Emotion-Related Self-Regulation:The Construct and Developmental

Correlates in Children

Nancy Eisenberg

Pittsburgh Mind-Body Center

February, 2006

Collaborators Tracy Spinrad Claire Hofer Mark Reiser Sri Pidada Cindy Smith Sandra Losoya Elizabeth Gershoff Amanda Morris Amanda Cumberland Ivanna Guthrie Jeffrey Liew Bridget Murphy Carlos Valiente Qing Zhou

Emotion-related regulationthe process of initiating,

avoiding, maintaining, modulating, or changing the occurrence, intensity, form, or duration of internal feeling states, emotion-related goals and physiological processes, or the behavioral concomitants of emotion, generally in the service of affect-related biological or social adaptation or accomplishing goals

Emotion-related regulation involves:

control of perceptual and experiential input through processes such as attention and selection or modification of contexts that the individual encounters

modifying the meaning and significance of the relations between the person and the environment

changing behavioral responses such as facial expressions and interactions with the environment- e.g., Campos et al. (1994)

Operationalizations attentional processes such as the abilities to

shift and focus attention as assessed in temperament work (e.g., Rothbart’s work)

cognitive coping processes such as cognitive distraction and positive cognitive restructuring

active, instrumental coping the abilities to voluntarily inhibit and activate

behavior, including facial and gestural responses and other behaviors stemming from, or associated with, internal emotion-related psychological or physiological states

Distinction: Control vs. Regulation

overlapping constructs but not identical

control = inhibition or constraint

regulation includes optimal levels of control and other abilities (e.g., activation control)

well-regulated individuals are not overly controlled or undercontrolled

well-regulated people have the ability to respond to the ongoing demands of experience with a range of responses that are socially acceptable and sufficiently flexible to allow for spontaneity as well as for the delay of spontaneous reactions as needed (Cole et al., 1994)

regulation generally is adaptive; control can be adaptive or maladaptive, depending on its flexibility and if it can be voluntarily modulated

a related distinction is between more effortful (i.e., voluntary) and reactive (less voluntary) types of control

voluntary control includes what Rothbart has labeled as effortful control ""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” (Rothbart & Bates, in press)

involves attentional regulation (e.g., executive attention) & behavioral regulation

usually translates into adaptive regulation

Development of Effortful Control the executive attention involved in effortful the executive attention involved in effortful

attentional control develops a little in infancy attentional control develops a little in infancy and at 18 months but is still quite immature at and at 18 months but is still quite immature at 24 months24 months

there is a dramatic improvement in attentional there is a dramatic improvement in attentional regulation in the 3rd year of liferegulation in the 3rd year of life

in 2nd year, infants show increases in the ability to slow down their walking or to stop an activity when asked to do so

effortful inhibition of behavior improves greatly at about 44 months and is fairly good by age 4

effortful control appears to be fairly well effortful control appears to be fairly well developed by 4 or 5 years developed by 4 or 5 years and continues to and continues to improve across childhood and into adulthoodimprove across childhood and into adulthood

Less Voluntary or Reactive Control some aspects of control, or the lack thereof, some aspects of control, or the lack thereof,

seem involuntary or so automatic that they seem involuntary or so automatic that they are not usually under voluntary controlare not usually under voluntary control types of impulsivity pulled by types of impulsivity pulled by

environmental rewards/cuesenvironmental rewards/cues very low impulsivity or behavioral inhibition very low impulsivity or behavioral inhibition

overcontrolled children who are timid, overcontrolled children who are timid, constrained, and lack flexibility in novel constrained, and lack flexibility in novel or stressful situations (Kagan’s work)or stressful situations (Kagan’s work)

called reactive control; reflects motivational called reactive control; reflects motivational tendenciestendencies

not necessarily totally involuntary, but seem to be more difficult to modulate

Neurological correlates of effortful control and more reactive, less voluntary aspects of

control (or the lack thereof) likely differ

effortful control believed to be based in the midline of the frontal lobe of the cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex, especially the anterior cingulate gyrus (Posner) (Posner)

Gray and others have argued that reactive systems are associated with subcortical systems (e.g., amygdala & mesolimbic dopamine pathways)

many projections between subcortical structures into cortical structures, forging connections between them

Heuristic Styles of Control: Highly Inhibited

high in involuntary reactive overcontrol (e.g., behavioral inhibition)

low to average in the ability to effortfully inhibit behavior (i.e., inhibitory control)

relatively low in effortful attentional control

low in the ability to effortfully activate behavior as needed (activational control) and planful active coping

prone to internalizing problems, especially if predisposed to negative emotionality

Undercontrolled low in all types of effortful

control (attentional, inhibitory, activational)

low in reactive overcontrol and high in reactive approach tendencies (low in behavioral inhibition/overcontrol and high in impulsivity)

relatively low in social competence and prone to externalizing problems

Optimally Regulated

high in various modes high in various modes of adaptive effortful of adaptive effortful control (attentional, control (attentional, inhibitory, activational)inhibitory, activational)

in regard to in regard to involuntary control, involuntary control, neither overcontrolled neither overcontrolled nor undercontrollednor undercontrolled

well adjusted, socially well adjusted, socially competent, and competent, and resilient to stressresilient to stress

Hypothesized Relations of Effortful and Reactive Control To Adjustment

externalizing problems are linked to low effortful and low reactive control

internalizing problems associated with low effortful control (especially attentional & activational) and high reactive overcontrol (or low impulsivity) although impulsivity & effortful

control tend to be negatively related, we expect both to be negatively related to internalizing

Empirical findings Kochanska--observed effortful control &

reported child inhibitory control in the early years predict internalized compliance, moral behavior and moral reasoning, lower anger, and adjustment

Mischel--ability to delay gratification (often through attentional mechanisms) predicts positive outcomes decades later (e.g., academic & social competence, coping with frustration/stress, drug use)

preschoolers’ attentional regulation predicted quality of real-life coping with negative emotions, sociometric status, and adult-reported social skills, as well as adjustment and social competence 4 and/or 6 years later

observed effortful control and low impulsivity predict low concurrent externalizing problems in numerous labs

Eisenberg, Cumberland, Spinrad et al. (2001)

4- to 7-year-old sample with externalizing &/or internalizing children and nondisordered children

obtained a teacher’s and a parent’s reports of effortful attention shifting and focusing, inhibitory control, and impulsivity

mothers’, fathers’, & teachers’ reports of externalizing & internalizing problems

observed measures of primarily regulation, including sitting still when asked, exhibiting positive rather than negative reactions to a disappointing prize, persisting at a puzzle task

compared children with at least borderline compared children with at least borderline levels of externalizing (with or without levels of externalizing (with or without comorbid internalizing) with nondisordered comorbid internalizing) with nondisordered control children (Achenbach control children (Achenbach TT < 60 for < 60 for internalizing and externalizing)internalizing and externalizing)

EXTs/COMORBIDs < CONTROLs on parents' EXTs/COMORBIDs < CONTROLs on parents' & teachers' reports of effortful attention & teachers' reports of effortful attention shifting, attention focusing, & inhibitory shifting, attention focusing, & inhibitory control control

EXTs/COMORBIDs had more difficulty than controls sitting still when asked and in persisting on the puzzle task

EXTs/COMORBIDs >CONTROLs in reported EXTs/COMORBIDs >CONTROLs in reported impulsivityimpulsivity

findings generally held across reportersfindings generally held across reporters

examined differences between examined differences between internalizing children and externalizing internalizing children and externalizing or nondisordered childrenor nondisordered children

adult-rated effortful attentional controladult-rated effortful attentional control- INTs < CONTROLs; INTs > EXTINTs < CONTROLs; INTs > EXT

adult-rated impulsivity- INTs < EXTs & CONTROLsINTs < EXTs & CONTROLs

teacher/parent-rated inhibitory control- INTs > EXTs- INTs = CONTROLs

observed measures of control- INTs only slightly (nonsignificantly) less

controlled than CONTROLs; INTs > EXTs- INTS < EXTs in negative emotion in

response to a disappointing gift- INT boys > EXT boys in persistence on the

puzzle task INTs were low in effortful attentional (but not

inhibitory) control and high in reactive overcontrol (low impulsivity)

2-year follow-up externalizing problems still clearly linked to low

effortful control and high impulsivity change in status related to negative

emotionality and levels of effortful control and impuslvity

internalizing problems no longer associated with problems in attentional regulation (and still not associated with deficits in inhibitory control)

internalizing problems still associated with low impulsivity

change in status linked to degree of impulsivity (and anger and sadness)

Examining additive, multiplicative, & mediated relations

Hypothesized: prediction of socioemotional outcomes is greater

when both effortful and reactive control are predictors (unique effects)

negative emotionality moderates the relations of effortful control--and perhaps reactive control--to developmental outcomes

personality resiliency--the ability to cope with and rebound from stress--mediates some relations between effortful control and socioemotional functioning

Tested for potential causal relations by controlling stability of variables across time

Moderator ModelModerator Model

..Baron & Kenny, 1986..Baron & Kenny, 1986

OutcomeOutcomeVariableVariable

PredictorPredictorXX

ModeratorModerator

PredictorPredictor

ModeratorModerator

Mediational ModelMediational Model

IndependentIndependentVariableVariable

OutcomeOutcomeVariableVariable

MediatorMediator

Baron & Kenny, 1986Baron & Kenny, 1986

Computed SEMs for adjustment (or social competence)

in our high-risk sample, in initial measurement models, the fit was better when effortful control and reactive control were separate constructs

in SEMs on adjustment, resiliency was treated as a mediator between impulsivity or effortful control and internalizing or externalizing problems

Time 1

EffortfulControl

Parent Inhibitory

TeacherAtten-Reg

Parent Atten-Reg

TeacherInhibitory

Puzzle

Impulsivity

ParentImpulsive

TeacherImpulsive

Internalizing

ExternalizingFather

Externalize

FatherInternalize

MotherInternalize

MotherExternalize

TeacherExternalize

Resiliency

ParentResiliency

TeacherResiliency

Chisq (52, N=214)=60.017, p>.208, CFI= .994; RMSEA=.027

- + -

+

+ -

+

Time 2

EffortfulControl

ParentInhibitory

TeacherAtten-Reg

ParentAtten-Reg

TeacherInhibitory

Puzzle

Impulsivity

ParentImpulsive

TeacherImpulsive

Internalizing

ExternalizingFather

Externalize

FatherInternalize

MotherInternalize

MotherExternalize

TeacherExternalize

Resiliency

ParentResiliency

TeacherResiliency

Chisq (55, N=193)=86.846, p>.004, CFI= .974’ RMSEA=.055

n.s.

marginal

n.s.

+

- +- -

+

-

to construct the longitudinal model, multiple indicators of constructs in the T1 and T2 concurrent SEMs were weighted and aggregated

error variances for the linear combinations were calculated from measurement error variances in concurrent models

within-time and cross-lagged paths were included in the model

EffortfulControl

Impulsivity

Resiliency

Internalizing

Externalizing

EffortfulControl

Impulsivity

Resiliency

Internalizing

Externalizing

Longitudinal Model

Chisq (24, n=214)=23.70. p < .48; CFI= .1.0; RMSEA = .00.

+

--

+

+-

+

+

-ns

+

+

+

+

-

+

-

+

+

-

Time 1 Time 2

relations held at T2 even when controlling for levels of the various constructs at T1 except the path from impulsivity to externalizing became nonsignificant

so most relations at T2 not due merely to the consistency of relations and variables over time

impulsivity was a weaker unique predictor of externalizing problems at T2

Effort-1

Implsv-1

Resil-1

Int-1

Ext-1

.22***

.17***

3.93***

-4.33***

-2.77***

Effort-2

Implsv-2

Resil-2

Int-2

Ext-2

.13***

-.92***

-.76**

.61***

.76***

.42***

.42***

.70***

Chisq (9, n=214)=10.59. p < .30; CFI= .999; RMSEA = .03.

-.03*

23.40***3.98*

-.39***

-1.78**

-.08***

-.02*

.34*

-2.8**

-1.29***

-.71*

Evidence of bi-directionality in relations

Moderation by negative emotionality

in regressions, teacher-reported anger moderated the path of EC to low externalizing at both T1 and T2 and the path from impulsivity to externalizing problems at T2

effortful regulation or low impulsivity was negatively related to externalizing problems for most children, but this relation was strongest for children higher in teacher-reported anger

T3 Externalizing

Behaviors

T3 Effortful Control

Parent

Teacher

Parent

Teacher

Parent

Teacher1.00(.71)

1.00(.59)

.51**

(.47)

1.23**

(.86)

.04(.06)

-.50**

(-.96)

Puzzle Box

1.00(.77)

T3 Over

Control

.61**

(.63)

.14**

(.35)

R2 = .83

.49**

(.83)

Findings replicated in a sample of typical school children for externalizing problems (with different measure of reactive control)

T1 Effortful Control

T1 Externalizing Behaviors

ParentTeacher

T3 Effortful Control

ParentTeacher

ParentTeacher

Parent Teacher

T3 Over Control

1.00(.61)

12**

(.32)

1.00(.78)

.57**

(.48)

1.00(.79)

.57**

(.62)

1.18 **

(.72)

.39**

(.48)

.74**

(.68)

.24**

(.52)

Puzzle Box

Puzzle Box

1.00(.87)

T1 Over Control

R2 = .73

T3 Externalizing Behaviors

ParentTeacher

1.00(.86)

.39**

(.43)

1.00(.71)

.74**

(.70)

R2 = .78

1.09 **

(.85)

Parent Teacher

.57 **

(.56)R2 = 1.00

-.39**

(-.43)

-.27 **

(-.41)

R2 = .52

-39 **

(-.69)

.07(.12)

Why is resiliency related to high Why is resiliency related to high impulsivityimpulsivity??

Block & Kremen (1996) noted,Block & Kremen (1996) noted,

"the human goal is to be as "the human goal is to be as undercontrolled as possible and as undercontrolled as possible and as overcontrolled as necessary. When overcontrolled as necessary. When one is more undercontrolled than is one is more undercontrolled than is adaptively effective or more adaptively effective or more overcontrolled than is adaptively overcontrolled than is adaptively required, one is not resilient." required, one is not resilient."

efffortful control would be expected to relate positively to resiliency

high reactive control (overcontrol) expected to predict rigidity & low resiliency

moderate to moderately high reactive undercontrol (i.e., a bit impulsive & spontaneous) expected to relate positively to resiliency

found positive linear relations between reactive undercontrol and resiliency in 3 samples of young children, as well as quadratic relations in two samples

children moderate or sometimes even high in impulsivity were more resilient than children low in impulsivity

by mid- to late-elementary school, only the by mid- to late-elementary school, only the quadratic relation between impulsivity and quadratic relation between impulsivity and resiliency remains, and by early resiliency remains, and by early adolescence, impulsivity tends to be adolescence, impulsivity tends to be modestly negatively related to resiliency modestly negatively related to resiliency unless the overlapping relation of effortful unless the overlapping relation of effortful control to resiliency is controlled, and then control to resiliency is controlled, and then the relation becomes positivethe relation becomes positive

Time 1

6

6.2

6.46.6

6.8

7

Low-1 SD

Mean High+1 SD

Impulsivity

Res

ilie

ncy

Time 2

66.26.46.66.8

7

Low-1 SD

Mean High+1 SD

Impulsivity

Res

ilie

ncy

SummarySummary individual differences in effortful regulation

and less voluntary types of control, as well as in emotionality, are important correlates, and perhaps predictors, of adjustment

it is useful to differentiate conceptually and empirically between various types of control because effortful and reactive control provide some unique prediction of resiliency and adjustment

effortful control becomes the stronger unique predictor with age (and also is linked to outcomes in Indonesia and China)

resiliency may be an important mediator

Role of Socialization

effortful control often is viewed as a component of temperament and personality and likely has a hereditary basis

but socializers can help children learn to effectively manage their emotions and emotion-related behavior

Our study including high-risk children: T1 assessed mothers’ reported expression of

positive & negative emotion in the family & observed emotion expressed with child

in SEM, the relations of maternal expressivity to children's social competence and externalizing were mediated by children’s regulation (effortful control)

regulation was predicted by high positive, and low negative, maternal expressivity

reversed child-driven models: critical paths not significant

Observed

MotherReport

Observed

MotherReport

BehavioralMeasure

MotherReport

TeacherReport

MotherReport

TeacherReport

MotherReport

TeacherReport

.15**

.08***

.04**

.09**

1.80***

1

1.20

1

.86***

1

MotherReport

TeacherReport

4.92*** 4.95***

Mother’sPositive

Expressivity

Mother’sNegative

Expressivity

Child’sRegulation

Child’sExternalizing

BehaviorProblems

Child’sInternalizing

BehaviorProblems

Child’sSocial

Competence

R2 = .77

R2 = .71

R2 = .36

R2 = .84

.06**

-.08**

-.90+

-3.38***

.89***

+ p < .10. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.

1

RCFI = .989, Satorra -Bentler χ2 (df = 38) 45.78, p = .18,AIC = -31.03, RMSEA = .033.

Longitudinal model using T2, T3, & T4 data tested mediation

using 3 time points high parental positive

vs. negative expressivity at T2 predicted high effortful control at T3, which predicted low externalizing 2 years later (mediation)

effortful control did not predict parenting across time

Parent-ing

Parent- ing

Parent- ing

ChildEC

ChildEC

ChildEC

Adjust-ment

Adjust-ment

Adjust-ment

+ +

+ +

+ +

T2EXP

T3EXP

T4 EXP

T2EC

T3EC

T4EC

T2EXT

T3EXT

T4EXT

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

EXT = externalizing; EXP = parent expressivity; EC = effortful control. Obtained similar findings for parent-rated internalizing problems

T2Warm/

Positive

T3Warm/

Positive

T4Warm/

Positive

T2EC

T3EC

T4EC

T2EXT

T3EXT

T4EXT

+ +

+ +

+ +

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

-

Similar model with unselected school sample and observed parental warmth & positive expressivity

New study with toddlers (18 & 30 months)New study with toddlers (18 & 30 months)

supportive parenting: mothers’ reports of supportive reactions to their children’s negative emotions (comforting, encouraging expression of emotion, and problem-focusing reactions), low negative reactions (punitive and minimizing), & maternal sensitivity during free-play and teaching interactions

effortful control: mothers’ & caregivers’ reports, & children’s snack delay behavior

adjustment & social competence: mothers’, fathers’, and caregivers’ reports

Effortful ControlR2 = .34

(.37)Care Int

Mother Int

Father Ext

Mother Ext

Caregiver Ext

Father SC

Mother SC

Mother EC

Mother Sensitiv

CTNES Neg

ExternalizingR2 = .77

(.68)

Soc CompetR2 = .51 (.52)

Internalizing

R2 = .00 (.01)

Mother Supportive

Caregiver EC

Delay

CareSC

CTNES Positive

Father Int

.58**

(.61**)

-.88** (-.82**)

.06 (-.07)

.71** (.72**)

18 & 30 Month Concurrent Models

T2 Effortful Control R2 = .66 Care

Int

Mother Int

Father Ext

Mother Ext

Caregiver Ext

Father SC

Mother SC

Mother EC

Mother Sensitive

CTNES Negative

T2 ExternalR2 = .46

T2 Soc CompR2 = .35

T2 InternalR2 = .02

T1 Mother Supportive

Caregiver EC

Delay

Care SC

CTNES Positive

Father Int

Care Ext

.81**

(4.06**)

-.68*** (-.08***)

.14

(.04)

.59*** (.07***)

Longitudinal model

Externalizing longitudinal model, controlling for stability .95***

.70*** .47 +

.53*

-.44 +

-.79***

.53*

χ2 (123) = 173.801 CFI = .955 RMSEA = .040

Support T1

Support T2 R2 = .89

EC T2 R2 = .85

EC T1 R2 = .48

Ext T2 R2 = .84

Ext T1 R2 = .63

Longitudinal model: Social competence, controlling stability  .94***

.42** .50**

.52***

.11

.80***

.63*

χ2 (125) = 213.635 CFI = .919 RMSEA = .052

Support T1

Support T2 R2 = .89

EC T2 R2 = .74

EC T1 R2 = .17

SComp T2 R2 = .51

SComp T1 R2 = .64

Study with Indonesia third graders children’s effortful control mediated the

relation of maternal negative expressivity to maladjustment and low social competence

maternal positive expressivity did not predict outcomes, perhaps because the intense expression of emotion is discouraged

maternal expression of less assertive, nonhostile negative emotion had a more consistent negative relation to adjustment & social competence in Indonesia than the U.S.

PunitiveReactions

6-8

PunitiveReactions

8-10

PunitiveReactions

10-12

Regulation6-8

Regulation8-10

Regulation10-12

.652*** .652***

-.146*

-.700*

1.012***

-.190*

.660***

-.049

-.014

-.048

ProblemBehavior

6-8

ProblemBehavior

10-12

.161+

-.014

.348*

.027

-.178***

Thanks for your attention (i.e., effortful control)!

T1 INTV

T1 LANG

T2 EC

T2 EU

T2 LANG

T3 EC

T3 EU

INTV=intervention; EC=effortful control; EU=emotion understanding; LANG=language

T1 EC

T1 EU

T1 INTV

T1 SC T4/5 SCT3 SCT2 SC

T2 EC T3 EC

T2 EU T3 EU

SC WILL BE REPLACED WITH

INT OR EXT IN TWOADDITIONAL

MODELS

T1 ACAD SK

T2 ACAD SK

T3 ACAD SK

T4 ACAD SK

T2 SC T3 SC

T3 ACADMOTIV

T3 ECT2 EC

T1 INTV

T5 ACADMOTIV

T5 ACAD SK

T4 ACAD MOTIV

See above for additional abbreviations. ACAD SK=academic skills; ACAD MOTIV=academic motivation

Models predicting social competence & Models predicting social competence & popularitypopularity

computed models at T1 and T2 predicting adult-rated socially appropriate behavior and popularity

resiliency was treated as a mediator between impulsivity or effortful control and social functioning

Cross Sectional Models

EffortfulControl

TeacherParent

Persist

Impulsivity

Parent Teacher

Popularity

SocialComp

Teacher

Parent

Parent Teacher

Resiliency

Parent Teacher

+

+

+

+

-

-ns

computed an additional SEM with only computed an additional SEM with only cross-lagged paths (and cross-lagged paths (and rrs among the s among the T1 latent constructs and those at T2 that T1 latent constructs and those at T2 that required correlatingrequired correlating))

results suggested bi-directional relations results suggested bi-directional relations over time between adjustment and both over time between adjustment and both effortful control and resiliencyeffortful control and resiliency

resiliency mediated the relations of effortful control and impulsivity to both socially appropriate behavior and popularity at Time 1 & Time 2 (T1 & T2)

socially appropriate behavior was predicted directly by low impulsivity at T1 and T2

examined the unique relations of effortful and reactive control to personality resiliency and socially appropriate behavior and popularity across time

found that all of the relations at Time 1 held was significant consistency of all constructs

except resiliency across time no across-time relations besides the

autoregressive (consistency) relations results suggest that Time 2 relations were

due to stability in the constructs over time

2 years later2 years later……

some evidence that regulation mediated relations some evidence that regulation mediated relations of maternal positive expressivity to adjustment of maternal positive expressivity to adjustment and social competence and social competence

maternal negative expressivity was positively maternal negative expressivity was positively related to teacher- (but not mother-) reported related to teacher- (but not mother-) reported regulation and mediated relations with adjustment regulation and mediated relations with adjustment and social competence, but relations did not hold and social competence, but relations did not hold when controlling for T1 levels of variableswhen controlling for T1 levels of variables

may be due to teachers’ belief that children from may be due to teachers’ belief that children from negatively expressive homes are compliantnegatively expressive homes are compliant

T2 Negative

Expressivity

T2 Positive Expressivit

y

T2 Regulation R2 = .13

T2 Externalizing Behaviors

R2 = .64

T2 Internalizing Behaviors

R2 = .08

Mothers' Report

Mothers' Report

Observed HK

Mothers' Report

Teachers' Report

Mothers' Report

Teachers’Report

Mothers' Report

Teachers' Report

Observed

-.34** (-.80)

-.13*

(-.27)

.12**

(.84)

.54**

(.31)

.63* (.19)

1.00 (.88)

1.00 (.73)

1.16**

(.40)

1.00 (.94)

.68**

(.64)

1.00(.74)

1.00.76

1.70**

(.85)

1.00(.85)

.40** (.46)

.10** (.30)

Teachers' Report

ObservedMC

.08 **

(.26)

T2 Social

Competence

R2 = .71

Bi-directional relations between socialization & child regulation: ages 6-8,

8-10, & 10-12 problem behavior at age 10-12 was

predicted by low regulation and (marginally) by parental punitive reactions to the child’s negative emotions at that age, and by problem behavior at age 6-8

regulation at age 6-8 predicted parental punitive reactions at age 8-10, which in turn predicted regulation at age 10-12