Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

Effortful control, executive attention, and emotional regulation in 710-year-old children

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

Department of Psychology, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT, United States b Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States c Dpto. de Psicologa Experimental, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

Abstract In this study, self-regulation was investigated in 7- to 10-year-old children using three different measures: (1) parent and child report questionnaires measuring temperamental effortful control, (2) a conict task assessing efciency of executive attention, and (3) the mistaken gift paradigm assessing social smiling in response to an undesirable gift. Both efciency in executive attention and smiling to the undesired gift increased over age. Executive attention was related to both parent-reported temperamental effortful control and smiling, suggesting links between attentional capacities, broad temperament measures, and social situations requiring attentional control. 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Temperament; Effortful control; Executive attention; Attention; Emotional regulation; Self-regulation; Middle childhood; Elementary school students; Display rules; Emotional development

One of the major challenges in research on child development is understanding the development of self-regulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Self-regulation has been studied at multiple levels, including: (1) observed regulation of social behavior, (2) parent or self-reports of temperamental effortful control, and (3) executive attention as assessed on cognitive tasks. Effortful control is dened as the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a sub-dominant response, to detect errors, and to engage in planning (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). The executive attention network is seen to underlie effortful control, and both are expected to predict childrens emotional regulation in a social situation. Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, and Spinrad (2004), for example,

Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Westminster College, 1840 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84105, United States. Tel.: +1 801 832 2414. E-mail address: jsimonds@westminstercollege.edu (J. Simonds).

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

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

475

view effortful control as a key component of emotion-related regulation. In the current study, we examined relations among three measures of self-regulation: temperamental effortful control, executive attention, and smiling in a social situation to an undesired gift. 1. Temperamental effortful control We dene temperament as constitutionally based individual differences in emotional, motor, and attentional reactivity and self-regulation (Derryberry & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Reactivity describes motor, emotional, and attentional responses to internal and external stimuli. Regulation describes processes that function to modulate those responses (Putnam, Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Constitutional refers to the biological basis of temperament, inuenced by genes, environment, and experience over time. Temperament has been shown to be relatively consistent across situations and stable over time, although changes in temperament related to development have also been reported (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). As children develop, self-regulatory capacities increase for better modulation of reactive responses (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). Temperamental effortful control is measured as a higher-order trait of temperament. In factor analytic studies, this broad factor includes subscales measuring attentional and inhibitory control, as well as low intensity pleasure and perceptual sensitivity. 2. Executive attention In neuro-cognitive models, attention is related to three separate brain networks (Posner & Petersen, 1990). Alerting refers to the establishment and maintenance of a vigilant state, and orienting to the ability to attend to a given location. The executive attention network is activated in situations requiring attentional control, as when there is conict between responses suggested by different stimuli or dimensions of the same stimulus. Conict tasks have been shown to activate a common neural network including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and lateral prefrontal areas (Fan, Flombaum, McCandliss, Thomas, & Posner, 2003); conict tasks thus serve as model tasks for assessing the efciency of the executive attention network. Executive attention has also been identied as a neural substrate of developing temperamental effortful control (Posner & Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Posner, & Kieras, 2006; Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). Efciency of executive attention shows improvement from ages 2 to 7. Gerardi-Caulton (2000) and Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, and Posner (2003) found that between 24 and 36 months, young children were increasingly able to perform a spatial conict task requiring a response based on the identity of a stimulus while inhibiting its location. A strong positive relationship was also found between age and executive attention in children aged 35 years (Chang & Burns, 2005). Rueda et al. (2004) found that conict scores did not improve from age 8 to adulthood. Using an age-appropriate version of the Attentional Network Test (ANT; Rueda et al., 2004) to measure conict efciency, we expected to replicate this nding in a sample of children 710 years of age. 3. Temperament and executive attention Positive relations have been found between parent-reported temperamental effortful control and performance on executive attention tasks in children from ages 2 to 7 (Chang & Burns, 2005; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez, Fuentes, Carranza, & Estevez, 2001; Rothbart et al., 2003) and adolescents aged 1617 years (Ellis, 2002). Gerardi-Caulton (2000) found posi-

476

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

tive associations between performance on a spatial conict task and temperamental effortful control in children aged 23 years, as measured by laboratory observations and parent-report questionnaires (Childrens Behavior Questionnaire; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001). Gonzalez et al. (2001) used a Stroop-like task to examine relations of parent-reported temperament to executive attention in 7-year-olds. Stronger Stroop interference (poorer performance) was found for children rated higher by their parents on temperamental activity level and impulsivity, and lower on inhibitory control. In adolescents aged 1617, Ellis (2002) found that higher mother-reported effortful control was associated with lower interference on the ANT conict task (Ellis, 2002). Mother-reported effortful control also correlated positively with lower Stroop interference. Adolescents self-reports of their effortful control were not related to performance on executive attention tasks. No subsequent research has been conducted to investigate this discrepancy. In the current study, effortful control is measured through both parent- and self-report in children 710 years old. It was predicted that greater efciency of executive attention, as indicated by a smaller conict effect, would be related to higher parent-reported effortful control. Based on the theoretical relations between executive attention and effortful control, it was expected that self-reported effortful control would also relate to more efcient attention. 4. Self-regulation and the activation of smiling Effortful control includes modulation of emotional reactivity, allowing the expression of socially appropriate emotions and the inhibition of emotions that are inappropriate in social situations (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Eisenberg, Smith, et al. (2004) explain that the process of regulating the occurrence, form, intensity, or duration of emotional reactions relies in part on the ability to shift ones attention away from a stimulus that induces an undesired emotional state (p. 260). The attention system is thus considered to be a mechanism underlying the ability to regulate emotion in order to behave in a socially appropriate manner (Eisenberg, Champion, & Ma, 2004). One such situation is conict between competing emotional responses in situations where display rules call for a response that differs from the reactive response. Display rules specify socially appropriate emotional expression guided by social norms. They often differ across cultures, are largely inuenced by socialization, and later internalized by children as they become increasingly able to control their emotions without assistance (Saarni, 1984). To measure emotional expression based on social display rules, Saarni (1984) developed the mistaken gift paradigm. In this paradigm, children are presented with a toy or gift that does not meet expectations and is undesirable enough to be disappointing. The prepotent response is to display disappointment; however, the display rule in American culture requires the child to smile and show appreciation after receiving any gift to avoid hurting the givers feelings. Kieras, Tobin, Graziano, and Rothbart (2005) measured effortful control in 3- to 5-year-olds with laboratory tasks developed by Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997; Kochanska, Murray, Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996), including walking and drawing slowly, and presented children with desirable and undesirable gifts. Higher effortful control was related to similarity in display of positive affect for both desirable and undesirable gifts; children lower in effortful control showed less positive affect to the undesired gift than to the desired gift. Based on these ndings, and on the conceptual link between effortful control and emotion regulation, we predicted that smiling in response to a disappointing gift would be related to

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

477

effortful control as measured on parent- and child-report questionnaires. We also expected that smiling to the undesirable gift would relate to better efciency in executive attention. In the current study, we used a computer task, the child ANT, to measure efciency of executive attention, self- and parent-report questionnaires to assess temperamental effortful control, and smiling upon receipt of a disappointing gift to measure emotion regulation in 7- to 10-year-olds. Our central hypothesis was that measures of self-regulation would be related to the childs ability to regulate their smiling in a conict event that simulates a real-life situation. Based on previous ndings, we also expected that the ability to deal with conict would improve until, but not after, age 8. 5. Method 5.1. Participants Forty-nine children participated in the study. Participants consisted of a group of 13 children aged 7 years (7 boys, 6 girls) and three groups of 12 children each (6 boys, 6 girls) aged 8, 9, and 10 years. Mean age for 7-year-olds was 87.69 months (SD = 1.97); for 8-year-olds, 100.92 months (SD = 1.62); for 9-year-olds, 111.83 months (SD = 2.04); and for 10-year-olds, 124.33 months (SD = 4.81). Overall mean age of the sample was 8.82 years (SD = 1.17). Participants came from predominantly, but not exclusively, white, middle-class backgrounds. Parents of participants were identied through local birth announcements and recruited by telephone. Children and their families were offered a total of $20 cash and two toy prizes for their participation. Only children with severe birth complications were excluded from the study due to possible developmental delays. 5.2. Procedure This study included three sessions and was run concurrently with a separate study on executive attention. In the rst session, children completed the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) and the Attention Network Task (ANT) for children. A parent version of the TMCQ was completed in the rst session. In the second session, children completed executive attention tasks for the separate study and the rst portion (desired gift) of the mistaken gift paradigm. In the third and nal session, children completed the TMCQ and child ANT a second time for examination of testretest reliability and participated in the second portion (undesired gift) of the mistaken gift paradigm. The maximum time between rst and third sessions was 3 weeks. 5.3. Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) Computerized self-report and paper-and-pencil parent report versions of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, 2005) were used to measure effortful control through subscales assessing attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity. Sample items are shown in Table 1. The 2530 min self-report version of TMCQ used a computer to present questions to children using a cartoon voice of Ducky (see Fig. 1). Children learned to respond to items and to complete the questionnaire while listening to and reading simultaneous presentation of written items on the screen and the voice reading items to the children.

478

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

Table 1 Sample items effortful control scales Scale Attention focusing Attention focusing Inhibitory control Inhibitory control Low-intensity pleasure Low-intensity pleasure Perceptual sensitivity Perceptual sensitivity Self-report item When I try to pay attention, I get distracted. My mom or dad tells me to pay attention. Its hard to stop when I need to. I can talk quietly when I need to. I like the crunching sound of leaves in the fall. I like to sit under a blanket. I like to run my hand over things to see if they are smooth or rough. I notice the color of peoples eyes. Parent-report item Gets distracted when trying to pay attention in class. Needs to be told to pay attention. Has a hard time stopping him/herself when told to do so. Can lower his/her voice when asked to do so. Likes the crunching sound of leaves in the fall. Likes to sit under a blanket. Likes to run his/her hand over things to see if they are smooth or rough. Notices the color of peoples eyes.

5.4. Attention Network Test (ANT) for Children The child ANT is a computer task that provides a measure of efciency of the attentional functions of alerting, orienting, and executive control (Rueda et al., 2004). The ANT uses differences in reaction time (RT) between different conditions to measure the efciency of each function. In the target display, a row of ve sh is presented either above or below xation. Children are instructed to pay attention to the middle sh, and to respond based on whether it is pointing to the left or right by pressing the corresponding key. In the executive attention part of the ANT

Fig. 1. Temperament in middle childhood computer screen.

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

479

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

(conict task), children are presented with sh surrounded by congruent or incongruent ankers. On congruent trials, sh on either side of the middle sh (ankers) point in the same direction, whereas on incongruent trials, ankers point in the opposite direction, prompting the incorrect response (see Fig. 2). Subtracting the average RT for trials using congruent ankers from the average RT for trials using incongruent ankers yields a conict score: a measure of the time needed to resolve conict induced by the ankers. Lower conict scores reect more efcient executive attention. A session of the ANT consisted of 16 practice trials and four experimental blocks of 32 trials. Participants were instructed to maintain xation on the cross in the center of the screen throughout the task and to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. Participants began practice trials when it was clear that they understood the instructions. For correct responses, a simple animation sequence of the target sh blowing bubbles and making the sound Woohoo! gave feedback. Incorrect responses were followed by a single tone and no animation of the sh. Children were individually supervised during the practice trials and given encouragement by the experimenter. Participants then completed four test blocks with the experimenter in the room without further trial-by-trial encouragement. The session lasted approximately 20 min. 5.5. Mistaken gift paradigm At the beginning of the second session, each child was asked to help the experimenter understand the toys children like. Children were presented with eight different toys and asked to rate them from those the child liked most to those they liked least. The favorite, second favorite, and least favorite gifts were recorded by the experimenter after the child left the room. Following completion of executive attention tasks, each child was presented with a gift-wrapped box con-

480

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

taining the favorite toy, as determined in the rating task. The experimenter maintained silence while pretending to make notes on a clipboard and occasionally glanced neutrally at the child for 15 s after the child unwrapped the toy; the childs reactions were recorded on videotape. After the third session, including the second administrations of the TMCQ and child ANT, each child received his or her least favorite toy. The experimenter again maintained a neutral expression and remained silent for 15 s while the child reacted to the toy. After this period was over, the experimenter said there must have been a mistake and exchanged the undesirable toy for the second favorite toy. During the debrieng, the experimenter explained the reason for the mistake during the gift giving. Many children informally reported thinking it was funny that the experimenter had made such a mistake. No formal data, however, were collected during the debrieng. Displays of emotion were coded by two raters for the 15-s segments after the child received the desirable and undesirable gifts using Noldus Observer 5.0 software (Noldus Information Technology, 2003). Each rater scored segments for duration and number of smiling occurrences, dened as the widening of the mouth and corners of the mouth clearly turned upward. Percentage agreement between raters for duration and number of smiles was 95% and 85%, respectively. Ratings from the two coders were combined to create an average score for duration and number of smiling occurrences. 6. Results 6.1. Temperamental effortful control Psychometric properties of the TMCQ are shown in Table 2. A composite score for effortful control was derived based on previous factor analytic work (Rothbart et al., 2001), and calculated by averaging the subscale means of attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity pleasure, and perceptual sensitivity. No signicant age effects were found for individual subscale or factor composite scores for effortful control. Parent-reported effortful control was signicantly higher for girls than for boys F(1, 42) = 13.84, p < 0.01. 6.2. Executive attention Repeated-measures analysis of variance using age group and anker type (congruent, incongruent) as factors and the mean of median reaction time as the dependent measure were conducted for each of the administrations of the child ANT. Results showed an effect for age group in both rst and second administration RTs F(3, 45) = 3.76, p < 0.05; and F(3, 44) = 4.05, p < 0.05 and an effect for anker type in both administrations F(1, 45) = 71.61, p < 0.001; and F(1, 44) = 47.42, p < 0.001. An age group by anker interaction effect was signicant for the rst administration conict scores F(3, 45) = 3.53, p < 0.05, but not for the second administration conict scores (see Fig. 3). Conict scores were derived by subtracting RTs to congruent stimuli from RTs for the incongruent anker condition. Table 3 shows the mean of median RTs for the task. In the rst administration, younger children showed larger conict scores than the rest of the children, due to longer RT to incongruent trials suggesting that younger children have more trouble dealing with the interference produced by incongruent ankers. Linear regression revealed a negative association between age in months and rst administration conict scores F(1, 47) = 6.31, p < 0.05, b = 1.55. No age effects were found for second administration conict scores, or for conict

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

Table 2 Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) Psychometric Properties Child 1st admin. (N = 47) Mean (SD) Effortful control Subscales Attentional focusing Inhibitory control Low intensity pleasure Perceptual sensitivity
a *

Child 2nd admin. (N = 45) Mean (SD) 3.47 (0.43) 3.53 (0.63) 3.65 (0.76) 3.27 (0.66) 3.50 (0.72)

Child Cronbachs 0.68 0.71 0.81 0.84 0.83

Parent Cronbachs 0.64 0.90 0.82 0.79 0.79

Child testretest (N = 43) r 0.83*** 0.64*** 0.76*** 0.78*** 0.73***

Parent report (N = 45) Mean (SD) 3.55 (0.39) 3.67 (0.66) 3.61 (0.60) 3.50 (0.54) 3.42 (0.58)

Parent/childa agmt. (N = 45) r 0.38* 0.23**** 0.35** 0.42*** 0.04

3.66 (0.50) 3.64 (0.67) 3.87 (0.79) 3.43 (0.82) 3.70 (0.66)

At same administration (1st). p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001. ****p < 0.10.

481

482

Table 3 Attention Network Test conict Age n 1st admin. RT Mean (SD) 910 887 865 700 (66) (159) (264) (136) 1st admin. % errors Mean (SD) 3.43 (2.83) 3.39 (2.36) 2.21 (1.33) 1.43 (1.41) 2.63 (2.20) Overall RT mean 874.9 857.6 777.4 678.3 798.6 2nd admin. RT Mean (SD) 848 821 695 664 (127) (149) (190) (135) 2nd admin. % errors Mean (SD) 3.79 (3.65) 3.39 (3.71) 1.71 (1.47) 2.84 (2.80) 2.95 (3.07) Conict effect 1st admin. Mean (SD) 109 55 73 39 (80) (54) (57) (12) Conict effect 1st admin. Mean (SD) 109 55 73 39 (80) (54) (57) (12) Conict % errors 1st admin. Mean (SD) 3.25 (3.34) 0.78 (3.36) 1.56 (2.98) 1.30 (2.97) 1.75 (3.22) Conict % errors 1st admin. Mean (SD) 3.25 (3.34) 0.78 (3.36) 1.56 (2.98) 1.30 (2.97) 1.75 (3.22) Conict effect 2nd admin. Mean (SD) 56 62 59 32 (63) (51) (36) (54) Conict % errors 2nd admin. Mean (SD) 2.28 (1.98) 1.56 (4.16) 1.30 (1.87) 1.70 (3.31) 1.73 (2.89) Conict % errors 2nd admin. Mean (SD) 2.28 (1.98) 1.56 (4.16) 1.30 (1.87) 1.70 (3.31) 1.73 (2.89)

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

7 8 9 10 Total Age

13 12 12 12 49 n

842 (188)

761 (167) Overall % errors mean 3.61 3.39 1.95 2.12 2.78

70 (61)

53 (52) Conict effect 2nd admin. Mean (SD) 56 62 59 32 (63) (51) (36) (54)

7 8 9 10 Total

13 12 12 12 49

70 (61)

53 (52)

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

483

Fig. 3. Child ANT reaction times by age.

errors in either administration. No sex differences or age by sex interactions were found in conict scores or errors. Testretest correlations between the rst and second administrations of the ANT were not signicant. Because of the differences between rst and second administrations in 7-year-olds, a testretest correlation for 8- to 10-year-olds was also examined and was not signicant. A score to reect reduction in conict scores from rst to second administrations was calculated by subtracting the second administration conict score from the rst administration conict score. A Helmert contrast showed that difference scores for 7-year-olds were signicantly higher than those for the three other age groups t(44) = 2.11, p < 0.05.
Table 4 Smiling in response to desired and undesired gifts Age n Number of smiles desired gift Mean (SD) 0.92 (0.45) 0.88 (0.53) 0.75 (0.49) 0.95 (0.64) 0.88 (0.51) # Smiles undesired gift Mean (SD) 0.42 (0.45) 0.83 (0.75) 0.65 (0.53) 1.11* (0.60) 0.73 (0.62) Duration smiling (s) desired gift Mean (SD) 8.31 (5.07) 7.48 (4.63) 6.48 (5.13) 8.70 (5.71) 7.77 (5.01) Duration smiling (s) undesired gift Mean (SD) 3.31 (4.74) 4.61 (3.85) 5.32 (5.05) 9.23* (5.05) 5.33 (4.97)

7 8 9 10 Total
*

13 12 10 10 45

n = 9.

484

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

Fig. 4. Duration of smiling by age.

6.3. Smiling Findings for number of smiles and duration of smiling for both gift types are shown in Table 4. Due to experimenter error, four cases were excluded from the gift smiling analyses. A signicant age effect for duration of smiling after the undesirable gift F(3, 40) = 3.02, p < 0.05 was found. No age effect was found for smiling after the desired gift. A within-subjects ANOVA showed a signicant effect of gift type on duration of smiling F(1, 40) = 5.72, p < 0.05, with more seconds of smiling found in reaction to the desirable gift. Fig. 4 shows that 7- to 8-year-olds showed larger differences between smiling to the desired and undesired gift than 9- to 10-year-olds, who showed very little difference between smiling to the two types of gift. An orthogonal contrast showed that the level of difference between smiling to the undesired and desired gifts was signicantly different between 7- to 8- and 9- to 10-year-olds t(40) = 2.40, p < 0.05. Age in months was positively related to duration of smiling after receiving an undesirable gift F(1, 42) = 7.48, p < 0.01, b = 0.14. Older children smiled more in response to the undesirable gift. Girls smiled longer (M = 9.51 s) and more frequently (M = 1.09 times) than boys (M = 6.10 s; M = 0.67 times) in response to the desired gift F(1, 43) = 5.76, p < 0.05 (duration); F(1, 43) = 8.73, p < 0.05 (number). No signicant age by sex interactions were found for smiling. 7. Correlational analyses 7.1. Effortful control and executive attention Parent-reported but not child-reported effortful control composite scores correlated with rst administration ANT conict scores (see Table 5). Higher parent scores on effortful control predicted less interference between congruent and incongruent trials F(1, 46) = 4.16 p < 0.05, 2 = 0.08, b = 49.10. To control for age and sex differences, effortful control, age in months, and sex were entered as independent variables into a linear regression to predict rst administration conict scores. Both age and effortful control, but not sex, signicantly predicted rst session conict scores F(3, 41) = 5.96, p < 0.01, 2 = 0.30, b (effortful control) = 53.72, p < 0.05, b (age) = 1.85, p < 0.01. Neither parent-reported effortful control nor age was signicantly correlated with the difference between rst and second administration conict scores; however, a model with both variables

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488 Table 5 Bivariate correlations with effortful control Effortful control Executive attention 1st admin. Conict scores Parent Childa
a *

485

Mistaken gift smiling 2nd admin. Conict scores 0.04 0.13 Desired gift Number 0.03 0.04 Duration 0.23 0.02 Undesired gift Number 0.02 0.25 Duration 0.02 0.03

0.37* 0.17

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

entered as predictors of reduction of scores on the conict task was signicant F(2, 42) = 4.37, p < 0.05, 2 = 0.17. More reduction of conict scores across sessions was found for younger children (b (age) = 1.45) and children whose parents reported the child to be lower on effortful control (b = 56.96). 7.2. Smiling and executive attention Second administration, but not rst administration, conict scores predicted shorter durations of smiling to the undesired gift F(1, 42) = 5.32, p < 0.05, 2 = 0.11, b = 0.03 (see Table 6). Children who smiled for a longer duration upon receiving the undesirable gift showed smaller conict scores. When controlled for age, second administration conict signicantly predicted duration of smiling to the undesirable gift F(2, 41) = 6.18, p < 0.05, b = 0.03. Of the 44 cases analyzed, 14 showed no smiling in response to the undesirable gift. A regression analysis with the 14 cases removed showed no signicant correlation between smiling and executive attention. A difference between second administration conict scores for children who smiled (M = 41.63, SD = 45.12) and children who did not smile (M = 75.18, SD = 63.86) was marginally signicant t(42) = 2.01, p = 0.05. Second administration conict signicantly predicted smiling to the desired gift when controlled for age F(2, 42) = 2.29, p = 0.11, b = 0.03, p < 0.05. When six cases with no smiling to the desired gift were removed from the analysis, conict was not a signicant predictor of smiling to the desired gift. Second administration conict scores on the ANT did not predict smiling to the undesired gift when controlled for smiling to the desired gift and age.
Table 6 Bivariate correlations between smiling and executive attention Gift Executive attention 1st admin. Conict scores Desirable Undesirable
*

2nd admin. Conict scores 0.22 0.25 0.32* 0.34*

Number of smiles Duration of smiling Number of smiles Duration of smiling

0.03 0.10 0.22 0.27

p < 0.05.

486

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

8. Discussion The current study examined relations among multiple levels of self-regulation: measures of effortful control: a temperament questionnaire, a laboratory task for assessing executive attention, and a social situation assessing smiling in the face of disappointment. Signicant correlations were found between parent-reported effortful control and executive attention, replicating at 710 years the previously reported ndings that more efcient executive attention performance is related to higher levels of parent-reported effortful control in children ages 27 and in adolescents (Chang & Burns, 2005; Ellis, 2002; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez et al., 2001). A signicant relation was also found between smiling to the undesired gift and conict scores on the ANT. However, conict scores from the two ANT administrations showed different relations to effortful control and smiling. First administration conict scores were related to effortful control, and second administration conict scores to responses in the desirable and undesirable gift conditions. Only the second administration of the ANT was correlated with smiling. Although the rst administration of the ANT showed correlations with smiling in the same direction, they were not signicant. In addition, the lack of a signicant correlation between the two administrations of the child ANT suggests that the intervening session with further executive attention tasks might have served as specic training for those children initially poor in executive attention (see Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005, for evidence of training attention effects). In support of this idea, the youngest children with the poorest executive attention showed the strongest improvement from the rst to the second ANT. Only the rst ANT was signicantly correlated with parent observations of effortful control. This suggests that conict scores on the second ANT administration might have been reduced through specically training the portion of the variance in performance that is due to long-term effortful control. Since conict scores on the ANT are considered a measure of executive attention, the theoretical mechanism underlying effortful control, the relation between conict scores and smiling supports the connection between effortful control and emotion regulation found in the past by Kieras et al. (2005) and Gerardi-Caulton (2000). However, we did not nd the expected relationship between temperamental self- or parent-reported effortful control and smiling. The laboratory tasks assessed an aspect of effortful control that appears to be useful in the mistaken gift situation, whereas the questionnaires did not capture this aspect of effortful control. Future studies should include both questionnaire assessment and aggregated behavioral measurement of effortful control. Smiling to an undesired gift showed an increase from age 7 to age 10, and a difference between smiling to the desired and undesired gift was present in 78, but not in 910-year-olds. Seven-yearolds also showed more difference between RTs for congruent and incongruent anker conditions, and between smiling to the desired and undesired gifts. Conict scores in the ANT did not differ from those of adults reported in Rueda et al. (2004) after age 8 in rst administration scores and age 7 for second administration scores. These ndings roughly replicated those found for the child ANT by Rueda et al. (2004). Limitations of the current study include unknown aspects of childrens motivations to smile when given a present in the mistaken gift task. Future research investigating aspects of this task, such as childrens acceptance of display rules and the possibility that childrens smiling might be due to a desire to decrease the discomfort of the experimenter who has committed a social blunder by giving the wrong gift, may provide clarity on the degree to which smiling provides a strong indication of emotion regulation across multiple conditions. The results of this study replicated those of Ellis (2002), in that only parent-reported effortful control showed relations with executive attention. Thus far, child and adolescent self-report of

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

487

effortful control has not shown correspondence with measures of attentional control. Future studies using item-level analyses may identify whether the differences between reporters are systematic and whether those differences show relations with attentional efciency. Executive attention as measured by the ANT has been related in adults to the operation of a specic network of brain areas (Fan et al., 2003). Individual efciency of a specic network has also been shown to relate to alleles of specic dopamine genes in adults (Fossella et al., 2002) and in children (Rueda et al., 2005). There is clear evidence, however, that operation of this network can also be inuenced by specic training (Rueda et al., 2005). Through the use of a simple task, the ANT in our study, we have related the efciency of that brain system to naturally occurring self-regulation. Our ndings extend this relationship to the childs control of affect displayed in both expected and disappointing social situations. The relation of this ability to the ANT conict score suggests that better attentional efciency underlies the childs ability to exhibit appropriate emotion in social settings. References
Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Guilford Press. Chang, F., & Burns, B. M. (2005). Attention in preschoolers: Associations with effortful control and motivation. Child Development, 76, 247263. Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Early temperament and emotional development. In A. F. Kalverboer & A. Gramsbergen (Eds.), Brain and behavior in early development (pp. 967990). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publications. Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., & Ma, Y. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: An emerging construct. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 50, 236259. Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(1), 136157. Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation, adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 259282). New York: Guilford Press. Ellis, L. K. (2002). Individual differences and adolescent psychosocial development. University of Oregon: Dissertation Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 63(8B), 3956. Fan, J., Flombaum, J. I., McCandliss, B. D., Thomas, K. M., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Cognitive and brain consequences of conict. NeuroImage, 18, 4257. Fossella, J., Sommer, T., Fan, J., Wu, Y., Swanson, J. M., Pfaff, D. W., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Assessing the molecular genetics of attention networks. BMC Neuroscience, 3, 14. Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conict and the development of self-regulation in children 2436 months of age. Developmental Science, 3, 397404. Gonzalez, C., Fuentes, L. J., Carranza, J. A., & Estevez, A. F. (2001). Temperament and attention in the self-regulation of 7-year-old children. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 931946. Kieras, J. E., Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). You cant always get what you want: Effortful control and childrens responses to undesirable gifts. Psychological Science, 16, 391396. Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68, 263277. Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490507. Noldus Information Technology. (2003). Reference manual, version 5.0 for Windows edition. Netherlands: Wageningen. Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13, 2542. Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington DC: American Psychological Association. Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence. In A. Eliasz & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in research on temperament (pp. 165182). Germany: Pabst Science.

488

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474488

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years: The Childrens Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 13941408. Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Temperament handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99166). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A. L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 3786). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing mechanisms of temperamental effortful control. Journal of Personality, 71, 11131143. Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 338357). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele (Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167188). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 10291040. Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic inuences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(41), 1493114936. Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of childrens attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development, 55, 15041513. Simonds, J., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). Development of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire, manuscript in preparation.