-
Title
-
Effortful Control
-
Author
-
Spinrad, Tracy L.
-
Eisenberg, Nancy
-
Research Area
-
Cognition and Emotions
-
Topic
-
Motivation
-
Abstract
-
Effortful control, defined as the ability to voluntary inhibit a dominant response and to activate a subdominant response, is believed to play an important role in children's development. In this essay, we distinguish between effortful control and aspects of control that are involuntary (i.e., reactive). The development of effortful control is summarized, and research on its relations to children's positive social behaviors and maladjustment is reviewed. Key areas for future work are also discussed, with an emphasis on interventions designed to promote self‐regulation.
-
Related Essays
-
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
-
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
-
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
-
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One's Thoughts (Psychology), Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
-
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
-
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
-
Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences (Psychology), Margie E. Lachman et al.
-
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner et al.
-
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self‐Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
-
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
-
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
-
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross et al.
-
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
-
Identifier
-
etrds0097
-
extracted text
-
Effortful Control
TRACY L. SPINRAD and NANCY EISENBERG
Abstract
Effortful control, defined as the ability to voluntary inhibit a dominant response and
to activate a subdominant response, is believed to play an important role in children’s
development. In this essay, we distinguish between effortful control and aspects of
control that are involuntary (i.e., reactive). The development of effortful control is
summarized, and research on its relations to children’s positive social behaviors and
maladjustment is reviewed. Key areas for future work are also discussed, with an
emphasis on interventions designed to promote self-regulation.
EFFORTFUL CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
The construct of effortful control has received considerable attention in
recent years. In this essay, we first focus on definitional issues, considering
the overlap with constructs such as the broader “self-regulation” and
executive functioning. Next, conceptual distinctions between voluntary
(effortful) aspects of control and more reactive, involuntary processes are
summarized. We briefly review the normative development of effortful
control and its relations to children’s positive and maladaptive outcomes.
We conclude with a discussion of applied interventions and key areas for
future research. Owing to space constraints, we primarily refer to previously
published reviews and focus on work that has not been reviewed elsewhere.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Definitional Issues. Effortful control is a term used to refer to the regulatory
aspect of temperament. Rothbart (Rothbart & Bates, 2006) defined temperament as “constitutionally based individual differences in reactivity and
self-regulation, in the domains of affect, activity, and attention” and view it as
the “the affective, activational, and attentional core of personality” (p. 100).
They further defined self-regulation as processes that modulate emotional
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
and behavioral responsivity to the environment, and effortful control—the
self-regulatory aspect of temperament—as “the efficiency of executive
attention—including the ability to inhibit a dominant response and/or to
activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors” (p. 129).
Thus, effortful control refers to individual differences in willful or effortful
regulatory skills grounded in executive attention. It typically is viewed
as including the ability to willfully deploy attention (attention focusing
and shifting and including cognitive distraction) and to willfully inhibit
or activate behavior (inhibitory control and activational control, respectively). It also includes abilities to detect errors and resolve cognitive
conflict and to plan. Effortful control can be used to modulate behavior,
cognitions/thoughts, and emotion. Consequently, effortful control is the
building blocks for the development of self-regulation, emotional and
otherwise, across the lifespan, and is the core of internally based, volitional
self-regulation (Eisenberg, Hofer, Sulik, & Spinrad, 2014).
Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2014) argued that although
effortful control is generally an effortful willful process, people are not
always aware of effortfully modulating emotion or behavior. Especially
after rehearsal and practice, effortfully controlled behaviors may become
relatively automatic and executed without much conscious awareness in
contexts with relevant trigger cues. However, what is critical is that, if
necessary, the individual can shift into a more volitional, cognitively accessible mode of functioning when it is adaptive to do so. Like a number of
others in the field (e.g., Block & Block, 1980), we believe that well-regulated
individuals are not overly controlled (e.g., highly inhibited) or overly undercontrolled and that they can be spontaneous and relatively undercontrolled
if doing so does not undermine their goals.
Effortful control includes and partly overlaps with the construct of executive functioning skills, defined as “higher order, self-regulatory, cognitive
processes that aid in the monitoring and control of thought and action”
(p. 595; Carlson, 2005). Similar to effortful control, executive functioning is
viewed as referring to “adaptive, goal-directed behaviors that enable individuals to override more automatic or established thoughts and responses”
(p. 31; Garon et al., 2008). Thus, both constructs include processes such as
effortful deployment of attention, set shifting, and planning. Some aspects of
executive functioning such as working memory are not part of the definition
of effortful control although working memory no doubt contributes to
effortful control in some contexts and for some tasks.
We view effortful control as providing tools used for self-regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2014; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). However, consistent with arguments
by Blair and Ursache (2011) in regard to executive functioning, the relation
between emotion and effortful control is likely bidirectional: Although
Effortful Control
3
effortful control can modify emotion, emotion can undermine or enhance
the efficacy of effortful control, depending in part on the degree of emotional
arousal. High arousal is believed to undermine attention and executive
functioning whereas a moderate level may be optimal for self-regulation.
Clearly, emotion and its self-regulation are highly interrelated and there is
debate regarding the degree to which they can be considered distinct.
Effortful versus Reactive Control. Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg
et al., 2014) have argued that it is useful conceptually to differentiate effortful
control from reactive control. Building on Rothbart’s (Rothbart & Bates,
2006) distinction between reactivity and regulation, we differentiate between
emotional and behavioral reactivity (e.g., behavioral approach and inhibition) and contrast this behavioral reactivity—labeled reactive control—with
effortful control. Reactive control pertains to aspects of control (or the
lack thereof) that are relatively nonvolitional and usually automatic, and
difficult to modulate effortfully; reactive control is viewed as less flexible
and often less adaptive than volitional self-regulation (i.e., effortful control).
For example, children who are labeled as “behaviorally inhibited” (Kagan
& Fox, 2006) tend to be wary and overly constrained in novel or stressful
situations and have difficulty modulating (e.g., relaxing) their inhibition.
Their inhibition or constraint is relatively involuntary and difficult for
them to effortfully modulate. Conversely, the impulse to approach people
or inanimate objects often may be relatively involuntary. People who are
impulsive appear to be “pulled” to rewarding or positive situations or
stimuli. Such overly inhibited and impulsive behavior reflects two aspects
of reactive control—reactive overcontrol and undercontrol. The constructs of
reactive undercontrol and overcontrol are similar to what the Blocks (1980)
labeled as the extremes of ego control (i.e., ego undercontrol and overcontrol), with ego control defined as the “threshold or operating characteristic
of an individual with regard to the expression or containment of impulses,
feelings, and desires” (p. 43). Moreover, this distinction is similar to that of
Pickering and Gray’s (1999) behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation
systems (BIS and BAS). Effortful and reactive control have been found to
load on different latent constructs and sometimes provide unique prediction
of developmental outcomes (see Eisenberg et al., 2014; Eisenberg, Spinrad &
Eggum, 2010).
Development of Effortful Control. Although young infants are thought to rely
almost exclusively on caregivers to regulate their emotions and behavior,
rudimentary forms of effortful control are thought to emerge around the end
of the first year of life and improve dramatically with age. Moreover, changes
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
in effortful regulation are thought to occur as a result of motor and cognitive maturation. One aspect of effortful control involves the ability to sustain
and focus attention, and this skill appears to develop in late infancy. Indeed,
increases in attentional control have been observed from late infancy to toddlerhood/preschool, whereas distractibility decreases from the infancy to
preschool period (see Rothbart & Bates, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition to changes in attention, there are developments in aspects of
executive functioning in late infancy. For instance, older infants have the ability to reach for a toy not in their line of sight, demonstrating the ability to
coordinate reach and vision and attend to both. This ability is believed to
involve the execution of intentional behavior, planning, and the resistance of
more automatic tendencies. Similarly, infants are capable of looking to the
location of a target before its appearance in that location (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010).
With advances in cognitive and language skills, there is considerable development in effortful control and executive attentional skills in the preschool
years. Using a comprehensive battery of tasks designed to measure effortful
control, Kochanska and colleagues (2000) showed improvements in effortful
control across the second and third years of life. Executive attentional skills
that require children to switch attention and inhibit behavior also improve
during this period; children are able to perform well on spatial conflict tasks
in the third year of life, with significant improvements in the fourth year of
life (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
There are further increases in effortful control and executive functioning
skills in preschool, the grade-school years, and into adolescence. These skills
may continue to develop at a slower pace into adulthood (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010, 2014).
Stability. Individual differences emerge early and are somewhat stable
across time. Parents’ and observer ratings of infants’ attention have been
significantly correlated across infancy and the early toddler years, and there
is moderate stability in the broader construct of observed effortful control in
the early years (see Eisenberg et al., 2010). Similar stability has been reported
by Spinrad and Eisenberg (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2010, Spinrad et al., 2012) for
latent constructs consisting of adult-rated effortful control combined with
one or more behavioral measures, over 1–2 years of time between 18 and 54
months of age. Individual differences in adult-reported effortful control also
have been found to be stable across the elementary school years and in early
adolescence (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Age-appropriate measures of self-regulation also relate to other, somewhat
different measures of self-regulation at older ages (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Effortful Control
5
Prediction over long periods of time also has been found for measures of
self-regulation. For example, Friedman, Miyake, Robinson, and Hewitt (2011)
found toddlers’ self-restraint when told not to touch an attractive toy predicted measures of executive functioning (including those that overlap with
self-regulation) 14 years later. Observed undercontrol at age 3 also has predicted less control (reflective, cautious, careful, rational, planful, not impulsive) at age 18. Finally, the ability to delay gratification in the late preschool
years has been found to predict coping (including self-control, attentional
control, and other constructs) in adolescence (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990)
and efficiency (greater speed without reduced accuracy) during a go/no-go
task (requiring attention, inhibitory control, and activation to signals) more
than 10 years later (Eigsti et al., 2006).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Effortful control is believed to play an important role in a wide range of
developmental outcomes. In particular, we focus on the relations of effortful
control to children’s positive and negative socioemotional outcomes.
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Positive Behaviors. Children’s effortful control is thought to contribute to positive outcomes in children. Children
who are able to control their attention and behavior are expected to manage
their emotions, get along with others, and to engage in socially competent
behaviors. Consistent with these expectations, researchers have shown positive relations between effortful control and children’s social competence (see
Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition, effortful control has been positively related to children’s
ego-resiliency, reflecting children’s ability to bounce back from stress. It
is likely that children who are high in effortful control are better able to
modulate their arousal and respond to stressors in a more flexible manner.
Using a longitudinal panel model in which stability of the constructs were
controlled, Taylor and colleagues (2013) found 2.5-year-olds’ effortful control predicted ego-resiliency a year later, although this prediction was not
significant when the toddlers were 18 months of age (when ego-resiliency is
likely just emerging).
Effortful control also may help children to follow rules and comply with
adults’ requests. Kochanska and colleagues have identified two forms of
compliance: committed compliance, defined as children’s wholehearted
compliance to adults’ requests and situational compliance, defined as
parent-monitored cooperation in which the child lacks sincere commitment
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
to the task (Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001). By definition, committed compliance, but not situational compliance, is indicative of children’s conscience
development (Kochanska et al., 2001). As expected, effortful control has been
found to predict children’s committed compliance and higher conscience
(i.e., moral self and internalization of rules; see Eisenberg et al., 2014).
There is also considerable evidence that effortful control (or aspects
of effortful control) is positively related to children’s empathy-related
responding and prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006
for review). Children high in effortful control are thought to experience
sympathy (an other-oriented response to another’s emotion or condition)
rather than personal distress (a self-focused, aversive response to another’s
emotion or condition) because empathic overarousal is aversive and leads
to self-focus and self-concern. Consistent with this notion, positive relations
between effortful control and empathy and/or sympathy have been found in
numerous studies (Eisenberg et al., 2006). In a recent long-term longitudinal
study, Kanacri and colleagues (2013) showed that effortful control measured
at age 13 was related to lower declines in prosociality in adolescence.
Researchers also have documented an association between effortful control
and the quality of children’s relationships with peers and teachers. Children’s
effortful control has been related to lower teacher-child conflict and greater
teacher-child closeness (Silva et al., 2011). Further, children high in effortful
control tend to be less vulnerable to peer victimization (Hanish et al., 2004)
and tend to exhibit greater peer competence (Calkins, Gil, Johnson, & Smith,
1999).
Findings thus far offer a consistent view of the role of effortful control in
children’s positive social functioning. Further research on the unique prediction of effortful and reactive control to children’s positive behaviors is
needed, and there is a particular need for longitudinal, multimethod research
in this area (Spinrad et al., 2012).
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Maladjustment. Children with poor
effortful control skills are likely to have difficulty controlling their negative
emotions, engage in more conflictual interactions with others, and may be
prone to depression and anxiety. There is substantial evidence that children’s
low effortful control may serve as a risk for the development of problem
behaviors, such as aggression and conduct disorders as well as internalizing
symptoms (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).
A consistent negative association between effortful control and externalizing problems has been found across childhood. Moreover, some longitudinal
results indicate that earlier effortful control predicts later externalizing problems, even after controlling for stability in problem behaviors. In some work,
Effortful Control
7
however, no relations between effortful control and externalizing problems
were found once earlier levels of problem behaviors were controlled (see
Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Findings on the relations between effortful control and children’s internalizing problems are somewhat mixed. Negative relations between effortful
control and internalizing problems are most often found. For example,
effortful control has been negatively related to separation distress (an
aspect of internalizing problems) in toddlerhood (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
In contrast, Murray and Kochanska (2002) showed a quadratic relation
between effortful control and problem behaviors in the preschool years.
Specifically, children with high levels of EC (an aggregated score across a
set of observational tasks) were rated higher on internalizing behaviors than
were children with moderate levels of EC. However, it should be noted that
in this study, severe internalizing problems were relatively infrequent. Thus,
the relations between EC and children’s internalizing problems are likely
complex. The literature may be somewhat inconsistent because relations
may vary depending on the aspects of effortful control examined (i.e.,
attentional control versus behavioral/inhibitory control), children’s age, and
if the measure of internalizing symptoms. Moreover, negative emotionality
may moderate the relations between effortful control and internalizing
problems. Thus, researchers should consider these complex relations in
future work.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the relatively consistent associations between effortful control and
children’s social and emotional outcomes, it is important to understand
the ways in which children’s regulation skills can be fostered. Directions
for future research may include examining the conditions under which
interventions can promote improved effortful control in children.
INTERVENTION STUDIES
In order to draw causal conclusions about the relations of effortful control to
children’s developmental outcomes, more experimental studies, especially
intervention and prevention research are needed. Researchers have begun
to conduct interventions to promote children’s regulation, mostly in school
settings. For example, students participating in the PATHS (Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies) Curriculum have been found to outperform their control counterparts on measures of executive functioning and
sustained attention (Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, Domitrovich, 2008). In
this curriculum, teachers are provided with lessons to improve children’s
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
emotional literacy, social competence, problem solving, and positive peer
relationships. Because this program was designed to foster a number of
social skills, the effects on regulation or effortful control may be indirect.
Thus more intervention work directed at promoting children’s effortful
regulation is needed (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Owing to space constraints, research on the role of socialization and the
environment on children’s effortful control was not reviewed, although it
would be useful to consider ways in which interventions directed at parenting behaviors may improve children’s effortful control. Further, children
who are well regulated are likely to evoke more positive responses from others (i.e., parents, teachers, and peers), and such transactional relations should
be examined in future longitudinal research.
In addition, the effectiveness of interventions in improving children’s
effortful control and children’s developmental outcomes may be moderated
by a number of factors, including age and other aspects of temperament.
Children’s emotional reactivity, for example, may moderate the relation
between intervention status and effortful control. That is, interventions may
be most effective for children who are most “at risk” for difficulties whereas
such interventions may be less effective for children who are dispositionally
less reactive. Clearly, it has become increasingly clear that effortful control is
related to social, emotional, moral, and cognitive development in childhood.
Although researchers are beginning to design intervention and prevention
programs to improve children’s effortful control, much more work should
be done in this area.
REFERENCES
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008).
Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and
mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20,
821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394
Blair, C., & Ursache, A. (2011). A bidirectional model of executive functions and
self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 300–320). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology
(pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Calkins, S. D., Gill, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional
reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior
with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8(3), 310–334. doi:10.1111/
1467-9507.00098
Effortful Control
9
Carlson, S. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in
preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616. doi:10.1207/
s15326942dn2802_3
Eigsti, I-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., …
Casey, B. J. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478–484. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2006.01732
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N.
Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Sulik, M., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Effortful control and its
socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(2nd ed., pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). Developmental
trajectories in toddlers’ self-restraint predict individual differences in executive
functions 14 years later: A behavioral genetic design. Developmental Psychology,
47, 1410–1430. doi:10.1037a0023750
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60.
doi:10.1177/1362361308094500
Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P., & Schmidt, S.
(2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young
children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 335–353.
doi:10.1017/S0954579404044542
Kagan, J., & Fox, N. A. (2006). Biology, culture, and temperamental biases. Hoboken, NJ,
US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013).
The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of
effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 301–312. doi:10.1111/jopy.12001
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation
in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 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. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation
to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30(5), 503–514. doi:10.1023/A:1019821031523
Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1999). The neuroscience of personality. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive
and self- regulatory competences from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.26.6.978
Silva, K. M., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Sulik, M. J., Valiente, C., Huerta, S., …
Taylor, H. B. (2011). Relations of children’s effortful control and teacher-child relationship quality to school attitudes in a low-income sample. Early Education and
Development, 22(3), 434–460. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.578046
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. doi:10.1037/a0025898
Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Longitudinal
relations of intrusive parenting and effortful control to ego-resiliency during early
childhood. Child Development, 84, 1145–1151. doi:10.1111/cdev.12054
FURTHER READING
Eisenberg, N., Edwards, A., Spinrad, T. L., Sallquist, J., Eggum, N. D., & Reiser, M.
(2013). Effortful and reactive control unique constructs in young children? Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0031745
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the
definition. Child Development, 75, 334–339.
Gross, J. J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: One
or two depends on your point of view. Emotion Review, 3, 8–16. doi:10.1177/
1754073910380974
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three
cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology, 43,
208–221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 83–105). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York, NY: Wiley.
TRACY L. SPINRAD SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Tracy L. Spinrad is a Professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and
Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the
Effortful Control
11
relations of self-regulation (particularly effortful control) and reactive control to young children’s adjustment and social competence. Further, much of
her work has focused on the role that parenting plays in the development of
effortful control.
NANCY EISENBERG SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Nancy Eisenberg is a Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University. She studies individual differences in children’s regulation and its
relations to their adjustment/maladjustment. She is an expert in children’s
moral and emotional development, altruism, and empathy. Her work also
focuses on socialization and cultural factors in emotion regulation, social
competence, and prosocial behaviors.
RELATED ESSAYS
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences (Psychology), Margie E.
Lachman et al.
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
-
Effortful Control
TRACY L. SPINRAD and NANCY EISENBERG
Abstract
Effortful control, defined as the ability to voluntary inhibit a dominant response and
to activate a subdominant response, is believed to play an important role in children’s
development. In this essay, we distinguish between effortful control and aspects of
control that are involuntary (i.e., reactive). The development of effortful control is
summarized, and research on its relations to children’s positive social behaviors and
maladjustment is reviewed. Key areas for future work are also discussed, with an
emphasis on interventions designed to promote self-regulation.
EFFORTFUL CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
The construct of effortful control has received considerable attention in
recent years. In this essay, we first focus on definitional issues, considering
the overlap with constructs such as the broader “self-regulation” and
executive functioning. Next, conceptual distinctions between voluntary
(effortful) aspects of control and more reactive, involuntary processes are
summarized. We briefly review the normative development of effortful
control and its relations to children’s positive and maladaptive outcomes.
We conclude with a discussion of applied interventions and key areas for
future research. Owing to space constraints, we primarily refer to previously
published reviews and focus on work that has not been reviewed elsewhere.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Definitional Issues. Effortful control is a term used to refer to the regulatory
aspect of temperament. Rothbart (Rothbart & Bates, 2006) defined temperament as “constitutionally based individual differences in reactivity and
self-regulation, in the domains of affect, activity, and attention” and view it as
the “the affective, activational, and attentional core of personality” (p. 100).
They further defined self-regulation as processes that modulate emotional
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
and behavioral responsivity to the environment, and effortful control—the
self-regulatory aspect of temperament—as “the efficiency of executive
attention—including the ability to inhibit a dominant response and/or to
activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors” (p. 129).
Thus, effortful control refers to individual differences in willful or effortful
regulatory skills grounded in executive attention. It typically is viewed
as including the ability to willfully deploy attention (attention focusing
and shifting and including cognitive distraction) and to willfully inhibit
or activate behavior (inhibitory control and activational control, respectively). It also includes abilities to detect errors and resolve cognitive
conflict and to plan. Effortful control can be used to modulate behavior,
cognitions/thoughts, and emotion. Consequently, effortful control is the
building blocks for the development of self-regulation, emotional and
otherwise, across the lifespan, and is the core of internally based, volitional
self-regulation (Eisenberg, Hofer, Sulik, & Spinrad, 2014).
Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2014) argued that although
effortful control is generally an effortful willful process, people are not
always aware of effortfully modulating emotion or behavior. Especially
after rehearsal and practice, effortfully controlled behaviors may become
relatively automatic and executed without much conscious awareness in
contexts with relevant trigger cues. However, what is critical is that, if
necessary, the individual can shift into a more volitional, cognitively accessible mode of functioning when it is adaptive to do so. Like a number of
others in the field (e.g., Block & Block, 1980), we believe that well-regulated
individuals are not overly controlled (e.g., highly inhibited) or overly undercontrolled and that they can be spontaneous and relatively undercontrolled
if doing so does not undermine their goals.
Effortful control includes and partly overlaps with the construct of executive functioning skills, defined as “higher order, self-regulatory, cognitive
processes that aid in the monitoring and control of thought and action”
(p. 595; Carlson, 2005). Similar to effortful control, executive functioning is
viewed as referring to “adaptive, goal-directed behaviors that enable individuals to override more automatic or established thoughts and responses”
(p. 31; Garon et al., 2008). Thus, both constructs include processes such as
effortful deployment of attention, set shifting, and planning. Some aspects of
executive functioning such as working memory are not part of the definition
of effortful control although working memory no doubt contributes to
effortful control in some contexts and for some tasks.
We view effortful control as providing tools used for self-regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2014; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). However, consistent with arguments
by Blair and Ursache (2011) in regard to executive functioning, the relation
between emotion and effortful control is likely bidirectional: Although
Effortful Control
3
effortful control can modify emotion, emotion can undermine or enhance
the efficacy of effortful control, depending in part on the degree of emotional
arousal. High arousal is believed to undermine attention and executive
functioning whereas a moderate level may be optimal for self-regulation.
Clearly, emotion and its self-regulation are highly interrelated and there is
debate regarding the degree to which they can be considered distinct.
Effortful versus Reactive Control. Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg
et al., 2014) have argued that it is useful conceptually to differentiate effortful
control from reactive control. Building on Rothbart’s (Rothbart & Bates,
2006) distinction between reactivity and regulation, we differentiate between
emotional and behavioral reactivity (e.g., behavioral approach and inhibition) and contrast this behavioral reactivity—labeled reactive control—with
effortful control. Reactive control pertains to aspects of control (or the
lack thereof) that are relatively nonvolitional and usually automatic, and
difficult to modulate effortfully; reactive control is viewed as less flexible
and often less adaptive than volitional self-regulation (i.e., effortful control).
For example, children who are labeled as “behaviorally inhibited” (Kagan
& Fox, 2006) tend to be wary and overly constrained in novel or stressful
situations and have difficulty modulating (e.g., relaxing) their inhibition.
Their inhibition or constraint is relatively involuntary and difficult for
them to effortfully modulate. Conversely, the impulse to approach people
or inanimate objects often may be relatively involuntary. People who are
impulsive appear to be “pulled” to rewarding or positive situations or
stimuli. Such overly inhibited and impulsive behavior reflects two aspects
of reactive control—reactive overcontrol and undercontrol. The constructs of
reactive undercontrol and overcontrol are similar to what the Blocks (1980)
labeled as the extremes of ego control (i.e., ego undercontrol and overcontrol), with ego control defined as the “threshold or operating characteristic
of an individual with regard to the expression or containment of impulses,
feelings, and desires” (p. 43). Moreover, this distinction is similar to that of
Pickering and Gray’s (1999) behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation
systems (BIS and BAS). Effortful and reactive control have been found to
load on different latent constructs and sometimes provide unique prediction
of developmental outcomes (see Eisenberg et al., 2014; Eisenberg, Spinrad &
Eggum, 2010).
Development of Effortful Control. Although young infants are thought to rely
almost exclusively on caregivers to regulate their emotions and behavior,
rudimentary forms of effortful control are thought to emerge around the end
of the first year of life and improve dramatically with age. Moreover, changes
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
in effortful regulation are thought to occur as a result of motor and cognitive maturation. One aspect of effortful control involves the ability to sustain
and focus attention, and this skill appears to develop in late infancy. Indeed,
increases in attentional control have been observed from late infancy to toddlerhood/preschool, whereas distractibility decreases from the infancy to
preschool period (see Rothbart & Bates, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition to changes in attention, there are developments in aspects of
executive functioning in late infancy. For instance, older infants have the ability to reach for a toy not in their line of sight, demonstrating the ability to
coordinate reach and vision and attend to both. This ability is believed to
involve the execution of intentional behavior, planning, and the resistance of
more automatic tendencies. Similarly, infants are capable of looking to the
location of a target before its appearance in that location (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010).
With advances in cognitive and language skills, there is considerable development in effortful control and executive attentional skills in the preschool
years. Using a comprehensive battery of tasks designed to measure effortful
control, Kochanska and colleagues (2000) showed improvements in effortful
control across the second and third years of life. Executive attentional skills
that require children to switch attention and inhibit behavior also improve
during this period; children are able to perform well on spatial conflict tasks
in the third year of life, with significant improvements in the fourth year of
life (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
There are further increases in effortful control and executive functioning
skills in preschool, the grade-school years, and into adolescence. These skills
may continue to develop at a slower pace into adulthood (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010, 2014).
Stability. Individual differences emerge early and are somewhat stable
across time. Parents’ and observer ratings of infants’ attention have been
significantly correlated across infancy and the early toddler years, and there
is moderate stability in the broader construct of observed effortful control in
the early years (see Eisenberg et al., 2010). Similar stability has been reported
by Spinrad and Eisenberg (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2010, Spinrad et al., 2012) for
latent constructs consisting of adult-rated effortful control combined with
one or more behavioral measures, over 1–2 years of time between 18 and 54
months of age. Individual differences in adult-reported effortful control also
have been found to be stable across the elementary school years and in early
adolescence (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Age-appropriate measures of self-regulation also relate to other, somewhat
different measures of self-regulation at older ages (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Effortful Control
5
Prediction over long periods of time also has been found for measures of
self-regulation. For example, Friedman, Miyake, Robinson, and Hewitt (2011)
found toddlers’ self-restraint when told not to touch an attractive toy predicted measures of executive functioning (including those that overlap with
self-regulation) 14 years later. Observed undercontrol at age 3 also has predicted less control (reflective, cautious, careful, rational, planful, not impulsive) at age 18. Finally, the ability to delay gratification in the late preschool
years has been found to predict coping (including self-control, attentional
control, and other constructs) in adolescence (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990)
and efficiency (greater speed without reduced accuracy) during a go/no-go
task (requiring attention, inhibitory control, and activation to signals) more
than 10 years later (Eigsti et al., 2006).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Effortful control is believed to play an important role in a wide range of
developmental outcomes. In particular, we focus on the relations of effortful
control to children’s positive and negative socioemotional outcomes.
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Positive Behaviors. Children’s effortful control is thought to contribute to positive outcomes in children. Children
who are able to control their attention and behavior are expected to manage
their emotions, get along with others, and to engage in socially competent
behaviors. Consistent with these expectations, researchers have shown positive relations between effortful control and children’s social competence (see
Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition, effortful control has been positively related to children’s
ego-resiliency, reflecting children’s ability to bounce back from stress. It
is likely that children who are high in effortful control are better able to
modulate their arousal and respond to stressors in a more flexible manner.
Using a longitudinal panel model in which stability of the constructs were
controlled, Taylor and colleagues (2013) found 2.5-year-olds’ effortful control predicted ego-resiliency a year later, although this prediction was not
significant when the toddlers were 18 months of age (when ego-resiliency is
likely just emerging).
Effortful control also may help children to follow rules and comply with
adults’ requests. Kochanska and colleagues have identified two forms of
compliance: committed compliance, defined as children’s wholehearted
compliance to adults’ requests and situational compliance, defined as
parent-monitored cooperation in which the child lacks sincere commitment
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
to the task (Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001). By definition, committed compliance, but not situational compliance, is indicative of children’s conscience
development (Kochanska et al., 2001). As expected, effortful control has been
found to predict children’s committed compliance and higher conscience
(i.e., moral self and internalization of rules; see Eisenberg et al., 2014).
There is also considerable evidence that effortful control (or aspects
of effortful control) is positively related to children’s empathy-related
responding and prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006
for review). Children high in effortful control are thought to experience
sympathy (an other-oriented response to another’s emotion or condition)
rather than personal distress (a self-focused, aversive response to another’s
emotion or condition) because empathic overarousal is aversive and leads
to self-focus and self-concern. Consistent with this notion, positive relations
between effortful control and empathy and/or sympathy have been found in
numerous studies (Eisenberg et al., 2006). In a recent long-term longitudinal
study, Kanacri and colleagues (2013) showed that effortful control measured
at age 13 was related to lower declines in prosociality in adolescence.
Researchers also have documented an association between effortful control
and the quality of children’s relationships with peers and teachers. Children’s
effortful control has been related to lower teacher-child conflict and greater
teacher-child closeness (Silva et al., 2011). Further, children high in effortful
control tend to be less vulnerable to peer victimization (Hanish et al., 2004)
and tend to exhibit greater peer competence (Calkins, Gil, Johnson, & Smith,
1999).
Findings thus far offer a consistent view of the role of effortful control in
children’s positive social functioning. Further research on the unique prediction of effortful and reactive control to children’s positive behaviors is
needed, and there is a particular need for longitudinal, multimethod research
in this area (Spinrad et al., 2012).
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Maladjustment. Children with poor
effortful control skills are likely to have difficulty controlling their negative
emotions, engage in more conflictual interactions with others, and may be
prone to depression and anxiety. There is substantial evidence that children’s
low effortful control may serve as a risk for the development of problem
behaviors, such as aggression and conduct disorders as well as internalizing
symptoms (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).
A consistent negative association between effortful control and externalizing problems has been found across childhood. Moreover, some longitudinal
results indicate that earlier effortful control predicts later externalizing problems, even after controlling for stability in problem behaviors. In some work,
Effortful Control
7
however, no relations between effortful control and externalizing problems
were found once earlier levels of problem behaviors were controlled (see
Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Findings on the relations between effortful control and children’s internalizing problems are somewhat mixed. Negative relations between effortful
control and internalizing problems are most often found. For example,
effortful control has been negatively related to separation distress (an
aspect of internalizing problems) in toddlerhood (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
In contrast, Murray and Kochanska (2002) showed a quadratic relation
between effortful control and problem behaviors in the preschool years.
Specifically, children with high levels of EC (an aggregated score across a
set of observational tasks) were rated higher on internalizing behaviors than
were children with moderate levels of EC. However, it should be noted that
in this study, severe internalizing problems were relatively infrequent. Thus,
the relations between EC and children’s internalizing problems are likely
complex. The literature may be somewhat inconsistent because relations
may vary depending on the aspects of effortful control examined (i.e.,
attentional control versus behavioral/inhibitory control), children’s age, and
if the measure of internalizing symptoms. Moreover, negative emotionality
may moderate the relations between effortful control and internalizing
problems. Thus, researchers should consider these complex relations in
future work.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the relatively consistent associations between effortful control and
children’s social and emotional outcomes, it is important to understand
the ways in which children’s regulation skills can be fostered. Directions
for future research may include examining the conditions under which
interventions can promote improved effortful control in children.
INTERVENTION STUDIES
In order to draw causal conclusions about the relations of effortful control to
children’s developmental outcomes, more experimental studies, especially
intervention and prevention research are needed. Researchers have begun
to conduct interventions to promote children’s regulation, mostly in school
settings. For example, students participating in the PATHS (Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies) Curriculum have been found to outperform their control counterparts on measures of executive functioning and
sustained attention (Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, Domitrovich, 2008). In
this curriculum, teachers are provided with lessons to improve children’s
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
emotional literacy, social competence, problem solving, and positive peer
relationships. Because this program was designed to foster a number of
social skills, the effects on regulation or effortful control may be indirect.
Thus more intervention work directed at promoting children’s effortful
regulation is needed (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Owing to space constraints, research on the role of socialization and the
environment on children’s effortful control was not reviewed, although it
would be useful to consider ways in which interventions directed at parenting behaviors may improve children’s effortful control. Further, children
who are well regulated are likely to evoke more positive responses from others (i.e., parents, teachers, and peers), and such transactional relations should
be examined in future longitudinal research.
In addition, the effectiveness of interventions in improving children’s
effortful control and children’s developmental outcomes may be moderated
by a number of factors, including age and other aspects of temperament.
Children’s emotional reactivity, for example, may moderate the relation
between intervention status and effortful control. That is, interventions may
be most effective for children who are most “at risk” for difficulties whereas
such interventions may be less effective for children who are dispositionally
less reactive. Clearly, it has become increasingly clear that effortful control is
related to social, emotional, moral, and cognitive development in childhood.
Although researchers are beginning to design intervention and prevention
programs to improve children’s effortful control, much more work should
be done in this area.
REFERENCES
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008).
Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and
mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20,
821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394
Blair, C., & Ursache, A. (2011). A bidirectional model of executive functions and
self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 300–320). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology
(pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Calkins, S. D., Gill, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional
reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior
with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8(3), 310–334. doi:10.1111/
1467-9507.00098
Effortful Control
9
Carlson, S. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in
preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616. doi:10.1207/
s15326942dn2802_3
Eigsti, I-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., …
Casey, B. J. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478–484. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2006.01732
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N.
Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Sulik, M., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Effortful control and its
socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(2nd ed., pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). Developmental
trajectories in toddlers’ self-restraint predict individual differences in executive
functions 14 years later: A behavioral genetic design. Developmental Psychology,
47, 1410–1430. doi:10.1037a0023750
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60.
doi:10.1177/1362361308094500
Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P., & Schmidt, S.
(2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young
children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 335–353.
doi:10.1017/S0954579404044542
Kagan, J., & Fox, N. A. (2006). Biology, culture, and temperamental biases. Hoboken, NJ,
US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013).
The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of
effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 301–312. doi:10.1111/jopy.12001
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation
in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 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. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation
to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30(5), 503–514. doi:10.1023/A:1019821031523
Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1999). The neuroscience of personality. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive
and self- regulatory competences from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.26.6.978
Silva, K. M., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Sulik, M. J., Valiente, C., Huerta, S., …
Taylor, H. B. (2011). Relations of children’s effortful control and teacher-child relationship quality to school attitudes in a low-income sample. Early Education and
Development, 22(3), 434–460. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.578046
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. doi:10.1037/a0025898
Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Longitudinal
relations of intrusive parenting and effortful control to ego-resiliency during early
childhood. Child Development, 84, 1145–1151. doi:10.1111/cdev.12054
FURTHER READING
Eisenberg, N., Edwards, A., Spinrad, T. L., Sallquist, J., Eggum, N. D., & Reiser, M.
(2013). Effortful and reactive control unique constructs in young children? Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0031745
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the
definition. Child Development, 75, 334–339.
Gross, J. J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: One
or two depends on your point of view. Emotion Review, 3, 8–16. doi:10.1177/
1754073910380974
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three
cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology, 43,
208–221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 83–105). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York, NY: Wiley.
TRACY L. SPINRAD SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Tracy L. Spinrad is a Professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and
Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the
Effortful Control
11
relations of self-regulation (particularly effortful control) and reactive control to young children’s adjustment and social competence. Further, much of
her work has focused on the role that parenting plays in the development of
effortful control.
NANCY EISENBERG SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Nancy Eisenberg is a Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University. She studies individual differences in children’s regulation and its
relations to their adjustment/maladjustment. She is an expert in children’s
moral and emotional development, altruism, and empathy. Her work also
focuses on socialization and cultural factors in emotion regulation, social
competence, and prosocial behaviors.
RELATED ESSAYS
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences (Psychology), Margie E.
Lachman et al.
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
Effortful Control
TRACY L. SPINRAD and NANCY EISENBERG
Abstract
Effortful control, defined as the ability to voluntary inhibit a dominant response and
to activate a subdominant response, is believed to play an important role in children’s
development. In this essay, we distinguish between effortful control and aspects of
control that are involuntary (i.e., reactive). The development of effortful control is
summarized, and research on its relations to children’s positive social behaviors and
maladjustment is reviewed. Key areas for future work are also discussed, with an
emphasis on interventions designed to promote self-regulation.
EFFORTFUL CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
The construct of effortful control has received considerable attention in
recent years. In this essay, we first focus on definitional issues, considering
the overlap with constructs such as the broader “self-regulation” and
executive functioning. Next, conceptual distinctions between voluntary
(effortful) aspects of control and more reactive, involuntary processes are
summarized. We briefly review the normative development of effortful
control and its relations to children’s positive and maladaptive outcomes.
We conclude with a discussion of applied interventions and key areas for
future research. Owing to space constraints, we primarily refer to previously
published reviews and focus on work that has not been reviewed elsewhere.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Definitional Issues. Effortful control is a term used to refer to the regulatory
aspect of temperament. Rothbart (Rothbart & Bates, 2006) defined temperament as “constitutionally based individual differences in reactivity and
self-regulation, in the domains of affect, activity, and attention” and view it as
the “the affective, activational, and attentional core of personality” (p. 100).
They further defined self-regulation as processes that modulate emotional
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
and behavioral responsivity to the environment, and effortful control—the
self-regulatory aspect of temperament—as “the efficiency of executive
attention—including the ability to inhibit a dominant response and/or to
activate a subdominant response, to plan, and to detect errors” (p. 129).
Thus, effortful control refers to individual differences in willful or effortful
regulatory skills grounded in executive attention. It typically is viewed
as including the ability to willfully deploy attention (attention focusing
and shifting and including cognitive distraction) and to willfully inhibit
or activate behavior (inhibitory control and activational control, respectively). It also includes abilities to detect errors and resolve cognitive
conflict and to plan. Effortful control can be used to modulate behavior,
cognitions/thoughts, and emotion. Consequently, effortful control is the
building blocks for the development of self-regulation, emotional and
otherwise, across the lifespan, and is the core of internally based, volitional
self-regulation (Eisenberg, Hofer, Sulik, & Spinrad, 2014).
Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2014) argued that although
effortful control is generally an effortful willful process, people are not
always aware of effortfully modulating emotion or behavior. Especially
after rehearsal and practice, effortfully controlled behaviors may become
relatively automatic and executed without much conscious awareness in
contexts with relevant trigger cues. However, what is critical is that, if
necessary, the individual can shift into a more volitional, cognitively accessible mode of functioning when it is adaptive to do so. Like a number of
others in the field (e.g., Block & Block, 1980), we believe that well-regulated
individuals are not overly controlled (e.g., highly inhibited) or overly undercontrolled and that they can be spontaneous and relatively undercontrolled
if doing so does not undermine their goals.
Effortful control includes and partly overlaps with the construct of executive functioning skills, defined as “higher order, self-regulatory, cognitive
processes that aid in the monitoring and control of thought and action”
(p. 595; Carlson, 2005). Similar to effortful control, executive functioning is
viewed as referring to “adaptive, goal-directed behaviors that enable individuals to override more automatic or established thoughts and responses”
(p. 31; Garon et al., 2008). Thus, both constructs include processes such as
effortful deployment of attention, set shifting, and planning. Some aspects of
executive functioning such as working memory are not part of the definition
of effortful control although working memory no doubt contributes to
effortful control in some contexts and for some tasks.
We view effortful control as providing tools used for self-regulation (Eisenberg et al., 2014; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). However, consistent with arguments
by Blair and Ursache (2011) in regard to executive functioning, the relation
between emotion and effortful control is likely bidirectional: Although
Effortful Control
3
effortful control can modify emotion, emotion can undermine or enhance
the efficacy of effortful control, depending in part on the degree of emotional
arousal. High arousal is believed to undermine attention and executive
functioning whereas a moderate level may be optimal for self-regulation.
Clearly, emotion and its self-regulation are highly interrelated and there is
debate regarding the degree to which they can be considered distinct.
Effortful versus Reactive Control. Eisenberg and colleagues (e.g., Eisenberg
et al., 2014) have argued that it is useful conceptually to differentiate effortful
control from reactive control. Building on Rothbart’s (Rothbart & Bates,
2006) distinction between reactivity and regulation, we differentiate between
emotional and behavioral reactivity (e.g., behavioral approach and inhibition) and contrast this behavioral reactivity—labeled reactive control—with
effortful control. Reactive control pertains to aspects of control (or the
lack thereof) that are relatively nonvolitional and usually automatic, and
difficult to modulate effortfully; reactive control is viewed as less flexible
and often less adaptive than volitional self-regulation (i.e., effortful control).
For example, children who are labeled as “behaviorally inhibited” (Kagan
& Fox, 2006) tend to be wary and overly constrained in novel or stressful
situations and have difficulty modulating (e.g., relaxing) their inhibition.
Their inhibition or constraint is relatively involuntary and difficult for
them to effortfully modulate. Conversely, the impulse to approach people
or inanimate objects often may be relatively involuntary. People who are
impulsive appear to be “pulled” to rewarding or positive situations or
stimuli. Such overly inhibited and impulsive behavior reflects two aspects
of reactive control—reactive overcontrol and undercontrol. The constructs of
reactive undercontrol and overcontrol are similar to what the Blocks (1980)
labeled as the extremes of ego control (i.e., ego undercontrol and overcontrol), with ego control defined as the “threshold or operating characteristic
of an individual with regard to the expression or containment of impulses,
feelings, and desires” (p. 43). Moreover, this distinction is similar to that of
Pickering and Gray’s (1999) behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation
systems (BIS and BAS). Effortful and reactive control have been found to
load on different latent constructs and sometimes provide unique prediction
of developmental outcomes (see Eisenberg et al., 2014; Eisenberg, Spinrad &
Eggum, 2010).
Development of Effortful Control. Although young infants are thought to rely
almost exclusively on caregivers to regulate their emotions and behavior,
rudimentary forms of effortful control are thought to emerge around the end
of the first year of life and improve dramatically with age. Moreover, changes
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
in effortful regulation are thought to occur as a result of motor and cognitive maturation. One aspect of effortful control involves the ability to sustain
and focus attention, and this skill appears to develop in late infancy. Indeed,
increases in attentional control have been observed from late infancy to toddlerhood/preschool, whereas distractibility decreases from the infancy to
preschool period (see Rothbart & Bates, 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition to changes in attention, there are developments in aspects of
executive functioning in late infancy. For instance, older infants have the ability to reach for a toy not in their line of sight, demonstrating the ability to
coordinate reach and vision and attend to both. This ability is believed to
involve the execution of intentional behavior, planning, and the resistance of
more automatic tendencies. Similarly, infants are capable of looking to the
location of a target before its appearance in that location (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010).
With advances in cognitive and language skills, there is considerable development in effortful control and executive attentional skills in the preschool
years. Using a comprehensive battery of tasks designed to measure effortful
control, Kochanska and colleagues (2000) showed improvements in effortful
control across the second and third years of life. Executive attentional skills
that require children to switch attention and inhibit behavior also improve
during this period; children are able to perform well on spatial conflict tasks
in the third year of life, with significant improvements in the fourth year of
life (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
There are further increases in effortful control and executive functioning
skills in preschool, the grade-school years, and into adolescence. These skills
may continue to develop at a slower pace into adulthood (see Eisenberg et al.,
2010, 2014).
Stability. Individual differences emerge early and are somewhat stable
across time. Parents’ and observer ratings of infants’ attention have been
significantly correlated across infancy and the early toddler years, and there
is moderate stability in the broader construct of observed effortful control in
the early years (see Eisenberg et al., 2010). Similar stability has been reported
by Spinrad and Eisenberg (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2010, Spinrad et al., 2012) for
latent constructs consisting of adult-rated effortful control combined with
one or more behavioral measures, over 1–2 years of time between 18 and 54
months of age. Individual differences in adult-reported effortful control also
have been found to be stable across the elementary school years and in early
adolescence (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Age-appropriate measures of self-regulation also relate to other, somewhat
different measures of self-regulation at older ages (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Effortful Control
5
Prediction over long periods of time also has been found for measures of
self-regulation. For example, Friedman, Miyake, Robinson, and Hewitt (2011)
found toddlers’ self-restraint when told not to touch an attractive toy predicted measures of executive functioning (including those that overlap with
self-regulation) 14 years later. Observed undercontrol at age 3 also has predicted less control (reflective, cautious, careful, rational, planful, not impulsive) at age 18. Finally, the ability to delay gratification in the late preschool
years has been found to predict coping (including self-control, attentional
control, and other constructs) in adolescence (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990)
and efficiency (greater speed without reduced accuracy) during a go/no-go
task (requiring attention, inhibitory control, and activation to signals) more
than 10 years later (Eigsti et al., 2006).
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH
Effortful control is believed to play an important role in a wide range of
developmental outcomes. In particular, we focus on the relations of effortful
control to children’s positive and negative socioemotional outcomes.
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Positive Behaviors. Children’s effortful control is thought to contribute to positive outcomes in children. Children
who are able to control their attention and behavior are expected to manage
their emotions, get along with others, and to engage in socially competent
behaviors. Consistent with these expectations, researchers have shown positive relations between effortful control and children’s social competence (see
Eisenberg et al., 2014).
In addition, effortful control has been positively related to children’s
ego-resiliency, reflecting children’s ability to bounce back from stress. It
is likely that children who are high in effortful control are better able to
modulate their arousal and respond to stressors in a more flexible manner.
Using a longitudinal panel model in which stability of the constructs were
controlled, Taylor and colleagues (2013) found 2.5-year-olds’ effortful control predicted ego-resiliency a year later, although this prediction was not
significant when the toddlers were 18 months of age (when ego-resiliency is
likely just emerging).
Effortful control also may help children to follow rules and comply with
adults’ requests. Kochanska and colleagues have identified two forms of
compliance: committed compliance, defined as children’s wholehearted
compliance to adults’ requests and situational compliance, defined as
parent-monitored cooperation in which the child lacks sincere commitment
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
to the task (Kochanska, Coy, & Murray, 2001). By definition, committed compliance, but not situational compliance, is indicative of children’s conscience
development (Kochanska et al., 2001). As expected, effortful control has been
found to predict children’s committed compliance and higher conscience
(i.e., moral self and internalization of rules; see Eisenberg et al., 2014).
There is also considerable evidence that effortful control (or aspects
of effortful control) is positively related to children’s empathy-related
responding and prosocial behavior (see Eisenberg, Fabes, & Spinrad, 2006
for review). Children high in effortful control are thought to experience
sympathy (an other-oriented response to another’s emotion or condition)
rather than personal distress (a self-focused, aversive response to another’s
emotion or condition) because empathic overarousal is aversive and leads
to self-focus and self-concern. Consistent with this notion, positive relations
between effortful control and empathy and/or sympathy have been found in
numerous studies (Eisenberg et al., 2006). In a recent long-term longitudinal
study, Kanacri and colleagues (2013) showed that effortful control measured
at age 13 was related to lower declines in prosociality in adolescence.
Researchers also have documented an association between effortful control
and the quality of children’s relationships with peers and teachers. Children’s
effortful control has been related to lower teacher-child conflict and greater
teacher-child closeness (Silva et al., 2011). Further, children high in effortful
control tend to be less vulnerable to peer victimization (Hanish et al., 2004)
and tend to exhibit greater peer competence (Calkins, Gil, Johnson, & Smith,
1999).
Findings thus far offer a consistent view of the role of effortful control in
children’s positive social functioning. Further research on the unique prediction of effortful and reactive control to children’s positive behaviors is
needed, and there is a particular need for longitudinal, multimethod research
in this area (Spinrad et al., 2012).
Relations of Effortful Control to Children’s Maladjustment. Children with poor
effortful control skills are likely to have difficulty controlling their negative
emotions, engage in more conflictual interactions with others, and may be
prone to depression and anxiety. There is substantial evidence that children’s
low effortful control may serve as a risk for the development of problem
behaviors, such as aggression and conduct disorders as well as internalizing
symptoms (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).
A consistent negative association between effortful control and externalizing problems has been found across childhood. Moreover, some longitudinal
results indicate that earlier effortful control predicts later externalizing problems, even after controlling for stability in problem behaviors. In some work,
Effortful Control
7
however, no relations between effortful control and externalizing problems
were found once earlier levels of problem behaviors were controlled (see
Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Findings on the relations between effortful control and children’s internalizing problems are somewhat mixed. Negative relations between effortful
control and internalizing problems are most often found. For example,
effortful control has been negatively related to separation distress (an
aspect of internalizing problems) in toddlerhood (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
In contrast, Murray and Kochanska (2002) showed a quadratic relation
between effortful control and problem behaviors in the preschool years.
Specifically, children with high levels of EC (an aggregated score across a
set of observational tasks) were rated higher on internalizing behaviors than
were children with moderate levels of EC. However, it should be noted that
in this study, severe internalizing problems were relatively infrequent. Thus,
the relations between EC and children’s internalizing problems are likely
complex. The literature may be somewhat inconsistent because relations
may vary depending on the aspects of effortful control examined (i.e.,
attentional control versus behavioral/inhibitory control), children’s age, and
if the measure of internalizing symptoms. Moreover, negative emotionality
may moderate the relations between effortful control and internalizing
problems. Thus, researchers should consider these complex relations in
future work.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Given the relatively consistent associations between effortful control and
children’s social and emotional outcomes, it is important to understand
the ways in which children’s regulation skills can be fostered. Directions
for future research may include examining the conditions under which
interventions can promote improved effortful control in children.
INTERVENTION STUDIES
In order to draw causal conclusions about the relations of effortful control to
children’s developmental outcomes, more experimental studies, especially
intervention and prevention research are needed. Researchers have begun
to conduct interventions to promote children’s regulation, mostly in school
settings. For example, students participating in the PATHS (Promoting
Alternative Thinking Strategies) Curriculum have been found to outperform their control counterparts on measures of executive functioning and
sustained attention (Bierman, Nix, Greenberg, Blair, Domitrovich, 2008). In
this curriculum, teachers are provided with lessons to improve children’s
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
emotional literacy, social competence, problem solving, and positive peer
relationships. Because this program was designed to foster a number of
social skills, the effects on regulation or effortful control may be indirect.
Thus more intervention work directed at promoting children’s effortful
regulation is needed (see Eisenberg et al., 2010).
Owing to space constraints, research on the role of socialization and the
environment on children’s effortful control was not reviewed, although it
would be useful to consider ways in which interventions directed at parenting behaviors may improve children’s effortful control. Further, children
who are well regulated are likely to evoke more positive responses from others (i.e., parents, teachers, and peers), and such transactional relations should
be examined in future longitudinal research.
In addition, the effectiveness of interventions in improving children’s
effortful control and children’s developmental outcomes may be moderated
by a number of factors, including age and other aspects of temperament.
Children’s emotional reactivity, for example, may moderate the relation
between intervention status and effortful control. That is, interventions may
be most effective for children who are most “at risk” for difficulties whereas
such interventions may be less effective for children who are dispositionally
less reactive. Clearly, it has become increasingly clear that effortful control is
related to social, emotional, moral, and cognitive development in childhood.
Although researchers are beginning to design intervention and prevention
programs to improve children’s effortful control, much more work should
be done in this area.
REFERENCES
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008).
Executive functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and
mediation in the Head Start REDI program. Development and Psychopathology, 20,
821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394
Blair, C., & Ursache, A. (2011). A bidirectional model of executive functions and
self-regulation. In K. D. Vohs & R. F. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:
Research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 300–320). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Block, J. H., & Block, J. (1980). The role of ego-control and ego-resiliency in the organization of behavior. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology
(pp. 39–101). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Calkins, S. D., Gill, K. L., Johnson, M. C., & Smith, C. L. (1999). Emotional
reactivity and emotional regulation strategies as predictors of social behavior
with peers during toddlerhood. Social Development, 8(3), 310–334. doi:10.1111/
1467-9507.00098
Effortful Control
9
Carlson, S. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in
preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616. doi:10.1207/
s15326942dn2802_3
Eigsti, I-M., Zayas, V., Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., Ayduk, O., Dadlani, M. B., …
Casey, B. J. (2006). Predicting cognitive control from preschool to late adolescence and young adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 478–484. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2006.01732
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N.
Eisenberg & W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Vol. 3. Social, emotional,
and personality development (6th ed., pp. 646–718). New York, NY: Wiley.
Eisenberg, N., Hofer, C., Sulik, M., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Effortful control and its
socioemotional consequences. In J. J. Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation
(2nd ed., pp. 157–172). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Robinson, J. L., & Hewitt, J. K. (2011). Developmental
trajectories in toddlers’ self-restraint predict individual differences in executive
functions 14 years later: A behavioral genetic design. Developmental Psychology,
47, 1410–1430. doi:10.1037a0023750
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 31–60.
doi:10.1177/1362361308094500
Hanish, L. D., Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Spinrad, T. L., Ryan, P., & Schmidt, S.
(2004). The expression and regulation of negative emotions: Risk factors for young
children’s peer victimization. Development and Psychopathology, 16(2), 335–353.
doi:10.1017/S0954579404044542
Kagan, J., & Fox, N. A. (2006). Biology, culture, and temperamental biases. Hoboken, NJ,
US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Kanacri, B. P. L., Pastorelli, C., Eisenberg, N., Zuffianò, A., & Caprara, G. V. (2013).
The development of prosociality from adolescence to early adulthood: The role of
effortful control. Journal of Personality, 81, 301–312. doi:10.1111/jopy.12001
Kochanska, G., Coy, K. C., & Murray, K. T. (2001). The development of self-regulation
in the first four years of life. Child Development, 72(4), 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. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220
Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation
to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology,
30(5), 503–514. doi:10.1023/A:1019821031523
Pickering, A. D., & Gray, J. A. (1999). The neuroscience of personality. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York: Wiley.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Shoda, Y., Mischel, W., & Peake, P. K. (1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive
and self- regulatory competences from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978–986. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.26.6.978
Silva, K. M., Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Sulik, M. J., Valiente, C., Huerta, S., …
Taylor, H. B. (2011). Relations of children’s effortful control and teacher-child relationship quality to school attitudes in a low-income sample. Early Education and
Development, 22(3), 434–460. doi:10.1080/10409289.2011.578046
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. doi:10.1037/a0025898
Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Longitudinal
relations of intrusive parenting and effortful control to ego-resiliency during early
childhood. Child Development, 84, 1145–1151. doi:10.1111/cdev.12054
FURTHER READING
Eisenberg, N., Edwards, A., Spinrad, T. L., Sallquist, J., Eggum, N. D., & Reiser, M.
(2013). Effortful and reactive control unique constructs in young children? Developmental Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0031745
Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Emotion-related self-regulation
and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,
6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the
definition. Child Development, 75, 334–339.
Gross, J. J., & Barrett, L. F. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: One
or two depends on your point of view. Emotion Review, 3, 8–16. doi:10.1177/
1754073910380974
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in three
cities: Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology, 43,
208–221. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208
Mischel, W., & Ayduk, O. (2011). Willpower in a cognitive-affective processing system: The dynamics of delay of gratification. In Handbook of self-regulation: Research,
theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 83–105). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality
development (Vol. 3, 6th ed., pp. 99–166). New York, NY: Wiley.
TRACY L. SPINRAD SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Tracy L. Spinrad is a Professor in the T. Denny Sanford School of Social and
Family Dynamics at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the
Effortful Control
11
relations of self-regulation (particularly effortful control) and reactive control to young children’s adjustment and social competence. Further, much of
her work has focused on the role that parenting plays in the development of
effortful control.
NANCY EISENBERG SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Nancy Eisenberg is a Regents’ Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University. She studies individual differences in children’s regulation and its
relations to their adjustment/maladjustment. She is an expert in children’s
moral and emotional development, altruism, and empathy. Her work also
focuses on socialization and cultural factors in emotion regulation, social
competence, and prosocial behaviors.
RELATED ESSAYS
Misinformation and How to Correct It (Psychology), John Cook et al.
Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Controlling the Influence of Stereotypes on One’s Thoughts (Psychology),
Patrick S. Forscher and Patricia G. Devine
Regulatory Focus Theory (Psychology), E. Tory Higgins
Emotion and Decision Making (Psychology), Jeff R. Huntsinger and Cara Ray
Making Sense of Control: Change and Consequences (Psychology), Margie E.
Lachman et al.
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
From Individual Rationality to Socially Embedded Self-Regulation (Sociology), Siegwart Lindenberg
Cognitive Bias Modification in Mental (Psychology), Meg M. Reuland et al.
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Regulation of Emotions Under Stress (Psychology), Amanda J. Shallcross
et al.
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
Effortful Control