This chapter presents findings on the self-regulation outcomes of five-year-olds in England. It describes how children’s scores in inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early childhood education and care participation.
Early Learning and Child Well‑being in England
Abstract
Self-regulation describes the mental processes that allow individuals to focus attention, remember instructions and handle multiple tasks successfully. These skills allow the brain to filter out distractions, prioritise tasks and control impulses. This ability to manage reactions and impulses is essential for personal and professional success (Diamond, 2013[1]; Eisenberg, Spinrad and Eggum, 2010[2]; McClelland et al., 2015[3]).
The brain functions that make up self-regulation include the capacity to use inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory – among other skills – to manage thoughts and actions (Zelazo, Blair and Willoughby, 2016[4]). Together, these three aspects of self-regulation are referred to as executive function. They describe the ability to direct and sustain short-term attention, inhibit impulse responses, revise initial plans and retrieve rules from memory.
Self-regulation is a strong predictor of later health, education and labour-market outcomes
The development of self-regulation skills in early childhood is associated with a wide range of outcomes later in life. These include facilitating the transition into – and success in – school (Blair and Raver, 2015[5]; Mcclelland et al., 2007[6]; Morrison, Cameron and Mcclelland, 2010[7]), higher academic achievement in adolescence, better labour-market outcomes as adults – including on employment and earnings – and better health outcomes (Duckworth, Quinn and Tsukayama, 2012[8]; Tangney, Baumeister and Boone, 2004[9]).
Self-regulation skills are important for a child’s transition to and participation in school (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]; Neuenschwander et al., 2012[11]). The start of school is a time of major change in the physical surroundings and people – including both new children and educators – that children are accustomed to. It also presents a new set of learning expectations and routines to follow (Dockett, 2001[12]). Children must manage competing stimuli to navigate classroom activities. Self-regulation skills facilitate the learning of new concepts and allow children to engage successfully in classroom activities. These skills also allow children to interact productively with their teachers and peers while managing their own responses (Shonkoff, Phillips and Council, 2000[13]).
A child’s ability to self-regulate is associated with the development of social-emotional, literacy and numeracy skills (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]). For example, working memory (Raghubar, Barnes and Hecht, 2010[14]), inhibition and mental flexibility (Clark, Pritchard and Woodward, 2010[15]) are associated with the development of pre-arithmetic, simple and more complex mathematical skills. Self-regulation skills also allow children to better integrate information they receive in the classroom. These skills play an important role in academic achievement through late childhood and adolescence (Best, Miller and Naglieri, 2011[16]; Duncan et al., 2007[17]).
Children with more developed self-regulation skills in childhood are more likely to have better long-term health outcomes (Caspi et al., 1998[18]; Daly et al., 2015[19]; Moffitt et al., 2011[20]). This includes lower rates of obesity in adolescence (Evans, Fuller-Rowell and Doan, 2012[21]) and lower levels of anxiety and depression (Blair and Peters Razza, 2007[10]; Buckner, Mezzacappa and Beardslee, 2009[22]). Children and adolescents with more developed self-regulation skills are also less likely to use drugs or receive a criminal conviction (Ayduk et al., 2000[23]; Caspi et al., 1998[18]; Duckworth, Tsukayama and May, 2010[24]; Moffitt et al., 2011[20]).
Children’s environments influence their development of self-regulation skills
A combination of genetic and environmental factors shape self-regulation skills (Bridgett et al., 2015[25]; McClelland et al., 2015[3]). Children exposed to poverty, low economic status, abuse or neglect in their home environment are more likely to display deficits in their self-regulation skills than children living in more enabling environments (Noble, Norman and Farah, 2005[26]; Raver, Blair and Willoughby, 2013[27]).
Adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress can significantly impair the self-regulation development of children. Exposure to adverse home environments can limit their opportunities to develop self-regulation skills. Negative early experiences, including multiple and chronic environmental stressors, can cause structural changes in the neural connections of the areas of the brain that control self-regulation (Nelson et al., 2007[28]; McEwen, Nasca and Gray, 2016[29]). Children exposed to cumulative risks are also more likely to have parents who do not provide them with opportunities to practice their self-regulation skills (Wachs, Gurkas and Kontos, 2004[30]; Fuller et al., 2010[31]).
Disparities in socio-economic background are associated with differences in the physical structure and functioning of the parts of the brain that control self-regulation (Hackman and Farah, 2009[32]). The functioning of the prefrontal cortex in children from low socio-economic status backgrounds who are exposed to chronic environmental stressors, for example, is similar to that of individuals with damage to the prefrontal cortex (Kishiyama et al., 2009[33]).
Emotionally positive parenting, an encouraging home environment and high-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) experiences enable the development of self-regulation skills
Self-regulation skills are malleable. Adverse childhood experiences and toxic stress impede the development of self-regulation skills. Similarly, positive home environments and ECEC experiences promote these skills.
Emotionally positive parent-child relationships enable the development of self-regulation skills across the early years. Parenting styles that include clear and consistent rules and expectations encourage the positive development of self-regulation skills (Blair and Raver, 2012[34]). For example, parenting styles that focus on child autonomy within set limits predict stronger self-regulation in children compared to parenting styles focused on compliance (Bernier, Carlson and Whipple, 2010[35]).
Organised and predictable home environments also provide children with a context to develop their self-regulation skills (McClelland et al., 2018[36]). Interactions between children and their parents facilitate the regulation of emotions and behaviour. These interactions help children understand their emotions and express them more productively. This, in turn, allows children to regulate their responses to distracting stimuli in their environment (Heatherton and Wagner, 2011[37]).
As with the home environment, structured and predictable environments in ECEC centres are important for children’s self-regulation, engagement and academic outcomes (Ponitz et al., 2009[38]). Stimulating learning environments and positive interactions with educators and peers enable children to develop self-regulation skills.
The International Early Learning and Child Well-being Study (IELS) defines self-regulation skills as inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory
Although the precise definition of which skills and processes make up self-regulation varies across studies and disciplines (Booth, Hennessy and Doyle, 2018[39]), self-regulation skills are highly integrated and influence one another (Anderson and Reidy, 2012[40]). Completing everyday tasks requires adequate development of all the interdependent parts.
A large body of literature has emphasised a number of key self-regulation skills (Diamond and Lee, 2011[41]; Garon, Bryson and Smith, 2008[42]). These have mostly centred on the influence of inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory skills on later outcomes (McClelland et al., 2010[43]). These three skills together are often referred to as executive function. Executive function skills make up the cognitive component of self-regulation. Chapter 5 of this report will cover children’s social-emotional development. Accordingly, IELS defines self-regulation in the direct assessment as: 1) inhibition - the ability to control impulses and reactions; 2) mental flexibility - the ability to shift between rules according to changing circumstances; and 3) working memory – the ability to retain and process information (Figure 4.1).
IELS measures self-regulation outcomes through developmentally appropriate and engaging activities
IELS explored how children’s early learning experiences – including their individual characteristics, home learning environment, ECEC participation and their families’ socio-economic contexts – relate to their self-regulation development. Each of the skills that make up self-regulation in IELS were measured using a single task, which was made up of a number of different items. There was, therefore, a separate task to measure inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory (Table 4.1). Audio and engaging illustrations guided the children through the activities on a tablet under the supervision of a study administrator.
Inhibition
The inhibition activity assessed a child’s ability to inhibit a learned response in favour of an alternative response. The assessment introduced the child to an image and asked them to touch a button on the screen whenever the image appeared. It then introduced the child to a visually similar image and asked them to touch a different button whenever the new image appeared. In sum, the task required the child to respond differently to each of two very similar images, presented one after another in a pre-determined but unpredictable sequence. Their ability to touch the different button whenever the new image appeared reflected their ability to inhibit their learned response.
Mental flexibility
The mental flexibility activity assessed a child’s ability to respond to rules that changed during the activity. The assessment introduced the child to two distinct animals and asked them to touch a different shape on the screen depending on which animal appeared. The assessment then introduced a new rule where the child was asked to touch the alternative shape when each animal appeared. Their ability to adapt to the new inverse rule indicated their mental flexibility.
Working memory
The working memory activity assessed a child’s ability to recall short visual sequences. The child was introduced to a visually distinct zebra placed in one of three rows on a bus. The other two rows on the bus were occupied by other animals. The child was then asked to remember in which of the three rows the zebra was seated and touch the corresponding row in a following image. The assessment was divided into several sections of increasing levels of difficulty involving more rows to remember. If the child did not complete the higher difficulty tasks, the assessment automatically proceeded to the next section.
IELS assesses how children’s self-regulation abilities relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early learning experiences
This chapter presents the outcomes of the IELS assessments of the inhibition, mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of children in England. The chapter details how children’s self-regulation outcomes relate to their individual characteristics, family backgrounds, home learning environments and early learning experiences.
The self-regulation outcomes of children were measured directly through the assessments. Indirect information on children’s self-regulation development was also collected through questionnaires administered to children’s parents and educators. Parents and educators were asked to assess each child’s overall self-regulation development, defined as whether the child was attentive, organised or in control of their actions.
The chapter presents the results of both the direct assessment of children’s inhibition, mental flexibility, and working memory outcomes, as well as how parents and educators perceived children’s overall self-regulation development. It highlights similarities and differences between outcomes in England and those in Estonia and the United States. The chapter also considers the relationships between children’s self-regulation scores and their scores in other learning domains assessed in IELS.
On average, five-year-olds in England score relatively high on mental flexibility and working memory but are below the other participating countries on inhibition
On average, five-year-olds in England scored 13 points above the overall mean of participating countries (500 points) on mental flexibility (513) and 16 points above on working memory (516). They scored 40 points below the overall mean on inhibition (460).
The average inhibition outcomes of children in England were significantly lower than those of children in Estonia and the United States. The average mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of children in England were significantly higher than those of children in the United States and similar to those of children in Estonia.
The spread between the outcomes of the bottom quartile and those of the top quartile of children in England was greater for mental flexibility (148 points) than for inhibition (119 points) or working memory (113 points). The spread in inhibition outcomes was similar for the three countries. The spread in mental flexibility outcomes in England was greater than in the United States and similar to Estonia, meaning that the differences in outcomes between the top and bottom quartiles is greater in England than in the United States. The spread in working memory outcomes was smallest in England, implying that the average gap in outcomes between children in the top and bottom quartiles is smaller in England than in the other two countries.
On inhibition, the majority of five-year-olds in England scored below the overall mean, with the lower tail of the distribution larger than the upper tail (Figure 4.2). There was greater distribution in mental flexibility outcomes. The lower tail of the distribution is smaller than the upper tail, which results in an average score above the overall IELS mean. The distribution of working memory outcomes in England was generally to the right of the overall mean of participating countries, reflecting England’s higher average outcomes on working memory at age five.
Note: Graph produced using the first plausible value only. Please refer to the IELS technical report for additional information regarding plausible values.
Parents are more likely than educators to report that their child, or the child they teach, is developing above average self-regulation skills
Parents and educators were asked to comment on a child’s overall self-regulation development (e.g. attentiveness, organisation, in control of actions), which differed from self-regulation sub-domains measured by the IELS direct assessments of children. Educators and parents were, on average, equally likely to report a child’s overall level of self-regulation development as average (Figure 4.3). Parents, however, were more likely than educators to perceive the self-regulation development of their children as above average and less likely to perceive it as below average.
Educators may have assessed children’s self-regulation development differently partly because children behave differently in a home environment than in a classroom environment. Educators may also have more experience assessing the relative level of children’s development given that, among other factors, they have more children to compare an individual child to.
The inhibition outcomes of boys are higher than those of girls, but there are no significant differences in mental flexibility and working memory outcomes between boys and girls
Children’s individual characteristics influence their early skills. In England, the gender gap was statistically significant for inhibition (8 points), with boys scoring higher than girls (Figure 4.4). The difference between boys’ and girls’ mental flexibility and working memory outcomes was not statistically significant, implying that the development of mental flexibility and working memory skills is at about the same level for both boys and girls at the age of five.
Note: The gender differences in scores at the mean and at the 75th percentile are statistically significant.
In Estonia and the United States, the gender gap in inhibition outcomes was the inverse of that observed in England, with girls scoring significantly higher than boys. The working memory outcomes of girls were also significantly higher than those of boys in Estonia and the United States. Similar to England, there were no differences in the mental flexibility outcomes of boys and girls in the United States; however, in Estonia, girls scored significantly higher than boys.
In addition to the differences observed between England and the other two participating countries, the gender gap in inhibition outcomes in England reversed the pattern observed for emergent literacy skills within the country, where the outcomes of girls were significantly higher than those of boys. It also differed from the perceptions of parents and educators, who indicated that girls were more likely to be developing above average self-regulation skills.
Parents and educators perceive girls as more likely than boys to have developed above average self-regulation skills
When asked to report on how they perceived children’s overall self-regulation development – rather than the self-regulation sub-domains measured in the direct assessments – both parents and educators in England were more likely to perceive girls rather than boys as developing above average self-regulation skills. On the direct assessment, the inhibition outcomes of boys were higher than those of girls, and there were no significant differences in the mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of boys and girls.
Parents were more likely than educators to perceive their son or daughter as developing above average self-regulation skills (Figure 4.5). Just over 50 % of parents perceived their daughter as developing above average self-regulation skills, compared to just over 30 % who perceived their son in this way. Parents and educators were also twice as likely to report a boy as developing below average self-regulation skills than a girl.
A child’s self-regulation outcomes increase between their fifth and sixth birthday
Children’s self-regulation skills develop between the ages of five and six. Six-year-old children (aged six years and zero months) scored 95 points higher on inhibition, 92 points higher on mental flexibility and 113 points higher on working memory than five-year-old children (aged five years and zero months) (Figure 4.6). While the average mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of children in England were above the overall mean of participating countries at the age of five years six months, their average development on inhibition was below the overall mean until they were in the final month of their fifth year.
The average difference in the inhibition and mental flexibility outcomes of children between the ages of five years one month and six years were similar across the three countries participating in IELS. The average difference in working memory outcomes between those age groups was similar in both England and the United States, but smaller in Estonia.
Children who have experienced early difficulties have lower average mental flexibility and working memory outcomes than those who have not
IELS asked parents to indicate whether their child had ever experienced a number of potential difficulties that might affect their early learning outcomes. These difficulties included low birth weight1 or premature birth, learning difficulties2 and social, emotional or behavioural difficulties. Experiencing learning difficulties, or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties early in life was negatively related to mental flexibility and working memory outcomes at age five. Children who experienced low birth weight or premature birth also had lower working memory scores, on average, than those who had not.
Around 11 % of five-year-olds in England were reported by their parents as having had low weight at birth or premature birth. The working memory outcomes of children who had experienced low birth weight or premature birth were significantly lower (26 points) than those of children who had not after accounting for socio-economic status and the experience of the other early difficulties (Figure 4.7). There were no significant gaps in the inhibition or mental flexibility outcomes between these children.
In England, parents reported that about 10 % of children had experienced learning difficulties. Children identified by their parents as having experienced learning difficulties had significantly lower mental flexibility (34 points) and working memory (23 points) outcomes than children who had not experienced such difficulties, after accounting for socio-economic status and experience of the other early difficulties (Figure 4.7).
The relationship between having experienced learning difficulties and mental flexibility and working memory outcomes differed depending on the gender of the child. The mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of boys who had experienced learning difficulties were significantly lower than those of boys who had not. There was no difference, however, in the outcomes of girls who had experienced learning difficulties and those who had not.
About 8 % of children had experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties before the age of five, according to their parents. Children identified by their parents as having experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties had significantly lower mental flexibility (49 points) and working memory (44 points) outcomes than children who had not experienced such difficulties, after accounting for socio-economic status and experience of the other early difficulties (Figure 4.7).
The relationship between having experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties and mental flexibility outcomes did not depend on the gender of the child. The mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of boys and girls who had experienced these difficulties were significantly lower than the outcomes of those who had not.
Score-point differences between children who have and have not experienced an early difficulty, after accounting for the effects of other early difficulties, and before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
A child’s parents and primary caregivers play an important role in all of aspects of their upbringing, from determining the context of their home environment to their activities outside the home. The home and family environments that a child grows up in, and their interactions with their parents and environment, shape a child’s early learning opportunities and experiences.
Children’s self-regulation outcomes increase with the socio-economic status of their family
Family background and socio-economic status were associated with a child’s self-regulation development in England. The combination of household income, parental occupation and parental educational completion – that together create the socio-economic index used in IELS – interact with a child’s individual characteristics to influence the development of their self-regulation skills. The children of parents with higher levels of education had higher outcomes. Households with higher economic means are able to spend more money on early learning resources and materials for their children.
The relationship between socio-economic status and child outcomes was most pronounced for mental flexibility and working memory. The mental flexibility outcomes of children from families in the lowest quartile of socio-economic status were significantly lower (49 points) than those of children from the most advantaged quartile of families in England (Figure 4.8). This difference was 59 points for working memory outcomes.
There was a significant difference of about 17 points between the inhibition outcomes of children in the bottom quartile and those in the second quartile (Figure 4.8). However, there was no significant difference in the inhibition outcomes of children in the bottom socio-economic quartile and those in the top, implying that the relationship between socio-economic status and inhibition in England was unclear.
Note: Statistically significant differences from the mean of the bottom quartile are shown in a darker tone.
Parents and educators are more likely to report a child as developing above average self-regulation skills if they are from a family with a higher socio-economic status
Educators and, to a lesser extent, parents, were more likely to perceive children from families with a higher socio-economic status as having above average self-regulation development (Figure 4.9). While parents perceived a gap between the development of children from families in the bottom and top socio-economic quintiles, this gap was smaller than that perceived by educators. The parents of children in the second socio-economic quintile were just as likely as those in the bottom quintile – and less likely than those in the third quartile – to perceive their child as developing above average self-regulation skills, although they were less likely to report their child as developing below average skills.
The language spoken by parents at home is not related to a child’s self-regulation outcomes, after accounting for socio-economic status
Before accounting for socio-economic status, the working memory outcomes of children from homes where at least one parent primarily spoke a language other than English were 21 points lower than those of children from homes where both parents (or the single parent) primarily spoke English.
After accounting for socio-economic status, there were no significant differences in the working memory outcomes of children whose parents (or the single parent) both primarily spoke English and those with at least one parent who primarily spoke another language. This implies that the difference between these groups is largely driven by socio-economic factors. Families where one parent primarily spoke a language other than English were more likely to be of a lower socio-economic status than those where both parents primarily spoke English.
Children’s immigrant backgrounds are not associated with differences in self-regulation outcomes after accounting for socio-economic status and home language
As with home language, the working memory outcomes of children from immigrant backgrounds3 differed from those of children whose parents were born in England. While this may be explained through cultural differences, a combination of factors such as differences in primary language, the need to adapt to a new education system and socio-economic differences may play a more predictive role.
Working memory outcomes were about 18 points lower for children from immigrant backgrounds than they were for the children of parents born in England. There was no significant difference in the development of inhibition and mental flexibility skills between both groups of children.
The difference in working memory outcomes between children from immigrant and non-immigrant backgrounds continued to be significant even after accounting for socio-economic status. However, after accounting for both socio-economic status and home language, the difference in working memory outcomes of the children of immigrant parents was no longer significant. This suggests that socio-economic status as well as the primary language of a child’s parents predict the observed differences between children with and without an immigrant background.
Educators do not perceive a difference in the development of self-regulation skills by a child’s immigrant background, but immigrant parents are more likely than non-immigrant parents to perceive their child as developing above average skills
Educators, on average, did not perceive differences in children’s self-regulation outcomes based on their immigrant background. They are as likely to perceive a child as developing above average, for example, whether or not their parents were born in England (Figure 4.10). Immigrant parents, however, were more likely to perceive their child as developing above average self-regulation skills than parents born in England. Immigrant parents were about as likely as non-immigrant parents to perceive their child as developing below average self-regulation skills.
Mental flexibility and working memory outcomes are higher among the children of mothers who have completed higher levels of education, even after accounting for household income
A mother’s highest completed education level was associated with her children’s early learning outcomes. Mothers with higher levels of education are more likely to spend both more time working and more time with their children than mothers with lower educational attainment, with meaningful impacts on early learning outcomes.
In England, more than one in ten mothers for whom information was available had completed at least a master’s degree, about one in three had completed up to a bachelor’s degree, and more than one in ten had attended up to secondary school and completed five GCSEs at A* to C. The working memory and mental flexibility outcomes of children whose mothers had completed any level of education above lower secondary were significantly higher than the outcomes of children whose mothers had only completed up to lower secondary education4 (Figure 4.11). The inhibition outcomes of children whose mothers had completed either short-cycle tertiary5 or at least a master’s degree were also significantly higher than those of children whose mothers had completed only lower secondary education.
Score-point differences between children whose mothers had completed upper secondary education or higher and the children of mothers who had completed only lower secondary education, before and after accounting for household income
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
A mother’s completion of at least a bachelor’s degree was associated with significant differences in the mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of her children after accounting for household income as well. The mental flexibility outcomes of children whose mothers had completed at least a bachelor’s degree were 12 points higher than the outcomes of children whose mothers had completed lower than a bachelor’s degree. For working memory outcomes, the gap was 18 points. There was no difference in the inhibition outcomes of children whose mothers had or had not completed at least a bachelor’s degree, after accounting for household income.
The relationship between maternal education and her child’s self-regulation outcomes was different across the three countries. In Estonia, a mother’s completion of a bachelor’s degree was related to working memory outcomes. In the United States, a mother’s completion of a bachelor’s degree was related to mental flexibility outcomes. In all three countries, a mother’s completion of a bachelor’s degree unrelated to inhibition outcomes.
Children in two-parent households have higher mental flexibility scores than children in single-parent households, after accounting for socio-economic status
Family structure may affect self-regulation skills in different ways. The presence of two parents in a home may increase the possibility that children interact with more caregivers. It may also facilitate employment opportunities and increase household income.
The mental flexibility outcomes of children in two-parent households were significantly higher than those of children in one-parent households. After accounting for the socio-economic status of a child’s household, the gap in mental flexibility outcomes of children in two-parent and single-parent households was 20 points (Figure 4.12). There was no difference in the inhibition and working memory outcomes of children from one-parent and two-parent households, after accounting for socio-economic status.
The association between mental flexibility outcomes and family structure differed depending on the gender of the child. The outcomes of boys living in single-parent homes were 30 points lower than those of boys living in two-parent homes, after accounting for socio-economic status. The mental flexibility outcomes of girls living in single-parent households were similar to those of girls living in two-parent households.
Score-point differences between children in single-parent households and those in two-parent households, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: All differences are statistically significant.
The number of siblings a girl has is related to her mental flexibility and working memory outcomes
On average, children’s self-regulation outcomes were not related to the number of siblings they had. This implies, for example, that the inhibition outcomes of children with no siblings were identical to those of children with more than four siblings. However, the number of siblings did relate to the self-regulation outcomes of boys and girls differently.
The self-regulation outcomes of girls with two siblings6 were significantly lower than those of girls with no siblings across all self-regulation domains measured in IELS, after accounting for socio-economic status. The mental flexibility outcomes of girls with three siblings were also significantly lower than those of girls with no siblings.
The average relationship between number of siblings and self-regulation outcomes was different for the three countries participating in IELS. In Estonia, the inhibition outcomes of children with one or two siblings were significantly higher than those of children with no siblings, after accounting for socio-economic status. The working memory outcomes of children with one sibling were significantly higher than the outcomes of those with no siblings. In the United States, the working memory outcomes of children with one or two siblings were higher than those of children with no siblings. A number of factors may explain this variation between countries, including the different cultural importance of siblings and the ease of access to family support services.
A child’s home learning environment and the quality of their interactions with their parents influences early learning outcomes. A child’s access to developmentally-appropriate books, toys and activities, and the quality of their interactions with their parents, promotes their opportunities for early learning development.
In the context of this chapter, IELS defines a child’s home learning environment as the number of children’s books in their home, the frequency with which a child is read to, the frequency with which they are taken to an activity outside of the home and the level of parental involvement in activities taking place at the school. Additionally, parents were asked whether their child used a digital device and, if so, the frequency of that usage.
The number of children’s books in the home is predictive of a child’s working memory outcomes in England, even after accounting for income or socio-economic status
The number of children’s books that a child had access to in their home – including from a public or school library – was a significant predictor of their working memory outcomes. As the number of children’s books a child has access to increased, so did their average working memory outcomes.
This relationship held even after accounting for the income or socio-economic status of a child’s family. For example, children with access to between 26 and 50 books in their home scored 25 points higher on working memory than children with access to 10 books or fewer outcomes, after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 4.13).
The number of books a child had access to did not predict their inhibition outcomes, after accounting for socio-economic status. Additionally, only the mental flexibility outcomes of children with over 100 books in the home were significantly higher than those of children with 10 books or fewer after accounting for socio-economic status, implying that there is no clear relationship between access to books and mental flexibility outcomes.
Score-point differences between children with access to more than 10 books in the home and those with access to 10 or fewer, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The self-regulation outcomes of children who are read to at least once a week are not significantly different from those of children who are read to less often
While being read to was predictive of the development of children’s literacy skills, the self-regulation outcomes of children did not increase with the frequency with which they were read to by their parents.
The frequency with which a child is taken to a special or paid activity outside of the home is related to their mental flexibility and working memory outcomes, even after accounting for socio-economic status
Taking a child to a special or paid activity outside of the home – such as a sports club or dance, swimming or language lessons – was positively related to their mental flexibility and working memory scores, even after accounting for socio-economic status. Moderate attendance of an activity – between one and four days a week – was positively related to the mental flexibility outcomes of children, but there were no differences between never attending and almost daily attendance (Figure 4.14).
The working memory outcomes of children increased with the frequency with which they attend an activity. While the mental flexibility outcomes of children who attended an activity almost daily were no different from those that never attended an activity, the working memory outcomes of children who attended an activity almost daily were about 68 points higher than those who never attended.
Going to special activities related differently to boys’ and girls’ self-regulation scores. Attending a special or paid activity was related to the mental flexibility outcomes of girls but not boys, with girls who attended an activity scoring significantly higher than girls who did not attend an activity. There was no association between attending an activity and the mental flexibility outcomes of boys. Attending an activity at least once or twice a week is associated with higher working memory outcomes for both boys and girls.
Score-point differences between children who attend special or paid activities outside the home and those who never or hardly ever do so, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The children of parents perceived by educators as being moderately or strongly involved in activities taking place at the school have higher mental flexibility outcomes
The association between different aspects of the home learning environment and self-regulation outcomes highlights the importance of parental engagement in the development of a child’s self-regulation skills. Parental involvement in activities taking place at their child’s school,7 for example, was significantly related to their mental flexibility outcomes.
The mental flexibility outcomes of children whose parents were perceived by educators as slightly or not involved in activities taking place at the school were 21 points below those of children whose parents were perceived as strongly or moderately involved, after controlling for socio-economic status (Figure 4.15). This association was similar for both girls and boys. While there was a similar difference in outcomes by parental involvement for working memory, the relationship was not significant after accounting for socio-economic status.
Score-point differences between children whose parents are moderately or strongly involved in activities at school and those whose parents are slightly or not involved, according to their educators, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: All differences are statistically significant.
Five-year-olds who use a digital device at least once a week have higher working memory outcomes than those who hardly ever use one, even after accounting for socio-economic status
While the use of a digital device in and of itself may not influence a child’s outcomes, the types of activities that a child engages in while on those devices may enable the development of different skills. The frequency with which a child used a digital device – including a desktop or laptop computer, tablet device or smartphone – was a significant predictor of their working memory outcomes, although there were differences by gender.
The working memory outcomes of children who used a digital device every day (34 points) or at least once a week (39 points) but not every day, were significantly higher than those of children who never or hardly ever used one, even after accounting for socio-economic status (Figure 4.16). The frequency with which a child used a digital device was not significantly related to their inhibition or mental flexibility outcomes.
This difference in working memory outcomes was most pronounced for girls. The outcomes of girls who used a device at least once a week were significantly higher than those of girls who never or hardly ever used one. There was a 44-point difference, for example, between the working memory outcomes of girls who used a device once a week but not every day and girls who never or hardly ever used one, after accounting for socio-economic status.
There were no significant differences in the working memory outcomes of boys based on the frequency with which they used a device. The inhibition outcomes of boys who used a device every day, however, were significantly higher than those of boys who never or hardly ever used one.
While moderate digital device use was related to children’s working memory scores, there was no significant difference in the outcomes of children who used devices more frequently. The outcomes of children who used a digital device every day were no different to those of children who used them once a week. Similarly, the working memory outcomes of girls who used a device once a month were no different to those of girls who used one every day.
Score-point differences between children who use a digital device once a month or more frequently and those who never use a device, before and after accounting for socio-economic status
Note: Statistically significant differences are shown in a darker tone.
The observed difference in outcomes based on digital device use may be partly attributable to the assessment of a child’s self-regulation skills through a tablet-based direct assessment. However, the frequency of use that predicted different self-regulation outcomes differed by participating countries. Using a device every day predicted higher inhibition and mental flexibility outcomes in Estonia, after accounting for socio-economic status. In the United States, using a device at least once a week predicted higher mental flexibility and working memory outcomes. The inconsistency with which digital device use predicted self-regulation outcomes implies that differences are more likely to be specific to a child within a given country, rather than to a tablet-based direct assessment.
While a child’s home learning environment and family background represent two critical factors that influence self-regulation outcomes, access to high-quality ECEC services is associated with positive outcomes in the development of early learning outcomes. In England, almost all five-year-olds in the sample for whom information was available had previously attended an ISCED 08 ECEC setting. Among these children, 71 % first attended before the age of three and 29 % first attended at the ages of three or four.
Although the overall participation rates in ECEC are high in England, the duration and intensity of participation varies. Families with higher incomes and parents with higher levels of completed education, for example, tend to use ECEC services at higher rates than those with lower incomes and lower parental education attainment. Children from households with a higher socioeconomic background also tend to be in ECEC earlier and for longer than those from lower socio-economic backgrounds. Overall, however, there is a limited relationship between the intensity of ECEC attendance and a child’s self-regulation outcomes.
The self-regulation outcomes of children who first attend an ECEC centre at age three or four are similar to those of children who attend earlier
All three- and four-year-olds in England are entitled to an average of 15 hours a week during term time of state-funded ECEC attendance for 38 weeks a year. The age at which a child first attended an ISCED 01 or ISCED 02 centre was not related to their self-regulation outcomes at the age of five. On average, there was no difference in the self-regulation outcomes of children who first attended a centre before the age of three and those who first attended at the age of three or four. Similarly, the self-regulation outcomes of children who attended a childminder or group- or school-based setting at the age of three were no different from those of children who were cared for by a nanny, au pair, relative or family friend.
This result remained when accounting for the socio-economic status of a child’s family. This implies that even when comparing children from families in the bottom or top quartile of socio-economic status, there is no relation between the age at which the child first attended an ECEC setting and their self-regulation outcomes at the age of five.
A child’s working memory outcomes, however, differed by the year in which they attended an ECEC setting. The working memory outcomes of children who attended an ECEC setting at age one were significantly higher at the age of five than the outcomes of those who did not attend at age one, after accounting for socio-economic status. The outcomes of children across both sub-domains in the United States also varied by age of attendance, although the differences were not at similar ages.
Analysing how the variables that predict self-regulation outcomes presented in this chapter also relate to one another through a regression model gives insight into which factors contribute most to the observed outcomes. Such results do not provide a causal explanation of which policy levers lead to changes in a child’s self-regulation outcomes; however, they do provide a better understanding of which child-, family- and centre-level variables independently predict self-regulation outcomes.
Variables that were significantly related to the self-regulation scores were included in regression models to assess how well they explained variation in the scores. Variables that were not significant in the models were removed one at a time9 until all remaining variables were significantly related to the outcome.
The results of the regression models also provide an opportunity to quantify score-point differences in terms of months of child development on a given skill. For example, the results of the regression model indicate that children’s inhibition scores increase by an average of about 7.5 points a month between the ages of five- and six-years old. This equates to about 88 points for the year between the ages of five- and six-years old. Their mental flexibility scores increase by over 6 points a month – or over 74 points a year – and their working memory scores increase by over 7 points a month – or about 92 points a year. This difference will be used to quantify what a score-point differences imply in terms of months of child self-regulation development.
Inhibition outcomes are related to children’s gender, early social, emotional or behavioural difficulties and the socio-economic status of their households
A child’s gender significantly predicted their inhibition scores in England (Table 4.2). When accounting for all other factors in the regression model, boys’ scores were about 10 points – or the equivalent of under 2 months of development – above those of girls.
Early social, emotional or behavioural difficulties also predicted children’s inhibition scores. Five-year-olds who experienced these difficulties earlier in life scored about 27 points below children who had not experienced these difficulties. This equates to about 4 months of inhibition development.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family was also a significant predictor of their inhibition scores at age five, with the outcomes of children in the second quartile significantly higher than those of children in the bottom quartile. This difference was an average of over 15 points – or over 2 months of inhibition development.
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
Mental flexibility outcomes are related to a child’s experience of early difficulties, the socio-economic status of their family and the level of parental involvement in school activities
Early difficulties independently predicted children’s mental flexibility scores. Five-year-olds who experienced learning difficulties earlier in life scored about 37 points below children who had not experienced these difficulties. This equates to about 6 months of mental flexibility development. Five-year-olds who experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties earlier in life scored over 46 points below children who had not experienced these difficulties. This equates to about 8 months of mental flexibility development.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family was also a significant predictor of their mental flexibility scores at age five. For example, the average difference in mental flexibility scores between a child in the top socio-economic quartile and that of a child in the bottom quartile was over 36 points. This equates to a gap of about 6 months of development in mental flexibility.
The children of parents perceived by educators as being moderately or strongly involved in activities taking place at the school had higher mental flexibility outcomes. Having parents perceived as moderately or strongly involved in school activities predicted a 23 point increase in mental flexibility outcomes. This equates to under 4 months of mental flexibility development.
* Variable has a missing indicator to preserve cases in the dataset.
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
Working memory outcomes are related to a child’s experience of early difficulties, the socio-economic status of their families, their frequency of digital device use and the level of parental involvement in school activities
A range of factors related to a child’s individual characteristics, family background and home learning environment predicted working memory outcomes at age five.
The outcomes of children born prematurely or with a low birth weight were about 26 points – or about 3.5 months of development – lower than children who were not. The outcomes of children who had experienced learning difficulties were about 26 points lower than the outcomes of those who had not. This equates to over 3 months of working memory development. Similarly, the outcomes of children who had experienced social, emotional or behavioural difficulties were about 41 points below those of children who had not experienced such difficulties. This equates to over 5 months of working memory development.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family was also a significant predictor of their working memory scores at age five. For example, the average difference in working memory scores between a child in the top socio-economic quartile and that of a child in the bottom quartile was over 45.5 points. This equates to a gap of over 6 months of development in working memory. The children of parents perceived as moderately or strongly involved in school activities scored about 14 points higher – or the equivalent of about 2 months of development.
Similarly, the frequency with which a child used a digital device predicted an increase in their working memory scores. For example, the average difference between children who never used a device and those who used one at least once a week was 35 points. This equates to over 4.5 months of working memory development. There was no significant difference in the outcomes of children who used a device more than once a month and those who use a device at least once a month but not every week.
* Variable has a missing indicator to preserve cases in the dataset.
Note: p-values in bold indicate statistical significance.
A child’s self-regulation skills develop at the same time as many other early skills, including literacy, numeracy and social-emotional skills. Learning in one area positively influences learning in other areas. Similarly, gaps in learning in one area negatively influence the development of learning in the other areas.
On a practical level, for example, young children with better literacy skills may be better able to engage successfully with other children in ways that support their prosocial development. Better prosocial skills may lead to more opportunities to interact with other children in ways that are supportive of their vocabulary development and oral comprehension.
IELS can provide insights into how early self-regulation, social-emotional, literacy and numeracy skills relate to each other. Mental flexibility and working memory outcomes were particularly highly correlated with a child’s emergent literacy and numeracy and social-emotional outcomes. Mental flexibility and working memory also explained between 22 % and 45 % of the variation in children’s emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes, after controlling for socio-economic status.
Mental flexibility and working memory skills are strongly related to emergent literacy and numeracy skills
The mental flexibility and working memory skills of five-year-olds in England were strongly related10 to their emergent literacy and numeracy skills (Table 4.5). Children’s mental flexibility and working memory skills were also strongly related to each other. The relationship between children’s mental flexibility and working memory skills and their ability to successfully identify emotions, attribute emotions or engage in prosocial behaviour was also moderately strong.
Correlations between children’s inhibition skills and their other emergent skills were not as strong as the correlations with mental flexibility or working memory (Table 4.5). Inhibition skills were moderately strongly related to their emergent numeracy skills. The relationship with their emergent literacy skills was relatively weak. Children’s inhibition skills at age five related moderately strongly to their mental flexibility and working memory skills.
Note: Only the coefficients of statistically significant correlations are presented above.
Children’s mental flexibility and working memory skills explained a substantial proportion of the variance in their emergent literacy and numeracy skills and emotion identification and attribution, even after accounting for socio-economic status (Table 4.6). In England, a child’s mental flexibility outcomes, for example, accounted for 22 % of their emergent literacy outcomes and 27 % of their emergent numeracy outcomes, after controlling for socio-economic status. Their working memory outcomes explained an even larger portion of the variance in emergent literacy and numeracy outcomes. Children’s ability to successfully recall short visual sequences explained about 31 % of their emergent literacy outcomes and 45 % of their emergent numeracy outcomes.
Note: Only the coefficients of statistically significant correlations are presented above.
The mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of children in England are above the overall IELS mean of participating countries, but their inhibition outcomes are below the mean
The average mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of children in England were significantly higher than those of children in the United States and similar to those of children in Estonia. The average inhibition outcomes of children in England were significantly lower than those of children in Estonia and the United States.
This set of self-regulation skills is predictive of a child’s future well-being, including how well they do at school and in non-academic activities where concentration and persistence correlate with success. These results suggest that children in England are less likely than those in the other participating countries to successfully inhibit their automatic responses when presented with a new set of information. However, they are more likely than those in the United States and as likely as those in Estonia to successfully switch between rules and recall short visual sequences.
The inhibition outcomes of boys are higher than those of girls
In England, the average inhibition outcomes of boys were higher than those of girls. Girls and boys had similar mental flexibility and working memory outcomes. The results of the regression analysis also suggest that gender is a strong predictor of inhibition scores at age five – with boys scoring higher than girls – but that it is not significantly related to mental flexibility or working memory. There was no consistent gender pattern across the three participating countries. A gender gap in favour of girls was most pronounced in Estonia, where the scores for girls were significantly higher than those of boys in each self-regulation subdomain. In the United States, the inhibition and working memory outcomes of girls were higher than those of boys, and there were no gender differences in mental flexibility outcomes.
Children who have experienced difficulties before the age of five have lower average mental flexibility and working memory scores at age five
The mental flexibility and working memory scores of children who had experienced learning or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties before the age of five were significantly lower than those of children who had not, after accounting for socio-economic status and the experience of other difficulties. Experiencing low birth weight was related to lower working memory outcomes at the age of five in England.
Experiencing learning difficulties, or social, emotional or behavioural difficulties before the age of five was also a significant predictor of the mental flexibility and working memory outcomes of five-year-old children after accounting for all factors in the overall regression model.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family is associated with their self-regulation outcomes
The self-regulation outcomes of five-year-olds from a household in a higher socio-economic bracket in England were higher than those of children from lower socio-economic backgrounds in mental flexibility and working memory, but the relationship was less clear in children’s inhibition. Only children in the second quartile scored significantly higher than children in the bottom quartile on inhibition.
The socio-economic status of a child’s family was a significant predictor of self-regulation outcomes in all participating countries – particularly in relation to mental flexibility and working memory – although the impacts varied by country. Estonia had the smallest differences in children’s skills based on socio-economic status compared to England and the United States. By understanding how countries mitigate disadvantage best, policy makers and education leaders may be able to implement strategies to achieve outcomes that are more equitable for their children.
A child’s home learning environment predicts their mental flexibility and working memory outcomes
A child’s home learning environment predicted higher mental flexibility and working memory outcomes. A child’s home learning environment did not independently predict their inhibition outcomes.
A child’s access to developmentally-appropriate books, and their attendance of special or paid activities outside of school independently predicted their working memory outcomes – as did a child’s use of a digital device – even after accounting for all factors in the overall regression model. This implies that children with access to a higher number of children’s books – including from a public or school library – and children who are taken to a special or paid activity outside of the home – such as a sports club or dance, swimming and language lessons – are more likely to successfully recall short visual sequences. Parents who were moderately or strongly involved in activities taking place at the school predicted both a child’s mental flexibility outcomes.
References
[40] Anderson, P. and N. Reidy (2012), “Assessing executive function in preschoolers”, Neuropsychological Review, Vol. 22, pp. 345-360, http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12148.
[23] Ayduk, O. et al. (2000), “Regulating the interpersonal self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sensitivity”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 79/5, pp. 776-792, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.79.5.776 (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[35] Bernier, A., S. Carlson and N. Whipple (2010), “From External Regulation to Self-Regulation: Early Parenting Precursors of Young Children’s Executive Functioning”, Child Development, Vol. 81/1, pp. 326-339, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x.
[16] Best, J., P. Miller and J. Naglieri (2011), “Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 21/4, pp. 327-336, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2011.01.007.
[10] Blair, C. and R. Peters Razza (2007), “Relating Effortful Control, Executive Function, and False Belief Understanding to Emerging Math and Literacy Ability in Kindergarten”, Child Development, Vol. 78/2, pp. 647-663, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[5] Blair, C. and C. Raver (2015), “School Readiness and Self-Regulation: A Developmental Psychobiological Approach”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 66/1, pp. 711-731, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015221.
[34] Blair, C. and C. Raver (2012), “Individual development and evolution: Experiential canalization of self-regulation.”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 48/3, pp. 647-657, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026472.
[39] Booth, A., E. Hennessy and O. Doyle (2018), “Self-Regulation: Learning Across Disciplines”, Journal of Child and Family Studies, Vol. 27, pp. 3767–3781, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-018-1202-5.
[25] Bridgett, D. et al. (2015), “Intergenerational transmission of self-regulation: A multidisciplinary review and integrative conceptual framework”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 141/3, pp. 602-654, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0038662.
[22] Buckner, J., E. Mezzacappa and W. Beardslee (2009), “Self-Regulation and Its Relations to Adaptive Functioning in Low Income Youths”, American Journal of Olrhopsychrauy, Vol. 79/1, pp. 19-30, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014796.
[18] Caspi, A. et al. (1998), “Early failure in the labor market: Childhood and adolescent predictors of unemployment in the transition to adulthood”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 63/3, pp. 424-451, https://search.proquest.com/openview/a125bf198ee436749889e960111ac591/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=41945 (accessed on 28 June 2019).
[15] Clark, C., V. Pritchard and L. Woodward (2010), “Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 46/5, pp. 1176-1191, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0019672.
[19] Daly, M. et al. (2015), “Childhood Self-Control and Unemployment Throughout the Life Span”, Psychological Science, Vol. 26/6, pp. 709-723, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956797615569001.
[1] Diamond, A. (2013), “Executive Functions”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 64/1, pp. 135-168, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.
[41] Diamond, A. and K. Lee (2011), “Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old”, Science, Vol. 333/6045, pp. 959-964, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1204529.
[12] Dockett, S. (2001), “Starting School: Effective Transitions”, Early Childhood Research & Practice, Vol. 3/2, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED458041 (accessed on 3 July 2019).
[8] Duckworth, A., P. Quinn and E. Tsukayama (2012), “What No Child Left Behind Leaves Behind: The Roles of IQ and Self-Control in Predicting Standardized Achievement Test Scores and Report Card Grades”, Journal of educational psychology, Vol. 104/2, pp. 439-451, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026280.
[24] Duckworth, A., E. Tsukayama and H. May (2010), “Establishing Causality Using Longitudinal Hierarchical Linear Modeling: An Illustration Predicting Achievement From Self-Control”, Social Psychological and Personality Science, Vol. 1/4, pp. 311-317, http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1948550609359707.
[17] Duncan, G. et al. (2007), “School Readiness and Later Achievement”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/6, pp. 1428-1446, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ [0012-1649.43.6.1428].supp.
[2] Eisenberg, N., T. Spinrad and N. Eggum (2010), “Emotion-related self-regulation and its relation to children’s maladjustment”, Annual review of clinical psychology, Vol. 6, pp. 495-525, http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131208.
[21] Evans, G., T. Fuller-Rowell and S. Doan (2012), “Childhood Cumulative Risk and Obesity: The Mediating Role of Self-Regulatory Ability”, Pediatrics, Vol. 129/1, pp. e68-e73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-3647.
[31] Fuller, B. et al. (2010), “Maternal practices that influence Hispanic infants’ health and cognitive growth”, Pediatrics, Vol. 125/2, pp. e324-32, http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-0496.
[42] Garon, N., S. Bryson and I. Smith (2008), “Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134/1, pp. 31-60, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31.
[32] Hackman, D. and M. Farah (2009), “Socioeconomic status and the developing brain”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 13/2, pp. 65-73, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2008.11.003.
[37] Heatherton, T. and D. Wagner (2011), “Cognitive neuroscience of self-regulation failure”, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Vol. 15/3, pp. 132-139, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.TICS.2010.12.005.
[33] Kishiyama, M. et al. (2009), “Socioeconomic Disparities Affect Prefrontal Function in Children”, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Vol. 21/6, pp. 1106-1115, http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2009.21101.
[6] Mcclelland, M. et al. (2007), “Links Between Behavioral Regulation and Preschoolers’ Literacy, Vocabulary, and Math Skills”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 43/4, pp. 947–959, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947.
[36] McClelland, M. et al. (2018), “Self-Regulation”, in Handbook of Life Course Health Development, Springer International Publishing, Cham, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47143-3_12.
[3] McClelland, M. et al. (2015), “Development and Self-Regulation”, in Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy114.
[43] McClelland, M. et al. (2010), “Self-Regulation: Integration of Cognition and Emotion”, in The Handbook of Life-Span Development, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470880166.hlsd001015.
[29] McEwen, B., C. Nasca and J. Gray (2016), “Stress Effects on Neuronal Structure: Hippocampus, Amygdala, and Prefrontal Cortex”, Neuropsychopharmacology: official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 41/1, pp. 3-23, http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2015.171.
[20] Moffitt, T. et al. (2011), “A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 108/7, pp. 2693-8, http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1010076108.
[7] Morrison, F., C. Cameron and M. Mcclelland (2010), “Self-regulation and academic achievement in the transition to school”, in S.D. Calkins & M. Bell (ed.), Child development at the intersection of emotion and cognition, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/12059-011.
[28] Nelson, C. et al. (2007), “Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project”, Science, Vol. 318/5858, pp. 1937-1940, http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.1143921.
[11] Neuenschwander, R. et al. (2012), “How do different aspects of self-regulation predict successful adaptation to school?”, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Vol. 113/3, pp. 353-371, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.JECP.2012.07.004.
[26] Noble, K., M. Norman and M. Farah (2005), “Neurocognitive correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children”, Developmental Science, Vol. 8/1, pp. 74-87, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x.
[38] Ponitz, C. et al. (2009), “A structured observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 45/3, pp. 605-619, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fa0015365 (accessed on 9 July 2019).
[14] Raghubar, K., M. Barnes and S. Hecht (2010), “Working memory and mathematics: A review of developmental, individual difference, and cognitive approaches”, Learning and Individual Differences, Vol. 20/2, pp. 110-122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.LINDIF.2009.10.005.
[27] Raver, C., C. Blair and M. Willoughby (2013), “Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of differential susceptibility.”, Developmental Psychology, Vol. 49/2, pp. 292-304, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028343.
[13] Shonkoff, J., D. Phillips and N. Council (2000), Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework., National Acadamies Press, Washington, DC, http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.1.31.
[9] Tangney, J., R. Baumeister and A. Boone (2004), “High Self-Control Predicts Good Adjustment, Less Pathology, Better Grades, and Interpersonal Success”, Journal of Personality, Vol. 72/2, pp. 271-324, http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00263.x.
[30] Wachs, T., P. Gurkas and S. Kontos (2004), “Predictors of preschool children’s compliance behavior in early childhood classroom settings”, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Vol. 25/4, pp. 439-457, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/J.APPDEV.2004.06.003.
[4] Zelazo, P., C. Blair and M. Willoughby (2016), Executive Function: Implications for Education (NCER 2017-2000), National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, http://ies.ed.gov/ (accessed on 28 June 2019).
← 1. A birth weight lower than 5lbs 5oz/2.5 kg was defined as low.
← 2. These included speech or language delay or intellectual disabilities.
← 3. Children with a father or mother who were born in a country other than the one in which the child participated in IELS.
← 4. Up to Year 9.
← 5. Short-cycle tertiary education corresponds to Higher National Certificate (HNC), Higher National Diploma (HND), National Vocational Qualifications (NVQ) at level 4+, Diploma of Higher Education (DipHe), Foundation degree or equivalent.
← 6. To meet the standards for reporting mean scores in IELS, a subgroup of children must contain at least 30 children, and these children must have been sampled from at least five centres or schools. The number of girls with more than three siblings did not meet these reporting requirements.
← 7. Examples of such activities include school fetes, concerts/plays, parent’s evenings, and parental workshops.
← 8. According to the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED), ISCED 0 programmes are pre-primary programmes situated in institutional settings that contain an intentional education component, among other criteria. ISCED 01 captures participation by very young children (aged two and under), and ISCED 02 captures participation by slightly older children (aged three to five).
← 9. In order of descending p-value.
← 10. A correlation coefficient lower than 0.20 is considered relatively weak, between 0.20 and 0.49 is considered moderately strong, between 0.50 and 0.79 is considered strong and greater than 0.8 is considered very strong.