • children moderate or sometimes even high in impulsivity were more resilient than children low in impulsivity • by mid- to late-elementary school, only the quadratic relation between impulsivity and resiliency remains, and by early adolescence, impulsivity tends to be modestly negatively related to resiliency unless the overlapping relation of effortful control to resiliency is controlled, and then the relation becomes positive

43. Time 1 7 6.8 6.6 Resiliency 6.4 6.2 6 Low -1 SD Mean High +1 SD Impulsivity Time 2 7 6.8 6.6 Resiliency 6.4 6.2 6 Low -1 SD Mean High +1 SD Impulsivity

44. Summary • individual differences in effortful regulation and less voluntary types of control, as well as in emotionality, are important correlates, and perhaps predictors, of adjustment • it is useful to differentiate conceptually and empirically between various types of control because effortful and reactive control provide some unique prediction of resiliency and adjustment • effortful control becomes the stronger unique predictor with age (and also is linked to outcomes in Indonesia and China) • resiliency may be an important mediator

45. Role of Socialization • effortful control often is viewed as a component of temperament and personality and likely has a hereditary basis • but socializers can help children learn to effectively manage their emotions and emotion-related behavior

46. Our study including high-risk children: T1 • assessed mothers’ reported expression of positive & negative emotion in the family & observed emotion expressed with child • in SEM, the relations of maternal expressivity to children's social competence and externalizing were mediated by children’s regulation (effortful control) • regulation was predicted by high positive, and low negative, maternal expressivity • reversed child-driven models: critical paths not significant

47. R2 = .71 Mother Report 1.80*** Child’s Externalizing Behavior Problems 1 .15** Observed Teacher Report Mother’s Positive Expressivity Behavioral Measure -3.38*** Mother Report 1 .08*** R2 = .36 R2 = .77 1.20 Mother Report .06** Child’s Internalizing Behavior Problems Child’s Regulation -.90+ 1 Teacher Report -.08** 4.92*** 4.95*** .04** .89*** Observed Mother’s Negative Expressivity Mother Report Teacher Report R2 = .84 Mother Report .86*** Mother Report Child’s Social Competence .09** 1 Teacher Report RCFI = .989, Satorra -Bentler χ2 (df = 38) 45.78, p = .18, AIC = -31.03, RMSEA = .033. + p < .10. ** p < .01.*** p < .001.

48. Longitudinal model using T2, T3, & T4 data • tested mediation using 3 time points • high parental positive vs. negative expressivity at T2 predicted high effortful control at T3, which predicted low externalizing 2 years later (mediation) • effortful control did not predict parenting across time

49. Parent-ing Parent- ing Parent- ing + + Child EC Child EC Child EC + + Adjust-ment Adjust-ment Adjust-ment + +

50. T2 EXP T3 EXP T4 EXP + + + + - T2 EC T3 EC T4 EC + + - - - - T2 EXT T3 EXT T4 EXT + + EXT = externalizing; EXP = parent expressivity; EC = effortful control. Obtained similar findings for parent-rated internalizing problems