![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Being able to resist temptation at a young age is crucial for successful functioning yet it can be challenging. According to the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation with Emotion Regulation (SOC-ER) framework, one central element of successful functioning is selection which involves choosing among regulatory options whose resource requirements fits with the amount of available resources an individual possesses. Although conceptually important, direct empirical evidence is lacking. Accordingly, the present study utilised performance based measures to examine the interactive effect of regulatory selection to resist temptation, and individual differences in executive resources, on functioning in young children. Specifically, 39 first grade children that varied in executive resources (working memory capacity, WMC), selected between two major regulatory strategies (reappraisal and distraction) to resist temptation, that varied in their resource demands, and were evaluated on successful functioning (via questionnaires completed by parents, that assess daily-life behaviours requiring executive functioning). Supporting SOC-ER predictions, we found that among children with low (but not high) WMC, choosing the less effortful distraction regulatory strategy was associated with adaptive functioning. Additionally, regulatory choice preferences previously obtained with adults were extended to children. Broad implications are discussed.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 Our conceptual framework (Sheppes & Levin, Citation2013) and recent empirical findings with adults using normative emotional pictures that vary in their appetitive intensity levels (Hay, Sheppes, Gross, & Gruber, Citation2015; Martins, Sheppes, Gross, & Mather, Citationin press; Sheppes et al., Citation2014) clearly led us to predict that distraction choice would increase as appetitive intensity increases. However, given significant methodological differences in the present study (i.e. studying young children instead of adults, and replacing standardised images with age appropriate candy and toy stimuli that have no normative intensity norms), we wished to remain cautious by describing this prediction as secondary.
2 To provide further support for the adequacy of the final sample size, we used the observed large effect size of the interaction between WMC and regulatory selection (eta square = 0.351, see Results section), in a power analysis using the Gpower software. This analysis indicated that a sample size of 25 subjects (which is considerably lower than the 39 participants that completed our study) would be sufficient to detect a significant interaction effect with a power of .80 and an alpha of .05.
3 Below we additionally show that the main results reported in this study remain unchanged when considering the influence of these measures.
4 Toys and candy used were as follows: three types of chocolate, a bag of cookies, five types of Israeli children’s snacks, a box of crayons, balloons, three types of children’s card games, a puzzle, a hoop, marbles, sun glasses, stickers, a ball, a spring, toffee, Mentos, waffles, marshmallows, gummy bears, lollipops, soap bubbles, stress ball and Play dough.
5 The degree of reporting an item as “undesirable” was low (M = 12.82%; SD = 9.15%; Minimum = 0% Maximum = 35.8%).
6 Examples included: “you really want to play with a toy when it is not your turn; “you go with your parents to the supermarket and ask them to buy you a lot of candy but they only agree to buy you one”; “sometimes you get lots of candy but want to save some, so that you could enjoy them tomorrow”.
7 Similar to experimental procedures of the ER choice task in adults (Sheppes et al., Citation2011, Citation2014), children were allowed to use examples of their own so long as these examples were congruent with the definitions of distraction and reappraisal.
8 Note that self-report ratings are un-interpretable with regard to differential effectiveness of employing distraction and reappraisal under different emotional intensities. Because participants freely choose between reappraisal and distraction, and because participants prefer to reappraise low intensity stimuli and distract high intensity stimuli, the emotional content and its intensity are not held constant across the two regulatory conditions (see Scheibe et al., Citation2015 for a thorough discussion).
9 None of the children unanimously selected distraction or reappraisal.
10 Sample items from the BRIEF include: “over reacts in response to minor issues”; “gets frustrated easily”; tends to lose control more than his peers”.
11 Sample items from the CPRS-R include: “his demands must be answered immediately”; “impulsive, gets easily excited”; “doesn’t finish what he started”; denies his mistakes or blames others”; “shows rapid and extreme mood changes”).
12 We chose to focus on the average distraction choice, although a significant interaction between regulatory choice and working memory when considering differential intensity levels [for low intensity (t = 4.81, p < .01) as well as for high intensity (t = 2.66, p = .01)].
13 Findings in the original ER choice task obtained with adults used a dichotomous categorization (i.e., Low versus high) of emotional intensity based on IAPS norms. Given that there are no intensity norms for stimuli used in our novel regulatory selection task, we performed a customised median split of desire ratings for each child to obtain desire intensity scores that most closely match those obtained with adults.