Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2019, 60, 97–105 DOI: 10.1111/sjop.

12512

Development and Aging

Does child verbal ability mediate the relationship between maternal
sensitivity and later self-regulation? A longitudinal study from infancy
to 4 years
MATILDA A. FRICK, TOMMIE FORSLUND and KARIN C. BROCKI
Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Sweden

Frick, M. A., Forslund, T. & Brocki, K. C. (2019). Does child verbal ability mediate the relationship between maternal sensitivity and later self-regulation?
A longitudinal study from infancy to 4 years. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 60, 97–105.

There is a need to further examine the mechanisms by which maternal sensitivity influences the development of child self-regulation. This study
investigated the role of maternal sensitivity when infants were 10 months old and child verbal ability at 18 months, in relation to various aspects of self-
regulation at 48 months, in a sample of 95 typically developing children (46.3% girls). In particular, the study examined, from a Vygotskian perspective,
whether child verbal ability, as measured by receptive and expressive language, mediated the relationship between maternal sensitivity and hot and cool
aspects of self-regulation in the child. As hypothesized, maternal sensitivity predicted child verbal ability, as well as working memory, set shifting, and
delay of gratification. Child receptive language predicted set shifting, inhibition, and delay of gratification. In addition, receptive language mediated the
relationship between maternal sensitivity and inhibition only. Additive effects of maternal sensitivity and child receptive language in relation to set shifting
were found, and a main effect of maternal sensitivity on child delay of gratification. The results add to the body of research suggesting that responsive
parenting and child verbal ability are important for the development of self-regulation, and suggest that different mechanisms may be at work for different
aspects of self-regulation.
Key words: Responsive parenting, receptive language, expressive language, hot and cool executive functions, mediation.
Matilda A. Frick, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, 751 42 Uppsala, Sweden. E-mail: matilda.frick@psyk.uu.se

INTRODUCTION sample of typically developing children. In addition, we

Responsive parenting is by now an established predictor of various
aspects of self-regulation (e.g., Bernier, Carlson & Whipple, 2010;
Frick, Forslund, Fransson, Johansson, Bohlin & Brocki, 2018;
Landry, Smith & Swank, 2006; Pauli-Pott, Schloß & Becker,
2017; Wade, Jenkins, Venkadasalam, Binnoon-Erez & Ganea,
2018). Indeed, parenting can in and of itself be thought of as a
regulatory factor that employs direct extrinsic regulation of the
child’s emotions, cognitions, and behavior, that is later internalized
as self-regulation (Bernier et al., 2010). Largely renowned by
Vygotsky and his influential theories (Vygotsky, 1987), verbal
ability has for decades been suggested as a prominent regulatory
function that also initially works as extrinsic regulation executed
by the parent, that with time turns into private speech with a self-
regulatory function (Perrone-Bertolotti, Rapin, Lachaux, Baciu &
Lœvenbruck, 2014). Moreover, responsive parenting is predictive
of child verbal ability (Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein,
1997; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, Baumwell & Melstein Damast,
1996), suggesting significant inter-relations between responsive
parenting, verbal ability, and self-regulation. This raises the
important question as to whether the child0 s verbal ability
constitute a mechanism by which responsive parenting becomes
associated with the child0 s later self-regulation. That is, if the
child’s verbal ability mediates the relationship between responsive
parenting and later self-regulation. Informed by these questions,
the present study investigated whether maternal sensitivity (as a
proxy for responsive parenting) at 10 months and verbal ability
(receptive and expressive language) at 18 months predicted
various hot and cool aspects of self-regulation at 48 months, in a
investigated whether verbal ability mediated the potential
relationship between maternal sensitivity and self-regulation.
Responsive parenting has many facets, and has accordingly
been described in various ways. Autonomy support, scaffolding,
mind mindedness, and sensitivity are some of the terms used
(Bernier et al., 2010; Pauli-Pott et al., 2017; Vallotton,
Mastergeorge, Foster, Decker & Ayoub, 2017). These constructs
put varied emphasis on problem solving, emotion regulation, and
the communicative aspect of responsive parenting, with the
common theme that the parent is attentive to the child’s needs and
whereabouts and responds promptly and adequately (Ainsworth,
1969). Different aspects of parenting are often found to be inter-
related, such as sensitivity and scaffolding (Bernier et al., 2010),
sensitivity and linguistic input (Wade et al., 2018), as well as
sensitivity and cognitive stimulation (Vallotton et al., 2017).
Indeed, sensitivity during the first years of life has been suggested
as a global proxy for different aspects of responsive parenting
because of its focus on the parent’s ability to respond promptly and
sensitively to the child’s interests, focus of attention, needs, etc.
(Vallotton et al., 2017). Therefore, in this study we focus on the
effect of maternal sensitivity, as a measure of responsive parenting.
Early verbal ability can be divided into two related aspects:
receptive language, which is the ability to understand what is
being communicated; and expressive language, which is the
capacity to produce words. The capacity to comprehend words
emerges in the middle of the first year, and the average child
produces his/her first word at around the age of 12 months (Berk,
2013). During the middle of the second year the child starts to

© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

98 M. A. Frick et al.
combine words and by the end of the fourth year a large
vocabulary and most grammatical constructions are in place
(Bornstein, Hahn, & Haynes, 2004; Brown, 1973). This pattern of
language development is to a high degree universal, and this has
inspired nativist perspectives on language development (e.g.,
Chomsky, 1976). However, over the last few decades an interest
in how early experiences, such as a rich environment and
interactions with caregivers, influence language development has
gained momentum (e.g., Rodriguez & Tamis-LeMonda, 2011;
Tamis-LeMonda et al., 1996; Vallotton et al., 2017).
Self-regulation is best thought of as a domain general construct,
referring to goal directed activities encompassing cognitive,
behavioral, and emotional aspects (Bridgett, Burt, Edwards &
Deater-Deckard, 2015; Nigg, 2017). The cognitive aspects of self-
regulation are often referred to as executive functions (EF), a set
of correlated but separable higher order functions (e.g., working
memory, set shifting, and inhibition) that aid the individual in
achieving goals (Friedman & Miyake, 2017). The affective
aspects of self-regulation have sometimes been referred to as
emotion regulation (Gross, 2015) and sometimes to hot EF
(Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee & Zelazo, 2005), with the
common theme that emotions are regulated in order to achieve
goals such as delaying immediate gratification in order to obtain a
larger reward later. Twin studies suggest the genetic contribution
to self-regulation to be substantial (Friedman & Miyake, 2017).
However, the slow maturation of the regulatory parts of the brain
(i.e., the prefrontal cortex) makes progression of self-regulation
susceptible to environmental influences (Noble, Norman & Farah,
2005).
Relations between responsive parenting, verbal ability, and
self-regulation
Responsive parenting has been found to predict both cool (i.e.,
cognitive or EF) and hot (i.e., emotional) aspects of self-regulation.
For instance, parent-child interactions in infancy predicted EF in
toddlerhood (Bernier et al., 2010; Rochette & Bernier, 2016), and
scaffolding at 2 years predicted EF at 4 years (Hughes & Ensor,
2009). In addition, an intervention study found that increased
maternal sensitivity led to better problem solving skills during free
play (Landry et al., 2006). Further, maternal support was
concurrently related to emotion regulation in 3–4-year-olds (Cole,
Dennis, Smith-Simon & Cohen, 2009) and maternal responsiveness
at 4 years predicted delay of gratification 1 year later (Pauli-Pott
et al., 2017). Also, maternal sensitivity predicted emotion
regulation at 18 months in the present sample, but we did not find
the expected link to EF at the same age, possibly due to lack of
stability of cognitive function at that early age (Frick, Forslund,
Fransson et al., 2018). One potential pathway that links responsive
parenting to later self-regulation is verbal ability, in that responsive
parenting is predictive of language, which in turn works as a
regulatory function that aids the development of self-regulation.
The suggested mechanism is that responsive parenting leads to
more opportunities for joint attention (Rollins & Greenwald, 2013),
which in turn predicts learning of words (Farrant & Zubrick, 2012)
that in turn leads to better self-regulation (Fuhs & Day, 2011).
Let us look at the links between responsive parenting, verbal
ability, and self-regulation one at a time. First, there is an
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
established link between responsive parenting and verbal ability.
For instance, maternal responsiveness has been found to predict
both receptive and expressive language in typically developing
children (Baumwell et al., 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 1996),
and in deaf and hard of hearing children (Pressman, Pipp-Siegel,
Yoshinaga-Itano & Deas, 1999). In addition, an experimental
intervention study found that increased maternal sensitivity led to
increased vocabulary (Landry et al., 2006). Moreover, at the age
of 14 months maternal sensitivity had a stronger effect on verbal
ability than had cognitive stimulation (Vallotton et al., 2017).
Second, there is an established theoretical and empirical link
between verbal ability and hot and cool aspects of self-regulation.
On a theoretical level Vygotsky suggested that higher order
cognitive functions are dialogic and interpersonal in nature, in that
interactions that involve learning and problem solving are later
internalized as private speech (Perrone-Bertolotti et al., 2014;
Vygotsky, 1987). Moreover, self-directed language or private
speech are conceptualized as language based self-regulatory
functions that aid the child in self-instruction, self-motivation,
planning, problem-solving, communication about inner states,
modifying emotions, and as being receptive of extrinsic regulation
by others (Eisenberg, Sadovsky & Spinrad, 2005; Fuhs & Day,
2011; Perrone-Bertolotti et al., 2014; Winsler, Diaz, McCarthy,
Atencio & Chabay, 1999). On a mechanistic level private speech
has been suggested to have a role in the phonological loop in
working memory (Baddeley, 2010; Perrone-Bertolotti et al., 2014)
and as an internal self-cuing device in set shifting (Emerson &
Miyake, 2003). Receptive and expressive aspects of language may
influence self-regulation through somewhat different mechanisms.
Receptive language is important primarily for understanding tasks
and instructions, whereas expressive language is important for
communicating needs, such as asking questions, requesting help
from others, and commenting on assignments.
Empirically, verbal ability has consistently been concurrently
related to cool EF during the preschool years (Blair, 2003;
Hughes, 1998; M€ uller, Zelazo & Imrisek, 2005; Wolfe & Bell,
2004). Also, verbal ability predicted EF in a group of
preschoolers with low socio-economic status (SES; Fuhs & Day,
2011), suggesting a significant role of verbal ability in the
progression of self-regulation, in line with the ideas of Vygotsky
(1987). Also, children with specific language impairment had
poorer emotion regulation skills than controls (Fujiki, Brinton &
Clarke, 2002) and another study of the role of verbal ability in hot
and cool EF found positive correlations with cool but not hot EF
(Hongwanishkul et al., 2005).
We could only locate a few studies that have examined
mediation models similar to the one we propose in this study. For
instance, the effect of maternal mind-mindedness on later school
readiness was fully mediated by child expressive language and
effortful control (Bernier, McMahon & Perrier, 2017). Also,
maternal responsiveness operated on school-readiness through
receptive vocabulary (Wade et al., 2018). The third study we
located found that parents helping the child to maintain focus on
the task at hand at 2 years, supported cognitive self-regulation at
4 years through cognitive and receptive language skills at 2 and
3 years (Landry, Smith, Swank & Miller-Loncar, 2000).
However, to our knowledge, none has examined the role of
maternal sensitivity in relation to both hot and cool aspects of

Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
self-regulation, as mediated by expressive and receptive language,
which could bring about more mechanistic knowledge on
development of self-regulation.
Aims
We set out to gain further knowledge on the role of responsive
parenting and verbal ability in relation to self-regulation. We
chose to investigate the role of maternal sensitivity, which is a
global measure of responsive parenting, and has been suggested
to exert a stronger effect in infancy than cognitive stimulation
(Vallotton et al., 2017). We also chose to examine the role of
both receptive and expressive language, which could potentially
have distinct effects on different aspects of self-regulation. We
assessed hot and cool aspects of self-regulation at 4 years, which
is suggested to be a suitable age for assessment, with more
stability and more complex self-regulatory functions in place as
compared to the younger years (Carlson, 2005; Garon, Bryson &
Smith, 2008; Hughes, 1998).
We hypothesized that maternal sensitivity at 10 months would
predict receptive and expressive language at 18 months, and hot
and cool self-regulation at 48 months. We also hypothesized that
receptive and expressive language would predict hot and cool
self-regulation at 48 months. Lastly, we expected verbal ability to
mediate the relationship between maternal sensitivity and hot and
cool self-regulation.
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 95 typically developing children (44 girls,
46.3%) born in a mid-sized university town in Sweden. These 95
children had data from 10 months (mean age 9.97, SD = 0.24)
and 48 months (mean age 48.05, SD = 0.60) and were part of an
original sample of 124 children. Retention rate was 76.6% and
reasons for dropping out of the study were: eight reported time
constraints, 11 had moved from the area, six declined for
unknown reasons, three were uncontactable, and one reported a
developmental delay. Data were not collected from five children
at 18 months due to a reported lack of time (n = 2) and that the
parent missed filling out the form (n = 3), but they were still
included in the final sample. In short, the sample was recruited
through the birth registry of Uppsala, Sweden (for a full
description, see Frick, Forslund, Fransson et al., 2018). Mail was
sent out to families of all newborns with a general inquiry about
participating in studies within the lab (retention rate ~30%) and
interested families were then informed about this specific study.
At 10 months, all but one infant lived with two parents, and at
48 months all but four children lived with two parents. As for
education, 78.7% of the mothers and 63.8% of the fathers had
higher education. The mothers’ mean age was 32.2 years
(SD = 5.01) and fathers’ 34.4 years (SD = 6.02). There was a
significant difference between completers and non-completers on
maternal sensitivity, in that non-completers had slightly lower
sensitivity ratings (mean 6.23 vs. 5.35), t(122) = 2.65, p = 0.01.
There were no significant differences in background variables or
verbal ability (p = 0.200.95).
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sensitivity and language in self-regulation 99
Procedure
Infants and mothers visited the lab at 10 months for assessment of
maternal sensitivity. At 18 months (mean age 17.75, SD = 0.61)
parents rated children’s receptive and expressive language. At
48 months, infants again visited the lab with an accompanying
parent for assessment of various aspects of self-regulation. Each
visit lasted approximately 2 hours. At each time point, the families
received a gift certificate worth approximately 20 US$. The tasks
and measures used in this study were part of a larger longitudinal
study aimed at assessing development of various aspects of self-
regulation over time, and data on maternal sensitivity has been
reported elsewhere (Frick, Forslund & Brocki, 2018; Frick,
Forslund, Fransson et al., 2018). The local ethics committee in
Uppsala, Sweden approved the study (EPN; dnr: 2011/165, ‘'the
EFFECT study’).
Measures
Maternal sensitivity at 10 months. We used the Maternal
Sensitivity Scales (Ainsworth, 1969) to assess maternal sensitivity
during a semi-structured play session that lasted 26 min (Pederson,
Moran, & Bento, 2013). The session contained different blocks
with different levels of demand on the mothers (e.g., free play with
and without toys while the mother was busy filling out a form,
dyadic free play with and without toys, reading a book together,
and playing together with a toy that was difficult to master for the
child) and have been described in detail elsewhere (Frick,
Forslund, Fransson et al., 2018). The filmed procedure was coded
as a whole on a nine-point scale in accordance with Ainsworth’s
scale of sensitivity vs. insensitivity (1969), which addresses the
mother’s capacity to identify, interpret, and adequately respond to
the infant’s signals. A score of 9 corresponds to highly sensitive, 7
to sensitive, 5 to inconsistently sensitive, 3 to insensitive, and 1 to
highly insensitive. Two independent raters coded 19 (20%)
randomly selected cases and inter-rater reliability was ICC = 0.69.
Receptive and expressive language at 18 months. We used the
Swedish Communicative Screening at 18 months (SCS18;
Eriksson, Westerlund & Berglund, 2002) to assess receptive and
expressive language in the child. The SCS18 is a screening
version of the Swedish version of the Communicative
Development Inventories (SECDI; Eriksson & Berglund, 1999)
and contains a list of 90 common words. Parents who checked
whether the child could understand and/or express each specific
word. The parent was also instructed to add other words to the list
that the child could express. The respective number of words was
used as the measure for receptive and expressive language. The
SCS18 has shown excellent validity and reliability (Eriksson,
Westerlund, & Berglund, 2002).
Hot and cool self-regulation at 48 months. To assess self-
regulation, we used a battery of well-known, valid tests aimed at
assessing the three aspects of cool EF known as working
memory, set shifting, and inhibition in preschoolers, as well as
delay of gratification as hot EF.
Working memory. We used the Beads Task (Hughes & Ensor,
2005; Johansson, Marciszko, Brocki & Bohlin, 2016; Thorndike,

100 M. A. Frick et al.
Hagen & Sattler, 1986) to assess working memory. The child was
first familiarized with a set of 12 wooden beads (approximately
3 cm in diameter) in three different colors (white, blue, and red)
and in four different shapes (cylinder, cube, ball, and triangle) and
a large photo (42 9 30 cm) of all the beads in a row. In an initial
familiarization trial the child was asked to identify four specific
beads, one at a time, which the experimenter pointed toward in
the picture. In a second familiarization trial, the experimenter
turned the photo upside down and said, “I am going to show you
beads, and your task is to remember which beads I just showed
you. I want you to just look at them, not touch them”. The
experimenter then put a bead on the table for 2 s, removed the
bead, and turned the photo toward the child and said “now, show
me, which bead was it?” Feedback was given on the
familiarization trials. The instruction was repeated and the six test
trials took place. In the first two trials one bead was shown for 2
s. In trial 3 and 4, two beads were shown for 3 s and in the last
two trials three beads were shown for 3 s. All trials were
administered to all children. Correctly identifying a bead rendered
a score of 1, resulting in a total score of 0 – 12.
Set shifting. We used the Dimensional Change Card Sort Task
(DCCS; Carlson, 2005; Frye, Zelazo & Palfai, 1995) to assess set
shifting. Two boxes, one with a picture of a red rabbit, and one
with a picture of a blue boat attached to the front, were presented in
front of the child. In the pre-switch condition the child was told
that they were going to play the shape-game, and that the child had
to put all rabbits in the box with the red rabbit, and all boats in the
box with the blue boat. The experimenter first sorted two cards,
stating “this is a red boat, I0 ll put it here. This is a blue rabbit, I’ll
put it here.” The child was then handed one card at the time, with
blue and red rabbits and boats (in a semi-randomized order with no
more than two cards of the same type in a row) and was asked to
sort them according to shape. The instruction was repeated for the
first two trials and again if the child was incorrect. Feedback was
given for each card during the pre-switch trials. When the child had
sorted five correct cards in a row, the post-switch trials took place.
The experimenter said: “Now we’re going to change game. We’re
not playing the shape game anymore. We’re going to play the
color game!” and instructed the child to sort the cards according to
color. The new rule was stated twice, and then again when the
child was given the first card. Eight cards (three red boats, one blue
boat, one red rabbit, and three blue rabbits) were then handed to
the child semi-randomized, one at the time, and each card was
labeled, such as “this is a red rabbit.” No feedback was given
during the post-switch trials, but if the child made three incorrect
sorts in a row, the rule was repeated “remember, when it is a red
thing, you’ll put it in this box, and when it is a blue thing you’ll put
it here.” A correct sort rendered a score of 1, resulting in a total
score of 2 – 8 (since two cards rendered a correct sort
independently of were the child put it).
Inhibition. We used a computerized version of the Day/Night
Stroop (Gerstadt, Hong & Diamond, 1994) to assess inhibition.
The child was first shown a picture of a sun and a moon and after
a brief conversation about the sun shining during the day, and the
moon shining at night the child was instructed that this is the
“opposite game” and that the child has to reply “night” when
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
he/she sees a picture of a sun, and “day” when he/she sees a
picture of a moon. Four familiarization trials with feedback were
then given. During the test trial 12 pictures were presented in a
fixed order at the rate of 2500 ms/picture, with a 2500 ms pause
between pictures. No feedback was given, but if the child did not
reply for three pictures in a row, or named the object instead of
an opposite answer, the experimenter said: “Do you remember
what you were going to say when you saw this picture?” The
child’s first response was noted, and the total correct first
responses (0 – 12) was used as the outcome measure.
Delay of gratification. We used the Delay of Gratification Task
(Carlson, 2005; Mischel, Shoda & Rodriguez, 1989) to assess hot
EF. The child was presented with two bowls of snack treats of
their own choice, one bowl containing two treats and one
containing 10 treats. The child was then asked which bowl he/she
preferred (all preferred the one containing 10 treats), and was told
he/she could have that one if he/she waited for the experimenter
to return. The child was also told that if he/she changed his/her
mind and no longer wished to wait for the larger treat he/she
could ring a bell and the experimenter would return immediately,
and that the child would then be given the smaller treat. The child
was told to remain in his/her seat until the experimenter returned.
The experimenter then made an excuse to leave the room, and left
the child waiting for 3 min unless the child rang the bell. The
outcome measure consisted of number of seconds (0–180) that the
child remained in the room without ringing the bell.
Statistical analyses
Data were converted to z-scores and checked for outliers (z > 3).
Using Cook’s distance, values greater than one were considered
as a bivariate outlier (Field, 2013). A check for skewness and
kurtosis was made according to Field (2013). Zero-order
correlations were conducted to examine bivariate relations.
Pearson correlations were used when data met criteria for a
normal distribution, otherwise Spearman correlations were used.
Mediation analyses were carried out when the predictor (maternal
sensitivity) was significantly correlated with the proposed
mediator (receptive or expressive language), and when the
proposed mediator in turn was significantly correlated with an
outcome measure (Hayes, 2017). Mediation effects were
examined with a series of regressions, using PROCESS made by
Andrew F. Hayes for SPSS (www.afhayes.com), where a is the
influence of the predictor on the mediator, b the independent
effect of the mediator, c the direct or independent effect of the
predictor, and ab the indirect effect of the predictor as mediated
by the mediator (see Figs. 1–3). For all indirect effects,
bootstrapped bias-corrected confidence intervals (CI) were
computed. That is, if zero is not contained within the CI, the
indirect/mediated effect is considered significant (Field, 2013).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics and preliminary analyses
Two outliers were found, one for expressive language and one for
working memory. The outliers were replaced with the second
 14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Scand J Psychol 60 (2019) Sensitivity and language in self-regulation 101

Fig. 1. Model of maternal sensitivity as a predictor of set shifting mediated by receptive language. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is
bootstrapped based on 1000 samples. n = 87.

Fig. 2. Model of maternal sensitivity as a predictor of inhibition mediated by receptive language. The confidence interval for the indirect effect is
bootstrapped based on 1000 samples. n = 70.

Fig. 3. Model of maternal sensitivity as a predictor of delay of gratification mediated by receptive language. The confidence interval for the indirect effect
is bootstrapped based on 1000 samples. n = 87.

most extreme value that was not an outlier. Replacing the outliers
did not change the results significantly. No bivariate outliers were
found. Expressive language, set shifting, and delay of gratification
were all skewed, kurtosed, or both. See Table 1 for the
descriptive statistics of all study variables.
Eleven children had no data on working memory because the
task was not administered due to fatigue/other reasons (n = 3), or
the child did not complete the test due to fatigue/other reasons
(n = 8). Three children did not complete the set shifting task due
to shyness (this was the first administered task). Twenty children

© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
 14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
102 M. A. Frick et al. Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)

had no data on inhibition because the task was not administered
due to fatigue/other reasons (n = 5), the child did not understand
the instructions (n = 8) or did not complete the test due to
fatigue/other reasons (n = 7). Delay of gratification was not
administered to three children due to fatigue/other reasons.
Child sex was significantly correlated with verbal ability, in
that girls were rated as having higher levels of both receptive and
expressive language than boys (see Table 2 for correlations). SES
(the mean of the parents’ income and level of education) was
positively and significantly correlated with inhibition. Including
sex and SES as covariates in the mediation models did not affect
the result, and they were therefore removed from the final
analysis.
Zero-order correlations
Correlations are presented in Table 2. Maternal sensitivity was
significantly and positively correlated with receptive and
expressive language, as well as with working memory, set
shifting, and delay of gratification. Receptive language was
positively correlated with expressive language, as well as with set
shifting, inhibition, and delay of gratification. Expressive
language was not significantly correlated with the outcome
measures. As for inter-correlations between the outcome
measures, delay of gratification was significantly or marginally
significantly correlated with all cool EF-measures. In addition, set
shifting and inhibition were significantly and positively correlated
with each other.
Mediation analyses
The pattern of significant correlations allowed for three mediation
analyses, with maternal sensitivity as the predictor, receptive
language as mediator and either set shifting, inhibition, or delay
of gratification as outcome measure (see Figs. 1–3). The model
for set shifting showed a non-significant indirect effect that is no
significant mediation was detected (see Fig. 1). Instead, the model
revealed direct/independent and positive effects of both maternal
sensitivity and receptive language on set shifting. The model for
inhibition showed a significant indirect effect of maternal
sensitivity on inhibition, as mediated by receptive language (see
Fig. 2). No direct effect of maternal sensitivity was detected in
relation to inhibition. The model for delay of gratification showed
a non-significant indirect effect, but a significant direct/
independent effect of maternal sensitivity and a marginally
significant direct effect of receptive language on later delay of
gratification (see Fig. 3).

DISCUSSION
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of all study variables
We set out to examine the role of maternal sensitivity and verbal
Measure n M (SD) Range Skewness (SE) Kurtosis (SE) ability in relation to hot and cool aspects of self-regulation. We
hypothesized that verbal ability would constitute a mechanism
Maternal 95 6.23 (1.57) 3–9 0.36 (0.25) 0.72 (0.49) whereby maternal sensitivity affects child self-regulation. The
sensitivity results showed that maternal sensitivity at 10 months predicted
Receptive 90 63.59 (22.16) 10–112 0.23 (0.25) 0.06 (0.50)
receptive and expressive language at 18 months, as well as
language
Expressive 90 24 (21.57) 0–85 1.46 (0.25) 1.34 (0.50) working memory, set shifting, and delay of gratification at
language 48 months. In addition, receptive language predicted set shifting,
Working 84 6.05 (1.84) 2–11 0.21 (0.27) 0.05 (0.53) inhibition, and delay of gratification. Finally, receptive language
memory mediated the relationship between maternal sensitivity and
Set shifting 92 5.72 (2.57) 0–8 0.70 (0.25) 1.06 (0.50)
inhibition, but not the relationship between maternal sensitivity
Inhibition 75 5.48 (3.47) 0–12 0.51 (0.28) 0.84 (0.55)
DoG 92 146.27 (63.64) 2–180 1.52 (0.25) 0.54 (0.50) and later set shifting or delay of gratification. Instead, the latter
SES 94 8.20 (1.55) 3.5–11 0.69 (0.25) 0.65 (0.49) models suggest that there are additive effects of maternal
sensitivity and receptive language in relation to set shifting, and a
Note: DoG = delay of gratification. SES = Socio-economic status. main effect of maternal sensitivity on delay of gratification, with a

Table 2. Correlations between study variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Maternal sensitivity 1 0.24* 0.22* 0.19* 0.19* 0.03 0.27** 0.08 0.00
Receptive language 1 0.73*** 0.05 0.24* 0.24* 0.18* 0.23* 0.05
Expressive language† 1 0.09 0.14+ 0.08 0.10 0.23* 0.02
Working memory 1 0.04 0.13 0.42*** 0.19+ 0.05
Set shifting† 1 0.20* 0.20* 0.07 0.20+
Inhibition 1 0.18+ 0.16 0.26*
Delay of gratification† 1 0.10 0.12
Child sex‡ 1 0.05
SES†‡ 1

Notes: Child sex: 1 = boy, 2 = girl. SES = Socio economic status. n = 75–94.
†
Spearman’s rho, all other analyses conducted with Pearson r.
‡
two-tailed analyzes, all other analyses were one-tailed.
+
p < 0.10, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
marginally significant effect of receptive language. The results
add to the growing body of research suggesting that responsive
parenting and verbal ability are important for various aspects of
cognitive and emotional development, and that somewhat distinct
mechanisms may be at work for different self-regulatory
functions.
Maternal sensitivity in relation to verbal ability and
self-regulation
The positive relationship between maternal sensitivity and verbal
ability suggests that responsive parenting is of importance for
both understanding and producing language. A possible
mechanism behind this relationship is that responsive parenting is
associated with increased joint attention (Rollins & Greenwald,
2013), which in turn leads to amplified opportunities for language
acquisition (Farrant & Zubrick, 2012). However, the study design
cannot prove mechanistic causality. In addition, the effect of
maternal sensitivity on both hot and cool self-regulation adds to
the growing body of research suggesting that responsive parenting
is important for the development of various aspects of self-
regulation (Frick, Forslund, Fransson et al., 2018; Pauli-Pott
et al., 2017; Rochette & Bernier, 2016). The proposed broad
mechanism here is that maternal sensitivity acts as an external
regulator that over time aids the development of self-regulation
(Bernier et al., 2010). Also, maternal sensitivity did not predict
EF at 18 months in the present sample (Frick, Forslund, Fransson
et al., 2018), but did so at 48 months, possibly due to better
stability of the construct at the latter time point.
The pattern of significant correlations allowed for three
mediation models to be tested, in relation to set shifting,
inhibition, and delay of gratification. The results suggest that the
interplay between maternal sensitivity and children’s receptive
language vary for different aspects of self-regulation. Specifically,
maternal sensitivity seems to have a direct or independent effect
on set shifting, working memory, and delay of gratification,
whereas the effect on inhibition is mediated through receptive
language. The direct effects may operate through optimal arousal/
regulation, positive experiences from problem solving with
caregivers, and observational learning. It is interesting to note that
although all tasks require comprehension of verbal instructions,
the only task that requires a verbal response is the inhibitory task.
The inhibitory task is also the most demanding and broad task, as
it involves working memory, inhibition of a spontaneous
response, and delivery of an alternative response. In addition, the
responses need to be quite fast, which also puts a load on the
child’s processing speed. From this perspective, the mediation
effect is plausible, in that the effect of sensitivity needs to
generate effective verbal self-regulatory skills to a higher degree
than for the other measured aspects. This may however not be
specific for the inhibitory aspects of the task, but rather the verbal
aspects, which was not controlled for in the study, in that the
other tasks did not require a verbal response.
The lack of a first order correlation between maternal
sensitivity and inhibition could be in line with a suggestion that
responsive parenting may operate through increased child
engagement rather than through inhibition (Ispa, Su-Russell,
Palermo & Carlo, 2017). Specifically, that regulated and engaged
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sensitivity and language in self-regulation 103
children are more prone to both seek out and be receptive to
learning opportunities, rather than prohibiting impulses per se.
This also goes well with the attachment-exploration hypothesis,
which empathizes that securely attached (i.e., well-regulated)
children will be more free to explore, which will aid their
cognitive development, both regarding language and self-
regulation (IJzendoorn, Dijkstra & Bus, 1995). Regarding the
predictive association between maternal sensitivity and delay of
gratification, previous findings have been mixed, with at least one
study indicating that sensitivity was unrelated to delay of
gratification (Bernier et al., 2010), and one where maternal
sensitivity was associated with increased delay of gratification
over time (Pauli-Pott et al., 2017). Both studies used similar tasks
as ours, so differences in the methods do not seem to explain the
mixed results. Our results suggest that responsive parenting is
associated with increased delay of gratification, which fits well
with the notion that sensitive parenting aids the development of
various aspects of self-regulation.
Verbal ability in relation to self-regulation
Receptive language predicted set shifting, inhibition, and delay of
gratification, but not working memory. The effect on set shifting
was independent of maternal sensitivity and the effect on delay of
gratification was marginally significantly independent. Receptive
and expressive language were highly correlated, yet expressive
language was not predictive of later self-regulation, suggesting a
clear and specific role of the receptive aspects of language rather
than the expressive aspects. That is, our results suggest that
understanding language is more important for development of
self-regulation than being able to produce words, at least at this
early age. Vygotsky suggested that private speech was
consequential of expressive speech through a developmental
process of internalization (Vygotsky, 1987). However, more
recent research has found that infants can name objects implicitly,
and that private speech may not be dependent on expressive
ability (Mani & Plunkett, 2010). For instance, it has been shown
that 21-month-olds can activate phonological representations of
words they understand but have not yet attempted to pronounce
(Ngon & Peperkamp, 2016). As such, our results are in favor of
receptive rather than expressive language as a predictor of both
hot and cool aspects of self-regulation, but that this does not rule
out the involvement of private speech. We have no plausible
explanation for the lack of predictive association between
receptive language and working memory, which has been
suggested by both theory (Baddeley, 2010; Perrone-Bertolotti
et al., 2014) and empirical research (Hughes, 1998; Wolfe &
Bell, 2004). The lack of correlation between working memory
and the other EF measures may suggest noise in the task, but the
task was correlated with delay of gratification and has been used
previously with satisfactory validity (Hughes & Ensor, 2005;
Johansson et al., 2016).
The structure of EF
As for internal consistency of EF, set shifting and inhibition were
significantly correlated, and delay of gratification was significantly
correlated with working memory, set shifting, and marginally

104 M. A. Frick et al.
with inhibition, suggesting at least some construct validity.
However, working memory was not related to set shifting and
inhibition. The rather low significant correlations or lack thereof
is consistent with previous studies (Miller & Marcovitch, 2015;
Wiebe, Lukowski & Bauer, 2010) and is suggested to be a
consequence of task impurity (Friedman & Miyake, 2017),
measurement errors due to difficulties with assessing young
children, and with different developmental time tables for the
different components (Garon et al., 2008).
Conclusions, limitations, and future directions
This study was informed by a need to further elucidate the
connection between responsive parenting and later self-
regulation, and set out to examine the relations between
maternal sensitivity, receptive and expressive language, and later
hot and cool aspects of self-regulation. The study design was
longitudinal, which allowed us to examine if language mediated
the effect of maternal sensitivity. We found that both maternal
sensitivity and receptive, but not expressive, language were
related to later hot and cool self-regulation. Receptive language
mediated the relationship between maternal sensitivity and
inhibition. The results suggest that several mechanisms may be
involved, one possibly being private speech during task
performance. In addition, optimal arousal/regulation and positive
experiences from problem solving with caregivers are other
suggested mechanisms. Also, the study design cannot rule out if
the mechanism behind the association is general cognitive
ability. However, disentangling verbal ability from general
cognitive ability at this early age is difficult, and perhaps not
even worthwhile, since verbal ability makes up a large part of
what is generally considered as IQ. However, the lack of
significant correlation between verbal ability and working
memory (which is also generally considered as part of IQ)
suggests that this potential confound may not be a substantial
problem. Even so, our results add to the scarce literature
suggesting that both maternal sensitivity and receptive language
are important in the development of self-regulation.
Some limitations need to be noted, the main one being the
sample size. Self-regulation is to a large degree genetic (Friedman
& Miyake, 2017), and the expected effects of environmental
factors is estimated to be small. Thus, our sample size may not
have been sufficient to significantly detect all possible mediation
effects. Also, many factors are of importance, not only maternal
sensitivity. The impact of the fathers, reciprocal influences
between child and parent, and other cognitive factors are also of
importance. In addition, we have no data on verbal input from the
parent, which may also have an effect on both child verbal ability
and self-regulatory skills (Vallotton et al., 2017). Lastly, some of
the measures, particularly maternal sensitivity and SES, showed a
restricted range, with the average mother being on the sensitive
side with quite high SES, potentially limiting results and
generalizability. Future studies should contrast responsive
parenting with cognitive stimulation in combination with child
verbal ability to enable a more precise mechanistic analysis. Even
so, the study adds important knowledge about the positive
relationship between maternal sensitivity, verbal ability, and later
hot and cool aspects of self-regulation.
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
The research was supported by grant 421-2012-1222 from Vetenskapsr adet.
We wish to thank research assistant Karin Blanck and master students Sara
Högberg and Fredrika Tham for help with data collection at the 48 month
visit.
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Maternal sensitivity scales. Power, 6, 1379–
1388.
Baddeley, A. (2010). Working memory. Current Biology, 20, R136–
R140.
Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. & Bornstein, M. H. (1997).
Maternal verbal sensitivity and child language comprehension. Infant
Behavior and Development, 20, 247–258.
Berk, L. E. (2013). Child development (9th edn). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M. & Whipple, N. (2010). From external
regulation to self-regulation: Early parenting precursors of young
children’s executive functioning. Child Development, 81, 326–339.
Bernier, A., McMahon, C. A. & Perrier, R. (2017). Maternal mind-
mindedness and children’s school readiness: A longitudinal study of
developmental processes. Developmental Psychology, 53, 210–221.
Blair, C. (2003). Behavioral inhibition and behavioral activation in young
children: Relations with self-regulation and adaptation to preschool in
children attending Head Start. Developmental Psychobiology, 42, 301–
311.
Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S. & Haynes, O. M. (2004). Specific and
general language performance across early childhood: Stability and
gender considerations. First Language, 24, 267–304.
Bridgett, D. J., Burt, N. M., Edwards, E. S. & Deater-Deckard, K. (2015).
Intergenerational transmission of self-regulation: A multidisciplinary
review and integrative conceptual framework. Psychological Bulletin,
141, 602–654.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Oxford: Harvard
University Press.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive
function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28,
595–616.
Chomsky, N. (1976). Reflections on language. London: Temple Smith.
Cole, P. M., Dennis, T. A., Smith-Simon, K. E. & Cohen, L. H. (2009).
Preschoolers’ emotion regulation strategy understanding: Relations
with emotion socialization and child self-regulation. Social
Development, 18, 324–352.
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A. & Spinrad, T. L. (2005). Associations of
emotion-related regulation with language skills, emotion knowledge,
and academic outcomes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent
Development, 109, 109–118.
Emerson, M. J. & Miyake, A. (2003). The role of inner speech in task
switching: A dual-task investigation. Journal of Memory and
Language, 48, 148–168.
Eriksson, M. & Berglund, E. (1999). Swedish early communicative
development inventories: Words and gestures. First Language, 19, 55–
90.
Eriksson, M., Westerlund, M. & Berglund, E. (2002). A screening version
of the swedish communicative development inventories designed for
use with 18-month-old children. Journal of Speech Language and
Hearing Research, 45, 948–960.
Farrant, B. M. & Zubrick, S. R. (2012). Early vocabulary development:
The importance of joint attention and parent-child book reading. First
Language, 32, 343–364.
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. London:
SAGE.
Frick, M. A., Forslund, T. & Brocki, K. C. (2018). Can reactivity and
regulation in infancy predict inattentive and hyperactive/impulsive
behavior in 3-year-olds? Development and Psychopathology. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0954579418000160.
Frick, M. A., Forslund, T., Fransson, M., Johansson, M., Bohlin, G. &
Brocki, K. C. (2018). The role of sustained attention, maternal

Scand J Psychol 60 (2019)
sensitivity, and infant temperament in the development of early self-
regulation. British Journal of Psychology, 109, 277–298.
Friedman, N. P. & Miyake, A. (2017). Unity and diversity of executive
functions: Individual differences as a window on cognitive structure.
Cortex, 86, 86, 186–204.
Frye, D., Zelazo, P. D. & Palfai, T. (1995). Theory of mind and rule-based
reasoning. Cognitive Development, 10, 483–527.
Fuhs, M. W. & Day, J. D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive
functioning development in preschoolers at head start. Developmental
Psychology, 47, 404–416.
Fujiki, M., Brinton, B. & Clarke, D. (2002). Emotion regulation in
children with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 102–111.
Garon, N., Bryson, S. E. & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in
preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 31–60.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J. & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship
between cognition and action: Performance of children 3 1/2–7 years
old on a stroop- like day-night test. Cognition, 53, 129–153.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future
prospects. Psychological Inquiry, 26, 1–26.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and
conditional process analysis (2nd edn). A regression-based approach.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, W. S. C. & Zelazo, P. D.
(2005). Assessment of hot and cool executive function in young
children: Age-related changes and individual differences. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 28, 617–644.
Hughes, C. (1998). Executive function in preschoolers: Links with theory
of mind and verbal ability. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 16, 233–253.
Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive function and theory of mind in
2 year olds: A family affair? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28,
645–668.
Hughes, C. & Ensor, R. A. (2009). How do families help or hinder the
emergence of early executive function? New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2009, 35–50.
IJzendoorn, M. H. van., Dijkstra, J. & Bus, A. G. (1995). Attachment,
intelligence, and language: A Meta-analysis. Social Development, 4,
115–128.
Ispa, J. M., Su-Russell, C., Palermo, F. & Carlo, G. (2017). The interplay
of maternal sensitivity and toddler engagement of mother in predicting
self-regulation. Developmental Psychology, 53, 425–435.
Johansson, M., Marciszko, C., Brocki, K. & Bohlin, G. (2016). Individual
differences in early executive functions: A longitudinal study from 12
to 36 months. Infant and Child Development, 25, 533–549.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E. & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting:
Establishing early foundations for social, communication, and
independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42,
627–642.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., Swank, P. R. & Miller-Loncar, C. L.
(2000). Early maternal and child influences on children’s later
independent cognitive and social functioning. Child Development,
71, 358–375.
Mani, N. & Plunkett, K. (2010). In the infant’s mind’s ear: Evidence for
implicit naming in 18-month-olds. Psychological Science, 21, 908–
913.
Miller, S. E. & Marcovitch, S. (2015). Examining executive function in
the second year of life: Coherence, stability, and relations to joint
attention and language. Developmental Psychology, 51, 101–114.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y. & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification
in children. Science, 244, 933–938.
M€uller, U., Zelazo, P. D. & Imrisek, S. (2005). Executive function and
children’s understanding of false belief: How specific is the relation?
Cognitive Development, 20, 173–189.
© 2019 Scandinavian Psychological Associations and John Wiley & Sons Ltd
14679450, 2019, 2, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/sjop.12512 by Pontifica University Catolica Del Peru, Wiley Online Library on [06/04/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Sensitivity and language in self-regulation 105
Ngon, C. & Peperkamp, S. (2016). What infants know about the unsaid:
Phonological categorization in the absence of auditory input.
Cognition, 152, 53–60.
Nigg, J. T. (2017). Annual research review: On the relations among self-
regulation, self-control, executive functioning, effortful control,
cognitive control, impulsivity, risk-taking, and inhibition for
developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 58, 361–383.
Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F. & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive
correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children.
Developmental science, 8, 74–87.
Pauli-Pott, U., Schloß, S. & Becker, K. (2017) Maternal responsiveness as
a predictor of self-regulation development and Attention-Deficit/
Hyperactivity symptoms across preschool ages. Child Psychiatry &
Human Development, 49:42–52.
Pederson, D. R., Moran, G. & Bento, S. (2013), Unpublished manual.
Perrone-Bertolotti, M., Rapin, L., Lachaux, J.-P., Baciu, M. & Lœvenbruck,
H. (2014). What is that little voice inside my head? Inner speech
phenomenology, its role in cognitive performance, and its relation to
self-monitoring. Behavioural Brain Research, 261, 220–239.
Pressman, L., Pipp-Siegel, S., Yoshinaga-Itano, C. & Deas, A. (1999).
Maternal sensitivity predicts language gain in preschool children who
are deaf and hard of hearing. The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Education, 4, 294–304.
Rochette, E. & Bernier, A. (2016). Parenting and preschoolers’ executive
functioning A case of differential susceptibility? International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 40, 151–161.
Rodriguez, E. T. & Tamis-LeMonda, C. S. (2011). Trajectories of the
home learning environment across the first 5 years: Associations with
children’s vocabulary and literacy skills at prekindergarten. Child
Development, 82, 1058–1075.
Rollins, P. R. & Greenwald, L. C. (2013). Affect attunement during
mother-infant interaction: How specific intensities predict the stability
of infants’ coordinated joint attention skills. Imagination, Cognition
and Personality, 32, 339–366.
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., Baumwell, L. & Melstein
Damast, A. (1996). Responsive parenting in the second year: Specific
influences on children’s language and play. Early Development and
Parenting, 5, 173–183.
Thorndike, R. L., Hagen, E. P. & Sattler, J. M. (1986). Stanford-Binet
intelligence scale. Chicago, IL: Riverside.
Vallotton, C. D., Mastergeorge, A., Foster, T., Decker, K. B. & Ayoub, C.
(2017). Parenting supports for early vocabulary development: Specific
effects of sensitivity and stimulation through infancy. Infancy, 22, 78–
107.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987) The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky: Volume 1:
Problems of general psychology, including the volume thinking and
speech. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Wade, M., Jenkins, J. M., Venkadasalam, V. P., Binnoon-Erez, N. &
Ganea, P. A. (2018). The role of maternal responsiveness and
linguistic input in pre-academic skill development: A longitudinal
analysis of pathways. Cognitive Development, 45, 125–140.
Wiebe, S. A., Lukowski, A. F. & Bauer, P. J. (2010). Sequence imitation
and reaching measures of executive control: A longitudinal examination
in the second year of life. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35, 522–
538.
Winsler, A., Diaz, R. M., McCarthy, E. M., Atencio, D. J. & Chabay, L.
A. (1999). Mother-child interaction, private speech, and task
performance in preschool children with behavior problems. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 891–904.
Wolfe, C. D. & Bell, M. A. (2004). Working memory and inhibitory
control in early childhood: Contributions from physiology,
temperament, and language. Developmental Psychobiology, 44, 68–83.
Received 21 June 2018, accepted 12 November 2018