Dynamical systems modeling of early childhood self-regulation.

Abstract

Self-regulation can be conceptualized in terms of dynamic tension between highly probable reactions (prepotent responses) and use of strategies that can modulate those reactions (executive processes). This study investigated the value of a dynamical systems approach to the study of early childhood self-regulation. Specifically, ordinary differential equations (ODEs) were used to model the interactive influences of 115 36-month-olds’ executive processes (strategy use) and prepotent responses to waiting to open a gift (desire for the gift and frustration about waiting to open it). Using a pair of coupled second-order ODEs in a non-linear mixed effects framework, the study tested predictions for specific within- and between-child patterns of prepotent response-executive process coupling. Dynamic modeling results articulated the limits of 36-month olds’ strategic efforts. They engaged executive processes when their prepotent responding levels were high, which delayed the resurgence of prepotent responses, but ultimately did not damp prepotent responding over the course of the wait. There was, however, preliminary evidence that the effectiveness of 36-month-olds’ self-regulation depended upon child characteristics. Externalizing behavior problems were associated with more regulatory interference. Temperamental negative affectivity was marginally associated with more regulatory inefficiency. Compared with conventional methods of studying self-regulation, dynamic modeling yielded complementary and unique findings, suggesting its potential.

Toward a Unifying Model of Self‐regulation: A Developmental Approach

“…Surprisingly, most longitudinal studies that assess self‐regulation study it as a predictor, moderator, or outcome, and do not focus on how self‐regulation changes with age. Evidence supports Kopp's () proposition that young children initiate strategic attempts without adult direction, but evidence also indicates that their strategies are effective only momentarily (Buss & Goldsmith, ; Cole et al., ). Being able to tolerate challenges, in more than just a momentary way, is necessary to be ready for school (Blair & Raver, ).…”

“…Second, a dynamic approach can address when and how effective self‐regulation manifests, and the many ways that behavior reveals competence and difficulty. For example, among 36‐month‐olds in one study, EP had momentary influence but not enduring damping of PR (Cole et al., ), and variations in their interplay were associated with particular between‐person differences. The presence of externalizing behavior problems predicted PR damping EP rather than the reverse, and higher temperamental negative affectivity predicted EP amplifying rather than diminishing PR.…”

“…A process‐oriented, dynamic approach can reveal information that standard approaches do not. For example, 36‐month‐olds showed only a momentary decrease in prepotent responding after using a purported regulatory strategy, not more enduring damping of prepotent responding over the course of the task (Cole, Bendezú, Ram, & Chow, ). A dynamic approach offers opportunities to investigate in detail important elements of the development of self‐regulation, such as how and why attempts at strategy use become effective as children age.…”

Age‐related changes in the dynamics of fear‐related regulation in early childhood

“…Importantly, few studies have examined the influence of PR on EP (e.g., Ekas et al., ), and to our knowledge, no study (with the exception of Cole et al., ) has examined the effects of PR on EP while taking into account the effects of EP on PR. The current findings on the influence of PR on EP highlight the importance of using models that capture the bidirectional dynamics of the self‐regulatory process.…”

“…Our approach investigates bidirectional influences of PR and EP, allowing us to ask, for example, whether there are age-related changes in the tendency of PR to interfere with EP effectiveness. Recently, it was shown that for some 3-year-olds, if the level of PR is too high, it can overwhelm EP, regulatory interference (Cole, Bendezú, Ram, & Chow, 2017). In the context of fear, a toddler may freeze and use fewer strategies (Buss & Goldsmith, 1998;Buss, Davidson, Kalin, & Goldsmith, 2004).…”