Self-‐regulation in young children in Portugal

(IM)BALANCE research project (PTDC/MHC-­‐CED/5218/2012) Self-­‐regulation in young children in Portugal: testing a two-­‐component model Joana Cadima, Teresa Leal, Tiago Ferreira, Joana M. Vieira, Paula Mena Matos University of Porto, Portugal Early self-­‐regulation • 
Self-­‐regulaRon includes both cogniRve and emoRonal regulaRon and refers to aspects of aTenRon, working memory, inhibitory control, and the ability to regulate emoRons (McClelland et al., 2007). • 
Self-­‐regulaRon helps children manage and direct their own emoRons and behaviors and to adjust deliberately to the demands of the classroom seXngs (McClelland et al., 2010). Self-­‐regulaRon plays a key role in young children’s school success (Blair & Razza, 2007, McClelland et al., 2007; Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010) However… • 
There is sRll debate regarding the exact nature of this construct and its underlying components (McClelland & Cameron Ponitz, 2012). Two components of self-­‐regulation HOT self-­‐regula.on COOL self-­‐regula.on involves emoRonal and moRvaRonal regulaRon processes, such as controlling own impulses in moRvaRonally significant contexts (e.g., with peers or tempRng toys) and purposefully paying aTenRon during emoRonal arousal includes components such as aTenRon flexibility, working memory, and inhibitory control, as well as goal-­‐directed cogniRve processes in response to more affecRvely neutral contexts (Brock et al., 2009; Denham et al., 2012). The present study • 
To examine the dimensionality of self-­‐regulaRon in preschool children (boys & girls) in Portugal • 
To explore the potenRal differenRal relaRons between components of self-­‐regulaRon and socioemoRonal outcomes Participants   213 children Age 4 years 9 months (SD = 10 months)  
46% Girls 54% 56 classrooms 4.5 parRcipants per classroom Boys Measures: direct assessment Head-­‐Toes-­‐Knees-­‐Shoulders (HTKS; Ponitz et al, 2008) •  Inhibitory control (a child must inhibit the dominant response) •  Working memory (a child must remember the rules of the task) •  ATenRon focusing (must focus aTenRon to the direcRons) Part I Part II Head – Toes Head–Toes–Knees–Shoulders InstrucRons InstrucRons Children are asked to do the opposite of what the examiner says: . Head (instead of toes) . Toes (instead of head) 10 items Sum of the scores: 0 (incorrect) 1 (self-­‐correct) 2 (correct) Two paired commands . Head-­‐toes . Knees-­‐shoulders 10 items Sum of the scores: 0 (incorrect) 1 (self-­‐correct) 2 (correct) Measures: direct assessment Preschool Self-­‐Regula.on Assessment (PSRA; Smith-­‐Donald et al., 2007) •  Assessment of preschoolers regulatory skills in behavioral, aTenRonal, and emoRonal domains •  Scores based on direct assessment and behavioral report Toy sort Toy wrap Snack Delay InstrucRons Clean up fun, small toys InstrucRons Don’t peek while I wrap this surprise InstrucRons Wait for beep to get M&M Time spent sorRng toys Time spent sorRng toys Correct answers Measures: Teacher-­‐report Self-­‐regulaRon EmoRonal RegulaRon EfforRul control (12 items, α = .78) 7-­‐point scale CBQ (Putman & Rothbart, 2006) • ATenRonal focus • Inhibitory control Emo.onal dysregula.on (13 items; α = .87) 4-­‐point scale ERC (Shields & CiccheX, 1997) Is prone to angry outbursts. Exhibits wide mood swings. Measures: Teacher-­‐report Externalizing behavior (8 items, α = .85) Strengths & Difficul.es Ques.onnaire • Restless, overacRve, cannot stay sRll for long 3-­‐point scale Prosocial scale (5 items; α = .78) •  Helpful if someone is hurt, upset or feeling bad •  Generally liked by other children Hot & Cool self-­‐regulation Head Toes Head Toes Cool .89 .95 .42 HTKS HTKS Toy sort Toy sort Self-­‐regulaRon .70 Hot Toy wrap Toy wrap Snack delay .63 Snack delay 2-­‐factor model X2(4)=1.65, ns; CFI=1.00; RMSEA=.00 1-­‐factor model X2(5)=57.97, p < .0001; CFI=.78; RMSEA=.22 Δx2(1)=139.6, p< .0001 (a) aSatorra-­‐Bentler scaled chi-­‐square difference test Hot & cool self-­‐regulation Measurement invariance Boys & Girls χ2 df CFI RMSEA ΔCFI Δχ2(a) df p 8 1.00 .000 -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ Configural invariance 5.32 Metric invariance 14.37 13 .994 .032 .006 9.76 5 ns ✓ Scalar invariance 17.06 16 .995 .025 2.81 3 ns ✓ aSatorra-­‐Bentler scaled chi-­‐square difference test -­‐-­‐-­‐ -­‐-­‐-­‐ Validity: teacher-­‐report measures Age .73* Cool 0.50* Sex .27* CBQ Effort ERC Dysregul Hot -­‐.43* X2(17)=22.29, ns; CFI=.98; RMSEA=.041 Validity: Social problems & competence Age Sex Externalizing problems -­‐.22* Cool Prosocial Behavior .27*
Hot X2(17)=18.27, ns; CFI=.997; RMSEA=.020 Multiple group analyses Boys Age Girls Externalizing problems Cool Prosocial Behavior Hot X2(36)=46.07, ns; CFI=.973; RMSEA=.055 Parameters constrained to be equal Δx2(4)=11.25, p < .05 (a) Age Externalizing problems Cool Prosocial Behavior Hot Discussion  
The present study offers insight into the dimensionality of self-­‐regulaRon  
Consistent with Brock et al. (2009) and Denham et al, (2013), two interrelated, but disRnct aspects of self-­‐
regulaRon COOL & HOT  
Scalar invariance was supported for gender:  
Consistent with prior research (Wanless et al., 2013), boys and girls have similar levels of observed self-­‐regulaRon – although gender differences were found in teacher-­‐
reported self-­‐regulaRon Discussion   COOL self-­‐regulaRon: acRve control over one’s thoughts and acRons in non-­‐emoRonally charged tasks  
was associated with high levels of efforrul control when examined concurrently with hot self-­‐regulaRon, as expected (Brock et al., 2009)  
help children purposefully shis or focus their aTenRon and respond more flexibly to school situaRons (Denham et al, 2013) Discussion  
HOT: Hot self-­‐regulaRon tasks have an emoRonal component that children must negoRate in order to be successful (Brock et al., 2009)  
was associated with lower levels of emoRonal dysregulaRon Discussion  
HOT self-­‐regulaRon skills  
wait for a turn, inhibit impulses to play with peers or tempRng toys, and comply with the demands of the classroom Were related to teacher percepRons of low levels of externalized and higher levels of prosocial behaviors  
These skills seemed parRcularly important for boys: Boys may be more dependent of their own resources/skills to be socially competent while girls may have other supports that help them to be socially competent even when they have low levels of hot self-­‐regulaRon Study limitations & future directions   Although tasks used in this study have been widely used (cf. Brock et al., 2009; Denham et al., 2013; Ponitz et al., 2008; Wanless et al., 2011), the specific tasks in each factor vary from study to study   This work is based on a sample of middle-­‐class children from one region of Portugal   Future work needs to expand these findings to other countries/
sociodemographic groups   Social skills were examined concurrently and through teacher’s judgments   It is important for future research to obtain directly observed social behavior indicators and to examine associaRons longitudinally This study is part of the research project (IM)BALANCE Impact of Work-­‐Family ConciliaRon on ParenRng and Children´s Development. Funding (PTDC/MHC-­‐CED/5218/2012)