Parenting and Self-Regulation: Keys To Understanding Children’s Emotionality

Kimberly L. Day, Ph.D.

Importance of Self-Regulation

• Includes motivational, cognitive, affective, and behavioral components

• Two types of self-regulation• Emotion regulation• Private speech

Emotion Regulation

• Strategies and emotionality• Distraction and self-comforting

• Conflicting findings

• Shift from external to internal regulation

cuddlebugs.onslow.org

Private Speech

• More common in cognitively-taxing tasks• Improved cognitive abilities• Aid in task completion• Encourage in classrooms

www.hlntv.com

Negative Emotionality

• At risk for negative outcomes• Externalizing behaviors• Poorer social skills• Lower peer status

blog.southeastpsych.com

www.piz18.com

Theoretical Basis

• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory• Modelling• Reinforcement• Observational learning

• Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory• Developmental level• Scaffolding• Private speech• Internalization

Overview

• Studies1. Relation of private speech to emotion regulation and

emotionality

2. Parenting related to children’s private speech

3. Self-regulation predicting parenting and children’s emotionality

• Future directions

STUDY 1Private Speech and Emotion Regulation

Private Speech and Emotion Regulation

• Private speech – Speech directed to the self• Typically investigated during cognitive tasks

• Language • One of the most important cognitive components of

emotion regulation• Gives children the ability to describe their feelings

• Therefore, children’s private speech should be related to their emotion regulation

Research Questions

1. Does children’s private speech predict children’s negative emotionality above and beyond children’s emotion regulation strategies?• Hypothesis 1: Children’s private speech would be a unique

predictor of their negative emotionality above and beyond their regulation strategies.

• Hypothesis 2: Children who used more beneficial private speech were expected to display less anger and sadness.

• Hypothesis 3: Children who used more non-beneficial private speech and social speech were expected to display more anger and sadness.

Research Questions

2. Does children’s private speech moderate the association between children’s emotion regulation strategies and their negative emotionality?• Hypothesis: Expected that children with more beneficial

private speech and more emotion regulation strategies would have less negative emotion.

Sample

• 116 preschoolers• 4.5 to 6 years old • 62 boys, 54 girls• Predominately white, middle-class

Locked Box Task

Measures

Distraction Self-Comforting

Measures

Anger Sadness

Measures

• Beneficial private speech• Inaudible muttering (27%)• Facilitative task-relevant (86%)

“First I’m gonna start off with this one.”

“This must be the key.”

“Does that fit?”

“I get to play with the toys after I find the key.”

Measures

• Non-beneficial private speech• Vocalizations (98%)

• “Uhh,” “Bo do do,” Ohumph”• Task-irrelevant (3%)

• “We need to get to the bowling alley”• Negatively valenced task-relevant (48%)

• “I can’t do this,” “I’m never going to get this,” “I can’t get it”

Measures

• Social speech (95%)“Mommy, how do you work it, I don’t know.”

“Mommy, can you help me put it in?”

“Will somebody help me?”

RESULTS

Regression Analyses Predicting Anger from Regulation Strategies and Speech

  Anger  β R2 ∆R2

1. Age -.09 .00 .00

2. Distraction -.38** .20 .20**

Self-Comforting -.11    

3. Social speech .13 .32 .12*

Vocalizations .30**    

Inaudible muttering -.04    

Negatively valenced task-relevant .25*    

Facilitative task-relevant -.19*    

4. Negatively valenced x Distraction .18* .35 .03*

F for model 6.29**    

*p < .05, **p ≤ .001

Relation of Distraction to Child Anger at Three Levels of Negatively Valenced Task-Relevant Private Speech

Low Moderate High0.600000000000001

0.700000000000001

0.800000000000001

0.900000000000001

1

1.1

1.2

1.3

Negatively Valenced Task-Relevant Low*Negatively Valenced Task-Relevant Mod-erate*Negatively Valenced Task-Relevant High

Distraction

Ang

er

*p < .01

Regression Analyses Predicting Sadness from Regulation Strategies and Speech   Sadness  β R2 ∆R2

1. Age .23* .04 .04*

2. Distraction .03 .05 .01

Self-Comforting .15    

3. Social speech .25* .19 .14*

Vocalizations .16    

Inaudible muttering -.10    

Negatively valenced task-relevant .29*    

Facilitative task-relevant -.16    

4. Vocalizations x Self-Comforting -.22* .23 .04*

F for model 3.57**    

*p < .05, **p ≤ .001

Relation of Distraction to Child Sadness at Three Levels of Vocalizations

Low Moderate High0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

Vocalizations Low*Vocalizations Mod-erateVocalizations High

Self-Comforting

Sad

nes

s

*p < .05

Conclusions from Study 1

• Private speech occurred during an emotion-eliciting task

• Private speech predicted negative emotions above and beyond emotion regulation strategies

• Implications for caregivers and educators:• Cognitive tasks can be frustrating• Private speech should be encouraged because it aids

cognitive and emotional self-regulation• Can re-direct children when they are using less

beneficial private speech

STUDY 2Parenting and Private Speech

Parenting and Private Speech

• Limited research on how parenting behaviors relate to children’s private speech

• Importance of parenting for children learning to self-regulate

• Need to incorporate positive and negative parenting behaviors

Research Question

1. How do maternal behaviors in toddlerhood predict children’s beneficial private speech in preschool?

• Hypothesis: Maternal supportive and directive behaviors would interact to predict children’s beneficial private speech.

Sample

• Longitudinal mother-child study• Toddlerhood (T1) Visit

• 140 toddlers• 30 to 36 months old • 88 boys, 52 girls

• Preschool (T2) Visit• 116 preschoolers• 4.5 to 6 years old • 62 boys, 54 girls

Measures: Toddlerhood Visit

• Free play sessions• Supportive behavior

• Sensitivity• Involvement

• Directiveness

Measures: Preschool Visit

• Locked box task • Beneficial private speech

• Inaudible muttering• Facilitative task-relevant

RESULTS

Regression Analysis Predicting Preschoolers’ Beneficial Private Speech from Maternal Behaviors in Toddlerhood

  T2 Beneficial Private Speech

  β R2 ∆R2

1. Age .19* .05 .05*

2. T1 Maternal directiveness -.15 .06 .01

T1 Maternal suppportiveness .00    

3. T1 Maternal directiveness x

supportiveness -.22* .10 .04*

F for model 3.21*    

*p < .05

Relation of Directiveness to Beneficial Private Speech at Three Levels of Support

Low Moderate High4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

Support LowSupport ModerateSupport High*

Directiveness

Ben

efic

ial

Pri

vate

Sp

eech

*p < .05

Conclusions from Study 2

• Maternal behavior in toddlerhood predicted preschoolers’ later self-regulation

• Important to take both sensitive and directive parenting into consideration

• Implications for caregivers and educators:• Being overly involved can inhibit children’s future

regulatory skills• Need to scaffold children’s regulatory abilities• Balance of moderate supportive and directive behaviors

may be best

STUDY 3Putting It All Together

Putting It All Together

Parent Emotion

Coaching

Children’s Effortful Control

Children’s Non-Beneficial Private Speech

EC x PSChildren’s Negative

Emotionality

+–

+ –

Effortful Control

• Purposeful ability to start, stop, and modulate attention and behavior

• Believed to play a central role in children’s regulation of their emotional expression

Emotion Coaching

• Includes cognitive and emotional components• How parents think and talk about emotion• Teach emotion knowledge• Importance of negative emotions

Putting It All Together

Parent Emotion

Coaching

Children’s Effortful Control

Children’s Non-Beneficial Private Speech

EC x PSChildren’s Negative

Emotionality

+–

+ –

Sample

• 156 parent-child dyads• 3 to 5 years of age• 79 boys, 77 girls

• Primary caregiver• Mother 91% (n = 142)• Father 6% (n = 10)• Other 3% (n = 4)

• Predominately white, middle class

Measures

• Parental emotion coaching during an emotion talk task• Encouragement of negative emotions during an upset

event• Labeling• Validating• Causes and consequences

Measures

• Private speech• Selective attention task

Measures

• Non-beneficial private speech during the selective attention task (59%)• Vocalizations• Task-irrelevant• Negatively valenced task-relevant

Measures

• Parent-report on Child Behavior Questionnaire• Emotion regulation

• Effortful control• Negative emotionality

• Anger• Sadness

RESULTS

.20**

Parental Emotion Coaching

Children’s Effortful Control

Children’s Non-Beneficial Private Speech

EC x PS

Children’s Negative

Emotionality

Child Age

Child Age

.17*

-.19*

.04

.24** -.39**

.20**.00

.15*

Child Sex

*p < .01, **p < .05. SRMR = .02, CFI = 1.00.

Relation of Effortful Control on Negative Emotionality at Three Levels of Non-Beneficial Private Speech

Low Moderate High1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Non-Beneficial Low*

Non-Beneficial Moderate*

Non-Beneficial High*

Children's Effortful Control

Ch

ild

ren

's N

egat

ive

Em

oti

on

alit

y

*p < .01

Conclusions from Study 3

• Effortful control mediated the relation of parental emotion coaching to negative emotionality

• Significance of non-beneficial private speech• Replicated finding that children’s private speech moderates the relations of emotion regulation to negative emotion

• Implications for caregivers and educators:• Cognitive and emotional abilities work together• Important to support children’s negative emotions• Assist children using non-beneficial forms of private

speech

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Paper #1

• Extremely low birth weight (ELBW)• Normal birth weight control sample• Literature review

• Bullying and ELBW children

Paper #2

• Characteristics of ELBW victims• Functional limitations• Anxiety and ADHD• Motor skills• Self-esteem• School and peer connectedness

Paper #3 – Part 1

Protective factors:

Family, friends, school relations

Outcomes: Internalizing, externalizing

Bullied vs. Not bullied

Only with ELBW survivors:

Paper #3 – Part 2

Protective factors:

Family, friends, school relations

Outcomes: Internalizing, externalizing

ELBW vs. NBW

Only with victims of bullying (ELBW and NBW):

Paper #4

Experience of bullying

Outcomes: Wealth, health,

social status

QUESTIONS?