This chapter presents findings on the self-regulation of five-year-olds in the United States. It describes how children’s scores in inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory relate to individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early childhood education and care participation.
Early Learning and Child Well-being in the United States
Chapter 4. Results of the self-regulation assessments in the United States
Abstract
The importance of self-regulation development
Self-regulation describes the mental processes that allow individuals to focus their attention, remember instructions and handle multiple tasks successfully. These skills allow the brain to filter out distractions, prioritise tasks and control impulses. This ability to regulate and manage reactions and impulses is essential for personal and professional success (Diamond, 2013[1]; Eisenberg, Spinrad and Eggum, 2010[2]; McClelland et al., 2015[3]).
The brain functions that make up self-regulation include the capacity to use inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory – among other skills – to manage thoughts and actions (Zelazo, Blair and Willoughby, 2016[4]). Together, these three components of self-regulation are referred to as executive function. They describe the ability to direct and sustain short-term attention, inhibit impulse responses, revise initial plans and retrieve rules from memory.
Self-regulation skills are strong predictors of later health, education and labour-market outcomes
The development of self-regulation skills in early childhood is associated with a wide range of outcomes later in life. These include facilitating the transition into – and success in – school (Blair and Raver, 2015[5]; McClelland et al., 2007[6]; Morrison, Cameron and McClelland, 2010[7]), higher academic achievement in adolescence, better labour-market outcomes as adults – including in employment and earnings – and better health outcomes (Duckworth, Quinn and Tsukayama, 2012[8]; Tangney, Baumeister and Boone, 2004[9]).
Self-regulation skills are important for a child’s transition to and participation in school (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]; Neuenschwander et al., 2012[11]). Starting school is often a time of major change in the physical surroundings and people – including both other children and teachers/staff – that children are accustomed to. It also presents a new set of learning expectations and routines to follow (Dockett and Perry, 2001[12]). Children must manage competing stimuli to navigate classroom activities. Self-regulation skills facilitate the learning of new concepts and allow children to engage successfully in classroom activities. These skills also allow them to interact productively with their teachers and peers while managing their own responses (Garon, Bryson and Smith, 2008[13]).
A child’s ability to self-regulate is associated with the development of social-emotional, literacy and numeracy skills (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]). For example, working memory (Raghubar, Barnes and Hecht, 2010[14]), mental flexibility and inhibition (Clark, Pritchard and Woodward, 2010[15]) are associated with the development of pre-arithmetic, simple and more complex mathematical skills. These skills allow children to better integrate information they receive in the classroom. They play an important role in academic achievement through late childhood and adolescence (Best, Miller and Naglieri, 2011[16]; Duncan et al., 2007[17]).
Children with more developed self-regulation skills in childhood are more likely to have better long-term health outcomes (Caspi et al., 1998[18]; Daly et al., 2015[19]; Moffitt et al., 2011[20]), including lower rates of obesity in adolescence (Evans, Fuller-Rowell and Doan, 2012[21]) and lower levels of anxiety and depression (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]; Buckner, Mezzacappa and Beardslee, 2009[22]). Children and adolescents with more developed self-regulation skills are also less likely to use drugs or receive a criminal conviction (Ayduk et al., 2000[23]; Caspi et al., 1998[18]; Duckworth, Tsukayama and May, 2010[24]; Moffitt et al., 2011[20]).
Children’s environments influence their development of self-regulation skills
A combination of genetic and environmental factors shape self-regulation skills (Bridgett et al., 2015[25]; McClelland et al., 2015[3]). Children exposed to poverty, low economic status, abuse or neglect in their home environment are more likely to display deficits in their self-regulation skills than children living in more enabling environments (Noble, Norman and Farah, 2005[26]; Raver, Blair and Willoughby, 2013[27]).
Adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress can significantly impair the self-regulation development of children. Exposure to adverse home environments can limit their opportunities to develop their self-regulation skills. Negative early experiences, including multiple and chronic environmental stressors, can cause structural changes in the neural connections of the areas of the brain that control self-regulation (Nelson et al., 2007[28]; McEwen, Nasca and Gray, 2016[29]). Children exposed to cumulative risks are also more likely to have parents who do not provide them with opportunities to practise their self-regulation skills (Wachs, Gurkas and Kontos, 2004[30]; Fuller et al., 2010[31]) .
Disparities in socio-economic background are associated with differences in the physical structure and functioning of the parts of the brain that control self-regulation (Hackman and Farah, 2009[32]). The functioning of the prefrontal cortex in children from low socio-economic status backgrounds who are exposed to chronic environmental stressors, for example, is similar to that of individuals with damage to the prefrontal cortex (Kishiyama et al., 2009[33]).
The impact of confounding factors – such as housing instability – on self-regulation is also more pronounced for young children from low socio-economic backgrounds (Ziol-Guest and McKenna, 2014[34]). The number of times a child changes homes, for example, is associated with lower scores on assessments of inhibition as well as numeracy and letter identification (Schmitt, Finders and McClelland, 2015[35]).
Emotionally positive parenting, an encouraging home environment and high-quality early childhood education and care experiences enable the development of self-regulation skills
Self-regulation skills are malleable. Adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress impede the development of self-regulation skills. Similarly, positive home environments and early childhood education and care (ECEC) experiences promote these skills.
Emotionally positive parent-child relationships contribute to self-regulation skills across the early years. Parenting styles that include clear and consistent rules and expectations encourage the positive development of self-regulation skills (Blair and Raver, 2012[36]). For example, parenting styles that focus on children’s autonomy within set limits predict stronger self-regulation in children than parenting styles focused on compliance (Bernier, Carlson and Whipple, 2010[37]).
Organised and predictable home environments provide children with a context where they can develop their self-regulation skills (McClelland et al., 2018[38]). Interactions between children and their parents and caregivers facilitate the regulation of emotions and behaviour. These interactions help children understand their emotions and express them more productively. This, in turn, allows children to regulate their responses to distracting stimuli in their environment (Heatherton and Wagner, 2011[39]).
As with the home environment, structured and predictable environments in ECEC programmes are important for children’s self-regulation, engagement and academic scores (Ponitz et al., 2009[40]). Stimulating learning environments and positive interactions with teachers and peers enable children to develop self-regulation skills.
The International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS) directly assessed the self-regulation skills of inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory
Although the precise definition of which skills and processes make up self-regulation varies across studies and disciplines (Booth, Hennessy and Doyle, 2018[41]), self-regulation skills are highly integrated and bidirectional (Anderson and Reidy, 2012[42]). Completing everyday tasks requires adequate development in all of the interdependent parts.
A large body of literature has emphasised a number of key self-regulation skills (Diamond and Lee, 2011[43]; Garon, Bryson and Smith, 2008[13]). These have mostly centred on the influence of inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory skills on later outcomes (McClelland et al., 2010[44]). These three skills together are often referred to as executive function. Executive function skills make up the cognitive component of self-regulation. Chapter 5 of this report will cover children’s social-emotional development.
Accordingly, IELS directly assessed the cognitive aspects of self-regulation and defines self-regulation in the direct assessment as: 1) inhibition – the ability to control impulses and reactions; 2) mental flexibility – the ability to shift between rules according to changing circumstances; and 3) working memory – the ability to retain and process information (Figure 4.1).
Figure 4.1. The three key components of self-regulation in IELS
IELS directly measured self-regulation skills in children through developmentally appropriate and engaging activities
IELS explored how children’s early learning experiences – including their individual characteristics, home learning environments, ECEC participation and their families’ socio-economic contexts – relate to their development of self-regulation. Each of the skills that make up self-regulation in IELS was measured using a single task, consisting of a number of different items. There was, therefore, a separate task to measure inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory (Table 4.1). Audio and engaging illustrations guided the children through these three activities on a tablet under the supervision of a study administrator.
Table 4.1. The three skills assessed in the self-regulation domain
Inhibition
The inhibition activity assessed a child’s ability to inhibit a learned response in favour of an alternative response. The assessment introduced the child to an image and asked them to touch a button on the screen whenever this image appeared. The assessment then introduced the child to a visually similar image and asked them to touch a different button whenever the new image appeared. In sum, the task required the child to respond differently to each of two very similar images, presented one after another in a pre-determined but unpredictable sequence. Their ability to touch the different button whenever the new image appeared reflected their ability to inhibit their learned response.
Mental flexibility
The mental flexibility activity assessed a child’s ability to respond to changing rules during the activity. The assessment introduced the child to two distinct animals and asked them to touch a shape on the screen depending on which animal appeared. The assessment then introduced a new rule where the child was asked to touch the alternative shape when each animal appeared. Their ability to adapt to the new rule and not persist in applying the original rule indicated their mental flexibility.
Working memory
The working memory activity assessed a child’s ability to recall short visual sequences. The child was introduced to a visually distinct zebra placed in one of three rows on a bus. The other two rows on the bus were occupied by elephants. The child was then asked to remember in which of the three rows the zebra was seated and touch the corresponding row in a following image.
The assessment was divided into several sections of increasing levels of difficulty involving more rows to remember. If the child did not complete the higher difficulty tasks, the assessment automatically proceeded to the next section.
IELS assessed how children’s self-regulation relates to their individual and family characteristics and their upbringing and early experiences
This chapter presents the scores of the IELS direct assessments of the inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory of children in the United States. The chapter details how children’s self-regulation skills relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and ECEC experiences.
Children’s self-regulation abilities were measured directly through the assessments. Indirect information on their self-regulation development was also collected through questionnaires administered to the children’s parents and educators. Parents and educators were asked to assess each child’s self-regulation development, defined as whether the child is attentive, organised and in control of their actions.
This chapter presents the results of both the direct assessment of children’s self-regulation and how parents and educators perceived children’s overall self-regulation development. It highlights the similarities and differences between the US scores and those in England and Estonia throughout.
Self-regulation skills of five-year-olds in the United States
On average, five-year-olds in the United States score relatively highly for inhibition but less so for mental flexibility and working memory
On average, five-year olds in the United States were 21 points above the overall mean of participating countries (500 points) on inhibition (521). They were 23 points below the overall mean on mental flexibility (477) and 36 points below the mean on working memory (464).
The average inhibition scores in the United States were higher than those in England and similar to those in Estonia. Average mental flexibility and working memory scores in the United States were lower than those in England and Estonia. There was, on average, about a 36-point difference between the mental flexibility scores of children in England and those in the United States. Similarly, there was a 52-point difference between the working memory scores of children in England and children in the United States. The difference in the mental flexibility scores of children in the United States and those in Estonia was 34 points. The difference in the working memory scores of children in the United States and children in Estonia was 57 points.
The spread between the average scores of the bottom quartile and the top quartile in the United States was greater for working memory (141 points) than it was for inhibition (121 points) or mental flexibility (114 points). The spread in inhibition scores was about the same across the three countries. The spread in mental flexibility scores in the United States was smaller than in England or Estonia, meaning that the differences in scores between the top and bottom quartiles in the United States is smaller than in the other two countries. The spread of working memory scores between the bottom quartile and the top quartile in the United States was similar to the spread in Estonia but larger than the spread in England (Figure 4.2).
Figure 4.2. Distribution of self-regulation scores, United States
Note: Graph produced using the first plausible values. For more information on the use of plausible values in the study, please consult the IELS Technical Report.
The distribution of inhibition scores in the United States was generally to the right of the overall mean of participating countries, reflecting the United States’ higher average scores on inhibition. The mental flexibility scores of most US five-year-olds were to the left of the overall mean. There was a wider distribution in the working memory scores of five-year-olds, although this was close to bell-shaped with a centre to the left of the overall mean of 500.
Parents in the United States were more likely than educators to report their child as developing above-average self-regulation skills
When asked to rate their five-year-olds’ level of self-regulation development, parents were more likely than educators to report their children’s development as above average and less likely to report it as below average (Figure 4.3). Parents and educators may have assessed children’s self-regulation development differently partly because children behave differently in a home environment than in a classroom environment. Educators may also have more experience assessing the relative level of children’s development given that, among other factors, they have more children to compare them to.
Figure 4.3. Self-regulation development as reported by parents and educators, United States
Individual characteristics and self-regulation scores
The inhibition and working memory scores of girls are higher than those of boys, but there are no significant differences in mental flexibility scores between boys and girls
Children’s individual characteristics influence their early learning outcomes. In the United States, the gender gap in IELS scores was statistically significant for inhibition (10 points) and working memory (20 points), with girls scoring higher than boys for both skills (Figure 4.4). The difference between boys’ and girls’ mental flexibility scores was not statistically significant, implying that the development of mental flexibility skills is at about the same level for both at the age of five. The gender difference in inhibition and working memory scores in the United States was consistent with the pattern observed for emergent literacy. It was also consistent with the perceptions of parents and educators.
Figure 4.4. Inhibition and working memory scores by gender, United States
Note: The gender differences in the mean scores are statistically significant. The gender difference in inhibition scores at the 75th percentile is statistically significant. The gender difference in working memory scores at the 25th percentile is statistically significant.
Similar gender gaps were observed in Estonia, where the mental flexibility scores of girls were also higher than those of boys. In England, the gender gap on inhibition scores was reversed, with boys in England scoring higher than girls. There were no differences in the scores of boys and girls on mental flexibility or working memory in England.
Parents and educators tend to rate the self-regulation skills development of girls more highly than those of boys
When asked to report on their perception of children’s self-regulation development, both parents and educators in the United States were more likely to report that girls had developed above-average self-regulation than boys. Parents were also more likely than educators to report that their children’s general self-regulation as above average and less likely to report it as below average, irrespective of the gender of the child (Figure 4.5).
Figure 4.5. Self-regulation development as reported by parents and educators, by gender, United States
Both parents and educators were more likely to perceive boys as having below-average self-regulation skills than girls, with educators significantly more likely to do so. Educators perceived about 40% of boys as developing below average compared to about 20% of girls. Girls scored higher than boys in the IELS direct assessments of inhibition and working memory, although there were no significant differences in their scores on mental flexibility.
Children’s self-regulation scores are related to their age in the United States
Children’s self-regulation skills tend to improve as they grow older. Children aged five years and one month in the United States had significantly lower mean self-regulation scores than those aged six years, with gaps of 79 points for inhibition, 77 points for mental flexibility and 112 points for working memory (Figure 4.6).1
Figure 4.6. Self-regulation scores by age of child in months, United States
The average difference in the inhibition and mental flexibility outcomes of children between the ages of five years one month and six years were similar across the three countries participating in IELS. The average difference in working memory outcomes between the oldest and youngest children was similar in both England and the United States, but smaller in Estonia.
Five-year-olds who experienced difficulties in earlier life have lower average self-regulation scores
IELS asked parents to indicate whether their child had ever experienced a number of difficulties that might affect their early learning. These difficulties included low birth weight or premature birth, learning difficulties (such as speech or language delay or intellectual disabilities) and social, emotional or behavioural difficulties.
The results indicate that experiencing learning difficulties earlier in life was significantly related to the self-regulation scores of five-year-olds in the United States, across all three domains (Figure 4.7). The scores of children who had experienced learning difficulties were 28 points lower on inhibition, 37 points lower on mental flexibility and 52 points lower on working memory on average than children who had not experienced learning difficulties after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties and socio-economic status.
Figure 4.7. Self-regulation scores by experience of early difficulties, United States
Score-point differences between children who have and have not experienced an early difficulty, after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties, and before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
Experiencing social, emotional or behavioural difficulties early in life also had a negative relationship to children’s working memory scores at five years old. The working memory scores of children who had experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties were 48 points lower than those who had not after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties and socio-economic status. Having low birth weight or prematurity was not related to the assessed self-regulation skills of five-year-olds in the United States.
The relationship between having experienced learning difficulties and self-regulation scores was different for boys and girls. The inhibition and working memory scores of boys who had experienced learning difficulties were significantly lower than those of boys who had not after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties and socio-economic status. Scores did not differ for girls. Similarly, the relationship between having experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties and self-regulation scores was different for boys and girls. The mental flexibility and working memory scores of girls who had experienced difficulties were significantly lower than those of girls who had not. Scores did not differ for boys.
Home and family backgrounds and self-regulation scores
A child’s parents and primary caregivers play an important role in all aspects of their upbringing, from determining the context of their home environment to their activities outside the home. The home and family environments that children grow up in shape their early learning opportunities and experiences.
Family background and socio-economic status were associated with children’s self-regulation scores in IELS. The children of parents with higher levels of education had higher mean scores on the IELS inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory assessments. Similarly, the self-regulation scores of children in the second and top socio-economic quartiles were significantly higher than those of children in the bottom quartile in the United States.
Children’s self-regulation scores increase with the socio-economic status of their family
The differences in the scores of children from families in the lowest socio-economic quartile and those in the top quartile were 33 points, on average, for inhibition, 61 points on average for mental flexibility and 66 points for working memory (Figure 4.8). There was no difference, however, in the inhibition and working memory scores between the bottom and third socio-economic quartiles (Figure 4.8). The relation of socio-economic status to self-regulation scores in the United States was similar for boys and girls.
Figure 4.8. Self-regulation scores by socio-economic quartile, United States
Parents and educators are more likely to report a child as developing above-average self-regulation skills if s/he is from a higher socio-economic family
Both parents and educators were more likely to perceive children’s self-regulation development as above average if they were from families with a higher socio-economic status (Figure 4.9). Children from a family in the bottom socio-economic quartile were more likely to be considered below average for self-regulation skills by their parents and educators.
Figure 4.9. Self-regulation development as reported by parents and educators, by socio-economic quartile, United States
There were no differences in the perception of the self-regulation development of children in the top and second quartiles of socio-economic status by their parents and educators. Children in those quartiles were equally likely to be perceived as developing above-average self-regulation skills. Children from families in the second quartile were also less likely to be perceived as developing below-average self-regulation skills by their parents and educators than children in the top quartile.
Children with a home language other than English score lower in mental flexibility
The mental flexibility scores of children from homes where at least one parent mainly spoke a language other than English were lower than those of children in homes where both parents (or the sole parent) primarily spoke English, after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 4.10). The scores of children whose parent or parents primarily spoke English were 17 points higher than their counterparts, after accounting for socio-economic status.2 The relationship between home language and mental flexibility outcomes was similar for boys and girls.
Figure 4.10. Mental flexibility scores by home language, United States
Score-point differences between children with a language other than English as a home language and those with English as a home language, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
There are no differences in the self-regulation skills of five-year-olds of different racial/ethnic backgrounds after accounting for socio-economic status and home language
The self-regulation scores of children in the United States showed limited variation across different racial/ethnic backgrounds. No significant differences existed between the self-regulation scores of White, Black and Asian children and children of two or more races after accounting for socio-economic differences.
After accounting for the primary language of their parents, there were no significant differences between the mental flexibility scores of Hispanic and White children.
Parents of different racial/ethnic backgrounds perceive differences in their child’s self-regulation skills
Educators, on average, perceived only slight differences in the level of children’s self-regulation skills based on their racial/ethnic backgrounds (Figure 4.11). Educators were equally likely to perceive children of different racial/ethnic backgrounds as having below average or above average self-regulation
Figure 4.11. Self-regulation development as reported by parents and educators by race/ethnicity, United States
There were larger differences among parents than among educators in this area (Figure 4.11). While the parents of White and Hispanic children were more likely than educators to perceive their children as having above-average self-regulation skills, the gap was smaller than among other ethnicities and races. Over 40% of the parents of Asian children and about 40% of the parents of Black children perceived their child to have above-average self-regulation skills. Similarly, less than 10% of Asian children were perceived by their parents as having below average self-regulation skills.
Children’s immigration backgrounds are not associated with differences in self-regulation scores after accounting for socio-economic status and home language
As with home language, the mental flexibility scores of children from immigrant backgrounds3 differed from those of the children of parents born in the United States. While this may be explained by cultural factors, a combination of differences in primary language, the need to adapt to a new education system and socio-economic differences – among other factors – may play a more decisive role.
Mental flexibility scores were lower for children from immigrant backgrounds than they were for the children of parents who were born in the United States. There was a 26-point gap between children with an immigrant background and those without. There was no significant difference in the development of inhibition and working memory skills between both groups of children.
After accounting for both socio-economic status and home language, there was no significant difference the mental flexibility scores of children with and without an immigrant background. This result suggests that the combination of socio-economic status and home language explain the observed differences between the two groups.
Mental flexibility scores are higher among the children of mothers who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree
In the United States, the children of mothers with at least a bachelor’s degree had significantly higher mental flexibility scores even after accounting for household income. For example, the gap in mental flexibility scores between the children of mothers who held least a master’s degree and those who only had a lower secondary education was 28 points (Figure 4.12).
Figure 4.12. Mental flexibility scores by mother’s educational attainment, United States
Score-point differences between children whose mothers have completed various education levels higher than ninth grade and those of mothers who have completed up to ninth grade, before and after accounting for household income
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
Maternal education at any level below a bachelor’s degree, however, was not related to mental flexibility scores after accounting for income. Similarly, maternal education was not related to children’s inhibition or working memory scores in the United States.
The association between a mother’s educational attainment and her child’s self-regulation scores was most pronounced in England. Any level of maternal education above lower secondary predicted higher mental flexibility and working memory scores among five-year-olds in England after accounting for household income. In Estonia, the working memory outcomes of the children of mothers with at least a bachelor’s degree were higher than those of the children whose mothers did not have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The relation between a mother’s educational attainment and her child’s mental flexibility scores did not vary between boys and girls.
Children in single-parent households have similar self-regulation scores to children in two-parent households after accounting for socio-economic status
Before accounting for the socio-economic status of a child’s family, the gap in self-regulation scores between two-parent households and single-parent households was 31 points for mental flexibility and 35 points for working memory. After accounting for socio-economic status, there was no significant difference in the self-regulation scores of children from one-parent and two-parent households. This finding underlines the relation between socio-economic status and the self-regulation scores of five-year-olds in the United States.
Children with up to two siblings have higher working memory scores than children with no siblings after controlling for socio-economic status
On average, the number of siblings a child had was related to their working memory scores in IELS in the United States. The working memory scores of children with one sibling were 25 points higher than for those with no siblings after accounting for socio-economic status, while those with two siblings scored 34 points more than only children (Figure 4.13).
Figure 4.13. Working memory scores by number of siblings, United States
Score-point differences between children with one or more siblings and those with no siblings, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The relationship between number of siblings and self-regulation scores was different for boys and girls. Boys with siblings had similar scores to boys without siblings across all three subdomains. The working memory scores of girls with two siblings were significantly higher than those of girls with no siblings after accounting for socio-economic status.
The relationship between number of siblings and self-regulation scores was also different for the three countries participating in IELS. The number of siblings was not related to the self-regulation skills of children in England. In Estonia, the inhibition scores of children with one or two siblings were significantly higher than those of children with no siblings after accounting for socio-economic status. Similarly, the working memory outcomes of children with one sibling were significantly higher than for those with no siblings in Estonia.
Home learning environment and self-regulation scores
Children’s homes are their first opportunity to learn, develop and grow. Their home learning environments and the quality of their interactions with their parents are important factors in their self-regulation development. This report considers a number of elements of the home environment: the number of children’s books in the home; how often children are read to and take part in special activities outside the home; and the level of parental involvement in activities taking place at the school. Additionally, parents were asked whether their child used a digital device and, if so, the frequency of that usage.
The number of children’s books in the home is predictive of a child’s working memory scores
The number of children’s books that children had access to in their homes – including those from a public or school library – predicted their inhibition and working memory scores in the United States. The inhibition scores of children with access to 51-100 children’s books in their home were higher than those of children with 10 or fewer after accounting for socio-economic status. The inhibition scores of children with any number of books above or below that range, however, did not differ from those of children with fewer than 10 books. Similarly, the number of books that children had access to in their homes was not related to their mental flexibility scores.
Children with access to 26-100 children’s books in their home had higher working memory scores than those with 10 books or fewer after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 4.14). The working memory scores of children with fewer than 26 books, however, did not differ from those of children with fewer than 10 books.
Figure 4.14. Working memory scores by number of children’s books in the home, United States
Score-point differences between children with access to more than 10 children’s books in the home and those with access to 10 or fewer, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The relationship between the number of books in the home and children’s inhibition and working memory outcomes was different for girls and boys. The inhibition and working memory scores of boys with more than 10 books were not significantly different from those of boys with fewer books after accounting for socio-economic status. The scores of girls, however, were related to the number of books they had access to in the home.
The self-regulation scores of children who are read to at least once a week are not significantly different from those of children who are read to less often
How often a child is read to from a book or e-book did not predict their self-regulation scores in the United States after accounting for socio-economic status. These results did not differ by the gender of the child.
While the act of being read to is related to the development of a child’s emergent literacy skills, the quality of the reading experience may be more important for self-regulation development. Direct interactions between a child and the reading material – either in the interactivity of the reading material or the reading experience with their caregiver – may be more important for self-regulation scores than the act of being read to.
Neither special or paid activities outside the home nor parental involvement in school activities predict the self-regulation outcomes of children in the United States
How frequently children attended a special or paid activity outside of the home – such as a sports club or dance, swimming and language lessons – did not predict their self-regulation scores in the United States after accounting for socio-economic status. Similarly, the self-regulation scores of children whose parents were considered by educators to be only slightly involved in school activities or not involved at all were not significantly different from those of the children whose parents were strongly or moderately involved. These results did not differ by the gender of the child.
Five-year-olds who use a digital device at least once a week have higher mental flexibility scores than those who hardly ever do
The frequency with which children used digital devices – including a desktop or laptop computer, tablet device or smartphone – was significantly related to their mental flexibility scores in IELS after accounting for socio-economic status.
Children who used such devices at least once a week but not every day scored 36 points more for mental flexibility than children who never or hardly ever used them after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 4.15). Children who used a device every day scored 37 points higher than those who hardly or never used one. However, there was no significant difference in the scores of children who used devices less frequently than once a week. The use of digital devices was also not significantly related to their inhibition or working memory scores.
Figure 4.15. Mental flexibility scores by use of digital devices, United States
Score-point differences between children who use a digital device once a month or more frequently and those who never use a device, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The use of digital devices related to the mental flexibility scores of girls and boys differently. There was no difference in the mean mental flexibility scores of boys who used a digital device and those who did not, regardless of how often they used them. Girls who used a device at least once a week scored higher, on average, than those who do not. These sorts of differences may be driven by the different activities that boys and girls engage in when using a device and their relation to self-regulation skills.
The observed difference in outcomes based on digital device use may be partly attributable to the assessment of a child’s self-regulation skills through a tablet-based direct assessment. However, the frequency of use that predicted different self-regulation outcomes differed by participating countries. Using a device every day predicted higher inhibition and mental flexibility outcomes in Estonia, after accounting for socio-economic status. In the England, using a device once a week but not daily predicted higher working memory scores. The inconsistency with which digital device use predicted self-regulation outcomes implies that differences are more likely to be specific to a child within a given country, rather than to a tablet-based direct assessment. While the use of a digital device in and of itself may not influence children’s scores, the type of activities that children used them for might have enabled them to develop their mental flexibility skills.
Attending early childhood education or care and self-regulation scores
In the United States, 80% of the five-year-olds in IELS had attended an ECEC setting (ISCED 01 or 02)4 before starting school. Attendance varied significantly by the socio-economic status of a child’s household, with 73% of children in the lowest quartile having attended compared to 91% of children in the top quartile. Attendance did not vary significantly by racial or ethnic group and boys and girls were equally likely to have attended.
Children who do and do not attend ECEC do not differ in their self-regulation, but age and intensity of attendance are related to self-regulation scores
As outlined in Chapter 3, the mean emergent literacy and emergent numeracy scores of children in the United States who attended an ECEC setting were significantly higher than those who did not. Average self-regulation scores, however, did not significantly differ between five-year-olds who had attended any ECEC setting and those who had not.
This result held for both boys and girls as well as for children within individual socio-economic quartiles. This implies that, even for children from families in the bottom or top socio-economic quartile, there was no relationship between attending an ECEC setting and self-regulation scores at the age of five.
While overall attendance was not significantly related to self-regulation scores, the number of hours per week that children attended an ECEC setting was related to their self-regulation scores as five-year-olds, after accounting for socio-economic status. For example, five-year-olds who had attended ECEC for more than 20 hours a week at the age of one had working memory scores that were 25 points higher than children who did not attend at that age. Children who attended a setting for less than 20 hours at the age of four scored 16 points more for mental flexibility than children who did not attend as four-year-olds.
Several factors may contribute to the lack of an observed relationship between overall ECEC attendance and self-regulation outcomes. Attending an ECEC setting on its own may not influence a child’s self-regulation scores. The quality of activities that children engage in at the setting and the quality of their interactions with their early learning educators may be related their early development. IELS did not collect information on the quality of children’s ECEC settings.
Assessing the combined effects of child, family and ECEC characteristics on self-regulation scores
Analysing how the variables that predict self-regulation outcomes presented in this chapter also relate to one another through a regression model gives insight into which factors contribute most to the observed outcomes. Such results do not provide a causal explanation of which policy levers lead to changes in a child’s self-regulation outcomes; however, they do provide a better understanding of which variables independently predict self-regulation outcomes.
Variables that were significantly related to self-regulation scores were included in regression models to assess how well they explained variation in the scores. Variables that were not significant in the models were removed one at a time5 until all remaining variables were significantly related to the outcome.
Inhibition scores are related to children’s gender, the socioeconomic status of their family and their ECEC attendance
A child’s gender significantly predicts their inhibition scores in the United States. When accounting for all other factors in the regression model, boys’ scores were about 11 points below those of girls (Table 4.2).
Table 4.2. Results of the multiple regression model of inhibition, United States
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance. PE = parameter estimate. SE = standard error.
* The intercept is the estimated inhibition score of a child in the reference category of each categorical variable, aged 5 years 6 months, and with a mean value for socio-economic status.
Early learning difficulties (e.g., speech or language delay, intellectual disability, etc.) predict children’s inhibition scores. Five-year-olds who experienced learning difficulties earlier in life scored over 23 points below children who had not experienced these difficulties.
The socioeconomic status of a child’s family was also a significant independent predictor of their inhibition scores at age five. The average difference in inhibition scores between a child in the top socioeconomic quartile and that of a child in the bottom quartile was about 27 points.
Attending an ECEC setting before the age of one was a significant predictor of children’s inhibition scores at five years old. The average inhibition score among children who attended an ECEC setting before the age of one was about 11 points higher than those who did not attend.
Mental flexibility scores are related to children’s early learning difficulties and the socio-economic status of their family
Early learning difficulties (e.g., speech or language delay, intellectual disability, etc.) predict children’s mental flexibility scores. Five-year-olds who experienced learning difficulties earlier in life scored over 39 points below children who had not experienced these difficulties (Table 4.3).
Table 4.3. Results of the multiple regression model of mental flexibility, United States
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance. PE = parameter estimate. SE = standard error.
* The intercept is the estimated mental flexibility score of a child in the reference category of each categorical variable, aged 5 years 6 months, and with a mean value for socio-economic status.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family was a significant predictor of mental flexibility scores at the age of five. Children in the bottom quartile were, on average, over 58 points below those in the top quartile.
Working memory scores are related to children’s gender, early experience of difficulties, socio-economic status and ECEC attendance
A child’s gender significantly predicts their inhibition scores in the United States. When accounting for all other factors in the regression model, boys’ scores were about 16 points below those of girls (Table 4.4).
Table 4.4. Results of the multiple regression model of working memory, United States
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance. PE = parameter estimate. SE = standard error.
* The intercept is the estimated working memory score of a child in the reference category of each categorical variable, aged 5 years 6 months, and with a mean value for socio-economic status.
Experiencing early difficulties before the age of five was a significant independent predictor of five-year-olds’ working memory scores. Children whose parents reported they had experienced early learning difficulties scored about 46 points lower for working memory than those whose parents did not after accounting for all other factors in the analysis. Similarly, children who were reported to have experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties scored about 45 points lower than those who had not.
The socioeconomic status of a child’s family was also a significant predictor of their working memory scores at age five. For example, the average difference in working memory scores between a child in the top socioeconomic quartile and that of a child in the bottom quartile was over 55 points.
Attending an ECEC setting before the age of one was a significant predictor of children’s working memory scores at five years old. The working memory score among children who attended an ECEC setting before the age of one was about 13 points higher than those who did not attend.
Summary
The self-regulation skills of inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory may be predictive of children’s future well-being, including how well they do at school and in non-academic activities where concentration and persistence correlate with success. Overall, five-year-olds in the United States scored higher than the IELS mean on inhibition, with similar scores to children in Estonia and higher scores than those in England. The mental flexibility and working memory scores of children in the United States were lower than the scores in England and Estonia.
These results suggest that children in the United States are more likely than those in the other two countries to successfully inhibit their responses when presented with a new set of information. US children, however, are less likely to successfully switch between rules or recall short visual sequences.
Experiencing difficulties earlier in life is related to children’s scores at the age of five. While, low birth weight or premature birth, was not related to the self-regulation skills of five-year-olds in the United States, experiencing learning difficulties earlier in life was significantly related to the self-regulation scores of five-year-olds in the United States across all three self-regulation domains. The self-regulation scores of children who had experienced such difficulties before the age of five were significantly lower than those of children who had not. Experiencing social, emotional or behavioural difficulties before the age of five was also a significant predictor of the working memory scores of five-year-olds in the United States, even after accounting for all factors in the overall regression model.
Five-year-olds from households in higher socio-economic brackets in the United States scored higher than children from low socio-economic backgrounds across the three self-regulation subdomains. The results of the regression analysis at the end of the chapter also suggest that children’s socio-economic background was a significant predictor of their inhibition, mental flexibility, and working memory scores. This implies that children from households with a lower socio-economic status are less likely to successfully resist impulsive responses, switch between rules and recall sequences from memory than children from households with a higher one.
Children’s socio-economic background was a significant predictor of self-regulation outcomes in all participating countries – particularly in relation to mental flexibility and working memory – although the impacts varied by country. Estonia had the smallest differences in children’s skills based on socio-economic status compared to England and the United States. By understanding which policies may help mitigate disadvantage, policy makers and education leaders may be able to achieve outcomes that are more equitable for children.
The number of children’s books that a child has access to in their home – including those from a public or school library – was a significant predictor of their working memory scores in the United States. This also emphasises the importance of reading materials for children’s self-regulation development. The use of electronic devices was also found to be significantly related to their mental flexibility scores in the United States.
The United States is ethnically and racially diverse. In the United States, 52% of children were White, 25% were Hispanic, 11% were Black, 7% were Asian, 4% were two or more races and less than 1% were of another ethnicity. The self-regulation scores of children in the United States showed limited variation by different races and ethnic groups, with no significant differences for children who were White, Black, Hispanic, Asian or two or more races. The study found no relationship between having a parent of an immigrant background and children’s self-regulation outcomes.
References
[42] Anderson, P. and N. Reidy (2012), “Assessing executive function in preschoolers”, Neuropsychological Review, Vol. 22/4, pp. 345-360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11065-012-9220-3.
[23] Ayduk, O. et al. (2000), “Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79/5, pp. 776-792, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.776 (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[37] Bernier, A., S. Carlson and N. Whipple (2010), “From external regulation to self-regulation: Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning”, Child Development, Vol. 81/1, pp. 326-339, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x.
[16] Best, J., P. Miller and J. Naglieri (2011), “Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 21/4, pp. 327-336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2011.01.007.
[10] Blair, C. and R. Peters Razza (2007), “Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten”, Child Development, Vol. 78/2, pp. 647-663, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[5] Blair, C. and C. Raver (2015), “School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 66/1, pp. 711-731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221.
[36] Blair, C. and C. Raver (2012), “Individual development and evolution: Experiential canalization of self-regulation”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 48/3, pp. 647-657, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026472.
[41] Booth, A., E. Hennessy and O. Doyle (2018), “Self-regulation: Learning across disciplines”, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 27/12, pp. 3767–3781, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1202-5.
[25] Bridgett, D. et al. (2015), “Intergenerational transmission of self-regulation: A multidisciplinary review and integrative conceptual framework”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 141/3, pp. 602-654, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038662.
[22] Buckner, J., E. Mezzacappa and W. Beardslee (2009), “Self-regulation and Its relations to adaptive functioning in low income youths”, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 79/1, pp. 19-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014796.
[18] Caspi, A. et al. (1998), “Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 63/3, pp. 424-451, http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2657557 (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[15] Clark, C., V. Pritchard and L. Woodward (2010), “Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 46/5, pp. 1176-1191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019672.
[19] Daly, M. et al. (2015), “Childhood self-control and unemployment throughout the life span: Evidence from two British cohort studies”, Psychological Science, Vol. 26/6, pp. 709-723, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569001.
[1] Diamond, A. (2013), “Executive functions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 64/1, pp. 135-168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
[43] Diamond, A. and K. Lee (2011), “Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old”, Science, Vol. 333/6045, pp. 959-964, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529.
[12] Dockett, S. and B. Perry (2001), “Starting school: Effective transitions”, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Vol. 3/2, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458041 (accessed on 3 July 2019).
[8] Duckworth, A., P. Quinn and E. Tsukayama (2012), “What No Child Left Behind leaves behind: The roles of IQ and self-control in predicting standardized achievement test scores and report card grades”, Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol. 104/2, pp. 439-451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026280.
[24] Duckworth, A., E. Tsukayama and H. May (2010), “Establishing causality using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration predicting achievement From self-control”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 1/4, pp. 311-317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550609359707.
[17] Duncan, G. et al. (2007), “School readiness and later achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/6, pp. 1428-1446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/[0012-1649.43.6.1428].supp.
[2] Eisenberg, N., T. Spinrad and N. Eggum (2010), “Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment”, Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 495-525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208.
[21] Evans, G., T. Fuller-Rowell and S. Doan (2012), “Childhood cumulative risk and obesity: The mediating role of self-regulatory ability”, Pediatrics, Vol. 129/1, pp. e68-e73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3647.
[31] Fuller, B. et al. (2010), “Maternal practices that influence Hispanic infants’ health and cognitive growth”, Pediatrics, Vol. 125/2, pp. e324-e332, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0496.
[13] Garon, N., S. Bryson and I. Smith (2008), “Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134/1, pp. 31-60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31.
[32] Hackman, D. and M. Farah (2009), “Socioeconomic status and the developing brain”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 13/2, pp. 65-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2008.11.003.
[39] Heatherton, T. and D. Wagner (2011), “Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 15/3, pp. 132-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2010.12.005.
[33] Kishiyama, M. et al. (2009), “Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal function in children”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 21/6, pp. 1106-1115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21101.
[6] McClelland, M. et al. (2007), “Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and math skills”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/4, pp. 947–959, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947.
[38] McClelland, M. et al. (2018), “Self-regulation”, in N., H. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Life Course Health Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_12.
[3] McClelland, M. et al. (2015), “Development and self-regulation”, in Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy114.
[44] McClelland, M. et al. (2010), “Self-regulation: integration of cognition and emotion”, in The Handbook of Life-Span Development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001015.
[29] McEwen, B., C. Nasca and J. Gray (2016), “Stress effects on neuronal structure: hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex”, Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 41/1, pp. 3-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.171.
[20] Moffitt, T. et al. (2011), “A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 108/7, pp. 2693-2698, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108.
[7] Morrison, F., C. Cameron and M. McClelland (2010), “Self-regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school”, in Calkins, S. and M. Bell (eds.), Human Brain Development: Child Development at the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12059-011.
[28] Nelson, C. et al. (2007), “Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: The Bucharest early intervention project”, Science, Vol. 318/5858, pp. 1937-1940, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1143921.
[11] Neuenschwander, R. et al. (2012), “How do different aspects of self-regulation predict successful adaptation to school?”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 113/3, pp. 353-371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JECP.2012.07.004.
[26] Noble, K., M. Norman and M. Farah (2005), “Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children”, Developmental Science, Vol. 8/1, pp. 74-87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x.
[40] Ponitz, C. et al. (2009), “A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 45/3, pp. 605-619, https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015365 (accessed on 9 July 2019).
[14] Raghubar, K., M. Barnes and S. Hecht (2010), “Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 20/2, pp. 110-122, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.005.
[27] Raver, C., C. Blair and M. Willoughby (2013), “Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 49/2, pp. 292-304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028343.
[35] Schmitt, S., J. Finders and M. McClelland (2015), “Residential mobility, inhibitory control, and academic achievement in preschool”, Early Education and Development, Vol. 26/2, pp. 189-208, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2015.975033.
[9] Tangney, J., R. Baumeister and A. Boone (2004), “High self-control predicts good adjustment, less pathology, better grades, and interpersonal success”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 72/2, pp. 271-324, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
[30] Wachs, T., P. Gurkas and S. Kontos (2004), “Predictors of preschool children’s compliance behavior in early childhood classroom settings”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 25/4, pp. 439-457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.APPDEV.2004.06.003.
[4] Zelazo, P., C. Blair and M. Willoughby (2016), Executive Function: Implications for Education (NCER 2017-2000), National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
[34] Ziol-Guest, K. and C. McKenna (2014), “Early childhood housing instability and school readiness”, Child Development, Vol. 85/1, pp. 103-113, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12105.
Notes
← 1. While a small number of children in the sample were aged 5 years, 0 months or 6 years, 1 month at the time of the assessment, there were too few of these children to meet reporting standards and so the mean scores of these children are not considered in this section.
← 2. The direct assessment of children was available only in English, and children were not screened for English proficiency.
← 3. Children with a two parents who were born in a country other than the one in which the child participated in IELS, or one parent in single-parent families.
← 4. Defined as a preschool, pre-kindergarten child care or day care in a centre or transitional kindergarten in a public or private preschool, centre or place of worship. Childcare or day care in the child’s home or someone else’s home are not categorised as ISCED settings.
← 5. In order of descending p-value.