Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Inhibitory control and emotion regulation

in preschool children
Stephanie M. Carlson ∗ , Tiffany S. Wang
Department of Psychology, University of Washington, United States

Abstract
This research investigated the relation between individual differences in inhibitory control and emotion
regulation. Preschool children (N = 53) ages 4–6 (M = 5; 0) were assessed on brief batteries of inhibitory
control of prepotent responses and emotion regulation. Individual differences in inhibitory control were
significantly correlated with children’s ability to regulate their emotions. This relation held up even after
controlling for age and verbal ability, and persisted for both Emotion Understanding and “online” control of
emotional expressions that were negative (Disappointing Gift) or positive (Secret Keeping). Parent report of
children’s self-control and emotion regulation corroborated the behavioral results. These findings suggest
that executive control of attention, action, and emotion are skills that develop in concert in the preschool
period. However, there was also evidence of a quadratic relation in which emotion regulation was optimal
at intermediate levels of inhibition, highlighting the interplay of both cognitive control and temperament in
socio-emotional functioning.
© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Inhibitory control; Executive function; Emotion regulation; Temperament; Preschool

1. Introduction

The ability to control potentially interfering thought processes and actions develops rapidly in
the preschool period. Children of age 3 years have difficulty on tasks that require inhibitory control
of attention and motor responses, such as suppressing a dominant response in accordance with
rules. By 5 years of age they are much more proficient at these tasks (for a summary see Carlson,
2005). At the same time, children improve in the ability to regulate the experience of emotions by
monitoring their expressive behavior. Saarni (1984) found that young children made an attempt to
inhibit negative expressions upon receiving an undesirable gift, but they had trouble neutralizing

∗ Corresponding author at: Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, United

States.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S.M. Carlson).

0885-2014/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.002
490 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

their expressions. Older children were more likely to attempt to feign positive expressions of
emotion, although there were individual differences in these skills at all ages. Explaining individ-
ual differences in emotion regulation that appear early in childhood is an important undertaking
because older children who have difficulty managing emotions (e.g., anger) are at risk for devel-
oping behavioral disorders (Cole, Michel, & Teti, 1994; Dodge & Garber, 1991). Both the control
of attention and action in relatively unemotional “cool” contexts and the control of emotional
expressions in affectively charged “hot” contexts appear to have key requirements in common:
prevention of an impulsive response and carrying out an opposite act. Furthermore, deficits in
attention and emotion regulation tend to co-occur in certain atypical and at-risk populations, such
as children with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (Barkley, 1997). Surprisingly, however,
little research has examined the relation between children’s regulation of action and emotion.
Zelazo and Müller (2002) described potentially separate and shared neuroanatominal pathways
for executive function in cool and hot task paradigms, but the question remains as to whether
inhibitory control of prepotent responses and online emotion regulation in a social context are
overlapping or independent skills at the level of individual differences. The aim of the present
study was to assess the relation between individual differences in the deliberate control over
actions and emotional expressions in typically developing preschool children.

1.1. Executive function

Executive function (EF), defined as the conscious control of thought and action needed for
future-oriented and purposeful behavior (Welsh, Pennington, & Groisser, 1991; Zelazo, Carter,
Reznick, & Frye, 1997), involves a diverse set of cognitive processes, including planning, work-
ing memory, set-shifting, error detection and correction, and the inhibitory control of prepotent
responses (e.g., Roberts, Robbins, & Weiskrantz, 1998; Stuss & Benson, 1986). EF is required
for goal-directed behaviors to solve novel problems, particularly those calling for the inhibition
of automatic or established thoughts and responses (e.g., Casey, Tottenham, & Fossella, 2002;
Roberts & Pennington, 1996). Inhibitory control (IC), then, refers to the ability to inhibit or
suppress salient thought processes or actions that are not relevant to the goal or task at hand
(Rothbart & Posner, 1985). Note that flexible employment of inhibitory control in problem-solving
situations may involve not only the suppression of a dominant (but incorrect) response, but also
the activation of a subdominant (but adaptive) response, or alternation between initiating and
inhibiting a prepotent response according to setting conditions. For example, in the Bear/Dragon
task (a simplified version of Simons Says), children are told to perform all actions commanded by
a “nice” bear puppet but to suppress all actions commanded by a “naughty” dragon puppet, in an
alternating fashion. Young 3-year-olds have difficulty inhibiting their actions in this task despite
understanding the rule, whereas older 3-year-olds and most 4-year-olds can do so selectively
(Reed, Pien, & Rothbart, 1984). This example illustrates one of many similar EF tasks showing
marked improvement between ages 3 and 6, when children become much better at resolving con-
flict of attention and/or motor responses, waiting for a reward, and staying on-task in the face of
tempting distractions (Carlson, 2005; Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000).
Diverse problem-solving scenarios are likely to require flexible suppression and selection of
information in working memory and ensuing responses. Indeed, inhibitory control is thought to
contribute to individual differences and/or developmental changes in a wide array of cognitive
abilities including attention, memory, reading comprehension, and theory of mind (e.g., Carlson,
Mandell, & Williams, 2004; Dempster, 1992; Harnishfeger & Bjorklund, 1993; Posner & Rothbart,
2000). EF in general is strongly associated with prefrontal cortex (PFC), which has an extremely
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 491

protracted maturational period (e.g., Bunge & Zelazo, 2006; Diamond, 2002; Giedd, Blumenthal,
& Jeffries, 1999), however, age-related changes in EF are apparent early on in development and
are most striking during the preschool period.

1.2. Emotion regulation

Emotional development includes changes in emotion expression, understanding, and regu-

lation. Of these, emotion regulation (ER) is particularly likely to be related to EF. It has been
difficult to achieve consensus on a single definition of ER (see Bridges, Denham, & Ganiban,
2004; Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004; Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004). Our behavioral research exam-
ines children’s online modulation of their own emotion expression as the social situation calls
for it (down-regulation of negative or excitatory states and potential up-regulation/activation of
the opposite feeling state). Hence, we will use the definition provided by Saarni (1984) in which
ER refers to regulating the experience of emotion by monitoring one’s expressive behavior. This
conceptualization of ER relies on intrinsic regulatory processes as well as extrinsic factors, par-
ticularly children’s growing awareness of cultural display rules as they move from early to later
childhood. Display rules are social conventions that dictate where, when, and how emotion-related
behaviors should be expressed (Ekman & Friesen, 1969).
In Saarni’s (1984) classic disappointment paradigm, children were given an undesirable gift
(e.g., a babyish toy) and then observed to see how much they tried to dissemble or hide their
disappointment. Six-year-olds (especially boys) were openly negative in their expressions, older
children showed transitional behavior in which arousal level was apparent (e.g., lip biting) but
were less overtly negative, and it was not until 10–11 years of age that children were able to
exhibit positive behavior (e.g., exaggerate a smile). However, other studies using this procedure
have found developmental change and individual differences in ER among preschoolers (Cole,
1986; Garner & Power, 1996; Josephs, 1994; Liew, Eisenberg, & Reiser, 2004). Even toddlers
begin to become aware of their own distress and take steps to alleviate negative feelings, such as
distracting themselves from a forbidden toy by playing with a substitute object (Grolnick, Bridges,
& Connell, 1996; Kopp, 1989). Infants, too, engage in rudimentary forms of ER including gaze
aversion, sucking, and proximity seeking (Buss & Goldsmith, 1998; Rothbart, Ziaie, & O’Boyle,
1992) Thus, similar to EF, ER is an early emerging set of skills that takes a long time to develop
but shows marked improvement in the preschool period.
ER has been linked to several aspects of social functioning in preschoolers, including social
competence, popularity with peers and teachers, adjustment, shyness/introversion, and sympathy.
It is seen as a vital aspect of social competence and one that determines, in large measure, the
crucial social task of preschool children: positive engagement and self-regulation during peer
interaction (Denham et al., 2003). The increasing complexity and demands of the social world of
a preschooler make it necessary for children to modify their emotional reactions, made possible by
way of developmental increases in both the comprehension and control of emotionality (Denham
et al., 2003; Lewis, Sullivan, & Vasen, 1987).
Uncontrolled negative emotionality, in particular, is a serious detriment to children’s social
interactions (e.g., Denham, Blair, Schmidt, & DeMulder, 2002; Underwood, Coie, & Herbsman,
1992). In examining individual differences in preschool and school-age children’s social compe-
tence, Eisenberg and colleagues have identified an interaction between negative emotionality and
effortful control, defined by Rothbart and Bates (1998) as the ability to voluntarily inhibit a dom-
inant response to activate a subdominant response. Specifically, children rated by adults as high
in negativity tended to have poorer social outcomes, but this effect was moderated by individual
492 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

differences in effortful control (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1995; Eisenberg et al., 1996; Eisenberg et
al., 1997; Liew et al., 2004; see also Denham et al., 2003). Children high in effortful control
(as reported by parents and/or teachers) are less likely to express negative emotionality, presum-
ably because they can better manage their attention, emotions, and behavioral responses. Hence,
effortful control is thought to contribute to the modulation (e.g., maintaining, activating, inhibit-
ing) of emotion-related activities in specific situations, but also to reflect individual/dispositional
differences across situations (i.e., a key aspect of temperament) (Eisenberg & Spinrad, 2004).
Eisenberg and Fabes (1992) proposed a tripartite model to account for this pattern of inter-
actions between temperament and self-regulation. Undercontrolled children are considered low
in emotion regulation, impulsive, and high in emotional intensity; they are easily frustrated and
prone to reactive aggression. Highly inhibited children exhibit self-control but lack flexibility;
they tend to be socially withdrawn and sad or anxious. Children who are optimally regulated are
controlled but flexible and use adaptive means of coping with emotions; they are described as
relatively popular and socially competent.

1.3. Theory and research on the relation between executive function and emotion regulation

Research on the development of EF has taken place largely independently of investigations

of emotional development. Increasingly, however, along with research with adults (e.g., Ochsner
& Gross, 2005), developmental scientists are interested in the role of cognition in the control
of emotion expression and experience. Most definitions of ER suggest that it includes not only
affective experiences, but cognitive and behavioral processes as well (e.g., Cole et al., 2004;
Thompson, 1994). As yet, however, the precise nature of the cognition-emotion interactions in
development remains to be delineated and understood in reference to contemporary theories of EF.
From a developmental cognitive neuroscience perspective, emotion and cognition are intricately
linked and work together to process information and execute action (Bell & Wolfe, 2004; Cacioppo
& Berntson, 1999). Bidirectional influences are likely: Emotions can help organize one’s thinking,
learning and action (emotion as regulating), and cognitive processes play a role in regulating
emotions (emotions as regulated).
Zelazo and Cunningham (2007) proposed an interactive model in which emotion corresponds
to the motivational aspect of cognition in conscious, goal-directed problem-solving. On this view,
ER is either primary or secondary, but never entirely divorced from EF. When the “problem” to
be solved (the represented goal in working memory) is to modulate emotion (e.g., “don’t show
my disappointment”), in fact, ER and EF are isomorphic. However, when modulation of emotion
is secondary and occurs in the service of solving another problem (e.g., suppressing frustration so
that one can muster greater self-control during a game of Simon Says), then EF is said to involve
ER, but other non-affective, higher-order control and reflection processes likely to be activated
as well. Hence, according to Zelazo and Cunningham’s model, EF and ER bear a reciprocal
relation, the precise nature of which will depend on the motivational significance of the problem
and whether the problem itself is hot or cool.
There is limited research on the relation between EF and ER in young children. We have
already noted the shared developmental timetable in the preschool period. In addition, there is
increasing evidence that EF and ER have underlying neural mechanisms in common (for reviews
see Zelazo & Müller, 2002; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007). Further supporting a potential link
between EF and ER, some investigators have found that individual differences in EF laboratory
performance correlate moderately with parent report of child temperament, particularly effortful
control (e.g., Carlson & Moses, 2001; Gerardi-Caulton, 2000; Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, &
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 493

Zelazo, 2005; Jones, Rothbart & Posner, 2003; Kochanska et al., 2000; Rothbart, Ellis, & Posner,
2004). Many of these studies, however, administered only the temperament scales relevant to
effortful control, and/or only limited measures of EF. In an aggregate analysis of 420 preschool
children’s EF battery scores and full-scale temperament dimensions, Beck, Carlson, and Rothbart
(2007) found that a combination of both effortful control (high) and extraversion/surgency (low)
best characterized the children with relatively advanced EF skills.

1.4. Goals of the present study

To summarize, there is evidence to suggest that (a) EF and ER undergo dramatic development
in the preschool period; (b) EF and ER have important developmental outcomes in common,
particularly school readiness and social competence; (c) EF and ER likely draw on common neu-
ral substrates; and (d) temperament may exert similar influences on EF as those that have been
demonstrated for ER. Previous studies examining the role of cognitive processes in ER, or of
emotion/temperament processes in EF, have tended to use adult-report methods for either one or
both constructs. Parent- and teacher-reports are useful but inter-rater reliability across contexts
can be weak (e.g., Liew et al., 2004). What is needed is an examination of preschool children’s
performance on behavioral measures that call for inhibition of action in direct comparison with
those that call for inhibiting an emotional expression. We set out to address this gap and hypoth-
esized that inhibitory control serves as a common underlying process in the executive control
of both representation/action and emotional expressions in accordance with cognitively repre-
sented (but socially mediated) goals. Consistent with Zelazo and Cunnungham’s (2007) model,
we framed our design according to whether emotion-suppression could be considered the primary
or secondary goal.
For the ER battery, we included measures in which the control of emotional expression was
primary: Saarni’s (1984) disappointment paradigm (suppression of a negative expression) and a
new Secret Keeping task in which children were told an exciting secret (that a fish in the room could
talk) and asked not to reveal this knowledge to an experimenter (suppression of a positive/excited
expression). In addition, emotion understanding is also likely to be important, as it contributes
to the understanding of and adherence to social display rules, as well as increased self-awareness
of emotionally arousing events and the (often negative) consequences of dysregulated behavior.
For example, Saarni (1984) speculated that older children become better able to mask their true
feelings when they understand how their expressions might affect others. As children’s cognitive
development progresses, they become increasingly aware that emotional signals do not always
represent the true internal feeling state of the signaler (e.g., Banerjee, 1997; Harris, 1989; Josephs,
1994; Meerum Terwogt, Koops, Oosterhoff, & Olthof, 1986). Furthermore, Denham et al. (2003)
found significant inter-relations among emotion expression, emotion regulation, and emotion
understanding in preschoolers. Given these theoretical and empirical arguments, we included a
measure of Emotion Understanding in our ER battery in addition to the emotion-suppression
tasks.
For the IC battery, we selected measures in which children had to selectively suppress dom-
inant/activate subdominant responses. They included suppression of motor responses over a
temporal delay (Forbidden Toy, Gift Delay), and flexible selection of motor inhibition and acti-
vation (Simon Says). In each case, ER was considered secondary to the goal. For example, in
the Forbidden Toy task, although emotions might influence performance, the primary goal was
to inhibit touching an attractive toy, rather than controlling one’s facial expression of emotion
toward the toy.
494 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Children also were given the PPVT-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) in order to control for verbal
ability, which has not typically been done in previous studies of IC and ER. We predicted that
children who had difficulty on the IC tasks would also demonstrate difficulty on the ER tasks,
independent of age and verbal ability. We also examined potential effects of age group (4 versus 5)
and gender on the magnitude of the correlations, and tested both linear and curvilinear regressions
of IC on ER performance.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Fifty-three children ages 51–72 months (M = 60.21, S.D. = 8.09; 25 boys and 28 girls) were
observed in a single laboratory visit. They included 30 4-year-olds (M = 53.7 months, S.D. = 3.15;
14 boys and 16 girls) and 23 5-year-olds (M = 68.7, S.D. = 2.88; 11 boys and 12 girls). An addi-
tional six children were excluded because of either experimenter error or failure to complete the
procedure. Recruitment took place by telephoning parents listed in a university database who had
agreed to be contacted about developmental research and by posting flyers in local preschools of
a large metropolitan area. The participants were predominantly European-American and middle
class.

2.2. Procedure

Children were tested individually by two experimenters in a quiet laboratory playroom. Ses-
sions lasted approximately 45 min. Measures were administered in a fixed order, as follows:
PPVT-III; Simon Says; Forbidden Toy; Emotion Understanding; Secret Keeping; Gift Delay;
Disappointing Gift. All measures were videotaped and later coded by trained research assistants
who were blind to the hypotheses of the study. The one exception was the PPVT-III, which was
scored during the session.
We were interested in the extent that individual differences in inhibitory control would corre-
late with individual differences in emotion regulation. A fixed task order is standard practice in
individual differences research (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; see also Carlson & Moses, 2001). The
rationale is that if one is interested primarily in locating individuals with respect to one another
in a multidimensional space (rather than drawing inferences about means), it is critical that the
individuals be exposed to identical stimulus contexts. That context includes not only the stim-
uli themselves but also the order in which they are presented and its potential consequences for
performance (e.g., fatigue effects on the final task administered).
Parents (one for each child, usually the mother) participated by filling out questionnaires during
the laboratory session. Parents were seated in a room next-door to the testing room and could
observe their child on a video monitor.

2.3. Verbal ability measure

PPVT-III. The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (3rd ed.; Dunn & Dunn, 1997) was admin-
istered to assess children’s level of receptive vocabulary. The experimenter said a word from a
standardized list and children pointed to one of four pictures that they thought correctly depicted
the word. Testing proceeded until children erred on at least eight items from a block of 12. Raw
scores were used in data analysis.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 495

2.4. Inhibitory control measures

Simon Says. The traditional game of “Simon Says” was adapted (Strommen, 1973). The exper-
imenter began by modeling 10 simple motions and asking children to do them too (e.g., “touch
your nose”), and then went on to explain the rules of the game. Children were told to imitate
her actions only when the commanded motion was preceded by the words, “Simon Says.” Oth-
erwise, they were to remain perfectly still. The experimenter performed all actions, regardless
of whether it was an imitation (“Simon Says”) trial or an anti-imitation trial. Two practice tri-
als were given to ensure that children understood the rules (one of each type), followed by a
verbal rule check (“So, when I say ‘Simon Says’ do you do what I say and what I do? And
when I don’t say ‘Simon Says,’ do you do what I say and what I do?”). Children were corrected
as needed. There were 10 test trials (five “Simon Says” trials, and five anti-imitation trials in
a fixed interspersed order without feedback: Simon, Simon, no Simon, Simon, no Simon, rule
reminder, no Simon, Simon, no Simon, no Simon, Simon). Each trial was scored on a 4-point
scale according to whether it was a Simon/anti-imitation trial as follows: 0 = no movement/full
commanded movement; 1 = flinch/partial commanded movement; 2 = partial commanded move-
ment/flinch; 3 = full commanded movement/no movement. Total scores (0–30) were used in data
analysis. Note that although anti-imitation trials were hypothesized to be sensitive to individual
differences in inhibitory control, some children adopted a strategy of not doing any movements
(even on Simon trials) to resolve the conflict in the task, and so it was informative to sum across
all trials to index children’s selective inhibition and activation of a motor response.
Forbidden Toy. This procedure was modeled after Lewis, Stanger, and Sullivan’s (1989) study
of young children’s deception. Children were introduced to Playskool’s Magic Screen Learning
Pal toy, which was referred to as a “Magic Robot.” The experimenter told children that she needed
to leave the room for a while to finish up some work, and asked them to wait and not touch the
toy in the following manner: “Do you know what this is? It’s a Magic Robot! But before we start
playing with it, I have to go out of the room to do some work. So sit here, stay seated, and wait for
me to come back all right? I really want us to play together, so before I come back, try not to touch
the toy, okay? So see how long you can stay in your seat without touching the toy okay?” She
then placed the toy directly in front of the child (approximately 10 cm) and turned it on so that it
started to make noise and speak. The experimenter then left the room. The toy makes sounds (e.g.,
sneezes, says “Let’s play!) whenever it is touched but falls silent when untouched. At any point that
children touched the toy when alone, the experimenter returned to the room. Otherwise, the total
wait period was 5 min. When the experimenter returned, regardless of children’s performance,
she asked, “Did you touch the toy while I was gone?” to assess whether children could suppress
the truth (lie) if they had in fact touched it. If children answered yes, she said: “You did? Well,
thank you for being honest and telling me. That’s okay even if you did. I know it’s hard to wait
and not play with something you really like. Let’s play with the toy now!” If children answered
no, she said: “That’s okay even if you did. I know it’s hard to wait and not play with something
you really like. Let’s play with the toy now!” A touch score (0 = touched; 1 = did not touch) and
lying (0 = truth; 1 = lie) were recorded as separate dependent variables of interest following Lewis
et al. (1989).
Gift Delay. This task was adapted from Kochanska et al. (2000). Children were told they would
be given a present because they did so well on the games. The experimenter turned the child’s
chair around and asked children to face the other way (toward a hidden camera) and told them not
to peek while the present was being wrapped so that it would be a “big surprise.” She wrapped
the present noisily during a 60-s period (measured with a stopwatch) in a standardized manner:
496 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

rifling through a paper bag for the gift; placing it in a box; cutting wrapping paper; tearing off tape;
and taping the paper around the box. A peeking score was assigned as follows: 0 = fully turned
around; 1 = peeked over the shoulder; 2 = no peek. Latency to the first peek (over the shoulder)
and total number of peeks (reversed) also were recorded. All three variables were significantly
intercorrelated, rs (51) ranged from .67 to .87, ps < .0001, and so were standardized and averaged
to compute a composite Gift Delay score, following Kochanska et al. (2000).

2.5. Emotion regulation measures

Disappointing Gift. Following the Gift Delay in which children waited while a gift was being
wrapped, the experimenter presented the gift to children and encouraged them to open it right
away. As children unwrapped the present (a plain brown woodchip), they were reminded that the
gift is “really cool” and their facial expression was closely observed. Upon seeing the gift they
were asked, “Isn’t it cool? Do you like your present?” Children’s reaction to the gift was coded
using Saarni’s (1984) facial expression of emotion coding system for 15 s or until the child had
clearly finished reacting to the gift (see scoring items in Appendix A). Then E1 pretended to
realize that she had given children the wrong gift by mistake and presented them with a desirable
gift to take home. Note that children were not presented with choices for their favorite toy before
the disappointment task because we wanted to ensure that they had no idea what their present
would be for the Gift Delay portion of the procedure (thus highly tempted to peek). However, in
a pilot study of 4- to 5-year-olds in which we asked them to rank a set of items from most to least
liked, we confirmed that a wood chip was least liked when presented alongside a baby rattle and a
broken toy, and importantly, it was uniformly disliked by both boys and girls. Dependent variables
were a Like/Dislike score (their answer to whether or not they liked the Disappointing Gift;
yes = 1; no = 0), and Negative Expression Score, which included 1 point for each of the following
behaviors: Nose wrinkling; Lowered brow as in a frown or as in annoyance or disappointment;
Omitted “thank you”; Puckered or pursed mouth; Tight, straight-line mouth; Avoids eye contact
with experimenter; Negative noise emitted (e.g., snort, “ugh”); Makes a negative comment (e.g.,
“This is just a woodchip!” or “I don’t want this”); Shoulder shrug. Consistent with previous reports
using this task with preschoolers (e.g., Cole, 1986), we found that very few children were able to
muster positive expressions, and so we used only the sum of negative expressions in data analysis.
Note that higher scores meant poorer emotion regulation on this measure.
Secret Keeping. We designed this task to assess children’s ability to suppress a positive emotion.
Children were led to believe some very exciting news that a real goldfish could talk. Then they
were asked to keep it a secret. The experimenter first introduced them to a pet goldfish (“Sammy”)
in a clear tank that was situated in a corner of the laboratory room. Then she said she had to leave
the room for a while to “finish up some work.” Children were asked to please wait with Sammy in
the room. One minute after the experimenter departed, a confederate researcher, who was hidden
in an adjacent room behind a one-way mirror, spoke in a high-pitched voice into a closed-circuit
radio. Her voice was transmitted to a receiver hidden in a concealed container behind the fish
tank. The confederate said, “Psst! Hey kid, over here! Yeah, that’s right, in the fish tank on the
table! It’s me, Sammy the goldfish! What’s your name? Wow (C’s name), that’s a very nice name!
Sure, I can talk! But do me a favor all right? Let’s keep this a little secret between you and me,
okay? I don’t want (E’s name) to know about it because she would tell the whole world and
then EVERYONE will want to talk to me, and I would get too tired! Yikes, shh, here she comes
now!” At this point, the experimenter returned to the room saying that she had forgotten her
papers and asked the child if everything was all right in the room. If children answered yes (1
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 497

point), she would leave the room again, promising to return soon. Upon this second departure,
the confederate said “Whew! That was a close one! Thanks for helping me keep this a secret
and not telling (E’s name). Hmm . . .all this talking sure makes me hungry! I’m very hungry right
now, are you? Mmm, I wish I could have my favorite food right now. Pizza, I love pizza. Mmm,
I really wish someone would feed me some pizza! (E’s name) always feeds me broccoli, yuck!
I hate broccoli! Uh-oh! Here, she comes again, remember to keep our secret ok? Shh!” Small
canisters of fish food were located on the table next to the tank, with one depicting pizza on the
outside and one depicting broccoli. The experimenter then returned to the room and proceeded
to ask children a series of questions about whether or not the fish was hungry, what the fish liked
or did not like to eat (she suggested broccoli), and how they knew these things about the fish,
thus giving them several opportunities to reveal the secret. At any time that children gave away
the secret, the experimenter ended the task and debriefed them on what they actually heard and
introduced them to the confederate researcher in the control room. Children were then invited to
feed the fish together. The degree to which children were able to keep the secret was scored as the
number of correct (secret-maintaining) responses given to the experimenter’s prompts, ranging
from 0 (revealed immediately upon the first return to the room) to 5 (never revealed). Note that
all but four children tested were credulous of the fish’s ability to speak until they were debriefed
(and several persisted in their excitement about the fish even after debriefing). Non-believers were
excluded from data analysis of this task.
Emotion Understanding. Children were given a version of Gnepp and Chilamkurti’s (1988)
Emotion Understanding task. The experimenter told two stories about two different boys or girls
(gender was matched to the participant). Each story was accompanied by four drawings. The first
story depicted Eric/Erica as someone who “doesn’t like to share” and ended with the mother asking
Eric/Erica to share cookies with friends. The experimenter first asked four memory questions to
ensure that children correctly understood and remembered the story. Then they were asked to pre-
dict how Eric/Erica would feel upon being asked by his/her mother to share the cookies (prediction
question: “Do you think Eric/Erica felt happy or sad when his/her mom said that?”), and the reason
for their prediction (justification question: “Why do you think Eric/Erica felt [happy/sad]?”). The
second story depicted Tommy/Tammy as someone “who likes to help other people” and ended
with the mother asking Tommy/Tammy to help his/her little sister clean her room. Again, chil-
dren were first asked memory questions and then asked to predict how Tommy/Tammy would feel
upon being asked by his/her mother to help the sister, and why. Children received a point for each
correct response to prediction and justification questions (whether the justification corresponded
appropriately to the prediction), for a total maximum score of 4.

2.6. Parent questionnaires

Self-Control Rating Scale (Kendall & Wilcox, 1979). This questionnaire includes 33 statements
about the child’s inhibitory control (e.g., “Does the child think before he or she acts?”). Parents
were asked to rate their child’s tendencies on a 7-point scale (1 = always; 7 = never, for all items).
To reduce the potential confusion of negative correlations, we later reverse-scored items so that
higher scores meant better self-control. Item scores had good internal consistency, Cronbach’s
alpha = .92, and were summed and then averaged for data analysis.
Emotion Regulation Rating Scale. We developed a brief 6-item questionnaire to obtain parent-
report information about children’s ability to regulate their behavior in emotionally charged
situations. Items are listed in Table 1. The response scale ranged from 1 (not likely) to 7 (very
likely). Individual items were reverse-scored as needed and averaged for data analysis. Higher
498 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Table 1
The emotion regulation rating scale
Instructions
Please rate this child according to the descriptions below by circling the appropriate number. The underlined 4
in the center of each item represents where the average child would fall on this item. Please feel free to use
the entire range of possible ratings.
Items
1. After receiving a Disappointing Gift from someone, how likely is your child to pretend to like the gift?
2. After seeing someone trip or fall down in a funny way, how likely is your child to laugh out loud?
3. After eating something that is distasteful to your child, how likely is he/she to spit out the food or react
negatively?
4. In a more serious setting, such as church or a funeral, how likely is your child to understand and behave
appropriately to the solemn situation?
5. If asked to keep a secret (e.g., not telling a sibling about a surprise birthday party), how likely is your child
to keep the secret?
6. How likely is your child to help others (e.g., friend/sibling) keep a secret in order to prevent punishment?
(e.g., not telling mom that a sibling knocked over a vase)

Note: All items were accompanied by the following 7-point scale:

scores meant greater emotional control. This exploratory questionnaire had adequate internal
consistency, Cronbach’s alpha = .68.

3. Results

3.1. Reliability of coding

Following initial training and refinement of coding schemes for the new measures, we obtained
inter-rater reliability between the main coder and a second coder on all behavioral measures for
11 participants (21%). Percent agreement was ≥90% (Cohen’s kappa ≥ .80) on all dependent
measures and reaction times were all within 1 s on Gift Delay.

3.2. Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations for all dependent variables are shown in Table 2. These results
suggested sufficient variability to detect individual differences, however, there was some evidence
of positive skew on Gift Delay, and negative skew on Disappointing Gift.

3.3. Relations with age, sex, and verbal ability

Correlations among all variables and their relations to age (in months), sex, and verbal ability
(indexed by PPVT-III) are provided in Table 3. Age was significantly positively related to Simon
Says, Gift Delay, Emotion Understanding, Disappointing Gift (reporting they liked the gift),
and parent report on the Self-Control and Emotion Regulation Rating Scales. With increasing
age, children also were significantly less likely to display negative emotional expressions in the
Disappointing Gift task.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 499

Table 2
Measures and descriptive statistics by age group
Variable N Min Max Overall 4-year-olds 5-year-olds
Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.) Mean (S.D.)

PPVT-III (raw) 53 45 126 86.60 (19.17) 78.96 (16.49) 95.16 (18.60)

Simon Says 53 7 30 21.17 (5.84) 18.79 (5.87) 23.84 (4.59)
Forbidden Toy
No Touch 53 0 1 .55 (.50) .46 (.51) .64 (.49)
Lie 52 0 1 .37 (.49) .36 (.49) .38 (.49)
Gift Delay
Peek score 53 0 2 1.43 (.82) 1.14 (.89) 1.76 (.60)
# of peeks 53 0 4 .67 (1.09) 1.04 (1.28) .28 (.68)
latency (second) 53 1.00 60.00 49.45 (18.13) 44.73 (20.19) 54.36 (14.52)
Conflict Emotion 53 1 4 3.02 (1.03) 2.68 (1.07) 3.38 (.88)
Secret Keeping 48 0 5 2.54 (1.83) 2.33 (2.06) 2.81 (1.5)
Disappointing Gift
Like/Dislike 43 0 1 .56 (.50) .38 (.49) .79 (.42)
Negative Expression 53 1 4 1.72 (.84) 2.04 (.92) 1.36 (.57)
Self-Control RS 53 1.88 4.73 3.24 (.73) 3.43 (.72) 3.03 (.69)
Emotion Regulation RS 53 1.33 5.67 3.57 (.97) 3.32 (1.11) 3.90 (.62)

Note: Gift Delay # Peeks and the Self-Control Rating Scale were reverse-scored for data analyses; original scores are
shown.

A similar pattern of results emerged for verbal ability. PPVT-III scores were significantly
related to Simon Says, Gift Delay, Emotion Understanding, Secret Keeping, Self-Control Rating
Scale, and the Emotion Regulation Rating Scale. These findings suggested, as we expected, that
aspects of inhibitory control of action and emotion were strongly related to both age and verbal
ability. Hence, we controlled for these factors in partial correlations presented in parentheses in
Table 3.
Sex was not related to study variables in any consistent manner. Girls were somewhat more
likely to succeed on Simon Says, but performed less well than boys on Gift Delay and Disappoint-
ing Gift (the “like” question). Sex will be considered in later analyses but these results suggested
it was not necessary to include it as a covariate in the main analyses.

3.4. Correlations among inhibitory control measures

As shown in Table 3, Simon Says performance was unrelated to the two delay variables (For-
bidden Toy and Gift Delay) but was significantly positively related to parent report of children’s
self-control, and remained so even after controlling for age and verbal ability. Forbidden Toy and
Gift Delay were significantly correlated with each other and to the Self-Control Rating Scale in
both bivariate and partial correlations. Given this overall pattern of inter-correlation, we present
findings for individual tasks as well as the Inhibitory Control Composite scores consisting of the
average standardized (z) scores across Simon Says, Forbidden Toy (touch minus lie scores), and
Gift Delay. A principle components analysis indicated a one-factor solution accounting for 58%
of the variance with the following factor loadings: Gift Delay (.82); Forbidden Toy (.76); Simon
Says (.47). Parent report of self-control was significantly correlated with children’s performance
on the Inhibitory Control Composite and remained so after controlling for age and verbal ability
(see Table 3).
 500
S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510
Table 3
Correlations and partial correlations between measures
Sex PPVT Simon Forbidden Forbidden Toy Gift delay Emotion Secret Disappoint Gift Negative IC COMP ER COMP Self-Control Emot. Reg.
Says Toy Lie Understd. Keeping Gift like Express. Rating Scale Rating Scale
Touch
Age −.14 .54*** .56*** .01 .19 .33* .47*** .13 .32* −.34* .27† .43** .30* .38**
Sex 1.000 −.11 .24† .05 −.02 −.28* .04 −.12 −.32* .04 .02 −.20 .14 .12
†
PPVT-III 1.000 .43 **
−.08 .06 .33 *
.56***
.34* .19 −.15 .23 .46** .32* .29*
Simon Says 1.000 .09 .04 .19 .50*** (.27† ) −.01 −.01 −.39** (−.27† ) .46** (.38** ) .28* (.00) .42** (.30* ) .48*** (.34* )
Forbidden Toy Touch 1.000 −.82*** (−.85*** ) .38** (.43** ) .01 .09 .25 −.31* (−.32* ) .85*** (.90*** ) .22 (.28* ) .33* (.37** ) .22 (.25† )
Forbidden Toy Lie 1.000 −.19 (−.27† ) .11 −.12 −.08 .29* (.39** ) −.73*** (−.83*** ) −.11 (−.21) −.19 (−.26† ) −.14
Gift Delay 1.000 .36** (.19) .25† (.18) .41** (.34* ) −.31* (−.23† ) .65*** (.62*** ) .55*** (.45* * ) .28* (.16) .16
Emotion Understd. 1.000 .43** (.34* ) .28† (.16) −.23 .28* (.16) .76*** (.66*** ) .23 .35** (.18)
Secret keeping 1.000 .32* (.31* ) −.12 .17 .73*** (.73*** ) .04 −.07
Disappoint Gift 1.000 −.26† (−.17) .26* (.19) .68*** (.66*** ) .03 .01
Like/Dislike
Disappoint Gift 1.000 −.48*** (-.44** ) −.48*** (−.43** ) −.12 −.31* (−.21)
Negative Express.
IC COMP 1.000 .43** (.35* ) .45** (.39** ) .37** (.29* )
ER COMP 1.000 .17 .21
Self-Control Rating 1.000 .62*** (.57*** )
System
Note: Selected partial correlations controlling for age and verbal ability are shown in parentheses. IC COMP = Inhibitory Control Composite; ER COMP = Emotion Regulation Composite.
* p < .05.
** p < .01.
*** p < .0001.
† p < .10.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 501

3.5. Correlations among emotion regulation measures

The emotion variables also are displayed in Table 3. Emotion Understanding was significantly
positively related to Secret Keeping, and remained so even after controlling for age and verbal
ability. The relations between Emotion Understanding and Disappointing Gift (Like/Dislike) and
the Emotion Regulation Rating Scale were marginal or significant in bivariate analyses but were
nonsignificant in partial correlations. Secret Keeping was significantly related to Disappointing
Gift; the ability to keep an exciting secret (positive emotion-suppression) predicted children’s
ability to say they “liked” the undesirable gift (negative emotion-suppression and initiation of
an opposite response to the way one really feels), although it was not related to their ability
to suppress negative emotional expressions upon opening the gift. Disappointing Gift (negative
expressions) was significantly negatively related to scores on the Emotion Regulation Rating
Scale, but fell below significance after controlling for age and verbal ability. Given this pattern of
results, we computed an aggregate Emotion Regulation Composite for each participant consisting
of standardized and averaged Emotion Understanding, Secret Keeping, and Disappointing Gift
(“like” minus negative expression) scores. A principal components analysis indicated a one-
factor solution accounting for 68% of the variance with the following factor scores: Emotion
Understanding (.79); Secret Keeping (.78); Disappointing Gift (.72). Parent report of emotion
regulation was moderately but nonsignificantly related to children’s performance on the Emotion
Regulation Composite, r(53) = .21, p > .10. Parent report was considered separately in further
analyses.

3.6. Relation between inhibitory control and emotion regulation

Next we examined the key question of interest in this study. First, using the aggregate measures,
we found that IC and ER were significantly correlated, r(53) = .43, p = .001. After controlling for
the effects of age and verbal ability, this relation remained significant, r(49) = .35, p < .05.
As shown in Table 3, several of the individual task variables were correlated. Simon Says
was significantly related to Emotion Understanding (positively) and to Disappointing Gift Neg-
ative Expressions (negatively). Both coefficients were reduced to trends in partial correlations
controlling for age and verbal ability. In addition, Forbidden Toy (Touch) was negatively related
to Disappointing Gift Negative Expressions, even in partial correlations, indicating that children
who were able to inhibit touching the toy (n = 29) also were able to suppress negative expressions
upon receiving an undesirable gift. Conversely, children who lied about having touched the toy
(n = 19) tended to exhibit negative emotional responses in the Disappointing Gift task. (Note that
none of the children who did not touch the toy lied by saying they had touched it.) Lastly, Gift
Delay was related to all three of the Emotion Regulation tasks. The relation to Disappointing Gift
(“like” response) remained significant and that to negative expressions was marginally significant
in partial correlations. The relations of Gift Delay to Emotion Understanding and Secret Keeping
were nonsignificant after controlling for age and verbal ability. Hence, as expected, the aggregate
measures produced more reliable and robust coefficients estimating the relation between IC and
ER than did the individual task variables.
Although there is precedent in the literature showing that emotion knowledge and regulatory
skills co-develop (e.g., Denham et al., 2003), it might be argued that our inclusion of Emotion
Understanding in the ER Composite unduly influenced the relation to IC. The story task in which
children were asked about others’ emotional states is somewhat analogous to theory of mind
(Banerjee, 1997), which is known to have a robust relation to individual differences in inhibitory
502 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

control in the preschool period (e.g., Carlson & Moses, 2001), but perhaps it should not be
considered emotion regulation, per se. Therefore, we computed a separate Emotion-Suppression
Composite score for each participant that reflected the average performance across positive (Secret
Keeping) and negative (Disappointing Gift) emotion-suppression. Emotion-suppression was sig-
nificantly related to IC Composite scores, r(50) = .46, p = .001, and remained so after controlling
for age and verbal ability, r(46) = .41, p < .01.
The parent-report measures (Self-Control and Emotion Regulation Rating Scales) were highly
correlated with each other, and remained so after controlling for age and verbal ability (see Table 3).
The Self-Control Rating Scale was unrelated to children’s ER Composite scores. However, the
Emotion Regulation Rating Scale was significantly correlated with children’s performance on the
IC Composite and remained so after controlling for age and verbal ability.
In the next set of analyses, we considered the 4- and 5-year-old age groups and males and
females separately, to determine whether the magnitude of the relation between IC and ER dif-
fered as a function of age or sex. The results indicated that the IC and ER Composites were
significantly related in the 4-year-olds, r(30) = .42, p < .05, but not the 5-year-olds, r(23) = .10,
p > .10. Among 4-year-olds, the relation held up independent of verbal ability as measured by the
PPVT-III, r(28) = .41, p < .05. Furthermore, the Inhibitory Control and Emotion Regulation Com-
posites were significantly related in girls, r(28) = .55, p < .01, but less strongly in boys, r(25) = .25,
p > .10.
In the final set of analyses, we compared linear and nonlinear models of hierarchical regres-
sion with ER scores as the criterion. In particular, we wanted to explore Eisenberg and Fabes’
(1992) model that suggested there might be an inverted U function in the relation between IC
and ER, such that low and high levels of inhibition could be associated with ER difficulties.
Consistent with the correlation analyses, IC Composite scores significantly predicted the ER
Composite, F(1, 48) = 15.05, p < .001. In this linear model, multiple R = .49, R2 = .24, β = .49,
t = 3.88, p < .001. The quadratic model also was significant, F(2, 47) = 11.77, p < .001, and fur-
thermore, the quadratic fit the data significantly over and above the linear effect, multiple R = .58,
R2 = .33, β = −.33, t = −2.59, p < .05. The nonlinear function explained an additional 9.5% of the
variance in ER. Given these results, we categorized children evenly into low, medium, and high
on IC and plotted their ER scores for 4-year-olds and 5-year-olds separately. Fig. 1 illustrates

Fig. 1. Quadratic relation between emotion regulation and inhibitory control as a function of age group. Note: Emotion
regulation scores reflect the mean z + 1 to avoid negative numbers in the illustration. Bars represent standard error.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 503

how medium levels of IC were associated with the highest levels of ER performance in both age
groups.

4. Discussion

The aim of this research was to investigate the nature and strength of the relation between
inhibitory control (a key aspect of EF) and emotion regulation in typically developing preschool-
ers. Our approach was novel in that it examined behavioral and parent-report methods of
both constructs, included assessments of emotion understanding and both positive and negative
emotion-suppression, and controlled for verbal ability.

4.1. Summary of results

As we hypothesized, individual differences in IC and ER were significantly positively related.

The magnitude of the zero-order correlation between the composite scores in the total sample
was moderate (r = .43). Each construct also was related to age and verbal ability; nevertheless,
the relation between IC and ER remained significant when these factors were held constant. Fur-
thermore, the relation remained (and was even stronger) for IC and Emotion-Suppression scores,
suggesting that our inclusion of Emotion Understanding in the ER Composite did not spuri-
ously inflate the correlation. Individual tasks from each construct were correlated, however, as is
commonly found in the EF literature, the relation was stronger at the aggregate level. Rushton,
Brainerd, and Pressley (1983) advocated aggregation across individual measures of a construct
for greater psychometric precision. It is also noteworthy that the parent-report measures of the
constructs of interest (Self-Control and Emotion Regulation Rating Scales) were significantly
correlated, and remained so over and above child age and verbal ability. There was also evidence
of an association across constructs and reporting methods: parent report of emotion regulation
was significantly related to children’s IC scores, independent of age and verbal ability. The con-
verse pattern (parent report of self-control predicting children’s ER scores), was nonsignificant,
however.
Although it is important not to lose sight of the omnibus result, the strength of the relation
between IC and ER varied somewhat according to age and sex. It was significant in 4-year-olds
but not in 5-year-olds, and quite strong in girls (r = .55) but not boys, considered separately. The
age finding might be due to methodological factors, such as a small sample and ceiling effects
in 5-year-olds on some of our measures, although as shown in Fig. 1, the nature of the relation
in 5-year-olds mimicked that of 4-year-olds despite their higher overall level of ER. In any case,
it will be fruitful to include 3-year-olds in future research of this kind to examine the earlier
emergence of IC and ER skills. The gender finding is consistent with some previous research on
ER suggesting that poorly regulated emotions are more rare in girls due to socialization and/or
greater emotion awareness, but when girls are dysregulated, it is usually indicative of even more
severe problems of effortful control and social competence than is the case for boys (e.g., Denham
et al., 2003; Eisenberg et al., 1996; McDowell et al., 2000).
Lastly, when we compared linear and nonlinear models regressing IC onto ER Composite
scores, the linear function was significant, as anticipated given the zero-order correlations. In
addition, however, there was evidence for a significant quadratic relation between the variables
(over and above the linear relation), such that intermediate scores on IC were associated with the
highest scores on ER in an inverted U pattern. To interpret these overall results, we next consider
three basic ways of conceptualizing the potential interplay between EF and emotion regulation.
504 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

4.2. Inter-relation between executive function and emotion regulation

EF → ER. The first possibility is that domain-general inhibitory processes underlie and are
indeed necessary for successful emotion regulation. Working memory (holding a goal in mind)
plus inhibition may enable the suppression of unwanted emotional experience, inappropriate emo-
tional displays, and possibly even the physiological markers of emotional arousal (e.g., Gross,
1998). On this account we would expect emotion regulation to depend functionally on the devel-
opment of inhibitory control and maturation of PFC (e.g., Harnishfeger & Bjorklund, 1993). The
link between inhibitory control and emotion regulation lies in the fact that that they both have
the same underlying requirements: (1) preventing an impulsive response, and (2) carrying out the
opposite act. For example, to regulate an emotion expression in the Disappointing Gift task, one
must resist an impulsive response (e.g., blurting out “I don’t want this!”), and ideally behave in a
way that does not correspond to how one is actually feeling (e.g., smiling and saying thank you).
If a deficiency of inhibitory control prevents either of these steps, then emotion regulation has
failed and more than likely, the audience will not be convinced by the act. Furthermore, on this
account, the more intense the experience of our true internal emotions, the harder it will be to
control its expression and hence increase the need for inhibitory control. This hypothesis could
be tested by manipulating the emotion-arousal levels within a paradigm to see whether individ-
ual differences in inhibitory control predict emotion regulation performance incrementally as a
function of emotional intensity.
ER ⇒ EF. The second possibility is that emotion regulation plays an essential role in successful
inhibitory control. On this account, better emotion-coping (via self-regulation) frees up cognitive
resources for more effective problem-solving, that is, it frees up resources for the suppression
of thought processes or actions that interfere with the goal or task at hand. When all is well,
emotions are not so much regulated as they are regulating of ongoing goal-directed behavior.
However, unchecked emotions can impair reasoning and planning ability by placing additional
burdens on an already-taxed information processing system.
From this perspective, emotion is seen as fundamental to individual differences between chil-
dren in temperament and coping style (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 1996; Lengua, 2002, 2006; Rothbart
& Bates, 1998). Rothbart and Bates (1998) defined temperament as, “individual differences in
basic psychological processes constituting the affective, activational, and attentional core of per-
sonality” (p. 108). Furthermore, emotion expressions are seen as reflecting children’s evaluation
of the extent to which their goals are met by ongoing events (Campos, Campos, & Barrett,
1989). Thus, individual differences or predispositions in emotional functioning (conceptualized
as temperament and thought to be relatively stable) can contribute to underlying processes of
adaptation (or maladaptation) in all manner of goal-oriented problem-solving situations, whether
they are intrapersonal and “cognitive” or more dynamic, interpersonal and “social.” As discussed
in the Introduction, negative emotionality, in particular, may directly impair problem-solving
ability.
EF ⇔ ER. The third possibility incorporates aspects of both directional hypotheses into an
integrative model, such as that proposed by Zelazo and Cunningham (2007). They referred to
deliberate self-regulation of emotion via conscious cognitive processing as the aspect of emotion
regulation that is most relevant to EF, although more automatic processes of self-regulation also
are clearly involved. When the primary goal, the “problem” at hand, is to regulate an emo-
tional expression, EF and ER are indistinguishable. However, when modulation of emotion
is secondary and occurs in the service of solving another problem (e.g., not peeking on Gift
Delay), then EF is said to involve ER, but in this case other non-affective, higher-order infor-
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 505

mation processes associated with psychological distancing are likely to be active (e.g., strategies
such as talking and singing). In this manner, both hot EF (control of an approach/avoidance
focus) and cool EF (higher order processing of abstract information) may be associated
with ER.
Correlational designs do not permit us to sort out these different possibilities but they do
enable us to examine the nature and magnitude of the relation between IC and ER. Our finding
of a quadratic relation points to the complexity of this interplay, and the need to consider what
more inhibitory control means in different theoretical orientations. Strictly speaking from an
EF perspective, more inhibitory control over interfering thought processes or actions is seen as
adaptive and ought to be monotonically related to numerous cognitive skills (e.g., as it is to theory
of mind, Carlson & Moses, 2001). From a temperament perspective, however, more inhibited
tendencies in children (e.g., extreme shyness and fearfulness) can be associated with a host of
developmental difficulties, as in Kagan’s construct of behavioral inhibition (Kagan, Reznick,
& Gibbons, 1989). In the developmental psychopathology literature, several investigators such
as Fox (1994) and Nigg (2000) make the distinction between under-control that can result in
externalizing problems (e.g., ADHD, oppositional behavior) and over-control that can result in
internalizing problems (e.g., depression and anxiety).
It is possible that children who scored in the upper third on our IC Composite measure were
relatively over-controlled and, while this trait can be helpful in some more cognitively oriented
problem-solving situations, it could be less helpful (and maybe even harmful) in motivationally
significant situations due to blunting of affect or increased anxiety. This interpretation fits with
Eisenberg and Fabes’ (1992) tripartite model of temperament and self-regulation, in which opti-
mally controlled children would be expected to perform best on measures of emotion regulation
relative to both under-controlled and highly inhibited children. Although we did not administer a
full-scale temperament assessment in the present study, we know from Beck et al.’s (2007) large-
scale study that preschool children who performed best on EF tasks were more highly introverted
(a reactivity trait) as well as higher in effortful control (a regulatory trait). Furthermore, Liew et
al. (2004) found that effortful control (both parent and teacher report) was associated with fewer
negative reactions in the Disappointing Gift paradigm, similar to our finding of a significant zero-
order correlation between IC and ER. Interestingly, however, in their study effortful control also
was associated with fewer positive reactions during disappointment, which might suggest some
emotion blunting in the most highly controlled children. This finding is consistent with our results
showing an inverted U function in the IC-ER intercepts. The quadratic relation also is consistent
with a report from Bell and Wolfe (2004) of relatively poor emotion regulation (measured as
distress to limitations) in infants with better working memory. Their interpretation was that less
emotionally well-regulated children elicit more parental interaction and support, which may in
turn lead to enhanced cognitive skills including working memory. Thus, the caregiving environ-
ment might play an essential role in helping to explain these seemingly paradoxical effects. Our
finding of a nonlinear relation clearly supports an interactive model of cognition and emotion and
indicates that future research and theory will call for more nuanced conceptualizations of EF-ER
relations.

4.3. Limitations and future directions

Although EF is often depicted as a unitary construct (e.g., a central executive; Baddeley,

1986; Shallice, 1988), there is some support for at least partially dissociable EF processes
involving working memory and different types of inhibition (Friedman & Miyake, 2004;
506 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Miyake et al., 2000). We did not examine multiple divisions within the EF construct and
their relation to emotion regulation, but this is a potentially fruitful direction for further
research.
Similarly, multiple levels of analysis remain to be explored in addition to the behavioral
assessments we used. For example, electrophysiological (EEG/ERP) techniques hold promise
for evaluating the role of PFC in cognitive control in both emotive and non-emotive con-
texts (Lewis & Stieben, 2004). Neuroscience approaches might help to address the thorny
problem in the ER literature of sorting out emotional experience from regulation, neither
of which is observed but inferred from low intensity of emotional expression. It is possible
that the individual differences we observed were more a matter of emotional intensity – and
therefore in the province of temperament – than a matter of more or less effective regula-
tion of a steady state (Cole et al., 2004; Fox, 1994; Kagan et al., 1989). However, in the
disappointment paradigm at least, children do appear to intentionally modulate their emotion
expressions in accordance with display rules (Cole, Zahn-Waxler, & Smith, 1994). Even so, it
is difficult to standardize the extent to which different children will feel disappointed in this
situation.
We also do not know the extent to which our new Secret Keeping task, designed to elicit
regulation of positive excitement, was testing regulation per se versus individual differences
in the emotional experience itself. It is possible that some children were very excited to share
the secret whereas others were astonished and fearful of the talking fish. Further research is
needed to validate this measure by demonstrating a change in emotion expression over time
and across different social conditions. Nevertheless, this task is potentially useful for extending
our understanding of emotion regulation to include positive emotions. It is important to keep in
mind that highly exuberant children’s inability to keep a lid on a secret, inappropriate laughter,
speaking in an overly loud voice, surgency (e.g., excessive tickling), and generally not knowing
when to put the brakes on their activities, are likely to put them at risk for peer rejection and
poor adjustment, even though most prior research on emotion regulation has concentrated on
the outcomes of negative emotions such as anger (Fox, Henderson, Rubin, Calkins, & Schmidt,
2001).
Lastly, our research using diverse tasks helps to illustrate how similar executive control
processes can be used in the service of controlling action and emotional expression. Future
research, however, might include more controlled attempts to examine development and indi-
vidual differences in highly similar tasks infused with cool (non-affective) and hot (affective)
overtones.
The present study raises several issues that remain to be explored in cognition-emotion interac-
tions, but it provides some answers as well. First, it demonstrated a significant correlation between
individual differences in inhibitory control and emotion regulation in preschool children, using
behavioral and parent-report measures of both constructs, and controlling for age and verbal abil-
ity. Second, the study uncovered a nonlinear relation between these constructs, in which both low
and high levels of inhibition can be deleterious for the regulation of emotion in a social context.
This research highlights that both cognitive control and temperament are important interactive
contributors to socio-emotional development.

Acknowledgement

We thank the undergraduate members of the Child Development Lab for assistance with coding
and data entry, and we are indebted to several goldfish named Sammy.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 507

Appendix A. Scoring sheet for reactions to the Disappointing Gift

Positive dimensions (1 each)

Broad smile with teeth showing
Broad, closed lip smile
Enthusiastic “thank you”
Arched brows as in positive surprise
Smiling eye contact with experimenter
Eye crinkle while smiling
Positive dimensions score:
Transitional response dimensions (0)
Slight smile – open or closed lips
Faint or mumbled “thank you”
Knit brows while smiling slightly, or as in distress
Tongue movements visible outside mouth
Two or more gaze shifts between gift and experimenter
Biting or teeth visible on lips
Hands to face, head
Head tilt, turn
Questioning vocalization
Laughing, giggling
Mouthing (opening, shutting)
Abrupt loss of smile
Negative dimensions (1 each)
Nose wrinkling
Lowered brows as in a frown or as in annoyance, disappointment
Omitted “thank you”
Puckered or pursed mouth
Tight, straight-line mouth
Avoids eye contact with experimenter
Negative noise emitted (e.g., snort, “ugh”)
Makes a negative comment (e.g., “This is just a woodchip!” or “I don’t want this”)
Shoulder shrug
Negative dimensions score:

References

Baddeley, A. (1986). Exploring the central executive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experi-
mental Psychology (Special Issue: Working Memory), 49A, 5–28.
Banerjee, M. (1997). Hidden emotions: Preschoolers’ knowledge of appearance-reality and emotional display rules. Social
Cognition, 45, 107–132.
Barkley, R. A. (1997). Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: Constructing a unifying theory
of ADHD. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 65–94.
Beck, D. M., Carlson, S. M., & Rothbart, M. K. (2007). Executive function, effortful control and parent report of children’s
temperament. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington.
Bell, M. A., & Wolfe, C. D. (2004). Emotion and cognition: An intricately bound developmental process. Child Devel-
opment, 75, 366–370.
Bridges, L. J., Denham, S. A., & Ganiban, J. M. (2004). Definitional issues in emotion regulation research. Child
Development, 75, 340–345.
Bunge, S., & Zelazo, P. D. (2006). A brain-based account of the development of rule use in childhood. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 15, 118–121.
508 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Buss, K. A., & Goldsmith, H. H. (1998). Fear and anger regulation in infancy: Effects on the temporal dynamics of
affective expression. Child Development, 69, 359–374.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system: Architecture and operating characteristics. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 8, 133–137.
Campos, J. J., Campos, R. G., & Barrett, K. C. (1989). Emergent themes in the study of emotional development and
emotion regulation. Developmental Psychology, 25, 394–402.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616.
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s theory of mind. Child
Development, 72, 1032–1053.
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind: Stability and prediction
from age 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40, 1105–1122.
Casey, B. J., Tottenham, N., & Fossella, J. (2002). Clinical, imaging, lesion, and genetic approaches toward a model of
cognitive control. Developmental Psychobiology, 40, 237–254.
Cole, P. M. (1986). Children’s spontaneous expressive control of facial expression. Child Development, 57, 1309–1321.
Cole, P.M., Michel, M.K., & Teti, L.O. (1994). The development of emotion regulation and dysregulation: A clinical
perspective. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 5 (2–3, Serial No. 240), 73–100.
Cole, P. M., Zahn-Waxler, C., & Smith, K. D. (1994). Expressive control during a disappointment: Variations related to
preschoolers’ behavior problems. Developmental Psychology, 30, 835–846.
Cole, P. M., Martin, S. E., & Dennis, T. A. (2004). Emotion regulation as a scientific construct: Methodological challenges
and directions for child development research. Child Development, 75, 317–333.
Dempster, F. N. (1992). The rise and fall of the inhibitory mechanism: Toward a unified theory of cognitive development
and aging. Developmental Review, 12, 45–75.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., Schmidt, M., & DeMulder, E. (2002). Compromised emotional competence: Seeds of violence
sown early? American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 70–82.
Denham, S. A., Blair, K. A., DeMulder, E., Levitas, J., Sawyer, K., Auerbach-Major, S., & Queenan, P. (2003). Preschool
emotional competence: Pathway to social competence? Child Development, 74, 238–256.
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions,
anatomy, and biochemistry. In D. Stuss & R. Knight (Eds.), Principles of frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). New
York: Oxford.
Dodge, K. A., & Garber, J. (1991). Domains of emotion regulation. In J. Garber & K. A. Dodge (Eds.), The development
of emotion regulation and dysregulation (pp. 159–181). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody picture vocabulary test (3rd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1992). Emotion and its regulation in early development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass/Pfeiffer.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child Development, 75,
334–339.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Murphy, B. C., Maszk, P., Smith, M., & Karbon, M. (1995). The role of emotionality and
regulation in children’s social functioning: A longitudinal study. Child Development, 66, 109–128.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., Maszk, P., Holmgren, R., et al. (1996). The relations of
regulation and emotionality to problem behavior in elementary school children. Development and Psychopathology,
8, 141–162.
Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., Shepard, S. A., Murphy, B. C., Guthrie, I. K., Jones, S., et al. (1997). Contemporaneous
and longitudinal prediction of children’s social functioning from regulation and emotionality. Child Development, 68,
642–664.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. (1969). The repertoire of nonverbal behavior: Categories, origins, usage, and coding. Semiotica,
1, 49–98.
Fox, N. A. (1994). Dynamic cerebral processes underlying emotion regulation. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development
of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240), 152–166.
Fox, N. A., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Calkins, S. D., & Schmidt, L. A. (2001). Continuity and discontinuity of
behavioral inhibition and exuberance: Psychophysiological and behavioral influences across the first four years of
life. Child Development, 72, 1–21.
Friedman, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2004). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 101–135.
 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510 509

Garner, P. W., & Power, T. G. (1996). Preschoolers’ emotional control in the disappointment paradigm and its relation to
temperament, emotional knowledge, and family expressiveness. Child Development, 67, 1406–1419.
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.
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A
longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 861–863.
Gnepp, J., & Chilamkurti, C. (1988). Children’s use of personality attributes to predict other people’s emotional and
behavioral reactions. Child Development, 59, 743–754.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L. J., & Connell, J. P. (1996). Emotion regulation in two-year-olds: Strategies and emotional
expression in four contexts. Child Development, 67, 928–941.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2,
271–299.
Harnishfeger, K. K., & Bjorklund, D. F. (1993). The ontogeny of inhibition mechanisms: A renewed approach to cognitive
development. In M. L. Howe & R. Pasnak (Eds.), Emerging themes in cognitive development. Vol. I: Foundations (pp.
28–49). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Harris, P. L. (1989). Children and emotion: The development of psychological understanding. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Hot and cool executive function: Age-related
changes and individual differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 617–644.
Jones, L., Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Development of inhibitory control in preschool children. Developmental
Science, 6, 498–504.
Josephs, I. E. (1994). Display rule behavior and understanding in preschool children. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 18,
301–326.
Kagan, J., Reznick, J. S., & Gibbons, J. (1989). Inhibited and uninhibited types of children. Child Development, 60,
838–845.
Kendall, P. C., & Wilcox, L. E. (1979). Self-control in children: Development of a rating scale. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 47, 1020–1029.
Kochanska, G., 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.
Kopp, C. B. (1989). Regulation of distress and negative emotions: A developmental view. Developmental Psychology,
25, 343–354.
Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding of children’s response to
multiple risk. Child Development, 73, 144–161.
Lengua, L. J. (2006). Growth in temperament and parenting as predictors of adjustment during children’s transition to
adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 42, 819–832.
Lewis, M. D., & Stieben, J. (2004). Emotion regulation in the brain: Conceptual issues and directions for developmental
research. Child Development, 75, 371–376.
Lewis, M., Sullivan, M. W., & Vasen, A. (1987). Making faces: Age and emotion differences in the posing of emotional
expression. Developmental Psychology, 23, 690–697.
Lewis, M., Stanger, C., & Sullivan, M. W. (1989). Deception in 3-year-olds. Developmental Psychology, 25, 439–
443.
Liew, J., Eisenberg, N., & Reiser, M. (2004). Preschoolers’ effortful control and negative emotionality, immediate reactions
to disappointment, and quality of social functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 89, 298–319.
McDowell, D. J., O’Neil, R., & Parke, R. D. (2000). Display rule application in a disappointing situation and children’s
emotional reactivity: Relations with social competence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 468–492.
Meerum Terwogt, M., Koops, W., Oosterhoff, T., & Olthof, T. (1986). Development in processing of multiple emotional
situations. Journal of General Psychology, 11, 109–121.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wagner, T. D. (2000). The unity and diversity
of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive
Psychology, 41, 49–100.
Nigg, J. T. (2000). On inhibition/disinhibition in developmental psychopathology: Views from cognitive and personality
psychology and a working inhibition taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 220–246.
Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249.
Posner, M. I., & Rothbart, M. K. (2000). Developing mechanisms of self-regulation. Development & Psychopathology,
12, 427–441.
Reed, M., Pien, D. L., & Rothbart, M. K. (1984). Inhibitory self-control in preschool children. Merrill Palmer Quarterly,
30, 131–147.
510 S.M. Carlson, T.S. Wang / Cognitive Development 22 (2007) 489–510

Roberts, R. J., Jr., & Pennington, B. F. (1996). An interactive framework for examining prefrontal cognitive processes.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 12, 105–126.
Roberts, A. C., Robbins, T. W., & Weiskrantz, L. (1998). The prefrontal cortex: Executive and cognitive functions. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Posner, M. I. (1985). Temperament and the development of self-regulation. In L. Hartlage & C. F.
Telzrow (Eds.), The neuropsychology of individual differences: A developmental perspective (pp. 93–123). New York:
Plenum.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology. Social,
emotional, and personality development (pp. 105–176). New York: John Wiley.
Rothbart, M. K., Ziaie, H., & O’Boyle, C. (1992). Self-regulation and emotion in infancy. In N. Eisenberg & R. A.
Fabes (Eds.), Emotion and its regulation in early development. New Directions for Child Development (pp. 7–24).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., & Posner, M. I. (2004). Temperament and self-regulation. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs
(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 357–370). New York: Guilford Press.
Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of
aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18–38.
Saarni, C. (1984). An observational study of children’s attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development,
55, 1513–4804.
Shallice, T. (1988). From neuropsychology to mental structure. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Strommen, E. A. (1973). Verbal self-regulation in a children’s game: Impulsive errors on “Simon Says”. Child Develop-
ment, 44, 849–853.
Stuss, D. T., & Benson, D. F. (1986). The frontal lobes. New York: Raven Press.
Thompson, R. A. (1994). Emotional regulation: A theme in search of a definition. In N. A. Fox (Ed.), The development
of emotion regulation: Biological and behavioral considerations. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
Development, 59 (2–3, Serial No. 240), 25–52.
Underwood, M. K., Coie, J. D., & Herbsman, C. R. (1992). Display rules for anger and aggression in school-age children.
Child Development, 63, 366–380.
Welsh, M. C., Pennington, B. F., & Groisser, D. B. (1991). A normative-developmental study of executive function: A
window on prefrontal function in children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 7, 131–149.
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook
of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Oxford: Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D., & Cunningham, W. A. (2007). Executive function: Mechanisms underlying emotion regulation. In J. J.
Gross (Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 135–158). New York: Guilford.
Zelazo, P. D., Carter, A., Reznick, J. S., & Frye, D. (1997). Early development of executive function: A problem-solving
framework. Review of General Psychology, 1, 1–29.