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
www.piz18.com
blog.southeastpsych.com
Theoretical Basis
• Bandura’s Social Learning Theory
• Modelling
• Reinforcement
• Observational learning
• Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory
• Developmental level
• Scaffolding
• Private speech
• Internalization
Overview
• Studies
1. 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 1
Private 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
1. Age
2. Distraction
Self-Comforting
3. Social speech
Vocalizations
Inaudible muttering
Negatively valenced task-relevant
Facilitative task-relevant
4. Negatively valenced x Distraction
F for model
β
-.09
-.38**
-.11
.13
.30**
-.04
.25*
-.19*
.18*
6.29**
Anger
R2
.00
.20
∆R2
.00
.20**
.32
.12*
.35
.03*
*p < .05, **p ≤ .001
Relation of Distraction to Child Anger at Three
Levels of Negatively Valenced Task-Relevant
Private Speech
1.3
1.2
Anger
1.1
Negatively Valenced
Task-Relevant Low*
Negatively Valenced
Task-Relevant Moderate*
Negatively Valenced
Task-Relevant High
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Low
Moderate
Distraction
High
*p < .01
Regression Analyses Predicting Sadness
from Regulation Strategies and Speech
Sadness
β
R2
1. Age
.23*
.04
.04*
2. Distraction
.03
.05
.01
.19
.14*
.23
.04*
Self-Comforting
∆R2
.15
3. Social speech
.25*
Vocalizations
.16
Inaudible muttering
-.10
Negatively valenced task-relevant
.29*
Facilitative task-relevant
-.16
4. Vocalizations x Self-Comforting
-.22*
F for model
3.57**
*p < .05, **p ≤ .001
Relation of Distraction to Child Sadness at Three
Levels of Vocalizations
0.9
0.8
Sadness
0.7
Vocalizations Low*
0.6
Vocalizations Moderate
Vocalizations High
0.5
0.4
0.3
Low
Moderate
Self-Comforting
High
*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 2
Parenting 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
.10
.04*
T1 Maternal suppportiveness
3. T1 Maternal directiveness x
supportiveness
F for model
.00
-.22*
3.21*
*p < .05
Relation of Directiveness to Beneficial Private
Speech at Three Levels of Support
Beneficial Private Speech
12
11
10
9
8
Support Low
Support Moderate
Support High*
7
6
5
4
Low
Moderate
Directiveness
High
*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 3
Putting It All Together
Putting It All Together
+
Parent
Emotion
Coaching
Children’s
Effortful
Control
–
Children’s
Negative
Emotionality
EC x PS
–
Children’s
Non-Beneficial
Private Speech
+
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
Negative
Emotionality
EC x PS
–
Children’s
Non-Beneficial
Private Speech
+
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
Child
Sex
.17*
Children’s
Effortful
Control
.24**
Parental
Emotion
Coaching
.04
.00
-.39**
EC x PS .15*
Children’s
Non-Beneficial
Private Speech
.20**
Children’s
Negative
Emotionality
.20**
Child
Age
-.19*
Child
Age
*p < .01, **p < .05. SRMR = .02, CFI = 1.00.
Relation of Effortful Control on Negative Emotionality at
Three Levels of Non-Beneficial Private Speech
Children's Negative Emotionality
4
3.5
3
Non-Beneficial Low*
Non-Beneficial Moderate*
2.5
Non-Beneficial High*
2
1.5
Low
Moderate
High
Children's Effortful Control
*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
Only with ELBW survivors:
Bullied vs.
Not bullied
Protective
factors:
Family, friends,
school relations
Outcomes:
Internalizing,
externalizing
Paper #3 – Part 2
Only with victims of bullying (ELBW and NBW):
ELBW vs.
NBW
Protective
factors:
Family, friends,
school relations
Outcomes:
Internalizing,
externalizing
Paper #4
Experience of
bullying
Outcomes:
Wealth, health,
social status
QUESTIONS?
Download

Parenting and Self-Regulation - Offord Centre for Child Studies