Bidirectional association between effortful control and intentional self-regulation and their integrative effect on deviant adolescent behaviors

Abstract

Effortful control and intentional self-regulation are two constructs associated with children’s and adolescent self-regulation that have historically been the subject of research in separate fields, where temperament research has primarily focused on effortful control, and positive development research has focused on intentional self-regulation. This study examines the reciprocal relationship between effortful control and intentional self-regulation and discusses how they relate to deviant adolescent behaviors. A total of 599 adolescents from western Taiwan participated in this study, and four waves of data were collected in 2 years. Cross-lagged structural equation models were tested. The results indicate that effortful control has a predominant influence on intentional self-regulation; also, effortful control negatively predicts deviant behavior for boys, whereas intentional self-regulation displays a similar effect for girls.

Keywords

deviant adolescent behaviors effortful control intentional self-regulation

Self-regulation, broadly defined as the process to regulate or change an individual’s emotion, cognition, and behavior (Karoly, 1993), has been implicated in various aspects of developmental function and outcomes in children and adolescents, such as social competence, academic achievement, adjustment, and behavioral problems (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010; Spinrad et al., 2006; Valiente et al., 2011). Self-regulation is a multidimensional construct that involves physiological functioning and complex and intentional thinking processes (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008). To differentiate features of self-regulation, Gestsdottir and Lerner (2008) suggested two forms of self-regulation: organismic and intentional self-regulation. Organismic self-regulation has a constitutional basis and emerges in infancy and childhood. Effortful control, which represents a temperament-based self-regulation, reflects individual differences in the biological and physiological function of control or inhibition (Rothbart & Bates, 2006). In contrast, intentional self-regulation, which refers to the ability to set goals, make plans, and take action for achieving a desired outcome, portrays a long-term self-regulation that incorporates an intention to promote individual development (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008).

Gestsdottir and Lerner (2008) believed that these two forms of self-regulation are related but distinguished from one another and that they must be integrated for adaptive developmental regulation to exist and for the person to thrive across the transition into adolescence and throughout the adult years. Although large amounts of evidence show the implication of each form of self-regulation in developmental outcomes, very few studies investigate how they relate to each other and discuss their conjunctive contribution to developmental outcomes. To clarify these questions, a study with a cross-lagged design is needed. This study examined the bidirectional relationship between effortful control and intentional self-regulation in a two-year longitudinal design and explored their relationship with deviant adolescent behaviors.

Effortful control

Effortful control (EC) is a multidimensional concept that consists of the ability to voluntarily shift attention (attentional control) and inhibit (inhibitory control) or activate (activational control) individuals’ behaviors as necessary to adopt in the environment (Murray & Kochanska, 2002). It appears at the first year of life, progresses steadily between toddlerhood and preschool age, and continues to develop into school-age years and beyond (Lengua, 2006). As a component of temperament, EC is very stable in early childhood and adolescence and shows modest continuity across the lifespan (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). However, this does not mean that EC is immutable. An individual’s environment, particularly early social experiences brought by parents and peers, as well as the child’s internal psychological process, work together to shape its development course (Pérez-Edgar, Taber-Thomas, Auday, & Morales, 2014).

EC is seen as a core skill for the child to both self-regulate and integrate oneself to be adaptive in the large social environment. Studies in preschool- and school-aged children revealed that children who demonstrated better EC skills were better able to regulate their negative emotion (Eisenberg et al., 2007; Eisenberg, Sadovsky, et al., 2005), exhibit higher empathy and prosocial behavior (Diener & Kim, 2004; Valiente et al., 2003), and perform better in academic achievement (Valiente et al., 2011). Children who were not able to inhibit inappropriate behaviors wishfully and shift their attention toward important task demands or focus their attention when necessary tended to display behavioral problems in school, family, and peer contexts (Wang, Eisenberg, Valiente, & Spinrad, 2015).

Lack of EC by children has been consistently linked to external problems in early preschool and school ages, such as aggression, inattention, and hyperactivity – both concurrently and longitudinally (Eisenberg, Sadovsky, et al., 2005; Eisenberg, Zhou, et al., 2005; Valiente et al., 2003, 2006) – as well as antisocial-aggressive behaviors in adolescents (Baglivio, Wolff, DeLisi, Vaughn, & Piquero, 2016; Loukas, Roalson, & Herrera, 2010; Valiente et al., 2011; Wang et al., 2015). DeLisi and Vaughn (2014) indicated that temperament such as EC and negative emotionality “yield the greatest potential for a unified theory of lifelong antisociality and subsequent justice system behavior” (Baglivio et al., 2016, p. 11). Thus, based on previous studies, the present study hypothesized that adolescents with high EC were less likely to relate to deviant behaviors.

Intentional self-regulation

Adolescence is a transition period during which individuals experience a series of changes including physical maturity, increases in complexity of cognition and interpersonal relationship, formulation of a more sophisticated self-identity, and concerns of their personal future (Brandtstädter, 1998). As compared to children, adolescent self-regulation actions encompass an increase in intentions that reflect the adult-like intentional self-regulatory behaviors to promote his or her personal development, such as attaining long-term goals relating to academic, occupational, and social outcomes (Lerner, Freund, De Stefanis, & Habermas, 2001).

The concept of intentional self-regulation (ISR) defined in this study was based on the Selection (S), Optimization (O), and Compensation (C) model proposed by Baltes and his colleagues (SOC, Baltes, 1997; Freund & Baltes, 2002). The SOC model describes three strategies that individuals use to pursue appropriate goals that contribute to their healthy development. Goal selection (S) refers to “how people develop, elaborate, structure, and commit themselves to specific goals” (Gestsdottir, Urban, Bowers, Lerner, & Lerner, 2011, p. 65). Once a goal system is created, individuals act to achieve their goals. Optimization (O) involves the strategies that assist individuals to identify and apply resources in a way that help selected goals become achieved. Compensation (C) involves goal-directed action, but it specifically refers to how individuals act to avoid losses when faced with declining resources (Baltes, 1997; Gestsdottir et al., 2011).

Although the SOC model is intended to explain goal setting and goal pursuit across the life span (Baltes, 1997), researchers have suggested that the SOC model is useful to conceptualize and measure self-regulation in adolescence (Lerner et al., 2001). Studies regarding the application of the SOC model in the population of adolescence generally suggested that intentional self-regulation was inversely associated with sexual risk-taking and problematic behaviors (Raffaelli, Crockett, & Shen, 2005) and positively related to compliance with parents (Liu & Chang, 2016).

More evidence was shown from the 4-H Study of Positive Youth Development (PYD), which is a longitudinal study in the United States. These studies indicated that the SOC concept may not be fully differential until late adolescence, but adolescents with higher global SOC scores were more likely to score high in competence, confidence, character, connection, and caring, and also tended to display lower levels of depression, delinquency, and risk problem behaviors concurrently and longitudinally (Gestsdottir, Lewin-Bizan, von Eye, Lerner, & Lerner, 2009; Gestsdottir et al., 2011). These findings lead us to hypothesize in the current study that adolescents with high ISR are less likely to associate with deviant behaviors.

The relation between effortful control and intentional self-regulation

As Gestsdottir and Lerner (2008) suggested, organismic self-regulation and intentional self-regulation are conceptually overlapped, but these two forms of self-regulation are not identical. ISR is basically a goal-directed behavior that focuses largely on volitional control of complex cognitive process, including planning and problem solving to transform situations in accordance with a desired future state (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007, 2008). In contrast, EC possesses organismic characteristics (e.g., the threshold of responsivity or expression of emotionality) and emphasizes the automatic or nonconscious aspects of emotion processing and reflexive approach-avoidance reactions to stimuli (Blair & Razza, 2007). EC is somewhat under limited control by the person and does not contain intentional efforts of the person to regulate the exchange between his or her individual and context (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007, 2008).

Gestsdottir and Lerner (2008) considered that organismic and intentional self-regulations conjunctively act to influence an individual’s interaction with their environment, and there are bidirectional influences between them. EC appears from infancy and may be particularly important in the developmental tasks of infancy and childhood that are related to physiological and emotional regulations. Instead, ISR is not fully optimized until adolescence, owing to significant changes in brain/cognitive development and increases in social expectation. Scholars generally believe that EC with an intentional component might be a common precursor for the development of ISR (Jensen-Campbell & Graziano, 2005). Gestsdottir, Urban, Bowers, Lerner, and Lerner (2011) further suggested that because people normally have limited control over organismic self-regulation due to its low permeability from automaticity to consciousness (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007, 2008), temperamentally based self-regulation would moderate the function of intentional self-regulation. For example, Nietfeld and Bosma (2003) found that students who were high in impulsivity or reflectivity hindered their flexibility in self-regulation strategies on academic tasks. Likewise, Liu and Chang (2016) indicated that adolescents with higher EC tended to display higher ISR and were more likely to comply with parents’ demands.

On the other hand, ISR with high permeability to consciousness is expected to influence the process of organismic regulation (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007, 2008). Delay of gratification is an example that involves some fundamental process of intentional self-regulation. To attain better rewards, the child must control his or her aspiration and adopt rational strategies to distract his or her attention from the preferred stimulus (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). As the child grows to be an adolescent, delay of gratification becomes more complex and involves long-term forms of ISR. For instance, adolescents might see achieving a college education as a goal, and they may stay home and study instead of socializing with friends. With better capacities for successful ISR, adolescents are able to adjust temperamental or physical attributes with a more mindful form of self-regulation to guide behaviors for obtaining desired outcomes.

Despite theoretical propositions that there are bidirectional associations between adolescent organismic and intentional self-regulation (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007, 2008), to date there is little available empirical support for such a bidirectional link. The integrative approach to these two forms of self-regulation has not been fully articulated (Gestsdottir et al., 2011). Specific components of self-regulation may be exceptionally significant at particular developmental periods (Raffaelli et al., 2005), and it is necessary to understand their systemic intercorrelation during childhood and adolescence or even across the lifespan. As such, longitudinal cross-lagged designs are appropriate to examine between two constructs. The bi-directional associations between these constructs can be examined while also controlling for effects at earlier points in time; meanwhile, the concurrent associations across times can be identified (Curran, Rose, Chassin, Presson, & Sherman, 2000).

Self-regulation and deviant behavior in Chinese society

In collectivistic Chinese societies, self-control is given greater value than in individualistic Western societies (Wang, Qiao, Hong, & Zhang, 2002). The traits of “keji” (conquering one’s individuality) and “zui” (restraint) in Chinese culture are highly valued (Kling, 1985). Interdependence, interpersonal, and group harmony are greatly emphasized, and individuals are expected to restrain personal desires for the benefits and interests of the group (Yang, 1981). Therefore, a lack of self-control is usually considered to be a serious problem in children and adolescents (Ho, 1986)

Besides, earlier studies regarding cultural differences in achievement attribution indicated that as compared to their Western counterparts, Chinese students are more likely to attribute the cause of achievement to effort rather than ability. Chinese students believe that if they spend more time studying and less time on other activities, they will eventually succeed (Hong, 2001). The ascription of effort toward success manifests an encouragement of goal selection, optimization, and compensation. As such, we believe that the global SOC structure observed throughout Western countries can also apply to adolescents in Taiwan.

Furthermore, since self-control is highly valued in Chinese cultural society, starting from the preschool age, Chinese children are required to learn to control or suppress their impulsivity, frustration, and anger because expression of negative emotion or behaviors would harm interpersonal harmony (Ho, 1986; Yang, 1981). Parents and teachers serve as important social support and social controls to facilitate the development of self-control, and such socialization practices contribute to lower levels of aggression in children (Zhou et al., 2007). Children and adolescents in Chinese societies rarely engage in extreme forms of antisocial behaviors (e.g., murder, gang violence, robbery) (Yeh, Tsao, & Chen, 2010), but they will still engage in deviant behaviors (e.g., skipping classes or school, drinking, smoking, theft, fighting) (Tan & Chang, 2013). Similar to findings in Western society, self-control is the key factor that explains adolescent deviant behavior. Additionally, inappropriate parenting, negative school experiences, and delinquent peers were associated with adolescent deviant behavior (Tan & Chang, 2013).

Gender differences in self-regulation and deviant behavior

Studies of self-regulation has indicated that compared to boys, girls tend to display a stronger ability to regulate their attention and inhibit their impulses, and they are better at controlling inappropriate behaviors than boys (Else-Quest, Hyde, Goldsmith, & Van Hulle, 2006). This phenomenon was not only observed in Western countries but in Asian countries as well, including Taiwan, South Korea, and China (Wanless et al., 2013). Furthermore, as self-regulation becomes more complex and intentional in adolescence, girls still outperform boys with respect to goal selection, optimization, and compensation (Gestsdottir et al., 2011). On the other hand, compared to girls, boys are more impulsive, aggressive, and display more risky behavior (Else-Quest et al., 2006; Reynolds & Crea, 2015). They are also more likely to externalize negative emotion (e.g., anger) into aggression (Verona, Reed, Curtin, & Pole, 2007).

Different gender role socialization results in gender differences in self-regulation and deviant behaviors. For example, girls are more likely to be restricted for security reasons, while boys are encouraged to be independent (Gilligan, 1982; Tang, Chua, & Jiaqing, 2010) and have lower family supervision (Mobarake, 2015). Burton Jr, Cullen, Evans, Alarid, and Dunaway (1998) suggested that a lack of opportunity to experience contact with delinquent peers was one of the reasons that explained why female adolescents have lower crime rates. Additionally, girls are expected more than boys to act according to social rules (Davis, 1995). Negative behaviors such as aggression are less acceptable for girls than for boys. Such situations are prevalent in Western cultures as well as in Chinese societies. As mentioned, Chinese are commonly required to self-constrain and comply to social norms, but females are expected to self-constrain even more (Lee & Chung, 1996). However, this greater pressure for girls to be more compliant may bring about more tension and may have led to higher levels of social monitoring (Davis, 1995). This may lead to more practice among girls and therefore a better ability to regulate their behavior.

The current study

The current study used four waves of data from a 2-year longitudinal study to examine how adolescent EC and ISR relate to each other over time and how they contribute to adolescent deviant behaviors among Taiwanese adolescents. Based on the literature and previous studies, we expected that EC and ISR have a positive correlation at each time point and have a bidirectional relation over time. Moreover, EC and ISR would be (individually) negatively associated with deviant adolescent behaviors. Finally, prior research has indicated that girls displayed higher EC and ISR than boys (Else-Quest et al., 2006), and that the relations between ISR and positive development as well as negative behavior (e.g., depression and risk behavior) were more significant for girls than for boys (Gestsdottir et al., 2009, 2011). Therefore, we expected that the bidirectional model with its relation with deviant behavior would be significant, but the relations between two forms of regulation are expected to be stronger for girls than for boys.

Method

Participants

The data for this study was drawn from a project of Family and Adolescent Development. This is a 2-year longitudinal study of adolescent social development that includes adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16 years. Data was collected at four time points (December 2010, June 2011, December 2011, and June 2012), each separated by approximately 6 months. At Wave 1, 786 students were invited to participate in the study, and 747 of them agreed (boys, N = 402; average age = 14.02, SD = 1.53). In the following waves, 677 (average age = 14.51, SD = 1.52) participated at Wave 2, 636 (average age = 15.02, SD = 1.53) participated at Wave 3, and 599 (average age = 15.52, SD = 1.53) remained at Wave 4.

The present study used data of effortful control and intentional self-regulation from W1 to W3 and data of deviant behavior at W1 and W4. Participants competed for all 4 wave assessments (N = 599; N _boys = 317, N _unidentified = 1) were compared with those missing data from any of the time points (N = 148; N _boys = 81). Demographic (father’s education, mother’s education, and parental marriage status), temperamental effortful control (attention, inhibitory control, and inhibitory control), intentional self-regulation, and deviant behaviors were compared. The results of the t test and χ ² test (marital status) indicated that participants missing data (n = 148) differed significantly from those non-missing data (n = 599) on attention (missing, M = 16.66, SD = 3.31; no missing, M = 17.26, SD = 2.25, t [739] = 2.404, p < .01; Cohen’s d = .20) and on deviant behaviors (missing, M = 2.16, SD = 2.55; no missing, M = 1.78, SD = .073, t [736] = 5.36, p < .001; Cohen’s d = .21). The effect sizes of the differences were small (Cohen, 1988). This indicates that the likelihood of the findings being biased by missing data might be trivial. Nevertheless, we still need to be cautious to generalize the results to the other population. Moreover, there was no difference for the father’s education, the mother’s education, and parental marriage status between participants who dropped out after W1 assessment and those who were included in the current sample.

Of 599 participants who were retained in the study, their family structures reported at Wave 1 were as follows: parents living together, 78.6%; parents separated but not divorced, 3.8%; parents divorced, 12.7%; one of parents passed away, 3.3%; unidentified, 1.6%. The parents’ education levels were categorized as follows: 27.6% of the fathers and 24.4% of the mothers had received fewer than 12 years of education; 44.4% of the fathers and 52.6% of the mothers had received 12 years of education; 19.7% of the fathers and 18.2% of the mothers had received 12–16 years of education; 4.2% of the fathers and 1.2% of the mothers had received more than 16 years of education; and 4.1% of the fathers and 3.6% of the mothers had an unidentified education level.

Procedure

Participants were recruited from 10 high schools located in western Taiwan. After the students’ school agreed to allow the students to participate, letters were sent to students and their parents to explain the purpose of the study and invite them to participate. After acquiring student consent and parental permission, the adolescents underwent a series of group measurement sessions at school every 6 months in the spring and fall semesters from 2010 to 2012.

Measure

Effortful control

Adolescents reported on temperament effortful control using the Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire Revised-Chinese Short Version (EATQ-R; Capaldi & Rothbart, 1992) at W1, W2, and W3. The EATQ-R was designed to assess temperament in 9–15-year-old adolescents. The EATQ-R assesses the following dimensions of temperament: activation control, affiliation, attention, fear, frustration, high-intensity pleasure, inhibitory control, perceptual sensitivity, pleasure sensitivity, and shyness. EC consisted of the combined attentional, inhibitory, and activational control subscales (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). The participants were asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“Almost always untrue of you”) to 5 (“Almost always true of you”).

A second-order confirmatory factor analysis with EC as the main construct and attentional control, inhibitory control, and activational control as three sub-constructs showed a good model fit, χ ²(0) = 0, p < .001, RMSEA = .00; SRMR = .00; CFI = 1.00, for three waves, and the factor loadings ranged from .45 ∼ .86 (ps < .001). This indicates a good validity of EC for the Taiwanese sample. The Cronbach’s alphas at W1, W2, and W3 in the current study were .74, .70, and .75, respectively.

Intentional self-regulation

Adolescents reported intentional self-regulation using the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation Questionnaire (Freund & Baltes, 2002) at W1, W2, and W3. The scale was originally developed in English and was later translated into Chinese following the procedure of translation and back-translation. We used the shorter version of this questionnaire that includes nine items (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007). Each of the subscales has two to four items with a forced-choice format. Each item consists of two statements: one describes a behavior reflecting S (selection), O (optimization), or C (compensation), and the other describes a non-SOC-related behavior. Participants were asked to decide which of the statements more closely resembles how they would behave. Participants’ responses that are congruent with the statement of a SOC-related strategy were summed up. The SOC measure has been shown to have good validity among younger populations (Grades 5–10) (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008).

Moreover, Gestsdottir and Lerner (2007) suggest that the SOC measure can be used as a global rather than a differentiated index of ISR among youths. Confirmatory factor analysis with a global factor model across 3 waves indicated a good model fit, χ ²(27) = 72.18 ∼ 102.45, ps < .001, RMSEA = .053 ∼ .068; SRMR = .038 ∼ 045; CFI = .90 ∼ .93. This indicates that the 9-item SOC scale can be applied in the population of Taiwanese adolescents. Cronbach’s alpha for the total scale was .70, .70, and .71 at W1, W2, and W3, respectively.

Deviant behavior

Participants reported their engagement of 17 delinquent behaviors in 1 month prior to the assessment at W1 and W4. These scale items were adapted from the scales used in the studies of Olweus (1989), Hwang and Yang (2002), and Storvoll and Wichstrøm (2002). The 17 items can be divided into four sub-dimensions: theft and vandalism (e.g., stealing money, destroying things); school opposition (e.g., cheating, skipping school, swearing in front of teachers); anti-social activities (e.g., drinking, using illegal drugs, smoking); and violent behaviors (e.g., fighting, threatening others). Participants were asked to respond “Yes” or “No” to the question of whether they had ever committed the antisocial act concerned. The item scores were computed to indicate adolescent deviant behavioral problems. The Cronbach's alpha at W1 and W4 were .71 and .71 respectively.

Results

Descriptive analysis

Table 1 shows the means and differences of the study variables by gender. The gender difference of measured variables was examined by using t tests. As indicated in Table 1, compared to boys, girls displayed lower levels of inhibitory control at W3, t (597) = 2.40, p < .05, deviant behavior at W1, t (591) = 3.84, p < .01, and W4, t (594) = 2.75, p < .01. Bivariate correlations between the variables at four time points are summarized in Table 2. Within each wave and cross waves, attentional control, inhibitory control, and activational control positively correlated with ISR (ps < .05). Deviant behavior at W1 was negatively related to attentional control, inhibitory control, activational control, and intentional self-regulation at W1, W2, and W3 (ps < .05). Deviant behavior at W4 negatively correlated with attentional control, inhibitory control, activational control at W2 and W3 (p < .05) and ISR at W1 and W3 (p < .05). The father’s education at W1 negatively correlated with deviant behavior at W1 (p < .05), while the mother’s education level did not significantly correlate with any of the variables across assessments.

Table 1.

Gender differences in measured variables.

	Boys			Girls
Variables	M	SD	n	M	SD	n	t	Cohen d	95% CI	df
W1 Activational control	16.82	4.15	313	17.11	3.92	280	−.86	.07	[−.94, .37]	591
W1 Attentional control	19.74	3.61	314	19.78	3.17	278	−.13	.01	[−.58, .51]	590
W1 Inhibitory control	17.16	2.92	310	16.80	2.64	274	1.57	.13	[−.09, .81]	582
W1 Intentional self-regulation	6.15	2.25	313	5.96	2.21	277	1.04	.09	[−.17, .55]	588
W1 Deviant behavior	1.70	1.94	317	1.14	1.53	276	3.91***	.32	[.28, .84]	591
W2 Activational control	16.68	3.84	313	17.27	3.63	278	−1.92	.16	[−.20, .01]	589
W2 Attentional control	16.93	3.02	314	16.53	2.73	277	1.70	.14	[−.06, .87]	589
W2 Inhibitory control	19.71	3.27	314	20.05	3.14	277	−1.29	.11	[−.86, .18]	589
W2 Intentional self-regulation	6.33	2.19	311	6.15	2.21	275	.99	.08	[−.18, .54]	584
W3 Activational control	16.51	3.66	318	16.99	3.48	280	−1.61	.13	[-1.05, .10]	596
W3 Attentional control	19.83	3.49	317	20.01	2.96	279	−.65	.06	[−.69, .35]	594
W3 Inhibitory control	17.12	2.86	319	16.58	2.60	280	2.42*	.20	[.10, .98]	597
W3 Intentional self-regulation	5.99	2.22	305	5.86	2.33	276	.67	.06	[−.24, .50]	579
W4 Deviant behavior	1.53	1.91	316	1.14	1.51	280	2.79**	.23	[.12, .67]	594

Note. W1 = Wave 1 (age = 14.02), W2 = Wave 2 (age = 14.51), W3 = Wave 3 (age = 15.02), W4 = Wave 4 (age = 15.52); Scale Range Activational Control = 1–25, Attentional Control = 1–30, Inhibitory Control = 1–25, Intentional Self-Regulation = 0–9, Deviant Behavior = 0–17.

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 2.

Correlations among variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. W1 Father education	–
2. W1 Mother education	.12**	–
3. W1 Activational control	.05	.06	–
4. W1 Attentional control	.06	.06	.57***	–
5. W1 Inhibitory control	−.01	−.02	.43***	.51***	–
6. W1 Intentional self-regulation	.02	.04	.52***	.52***	.38***	–
7. W1 Deviant behavior	−.09*	−.08	−.20***	−.18***	−.19***	−.16***	–
8. W2 Activational control	.05	.07	.67***	.48***	.34***	.44***	−.19***	–
9. W2 Attentional control	.02	.08	.34***	.41***	.49***	.37***	−.22***	.34***	–
10. W2 Inhibitory control	.08	−.01	.50***	.57***	.35***	.45***	−.19***	.61***	.41***	–
11. W2 Intentional self-regulation	.00	.03	.36***	.39***	.30***	.59***	−.12**	.40***	.42***	.43***	–
12. W3 Activational control	.04	.01	.60***	.46***	.32***	.43***	−.20***	.67***	.30***	.52***	.35***	–
13. W3 Attentional control	.03	.04	.52***	.57***	.42***	.47***	−.16***	.49***	.39***	.57***	.44***	.64***	–
14. W3 Inhibitory control	.03	−.01	.31***	.39***	.44***	.35***	−.21***	.34***	.53***	.38***	.32***	.44***	.46***	–
15. W3 Intentional self-regulation	.01	.04	.35***	.38***	.30***	.56***	−.12**	.38***	.32***	.40***	.56***	.45***	.47***	.37***	–
16. W4 Deviant behavior	−.04	−.05	−.06	−.06	−.02	−.08*	.47***	−.14***	−.11*	−.14***	.04	−.19***	−.14***	−.14***	−.10*

Note. W1 = Wave 1 (age = 14.02), W2 = Wave 2 (age = 14.51), W3 = Wave 3 (age = 15.02), W4 = Wave 4 (age = 15.52).

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

The bidirectional relationship between effortful control and intentional self-regulation

The bidirectional relationship between EC and ISR from W1 to W3 was examined. Before modeling, we have conducted several analyses to make sure that EC and ISR are two distinct constructs.¹ Furthermore, we tried several analytic strategies for model analysis.² Ultimately, EC was modeled as a latent variable indicated by attentional control, inhibitory control, and activational control, and the residual variances of the repeated-measures indicators of the latent variables were allowed to covary. ISR and deviant behavior were modeled as observation variables.

We used MPLUS 7.0 (Muthén & Muthén, 2012) to test the cross-lagged model. Requirements for acceptable model fit were a non-significant chi-square statistic, comparative fit indices (CFI) > .95, root mean square errors of approximation (RMSEA) < .06, and standardized root mean square residuals (SRMR) < .08 (West, Taylor, Wu, & Hoyle, 2012). Moreover, because the questionnaires were administrated to participants during class, we used Mplus’s MLR estimator (maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors) because it is more robust to non-independence of the observations. The Chi-square difference tests for nested models were adjusted using Satorra-Bentler scaled chi-square (Satorra & Bentler, 2010).

The results of bidirectional model indicated a good model fit, χ ² (37) = 90.02, p < .001, CFI = .98, RMSEA (90% CI) = .049 (.036 – .062), SRMR = .027. The results indicated that the autoregressive paths of EC and ISR were statistically significant (ps < .01), indicating temporal 6-month stability from W1 to W3. The 6-month interval stability of EC (.81 from W1 to W2 and .89 from W2 to W3) was much stronger than ISR (.49 from W1 to W2 and .35 from W2 to W3). The standardized coefficients of the cross-lagged paths from EC at W1 to ISR at W2 (β = .14, p < .05) and from EC at W2 to ISR at W3 (β = .35, p < .01) were significant. However, the cross-lagged paths from ISR to EC were not significant across three waves (ps >.05). The results revealed that EC and ISR did not have a bidirectional relationship, but EC at a previous wave showed a positive predictive effect of ISR 6 months later. Moreover, the concurrent relationship between EC and ISR were .67, .38, .28 at W1, W2, and W3 (ps < .05), respectively.

To examine whether this model varied by gender, we conducted a multiple-group analysis by comparing the model differences between the model with all paths freely estimated, χ ²(86) = 175.08, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA (90% CI) = .059 (.046–.071), SRMR = .046, and the model with all paths constrained, χ ²(97) = 182.44, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA (90% CI) = .054 (.042–.066), SRMR = .055. After calculating the Chi-square difference, the result showed a non-significant model difference, ▵χ ²(11) = 8.59, p = .34, indicating that the model structure did not vary between male and female adolescents. Figure 1 shows the reciprocal model with equal constrains on reciprocal paths, autoregressive paths, and concurrent paths between EC and ISR.

Figure 1.

The cross-lagged model of effortful control and intentional self-regulation (girls, N = 280; boys, N = 319).

The relationships among effortful control, intentional self-regulation and deviant behavior

To further understand how EC and ISR correlated with deviant behavior, we included the paths from EC at W3 to deviant behavior at W4 and the path from ISR at W3 to deviant behavior at W4 into the previous cross-lagged model while controlling deviant behavior at W1. Since the father’s education level correlated with deviant behavior at W1, we used the father’s education with deviant behavior at W1 and W4 as a covariate to control the possible continuing influence of the father’s education on adolescent deviant behavior at W4. The model fit the data adequately: χ ²(69) = 125.77, p < .001, CFI = .98, RMSEA (90% CI) = .038 (.027–.048), SRMR = .033. Similar to the model patterns of the previous cross-lagged model, the autoregressive paths of EC and ISR were significant (ps < .01), and the cross-lagged paths from EC to ISR from W1 to W2 (β = .17, p < .01) and from W2 to W3 (β = .35, p < .01) were significant. There were also positive concurrent relationships between EC and ISR within each wave (r = .67, .36, .28 at W1, W2, and W3, respectively, ps < .01). Nevertheless, the paths from EC at W3 to deviant behavior at W4 was marginally significant (β = −.09, p = .055) and the path from ISR at W3 to deviant behavior at W4 was not significant (β = .01, p = .85).

To examine whether this model varied by gender, a multiple-group analysis was conducted. Because previous cross-lagged model regarding the relations between EC and ISR across time did not differ between boys and girls, we set equal constraints on the reciprocal paths, autoregressive paths, and concurrent relation paths between EC and ISR, and estimated the relation between EC at W3 and deviant behavior at W4 and the relation between ISR at W3 and deviant behavior at W4 by controlling fathers’ education and deviant behavior at W1. The results showed a good model fit, χ ²(163) = 265.05, p < .001, CFI = .97, RMSEA (90% CI) = .047 (.036–.057), SRMR = .058. In this model, there was a significant relationship between EC and deviant behavior for boys (β = −.16, p < .05), and a significant relationship between ISR and deviant behavior for girls (β = −.13, p < .05). To assess whether there is a gender difference between these two paths, an equality constraint was further added on the path from EC at W3 to deviant behavior at W4. After calculating the chi-square difference, the result showed a significant model difference, ▵χ ²(1) = 4.73, p < .05, suggesting that there was a gender difference on this path. Alternately, an equality constraint was added the path from ISR at W3 to deviant behavior at W4. The model difference was significant, ▵χ ²(1) = 8.43, p < .01, showing that the path parameter was different between boys and girls (see Figure 2). In addition, for girls, although EC at W3 did not relate to deviant behavior at W4, EC at W2 showed an indirect relationship with deviant behavior by ways of ISR at W3. However, the bootstrap analysis indicated that this mediational relationship was marginally significant (Z = −.02, p = .052, 95% CI = −.05 ∼ .00).

Figure 2.

Gender differences in the cross-lagged model of effortful control and intentional self-regulation and their relationships with deviant behaviors (girls, N = 272; boys, N = 302).

Discussion

The main aims of this investigation were to determine bidirectional relationships between EC and ISR over time for adolescents, and to examine their individual relation with adolescent deviant behaviors. Longitudinal data were collected for four waves over a 2-year period from a sample of Taiwanese adolescents, and a cross-lagged design was used to investigate this relation. The results indicate that EC displayed a predominant—rather than a bidirectional—influence on ISR. The relationship between EC and deviant behavior was significant for adolescent boys, while the relationship between ISR and deviant behavior was significant for adolescent girls.

Contrary to our hypotheses that there is a reciprocal relation between EC and ISR, the results indicated that EC and ISR was positively correlated at each wave, but their relation with each other was not bidirectional; instead, EC continued to display a principal influence on ISR. The positive correlation between EC and ISR across times provided additional support that these two constructs are intercorrelated (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2008). As looking at the 6-month interval stability, EC was found to be more highly stable than ISR. Previous research has indicated that EC tended to become stabilized by middle childhood (Eisenberg, Zhou, et al., 2005). Nevertheless, studies suggest that although adolescents show aspects of all three SOC components in their repertories, these attributes are not completely differentiated prior to adulthood (Gestsdottir et al., 2009, 2011).

Moreover, the unique predicting effect of EC on ISR reinforces the belief that EC is possibly the precursor of ISR. Adolescents with higher EC have an advantage to develop higher ISR. Conversely, the sustainable development of ISR in our sample (average ages were 14 to 15 years) is not mature enough to regulate EC. Gestsdottir, Bowers, von Eye, Napolitano, and Lerner (2010) identified the fourth component of the SOC model: loss-based selection (LBS). LBS describes how people deal with loss in order to achieve goals and how they reorganize the priority of the goals. LBS is more related to adults’ intentional regulatory effect and was found to emerge in Grade-10 students. LBS is positively linked with adolescent positive development and risk behavior. It is possible that this later developed capacity, though not measured in the current study, might enable late adolescents to operate a reciprocal influence on the temperamental self-regulation. This hypothesis requires future study for verification.

Furthermore, earlier research indicates that EC or ISR individually displayed a negative relation with problematic behaviors in children and adolescents (Gestsdottir & Lerner, 2007; Gestsdottir et al., 2011). While integrating them together to predict deviant behavior, we found that there were gender differences in the proposed relationships. The associations of two self-regulations with deviant behaviors were not equally observed for both genders. Adolescent boys who have higher EC were more likely to reduce deviant behavior, whereas adolescent girls who have higher ISR displayed the similar inhibiting effect. The significant relation of ISR with deviant behavior in girls was coherent with the findings from 4-H studies, which indicated that the SOC scores were more consistently related to negative indicators among girls than boys (Gestsdottir et al., 2009, 2011). We believe that gender differences in the attribution of deviant behaviors might contribute to this significant relation for girls. As indicated previously, aggression is not valued in Chinese society because it disrupts interpersonal harmony. Aggression was less tolerated with girls than boys. Greater pressure for girls leads them to exhibit a greater concern about whether their behavior would fulfill social expectations (Davis, 1995; Lee & Chung, 1996). Studies on the gender differences of risk assessment suggest that compared to males, females are more likely to assess the consequences or risk associated with their behaviors (Reniers, Murphy, Lin, Bartolomé, & Wood, 2016). It is likely that adolescent girls tend to use more SOC strategies to assess the cost and benefit of engaging in deviant behaviors as compared to boys. For example, they might assess whether commitment to a risky behavior would facilitate or deter their goals related to social or academic outcomes. In contrast, boys tend to attribute behaviors as less risky (Reniers et al., 2016) and are more likely to externalize anger or frustration to aggressive behavior (Verona et al., 2007). EC (e.g., inhibitory control) might outweigh ISR to reduce deviant behavior for boys. However, this does not mean that EC has no influence on deviant behavior for girls. In fact, we observe in girls that the function of EC of deviant behavior was by ways of ISR. That is, higher EC was associated with better ISR, which in turn decreased deviant behaviors in girls. It seems that the development process of these two self-regulations is similar for boys and girls because the cross-lagged model revealed no gender difference in their mutual influences. However, their relationships with deviant behavior for girls and boys do not follow the same courses.

Although the literature on EC and ISR originates from different research traditions, it is necessary to view them as complementary rather than incompatible if we are to understand the role of self-regulation in developmental function and outcomes across life. To our knowledge, the present study is the first to integrate organismic and intentional self-regulation together and investigate their relations with adolescent deviant behavior in a longitudinal cross-lagged design. The results suggested that development of ISR is limited to individual differences in EC—at least for early- to middle-adolescents such as participants in our study. Their capacities in SOC management strategies are not ready to modulate their temperamental basis.

The current study contributes to current literature on self-regulation, but the limitations of this study should be considered when interpreting the results. First, this study is a short-term longitudinal design, and a short-time observation cannot encapsulate a development shift in self-regulation. As noted previously, EC and ISR are multidimensional constructs and are not mature at the same developmental period. EC emerges early, since infancy, and becomes stable in childhood (Eisenberg, Zhou, et al., 2005), whereas ISR appears and continues to develop throughout adolescence. How these multi-dimensional constructs correlate with one another, how their correlation changes throughout development, and how their integrative influence on adolescent development evolves all remain to be identified, and these complicated processes are best determined from long-term longitudinal studies.

Second, the implication of the joint influences of EC and ISR is limited to deviant behavior in the current study. However, specific components of self-regulation might be salient in relating to particular developmental outcomes. For instance, findings from 4-H studies indicated that ISR is more likely linked to positive development than to risk and depression in middle adolescence (Gestsdottir et al., 2011). Therefore, a broader variety of positive and negative developmental outcomes that are linked to self-regulatory ability such as academic success, coping ability, psychopathology, and other areas of risk-taking behaviors should be examined in the future.

Finally, the measures of this study rely solely on adolescent self-reports. Reliance on a single reporter might have affected our results. For example, the observed stability in self-regulation might partially reflect shared method variance. Future studies should consider including multiple measures of self-regulation based on multiple reports or methods.

Footnotes

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the National Science Council of the Republic of China for financially supporting this research under Contract No. NSC 99 – 2410 – H – 009 – 020.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Baglivio

M. T.

Wolff

K. T.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Piquero

A. R.

(2016). Effortful control, negative emotionality, and juvenile recidivism: An empirical test of delisi and vaughn’s temperament-based theory of antisocial behavior. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 27, 376–403. doi:10.1080/14789949.2016.1145720

Baltes

P. B.

(1997). On the incomplete architecture of human ontogeny: Selection, optimization, and compensation as foundation of developmental theory. American Psychologist, 52, 366–380. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.52.4.366

Blair

Razza

R. P.

(2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78, 647–663. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x

Brandtstädter

(1998). Action perspectives on human development. Handbook of child psychology. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Burkholder

G. J.

Harlow

L. L.

(2003). An illustration of a longitudinal cross-lagged design for larger structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 465–486. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_8

Burton

V. S.

Jr Cullen

F. T.

Evans

T. D.

Alarid

L. F.

Dunaway

R. G.

(1998). Gender, self-control, and crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 123–147. doi:10.4135/9781446251294.n1

Capaldi

D. M.

Rothbart

M. K.

(1992). Development and validation of an early adolescent temperament measure. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 12, 153–173. doi:abs/10.1177/0272431692012002002

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Curran

P. J.

(2000). A latent curve framework for the study of developmental trajectories in adolescent substance use. In Rose

J. S.

Chassin

Presson

C. C.

Sherman

S. J.

(Eds.), Multivariate applications in substance use research: New methods for new questions (pp. 1–42). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

10.

Davis

T. L.

(1995). Gender differences in masking negative emotions: Ability or motivation? Developmental Psychology, 31, 660–667. doi:10.1037//0012-1649.31.4.660

11.

DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

(2014). Foundation for a temperament–based theory of antisocial behavior and criminal justice system involvement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 10–25.

12.

Diener

M. L.

Kim

D.-Y.

(2004). Maternal and child predictors of preschool children’s social competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 3–24. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2003.11.006

13.

Eisenberg

Chang

Zhou

West

S. G.

Aiken

(2007). Relations of effortful control, reactive undercontrol, and anger to Chinese children’s adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 385–409. doi:10.1017/S0954579407070198

14.

Eisenberg

Sadovsky

Spinrad

T. L.

Fabes

R. A.

Losoya

S. H.

Valiente

… Shepard

(2005). The relations of problem behavior status to children’s negative emotionality, effortful control, and impulsivity: Concurrent relations and prediction of change. Developmental Psychology, 41, 193–211. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.193

15.

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Eggum

N. D.

(2010). Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 495–525. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208

16.

Eisenberg

Zhou

Spinrad

T. L.

Valiente

Fabes

R. A.

Liew

(2005). Relations among positive parenting, children’s effortful control, and externalizing problems: A three-wave longitudinal study. Child Development, 76, 1055–1071. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00897.x

17.

Else-Quest

N. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Goldsmith

H. H.

Van Hulle

C. A.

(2006). Gender differences in temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.33

18.

Freund

A. M.

Baltes

P. B.

(2002). Life-management strategies of selection, optimization and compensation: Measurement by self-report and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 642–662. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.642

19.

Gestsdottir

Bowers

von Eye

Napolitano

C. M.

Lerner

R. M.

(2010). Intentional self regulation in middle adolescence: The emerging role of loss-based selection in positive youth development. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 39, 764–782. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9537-2

20.

Gestsdottir

Lerner

R. M.

(2007). Intentional self-regulation and positive youth development in early adolescence: Findings from the 4-h study of positive youth development. Development Psychology, 43, 508–521. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.508

21.

Gestsdottir

Lerner

R. M.

(2008). Positive development in adolescence: The development and role of intentional self-regulation. Human Development, 51, 202–224. doi:10.1159/000135757

22.

Gestsdottir

Lewin-Bizan

von Eye

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2009). The structure and function of selection, optimization, and compensation in middle adolescence: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 585–600. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2009.07.001

23.

Gestsdottir

Urban

J. B.

Bowers

E. P.

Lerner

J. V.

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). Intentional self-regulation, ecological assets, and thriving in adolescence: A developmental systems model. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 133, 61–76. doi:10.1002/cd.304

24.

Gilligan

(1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. London, UK: Harvard University Press.

25.

D. Y. F.

(1986). Chinese patterns of socialization: A critical review. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The psychology of the chinese people (pp. 1–37). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

26.

Hong

Y.-Y.

(2001). Chinese students’ and teachers’ inferences of effort and ability. In Salili

Chiu

C.-Y.

Hong

Y.-Y.

(Eds), Student motivation: The culture and context of learning (pp. 105–120). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

27.

Hwang

F. M.

Yang

K. B.

(2002). A study of the influence of junior high school students’ family class on deviant behavior. Journal of National Taiwan Normal University, 47, 203–230.

28.

Jensen-Campbell

L. A.

Graziano

W. G.

(2005). The two faces of temptation: Differing motives for self-control. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51, 287–314. doi:10.1353/mpq.2005.0014

29.

Karoly

(1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation: A systems view. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.44.1.23

30.

Kling

A. Y. C.

(1985). The individual and group in confucianism: A relational perspective. In Munro

D. J.

(Ed.), Individualism and holism: Studies in confucian and taoist values (pp. 57–70). Ann Arbor, MI: Centre for Chinese Students, University of Michigan.

31.

Kochanska

Murray

K. T.

Harlan

E. T.

(2000). Effortful control in early childhood: Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220

32.

Lee

M. C.

Chung

C. Y.

(1996). Gender and gender role theory. Indigenous Psychologyical Research in Chinese Societies, 6, 260–299.

33.

Lengua

L. J.

(2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 819–832. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.819

34.

Lerner

R. M.

Freund

A. M.

De Stefanis

Habermas

(2001). Understanding developmental regulation in adolescence: The use of the selection, optimization, and compensation model. Human Development, 44, 29–50. doi:10.1159/000057039

35.

Liu

Y.-L.

Chang

H.-T.

(2016). The role of effortful control in the relationships among parental control, intentional self-regulation, and adolescent obedience. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 25, 2435–2446. doi:10.1007/s10826-016-0405-x

36.

Loukas

Roalson

L. A.

Herrera

D. E.

(2010). School connectedness buffers the effects of negative family relations and poor effortful control on early adolescent conduct problems. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 20, 13–22. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2009.00632.x

37.

Mobarake

R. K.

(2015). Age and gender difference in antisocial behavior among adolescents’ school students. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6, 194. doi:10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n4s2p194

38.

Murray

K. T.

Kochanska

(2002). Effortful control: Factor structure and relation to externalizing and internalizing behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 503–514. doi:10.1023/A:1019821031523

39.

Muthén

(2012). Mplus statistical modeling software: Release 7.0. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

40.

Nietfeld

Bosma

(2003). Examining the self-regulation of impulsive and reflective response styles on academic tasks. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 118–140. doi:10.1016/s0092-6566(02)00564-0

41.

Olweus

(1989). Prevalence and incidence in the study of antisocial behavior: Definitions and measurements. In Klein

(Ed.), Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp. 187–201). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.

42.

Pérez-Edgar

Taber-Thomas

Auday

Morales

(2014). Temperament and attention as core mechanisms in the early emergence of anxiety. Contributions to Human Development, 26, 42–56. http://doi.org/10.1159/000354350

43.

Raffaelli

Crockett

L. J.

Shen

Y.-L.

(2005). Developmental stability and change in self-regulation from childhood to adolescence. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 166, 54–76. doi:10.3200/GNTP.166.1.54-76

44.

Reniers

R. L.

Murphy

Lin

Bartolomé

S. P.

Wood

S. J.

(2016). Risk perception and risk-taking behaviour during adolescence: The influence of personality and gender. PloS One, 11, 1–14. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0153842

45.

Reynolds

A. D.

Crea

T. M.

(2015). Peer influence processes for youth delinquency and depression. Journal of Adolescence, 43, 83–95. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.05.013

46.

Rothbart

M. K.

Bates

J. E.

(1998). Temperament. In Damon

Eisenberg

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional and personality development (5th ed., pp. 105–176). New York, NY: Wiley.

47.

Rothbart

M. K.

Bates

J. E.

(2006). Temperament. In Eisenberg

Damon

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 153–177). Hoboken, NJ: Wiely.

48.

Satorra

Bentler

P. M.

(2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75, 243–248.

49.

Shoda

Mischel

Peake

P. K.

(1990). Predicting adolescent cognitive and self-regulatory competencies from preschool delay of gratification: Identifying diagnostic conditions. Developmental Psychology, 26, 978. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.26.6.978

50.

Spinrad

T. L.

Eisenberg

Cumberland

Fabes

R. A.

Valiente

Shepard

S. A.

… Guthrie

I. K.

(2006). Relation of emotion-related regulation to children’s social competence: A longitudinal study. Emotion, 6, 498. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.498

51.

Storvoll

E. E.

Wichstrøm

(2002). Do the risk factors associated with conduct problems in adolescents vary according to gender? Journal of Adolescence, 25, 183–202. doi:10.1006/jado.2002.0460

52.

Tan

T. W.

Chang

F. M.

(2013). The study of relationships among attachment, low self-control, and jvenile delinquency. Chinese Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 36, 67–90.

53.

Tang

C. S. K.

Chua

Jiaqing

(2010). A gender perspective on chinese social relationships and behavior. In Bond

M. H.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of Chinese psychology (pp. 533–554). Hong Kong: Oxford University Press.

54.

Valiente

Eisenberg

Haugen

Spinrad

T. L.

Hofer

Liew

Kupfer

(2011). Children’s effortful control and academic achievement: Mediation through social functioning. Early Education & Development, 22, 411–433. doi:10.1080/10409289.2010.505259

55.

Valiente

Eisenberg

Smith

C. L.

Reiser

Fabes

R. A.

Losoya

… Murphy

B. C.

(2003). The relations of effortful control and reactive control to children’s externalizing problems: A longitudinal assessment. Journal of Personality, 71, 1171–1196. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106011

56.

Valiente

Eisenberg

Spinrad

T. L.

Reiser

Cumberland

Losoya

S. H.

Liew

(2006). Relations among mothers’ expressivity, children’s effortful control, and their problem behaviors: A four-year longitudinal study. Emotion, 6, 459–472. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.3.459

57.

Verona

Reed

Curtin

J. J.

Pole

(2007). Gender differences in emotional and overt/covert aggressive responses to stress. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 261–271. doi:10.1002/ab.20186

58.

Wang

F. L.

Eisenberg

Valiente

Spinrad

T. L.

(2015). Role of temperament in early adolescent pure and co-occurring internalizing and externalizing problems using a bifactor model: Moderation by parenting and gender. Development and Psychopathology, 28, 1–18. doi:10.1017/S0954579415001224

59.

Wang

G. T.

Qiao

Hong

Zhang

(2002). Adolescent social bond, self-control and deviant behavior in China. International Journal of Contemporay Sociology, 39, 52–68.

60.

Wanless

S. B.

McClelland

M. M.

Lan

Son

S.-H.

Cameron

C. E.

Morrison

F. J.

…Sung, M. (2013). Gender differences in behavioral regulation in four societies: The United States, Taiwan, South Korea, and China. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28, 621–633. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.04.002

61.

West

S. G.

Taylor

A. B.

(2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). New York: Guilford Press.

62.

Yang

K. S.

(1981). Social orientation and idividual modernity among chinese students in Taiwan. Journal of Social Psychology, 113, 159–170. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9924368

63.

Yeh

K. H.

Tsao

W. C.

Chen

W. W.

(2010). Parent-child conflict and psychological maladjustment: A mediational analysis with reciprocal filial belief and perceived threat. International Journal of Psychology, 45, 131–139. doi:10.1080/00207590903085505

64.

Zhou

Hofer

Eisenberg

Reiser

Spinrad

T. L.

Fabes

R. A.

(2007). The developmental trajectories of attention focusing, attentional and behavioral persistence, and externalizing problems during school-age years. Developmental Psychology, 43, 369–385. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.369