20 Emotion & Self-Regulation
Learning Objectives
- Describe infant emotions, self-awareness, stranger wariness, and separation anxiety.
- Explain how we learn to regulate our behaviors.
- Explain paths to successful aging, including the activity, socioemotional selectivity, and selective optimization with compensation theories.
Infant Emotions
At birth, infants exhibit two emotional responses: Attraction and withdrawal. They show attraction to pleasant situations that bring comfort, stimulation, and pleasure, and they withdraw from unpleasant stimulation such as bitter flavors or physical discomfort. At around two months, infants exhibit social engagement in the form of social smiling as they respond with joy to those who engage their positive attention (Lavelli & Fogel, 2005).
Social smiling becomes more stable and organized as infants learn to use their smiles to engage their parents in interactions. Pleasure is expressed as laughter at 3 to 5 months of age, and displeasure becomes more specific and differentiated as fear, sadness, or anger between ages 6 and 8 months. Anger or frustration is often expressed in reaction to being prevented from obtaining a goal, such as a toy being removed (Braungart-Rieker et al., 2010). In contrast, sadness is typically the response when infants are deprived of a caregiver (Papousek, 2007). Fear is often associated with the presence of a stranger, known as stranger wariness, or the departure of significant others known as separation anxiety. Both appear sometime between 6 and 15 months after object permanence has been acquired. Further, there is some indication that infants may experience jealousy as young as 6 months of age (Hart & Carrington, 2002).
Emotions are often divided into two general categories: Basic emotions, such as interest, happiness, anger, fear, surprise, sadness and disgust, which appear first, and self-conscious emotions, such as envy, pride, shame, guilt, doubt, and embarrassment. Unlike primary emotions, secondary emotions appear as children start to develop a self-concept and receive social instruction on when to feel such emotions. The situations in which children learn self-conscious emotions varies from culture to culture. Individualistic cultures teach us to feel pride in personal accomplishments, while in more collective cultures children are taught to not call attention to themselves, unless you wish to feel embarrassed for doing so (Akimoto & Sanbinmatsu, 1999).
Facial expressions of emotion are important regulators of social interaction. In the developmental literature, this has been investigated under the concept of social referencing; that is, the process whereby infants seek out information from others to clarify a situation and then use that information to act (Klinnert et al., 1983). To date, the strongest demonstration of social referencing comes from work on the visual cliff. In the first study to investigate this concept, Sorce et al. (1985) placed mothers on the far end of the “cliff” from the infant. Mothers first smiled to the infants and placed a toy on top of the safety glass to attract them; infants invariably began crawling to their mothers. When the infants were in the center of the table, however, the mother then intentionally displayed an expression of fear, sadness, anger, interest, or joy. The results were clearly different for the different facial expressions; no infant crossed the table when the mother showed fear; only 6% did when the mother showed anger, 33% crossed when the mother showed sadness, and approximately 75% of the infants crossed when the mother expressed joy or interest.
Other studies provide similar support for facial expressions as regulators of social interaction. Experimenters displayed facial expressions of neutral, anger, or disgust toward babies as they moved toward an object and measured the amount of inhibition the babies showed in touching the object (Bradshaw, 1986). The results for 10- and 15-month olds were the same: Anger produced the greatest inhibition, followed by disgust, with neutral the least. This study was later replicated using joy and disgust expressions, altering the method so that the infants were not allowed to touch the toy (compared with a distractor object) until one hour after exposure to the expression (Hertenstein & Campos, 2004). At 14 months of age, significantly more infants touched the toy when they saw joyful expressions, but fewer touched the toy when the infants saw disgust.
Emotional self-regulation
Emotional self-regulation refers to strategies we use to control our emotional states so that we can attain goals (Thompson & Goodvin, 2007). This requires effortful control of emotions and initially requires assistance from caregivers (Rothbart et al., 2006). Young infants have very limited capacity to adjust their emotional states and depend on their caregivers to help soothe themselves, referred to as co-regulation. Caregivers can offer distractions to redirect the infant’s attention and comfort to reduce the emotional distress. As areas of the infant’s prefrontal cortex continue to develop, infants can tolerate more stimulation. By 4 to 6 months, babies can begin to shift their attention away from upsetting stimuli (Rothbart et al, 2006). Older infants and toddlers can more effectively communicate their need for help and can crawl or walk toward or away from various situations (Cole et al., 2010). This aids in their ability to self-regulate. Temperament also plays a role in children’s ability to control their emotional states, and individual differences have been noted in the emotional self-regulation of infants and toddlers (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).
In older children, emotional self-regulation refers specifically to an individual’s ability to recognize and name how they are feeling, and to express their emotions constructively. Adaptive emotion regulation involves staying in touch with how you are genuinely feeling while at the same time making intentional decisions about how you are going to express those feelings. Three- and four-year-olds learn new ways of expressing their feelings verbally. They also learn how to cope with negative emotions in ways that make themselves feel better—they put their heads down to reduce sensory input that may be overwhelming or unpleasant, they talk out loud to reassure themselves that things will be okay, and they recalibrate their goals or desires to match the options that are available to them, rather than to continue asking for something they cannot have (Thompson & Goodvin, 2007). These strategies, and others, reduce the frequency and severity of tantrums, feelings of loneliness, and other unpleasant emotional responses. They can also help children remain calm when they are very excited or happy.
The same cognitive processes related to self-control and executive function (response initiation, response inhibition, delayed gratification, effortful control, and cognitive flexibility) are responsible for regulating children’s emotions. However, caregivers can help facilitate adaptive behavior regulation by labeling their child’s emotions, using goal-focused language (e.g., want, need, don’t like) in everyday conversations, by validating children’s goals and preferences as real and important, prompting thought about emotion (e.g., “why is the turtle sad?”), by explaining prosocial strategies that allow everyone in a given transaction to have their goals and preferences taken into consideration (e.g. by taking turns or sharing), continuing to provide alternative activities/distractions, and by being patient. Caregivers who use such strategies and respond sensitively to children’s emotions tend to have children who are more effective at emotion regulation, are less fearful and fussy, more likely to express positive emotions, easier to soothe, more engaged in environmental exploration, and have enhanced social skills in the toddler and preschool years. Compared with children with poor behavioral regulation skills, those who learn adaptive behavioral and emotional regulation strategies learn more, like school better, and are disciplined less frequently. They are also less anxious and stressed, more empathetic, and get along better with parents, teachers, and peers (Chang et al., 2003; Colman et al., 2006; Eisenberg et al., 2005; Morris et al., 2011; Raikes et al., 2007; Rothbart et al., 2011).
Watch It: Talking About Feelings
Here you have a little clip of a young child talking about his feelings. It may seem a little staged (or edited) but it’s great to see such a young one in touch with those complex things we call emotions.
Behavioral Self-Regulation
One of the places that the developmental task of initiative vs. guilt is negotiated involves preschoolers’ struggles to learn to control their behaviors and emotions. Behavioral self-regulation refers broadly to the self-control individuals use to modify their actions. Sometimes, behaviors need to be modified to so that they are socially appropriate to the context (e.g., minding parents or following preschool rules), and sometimes so that they better meet an individual’s own goals (e.g., getting a fort built or joining a pretend game). Adaptive behavioral regulation involves staying in touch with your genuine goals while at the same time making intentional decisions about the actions you are going to show in service of those goals.
Self‐regulation of behavior refers to both:
- “Do” regulation: The performance of actions desired by others that we don’t really want to do (“Put away your toys”), and
- “Don’t” regulation: Stopping ourselves from doing something we really want to do (“Don’t eat that cookie!”).
During toddlerhood, we see the start of behavioral self-regulation, and it is one of the central tasks of early childhood, but these processes take many years to fully develop. Executive function refers to self-regulatory processes, such as the ability to inhibit a behavior or cognitive flexibility, that enable adaptive responses to new situations or to reach a specific goal. Executive function skills gradually emerge during early childhood and continue to develop throughout childhood and adolescence. Like many cognitive changes, brain maturation, especially the prefrontal cortex, along with experience influence the development of executive function skills. As executive function improves, children become less impulsive (Traverso et al., 2015). Children show higher executive function skills when parents are warm and responsive, use scaffolding when the child is trying to solve a problem, and provide cognitively stimulating environments (Fay-Stammbach et al., 2014).
When do children start self-regulating and what affects how it develops?
Children start regulating their behaviors in infancy, beginning with physiological regulation and consistency in patterns of behavior, such as sleeping and eating. However, as infants move into toddlerhood, they are faced with the challenge of regulating their behavior as it relates to others in social situations. This type of self-regulation is typically not seen with any degree of consistency until a child’s second year. However, the capacity to self- regulate may develop earlier or later depending on:
- Developmental progress in other areas, such as cognition and working memory, which help children become aware of what constitutes acceptable social behavior.
- The child’s temperament, both reactivity and effortful control.
- The quality of parent-child interactions.
- The quality of the general home and/or school (day-care) environment.
Why is self-regulation important?
Being good at behavioral self-regulation (compared to having difficulty regulating one’s behavior) is associated with numerous positive outcomes for children, including:
- More success in the transition to school and better academic achievement once they start school.
- Higher levels of social competence, as seen in greater success developing school-based peer relationships.
- Fewer problems with externalizing behaviors such as anger and impulsivity.
- Higher levels of pro-social behaviors as children move from infancy into toddlerhood and early childhood, and increases in prosocial behavior throughout childhood.
In the now classic “Marshmallow Test” (Mischel et al., 1972) children are confronted with the choice of a small immediate reward (a single marshmallow) and a larger delayed reward (several marshmallows). Walter Mischel and his colleagues over the years have found that the ability to delay gratification at the age of four predicted better academic performance and health later in life (Mischel, et al., 2011).
Internalization: How do self-regulation and compliance develop?
The developmental trajectory for self-regulation can be investigated by directly observing the nature and frequency of children’s compliant behaviors. Compliance, simply stated, is a child’s cooperation or “going along with” the rules and standards of behavior for their immediate environment (e.g., home or school). As a child’s ability to self-regulate develops, so does the nature of compliant behavior. Let’s use getting ready to eat a meal as an example:
- When self-regulated behavior is beginning to emerge, compliant behavior requires a high degree of caregiver support: A very young child will need assistance with hand washing, putting on a bib, and getting seated.
- Compliance needs less support as self-regulation continues to develop. A child of two may be able to perform these tasks with less or no assistance, but will likely require a reminder and perhaps direct supervision to do them.
- Compliance needs very little direct support as children develop more and more self-regulatory skills.
- Self-regulatory competence: An older child will be able to get ready for a meal without prompting or assistance.
In other words, as a child develops the ability to self-regulate their behavior, the nature of compliance shifts from assisted, externally motivated behavior to independent, internally motivated behavior. The development of independent, internally motivated compliance is referred to as “internalization” and represents a child’s acceptance and understanding of, and willingness to behave in accordance with, the rules and standards of their environment.
Social and Emotional Competence
Social and personality development is built from social, biological, and representational influences. These influences result in important developmental outcomes that matter to children, parents, and society: a young adult’s capacity to engage in socially constructive actions (helping, caring, sharing with others), to curb hostile or aggressive impulses, to live according to meaningful moral values, to develop a healthy identity and sense of self, and to develop talents and achieve success in using them. These are some of the developmental outcomes that denote social and emotional competence.
These achievements of social and personality development derive from the interaction of many social, biological, and representational influences. Consider, for example, the development of conscience, which is an early foundation for moral development.
Conscience consists of the cognitive, emotional, and social influences that cause young children to create and act consistently with internalized standards of right and wrong (Kochanska, 2002). It emerges from young children’s experiences with parents, particularly in the development of a mutually responsive relationship that motivates young children to respond constructively to the parents’ requests and expectations. Biologically-based temperament is involved, as some children are temperamentally more capable of motivated self-regulation (a quality called effortful control) than are others, while some children are more prone to the fear and anxiety that parental disapproval can evoke. The development of conscience is influenced by having a good fit between the child’s temperamental qualities and the ways parents communicate and reinforce behavioral expectations.
Conscience development also expands as young children begin to represent moral values and think of themselves as moral beings. By the end of the preschool years, for example, young children develop a “moral self” by which they think of themselves as people who want to do the right thing, who feel badly after misbehaving, and who feel uncomfortable when others misbehave. In the development of conscience, young children become more socially and emotionally competent in a manner that provides a foundation for later moral conduct (Thompson, 2012).
Theories of Successful Aging
Psychologists and sociologist have long wondered how people manage to age successfully, and many theories have been put developed that highlight the keys to successful aging. We examine five: (1) Activity theory; (2) Continuity theory; (3) Socioemotional selectivity theory; (4) Selective optimization with compensation; and (5) Developmental self-regulation theory.
- Developed by Havighurst and Albrecht in 1953, activity theory addresses the issue of how persons can best adjust to the changing circumstances of old age–e.g., retirement, illness, loss of friends and loved ones through death, and so on. In addressing this issue, they recommend that older adults involve themselves in voluntary and leisure organizations, child care and other forms of social interaction. Activity theory thus strongly supports the avoidance of a sedentary lifestyle and considers it essential to health and happiness that the older person remains active physically and socially. In other words, the more active older adults are the more stable and positive their self-concept will be, which will then lead to greater life satisfaction and higher morale (Havighurst & Albrecht, 1953). Activity theory suggests that many people are barred from meaningful experiences as they age, but older adults who continue find ways to remain active can work toward replacing lost opportunities with new ones (Nilsson et al., 2015).
- Continuity theory suggests as people age, they continue to view the self in much the same way as they did when they were younger. An older person’s approach to problems, goals, and situations is much the same as it was when they were younger. They are the same individuals, but simply in older bodies. Consequently, older adults continue to maintain their identity even as they give up previous roles. For example, a retired Coast Guard commander attends reunions with shipmates, stays interested in new technology for home use, is meticulous in the jobs he does for friends or at church, and displays mementos from his experiences on the ship. He is able to maintain a sense of self as a result. People do not give up who they are as they age. Hopefully, they are able to share these aspects of their identity with others throughout life. Focusing on what a person is still able to do and pursuing those interests and activities is one way to optimize and maintain self-identity.
- The Socioemotional Selectivity Theory focuses on changes in motivation for actively seeking social contact with others (Carstensen, 1993; Carstensen, Isaacowitz & Charles, 1999). This theory proposes that with increasing age, our motivational goals change based on how much time we have left to live. Rather than focusing on acquiring information from many diverse social relationships, as adolescents and young adults tend to do, older adults focus on the emotional aspects of relationships. To optimize the experience of positive affect, older adults actively restrict their social life to prioritize time spent with emotionally close significant others. In line with this theory, older marriages are found to be characterized by enhanced positive and reduced negative interactions and older partners show more affectionate behavior during conflict discussions than do middle-aged partners (Carstensen, Gottman, & Levenson, 1995). Research showing that older adults have smaller networks compared to young adults, and tend to avoid negative interactions, also supports this theory.
- Selective Optimization with Compensation is a strategy for improving health and well being in older adults and a model for successful aging. It is recommended that seniors select and optimize their best abilities and most intact functions while compensating for declines and losses. This means, for example, that a person who can no longer drive, is able to find alternative transportation, or a person who is compensating for having less energy, learns how to reorganize the daily routine to avoid over-exertion. Perhaps nurses and other allied health professionals working with this population will begin to focus more on helping patients remain independent by optimizing their best functions and abilities rather than simply treating illnesses. Promoting health and independence are essential for successful aging.
- Developmental Self-regulation Theory is a dual-process model that could have been based on St. Augustine’s serenity prayer. On the one hand, is primary control, or the strength and courage to take action to change the things that can be changed. This includes a sense of self-efficacy to take action needed to make lifestyle changes or undergo treatments that optimize functioning, such as a healthy diet, exercise, medical treatments (like taking one’s insulin or cataract surgery), or adopting outside aids like a cane or walker. The second process is called accommodation, and it involves the grace to accept the things that cannot be changed. This attitude of willing acceptance includes understanding, gratitude for times past, and a focus on the positive things that still remain. Such accommodation can be contrasted with furious resentment or depressed resignation to the losses of aging. In fact, some researchers argue that depression in old age is often due, not to the losses of control aging inevitably entails, but from an inability to accommodate, that is, to relinquish activities and goals that are no longer feasible.
Watch It: Let’s End Ageism
This TED Talk defines ageism and discusses the impacts of ageist thinking and structures, as well as ways to disrupt ageism.
References (Click to expand)
Akimoto, S. A., & Sanbinmatsu, D. M. (1999). Differences in self-effacing behavior between European and Japanese Americans: Effect on competence evaluations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 159-177.
Bradshaw, D. (1986). Immediate and prolonged effectiveness of negative emotion expressions in inhibiting infants’ actions (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley.
Braungart-Rieker, J. M., Hill-Soderlund, A. L., &Karrass, J. (2010). Fear, anger reactivity trajectories from 4 to 16 months: The roles of temperament, regulation, and maternal sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 46, 791-804.
Carstensen, L. L. (1993). Motivation for social contact across the life span: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 1992: Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 209–254). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Carstensen, L. L., Gottman, J. M., & Levensen, R. W. (1995). Emotional behavior in long-term marriage. Psychology and Aging, 10, 140–149.
Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking time seriously: A theory of socioemotional selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165–181.
Chang, L., Schwartz, D., Dodge, K. A., & McBride-Chang, C. (2003). Harsh parenting in relation to child emotion regulation and aggression. Journal of Family Psychology, 17(4), 598-606. http://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.17.4.598
Cole, P. M., Armstrong, L. M., & Pemberton, C. K. (2010). The role of language in the development of emotional regulation. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.). Child development at intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 59-77). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Colman, R. A., Hardy, S. A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L. (2006). Early predictors of self‐regulation in middle childhood. Infant and Child Development, 15(4), 421-437.
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2005). Associations of emotion‐related regulation with language skills, emotion knowledge, and academic outcomes. New directions for child and adolescent development, 2005(109), 109-118.
Fay-Stammbach, T., Hawes, D. J., & Meredith, P. (2014). Parenting influences on executive function in early childhood: A review. Child Development Perspectives, 8(4), 258-264.
Hart, S., & Carrington, H. (2002). Jealousy in 6-month-old infants.Infancy, 3(3), 395-402.
Hertenstein, M. J., & Campos, J. J. (2004). The retention effects of an adult’s emotional displays on infant behavior. Child Development, 75(2), 595–613.
Havighurst, R. J., & Albrecht, R. (1953). Older people.
Klinnert, M. D., Campos, J. J., & Sorce, J. F. (1983). Emotions as behavior regulators: Social referencing in infancy. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.),Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (pp. 57–86). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Kochanska, G. (2002). Mutually responsive orientation between mothers and their young children: A context for the early development of conscience. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11(6), 191-195.
Lavelli, M., & Fogel, A. (2005). Developmental changes in the relationships between infant attention and emotion during early face-to-face communications: The 2 month transition. Developmental Psychology, 41, 265-280.
Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., & … Shoda, Y. (2011). ‘Willpower’ over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation.Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 6(2), 252-256. https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq081
Mischel, W., Ebbesen, E. B., & Zeiss, A. R. (1972). Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 204–218.
Morris, A. S., Silk, J. S., Morris, M. D., Steinberg, L., Aucoin, K. J., & Keyes, A. W. (2011). The influence of mother–child emotion regulation strategies on children’s expression of anger and sadness. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 213.
Nilsson, H., Bülow, P.H., Kazemi, A. (2015). Mindful sustainable aging: Advancing a comprehensive approach to the challenges and opportunities of old age. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 11(3), https://www.doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v11i3.949.
Papousek, M. (2007). Communication in early infancy: An arena of intersubjective learning. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 258-266.
Raikes, H. A., Robinson, J. L., Bradley, R. H., Raikes, H. H., & Ayoub, C. C. (2007). Developmental trends in self‐regulation among low‐income toddlers. Social Development, 16(1), 128-149.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.). Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99-116). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 113.
Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I. & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation. In M. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.) Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development (pp. 3338-357). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Rothbart, M. K., Sheese, B. E., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2011). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation in early life. Emotion Review, 3(2), 207-213.
Sorce, J. F., Emde, J. J., Campos, J. J., & Klinnert, M. D. (1985). Maternal emotional signaling: Its effect on the visual cliff behavior of 1-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 21, 195–200.
Thompson, R. A. (2012). Whither the preconventional child? Toward a life‐span moral development theory. Child development perspectives, 6(4), 423-429.
Thompson, R. A., & Goodvin, R. (2007). Taming the tempest in the teapot. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.).Socioemotional Development in the Toddler Years: Transitions and Transformations (pp. 320-342). New York: Guilford.
Traverso, L., Viterbori, P., & Usai, M. C. (2015). Improving executive function in childhood: Evaluation of a training intervention for 5-year-old children. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00525
Licenses & Attributions (Click to expand)
CC Licensed Content
- “Lifespan Development: A Psychological Perspective, Second Edition” by Martha Lally and Suzanne Valentine-French is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0
- Lifespan Development by Lumen Learning is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
- Child Growth and Development by College of the Canyons, Jennifer Paris, Antoinette Ricardo, and Dawn Rymond and is used under a CC BY 4.0 international license
- “Behavioral and Emotional Regulation” by Ellen Skinner & Eli Labinger, Portland State University is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
Media Attributions
- smiling infant is licensed under a Public Domain license
- Mirror_baby © roseoftimothywoods is licensed under a CC BY (Attribution) license
- Let’s end ageism by TED is licensed CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0
All Rights Reserved Content
4-year-old has heart-to-heart with his mom about how to process his feelings is licensed All Rights Reserved and is embedded here according to YouTube terms of service.