The doubled-edged sword of self-regulation: Developmental, temperamental, and contextual considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Temperamental self-regulation is typically associated with adaptive outcomes, but considerably less is known about the correlates of rudimentary self-regulation—regulatory capacity—in infancy. Some theoretical frameworks also suggest that low and high levels of inhibitory control—one component of temperamental self-regulation—may be related to negative outcomes, and further that this may depend on individual differences in shyness. In this dissertation, I examined the functional correlates of infants’ regulatory capacity moderated by physiological regulation (Chapter 2), the negative consequences of low and high levels of inhibitory control on preschoolers’ social and psychological outcomes (Chapter 3), and the social (Chapter 4) and contextual (Chapter 5) factors modifying the impact of inhibitory control on shy children’s interpersonal outcomes. In Chapter 2, I found that infants’ regulatory capacity was only negatively related to behavior problems when infants displayed high levels of physiological regulation during an emotionally salient stressor. In Chapter 3, I found that very low and high levels of inhibitory control were related to the highest levels of avoidant social behavior and internalizing and externalizing problems in preschoolers. In Chapter 4, I found that preschoolers’ shyness was only negatively associated with their own observed approach behavior when their own inhibitory control was high (actor effects), and this pattern of results differed when examining the partner’s observed behavior (partner effects). In Chapter 5, I found that shyness was negatively associated with social support seeking when preschoolers displayed high levels of inhibitory control in an unfamiliar context, and this pattern of results differed in a familiar context. These studies challenge the longstanding belief that self-regulatory processes are adaptive for all children all the time, and suggest that developmental, temperamental, and contextual factors may influence whether self-regulation acts as a resiliency or risk factor.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".