Emotion-Related Self-Regulation in Children

Abstract

In this article, the authors review basic conceptual issues in research on children’s emotion-related self-regulation, including the differentiation between self-regulation that is effortful and voluntary and control-related processes that are less amenable to effortful control. In addition, the authors summarize what researchers know about developmental changes in self-regulatory capacities, give examples of various methods used to assess these abilities, and summarize findings on the relations between self-regulation or effortful control and positive adjustment and maladjustment. Finally, the authors discuss some strategies for effectively teaching students about emotion regulation.

Full text

Emotion-Related Self-Regulation in Children
Nancy Eisenberg1 and Michael J. Sulik1
1Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Abstract
In this article, the authors review basic conceptual issues in research on children’s emotion-related
self-regulation, including the differentiation between self-regulation that is effortful and voluntary
and control-related processes that are less amenable to effortful control. In addition, the authors
summarize what researchers know about developmental changes in self-regulatory capacities, give
examples of various methods used to assess these abilities, and summarize findings on the
relations between self-regulation or effortful control and positive adjustment and maladjustment.
Finally, the authors discuss some strategies for effectively teaching students about emotion
regulation.
Keywords
self-regulation; effortful control; emotion
Developmental psychologists study change in most processes of interest to psychologists,
including processes involved in social, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive systems. For
decades, behavioral and social-learning approaches to understanding socioemotional
development dominated the field. Until the 1980s, developmental psychologists did not
focus much on emotion and emotion regulation. By the 1990s, however, the study of
emotion and its regulation had become quite popular, and today it is common to find articles
on emotion regulation in developmental psychology journals. In particular, many
investigators have been interested in how people regulate their emotion and behavior related
to emotion—what Eisenberg and Spinrad (2004) labeled emotion-related self-regulation.
Controversies About the Definition and Purview of Emotion Regulation
Eisenberg, Hofer, and Vaughan (2007) defined emotion-related regulation as “processes
used to manage and change if, when, and how (e.g., how intensely) one experiences
emotions and emotion-related motivational and physiological states, as well as how
emotions are expressed behaviorally” (p. 288). Investigators, however, differ in regard to
what processes they include in emotion regulation. For example, there is disagreement
regarding whether the same term should include both extrinsic processes (e.g., parents’
helping children to manage their emotions; see Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Thompson,
1994) and intrinsic processes (e.g., attention, inhibition, cognitions; Eisenberg & Spinrad,
2004) that modulate emotions and emotion-related behavior. Clearly, modulation from both
external and internal sources is important for children’s experience of emotion and related
© The Author(s) 2012
Corresponding Author: Nancy Eisenberg, Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104,
Nancy.Eisenberg@asu.edu.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
NIH Public Access
Author Manuscript
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
Published in final edited form as:
Teach Psychol
. 2012 January 1; 39(1): 77–83. doi:10.1177/0098628311430172.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

behavior. Nonetheless, Eisenberg and Spinrad (2004) argued that it is useful to differentiate
between regulation that comes from outside the self and self-regulation that involves
intrinsic processes. It is difficult to differentiate emotion from its regulation (Cole et al.,
2004), and researchers differ in the degree to which they are willing to use levels of emotion
displayed by individuals as indices of emotion regulation. Some investigators consider, for
example, parents’ reports of their children displaying low levels of anger as indicative of
being well regulated; others would say that the child who is low in anger simply may not
feel the emotion much.
Because of the difficulty differentiating emotion from its regulation, investigators often find
it useful to focus on the processes involved in emotion regulation rather than on the amount
of emotion experienced or expressed. Some capacities involved in emotion-related
regulation appear to have a temperamental basis. Rothbart and Bates (2006) labeled
temperamental self-regulatory capacities as effortful control, defined as “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” (p. 129). Effortful control includes the
abilities to shift and focus attention as needed, to inhibit behavior when needed (i.e.,
inhibitory control), to activate or perform an action when there is a tendency to avoid it (i.e.,
activation control; Evans & Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001), and
some executive functioning skills involved in integrating information and planning.
People who are able to regulate their emotional reactivity in social or nonsocial contexts
deal well with stressful events. For instance, shifting attention away from a distressing
stimulus (e.g., a horror film) or a tempting object can decrease arousal. Focusing attention
on positive aspects of the situation or on other means of coping also can decrease negative
emotion. Moreover, focusing attention on nonthreatening ideas or objects can be a
distraction from a distressing event or cognition. Consider Mischel’s (1974) classic delay-
of-gratification studies, in which he videotaped children who could choose a smaller treat
that was right in front of them or wait for an experimenter to bring back a larger treat.
Mischel found that some children tried to distract themselves by talking or singing. Others
kept their attention on the rewards. The children who shifted their attention away from the
treat were better able to delay gratification than the children who attended to the treat.
Presumably, this self-distraction lessened children’s desire for attractive items, which
enhanced their ability to delay gratification. Similarly, the abilities to shift and refocus
attention have been associated with lower levels of distress, frustration, and other negative
emotions (Bridges & Grolnick, 1995; Derryberry & Rothbart, 1988; Eisenberg et al., 1993;
Rothbart, Ziaie, & O’Boyle, 1992).
Many processes involved in the modulation of emotion are typically automatic and may be
difficult to control consciously. Thus, some researchers have viewed emotion regulation as
spanning a continuum from conscious, effortful, and controlled regulation to unconscious,
effortless, and automatic regulation (Gross & Thompson, 2007). Although automatic,
unconscious, or uncontrolled responding to emotion-relevant stimuli or cognitions may be
more reliable and effective than conscious responses (Bargh & Williams, 2007), Eisenberg
and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2004), like some coping theorists (Compas, Connor,
Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001), have argued that it is useful to differentiate
willful or effortful forms of self-control from those aspects of control that are less amenable
to willful control. Eisenberg et al. (2004) thus suggested a distinction between effortful
control and reactive control.
The primary distinction between these constructs is that effortful control, although often
automatic, can be subject to conscious control. For example, people often drive their cars in
a fairly automatic mode. But when they need to be conscious and careful about their driving
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 2
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

because of bad weather, bad drivers, or some other factor, they can switch into a very
conscious and willful mode of action. The same is likely true with many processes used to
regulate attention, behavior, and emotion. In contrast, reactive control refers to relatively
involuntary motivational approach or avoidance systems of response reactivity that, at the
extremes, reflect impulsive undercontrol or rigid overcontrol (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2004;
Eisenberg & Morris, 2002; also see Carver’s, 2005, discussion of impulse vs. constraint).
Consistent with the distinction between effortful and reactive control, the two constructs can
be differentiated empirically (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2004; Valiente et al., 2003). There is
ongoing debate in the field, however, about how to parse out and label these various control
processes.
Development of Self-Regulation and Temperamentally Based Effortful
Control
For a long time, developmental psychologists assumed that young children had little
capacity for self-regulation. Yet researchers are increasingly identifying early indicators of
rudimentary self-regulation or precursors of effortful control and have found evidence that
self-regulatory processes continue to develop through adolescence.
Early in life, caregivers help infants to regulate their emotion by modulating their exposure
to stimulating events and by acting to alleviate infants’ distress, frustration, or fear with
techniques such as soothing or distraction. But the ability to regulate one’s own behavior
develops rapidly in the toddler and preschool years (Kopp, 1982; Kopp & Neufeld, 2003;
Rothbart & Bates, 2006), and infants and preschoolers improve in aspects of executive
functioning that are part of, or related to, effortful control (see Garon, Bryson, & Smith,
2008). For example, infants demonstrate the capacity to sustain attention by 8 to 10 months
of age (Kochanska, Coy, Tjebkes, & Husarek, 1998), and between 9 and 18 months of age,
attention becomes more voluntary (Ruff & Rothbart, 1996). Moreover, on a Stroop-like task
that required toddlers to switch attention and inhibit behavior, Posner and Rothbart (1998)
found improvement in performance by 30 months and high levels of accuracy by 36 to 38
months.
The ability to inhibit behavior when a child does not want to do so (inhibitory control) is
typically absent until 24 to 36 months of age (Gerardi-Caulton, 2000). Kochanska, Murray,
and Harlan (2000) found significant performance gains on tasks involving inhibitory control
between 22 to 33 months of age. Other researchers have shown that the ability to inhibit
behavior on tasks similar to “Simon says” (when children must inhibit behavior in response
to one command or cue and activate behavior in response to another) improves between 3
and 4 years (Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2003; Posner & Rothbart, 1998; Reed, Pien, &
Rothbart, 1984). Increases in the length of time children can wait for a treat are also evident
from 24 months to 4 years (Carlson, 2005; Kochanska et al., 2000; Li-Grining, 2007).
There are further improvements in effortful control and executive functioning in the late
preschool and early school years. For example, Diamond and colleagues (Diamond, Prevor,
Callender, & Druin, 1997; also see Diamond & Taylor, 1996) found improvement in
children’s responses to the day– night task between 3.5 and 7 years; on this task, children
say “day” when the adult holds up a black card with stars and “night” when the adult holds
up a white card with a bright sun. Carlson (2005) also found an increase in performance
between 3 and 5 years for the majority of 17 executive functioning tasks (also see
Mezzacappa, 2004). Effortful control continues to improve during the school years and, at a
slower pace, into adulthood (Crone, Somsen, Zanolie, & van der Molen, 2006; Leon-
Carrion, García-Orza, & Pérez-Santamaría, 2004; Murphy, Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, &
Guthrie, 1999; Williams, Ponesse, Schachar, Logan, & Tannock, 1999).
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 3
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Measurement of Emotion-Related Self-Regulation, Including Effortful
Control
The study of emotion-related self-regulation in childhood has been characterized by
multireporter, multimethod approaches. Attention tomeasurement issues can help students
understand the nature of the skills involved in emotion-related self-regulation.
A variety of excellent questionnaires are available to measure effortful control and emotion
regulation (Gartstein & Rothbart, 2003; Putnam, Gartstein, & Rothbart, 2006; Shields &
Cicchetti, 2001; Windle & Lerner, 1986). For example, the Child Behavior Questionnaire
(Rothbart et al., 2001) assesses multiple aspects of effortful control, including attention
focusing (e.g., “When drawing or coloring in a book, shows strong concentration”) and
inhibitory control (e.g., “Can lower his/her voice when asked to do so”). In addition,
researchers have used a variety of behavioral measures that assess effortful control and some
aspects of executive functioning involved in emotion-related self-regulation. Tasks include
the day–night executive functioning task, which we discussed earlier (see Garon et al.,
2008), and Kochanska et al.’s (2000) comprehensive battery of tasks designed to measure
five components of effortful control: delaying, slowing down motor activity, suppressing or
initiating activity to signal, lowering one’s voice, and effortful attention. For example,
children may have to wait to take an attractive snack until a bell rings; they might also play a
Simon-says-type task, in which they must inhibit or activate behaviors based on different
verbal commands (Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, & Adams, 2008).
An emerging trend is to measure self-regulatory processes with physiological measures.
Although psychophysiological variables provide a different perspective on regulation than
other methods, it is not yet clear the extent to which psychophysiological responses tap
processes involved in emotion regulation. For instance, physiological responses often appear
to tap some combination of reactivity and regulation. Further complicating this issue, there
are a number of ways people can regulate emotions (Gross, 1998), including cognitive
strategies (e.g., distraction) and response modulation (e.g., trying to control behavioral
responses), and they may differ in which physiological responses are associated with them.
Here we focus on parasympathetic nervous system (PNS) function as an example of how
researchers can use psychophysiological data to understand emotional reactivity and its
regulation and to illustrate the complexity of the findings.
The sympathetic nervous system (SNS) and PNS jointly enervate many of the body’s organs
and have opposing effects. For example, SNS activity increases heart rate, whereas the PNS
decreases heart rate. When faced with a stressful situation, SNS activity increases and PNS
activity decreases, resulting in rapid physiological changes that are collectively known as the
fight–flight response. PNS influence on the heart waxes and wanes with respiration,
decreasing during inspiration and increasing during expiration. This results in a rhythmic
pattern of rising and falling heart rate called respiratory sinus arrhythmia (RSA) that is
sometimes also referred to as vagal tone because the vagus nerve primarily mediates PNS
influence on the heart (Porges, 2007). Students can verify the presence of this pattern of
accelerating and decelerating heart rate by taking their pulse while breathing slowly.
RSA measured under resting (baseline) conditions seems to reflect dispositional levels of
PNS activity (El-Sheikh, 2005). Researchers have also examined RSA changes in response
to a stimulus or task. Sustaining attention and responding to stress typically elicit a decrease
in RSA from baseline; this decrease is referred to as RSA suppression.
Because low baseline RSA is associated with fight–flight behavior, high RSA may reflect
self-regulation. Some studies have found a positive relation between baseline RSA and
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 4
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

attention regulation (Hansen, Johnsen, & Thayer, 2003; Suess, Porges, & Plude, 1994). In
contrast to baseline RSA, some have conceptualized RSA suppression as an index of the
ability to engage with the environment. As such, the inability to suppress RSA in response to
situations that demand attention may indicate self-regulatory problems (Porges, Doussard-
Roosevelt, Portales, & Greenspan, 1996). Infants who sustain attention to a stimulus show
greater RSA suppression (Richards, 1985). Infants and childrenwith highRSAsuppression
are also rated by theirmothers as having higher attention (Huffman et al., 1998; Richards,
1987) and emotion regulation (Gottman, Katz, & Hooven, 1996). Children with greater RSA
suppression to cognitively and emotionally challenging tasks have higher status with peers
(Graziano, Keane, & Calkins, 2007). Moreover, high RSA suppression has been associated
with lower levels of externalizing problems (Boyce et al., 2001; Calkins, Graziano, &
Keane, 2007), although the findings are not consistent and may change with age
(Beauchaine, Gatzke-Kopp, & Mead, 2007).
These studies suggest that RSA suppression indexes the capacity for self-regulation. But
perseverative cognitions (i.e., rumination) that reflect excessive worry about stressors may
indicate a risk for anxiety (Brosschot, Gerin, & Thayer, 2006), and worry about stressors is
associated with suppression of RSA (Brosschot, Van Dijk, & Thayer, 2007). Moreover, high
RSA suppression has been associated with elevated internalizing problems (Calkins et al.,
2007). The context in which researchers measure RSA suppression may play an important
role in whether it reflects the adaptive ability to regulate attention as needed to engage with
the environment or the inability to disengage one’s attention and cognition from stressful
circumstances.
The Relation of Emotion-Relevant Regulation to Quality of Social
Functioning
There is a rapidly accumulating body of literature indicating that individual differences in
the regulation of emotion and behavior driven by emotion are linked to variations in social
competence and maladjustment. For example, there is strong evidence that individual
differences in self-regulation are negatively associated with externalizing problems (e.g.,
aggression, defiance; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003; Rothbart & Bates, 2006) and also predict
change in externalizing problems over time (Eisenberg et al., 2004). In addition, effortful
control may be a stronger predictor of externalizing problems for children prone to
experience negative emotions (Eisenberg, Guthrie, et al., 2000; see Eisenberg, Spinrad, &
Eggum, 2010). Furthermore, although the data are mixed, there is also evidence that some
aspects of emotion-related regulation and/or effortful control—especially skills involving
effortful attention—are associated with low levels of internalizing problems (see Eisenberg,
Spinrad, et al., 2010). Individual differences in emotion-relevant regulation also have been
associated with social competence, conscience, sympathy, and prosocial behavior
(Eisenberg et al., 1993; Eisenberg, Fabes, Karbon, et al., 1996; Kochanska & Knaack, 2003;
Rydell, Berlin, & Bohlin, 2003; Spinrad et al., 2006; Spinrad et al., 2007; also see
Eisenberg, Eggum, Sallquist,& Edwards, 2010). Again, such relations may be stronger for
children prone to negative emotions (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie,& Reiser, 2000; Eisenberg,
Fabes, Murphy, et al., 1996). In general, measures of self-regulation, including effortful
control, have been consistently related to better adjustment and less maladjustment in
childhood and adolescence. Associations such as these ensure that the current interest in
emotion-related self-regulatory processes will not abate quickly.
How to Teach About Emotion Regulation
We suggest that teachers help students understand the nature of emotion-related self-
regulation by having students try simple questionnaire and behavioral measures on
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 5
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

themselves, friends, or family members. Students can discuss what processes are being
regulated in each task and how that type of regulation might affect feelings and their
expression and/or social behavior. Information on Kochanska’s tasks (e.g., Kochanska et al.,
2000; Kochanska et al., 2008) can be obtained from her at Grazyna-kochanska@uiowa.edu.
Rothbart and colleagues’ questionnaires (e.g., Rothbart et al., 2001) are available from
Samuel Putnam at http://www.bowdoin.edu/~sputnam/rothbart-temperament-questionnaires/
request-forms/.
Typical self-regulation tasks tap skills associated with executive attention (e.g., the ability to
shift and focus attention), inhibiting behavior, delaying gratification (as described above),
and modulating the expression of emotion. Attention regulation can be measured using tasks
such as the Continuous Performance Task (CPT), which is computerized. The CPT presents
a number of images to the participant, who then presses a key when a particular image
appears on the screen. Interested persons can obtain an example of a CPT program by
emailing the first author at Nancy.Eisenberg@asu.edu. As another example, the Attention
Network Test (ANT; Fan, McCandless, Sommer, Raz, & Posner, 2002) tests three aspects of
attention: orienting, alerting, and executive function. The ANT computer programis
available at http://www.sacklerinstitute.org/ users/jin.fan/.
Examples of measures of inhibitory control include games similar to Simon says
(Kochanska et al., 2008) as well as executive function tests such as the knock–tap task
(Luria, 1966), in which participants first imitate the experimenter’s actions (knocking on a
table with a closed fist when the experimenter knocks and tapping with an open palm when
the experimenter taps) and then perform tricky trials (knocking when the experimenter taps
and tapping when the experimenter knocks). Stroop tasks, such as the day–night task
(Diamond & Taylor, 1996), are also measures of inhibitory control.
Delay tasks measure a child’s ability to inhibit responding in the face of temptation. One
example is Mischel’s “marshmallow” delay-of-gratification task (e.g., Mischel, Ebbesen, &
Zeiss, 1972), which we mentioned earlier and for which clips are widely available online,
but there are numerous adaptations. For instance, in the gift-wrap task (Kochanska et al.,
2000), the experimenter noisily wraps a gift for 2 minutes behind a child, who is asked not
to peek.
Persistence tasks measure activational control, which is the ability to persist at a difficult or
unpleasant task. Examples of this kind of task include persisting at a nearly impossible,
frustrating task (e.g., Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, et al., 1996) and persisting on unsolvable
puzzles (e.g., Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998).
Summary
In summary, self-regulation skills are basic skills that develop from the early years into
adulthood. They predict numerous aspects of social competence and maladjustment. Thus,
self-regulation is an important construct for understanding processes that contribute to both
normative development and individual differences in diverse aspects of functioning.
Acknowledgments
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research and/or authorship of this article:
Writing of this article was supported by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health and the National
Institute of Child Health and Development.
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 6
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Biographies
References
Bargh, JA.; Williams, LE. The nonconscious regulation of emotion. In: Gross, JJ., editor. The
handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford; 2007. p. 429-445.
Baumeister RF, Bratslavsky E, Muraven M, Tice DM. Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited
resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1998; 74:1252–1265. [PubMed: 9599441]
Beauchaine TP, Gatzke-Kopp L, Mead HK. Polyvagal theory and developmental psychopathology:
Emotion dysregulation and conduct problems from preschool to adolescence. Biological
Psychology. 2007; 74:174–184. [PubMed: 17045726]
Boyce WT, Quas J, Alkon A, Smider NA, Essex MJ, Kupfer DJ. MacArthur Assessment Battery
Working Group of the MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Psychopathology and
Development. Autonomic reactivity and psychopathology in middle childhood. British Journal of
Psychiatry. 2001; 179:144–150. [PubMed: 11483476]
Bridges, LJ.; Grolnick, WS. The development of emotional self-regulation in infancy and early
childhood. In: Eisenberg, N., editor. Review of personality and psychology. Vol. Vol. 15. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. p. 185-211.
Brosschot JF, Gerin W, Thayer JF. The perseverative cognition hypothesis: A review of worry,
prolonged stress-related physiological activation, and health. Journal of Psychosomatic Research.
2006; 60:113–124. [PubMed: 16439263]
Brosschot JF, Van Dijk E, Thayer JF. Daily worry is related to low heart rate variability during waking
and the subsequent nocturnal sleep period. International Journal of Psychophysiology. 2007; 63:39–
47. [PubMed: 17020787]
Calkins SD, Graziano PA, Keane SP. Cardiac vagal regulation differentiates among children at risk for
behavior problems. Biological Psychology. 2007; 74:144–153. [PubMed: 17055141]
Carlson SM. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children.
Developmental Neuropsychology. 2005; 28:595–616. [PubMed: 16144429]
Carver CS. Impulse and constraint: Perspectives from personality psychology, convergence with
theory in other areas, and potential for integration. Personality and Social Psychology Review.
2005; 9:312–333. [PubMed: 16223354]
Cole PM, Martin SE, Dennis TA. Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological
challenges and directions for child development research. Child Development. 2004; 75:317–333.
[PubMed: 15056186]
Compas BE, Connor JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth ME. Coping with stress during
childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research.
Psychological Bulletin. 2001; 127:87–127. [PubMed: 11271757]
Crone EA, Somsen RJ, Zanolie K, van der Molen MW. A heart rate analysis of developmental change
in feedback processing and rule shifting from childhood to early adulthood. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology. 2006; 95:99–116. [PubMed: 16674970]
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 7
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Derryberry D, Rothbart MK. Arousal, affect, and attention as components of temperament. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1988; 55:958–966. [PubMed: 3216290]
Diamond A, Prevor M, Callender G, Druin D. Prefrontal cortex cognitive deficits in children treated
early and continuously for PKU. Monographs of the Society for Research on Child Development.
1997; 62:1–208.
Diamond A, Taylor C. Development of an aspect of executive control: Development of the abilities to
remember what I said and to “do as I say not as I do.”. Developmental Psychobiology. 1996;
29:315–334. [PubMed: 8732806]
Eisenberg, N.; Eggum, ND.; Sallquist, J.; Edwards, A. Relations of self-regulatory/control capacities to
maladjustment, social competence, and emotionality. In: Hoyle, RH., editor. Handbook of
personality and self-regulation. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2010. p. 21-46.
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Bernzweig J, Karbon M, Poulin R, Hanish L. The relations of emotionality
and regulation to preschoolers’ social skills and sociometric status. Child Development. 1993;
64:1418–1438. [PubMed: 8222881]
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Guthrie IK, Murphy BC, Maszk P, Holmgren R, Suh K. The relations of
regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and
Psychopathology. 1996; 8:141–162.
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Guthrie IK, Reiser M. Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in
predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;
78:136–157. [PubMed: 10653511]
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Karbon M, Murphy B, Wosinski M, Polazzi L, Juhnke C. The relations of
children’s dispositional prosocial behavior to emotionality, regulation, and social functioning.
Child Development. 1996; 67:947–992.
Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Murphy B, Karbon M, Smith M, Maszk P. The relations of children’s
dispositional empathy-related responding to their emotionality, regulation, and social functioning.
Developmental Psychology. 1996; 32:195–209.
Eisenberg, N.; Hofer, C.; Vaughan, J. Effortful control and its socioemotional consequences. In: Gross,
JJ., editor. Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford; 2007. p. 287-306.
Eisenberg, N.; Morris, AS. Children’s emotion-related regulation. In: Kail, R., editor. Advances in
child development and behavior. Vol. Vol. 30. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic; 2002. p.
190-229.
Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL. Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development.
2004; 75:334–339. [PubMed: 15056187]
Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Eggum ND. Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s
maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2010; 6:495–525.
Eisenberg N, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA, Reiser M, Cumberland A, Shepard SA, Thompson M. The
relations of effortful control and impulsivity to children’s resiliency and adjustment. Child
Development. 2004; 75:25–46. [PubMed: 15015673]
El-Sheikh M. Stability of respiratory sinus arrhythmia in children and young adolescents: A
longitudinal examination. Developmental Psychobiology. 2005; 46:66–74. [PubMed: 15690389]
Evans D, Rothbart MK. Developing a model for adult temperament. Journal of Research in
Personality. 2007; 41:868–888.
Fan J, McCandless BD, Sommer T, Raz A, Posner MI. Testing the efficiency and independence of
attentional networks. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2002; 14:340–347. [PubMed: 11970796]
Garon N, Bryson SE, Smith IM. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative
framework. Psychological Bulletin. 2008; 134:31–60. [PubMed: 18193994]
Gartstein MA, Rothbart MK. Studying infant temperament via the revised infant behavior
questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development. 2003; 26:64–86.
Gerardi-Caulton G. Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self-regulation in children
24–36 months of age. Developmental Science. 2000; 3:397–404.
Gottman JM, Katz LS, Hooven C. Parental meta-emotion philosophy and the emotional life of
families: Theoretical models and preliminary data. Journal of Family Psychology. 1996; 10:243–
268.
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 8
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Graziano PA, Keane SP, Calkins SD. Cardiac vagal regulation and early peer status. Child
Development. 2007; 78:264–278. [PubMed: 17328704]
Gross JJ. The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General
Psychology. 1998; 2:271–299.
Gross, JJ.; Thompson, RA. Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In: Gross, JJ., editor.
Handbook of emotion regulation. New York, NY: Guilford; 2007. p. 3-24.
Hansen AL, Johnsen BH, Thayer JF. Vagal influence on working memory and attention. International
Journal of Psychophysiology. 2003; 48:263–274. [PubMed: 12798986]
Huffman LC, Bryan YE, del Carmen R, Pedersen FA, Doussard-Roosevelt JA, Porges SW. Infant
temperament and cardiac vagal tone: Assessments at twelve weeks of age. Child Development.
1998; 69:624–635. [PubMed: 9680676]
Jones LB, Rothbart MK, Posner MI. Development of executive attention in preschool children.
Developmental Science. 2003; 6:498–504.
Kochanska G, Aksan N, Prisco TR, Adams EE. Mother-child and father-child mutually responsive
orientation in the first two years and children’s outcomes at preschool age: Mechanisms of
influence. Child Development. 2008; 79:30–44. [PubMed: 18269507]
Kochanska G, Coy KC, Tjebkes TL, Husarek SJ. Individual differences in emotionality in infancy.
Child Development. 1998; 69:375–390. [PubMed: 9586213]
Kochanska G, Knaack A. Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children:
Antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personality. 2003; 71:1087–1112. [PubMed:
14633059]
Kochanska G, Murray KT, Harlan ET. Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change,
antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36:220–
232. [PubMed: 10749079]
Kopp CB. Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology.
1982; 18:199–214.
Kopp, CB.; Neufeld, SJ. Emotional development during infancy. In: Davidson, R.; Scherer, KR.;
Goldsmith, HH., editors. Handbook of affective sciences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press;
2003. p. 347-374.
Leon-Carrion J, García-Orza J, Pérez-Santamaría FJ. Development of the inhibitory component of the
executive functions in children and adolescents. International Journal of Neuroscience. 2004;
114:1291–1311. [PubMed: 15370187]
Li-Grining CP. Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three cities: Stability, change, and
individual differences. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43:208–221. [PubMed: 17201520]
Luria, AR. Higher cortical functions in man. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1966.
Mezzacappa E. Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: Developmental properties and
sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children. Child
Development. 2004; 75:1373–1386. [PubMed: 15369520]
Mischel, W. Processes in delay of gratification. In: Berkowitz, L., editor. Progress in experimental
personality research. Vol. Vol. 3. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1974. p. 249-292.
Mischel W, Ebbesen EB, Zeiss AR. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1972; 21:204–218. [PubMed: 5010404]
Murphy BC, Eisenberg N, Fabes RA, Shepard S, Guthrie IK. Consistency and change in children’s
emotionality and regulation: A longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. 1999; 46:413–444.
Porges SW. The polyvagal perspective. Biological Psychology. 2007; 74:116–143. [PubMed:
17049418]
Porges SW, Doussard-Roosevelt JA, Portales AL, Greenspan SI. Infant regulation of the vagal “brake”
predicts child behavior problems: A psychobiological model of social behavior. Developmental
Psychobiology. 1996; 29:697–712. [PubMed: 8958482]
Posner MI, Rothbart MK. Attention, self-regulation, and consciousness. Philosophical Transactions of
the Royal Society of London B. 1998; 353:1915–1927.
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 9
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript

Putnam SP, Gartstein MA, Rothbart MK. Measurement of fine-grained aspects of toddler
temperament: The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development.
2006; 29:389–401.
Reed MA, Pien DP, Rothbart MK. Inhibitory self-control in preschool children. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly. 1984; 30:131–147.
Richards JE. Respiratory sinus arrhythmia predicts heart rate and visual responses during visual
attention in 14 and 20 week old infants. Psychophysiology. 1985; 22:101–109. [PubMed:
3975314]
Richards JE. Infant visual sustained attention and respiratory sinus arrhythmia. Child Development.
1987; 58:488–496. [PubMed: 3829789]
Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey K, Fisher P. Investigations of temperament at three to seven years:
The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development. 2001; 72:1394–1408. [PubMed:
11699677]
Rothbart, MK.; Bates, JE. Temperament. In: Damon, W.; Lerner, RM.; Eisenberg, N., editors.
Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development. New
York, NY: John Wiley; 2006. p. 99-166.(Vol. Ed.)
Rothbart, MK.; Ziaie, H.; O’Boyle, CG. Self-regulation and emotion in infancy. In: Eisenberg, N.;
Fabes, RA., editors. Emotion and its regulation in early development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass; 1992. p. 7-23.
Ruff, HA.; Rothbart, MK. Attention in early development: Themes and variations. London, UK:
Oxford University Press; 1996.
Rydell AM, Berlin L, Bohlin G. Emotionality, emotion regulation, and adaptation among 5- to 8-year-
old children. Emotion. 2003; 3:30–47. [PubMed: 12899315]
Shields A, Cicchetti D. Parental maltreatment and emotion dysregulation as risk factors for bullying
and victimization in middle childhood. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 2001; 30:349–363.
[PubMed: 11501252]
Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Fabes RA, Valiente C, Shepard S, Guthrie IK. Relation of
emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion. 2006;
6:498–510. [PubMed: 16938090]
Spinrad TL, Eisenberg N, Gaertner B, Popp T, Smith CL, Kupfer A, Hofer C. Relations of maternal
socialization and toddlers’ effortful control to children’s adjustment and social competence.
Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43:1170–1186. [PubMed: 17723043]
Suess PE, Porges SW, Plude DJ. Cardiac vagal tone and sustained attention in school-age children.
Psychophysiology. 1994; 31:17–22. [PubMed: 8146250]
Thompson RA. Emotion regulation: A theme in search of definition. Monographs of the Society for
Research on Child Development. 1994; 59:25–52.
Valiente C, Eisenberg N, Smith CL, Reiser M, Fabes RA, Losoya S, Murphy BC. The relations of
effortful control and reactive control to children’s externalizing problems: A longitudinal
assessment. Journal of Personality. 2003; 71:1172–1196.
Williams BR, Ponesse JS, Schachar RJ, Logan GD, Tannock R. Development of inhibitory control
across the life span. Developmental Psychology. 1999; 35:205–213. [PubMed: 9923475]
Windle M, Lerner RM. Reassessing the dimensions of temperamental individuality across the life
span: The revised dimensions of temperament survey (DOTS-R). Journal of Adolescent Research.
1986; 1:213–230.
Eisenberg and Sulik Page 10
Teach Psychol
. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 October 23.
NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript