Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

Effortful control, executive attention, and emotional

regulation in 7–10-year-old children
Jennifer Simonds a,∗ , Jessica E. Kieras b ,
M. Rosario Rueda b,c , Mary K. Rothbart b
a Department of Psychology, Westminster College, Salt Lake City, UT, United States
b Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, United States
c Dpto. de Psicologı́a Experimental, Universidad de Granada, Granada, Spain

Abstract
In this study, self-regulation was investigated in 7- to 10-year-old children using three different mea-
sures: (1) parent and child report questionnaires measuring temperamental effortful control, (2) a conflict
task assessing efficiency of executive attention, and (3) the mistaken gift paradigm assessing social smiling
in response to an undesirable gift. Both efficiency in executive attention and smiling to the undesired gift
increased over age. Executive attention was related to both parent-reported temperamental effortful con-
trol and smiling, suggesting links between attentional capacities, broad temperament measures, and social
situations requiring attentional control.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Temperament; Effortful control; Executive attention; Attention; Emotional regulation; Self-regulation; Middle
childhood; Elementary school students; Display rules; Emotional development

One of the major challenges in research on child development is understanding the development
of self-regulation (Baumeister & Vohs, 2004). Self-regulation has been studied at multiple levels,
including: (1) observed regulation of social behavior, (2) parent or self-reports of temperamental
effortful control, and (3) executive attention as assessed on cognitive tasks. Effortful control is
defined as the ability to inhibit a dominant response in order to perform a sub-dominant response,
to detect errors, and to engage in planning (Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). The executive attention
network is seen to underlie effortful control, and both are expected to predict children’s emotional
regulation in a social situation. Eisenberg, Smith, Sadovsky, and Spinrad (2004), for example,

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Westminster College, 1840 South 1300 East, Salt Lake City, UT

84105, United States. Tel.: +1 801 832 2414.

E-mail address: jsimonds@westminstercollege.edu (J. Simonds).

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.009
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 475

view effortful control as a key component of emotion-related regulation. In the current study,
we examined relations among three measures of self-regulation: temperamental effortful control,
executive attention, and smiling in a social situation to an undesired gift.

1. Temperamental effortful control

We define temperament as constitutionally based individual differences in emotional, motor,

and attentional reactivity and self-regulation (Derryberry & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart &
Derryberry, 1981). Reactivity describes motor, emotional, and attentional responses to internal
and external stimuli. Regulation describes processes that function to modulate those responses
(Putnam, Ellis & Rothbart, 2001; Rothbart & Bates, 2006). Constitutional refers to the biological
basis of temperament, influenced by genes, environment, and experience over time. Tempera-
ment has been shown to be relatively consistent across situations and stable over time, although
changes in temperament related to development have also been reported (Rothbart & Bates, 2006).
As children develop, self-regulatory capacities increase for better modulation of reactive responses
(Rothbart & Rueda, 2005). Temperamental effortful control is measured as a higher-order trait of
temperament. In factor analytic studies, this broad factor includes subscales measuring attentional
and inhibitory control, as well as low intensity pleasure and perceptual sensitivity.

2. Executive attention

In neuro-cognitive models, attention is related to three separate brain networks (Posner &
Petersen, 1990). Alerting refers to the establishment and maintenance of a vigilant state, and
orienting to the ability to attend to a given location. The executive attention network is activated
in situations requiring attentional control, as when there is conflict between responses suggested
by different stimuli or dimensions of the same stimulus. Conflict tasks have been shown to activate
a common neural network including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and lateral prefrontal
areas (Fan, Flombaum, McCandliss, Thomas, & Posner, 2003); conflict tasks thus serve as model
tasks for assessing the efficiency of the executive attention network. Executive attention has also
been identified as a neural substrate of developing temperamental effortful control (Posner &
Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart, Posner, & Kieras, 2006; Rothbart & Rueda, 2005).
Efficiency of executive attention shows improvement from ages 2 to 7. Gerardi-Caulton (2000)
and Rothbart, Ellis, Rueda, and Posner (2003) found that between 24 and 36 months, young
children were increasingly able to perform a spatial conflict task requiring a response based on
the identity of a stimulus while inhibiting its location. A strong positive relationship was also
found between age and executive attention in children aged 3–5 years (Chang & Burns, 2005).
Rueda et al. (2004) found that conflict scores did not improve from age 8 to adulthood. Using an
age-appropriate version of the Attentional Network Test (ANT; Rueda et al., 2004) to measure
conflict efficiency, we expected to replicate this finding in a sample of children 7–10 years of
age.

3. Temperament and executive attention

Positive relations have been found between parent-reported temperamental effortful control
and performance on executive attention tasks in children from ages 2 to 7 (Chang & Burns,
2005; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez, Fuentes, Carranza, & Estevez, 2001; Rothbart et al.,
2003) and adolescents aged 16–17 years (Ellis, 2002). Gerardi-Caulton (2000) found posi-
476 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

tive associations between performance on a spatial conflict task and temperamental effortful
control in children aged 2–3 years, as measured by laboratory observations and parent-report
questionnaires (Children’s Behavior Questionnaire; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, & Fisher, 2001).
Gonzalez et al. (2001) used a Stroop-like task to examine relations of parent-reported temper-
ament to executive attention in 7-year-olds. Stronger Stroop interference (poorer performance)
was found for children rated higher by their parents on temperamental activity level and impul-
sivity, and lower on inhibitory control. In adolescents aged 16–17, Ellis (2002) found that higher
mother-reported effortful control was associated with lower interference on the ANT conflict
task (Ellis, 2002). Mother-reported effortful control also correlated positively with lower Stroop
interference. Adolescents’ self-reports of their effortful control were not related to performance
on executive attention tasks. No subsequent research has been conducted to investigate this
discrepancy.
In the current study, effortful control is measured through both parent- and self-report in
children 7–10 years old. It was predicted that greater efficiency of executive attention, as indicated
by a smaller conflict effect, would be related to higher parent-reported effortful control. Based
on the theoretical relations between executive attention and effortful control, it was expected that
self-reported effortful control would also relate to more efficient attention.

4. Self-regulation and the activation of smiling

Effortful control includes modulation of emotional reactivity, allowing the expression of

socially appropriate emotions and the inhibition of emotions that are inappropriate in social
situations (Eisenberg, Fabes, Guthrie, & Reiser, 2000). Eisenberg, Smith, et al. (2004) explain
that the process of regulating the “occurrence, form, intensity, or duration” of emotional reactions
relies in part on the ability to shift one’s attention away from a stimulus that induces an undesired
emotional state (p. 260). The attention system is thus considered to be a mechanism underlying
the ability to regulate emotion in order to behave in a socially appropriate manner (Eisenberg,
Champion, & Ma, 2004).
One such situation is conflict between competing emotional responses in situations where
display rules call for a response that differs from the reactive response. Display rules specify
socially appropriate emotional expression guided by social norms. They often differ across cul-
tures, are largely influenced by socialization, and later internalized by children as they become
increasingly able to control their emotions without assistance (Saarni, 1984). To measure emo-
tional expression based on social display rules, Saarni (1984) developed the mistaken gift
paradigm. In this paradigm, children are presented with a toy or gift that does not meet expec-
tations and is undesirable enough to be disappointing. The prepotent response is to display
disappointment; however, the display rule in American culture requires the child to smile and
show appreciation after receiving any gift to avoid hurting the giver’s feelings. Kieras, Tobin,
Graziano, and Rothbart (2005) measured effortful control in 3- to 5-year-olds with laboratory
tasks developed by Kochanska and colleagues (Kochanska, Murray, & Coy, 1997; Kochanska,
Murray, Jacques, Koenig, & Vandegeest, 1996), including walking and drawing slowly, and
presented children with desirable and undesirable gifts. Higher effortful control was related
to similarity in display of positive affect for both desirable and undesirable gifts; children
lower in effortful control showed less positive affect to the undesired gift than to the desired
gift.
Based on these findings, and on the conceptual link between effortful control and emotion
regulation, we predicted that smiling in response to a disappointing gift would be related to
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 477

effortful control as measured on parent- and child-report questionnaires. We also expected that
smiling to the undesirable gift would relate to better efficiency in executive attention. In the
current study, we used a computer task, the child ANT, to measure efficiency of executive atten-
tion, self- and parent-report questionnaires to assess temperamental effortful control, and smiling
upon receipt of a disappointing gift to measure emotion regulation in 7- to 10-year-olds. Our
central hypothesis was that measures of self-regulation would be related to the child’s ability to
regulate their smiling in a conflict event that simulates a real-life situation. Based on previous
findings, we also expected that the ability to deal with conflict would improve until, but not after,
age 8.

5. Method

5.1. Participants

Forty-nine children participated in the study. Participants consisted of a group of 13 children

aged 7 years (7 boys, 6 girls) and three groups of 12 children each (6 boys, 6 girls) aged 8, 9,
and 10 years. Mean age for 7-year-olds was 87.69 months (SD = 1.97); for 8-year-olds, 100.92
months (SD = 1.62); for 9-year-olds, 111.83 months (SD = 2.04); and for 10-year-olds, 124.33
months (SD = 4.81). Overall mean age of the sample was 8.82 years (SD = 1.17).
Participants came from predominantly, but not exclusively, white, middle-class backgrounds.
Parents of participants were identified through local birth announcements and recruited by tele-
phone. Children and their families were offered a total of $20 cash and two toy prizes for their
participation. Only children with severe birth complications were excluded from the study due to
possible developmental delays.

5.2. Procedure

This study included three sessions and was run concurrently with a separate study on exec-
utive attention. In the first session, children completed the Temperament in Middle Childhood
Questionnaire (TMCQ) and the Attention Network Task (ANT) for children. A parent version of
the TMCQ was completed in the first session. In the second session, children completed execu-
tive attention tasks for the separate study and the first portion (desired gift) of the mistaken gift
paradigm. In the third and final session, children completed the TMCQ and child ANT a second
time for examination of test–retest reliability and participated in the second portion (undesired
gift) of the mistaken gift paradigm. The maximum time between first and third sessions was 3
weeks.

5.3. Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ)

Computerized self-report and paper-and-pencil parent report versions of the Temperament

in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (Simonds & Rothbart, 2005) were used to measure effortful
control through subscales assessing attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity pleasure,
and perceptual sensitivity. Sample items are shown in Table 1. The 25–30 min self-report version
of TMCQ used a computer to present questions to children using a cartoon voice of “Ducky” (see
Fig. 1). Children learned to respond to items and to complete the questionnaire while listening to
and reading simultaneous presentation of written items on the screen and the voice reading items
to the children.
478 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

Table 1
Sample items – effortful control scales
Scale Self-report item Parent-report item

Attention focusing
Attention focusing
Inhibitory control
Inhibitory control
Low-intensity pleasure
Low-intensity pleasure
Perceptual sensitivity
Perceptual sensitivity
When I try to pay attention, I get distracted.
My mom or dad tells me to pay attention.
It’s hard to stop when I need to.
I can talk quietly when I need to.
I like the crunching sound of leaves in the
fall.
I like to sit under a blanket.
I like to run my hand over things to see if
they are smooth or rough.
I notice the color of people’s eyes.
Gets distracted when trying to pay
attention in class.
Needs to be told to pay attention.
Has a hard time stopping him/herself
when told to do so.
Can lower his/her voice when asked
to do so.
Likes the crunching sound of leaves
in the fall.
Likes to sit under a blanket.
Likes to run his/her hand over things
to see if they are smooth or rough.
Notices the color of people’s eyes.

5.4. Attention Network Test (ANT) for Children

The child ANT is a computer task that provides a measure of efficiency of the attentional func-
tions of alerting, orienting, and executive control (Rueda et al., 2004). The ANT uses differences
in reaction time (RT) between different conditions to measure the efficiency of each function.
In the target display, a row of five fish is presented either above or below fixation. Children are
instructed to pay attention to the middle fish, and to respond based on whether it is pointing to
the left or right by pressing the corresponding key. In the executive attention part of the ANT

Fig. 1. Temperament in middle childhood computer screen.

 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 479

Fig. 2. Attentional Network Task (ANT) for children.

(conflict task), children are presented with fish surrounded by congruent or incongruent flankers.
On congruent trials, fish on either side of the middle fish (flankers) point in the same direction,
whereas on incongruent trials, flankers point in the opposite direction, prompting the incorrect
response (see Fig. 2). Subtracting the average RT for trials using congruent flankers from the
average RT for trials using incongruent flankers yields a conflict score: a measure of the time
needed to resolve conflict induced by the flankers. Lower conflict scores reflect more efficient
executive attention.
A session of the ANT consisted of 16 practice trials and four experimental blocks of 32 trials.
Participants were instructed to maintain fixation on the cross in the center of the screen throughout
the task and to respond as quickly and accurately as possible. Participants began practice trials
when it was clear that they understood the instructions. For correct responses, a simple animation
sequence of the target fish blowing bubbles and making the sound “Woohoo!” gave feedback.
Incorrect responses were followed by a single tone and no animation of the fish. Children were
individually supervised during the practice trials and given encouragement by the experimenter.
Participants then completed four test blocks with the experimenter in the room without further
trial-by-trial encouragement. The session lasted approximately 20 min.

5.5. Mistaken gift paradigm

At the beginning of the second session, each child was asked to help the experimenter under-
stand the toys children like. Children were presented with eight different toys and asked to rate
them from those the child liked most to those they liked least. The favorite, second favorite, and
least favorite gifts were recorded by the experimenter after the child left the room. Following
completion of executive attention tasks, each child was presented with a gift-wrapped box con-
480 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

taining the favorite toy, as determined in the rating task. The experimenter maintained silence
while pretending to make notes on a clipboard and occasionally glanced neutrally at the child for
15 s after the child unwrapped the toy; the child’s reactions were recorded on videotape.
After the third session, including the second administrations of the TMCQ and child ANT,
each child received his or her least favorite toy. The experimenter again maintained a neutral
expression and remained silent for 15 s while the child reacted to the toy. After this period was
over, the experimenter said there must have been a mistake and exchanged the undesirable toy
for the second favorite toy. During the debriefing, the experimenter explained the reason for the
“mistake” during the gift giving. Many children informally reported thinking it was funny that
the experimenter had made such a mistake. No formal data, however, were collected during the
debriefing.
Displays of emotion were coded by two raters for the 15-s segments after the child received
the desirable and undesirable gifts using Noldus Observer 5.0 software (Noldus Information
Technology, 2003). Each rater scored segments for duration and number of smiling occurrences,
defined as the widening of the mouth and corners of the mouth clearly turned upward. Percentage
agreement between raters for duration and number of smiles was 95% and 85%, respectively.
Ratings from the two coders were combined to create an average score for duration and number
of smiling occurrences.

6. Results

6.1. Temperamental effortful control

Psychometric properties of the TMCQ are shown in Table 2. A composite score for effortful
control was derived based on previous factor analytic work (Rothbart et al., 2001), and calculated
by averaging the subscale means of attentional focusing, inhibitory control, low intensity pleasure,
and perceptual sensitivity. No significant age effects were found for individual subscale or factor
composite scores for effortful control. Parent-reported effortful control was significantly higher
for girls than for boys F(1, 42) = 13.84, p < 0.01.

6.2. Executive attention

Repeated-measures analysis of variance using age group and flanker type (congruent, incon-
gruent) as factors and the mean of median reaction time as the dependent measure were conducted
for each of the administrations of the child ANT. Results showed an effect for age group in both
first and second administration RTs F(3, 45) = 3.76, p < 0.05; and F(3, 44) = 4.05, p < 0.05 and an
effect for flanker type in both administrations F(1, 45) = 71.61, p < 0.001; and F(1, 44) = 47.42,
p < 0.001. An age group by flanker interaction effect was significant for the first administration
conflict scores F(3, 45) = 3.53, p < 0.05, but not for the second administration conflict scores (see
Fig. 3).
Conflict scores were derived by subtracting RTs to congruent stimuli from RTs for the incon-
gruent flanker condition. Table 3 shows the mean of median RTs for the task. In the first
administration, younger children showed larger conflict scores than the rest of the children, due to
longer RT to incongruent trials suggesting that younger children have more trouble dealing with
the interference produced by incongruent flankers. Linear regression revealed a negative asso-
ciation between age in months and first administration conflict scores F(1, 47) = 6.31, p < 0.05,
b = −1.55. No age effects were found for second administration conflict scores, or for conflict
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488
Table 2
Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) Psychometric Properties
Child 1st admin. Child 2nd admin. Child Parent Child test–retest Parent report Parent/childa
(N = 47) (N = 45) Cronbach’s Cronbach’s (N = 43) (N = 45) agmt. (N = 45)
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) ␣ ␣ r Mean (SD) r

Effortful control 3.66 (0.50) 3.47 (0.43) 0.68 0.64 0.83*** 3.55 (0.39) 0.38*
Subscales
Attentional focusing 3.64 (0.67) 3.53 (0.63) 0.71 0.90 0.64*** 3.67 (0.66) 0.23****
Inhibitory control 3.87 (0.79) 3.65 (0.76) 0.81 0.82 0.76*** 3.61 (0.60) 0.35**
Low intensity pleasure 3.43 (0.82) 3.27 (0.66) 0.84 0.79 0.78*** 3.50 (0.54) 0.42***
Perceptual sensitivity 3.70 (0.66) 3.50 (0.72) 0.83 0.79 0.73*** 3.42 (0.58) 0.04
a At same administration (1st).
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
*** p < 0.001.
****p < 0.10.

481
 482
Table 3
Attention Network Test – conflict

J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

Age n 1st admin. 1st admin. % 2nd admin. 2nd admin. Conflict effect Conflict % errors Conflict effect Conflict % errors
RT errors RT % errors 1st admin. 1st admin. 2nd admin. 2nd admin.
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

7 13 910 (66) 3.43 (2.83) 848 (127) 3.79 (3.65) 109 (80) 3.25 (3.34) 56 (63) 2.28 (1.98)
8 12 887 (159) 3.39 (2.36) 821 (149) 3.39 (3.71) 55 (54) 0.78 (3.36) 62 (51) 1.56 (4.16)
9 12 865 (264) 2.21 (1.33) 695 (190) 1.71 (1.47) 73 (57) 1.56 (2.98) 59 (36) 1.30 (1.87)
10 12 700 (136) 1.43 (1.41) 664 (135) 2.84 (2.80) 39 (12) 1.30 (2.97) 32 (54) 1.70 (3.31)
Total 49 842 (188) 2.63 (2.20) 761 (167) 2.95 (3.07) 70 (61) 1.75 (3.22) 53 (52) 1.73 (2.89)

Age n Overall RT Overall % Conflict effect Conflict % Conflict effect Conflict % errors
mean errors mean 1st admin. errors 1st admin. 2nd admin. 2nd admin.
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

7 13 874.9 3.61 109 (80) 3.25 (3.34) 56 (63) 2.28 (1.98)

8 12 857.6 3.39 55 (54) 0.78 (3.36) 62 (51) 1.56 (4.16)
9 12 777.4 1.95 73 (57) 1.56 (2.98) 59 (36) 1.30 (1.87)
10 12 678.3 2.12 39 (12) 1.30 (2.97) 32 (54) 1.70 (3.31)
Total 49 798.6 2.78 70 (61) 1.75 (3.22) 53 (52) 1.73 (2.89)
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 483

Fig. 3. Child ANT reaction times by age.

errors in either administration. No sex differences or age by sex interactions were found in con-
flict scores or errors. Test–retest correlations between the first and second administrations of the
ANT were not significant. Because of the differences between first and second administrations
in 7-year-olds, a test–retest correlation for 8- to 10-year-olds was also examined and was not
significant.
A score to reflect reduction in conflict scores from first to second administrations was calculated
by subtracting the second administration conflict score from the first administration conflict score.
A Helmert contrast showed that difference scores for 7-year-olds were significantly higher than
those for the three other age groups t(44) = 2.11, p < 0.05.

Table 4
Smiling in response to desired and undesired gifts
Age n Number of smiles # Smiles Duration smiling Duration smiling
desired gift undesired gift (s) desired gift (s) undesired gift
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

7 13 0.92 (0.45) 0.42 (0.45) 8.31 (5.07) 3.31 (4.74)

8 12 0.88 (0.53) 0.83 (0.75) 7.48 (4.63) 4.61 (3.85)
9 10 0.75 (0.49) 0.65 (0.53) 6.48 (5.13) 5.32 (5.05)
10 10 0.95 (0.64) 1.11* (0.60) 8.70 (5.71) 9.23* (5.05)
Total 45 0.88 (0.51) 0.73 (0.62) 7.77 (5.01) 5.33 (4.97)
* n = 9.
484 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

Fig. 4. Duration of smiling by age.

6.3. Smiling

Findings for number of smiles and duration of smiling for both gift types are shown in Table 4.
Due to experimenter error, four cases were excluded from the gift smiling analyses. A significant
age effect for duration of smiling after the undesirable gift F(3, 40) = 3.02, p < 0.05 was found.
No age effect was found for smiling after the desired gift. A within-subjects ANOVA showed a
significant effect of gift type on duration of smiling F(1, 40) = 5.72, p < 0.05, with more seconds
of smiling found in reaction to the desirable gift. Fig. 4 shows that 7- to 8-year-olds showed larger
differences between smiling to the desired and undesired gift than 9- to 10-year-olds, who showed
very little difference between smiling to the two types of gift. An orthogonal contrast showed
that the level of difference between smiling to the undesired and desired gifts was significantly
different between 7- to 8- and 9- to 10-year-olds t(40) = −2.40, p < 0.05.
Age in months was positively related to duration of smiling after receiving an undesirable
gift F(1, 42) = 7.48, p < 0.01, b = 0.14. Older children smiled more in response to the undesirable
gift. Girls smiled longer (M = 9.51 s) and more frequently (M = 1.09 times) than boys (M = 6.10 s;
M = 0.67 times) in response to the desired gift F(1, 43) = 5.76, p < 0.05 (duration); F(1, 43) = 8.73,
p < 0.05 (number). No significant age by sex interactions were found for smiling.

7. Correlational analyses

7.1. Effortful control and executive attention

Parent-reported but not child-reported effortful control composite scores correlated with first
administration ANT conflict scores (see Table 5). Higher parent scores on effortful control
predicted less interference between congruent and incongruent trials F(1, 46) = 4.16 p < 0.05,
η2 = 0.08, b = −49.10. To control for age and sex differences, effortful control, age in months, and
sex were entered as independent variables into a linear regression to predict first administration
conflict scores. Both age and effortful control, but not sex, significantly predicted first ses-
sion conflict scores F(3, 41) = 5.96, p < 0.01, η2 = 0.30, b (effortful control) = −53.72, p < 0.05, b
(age) = −1.85, p < 0.01.
Neither parent-reported effortful control nor age was significantly correlated with the difference
between first and second administration conflict scores; however, a model with both variables
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 485

Table 5
Bivariate correlations with effortful control
Effortful control Executive attention Mistaken gift smiling
1st admin. 2nd admin. Desired gift Undesired gift
Conflict scores Conflict scores Number Duration Number Duration

Parent −0.37* −0.04 0.03 0.23 −0.02 0.02

Childa −0.17 0.13 0.04 0.02 0.25 −0.03
a Mean of 1st and 2nd administrations.
* p < 0.05.

entered as predictors of reduction of scores on the conflict task was significant F(2, 42) = 4.37,
p < 0.05, η2 = 0.17. More reduction of conflict scores across sessions was found for younger
children (b (age) = 1.45) and children whose parents reported the child to be lower on effortful
control (b = −56.96).

7.2. Smiling and executive attention

Second administration, but not first administration, conflict scores predicted shorter durations
of smiling to the undesired gift F(1, 42) = 5.32, p < 0.05, η2 = 0.11, b = −0.03 (see Table 6).
Children who smiled for a longer duration upon receiving the undesirable gift showed smaller
conflict scores. When controlled for age, second administration conflict significantly predicted
duration of smiling to the undesirable gift F(2, 41) = 6.18, p < 0.05, b = −0.03. Of the 44 cases
analyzed, 14 showed no smiling in response to the undesirable gift. A regression analysis with
the 14 cases removed showed no significant correlation between smiling and executive attention.
A difference between second administration conflict scores for children who smiled (M = 41.63,
SD = 45.12) and children who did not smile (M = 75.18, SD = 63.86) was marginally significant
t(42) = 2.01, p = 0.05.
Second administration conflict significantly predicted smiling to the desired gift when con-
trolled for age F(2, 42) = 2.29, p = 0.11, b = −0.03, p < 0.05. When six cases with no smiling
to the desired gift were removed from the analysis, conflict was not a significant predic-
tor of smiling to the desired gift. Second administration conflict scores on the ANT did
not predict smiling to the undesired gift when controlled for smiling to the desired gift and
age.

Table 6
Bivariate correlations between smiling and executive attention
Gift Executive attention

1st admin. 2nd admin.

Conflict scores Conflict scores

Desirable Number of smiles 0.03 −0.22

Duration of smiling −0.10 −0.25
Undesirable Number of smiles −0.22 −0.32*
Duration of smiling −0.27 −0.34*
* p < 0.05.
486 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

8. Discussion

The current study examined relations among multiple levels of self-regulation: measures of
effortful control: a temperament questionnaire, a laboratory task for assessing executive attention,
and a social situation assessing smiling in the face of disappointment. Significant correlations were
found between parent-reported effortful control and executive attention, replicating at 7–10 years
the previously reported findings that more efficient executive attention performance is related to
higher levels of parent-reported effortful control in children ages 2–7 and in adolescents (Chang
& Burns, 2005; Ellis, 2002; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Gonzalez et al., 2001).
A significant relation was also found between smiling to the undesired gift and conflict scores
on the ANT. However, conflict scores from the two ANT administrations showed different rela-
tions to effortful control and smiling. First administration conflict scores were related to effortful
control, and second administration conflict scores to responses in the desirable and undesirable
gift conditions. Only the second administration of the ANT was correlated with smiling. Although
the first administration of the ANT showed correlations with smiling in the same direction, they
were not significant. In addition, the lack of a significant correlation between the two administra-
tions of the child ANT suggests that the intervening session with further executive attention tasks
might have served as specific training for those children initially poor in executive attention (see
Rueda, Rothbart, McCandliss, Saccomanno, & Posner, 2005, for evidence of training attention
effects). In support of this idea, the youngest children with the poorest executive attention showed
the strongest improvement from the first to the second ANT. Only the first ANT was significantly
correlated with parent observations of effortful control. This suggests that conflict scores on the
second ANT administration might have been reduced through specifically training the portion of
the variance in performance that is due to long-term effortful control.
Since conflict scores on the ANT are considered a measure of executive attention, the theoretical
mechanism underlying effortful control, the relation between conflict scores and smiling supports
the connection between effortful control and emotion regulation found in the past by Kieras et al.
(2005) and Gerardi-Caulton (2000). However, we did not find the expected relationship between
temperamental self- or parent-reported effortful control and smiling. The laboratory tasks assessed
an aspect of effortful control that appears to be useful in the mistaken gift situation, whereas the
questionnaires did not capture this aspect of effortful control. Future studies should include both
questionnaire assessment and aggregated behavioral measurement of effortful control.
Smiling to an undesired gift showed an increase from age 7 to age 10, and a difference between
smiling to the desired and undesired gift was present in 7–8, but not in 9–10-year-olds. Seven-year-
olds also showed more difference between RTs for congruent and incongruent flanker conditions,
and between smiling to the desired and undesired gifts. Conflict scores in the ANT did not differ
from those of adults reported in Rueda et al. (2004) after age 8 in first administration scores and
age 7 for second administration scores. These findings roughly replicated those found for the child
ANT by Rueda et al. (2004).
Limitations of the current study include unknown aspects of children’s motivations to smile
when given a present in the mistaken gift task. Future research investigating aspects of this task,
such as children’s acceptance of display rules and the possibility that children’s smiling might
be due to a desire to decrease the discomfort of the experimenter who has committed a social
blunder by giving the wrong gift, may provide clarity on the degree to which smiling provides a
strong indication of emotion regulation across multiple conditions.
The results of this study replicated those of Ellis (2002), in that only parent-reported effortful
control showed relations with executive attention. Thus far, child and adolescent self-report of
 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488 487

effortful control has not shown correspondence with measures of attentional control. Future studies
using item-level analyses may identify whether the differences between reporters are systematic
and whether those differences show relations with attentional efficiency.
Executive attention as measured by the ANT has been related in adults to the operation of a
specific network of brain areas (Fan et al., 2003). Individual efficiency of a specific network has
also been shown to relate to alleles of specific dopamine genes in adults (Fossella et al., 2002) and
in children (Rueda et al., 2005). There is clear evidence, however, that operation of this network
can also be influenced by specific training (Rueda et al., 2005). Through the use of a simple task,
the ANT in our study, we have related the efficiency of that brain system to naturally occurring
self-regulation. Our findings extend this relationship to the child’s control of affect displayed in
both expected and disappointing social situations. The relation of this ability to the ANT conflict
score suggests that better attentional efficiency underlies the child’s ability to exhibit appropriate
emotion in social settings.

References

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation. New York: Guilford Press.
Chang, F., & Burns, B. M. (2005). Attention in preschoolers: Associations with effortful control and motivation. Child
Development, 76, 247–263.
Derryberry, D., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). Early temperament and emotional development. In A. F. Kalverboer & A.
Gramsbergen (Eds.), Brain and behavior in early development (pp. 967–990). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic Publications.
Eisenberg, N., Champion, C., & Ma, Y. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: An emerging construct. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 50, 236–259.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., & Reiser, M. (2000). Dispositional emotionality and regulation: Their role in
predicting quality of social functioning. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 78(1), 136–157.
Eisenberg, N., Smith, C. L., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Effortful control: Relations with emotion regulation,
adjustment, and socialization in childhood. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp.
259–282). New York: Guilford Press.
Ellis, L. K. (2002). Individual differences and adolescent psychosocial development. University of Oregon: Dissertation
Abstracts International Section B: The Sciences & Engineering, 63(8B), 3956.
Fan, J., Flombaum, J. I., McCandliss, B. D., Thomas, K. M., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Cognitive and brain consequences
of conflict. NeuroImage, 18, 42–57.
Fossella, J., Sommer, T., Fan, J., Wu, Y., Swanson, J. M., Pfaff, D. W., & Posner, M. I. (2002). Assessing the molecular
genetics of attention networks. BMC Neuroscience, 3, 14.
Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self-regulation in children 24–36 months
of age. Developmental Science, 3, 397–404.
Gonzalez, C., Fuentes, L. J., Carranza, J. A., & Estevez, A. F. (2001). Temperament and attention in the self-regulation
of 7-year-old children. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 931–946.
Kieras, J. E., Tobin, R. M., Graziano, W. G., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). You can’t always get what you want: Effortful
control and children’s responses to undesirable gifts. Psychological Science, 16, 391–396.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Coy, K. C. (1997). Inhibitory control as a contributor to conscience in childhood: From
toddler to early school age. Child Development, 68, 263–277.
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young
children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490–507.
Noldus Information Technology. (2003). Reference manual, version 5.0 for Windows edition. Netherlands: Wageningen.
Posner, M. I., & Petersen, S. E. (1990). The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 13,
25–42.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Educating the human brain. Washington DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adoles-
cence. In A. Eliasz & A. Angleitner (Eds.), Advances in research on temperament (pp. 165–182). Germany: Pabst
Science.
488 J. Simonds et al. / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 474–488

Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at three to seven years:
The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72(5), 1394–1408.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Temperament
handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99–166). Hoboken,
NJ: Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In M. E. Lamb & A.
L. Brown (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (pp. 37–86). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing mechanisms of temperamental effortful
control. Journal of Personality, 71, 1113–1143.
Rothbart, M. K., Posner, M. I., & Kieras, J. (2006). Temperament, attention, and the development of self-regulation. In K.
McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of early childhood development (pp. 338–357). Malden, MA:
Blackwell.
Rothbart, M. K., & Rueda, M. R. (2005). The development of effortful control. In U. Mayr, E. Awh, & S. W. Keele
(Eds.), Developing individuality in the human brain: A tribute to Michael I. Posner (pp. 167–188). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Development
of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1029–1040.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., McCandliss, B. D., Saccomanno, L., & Posner, M. I. (2005). Training, maturation, and
genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the
United States of America, 102(41), 14931–14936.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development,
55, 1504–1513.
Simonds, J., & Rothbart, M. K. (2005). Development of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire, manuscript
in preparation.