|
Received: 18 May 2016
Revised: 26 March 2017
|
Accepted: 4 April 2017
DOI: 10.1111/sode.12245
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
From compliance to self-regulation: Development during early childhood Xin Feng
|
Emma G. Hooper
The Ohio State University Correspondence Xin Feng, Department of Human Sciences, The Ohio State University, 151B Campbell Hall, 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1220. Email:
[email protected]
|
Rongfang Jia
Abstract This study examined the development of self-regulation during early childhood and the reciprocal relations between self-regulation and maternal sensitivity. Data (N 5 1,364) were drawn from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (NICHD SECCYD). Children’s situational and committed compliance were assessed in the laboratory at 24 and 36 months, delay of gratification at 54 months, self-control at 54 months and kindergarten age, and maternal sensitivity was observed at 24, 36, and 54 months. Self-regulation was characterized to progress from situational compliance to committed compliance and then to fully self-motivated regulation. Findings also suggest that the development of self-regulation reflects an ongoing transactional process in which child self-regulation and maternal sensitivity mutually influence each other. KEYWORDS
self regulation, parental influence, early experience
1 | INTRODUCTION Throughout early childhood, individuals learn and develop self-regulatory abilities that support adaptive functioning (Calkins, 2007; Kopp, 1982). Research investigating self-regulation suggests associations with improved academic achievement (e.g., Eisenberg, Valiente, & Eggum, 2010; Schunk, 2005), greater social competence (e.g., Lengua, Honorado, & Bush, 2007), and reduced problem behaviors (e.g., Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010). In general, selfregulation refers to the ability to direct or modulate one’s attention, emotion, thoughts, and actions in facilitating adaptation and achieving personal goals (Calkins, 2007). Despite the general consensus on its significance in adaptive functioning and its multidimensionality, there is a lack of clarity for the broad concept, underlying components, and measurement specificity of self-regulation (McClelland & Cameron, 2012). Self-regulation, particularly with regard to early development, has been studied in relation to a variety of developmental constructs using interrelated labels including, but not limited to, effortful control (e.g., Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000; Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner, 2004), inhibitory control (e.g., Calkins, 2007), and emotional self-regulation (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2003). The broad range in which this construct is conceptualized and measured across fields makes it difficult to clearly understand how self-regulation develops throughout childhood (Karreman, van Tuijl, van Aken, & Deković, 2006).
Social Development. 2017;1–15.
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/sode
C 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd V
|
1
2
|
FENG
ET AL.
In the current study, we adopt Calkins’ (Calkins, 2007; Calkins & Marcovitch, 2010) conceptualization and consider self-regulation as a set of domain-specific components, including attentional, emotional, behavioral, and cognitive mechanisms that are interrelated and hierarchically organized. We specifically focused on the development of behavioral self-regulation, the ability to sustain, delay, or inhibit engagement in activities to meet situational demands, control impulse, and monitor one’s own behavior (Calkins, 2007). Although it has been widely accepted that individual selfregulation abilities emerge during early childhood (Kopp, 1982; Posner & Rothbart, 2000), empirical data on the timing and process of self-regulation development is lacking. The primary goal of the current study was to investigate the developmental progression of self-regulation during early childhood; we specifically focused on behavioral manifestations of self-regulation with consideration of age and context specificity in the measurement.
1.1 | The development of self-regulation The development of self-regulation during early childhood has been theoretically outlined by Kopp (1982) as progressing from externally to internally regulated behavior, supported by maturation of attention and cognition and parental socialization. Specifically, between 12 and 18 months of age, children begin to develop the awareness of social demands and the ability to comply with parental requests. At this stage, self-regulation is manifested as monitored and directed compliance (Calkins, 2007; Kopp, 1982). Gradually, with the increasing ability to internalize parental values, children are able to modulate their behavior without external directives or supervision (Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001). At roughly age 3, children begin to display internally motivated self-regulatory behaviors (Kopp, 1982). Compliance with caregivers’ requests is generally considered as a prototypic form of self-regulation because it requires the modulation of one’s behaviors in accordance with direct demands, while self-regulation represents a more generalized and internalized management of behavior with regard to changing personal and social needs and goals (Kochanska et al., 2001; Kopp 1982). The development of compliance is further specified by Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska et al., 2001) through the differentiation of two motivationally distinct forms of compliance, situational and committed compliance. Children display situational compliance when they accept and follow caregivers’ rules while under close monitoring, and achieve committed compliance when they can fully endorse caregivers’ rules and adhere to the rules willingly without supervision (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). Empirical studies have shown that situational compliance developed at an earlier age and preceded committed compliance (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). As children matured they displayed greater committed compliance, and moved from externally motivated situational compliance to internally motivated committed compliance between two and three years of age (Kochanska et al., 2001). Most importantly, committed compliance, not situational compliance, has been found to predict the internalization of caregivers’ rules (Kochanska et al., 2001). These findings highlight the importance of timing in understanding the early development of self-regulation. With further development of attentional and cognitive abilities, children transition from compliance to selfregulation, as they become increasingly adaptive and flexible in using rules to guide their behavior (Kopp, 1982). In addition to the dimension of internal versus external motivation, the context is also important in understanding the development of self-regulation (McClelland & Cameron, 2011). Throughout the preschool years, children encounter increasingly complex social and emotional experiences to which they must self-regulate. Thus, the assessment of selfregulation needs to consider the developmental changes in the context of regulation (McClelland & Cameron, 2011). The first goal of this study was to investigate the developmental progression from situational and committed compliance in toddlerhood to behavioral self-regulation at preschool and kindergarten age. Specifically, we examined the developmental transition in degree of external monitoring, which moved from consistently reinforced (situational compliance) to peripherally maintained (committed compliance) to completely absent (self-regulation). We also examined self-regulation in varying contexts, moving from specific laboratory task with the mother to more generalized social settings (e.g., schools), in order to reflect the increasingly complex and challenging social worlds children are exposed to as they encounter greater demands for their self-regulation abilities. By focusing on the timing of developmental
FENG
ET AL.
|
3
transitions in self-regulatory behaviors, we sought to understand the early mechanisms underlying later adaptive selfregulation across contexts.
1.2 | Reciprocal relations between child self-regulation and maternal sensitivity The development of self-regulation needs to be examined within the context of parent–child interaction, as parents, particularly mothers, serve as the primary socialization agents during early childhood (Eisenberg, Cumberland, & Spinrad, 1998; Morris, Silk, Steinberg, Myers, & Robinson, 2007). In this study, we took the ecological (Bronfenbrenner, 1977) and transactional perspectives (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983) to investigate the development of self-regulation in the context of mother–child interaction. Of the influential maternal characteristics, maternal sensitivity, defined as mother’s attentiveness, emotional availability, responsiveness, and respect toward her child (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978), has been linked with both compliance and self-regulation (Kochanska et al., 2000; Spinrad et al., 2012). According to attachment theory, maternal sensitivity fosters the development of self-regulation through the formation of secure mother–child attachment in which children develop a sense of self and the basis of social relationships (Feldman & Klein, 2003). Mothers’ sensitivity and responsiveness is also theorized to promote self-regulation through supportive responding to children’s emotions and behaviors, creating optimal levels of arousal, and the modeling of effective regulatory strategies (Eisenberg et al., 1998; Morris et al., 2007). Indeed, empirical research has consistently demonstrated maternal sensitivity as promoting compliance and selfregulation. Studies have shown that maternal sensitivity (defined as supportive presence, non-intrusiveness, and appropriately attentive, and responsive) is linked to compliance (van der Mark, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & Ijzendoorn, 2002) and is predictive of self-regulation (Spinrad et al., 2012) during early childhood. Similarly, mothers who provided guidance and gentle control (defined as polite requests, reasoning, and positive comments and suggestions), tended to have children who displayed committed compliance during laboratory tasks (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Laible & Thompson, 2000). In addition, mothers’ responsiveness and support have been associated with child behavior regulation and internalization of rules of conduct (Brophy-Herb, Stansbury, Bocknek, & Horodynski, 2012; Jennings et al., 2008; von Suchodoletz, Trommsdoff, & Heikamp, 2011). There has also been increasing support for the transactional model (e.g., Maccoby & Martin, 1983; Sameroff, 2010) that conceptualizes parent–child interactions. Several studies have investigated the bidirectional relation between temperament and parenting. For instance, child negative emotionality has been found to reduce maternal responsiveness and sensitivity (Braungart-Rieker, Garwood, & Stifter, 1997; Calkins, 2002). Particularly relevant to the current study, toddlers’ effortful control, a temperamental construct closely related to self-regulation, was associated with decreased parental hostility (Morrell & Murray, 2003; Bridgett et al., 2009). However, this line of research tends to focus on infancy and toddlerhood and few studies investigate self-regulation and parenting in general or maternal sensitivity in particular. One exception is a study by Eisenberg and colleagues (Eisenberg, Fabes, Shepard, Guthrie, Murphy, & Reiser, 1999), who found that better self-regulation at age 6–8 predicted reduced parental punitive reactions at age 8–10, which in turn predicted improved self-regulation at 10–12. The second goal of the present study was to examine the development of self-regulation in the caregiving context by testing the bidirectional relations between child compliance/self-regulation and maternal sensitivity. As mother– child interactions occur in a larger social context, maternal demographic or contextual factors also need to be considered. For instance, higher maternal education has been related to greater child compliance (Londerville & Main, 1981). Moreover, family socioeconomic status is positively associated with child self-regulation (Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008; Miech, Essex, & Goldsmith, 2001). Thus, the early development of self-regulation and its transactions with maternal sensitivity need to be examined in relation to these contextual factors.
1.3 | Child characteristics related to self-regulation Temperament, the innate individual differences in emotional, behavioral and biological responses to changes in environment, has been theorized to directly shape the development of self-regulation (Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner, 2004). One
4
|
FENG
ET AL.
aspect of temperament, anger proneness or irritability, is particularly relevant to self-regulation, as children who are prone to anger tend to have difficulty inhibiting impulses and suppressing inappropriate behavior (Calkins & Degnan, 2006). In particular, infants who displayed high levels of irritability/frustration in the laboratory setting were found to be less compliant as toddlers (Stifter, Spinrad, & Braungart-Rieker, 1999), and toddlers rated by mothers as more irritable showed less compliance during a clean-up task (Lehman, Steier, Guidash, & Wanna, 2002). Gender is another pertinent child characteristic to consider, particularly as it influences the socialization process. Concerning self-regulation, girls have been found to show greater committed compliance (Kochanska et al., 2001), as well as effortful control (Kochanska et al., 2000) and emotion regulation (Morris Silk, Steinberg, Sessa, Avenevoli, & Essex, 2002) than boys.
1.4 | The current study Due to the broad and comprehensive nature of self-regulation, it is necessary to clearly outline the concept as it is used, assessed, and understood in the current study. We consider self-regulation behaviorally as it is measured during performance on observational tasks or reported based on observed behaviors. Specifically, we focused on situational and committed (the prototypic form of self-regulation) observed in the laboratory setting, behavioral self-regulation assessed in the laboratory during the delay of gratification paradigm (self-imposed delay), as well as mother and teacher report on general self-control in home and school settings. Although we primarily assessed the behavioral component of self-regulation, underlying aspects of attentional, emotional, and cognitive regulation may also occur. Additionally, we examined the stages of development that Kopp (1982) outlined, moving from compliance to self-initiated regulatory behaviors in the absence of external supervision. In measuring self-regulation, we considered the degree of external monitoring (i.e., from consistently reinforced to peripherally maintained to completely absent) and developmental changes in the context in which self-regulation was assessed (i.e., moving from focusing on one specific task with the mother alone to the broader social context in school). We proposed to test two hypotheses. First, following the developmental models outlined by Kopp (1982) and Kochanska et al. (2001), we expected that situational compliance at 24 months would predict committed compliance at 36 months, which in turn would predict self-regulation assessed later in the delay and general settings. Thus, committed compliance would mediate the association between situational compliance and later behavioral self-regulation. Second, guided by the transactional perspective, we hypothesized that there would be a lagged reciprocal relation between child compliance and maternal sensitivity, such that earlier compliance would predict later maternal sensitivity, which in turn would predict future self-regulation. As such, maternal sensitivity would serve as a mediator (in addition to committed compliance) between situational compliance and behavioral self-regulation.
2 | METHOD 2.1 | Participants Data of the present study were drawn from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD), which recruited 1,364 children (51.7% male) and their families from locations in 10 U.S. states in 1991 (for details of recruitment procedures see NICHD Early Childcare Research Network, 2005). Of the 1,364 families, a majority of the mothers were White (82.6%, Black 12.8%, Asian 2.2%), married (77.9%) and employed (68.3%); more than one third (35.4%) of mothers had at least a Bachelor’s degree, one third (33.3%) had some college education, and the remaining (31.3%) were high school graduates or below. At the time of enrollment, the mothers were 28.11 years old on average (SD 5 5.63), worked about 22 hrs per week (M 5 22.21, SD 5 19.09), and the mean family income-to-needs ratio was 3.72 (SD 5 3.04).
2.2 | Procedures Measurements included in the present study were obtained using multiple methods, including laboratory observations, parent report, and teacher report. Demographic information was collected by maternal report when children were 1
FENG
ET AL.
|
5
and 6 months old. When children were 24 (M 5 27.96, SD 5 2.52), 36 (M 5 42.96, SD 5 2.64), and 54 (M 5 55.56, SD 5 1.20) months old, families participated in observational tasks in the laboratory; these included tasks assessing situational compliance, committed compliance, delay of gratification, and maternal sensitivity. Additionally, maternal report on child self-control was collected at 54 months, and teacher report of self-control at kindergarten age (M 5 67.20 months, SD 5 3.60).
2.3 | Measures 2.3.1 | Situational compliance Children’s situational compliance to external command was observed in a clean-up task at 24 and 36 months. Children are required to comply with the mothers’ request to sustain an unpleasant activity (clean up toys). Previous research has shown that such contexts frequently elicit situational compliance (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). During the 5-min task, mothers were in the same room monitoring children’s progress; they were allowed to manage the clean up as they deemed appropriate. The clean-up task was coded for children’s compliance and passive noncompliance (ignoring), reverse scored, in reference to general or explicit directions from the mothers on a 5-point scale (1 5 Not characteristic at all; 5 5 Very characteristic) developed for the NICHD SECCYD (The NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1998). Dyadic cooperation was also coded in order to capture the degree of cooperation and smoothness of interaction between mother and child. Although passive noncompliance was considered as separate construct in Kochanska and Aksan (1995), in the current study, it was highly correlated with compliance (rs 5 .70–.77), and thus was included in the latent variable of situational compliance. These three variables showed high internal consistency for 24 and 36 months (respective alpha’s 5 .91 and .82). Intercoder reliability was estimated based on procedures outlined by Winer (1971)1; at 24/36 months intercoder reliability estimates were .92/.93 for compliance, .86/.86 for passive noncompliance, and .91/.81 for dyadic cooperation (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 1998). In the current study, a latent construct of situational compliance was constructed with the three observed variables as indicators at 24 and 36 months.
2.3.2 | Committed compliance Children’s committed compliance was assessed in the Forbidden Toy Task at 36 months (Vaughn, Kopp, & Krakow, 1984). In this task, children were required to suppress a pleasant but prohibited activity under minimal adult supervision. These types of tasks are considered to predominantly elicit committed compliance (Kochanska et al., 2001). The task began with a brief warm-up phase when the child and the research assistant played with a new and attractive toy. The forbidden toy was then placed within arm’s reach of the child together with some other toys, and the research assistant told the child s/he could not touch the toy while the research assistant was completing some paperwork. After 2.5 min, the research assistant gave the child permission to play with the forbidden toy and they played together for two additional minutes. During the procedure, mothers worked on questionnaires in a corner of the room. Children’s behaviors were coded second-by-second for duration. Following the conceptualization of Kochanska and Aksan (1995), a latent construct of committed compliance was formed using three behavioral codes: (a) latency of the first engagement of the forbidden toy, (b) duration of active engagement with the forbidden toy (reverse scored), and 3) duration of engagement with unforbidden toys. These three variables showed an adequate internal consistency (a 5 .69). Intercoder agreement was 98%, 92%, and 84% respectively for the three coded behaviors.
2.3.3 | Delay of gratification At 54 months, the Delay of Gratification task (Mischel, 1974) was administered to children in the lab. Specifically, children were first presented with two identical shallow bowls, one with a smaller amount of treats and the other with a larger amount of treats. The experimenter then explained that she had to leave the room and told the children that if they waited until she returned on her own they would receive the larger amount of candy, and that if they did not want to wait they could ring a bell (placed between the two bowls), and she would return right away but they could only receive the smaller amount of candy. The experimenter returned after 7 min if the children did not ring the bell.
6
|
FENG
ET AL.
The delay time (the amount of elapsed time before the experimenter returned on her own, when the child rang the bell, or when the child ate the candy) was assessed as an observed measure of behavioral self-regulation at 54 months.
2.3.4 | Self-control Children’s general self-control was reported by the mothers and teachers on the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS; Gresham & Elliott, 1990), a broad multi-rater assessment of social skills and problem behaviors. The self-control subscale of the SSRS consists of 10 items, measuring self-regulatory behavior in conflict situations with peers (e.g., responding to teasing) and non-conflict situations that require taking turns and compromising. Each item is rated on a 3-point scale (0 5 Never, 1 5 Sometimes, and 2 5 Very often). The mothers’ ratings of self-control were collected at 54 months (a 5 .79) and teachers’ ratings were collected at kindergarten age (a 5 .87). For the present study, a latent selfcontrol factor was formed with the mothers’ and teachers’ responses as indicators. Maternal sensitivity. Maternal sensitivity was observed from semi-structured mother–child play in the laboratory at 24, 36, and 54 months. The 15-minute play between mother and child was divided into two episodes. In the first 7–8 mins the mothers were asked to play as they normally would with their children using toys of their own choosing, followed by a second 7–8 mins in which the mothers were provided with three toys (ordered) and were asked to engage their children in play with the toys one by one. The maternal behavioral codes were adapted from Egeland and Heister (1993). The behavioral codes changed from 24 to 36 and 54 months in order to reflect age-appropriate qualities of maternal behavior. Mothers’ behaviors during the mother–child play at 24 months were coded for sensitivity to nondistress, positive regard for child, and intrusiveness (reverse scored) on a 4-point scale (1 5 Not at all characteristic; 4 5 Highly characteristic). These behavioral indicators have been used to form a composite measure of maternal sensitivity with good internal consistency (a 5 .74) at 24 months (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1998, 1999). The intercoder reliability (Winer’s method), was .80 for sensitivity to nondistress, .75 for positive regard for the child, and .69 for intrusiveness. At 36 and 54 months, the play interaction was coded for maternal supportive presence, respect for child’s autonomy, and hostility (reverse scored) on a 7-point scale (1 5 Very low; 7 5 Very high). A composite measure of maternal sensitivity based on these three indicators showed adequate internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .70 for both ages (Kok et al., 2013). The intercoder reliability (Winer’s method) at 36/54 months was .81/.77 for maternal supportive presence, .72/.64 for respect for child’s autonomy, and .82/.65 for hostility. At each age, a latent construct of maternal sensitivity was created with the three observed maternal variables as indicators. Although different behavioral indicators were used at different ages, stability of maternal sensitivity over time was reported to be moderately strong (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 1999).
2.3.5 | Irritability Child irritability was reported by mothers using the Revised Infant Temperament Questionnaire (McDevitt & Carey, 1978) when children were six months old. A composite measure of irritability was generated, with higher scores reflecting greater intensity and more frequent negative mood and lower adaptability to daily routines (a 5 .81).
2.3.6 | Demographic variables Maternal education (measured in number of years) and race were collected at 1 month; mothers’ race was dichotomized as White (coded as 1) versus other (0). Mothers’ marital status was assessed at 6 months and was recoded into a binary variable, married or living with a partner (1) versus other (0). Income-to-needs-ratio was assessed at 6 months and was computed based on the total family income relative to the poverty threshold for the household (determined by the year the income was earned, the total number of members in the household, and the number of children living in the home).
FENG
ET AL.
|
7
2.4 | Data analysis n & Muthe n, 199822015). The root mean Structural equation models (SEM) were estimated using Mplus 7.4 (Muthe square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) were used to evaluate the model fit, with a RMSEA of .05 and below and CFI of .95 and above indicating good fit and a RMSEA of .05–.08 and CFI of .90–.95 indicating acceptable fit (Hu & Bentler, 1995; Little, 2013). For the mediation analysis, the strength and significance of indirect effects were estimated nonparametrically using the bootstrap sampling method (Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The bootstrap method involves generating a large number of datasets (with the same size) that resemble the observed data by randomly sampling with replacement from the original sample. The indirect effect is estimated from each of the bootstrapped samples and the confidence interval is determined by the distribution of the indirect effects based on all bootstrap samples (Mackinnon, Lockwood, Hoffman, West, & Sheets, 2002; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). The full information maximum likelihood (FIML) algorithm was employed for missing data estimation. Of the 1,364 participants included in the analysis, 6.8% had missing data on irritability; 14.1% had missing data on maternal sensitivity variables at 24 months, 14.9% at 36 months, and 23.8% at 54 months; 14.5% were missing on situational compliance variables at 24 months and 15.3% at 36 months; 19.9% had missing data on committed compliance at 36 months and 29.6% on delay of gratification at 54 months; and 22.7% had missing data on mother report of self-control and 29.6% on teacher report of self-control. Missingness in the study variables was correlated with demographic variables, including income-to-need-ratio (rs ranged from .04, ns to .09, p 5 .001), maternal education (rs 5 .11–.15, ps < .001), and marital status (rs 5 .09–.14, ps < .001). These demographic variables were included in the analysis.
3 | RESULTS Descriptive statistics and the bivariate correlations for the study variables are shown in Table 1. Overall, correlations among indicators of each latent variable were strong. Maternal sensitivity variables showed moderate to strong correlations over time, whereas child compliance/self-regulation variables at different time points only correlated modestly. The distribution of several observed variables was skewed; to reduce the potential bias associated with non-normality in distribution, the maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) was selected in the analysis. Child gender, irritability, maternal education, marital status, and family income-to-needs ratio were initially included in the analysis as covariates; marital status was unrelated to other variables in the model, and was thus removed from the final analysis. Child irritability had a mean of 3.18 (SD 5 .40, range 5 1.54–4.72). There was large variability in maternal education and family income-to-needs ratio, with maternal education ranging 7–21 years (M 5 14.23, SD 5 2.51) and family income-to-needs ratio ranging .09–27.89 (M 5 3.66, SD 5 3.10).
3.1 | The measurement model A measurement model with six latent variables, including situational compliance at 24 and 36 months, committed compliance at 36 months, maternal sensitivity at 24, 36, and 54 months, and self-control at 54 months and kindergarten age, was first estimated. The latent variables were allowed to correlate freely. The measurement model yielded reasonably good fit, v2(149) 5 628.534, p < .001; RMSEA 5 .051 (CI.90 5 .047, .055); CFI 5 .947. All indicators of the latent variables loaded strongly and significantly (ps < .001) on their respective factors.2
3.2 | The structural model A structural model was then estimated with the observed variables and covariates added (Figure 1). The model fit the data reasonably well, v2(238) 5 93.691, p < .001; RMSEA 5 .045 (CI.90 5 .042, .048); CFI 5 939. As shown in Figure 1, situational compliance at 24 months was predictive of both situational (B 5 .18, SE 5 .03, b 5 .20, p < .001) and committed compliance (B 5 .08, SE 5 .03, b 5 .08, p 5 .02) at 36 months. Committed compliance at 36 months, in turn, was predictive of both self-regulation measures at the subsequent assessment point; specifically it was positively associated
4
5
6
7
8
12
13
14
15
16
17
Maternal sensitivity (36 months; semistructured mother–child interaction) 16. Supportive presence .05 .06* .15** .05 .09** .30** .20** .25** .06* .25** .22** .21** .41** .37** .29** 17. Respect for child identity .09** .11** .18** .06* .06* .28** .23** .26** .03 .25** .23** .22** .38** .28** .37** .68** 18. Hostility (–) .07* .08** .17** .10** .09** .27** .12** .12** .02 .22** .18** .13** .32** .25** .31** .55** .54**
Maternal sensitivity (24 months; semistructured mother–child interaction) 13. Sensitivity to nondistress .04 .09** .17** .08** .11** .26** .18** .21** .03 .24** .20** .16** 14. Positive regard for child .01 .05 .10** .01 .03 .22** .07* .11** –.01 .18** .12** .11** .61*** 15. Intrusiveness (–) .05 .07* .14** .05 .11** .20** .17** .20** .05 .20** .20** .14** .54** .30**
.02 .04 .07* .06* .07* .14** .23** .22** .02 .19** .12** .10** .14** .07* .11** .09** .22** .20** .07* .17** .19**
.16** .20** .24** .03
11
Self-Control (SSRS) 11. Mother-report 12. Teacher-report
.05
10
.10** .13** .13** .05
9
Delay of gratification (54 months) 10. Delay time
Committed compliance (36 months; forbidden toy task) 7. Latency of engagement with the forbidden toy .07* .09** .10** .12** .13** .21** 8. Active engagement with the forbidden toy (–) .08** .09** .10** .08** .10** .18** .79** 9. Engagement with the unforbidden toys .02 .00 .01 –..02 .00 .03 .15** .22**
.16** .16** .15** .18** .17** .17** .70** .13** .17** .18** .66** .50**
3
Situational compliance (36 months; clean up task) 4. Compliance 5. Passive non-compliance (–) 6. Dyadic cooperation
2
.77** .85** .68**
1
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the studied variables
Situational compliance (24 months; clean up task) 1. Compliance 2. Passive non-compliance (–) 3. Dyadic cooperation
TA BL E 1
18
19
21
(Continues)
20
8
| FENG ET AL.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Note. (–) 5 reverse scored. *p < .05. **p < .01.
1166 1.00 5.00 4.28 1.04 21.32
1166 1166 1155 1.00 1.00 1.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 1.67 4.27 4.23 .93 1.02 1.02 1.34 21.29 21.23
1155 1.00 5.00 1.62 .82 1.32
1155 1.00 5.00 3.87 1.10 –.67
1093 .00 2.52 1.33 1.14 –.04
1093 .00 2.50 1.79 .95 –.84
1093 .00 2.50 .30 .61 2.11
1172 1.00 4.00 2.82 .70 –.11
1172 1.00 4.00 1.48 .72 1.47
1161 1.00 7.00 5.28 1.32 –.91
1161 1.00 7.00 5.29 1.10 –.91
1161 1.00 7.00 1.38 .82 2.99
1040 1.00 7.00 5.16 1.29 –.75
21
1040 1040 1.00 2.00 7.00 7.00 5.22 6.57 1.11 0.89 –.8922.75
960 1054 993 1172 .00 3.00 1.00 1.00 7.00 20.00 20.00 4.00 4.47 12.96 15.18 3.01 3.01 3.02 3.71 .74 –.49 .10 –.77 –.41
2
Descriptive statistics N Minimum Maximum Mean SD Skewness
1
.29** .16** .13** .39** .35** .27** .50** .41** .35** .28** .15** .14** .36** .28** .34** .42** .45** .31** .72** .22** .12** .13** .31** .23** .33** .36** .37** .38** .61** .64**
(Continued)
Maternal sensitivity (54 months; semistructured mother–child interaction) 19. Supportive presence .06* .08** .16** .07* .07* .29** .21** .25** .06 20. Respect for child identity .06* .08** .16** .07* .09** .26** .23** .25** .07 21. Hostility (–) .06* .04 .15** .06* .07* .23** .15** .19** .05
T A BL E 1
FENG ET AL.
| 9
10
|
FENG
ET AL.
F I G U R E 1 The structural model Note. Standardized coefficients for the significant paths are included in the figure. The significant associations and coefficients between covariates (child irritability, gender, maternal education, and family income-to-needs ratio) are not included in the figure. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001
with delay time at 54 months (B 5 .53, SE 5 .12, b 5 .17, p < .001), and mother and teacher report of self-control at 54 months/kindergarten (B 5 .44, SE 5 .09, b 5 .31, p < .001). However, situational compliance at 36 months was unrelated to either delay time (B 5 .08, SE 5 .11, b 5 .03, p > .10) or mother and teacher report of self-control (B 5 .06, SE 5 .09, b 5 .04, p > .10) at the later time point. Maternal sensitivity was highly stable between 24 and 36 months (B 5 .78, SE 5 .08, b 5 .47, p < .001), as well as between 36 and 54 months (B 5 .55, SE 5 .05, b 5 .55, p < .001). With regards to cross-lagged associations between self-regulation constructs and maternal sensitivity, compliance at 24 months was predictive of maternal sensitivity at 36 months (B 5 .08, SE 5 .03, b 5 .07, p 5 .02), and committed compliance (B 5 .14, SE 5 .04, b 5 .12, p 5 .001), but not situational compliance (B 5 .05, SE 5 .04, b 5 .04, p > .10), at 36 months was predictive of maternal sensitivity at 54 months. Maternal sensitivity at 24 and 36 months also predicted subsequent self-regulation measures, such that maternal sensitivity at 24 months was positively associated with situational compliance (B 5 .19, SE 5 .05, b 5 .13, p < .001) and committed compliance (B 5 .29 SE 5 .06, b 5 .20, p < .001) at 36 months, and maternal sensitivity at 36 months was positively associated with both delay time (B 5 .67, SE 5 .11, b 5 .25, p < .001) and mother/teacher report of self-control (B 5 .57, SE 5 .10, b 5 .47, p < .001). Potential mediating pathways from situational compliance at 24 months to measures of self-regulation at 54 months and kindergarten age were tested based on 5,000 bootstrap samples. We found that observed committed compliance at 36 months mediated the link between situational compliance at 24 months and delay time (B 5 .040, SE 5 .020, CI.95 5 .001, .080) and the link between situational compliance at 24 months and maternal and teacher report of self-control (B 5 .033, SE 5 .016, CI.95 5 .001, .065). The links between early compliance and later selfregulation were also mediated through maternal sensitivity. Specifically, maternal sensitivity at 36 months mediated the link between situational compliance at 24 months and delay time (B 5 .054, SE 5 .024, CI.95 5 .006, .102) and the link between situational compliance at 24 months and maternal and teacher report of self-control (B 5 .046, SE 5 .021, CI.95 5 .005, .088) at 54 months and kindergarten. With regard to covariates, irritability at 6 months was negatively associated with maternal sensitivity at 36 months (B 5 –.15, SE 5 .07, b 5 –.05, p 5 .04), and boys had mothers showing high sensitivity at 54 months (B 5 .16, SE 5 .06, b 5 .07, p 5 .02). Maternal education was positively associated with maternal sensitivity at 36-months (B 5 .12,
FENG
ET AL.
|
11
SE 5 .01, b 5 .27, p < .001) and 54-months (B 5 .05, SE 5 .02, b 5 .11, p 5 .001), and positively associated with child compliance at 36 months (B 5 .04, SE 5 .01, b 5 .12, p 5 .001). Finally, family income-to-needs ratio was positively associated with delay time at 54 months (B 5 .12, SE 5 .03, b 5 .12, p < .001).
4 | DISCUSSION This study examined the developmental progression of self-regulation during early childhood. We found that selfregulation progressed from situational compliance at toddlerhood to committed compliance at early preschool age and then to fully self-motivated regulation at kindergarten age, and that the development of self-regulation was a reciprocal process between children’s regulatory abilities and maternal sensitivity. This study makes several contributions to the current understanding of the development of self-regulation. First, we applied Kochanska and Aksan’s (1995) concept of motivationally distinct forms of compliance and provide empirical evidence that supports a specific pathway through which self-regulation evolves from compliance. Second this study employed multi-method and multi-informant measures of self-regulation that varied along the degree of external control, the level of social complexity of the situation (i.e., in solitude or social contexts), and specific versus general self-regulatory skills, thereby providing a comprehensive description of the developmental process in self-regulation during the early childhood years. Third, the current study adopted a transactional perspective and examined the development of self-regulation as a reciprocal process embedded in the specific mother–child interaction context and broader socio-demographic environment. Findings of this study support the notion that self-regulation progresses through externally directed compliance to internally motivated regulation during early childhood (Calkins, 2007; Kopp, 1982). Specifically, we differentiated between two forms of compliance, situational (compliance to external demands under consistent monitoring) and committed compliance (accepting and obeying the rules willingly with limited supervision), and provided empirical evidence for the developmental pathway of self-regulation as moving from situational compliance to committed compliance to self-regulation. These findings are in line with Kochanska and colleagues’ research (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Kochanska et al., 2001), which suggests that situational compliance precedes committed compliance. The timing of developmental transitions in self-regulation found in the current study also coincides with Kochanska and colleagues’ research. Their studies have demonstrated that although both situational and committed compliance show increasing trends during the second year of life (from 14 to 22 months), committed compliance continues to develop during the third year until it levels off when children turn 3 years of age (Kochanska et al., 2001). We also found that committed compliance at 36 months was associated with future self-regulation, whereas situational compliance assessed at the same time was unrelated to any measures of self-regulation at a later time. In other words, without committed compliance emerging, early situational compliance was not associated with future selfregulation. These findings lend support to Kochanska and colleagues’ (Kochanska et al., 2001) research suggesting that internally motivated committed compliance, rather than externally enforced situational compliance, is associated with the internalization of parents’ rules (Kochanska et al., 2001). The present study further extends previous findings by establishing the predictive association between committed compliance and future self-regulation in differing social contexts, as well as generalizes previous findings to an older age and a larger and more diverse sample. In addition, we formally tested the mediating role of committed compliance in the pathway from situational compliance to selfregulation. Taken together, findings from the current and previous studies suggest that the internalization of socialization rules and committed compliance may be important steps in the development of self-regulation, and that without the motivation of internalization, compliance is unlikely to lead to self-regulation. It is important to note, however, these findings need to be interpreted in light of certain limitations in the research design and measurement of compliance. First, regarding the design limitation, committed compliance was measured only once (at 36 months) and not twice as situational compliance was; this precludes the possibility to control for overtime stability of committed compliance when modeling its relations with other self-regulation variables and thus weakens the conclusion that committed compliance but not situational compliance predicts future self-regulation. Second, as described earlier, situational compliance was only assessed in a “Do” situation (i.e., the clean-up task), in which
12
|
FENG
ET AL.
children were required to comply with the mothers’ request to sustain an unpleasant activity, and committed compliance was only assessed in a “Don’t” situation (i.e., the forbidden toy task), in which children were required to suppress a prohibited pleasant activity under minimal adult supervision. Although the “Do” situations more frequently elicit situational compliance (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995) and the “Don’t” situations more frequently elicit committed compliance, children display both types of compliance in both situations. Further, the original work by Kochanska et al. (2001) has indicated that the “Do” context is more difficult than the “Don’t” context for young children to comply. Measuring situational and committed compliance only in one situation introduces cross-context confounds that cannot be explained in the current study. In this study, the developmental progression of self-regulation was examined in the context of reciprocal relations with maternal sensitivity from a transactional perspective. Results suggested a bidirectional effect between the child and mother. First, earlier maternal sensitivity predicted later child compliance and self-regulation. The role of maternal sensitivity in the development of self-regulation is supported by attachment theory. Sensitive and supportive mother– child interactions provide a supportive environment that helps reduce young children’s distress or negative emotional responses and helps children learn and practice skills to regulate arousal (Kopp, 1989; Perry, Mackler, Calkins, & Keane, 2014), which are fundamental for the development of self-regulation (Calkins, 2007). Previous findings from empirical research also support the influence of maternal sensitivity on child self-regulation (e.g., Chang, Shaw, Dishion, Gardner, & Wilson, 2015; Eisenberg et al., 1998; Feldman & Klein, 2003; von Suchodoletz et al., 2011). Second, our study supported the child effect on mothers’ sensitivity. Similar to previous studies showing the effect of self-regulation on mothers’ parenting (Eisenberg et al., 1999) and teaching (Eisenberg et al., 2010), we found that child situational and committed compliance was predictive of later maternal sensitivity. Specifically, data from the current study showed that initially high levels of compliance tend to elicit more supportive responses from the mother which in turn foster adaptive outcomes in the development of self-regulation, whereas the inability to comply with the mother initially is likely to expose children to unsupportive parenting responses and subsequent risk for difficulty in self-regulation. Recently, researchers (e.g., Fay-Stammbach, Hawes, & Meredith, 2014) called for greater attention to be paid to transactional parent–child dynamics in understanding self-regulation. The current study extended previous research by providing evidence that supports the reciprocal relations between child self-regulation and maternal sensitivity. Further, it is worth noting that in the forbidden toy task, where committed compliance was assessed, although the mother was present, the child actually complied to an unfamiliar adults’ directives. The finding that maternal sensitivity at 24 months predicted committed compliance to an unfamiliar adult at 36 months, which in turn predicted maternal sensitivity at 54 months may suggest that at 3 years of age, children are able to internalize the rules of a generalized “other” and that a positive relationship with the mother may enhance their self-regulation across different relationship contexts. As expected, higher maternal education and family income-to-needs ratio were prospectively associated with greater maternal sensitivity and better child performance in the committed compliance and delay of gratification tasks. These results are consistent with previous research suggesting a positive association of maternal education and family income with child self-regulation abilities (e.g., Evans & Rosenbaum, 2008; Miech et al., 2001). Our findings also support the literature suggesting a negative relation between irritability and self-regulation (Calkins & Degnan, 2006; Lehman et al., 2002; Stifter et al., 1999). In the current study, irritability at 6 months was predictive of mother- and teacher-reported behavioral self-regulation at 54 months and kindergarten age. With regard to child gender, we did not find gender differences on observed compliance and self-regulation behavior; however, we did find gender differences on mother and teacher report—boys were rated as having lower levels of self-control which is consistent with previous research (e.g., Else-Quest et al., 2006; Kochanska et al., 2000). Several limitations of the current study should be noted. In addition to the issues related to the measurement of compliance that are discussed earlier, the current study only focused on overt self-regulatory behavior without considering the underlying attentional, emotional, and cognitive processes that may drive the behavioral manifestation of self-regulation. Early childhood is a critical developmental period when attentional, emotional, and cognitive processes involved in self-regulation undergo rapid growth and become increasingly integrated (Calkins & Marcovitch, 2010).
FENG
ET AL.
|
13
Research incorporating multiple components of self-regulation would shed new insight on the developmental processes of self-regulation. Also related to measurement, although maternal sensitivity was assessed in the same mother– child play activities over time, behavioral indicators coded at 24 months were different from those at 36 and 54 months in order to capture mothers’ developmentally appropriate sensitive behavior. However, the use of different behavioral indicators poses questions about the equivalence of measures across time. Conceptually, maternal sensitivity is only one of the caregiving factors that may influence (and be influenced by) child self-regulation. Other parenting variables, such as limit setting and scaffolding (e.g., Lengua et al., 2007) as well as parental positive or negative control (Feldman & Klein, 2003; Laible & Thompson, 2000) have also been found to contribute to the development of self-regulation or related constructs. Future studies should take into account other related caregiving variables. Moreover, because maternal sensitivity is a broad construct, the current study is limited in providing a nuanced understanding of the links between specific parenting behaviors and self-regulation. In addition, children are influenced by caregivers other than mothers; data on fathers or alternative caregivers may help provide further insights into the mutual influence between child self-regulation and the broader caregiving environment over time. Lastly, the current study did not address the moment-to-moment interaction between mothers and their young children. The temporal dynamics of mother–child interaction during compliance or challenging tasks that requires children’s self-regulation may provide valuable insight in understanding the development of self-regulation. Despite the limitations, the present work makes meaningful contributions toward understanding how children progress from early forms of compliance to voluntary self-regulation during early childhood and how children and mothers influence each other in this process over time. Our findings reveal the crucial developmental shifts that occur in the progression of self-regulation and suggest that the timing of such transitions may be particularly salient in the positive outcomes in self-regulation. NOTES 1
A reliability estimate based on repeated measures ANOVA described in Winer (1971).
2
Results of the measurement model can be obtained from the first author.
RE FE RE NCE S Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum. Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M. M., & Stifter, C. A. (1997). Compliance and noncompliance: The roles of maternal control and child temperament. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 411–428. Bridgett, D. J., Gartstein, M. A., Putnam, S. P., McKay, T., Iddins, E., Robertson, C., . . . Rittmueller, A. (2009). Maternal and contextual influences and the effect of temperament development during infancy on parenting in toddlerhood. Infant Behavior and Development, 32, 103–116. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Towards an experimental ecology of human development. American Psychologist, 32, 513–531. Brophy-Herb, H., Stansbury, K., Bocknek, E., & Horodynski, M. A. (2012). Modeling maternal emotion-related socialization behaviors in a low-income sample: Relations with toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 352–364. Calkins, S. D. (2002). Does aversive behavior during toddlerhood matter? The effects of difficult temperament on maternal perceptions and behavior. Infant Mental Health Journal, 23, 381–402. Calkins, S. D. (2007). The emergence of self-regulation: Biological and behavioral control mechanisms supporting toddler competencies. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional Development in the Toddler Years. (pp. 261–284). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Calkins, S. D., & Degnan, K. A. (2006). Temperament in early development. In R. T. Ammerman (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology. (Vol. 3, pp. 64–84). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Calkins, S. D., & Marcovitch, S. (2010). Emotion regulation and executive functioning in early development: Integrated mechanisms of control supporting adaptive functioning. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 37–57). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Chang, H., Shaw, D. S., Dishion, T. J., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. N. (2015). Proactive parenting and children’s effortful control: Mediating role of language and indirect intervention effects. Social Development, 24, 206–223.
14
|
FENG
ET AL.
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry, 9, 241–273. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Reiser, M. (1999). Parental reactions to children’s negative emotions: Longitudinal relations to quality of children’s social functioning. Child Development, 70, 513– 534. Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Self-regulation and school readiness. Early Education and Development, 21, 681–698. Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Morris, A. S., Fabes, R. A., Cumberland, A., Reiser, M., . . . Losoya, S. (2003). Longitudinal relations among parental emotional expressivity, children’s regulation, and quality of socioemotional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 3–19. Eisenberg, N., Vidmar, M., Spinrad, T. L., Eggum, N. D., Edwards, A., . . . Kupfer, A. (2010). Mothers’ teaching strategies and children’s effortful control: A longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 46, 1294–1308. Egeland, B., & Heister, M. (1993). Teaching task rating scales. Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota. Unpublished manuscript. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: A metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. Evans, G. W., & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regulation and the income-achievement gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504–514. Fay-Stammbach, T., Hawes, D. J., & Meredith, P. (2014). Parenting influences on executive function in early childhood: A review. Child Development Perspectives, 8, 258–264. Feldman, R., & Klein, P. S. (2003). Toddlers’ self-regulated compliance to mothers, caregivers, and fathers: Implications for theories of socialization. Developmental Psychology, 39, 680–692. Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications. (pp. 76–99). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Jennings, K. D., Sandberg, L., Kelley, S. A., Valdes, L., Yaggi, K., Abrews, A., et al. (2008). Understanding of self and maternal warmth predict later self-regulation in toddlers. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 108–118. Karremen, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2006) Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 15, 561–579. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early internalization. Child Development, 66, 236–254. Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72, 1091–1111. Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232. Kok, R., Linting, M., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Jaddoe, V. W., . . . Tiemeier, H. (2013). Maternal sensitivity and internalizing problems: Evidence from two longitudinal studies in early childhood. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 44, 751–765. Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: a developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18, 199–214. Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology, 25, 343–354. Laible, D. J., & Thompson, R. A. (2000). Mother–child discourse, attachment security, shared positive affect, and early conscience development. Child Development, 71, 1424–1440. Lehman, E. B., Steier, A. J., Guidash, K. M., & Wanna, S. Y. (2002). Predictors of compliance in toddlers: Child temperament, maternal personality, and emotional availability. Early Child Development and Care, 172, 301–310. Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as predictors of effortful control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28, 40–55. Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. Londerville, S., & Main, M. (1981). Security of attachment, compliance, and maternal training methods in the second year of life. Developmental Psychology, 17, 289–299. Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent–child interaction. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.) & P. H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development. (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83–104.
FENG
ET AL.
|
15
McClelland, M. M., & Cameron, C. E. (2012). Self-regulation in early childhood: Improving conceptual clarity and developing ecologically valid measures. Child Development Perspectives, 6, 136–142. McDevitt, S. C., & Carey, W. B. (1978). The measurement of temperament in 3–7 year old children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 19, 245–253. Miech, R., Essex, M. J., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2001). Socioeconomic status and the adjustment to school: The role of self-regulation during early childhood. Sociology of Education, 74, 102–120. Mischel, W. (1974) Processes in delay of gratification. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. (Vol. 7, pp. 249–292). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Morrell, J., & Murray, L. (2003). Parenting and the development of conduct disorder and hyperactive symptoms in childhood: a prospective longitudinal study from 2 months to 8 years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 44, 489–508. Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Myers, S. S., & Robinson, L. R. (2007). The role of the family context in the development of emotion regulation. Social Development. 16, 361–388. Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Steinberg, L., Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., & Essex, M. J. (2002). Temperamental vulnerability and negative parenting as interacting predictors of child adjustment. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 461–471. n, L. K., & Muthe n, B. O. (1998–2015). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthe n & Muthe n. Muthe Early Child Care Research Network, N. I. C. H. D. (1998). Relations between family predictors and child outcomes: Are they weaker for children in child care? Developmental Psychology, 35, 1119–1128. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (1999). Child care and mother-child interaction in the first 3 years of life. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1399–1413. Perry, N. B., Mackler, J. S., Calkins, S. D., & Keane, S. P. (2014). A transactional analysis of the relation between maternal sensitivity and child vagal regulation. Developmental Psychology, 50, 784. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 427–441. Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Temperament and self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 357–370). New York: Guilford Press. Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: A dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child Development, 81, 6–22. Schunk, D. H. (2005). Commentary on self-regulation in school contexts. Learning and Instruction, 15, 173–177. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: new procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Silva, K. M., Eggum, N. D., Reiser, M., Edwards, A., . . . Gaertner, B. M. (2012). Longitudinal relations among maternal behaviors, effortful control and young children’s committed compliance. Developmental Psychology, 48, 552–566. Stifter, C. A., Spinrad, T. L., & Braungart-Rieker, J. M. (1999). Toward a developmental model of child compliance: The role of emotion regulation in infancy. Child Development, 70, 21–32. van der Mark, I. L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Ijzendoorn, M. H. (2002). The role of parenting, attachment, and temperamental fearfulness in the prediction of compliance in toddler girls. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 20, 361–378. Vaughn, B. E., Kopp, C. B., & Krakow, J. B. (1984). The emergence and consolidation of self-control from eighteen to thirty months of age: Normative trends and individual differences. Child Development, 55, 990–1004. von Suchodoletz, A., Trommsdorff, G., & Heikamp, T. (2011). Linking maternal warmth and responsiveness to children’s self-regulation. Social Development, 20, 486–503. Winer (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
How to cite this article: Feng X, Hooper EG, Jia R. From compliance to self-regulation: Development during early childhood. Social Development. 2017;00:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12245
