Parental influence on early self-regulatory development

Chia-Heng Chen

Department of Childhood Education and Nursery, Chia Nan University of Pharmacy and Science

Introduction

Why can young children not regulate their impulses? Why do young children have a hard time with toilet training? Why are children at risk of feeding and eating disorders? Why do children have attention problems in their learning? Why can children not finish their homework until the last minute? These problems exist in children’s everyday life and reflect the importance of the self-regulation issue in child development.

Self-regulation enables children to moderate their emotions and behavior in order to interact prosocially with others, achieve goals, and engage in independent learning. The emergence of self-regulation appears in the first year of life. The early childhood is a key period for the continued development of self-regulation because the rapid growth of self-regulation in this period. Additionally, longitudinal research has also found that self-regulation in the preschool years is related to later cognitive achievement (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990; as cited in McCaBe, Cunnington, & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). Therefore, understanding how self-regulation develops in young children and how environment influences young children’s self-regulatory development is very important.

Given that the predominant social environment for young children is the family system, the role of parents is critical for the socialization and expression of self-regulatory skills. The purpose of this paper is to discuss parental influence on young children’s self-regulatory skills during stages of infant, toddler, preschool and kindergarten. The following questions will be explored: (a) does parenting style play a significant role in the development of self-regulation skills? (b) which parenting styles are more likely to help their children develop self-regulation skills? In order to address these questions, the remainder of the article is divided into three sections. In the first section, a set of literature review will provide the definition, conceptual explanation, and relevant empirical evidence about early self-regulatory development. In the second section and third section, conclusions and implications will be addressed.

Literature Review

The literature review is divided into three primary sections: (a) a discussion of the definitions of self-regulation, especially in early years; (b) a discussion of the argument of whether parents matters in children’s self-regulatory development or not; (c) a discussion of the influence of parenting on the development of self-regulation skills.

What is self-regulation?

Definitions of self-regulation. There are different definitions of self-regulation in the field of child development and education. One generally accepted definition of self-regulation is the ability to gain control of one’s emotions and behavior. Another common definition of self-regulation is that of a young child’s ability to be responsive to family and social demands (Kopp, 1982). To sum up, the construct of self-regulation typically includes control of emotions, behaviors, and cognitive processing at an age appropriate level. In this paper, the meaning of self-regulation will focus on the ability to gain control over one’s emotion and behavior.

Developmental stages of self-regulation. In addition to various definitions of self-regulation, the characteristics of self-regulation also vary with age and development. It is essential for us to understand the features of different developmental stages and then to discuss the interaction between child and parents. Kopp (1982) has summarized the various stages of regulation from birth to 36-month-old. Based on Kopp’s (1982) phases of control, the evidence of self-regulation skills can be traced back to the first year of life. In this period, infants begin to adapt arousal cycles, response to emotional expressions, and focus on specific objects (Kopp, 1982; Bronson, 2000). Gaze aversion and fussiness are two main self-regulation strategies (McCaBe, Cunnington, & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). During the toddler years, child is more independent. They not only increase ability to comply with external request but also begin to engage and more persist in goal-directed mastery tasks (Kopp, 1982; Bronson, 2000). Preschool and kindergarten are very important periods of self-regulatory development in social and cognitive areas. The self-regulation characteristics of this period include the following: (a) they are more capable of controlling emotions and abiding by rules, (b) they begin to use language to regulate themselves and influence others, (c) they are developing prosocial behaviors such as helping and sharing, (d) they are able to engage in developmentally appropriate tasks and produce products, and (e) they begin to evaluate their competence and compare with the success of others (Kopp, 1982; Bronson, 2000).

Theoretical perspectives on self-regulation. In addition to the developmental perspective of early self-regulatory development, a variety of psychological theories define the nature of self-regulation and about how self-regulation develops during early childhood. Social cognitive theorists emphasize child’s own perception of ability to control events in the environment (Bronson, 2000). Zimmerman (1989), for instance, defines that a self-regulated learner is motivated to set realistic goals to complete task, use effective strategies to attain task, and self-monitor to assess effectiveness.

Sociocultural theorists emphasize that self-regulation skills are shaped by the social-cultural environment. Vygotsky (1962, 1978) assumed children develop higher order psychological functions to become self-regulated, but the goals and strategies are culturally determined and are facilitated by caregivers (As cited in Bronson, 2000).

According to motivation theory, there are three environmental factors that facilitate self-regulation: (a) support a sense of autonomy, (b) support a sense of competence, and (c) promote a sense of relatedness (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). Therefore, based on self-determination theory, Grolnick and Farkas (2002) propose three dimensions of facilitative environments. The first dimension is autonomy support to control. It means that children become more self-regulated, if their opinions are respected and they can make choices by their own. The second one is structure. In order to support child’s competence, caregivers should provide clear guidelines and rules for children to follow. The third one is positive involvement. It means that caregivers should provide a warm, involved, and caring environment to support the sense of relatedness. In this paper, the three dimensions will be used as the framework for discussion parental influence on children’s self-regulatory development.

Do parents matters in Children’s self-regulatory development?

Whether parenting style plays a significant role in the development of self-regulation is still an argument in the field of child development. The following is a brief review of the literature about the influence of children’s innate characteristics and parent-child relations.

Natures vs. nurture. From the biological perspective, child’s innate characteristics are different from each other. Many researchers hypothesize temperament and genetic characteristics might influence self-regulatory development (Eisenberg et al., 2003; Kochanska et al., 1997; Rothbart, Derryberry, & Posner 1994; Zahn-Waxler et al., 1996; as cited in McCaBe, Cunnington, & Brooks-Gunn, 2004). For example, Calkins and Johnson (1998) conducted a research on seventy-three 18-month-old toddlers and their mothers to investigate the relations between toddlers’ temperamental frustration distress and their regulatory behavior. The result showed children who were distress during the frustrating tasks were more likely to perform aggressive behaviors. It suggested children’s negative emotion affects their self-regulatory behavior. Additionally, some research documented the influence of genetic factors on child development. For example, the study of Ge, Conger, Cadoret, and Neiderhiser et al. (1996) found that psychiatric disorders of biological parents were significantly related to children's antisocial/hostile behaviors even though the children were adopted after birth. It implies that genetic characteristics also play an essential role in the development of child’s regulatory behavior.

However, from the perspective of external influence, there are also many studies about parental influence on children’s self-regulatory behavior. Spinrad, Stiffter, Donelan-McCall, and Turner (2004), for instance, investigated the relation between mothers’ regulation strategies and toddlers’ later emotion self-regulation. The result showed that there was a positive relation between mothers’ use of regulation strategies at 30 months and children’s appropriate emotional displays in response to disappointment at 5 years old. It provided the evidence of parental influence on children’s self-regulatory behavior.

Parent-to-child vs. child-to-parent. The direction of parent-child relation is not one-way. Not only parenting style influence children’s self-regulatory behavior but also children’s behavior can affect parenting styles. Grolnick and Farks (2002) state there is strong evidence about the influence of child’s self-regulatory behavior on parenting styles. For example, Lee and Bates (1985) conducted a study to investigate the relation between children with difficult temperaments and later mother-toddler interaction at 2 years old. The result shows that difficult children are more likely to be resistant to their mothers’ control.

Since children are not passive recipients of parental behavior, their heritable characteristics can affect the parenting style. In the study of Ge et al. (1996), they found biological parent disorder was related to adoptive parent child-rearing practices. The result suggested that child played an active role in connection between genetic background and parenting practices.

The above studies show the complexity of child’s self-regulatory development. Parenting style is important but many variables (e.g., person’s inborn characteristics and environmental factors) need to be considered in studying parental influence on child’s self-regulatory development.

How can parents facilitate children’s development of self-regulation skills?

In this section, the literature review will be divided into two parts. The themes are emotion self-regulation and behavior self-regulation. Grolnick and Farkas’s (2002) three dimensions of facilitative environment will be used as the indices of parenting styles. The parental influence on young child’s self-regulatory development will be explored.

Emotion self-regulation. Emotional self-regulation is usually defined as the capacity to control arousal and emotional expression in socially adaptive ways (Bronson, 2000). Grolnick and Frakas (2002) state that an emotional self-regulated child means a child can manage his/her emotion flexibly but not control his/her emotion. In the past, many studies have documented the parental influence on young children’s capacity of emotional self-regulation. For example, Kogan and Carter (1995) conducted a study to investigate how mother’s responses support an infant’s emotional regulation. Twenty-nine mothers and their 4-month-old infants participated in this study. The still-face paradigm was used to examine maternal interactive styles and infant’s ability of emotion regulation. They found that infants of more emotionally available mothers were more likely to use the mother’s return as a support to regulate their emotion, such as show low avoidance and resistance and high attention seeking. The result suggested that responsive, involved parental environment could facilitate infants’ ability to regulate emotion.

In addition, several studies explored the influence of parental autonomy support on young children’s self-regulatory development. Grolnick, Kurowski, McMenamy, Rivkin, and Bridges (1998) conducted a study to examine parents’ strategies to regulate child’s distress. 140 mothers and their toddlers participated this study. Mothers were taught to use active or passive strategies, such as active game-like engagement, redirection of attention, reassurance, following, focus on desired object, and physical comfort behaviors. The result showed the mother who used more active strategies would cause the children greater distress. In other word, if parents leave children more room for autonomy, children are more likely to regulate their emotion. The result suggested that parents’ autonomy support can facilitate toddlers’ ability to regulate emotion.

Moreover, the research of parental influence also goes beyond Baumrind’s (1967, 1971) authoritative and authoritarian parting styles (As cited in Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). For example, Roberts (1999) conducted a study to investigate parents’ responses to the emotional distress of their children and evaluate the relation between parents’ response and preschool children’s competence. 150 families and their preschoolers participated in this study. The result indicated that preschool children whose parents were authoritative (e.g., both warm and demanding) had high competence. However, these pressing children showed effective emotion control only in a short term. According to the longitudinal data of this study, parents’ tolerant responses to children’s distress predicted children’s increased prosocial behavior two-and –a-half years later. Although it is hard to categorize tolerant responses as a controlling or not controlling parenting style, this study showed parents’ tolerant responses was an important factor to facilitate children’s emotional regulation (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002).

Behavior self-regulation. The development of behavioral regulation has been explained in different ways. From the perspective of behaviorists, the development of behavior self-regulation means to learn strategies (e.g., reinforcement) for controlling impulses (Bronson, 2000). From the developmental perspective, behavioral self-regulation is a developmental process and there are different characteristics in different development stages. In early years, baby and young child’s behavior is mainly regulated by the aids from caregivers (Kopp, 1982). Thus, children’s compliance is an important regulated behavior. Parpal and Maccoby (1985) conducted a study to investigate the effects of three mother-child interactive conditions on the child’s compliance. Thirty-nine mothers and their preschool children participated in this study. The 39 mother-child pairs were divided into three groups: (a) responsive condition, (b) non-interactive condition, and (c) free play condition. The responsive mothers were trained to encourage their children to direct the interaction during the play session. The result indicated that the children in the responsive group showed high compliance to their mothers’ instruction. It suggested that there is a positive relation between mothers’ autonomy support and children’s regulated behavior.

Moreover, Kochanska, Aksan, and Koenig (1995) suggested young child’s committed compliance can be viewed as a more meaningful self-regulated behavior because making commitments is a person’s internal process but not environmental controlling. Therefore, Kochanska, Aksan, and Koening (1995) conducted a longitudinal study to assess the relation between preschoolers’ committed compliance and their internalization. Since it was an extension of their earlier study of 103 toddlers and their mothers, they used the same subject in this study. The result indicated there is a positive association between mother-child shared positive affect and committed compliance. Children who accepted their mothers’ agenda by their own will showed evidence of higher internalization. On the contrary, children who responded to their mothers’ control without commitments showed evidence of lower internalization.

Based on the sociocultural theory, Winsler, Diaz, McCarthy, Atencio, and Cabay (1999) conducted a study to examine the mother-child scaffolding and verbal self-regulation among behaviorally a-risk preschoolers. Forty preschoolers were divided into behaviorally at-risk and a control group. Children and their mothers were asked to complete a puzzle task together. During the process, verbal and nonverbal components of mother-child interaction were videotaped and coded. The result showed that the mothers in the behaviorally at-risk group were more likely to increase negative control and decrease praise when they worked with their children. When these at-risk children worked individually, they were more likely to use more overt, task-relevant private speech. It suggested that there was less scaffolding in mother-child interaction of the behaviorally at-risk group. Besides, children’s ability of behavioral self-regulation was undermined when they worked individually. Based on sociocultural theory, scaffolding means that parents will provide a structured environment to facilitate child competence and allow children to initiate. Therefore, this study suggested the importance of parental autonomy support and responsive environment for regulating young child’s behavior.

Winslers et al (1999) research showed the importance for parents to identify young children who were at risk and provide scaffolding. However, not all the parents understand the strategies. Can parents be trained to teach their child to regulate behavior? Marchant, Young, and West (2004) explored this issue by conducting a study to examine the effects of parenting strategies on children’s compliance at home. Four 4-year-old child and their parents participated this study. A parent coach was hired to train parents the following strategies: direct teaching, effective praise, instructional praise, and corrective teaching. Then parents implemented these strategies to teach their children to be complaints. The results showed the successfulness of parents in teaching their children the compliance skills. It also indicated that the more frequently parents apply these skills, the more compliance the children increase. The strategies in this study, such as direct teaching, praise, and corrective teaching are all elements of a responsive environment. Therefore, this study also showed the importance of responsive parental environment in self-regulation.

Conclusions

In the past decades, there is wealthy literature about self-regulation in young children. The research reveals that children begin to show basic regulatory ability at the first year of life and then keep developing this capacity during the toddlerhood and preschool years. Both children’s inborn characteristics and environmental factors might increase or undermine the development of self-regulation in young child. Since child cannot live alone in the world, in most cases, family is the first and the most important environmental context that child experienced. Therefore, parents play an important role in young child’s self-regulatory development. The finding of research strongly supports that children’s self-regulation of behavior and emotion are promoted by involved and responsive parenting style. In addition, parental tolerate emotional expression and autonomy support also have profound positive influence on children’s self-regulatory development.

Literature reviewed reveals parent-child relation is not only in one direction. There is a mutual interaction between parents and children. Furthermore, there are triadic reciprocal interactions among child’s inborn characteristics, parenting styles, and environmental factors.

Additionally, early intervention strategy is an important issue in this field. Based on research, parents can be trained to change their parenting style and use adaptive strategies to facilitate child’s emotional and behavioral regulation. Child’s emotion and behavior also can be regulated by parents’ adaptive strategies.

Implications

According to the above conclusion, the following further research is suggested. First, on the child’s side, more studies need to be done in exploring the link among early temperament, self-regulatory development, and parent-child interaction. Second, on the parents’ side, more research should be conducted in exploring the parents’ responsiveness to the child, for example, parents’ personal factors that can enhance the parent-child mutual interaction. Third, on the educators’ side, further research should be done in exploring intervention strategies that help parents and teachers to create responsive, involved, structured and autonomy supportive environment. Moreover, the research of general regulation skills should be narrow down to specific regulatory capacities, such as motor control and self-regulation skills in literacy development. Hopefully, through the future research, parents can have a better understanding about their child’s self-regulatory development, and feasible guidelines can be provided to facilitate young children become successful self-regulators.

References

Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York: The

Guilford Press.

Calkins, S.D. & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Toddler regulation of distress to frustrating events:

Temperamental and maternal correlated. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 379-395. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from PsycINFO database.

Ge, X., Gonger, R.D., Cadoret, R.J., & Neiderhiser et al. (1996). The developmental interface

between nature and nurture: A mutual inference model of child antisocial behavior and

parent behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574-584.

Grolnick, W.S. & Farkas, M. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-regulation.

In Bornstein, M. H. (Ed), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 5: Practical issues in parenting, (pp.

89-110). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Grolnick, W.S., Kurowski, C.O., McMenamy, J.M., Rivkin, I., & Bridges, L. (1998). Mothers’

strategies for regulating the toddlers’ distress. Infant Behavior and Development, 21, 437-450. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from PsyINFO database.

Kochanska, G.., Aksan, N., & Koenig, A.L. (1995). A longitudinal study of the roots of

preschoolers’ conscience: Committed compliance and emerging internalization. Child Development, 66, 1752-1769.

Kogan, N., & Carter, A. (1995). Mother-infant reengagement following the still-face: The role of

maternal emotional availability in infant affect regulation. Infant Behavior and Development, 19, 359-369. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from PsyINO database.

Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental view. Developmental

Psychology, 18, 199-214.

Lee, C. L., and Bates, J. E. (1985). Mother-child interaction at age two years and perceived

difficult temperament. Child Development, 56, 1314-1325.

Marchant , M, Young, K. R., West, R. P. (2004). The effects of parental teaching on compliance behavior of children. Psychology in the Schools, 41, 337-350. Retrieved June 26, 2004, from Psyinfo database.

McCaBe, L. A., Cunnington, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004) The development of

self-regulation in young children. In R. H. Baumeister, & K. D. Vohs, (Eds), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications, (pp.340-356). New York: The Guilford Press.

Parpal, M. and Maccoby, E. E. (1985). Maternal responsiveness and subsequent child

compliance. Child Development, 56, 1326-1334.

Roberts, W. (1999). The socialization of emotional expression: Relations with children’s competence. Developmental Psychology, 23, 415-422. Retrieved June 26, 2004, from Psyinfo database.

Spinrad, T.L., Stifter, C.A., Donelan-McCall, N., & Turner, L. (2004). Mothers' regulation

strategies in response to toddlers' affect: Links to later emotion self-regulation. Social

Development, 13(1), 40-55. Retrieved June 25, 2004, from PsyINFO database.

Winsler, A., Diaz, R., McCarthy,, E. Aencio, D., and Chabay, L. (1999) Mother-child interaction,

private speech, and task performance in preschool children with behavior problems.

Journal of Child Psychology and Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 891-904. Retrieved June

26, 2004, from Psyinfo database.

Zimmerman, B.J. (1989). A social cognitive view of self-regulated academic learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 329-339.