Effortful Control Simonds et al. Cog Development 2007

UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F

Please cite this article in press as: Simonds, J., et al., Effortful control, executive attention, and emotionalregulation in 7–10-year-old children, Cognitive Development (2007), doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009

ARTICLE IN PRESS+ModelCOGDEV 286 1–15

Cognitive Development xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

Effortful control, executive attention, and emotional3

regulation in 7–10-year-old children4

Jennifer Simonds a,∗, Jessica E. Kieras b,M. Rosario Rueda b,c, Mary K. Rothbart b

a Department of Psychology, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT, United States5b Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States6c Dpto. de Psicologı́a Experimental, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain7

8

Abstract9

In this study, self-regulation was investigated in 7- to 10-year-old children using three different mea-10

sures: (1) parent and child report questionnaires measuring temperamental effortful control, (2) a conflict11

task assessing efficiency of executive attention, and (3) the mistaken gift paradigm assessing social smiling12

in response to an undesirable gift. Both efficiency in executive attention and smiling to the undesired gift13

increased over age. Executive attention was related to both parent reported temperamental effortful con-14

trol and smiling, suggesting links between attentional capacities, broad temperament measures, and social15

situations requiring attentional control.Q116

© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.17

18

One of the major challenges in research on child development is understanding the development19

of self-regulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Self-regulation has been studied at multiple levels,20

including: (1) observed regulation of social behavior, (2) parent or self-reports of temperamental21

effortful control, and (3) executive attention as assessed on cognitive tasks. Effortful control is22

defined as the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a sub-dominant response,23

to detect errors, and to engage in planning (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). The executive attention24

network is seen to underlie effortful control, and both are expected to predict children’s emotional25

regulation in a social situation. Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, and Spinrad (2004), for example,26

view effortful control as a key component of emotion-related regulation. In the current study,27

we examined relations among three measures of self-regulation: temperamental effortful control,28

executive attention, and smiling in a social situation to an undesired gift.29

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Westminster College, 1840 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT84105, United States. Tel.: +1 801 832 2414.

E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Simonds).

1 0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.2 doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009

mailto:[email protected]


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F



2 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development xxx (2007) xxx–xxx

1. Temperamental effortful controlQ230

We define temperament as constitutionally based individual differences in emotional, motor,31

and attentional reactivity and self-regulation (Derryberry & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart &32

Derryberry, 1981). Reactivity describes motor, emotional, and attentional responses to internal33

and external stimuli. Regulation describes processes that function to modulate those responses34

(Putnam, Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Constitutional refers to the biological35

basis of temperament, influenced by genes, environment, and experience over time. Tempera-36

ment has been shown to be relatively consistent across situations and stable over time, although37

changes in temperament related to development have also been reported (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).38

As children develop, self-regulatory capacities increase for better modulation of reactive responses39

(Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). Temperamental effortful control is measured as a higher-order trait of40

temperament. In factor analytic studies, this broad factor includes subscales measuring attentional41

and inhibitory control, as well as low intensity pleasure and perceptual sensitivity.42

2. Executive attention43

In neuro-cognitive models, attention is related to three separate brain networks (Posner &44

Petersen, 1990). Alerting refers to the establishment and maintenance of a vigilant state, and45

orienting to the ability to attend to a given location. The executive attention network is activated46

in situations requiring attentional control, as when there is conflict between responses suggested47

by different stimuli or dimensions of the same stimulus. Conflict tasks have been shown to activate48

a common neural network including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and lateral prefrontal49

areas (Fan, Flombaum, McCandliss, Thomas, & Posner, 2003); conflict tasks thus serve as model50

tasks for the assessing the efficiency of the executive attention network. Executive attention has51

also been identified as a neural substrate of developing temperamental effortful control (Posner52

& Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Posner, & Kieras, 2005; Rothbart & Rueda, 2005).Q353

Efficiency of executive attention shows improvement from ages 2 to 7. Gerardi-Caulton (2000)54

and Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, and Posner (2003) found that between 24 and 36 months, young55

children were increasingly able to perform a spatial conflict task requiring a response based on56

the identity of a stimulus while inhibiting its location. A strong positive relationship was also57

found between age and executive attention in children aged 3–5 years (Chang & Burns, 2005).58

Rueda et al. (2004) found that conflict scores did not improve from age 8 to adulthood. Using an59

age-appropriate version of the Attentional Network Test (ANT; Rueda et al., 2004) to measure60

conflict efficiency, we expected to replicate this finding in a sample of children 7–10 years of age.61

3. Temperament and executive attention62

Positive relations have been found between parent-reported temperamental effortful control63

and performance on executive attention tasks in children from ages 2 to 7 (Chang & Burns,64

2005; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez, Fuentes, Carranza, & Estevez, 2001; Rothbart, Ellis,65

Rueda, & Posner, 2003) and adolescents aged 16–17 years (Ellis, 2002). Gerardi-Caulton (2000)66

found positive associations between performance on a spatial conflict task and temperamental67

effortful control in children aged 2–3 years, as measured by laboratory observations and parent-68

report questionnaires (Children’s Behavior Questionnaire; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher,69

2001). Gonzalez et al. (2001) used a Stroop-like task to examine relations of parent-reported70

temperament to executive attention in 7-year-olds. Stronger Stroop interference (poorer perfor-71


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F



J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development xxx (2007) xxx–xxx 3

mance) was found for children rated higher by their parents on temperamental activity level and72

impulsivity, and lower on inhibitory control. In adolescents aged 16–17, Ellis (2002) found that73

higher mother-reported effortful control was associated with lower interference on the ANT con-74

flict task (Ellis, 2002). Mother-reported effortful control also correlated positively with lower75

Stroop interference. Adolescents’ self-reports of their effortful control were not related to perfor-76

mance on executive attention tasks. No subsequent research has been conducted to investigate this77

discrepancy.78

In the current study, effortful control is measured through both parent- and self-report in79

children 7–10 years old. It was predicted that greater efficiency of executive attention, as indicated80

by a smaller conflict effect, would be related to higher parent-reported effortful control. Based81

on the theoretical relations between executive attention and effortful control, it was expected that82

self-reported effortful control would also relate to more efficient attention.83

4. Self-regulation and the activation of smiling84

Effortful control includes modulation of emotional reactivity, allowing the expression of85

socially appropriate emotions and the inhibition of emotions that are inappropriate in social86

situations (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Eisenberg, Smith, et al. (2004) explainQ4 Q587

that the process of regulating the “occurrence, form, intensity, or duration” of emotional reactions88

relies in part on the ability to shift one’s attention away from a stimulus that induces an undesired89

emotional state (p. 260). The attention system is thus considered to be a mechanism underlying90

the ability to regulate emotion in order to behave in a socially appropriate manner (Eisenberg,91

Champion, & Ma, 2004).92

One such situation is conflict between competing emotional responses in situations where dis-93

play rules call for a response that differs from the reactive response. Display rules specify socially94

appropriate emotional expression guided by social norms. They often differ across cultures, are95

largely influenced by socialization, and later internalized by children as they become increas-96

ingly able to control their emotions without assistance (Saarni, 1984). To measure emotional97

expression based on social display rules, Saarni (1984) developed the mistaken gift paradigm.98

In this paradigm, children are presented with a toy or gift that does not meet expectations and99

is undesirable enough to be disappointing. The prepotent response is to display disappointment;100

however, the display rule in American culture requires the child to smile and show appreciation101

after receiving any gift to avoid hurting the giver’s feelings. Kieras, Tobin, Graziano, and Rothbart102

(2005) measured effortful control in 3- to 5-year-olds with laboratory tasks developed by Kochan-103

ska and colleagues (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997; Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, &104

Vandegeest, 1996), including walking and drawing slowly, and presented children with desirable105

and undesirable gifts. Higher effortful control was related to similarity in display of positive affect106

for both desirable and undesirable gifts; children lower in effortful control showed less positive107

affect to the undesired gift than to the desired gift.108

Based on these findings, and on the conceptual link between effortful control and emotion109

regulation, we predicted that smiling in response to a disappointing gift would be related to110

effortful control as measured on parent- and child-report questionnaires. We also expected that111

smiling to the undesirable gift would relate to better efficiency in executive attention. In the current112

study, we used a computer task, the child ANT, to measure efficiency of executive attention, self-113

and parent-report questionnaires to assess temperamental effortful control, and smiling upon114

receipt of a disappointing gift to measure emotion regulation in 7- to 10-year-olds. Our central115

hypothesis was that measures of self-regulation would be related to the child’s ability to regulate116


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




their smiling in a conflict event that simulates a real-life situation. Based on previous findings, we117

also expected that the ability to deal with conflict would improve until, but not after, age 8.118

5. Method119

5.1. Participants120

Forty-nine children participated in the study. Participants consisted of a group of 13 children121

aged 7 years (7 boys, 6 girls) and three groups of 12 children each (6 boys, 6 girls) aged 8, 9,122

and 10 years. Mean age for 7-year-olds was 87.69 months (S.D. = 1.97); for 8-year-olds, 100.92123

months (S.D. = 1.62); for 9-year-olds, 111.83 months (S.D. = 2.04); and for 10-year-olds, 124.33124

months (S.D. = 4.81). Overall mean age of the sample was 8.82 years (S.D. = 1.17).125

Participants came from predominantly, but not exclusively, white, middle-class backgrounds.126

Parents of participants were identified through local birth announcements and recruited by tele-127

phone. Children and their families were offered a total of $20 cash and two toy prizes for their128

participation. Only children with severe birth complications were excluded from the study due to129

possible developmental delays.130

5.2. Procedure131

This study included three sessions and was run concurrently with a separate study on exec-132

utive attention. In the first session, children completed the Temperament in Middle Childhood133

Questionnaire (TMCQ) and the Attention Network Task (ANT) for children. A parent version of134

the TMCQ was completed in the first session. In the second session, children completed execu-135

tive attention tasks for the separate study and the first portion (desired gift) of the mistaken gift136

paradigm. In the third and final session, children completed the TMCQ and child ANT a second137

time for examination of test–retest reliability and participated in the second portion (undesired138

gift) of the mistaken gift paradigm. The maximum time between first and third sessions was 3139

weeks.140

5.3. Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ)141

Computerized self-report and paper-and-pencil parent report versions of the Temperament142

in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, in preparation) were used to measure143

effortful control through subscales assessing attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity144

pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity. Sample items are shown in Table 1. The 25–30 min self-145

report version of TMCQ used a computer to present questions to children using a cartoon voice146

of “Ducky” (see Fig. 1). Children learned to respond to items and to complete the questionnaire147

while listening to and reading simultaneous presentation of written items on the screen and the148

voice reading items to the children.149

5.4. Attention Network Test (ANT) for Children150

The child ANT is a computer task that provides a measure of efficiency of the attentional func-151

tions of alerting, orienting, and executive control (Rueda et al., 2004). The ANT uses differences152

in reaction time (RT) between different conditions to measure the efficiency of each function.153

In the target display, a row of five fish is presented either above or below fixation. Children are154

instructed to pay attention to the middle fish, and to respond based on whether it is pointing to155


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Table 1Sample items – effortful control scales

Scale Self-report item Parent-report item

Attention focusing When I try to pay attention, I get distracted. Gets distracted when trying to payattention in class.

Attention focusing My mom or dad tells me to pay attention. Needs to be told to pay attention.Inhibitory control It’s hard to stop when I need to. Has a hard time stopping him/herself

when told to do so.Inhibitory control I can talk quietly when I need to. Can lower his/her voice when asked

to do so.Low-intensity pleasure I like the crunching sound of leaves in the

fall.Likes the crunching sound of leavesin the fall.

Low-intensity pleasure I like to sit under a blanket. Likes to sit under a blanket.Perceptual sensitivity I like to run my hand over things to see if

they are smooth or rough.Likes to run his/her hand over thingsto see if they are smooth or rough.

Perceptual sensitivity I notice the color of people’s eyes. Notices the color of people’s eyes.

the left or right by pressing the corresponding key. In the executive attention part of the ANT156

(conflict task), children are presented with fish surrounded by congruent or incongruent flankers.157

On congruent trials, fish on either side of the middle fish (flankers) point in the same direction,158

whereas on incongruent trials, flankers point in the opposite direction, prompting the incorrect159

response (see Fig. 2). Subtracting the average RT for trials using congruent flankers from the160

average RT for trials using incongruent flankers yields a conflict score: a measure of the time161

needed to resolve conflict induced by the flankers. Lower conflict scores reflect more efficient162

executive attention.163

Fig. 1. Temperament in middle childhood computer screen.


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Fig. 2. Attentional Network Task (ANT) for children.

A session of the ANT consisted of 16 practice trials and four experimental blocks of 32 trials.164

Participants were instructed to maintain fixation on the cross in the center of the screen throughout165

the task and to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. Participants began practice trials166

when it was clear that they understood the instruction. For correct responses a simple animation167

sequence of the target fish blowing bubbles and making the sound “Woohoo!” gave feedback.168

Incorrect responses were followed by a single tone and no animation of the fish. Children were169

individually supervised during the practice trials and given encouragement by the experimenter.170

Participants then completed four test blocks with the experimenter in the room without further171

trial-by-trial encouragement. The session lasted approximately 20 min.172

5.5. Mistaken gift paradigm173

At the beginning of the second session, each child was asked to help the experimenter under-174

stand the toys children like. Children were presented with eight different toys and asked to rate175

them from those the child liked most to those they liked least. The favorite, second favorite, and176

least favorite gifts were recorded by the experimenter after the child left the room. Following177

completion of executive attention tasks, each child was presented with a gift-wrapped box con-178

taining the favorite toy, as determined in the rating task. The experimenter maintained silence179

while pretending to make notes on a clipboard and occasionally glanced neutrally at the child for180

15 s after the child unwrapped the toy; the child’s reactions were recorded on videotape.181

After the third session, including the second administrations of the TMCQ and child ANT,182

each child received his or her least favorite toy. The experimenter again maintained a neutral183

expression and remained silent for 15 s while the child reacted to the toy. After this period was184

over, the experimenter said there must have been a mistake and exchanged the undesirable toy185


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




for the second favorite toy. During the debriefing the experimenter explained the reason for the186

“mistake” during the gift giving. Many children informally reported thinking it was funny the187

experimenter had made such a mistake. No formal data, however, were collected during the188

debriefing.189

Displays of emotion were coded by two raters for the 15-s segments after the child received190

the desirable and undesirable gifts using Noldus Observer 5.0 software (Noldus Information191

Technology, 2003). Each rater scored segments for duration and number of smiling occurrences,192

defined as the widening of the mouth and corners of the mouth clearly turned upward. Percentage193

agreement between raters for duration and number of smiles was 95% and 85%, respectively.194

Ratings from the two coders were combined to create an average score for duration and number195

of smiling occurrences.196

6. Results197

6.1. Temperamental effortful control198

Psychometric properties of the TMCQ are shown in Table 2. A composite score for effortful199

control was derived based on previous factor analytic work (Rothbart et al., 2001), and calculated200

by averaging the subscale means of attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity pleasure,201

and perceptual sensitivity. No significant age effects were found for individual subscale or factor202

composite scores for effortful control. Parent-reported effortful control was significantly higher203

for girls than for boys (F(1,42) = 13.84, p < 0.01).204

6.2. Executive attention205

Repeated-measures analysis of variance using age group and flanker type (congruent, incon-206

gruent) as factors and the mean of median reaction time as the dependent measure were conducted207

for each of the administrations of the child ANT. Results showed an effect for age group in both208

first and second administration RTs (F(3,45) = 3.76, p < 0.05; and F(3,44) = 4.05, p < 0.05) and an209

effect for flanker type in both administrations (F(1,45) = 71.61, p < 0.001; and F(1,44) = 47.42,210

p < 0.001). An age group by flanker interaction effect was significant for the first administration211

conflict scores (F(3,45) = 3.53, p < 0.05), but not for the second administration conflict scores (see212

Fig. 3).213

Conflict scores were derived by subtracting RTs to congruent stimuli from RTs for the incon-214

gruent flanker condition. Table 3 shows the mean of median RTs for the task. In the first215

administration, younger children showed larger conflict scores than the rest of the children, due to216

longer RT to incongruent trials suggesting that younger children have more trouble dealing with217

the interference produced by incongruent flankers. Linear regression revealed a negative asso-218

ciation between age in months and first administration conflict scores (F(1,47) = 6.31, p < 0.05,219

b = −1.55). No age effects were found for second administration conflict scores, or for conflict220

errors in either administration. No sex differences or age by sex interactions were found in con-221

flict scores or errors. Test–retest correlations between the first and second administrations of the222

ANT were not significant. Because of the differences between first and second administrations223

in 7-year-olds, a test–retest correlation for 8- to 10-year-olds was also examined and was not224

significant.225

A score to reflect reduction in conflict scores from first to second administrations was calculated226

by subtracting the second administration conflict score from the first administration conflict score.227


UNCORRECTED PROOF

Pleasecite

thisarticle

inpress

as:Simonds,J.,etal.,E

ffortfulcontrol,executiveattention,and

emotional

regulationin

7–10-year-oldchildren,C

ognitiveD

evelopment(2007),doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009

AR

TIC

LE

IN P

RE

SS

+Model

CO

GD

EV

2861–15

8J.Sim

ondsetal./C

ognitiveD

evelopmentxxx

(2007)xxx–xxx

Table 2Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) Psychometric Properties

Child 1st admin.(N = 47)

Child 2nd admin.(N = 45)

ChildCronbach’s

ParentCronbach’s

Child test–retest(N = 43)

Parent report(N = 45)

Parent/childa

agmt. (N = 45)Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) � � r Mean (S.D.) r

Effortful control 3.66 (0.50) 3.47 (0.43) 0.68 0.64 0.83*** 3.55 (0.39) 0.38*

SubscalesAttentional focusing 3.64 (0.67) 3.53 (0.63) 0.71 0.90 0.64*** 3.67 (0.66) 0.23****

Inhibitory control 3.87 (0.79) 3.65 (0.76) 0.81 0.82 0.76*** 3.61 (0.60) 0.35**

Low intensity pleasure 3.43 (0.82) 3.27 (0.66) 0.84 0.79 0.78*** 3.50 (0.54) 0.42***

Perceptual sensitivity 3.70 (0.66) 3.50 (0.72) 0.83 0.79 0.73*** 3.42 (0.58) 0.04

a At same administration (1st).* p < 0.05.

** p < 0.01.*** p < 0.001.****p < 0.10.


UNCORRECTED PROOF

Pleasecite

thisarticle

inpress

as:Simonds,J.,etal.,E

ffortfulcontrol,executiveattention,and

emotional

regulationin

7–10-year-oldchildren,C

ognitiveD

evelopment(2007),doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009

AR

TIC

LE

IN P

RE

SS

+Model

CO

GD

EV

2861–15

J.Simonds

etal./Cognitive

Developm

entxxx(2007)

xxx–xxx9

Table 3Attention Network Test – conflict

Age n 1st admin.RT

1st admin. %errors

2nd admin.RT

2nd admin.% errors

Conflict effect1st admin.

Conflict % errors1st admin.

Conflict effect2nd admin.

Conflict % errors2nd admin.

Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)

7 13 910 (66) 3.43 (2.83) 848 (127) 3.79 (3.65) 109 (80) 3.25 (3.34) 56 (63) 2.28 (1.98)8 12 887 (159) 3.39 (2.36) 821 (149) 3.39 (3.71) 55 (54) 0.78 (3.36) 62 (51) 1.56 (4.16)9 12 865 (264) 2.21 (1.33) 695 (190) 1.71 (1.47) 73 (57) 1.56 (2.98) 59 (36) 1.30 (1.87)10 12 700 (136) 1.43 (1.41) 664 (135) 2.84 (2.80) 39 (12) 1.30 (2.97) 32 (54) 1.70 (3.31)

Total 49 842 (188) 2.63 (2.20) 761 (167) 2.95 (3.07) 70 (61) 1.75 (3.22) 53 (52) 1.73 (2.89)

Age n Overall RTmean

Overall %errors mean

Conflict effect1st admin.

Conflict %errors 1st admin.

Conflict effect2nd admin.

Conflict % errors2nd admin.

Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)

7 13 874.9 3.61 109 (80) 3.25 (3.34) 56 (63) 2.28 (1.98)8 12 857.6 3.39 55 (54) 0.78 (3.36) 62 (51) 1.56 (4.16)9 12 777.4 1.95 73 (57) 1.56 (2.98) 59 (36) 1.30 (1.87)10 12 678.3 2.12 39 (12) 1.30 (2.97) 32 (54) 1.70 (3.31)

Total 49 798.6 2.78 70 (61) 1.75 (3.22) 53 (52) 1.73 (2.89)


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Fig. 3. Child ANT reaction times by age.

A Helmert contrast showed that difference scores for 7-year-olds were significantly higher than228

those for the three other age groups (t(44) = 2.11, p < 0.05).229

6.3. Smiling230

Findings for number of smiles and duration of smiling for both gift types are shown in Table 4.231

Due to experimenter error, four cases were excluded from the gift smiling analyses. A significant232

age effect for duration of smiling after the undesirable gift (F(3,40) = 3.02, p < 0.05) was found.233

No age effect was found for smiling after the desired gift. A within-subjects ANOVA showed a234

Table 4Smiling in response to desired and undesired gifts

Age n Number of smilesdesired gift

# Smilesundesired gift

Duration smiling(s) desired gift

Duration smiling(s) undesired gift

Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)

7 13 0.92 (0.45) 0.42 (0.45) 8.31 (5.07) 3.31 (4.74)8 12 0.88 (0.53) 0.83 (0.75) 7.48 (4.63) 4.61 (3.85)9 10 0.75 (0.49) 0.65 (0.53) 6.48 (5.13) 5.32 (5.05)10 10 0.95 (0.64) 1.11* (0.60) 8.70 (5.71) 9.23* (5.05)

Total 45 0.88 (0.51) 0.73 (0.62) 7.77 (5.01) 5.33 (4.97)

* n = 9.


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Fig. 4. Duration of smiling by age.

significant effect of gift type on duration of smiling (F(1,40) = 5.72, p < 0.05), with more seconds235

of smiling found in reaction to the desirable gift. Fig. 4 shows that 7- to 8-year-olds showed larger236

differences between smiling to the desired and undesired gift than 9- to 10-year-olds, who showed237

very little difference between smiling to the two types of gift. An orthogonal contrast showed238

that the level of difference between smiling to the undesired and desired gifts was significantly239

different between 7- to 8- and 9- to 10-year-olds (t(40) = −2.40, p < 0.05).240

Age in months was positively related to duration of smiling after receiving an undesirable gift241

(F(1,42) = 7.48, p < 0.01, b = 0.14). Older children smiled more in response to the undesirable242

gift. Girls smiled longer (M = 9.51 s) and more frequently (M = 1.09 times) than boys (M = 6.10 s;243

M = 0.67 times) in response to the desired gift (F(1,43) = 5.76, p < 0.05 (duration); F(1,43) = 8.73,244

p < 0.05 (number)). No significant age by sex interactions were found for smiling.245

7. Correlational analyses246

7.1. Effortful control and executive attention247

Parent-reported but not child-reported effortful control composite scores correlated with first248

administration ANT conflict scores (see Table 5). Higher parent scores on effortful control249

predicted less interference between congruent and incongruent trials (F(1,46) = 4.16 p < 0.05,250

η2 = 0.08, b = −49.10). To control for age and sex differences, effortful control, age in months,251

and sex were entered as independent variables into a linear regression to predict first admin-252

Table 5Bivariate correlations with effortful control

Effortful control Executive attention Mistaken gift smiling

1st admin. 2nd admin. Desired gift Undesired gift

Conflict scores Conflict scores Number Duration Number Duration

Parent −0.37* −0.04 0.03 0.23 −0.02 0.02Childa −0.17 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.25 −0.03

a Mean of 1st and 2nd administrations.* p < 0.05.


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Table 6Bivariate correlations between smiling and executive attention

Gift Executive attention

1st admin. 2nd admin.Conflict scores Conflict scores

Desirable Number of smiles 0.03 −0.22Duration of smiling −0.10 −0.25

Undesirable Number of smiles −0.22 −0.32*

Duration of smiling −0.27 −0.34*

* p < 0.05.

istration conflict scores. Both age and effortful control, but not sex, significantly predicted first253

session conflict scores (F(3,41) = 5.96, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.30, b (effortful control) = −53.72, p < 0.05,254

b (age) = −1.85, p < 0.01).255

Neither parent-reported effortful control nor age was significantly correlated with the difference256

between first and second administration conflict scores; however, a model with both variables257

entered as predictors of reduction of scores on the conflict task was significant (F(2,42) = 4.37,258

p < 0.05, η2 = 0.17). More reduction of conflict scores across sessions was found for younger259

children (b (age) = 1.45) and children whose parents reported the child to be lower on effortful260

control (b = −56.96).261

7.2. Smiling and executive attention262

Second administration, but not first administration, conflict scores predicted shorter durations of263

smiling to the undesired gift (F(1,42) = 5.32, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.11, b = −0.03; see Table 6). Children264

who smiled for a longer duration upon receiving the undesirable gift showed smaller conflict265

scores. When controlled for age, second administration conflict significantly predicted duration266

of smiling to the undesirable gift (F(2,41) = 6.18, p < 0.05, b = −0.03). Of the 44 cases analyzed,267

14 showed no smiling in response to the undesirable gift. A regression analysis with the 14 cases268

removed showed no significant correlation between smiling and executive attention. A difference269

between second administration conflict scores for children who smiled (M = 41.63, S.D. = 45.12)270

and children who did not smile (M = 75.18, S.D. = 63.86) was marginally significant (t(42) = 2.01,271

p = 0.05).272

Second administration conflict significantly predicted smiling to the desired gift when con-273

trolled for age (F(2,42) = 2.29, p = 0.11, b = −0.03, p < 0.05). When six cases with no smiling to274

the desired gift were removed from the analysis, conflict was not a significant predictor of smiling275

to the desired gift. Second administration conflict scores on the ANT did not predict smiling to276

the undesired gift when controlled for smiling to the desired gift and age.277

8. Discussion278

The current study examined relations among multiple levels of self-regulation: measures of279

effortful control: a temperament questionnaire, a laboratory task for assessing executive attention,280

and a social situation assessing smiling in the face of disappointment. Significant correlations were281

found between parent-reported effortful control and executive attention, replicating at 7–10 years282

the previously reported findings that more efficient executive attention performance is related to283


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




higher levels of parent-reported effortful control in children ages 2–7 and in adolescents (Chang284

& Burns, 2005; Ellis, 2002; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez et al., 2001).285

A significant relation was also found between smiling to the undesired gift and conflict scores286

on the ANT. However, conflict scores from the two ANT administrations showed different rela-287

tions to effortful control and smiling. First administration conflict scores were related to effortful288

control, and second administration conflict scores to responses in the desirable and undesirable289

gift conditions. Only the second administration of the ANT was correlated with smiling. Although290

the first administration of the ANT showed correlations with smiling in the same direction, they291

were not significant. In addition, the lack of a significant correlation between the two administra-292

tions of the child ANT suggests that the intervening session with further executive attention tasks293

might have served as specific training for those children initially poor in executive attention (see294

Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005, for evidence of training attention295

effects). In support of this idea, the youngest children with the poorest executive attention showed296

the strongest improvement from the first to the second ANT. Only the first ANT was significantly297

correlated with parent observations of effortful control. This suggests that conflict scores on the298

second ANT administration might have been reduced through specifically training the portion of299

the variance in performance that is due to long-term effortful control.300

Since conflict scores on the ANT are considered a measure of executive attention, the theoretical301

mechanism underlying effortful control, the relation between conflict scores and smiling supports302

the connection between effortful control and emotion regulation found in the past by Kieras et al.303

(2005) and Gerardi-Caulton (2000). However, we did not find the expected relationship between304

temperamental self- or parent-reported effortful control and smiling. The laboratory tasks assessed305

an aspect of effortful control that appears to be useful in the mistaken gift situation, whereas the306

questionnaires did not capture this aspect of effortful control. Future studies should include both307

questionnaire assessment and aggregated behavioral measurement of effortful control.308

Smiling to an undesired gift showed an increase from age 7 to age 10, and a difference between309

smiling to the desired and undesired gift was present in 7–8, but not in 9–10-year-olds. Seven-year-310

olds also showed more difference between RTs for congruent and incongruent flanker conditions,311

and between smiling to the desired and undesired gifts. Conflict scores in the ANT did not differ312

from those of adults reported in Rueda et al. (2004) after age 8 in first administration scores and313

age 7 for second administration scores. These findings roughly replicated those found for the child314

ANT by Rueda et al. (2004).315

Limitations of the current study include unknown aspects of children’s motivations to smile316

when given a present in the mistaken gift task. Future research investigating aspects of this task,317

such as children’s acceptance of display rules and the possibility that children’s smiling might318

be due to a desire to decrease the discomfort of the experimenter who has committed a social319

blunder by giving the wrong gift, may provide clarity on the degree to which smiling provides a320

strong indication of emotion regulation across multiple conditions.321

The results of this study replicated those of Ellis (2002), in that only parent-reported effortful322

control showed relations with executive attention. Thus far, child and adolescent self-report of323

effortful control has not shown correspondence with measures of attentional control. Future studies324

using item-level analyses may identify whether the differences between reporters are systematic325

and whether those differences show relations with attentional efficiency.326

Executive attention as measured by the ANT has been related in adults to the operation of a327

specific network of brain areas (Fan et al., 2003). Individual efficiency of a specific network has328

also been shown to relate to alleles of specific dopamine genes in adults (Fossella et al., 2002) and329

in children (Rueda et al., 2005). There is clear evidence, however, that operation of this network330


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




can also be influenced by specific training (Rueda et al., 2005). Through the use of a simple task,331

the ANT in our study we have related the efficiency of that brain system to naturally occurring332

self-regulation. Our findings extend this relationship to the child’s control of affect displayed in333

both expected and disappointing social situations. The relation of this ability to the ANT conflict334

score suggests that better attentional efficiency underlies the child’s ability to exhibit appropriate335

emotion in social settings.336

Uncited referencesQ6337

Beauregard et al. (2001), Davidson et al. (2000), Eisenberg et al. (1994), Rothbart et al. (2000),338

Rothbart et al. (1994) and Rothbart et al. (2006).339

References340

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Guilford Press.341

Beauregard, M., Levesque, J., & Bourgouin, P. (2001). Neural correlates of conscious self-regulation of emotion. Journal342

of Neuroscience, 21, 6993–7000.343

Chang, F., & Burns, B. M. (2005). Attention in preschoolers: Associations with effortful control and motivation. Child344

Development, 76, 247–263.345

Davidson, R. J., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural circuitry of emotion regulation: A346

possible prelude to violence. Science, 289, 591–594.347

Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Early temperament and emotional development. In A. F. Kalverboer & A.348

Gramsbergen (Eds.), Brain and behavior in early development (pp. 967–990). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer349

Academic Publications.350

Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., & Ma, Y. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: An emerging construct. Merrill-Palmer351

Quarterly, 50, 236–259.352

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Nyman, M., Bernzweig, J., & Pinulas, A. (1994). The relations of motionality and regulation353

to children’s anger-related reactions. Child Development, 65, 109–128.354

Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation,355

adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.356

259–282). New York: Guilford Press.357

Ellis, L. K. (2002). Individual differences and adolescent psychosocial development. University of Oregon: Dissertation358

Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 63(8B), 3956.359

Fan, J., Flombaum, J. I., McCandliss, B. D., Thomas, K. M., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Cognitive and brain consequences360

of conflict. NeuroImage, 18, 42–57.361

Fossella, J., Sommer, T., Fan, J., Wu, Y., Swanson, J. M., Pfaff, D. W., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Assessing the molecular362

genetics of attention networks. BMC Neuroscience, 3, 14.363

Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self-regulation in children 24–36 months364

of age. Developmental Science, 3, 397–404.365

Gonzalez, C., Fuentes, L. J., Carranza, J. A., & Estevez, A. F. (2001). Temperament and attention in the self-regulation366

of 7-year-old children. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 931–946.367

Kieras, J. E., Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Effortful368

control and children’s responses to undesirable gifts. Psychological Science, 16, 391–396.369

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From370

toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68, 263–277.371

Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young372

children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490–507.373

Noldus Information Technology. (2003). Reference manual, version 5.0 for Windows edition. Netherlands: Wageningen.374

Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13,375

25–42.376

Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence.377

In A. Eliasz & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in research on temperament (pp. 165–182). Germany: Pabst Science.378


UN

CO

RR

EC

TED

PR

OO

F




Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Evans, D. E. (2000). Temperament and personality: Origins and outcomes. Journal of379

Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 122–135.380

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer381

Quarterly, 40, 21–39.382

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years:383

The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 1394–1408.384

Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Temperament385

handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99–166). Hoboken,386

NJ: Wiley.387

Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A.388

L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.389

Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing mechanisms of temperamental effortful390

control. Journal of Personality, 71, 1113–1143.391

Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation. In K.392

McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 338–357). Malden, MA:393

Blackwell.394

Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele395

(Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167–188). Washington, DC:396

American Psychological Association.397

Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Development398

of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1029–1040.399

Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and400

genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the401

United States of America, 102(41), 14931–14936.402

Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development,403

55, 1504–1513.404

Simonds, J., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). Development of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire, manuscript405

in preparation.406


Effortful Control Simonds et al. Cog Development 2007

Documents

Transcript of Effortful Control Simonds et al. Cog Development 2007