Loretta Campbell

CPSY 5303
4/18/2023

Peer Review of Sara Erickson’s Integrative Review

Sara Erickson
CPSY 5303
Integrative Review Draft
April 16, 2023

Development of Co- and Self- Regulation Among Infants, Toddlers, and Preschoolers

Introduction

Learning to self-regulate is a key developmental process that impacts how a person interacts with the

world around them, with the people around them, and with their own self. It is a complex process that

involves external factors, such as the child’s environment and interactions with caregivers, as well as

internal factors, such as the child’s ability to manage transitions, sensory processing, temperament

(Gillespie, 2015). Self-regulation has lifelong implications, including on health and well-being, on

education, and on social interactions (Housman, 2017). And it is a process that begins almost from birth

(Evans & Porter, 2009).

Adults can support the beginnings of young children’s co- and self-regulation through daily acts of

caregiving. When caregivers respond to infants’ needs promptly and warmly, infants learn they can trust

adults (Gillespie, 2015). They can relax and develop self-soothing techniques, while learning that they

have a secure base to rely on when they need support (Gillespie, 2015). In offering both support and the

opportunity to self-soothe, caregivers provide even the youngest children the scaffolding they need to

begin developing these skills from within the zone of proximal development (Parke et al., 2019). Adults

continue providing co-regulation when children experience distress or frustration as they grow, attuning

to their emotions and offering emotional support (Senehi et al., 2018).

In this paper we will review articles covering the developmental progression of co- and self-regulation in

infancy, toddlerhood, and the preschool years. We will begin by looking at the basics of co-regulation in

infancy, including normative co-regulatory development and how co-regulation is distinct from and yet

related to attachment. Learning self-regulation is a key task of toddlerhood (Parke et al., 2019) and we

will examine how regulation is influenced by language as children’s verbal skills develop, and how

specific forms of language and behaviors from adults can support toddlers’ self-regulation. And finally,

we will see how the new emotional and developmental challenges preschoolers face impact their

emotional regulation and how preschool teachers support them, as well as at how the positive and/or

negative parental may impact preschoolers’ self-regulation.

A Normative Co-Regulatory Growth Curve

A review of “Mother–infant co-regulation during infancy: Developmental changes and influencing

factors” by Aureli et al., 2022 *

Aureli et al. (2022) conducted a longitudinal study in central Italy with 79 mother-infant pairs.

They conducted observations at 4, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months, coded for measures of co-regulation at each

time. They expected to be able to use this data to create a normative co-regulatory growth curve and to

determine whether outside factors influence the development of co-regulation.

Their study confirmed that, while unilateral, asymmetrical, and symmetrical ? co-regulation occur

similarly in infants’ earliest months, they begin to shift around 6 months of age to predominantly

unilateral co-regulation, then to symmetrical co-regulation, which begins around 9 months and is the

primary form of co-regulation by 24 months (Aureli et al., 2022). * These changes occurred in a

curvilinear pattern, which allowed for the creation of a normative growth curve. Aureli et al. (2022) also

found that the development of asymmetrical and unilateral co-regulation each seem to be associated with

developmental changes. Infants’ abilities to focus their attention and exploratory behaviors impacted their
co-regulation, as their curves rose both steeper and faster than infants who rated lower in these

assessments (Aureli et al., 2022).

Mother-Infant Symmetrical Co-Regulation and Infants’ Attachment

A review of “The emergence of mother–infant co-regulation during the first year: Links to infants’

developmental status and attachment” by Evans & Porter, 2009

Evans & Porter (2009) discuss co-regulation as a dyadic process that infants learn to influence

within their first weeks of life by crying and vocalizing in order to get their caregivers’ attention, and

which requires sensitive caregiving from the mother. * Therefore, Evans & Porter hypothesize that co-

regulation may be another important factor in attachment security, beyond warmth, sensitivity, and

responsiveness (2009). They also hypothesize that co-regulation may predict infants’ developmental

status on cognitive and motor tests.

Evans & Porter conducted a longitudinal experimental study to test these hypotheses (2009).

They enrolled 101 mothers and first-born infants in their study, with 84 dyads participating in all three

measure times. Of the 101 dyads initially enrolled, they were predominantly white and from a semi-urban

community.

As hypothesized, Evans & Porter found that symmetrical co-regulation at 6 months predicted

mental and motor development at 9 months (2009). Likewise, co-regulatory patterns at 6 months

predicted attachment quality during the Strange Situation Protocol at 12 months (Evans & Porter, 2009).

Mother-infant dyads who had engaged in symmetrical interactions were associated with secure

attachment, while those who had engaged in unilateral co-regulation were associated with insecure

attachment (Evans & Porter, 2009). These results also support the idea that caregivers’ scaffolding during

co-regulated interactions supports infants’ cognitive and motor development. Although results support the

link between co-regulatory patterns and attachment security, Evans & Porter are unable to distinguish
fully between the mother’s co-regulatory behaviors and related measures of sensitivity and

responsiveness (2009).

The Impact of Language on Toddlers’ Regulation

A review of “Use your words: The role of language in the development of toddlers’ self-regulation” by

Vallotton & Ayoub, 2011

Vallotton & Ayoub (2009) examine whether language affects toddlers’ ability to self-regulate, based on

Vygotsky’s view of words as symbolic tools that allow children to manipulate their thoughts and

behavior. They hypothesize that children who have broader vocabularies have more “tools” at their

disposal, and therefore have more success with self-regulation (Vallotton & Ayoub, 2009, p. 170).

They looked at language development and self-regulation in children at 14, 24, and 36 months, focusing

on two aspects of language development: talkativeness and spoken vocabulary. They hoped to determine

whether frequent communication helps children regulate because they are able to get their needs met

verbally, or whether internal access to more words provides children more regulatory tools (Vallotton &

Ayoub, 2009). ? They hypothesize that young children’s language skills influence their self-regulatory
abilities, and that gender differences in toddlers’ self-regulation may be influenced by gender differences

in language development. They also examine whether cognitive development underlies both language

skills and self-regulation (Vallotton & Ayoub, 2009).

Vallotton & Ayoub (2009) used data from 146 children and mother pairs who were part of a longitudinal

study examining the effects of a Head Start program in New England. This study was selected because it

measured children’s and mothers’ expressive language at each interval. The participants were

predominantly white and spoke English as their first language. The majority of participants were low-SES

and most mothers had a high school education or less.

Supporting their hypothesis, Vallotton & Ayoub (2009) found that there is indeed a link between

language skills and children’s self-regulation. Vocabulary impacts self-regulation more than

talkativeness, both currently and as a predictive factor for later self-regulation. They also found that girls’

vocabularies at 24 months are more strongly linked to their future self-regulation than boys’. This finding

suggests that girls’ and boys’ language skills may develop at different rates, allowing girls to use

language for self-regulation earlier than boys (Vallotton & Ayoub, 2009). The results held when

controlled for cognitive abilities, and the relationship between vocabulary and self-regulation grows as

the vocabulary expands (Vallotton & Ayoub, 2009). ?

The Impact of Maternal Mentalization on Toddlers’ Regulation?

A review of “Effects of maternal mentalization-related parenting on toddlers’ self-regulation” by Senehi

et al., 2018

Senehi et al. (2018) examine the impact of maternal mentalization on toddlers’ self-regulation.

Specifically, they look at measures of Mentalization-Related Parenting Behaviors (MRPBs), or attempts

by the parent to accurately see, relay, and respond to their toddler’s unique, temporary mental state

(Senehi et al., 2018). * Senehi et al. (2018) hypothesize that MRPBs reflect mentalization-related

parenting, and that mentalization-related parenting supports toddlers’ self-regulatory development.

Senehi et al. (2018) used data from a larger Early Head Start study from three enrollment sites. They

studied 95 toddler/caregiver dyads, where the caregivers were primarily the toddlers’ biological mothers.

The mothers in this study were predominantly White, low-income, and had limited education (Senehi et

al., 2018).

Senehi et al.’s hypotheses that mothers’ use of mental state words and ability to relate their child’s

behaviors to their internal mental state can be linked to mentalization-related parenting and that MRPBs

are associated with toddlers’ self-regulatory behaviors were supported in this study (2018). MRPBs may
also support toddlers’ ability to communicate about their internal states, which may support self-

regulation once toddlers acquire expressive language capabilities (Senehi et al., 2018).

How Teachers Can Support Preschoolers Self-Regulation

A review of “Co- and self-regulation of emotions in the preschool setting” by Silkenbeumer et al., 2018

Silkenbeumer et al. (2018) look at preschool teachers’s role in preschool children’s co- and self-

regulation. They describe the process of supporting regulation as having three levels: Level 1, where

caregivers conduct emotional regulation while providing the child with emotion talk; Level 2, where the

caregiver provides the child with specific prompts for how to self-regulate; and Level 3, where caregivers

provide meta-cognitive prompts that allow the child to independently select regulatory strategies

(Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). Silkenbeumer et al. (2018) hypothesize that teachers will use more emotion

coaching and co-regulation with younger children and those who need more support, and that teachers

will shift to higher levels based on how old the child is and how well they emotionally regulate. They also

hypothesized that when teachers use co-regulation techniques, these should prompt children to

spontaneously self-regulate (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). Silkenbeumer et al. (2018) tested nine preschool

teachers and 28 children ages 4-6 from two preschools in Germany.

Rates of emotion coaching varied widely by teacher and when it occurred, it happened most with younger

children (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). Co-regulation was more common and happened with both younger

children and with children of any age who displayed intense emotions (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018).

Silkenbeumer et al. (2018) were not surprised by these findings, given the nature of the school setting

where teachers needed to maintain harmony and safety across the classroom. The authors were surprised

to note that co-regulation was used the most with older children *, which may be based on the increasing

complexity of emotional challenges older children face (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). When using co-

regulation, teachers used Level 1 co-regulation the least and Level 2 the most. Level 3 meta-cognitive
prompts were used the most with children teachers believed to be more capable of emotional regulation,

regardless of their age (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). When children displayed self-regulation, they used

responsive self-regulation the most, followed by spontaneous self-regulation; situations where both were

used occurred rarely, though these rates varied significantly by individual child ? (Silkenbeumer et al.,

2018). Silkenbeumer et al.’s (2018) hypothesis that co-regulation will lead to spontaneous self-regulation

was upheld, though only for Level 3 co-regulation.

The Impact of Positive Parenting on Preschoolers’ Self-Regulation

A review of “Parenting and self-regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis” by Karreman et al., 2006

In this article, Karreman et al. (2006) examine the relationship between parenting and self-regulation in

preschoolers (ages 2-5) through a quantitative meta-analysis. They hypothesize that positive parental

control, negative parental control, and parental responsiveness impact preschoolers’ self-regulation, and

that there are differences in how parenting affects the child’s compliance, inhibition, and emotion

regulation, with compliance being more closely related to parenting than inhibition or emotion regulation.

They used literature from 1985 through 2004 for this analysis, focusing on concurrent studies involving

uncoached parenting of 2- through 5-year-olds in western societies. They did not include clinical samples

of children of parents. ? All studies were published in peer-reviewed English-language journals and had
at least four other studies covering the same topic. Given these parameters, 41 studies were used. In all,

this meta-analysis included data for 3799 families, with an average sample size of 93, and the

preschooler’s mean age was 38.35 months (Karreman et al., 2006).

They found that positive control was positively associated, negative control was negatively associated,

and responsiveness was not associated with preschooler’s self-regulation (Karreman et al., 2006).

Compliance was negatively associated with negative control and positively associated with positive
control, but there was no association between inhibition or emotion control and negative or positive

control (Karreman et al., 2006). ?

Attempts to apply moderator variables were inconclusive, perhaps in part because so many studies

focused on homogenous groups of white, high SES children and their mothers. They were able to control

for age, which did not yield significant results. Controlling for publication year was more significant, as

more recent studies had greater effect sizes for the relations between control and self-regulation.

Conclusion

It is hard to overstate the lifelong impacts of emotional regulation. We know that children begin

developing regulatory skills in the early years of life as the limbic system and prefrontal cortex develop

(Davies & Troy, 2020; Parke et al., 2019) and this work continues as children learn to manage their vagal

system (Eisenberg & Gruber, 2013). We know that a child’s temperament influences, but does not

determine, the child’s regulatory abilities (Gillespie, 2015; Rothbart, 2007). ? In addition to these

biological bases, interaction with trusted caregivers also impacts children’s ability to co- and self-

regulate, and children’s emotional regulation likewise impacts their development. For instance, a secure

attachment supports the growth of the child’s self-regulation (Davies & Troy, 2020), and strong

symmetrical infant-mother co-regulation supports the development of a secure attachment (Evans &

Porter, 2009).

* Caregivers can support children’s regulatory development through simple, everyday acts, such
as responding promptly and with warmth when an infant wakes up with a hungry stomach and a wet

diaper (Evans & Porter, 2009), responding to a toddler’s unexpected overwhelm at a change in plans with

regulation and language to help them link their internal sensations to words (Vallotton & Ayoulo, 2009),

or providing a preschooler locked in an intense emotional battle with a peer with appropriate prompts to

help them determine a solution (Silkenbeumer et al., 2018). Children are more successful at co- and self-
regulation when caregivers respond appropriately to their own emotions (Parke et al., 2019) and their

children’s, helping children develop a strong working model of emotional regulation through these

everyday moments (Davies & Troy, 2020).

There are limitations on our understanding of this developmental process. Many of the studies covered

use homogenous and/or small samples. And, while they contain much useful information, there are still

many possible unknown factors that may also impact this progression. But taken together, this research

can help provide a framework for supporting children as they develop the ability to successfully self-

regulate.

References

Davies, D., & Troy, M. F. (2020). Child development, Fourth edition: A practitioner's guide.
Guilford Publications

Evans, C. A., & Porter, C. L. (2009). The emergence of mother–infant co-regulation during the
first year: Links to infants’ developmental status and Attachment. Infant Behavior and
Development, 32(2), 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2008.12.005

Gillespie, L. (2015). It Takes Two: The role of Co-regulation in Building Self-regulation Skills.
YC Young Children, 70(3), 94–96. http://www.jstor.org/stable/ycyoungchildren.70.3.94

Housman, D. K. (2017). The importance of emotional competence and self-regulation from

birth: A case for the evidence-based emotional cognitive social early learning
approach. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 11(1).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40723-017-0038-6

Kaareman, A., van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A., & Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and self-
regulation in preschoolers: A meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 15(6),
561–579. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.478

Parke, R. D., Roisman, G. I., & Rose, A. J. (2019). Social Development, 3rd Edition.
Wiley.
 Senehi, N., Brophy-Herb, H. E., & Vallotton, C. D. (2018). Effects of maternal
mentalization-related parenting on Toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 44, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.001

Silkenbeumer, J. R., Schiller, E.-M., & Kärtner, J. (2018). Co- and self-regulation of
emotions in the preschool setting. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 44, 72–81.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.02.014

Vallotton, C., & Ayoub, C. (2011). Use your words: The role of language in the
development of toddlers’ self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(2),
169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.09.002

Sara, this is for your reference in regard to my review!

Highlighted sections are noted as difficult to follow and are paired with a comment.
Additionally, some of the highlighted sections are also noted with a ?, which also indicates
difficulty in understanding, per our directions for this assignment.

The thesis should be underlined and includes a comment, as requested for the assignment.

A blue star (*) indicates points that were interesting to me and includes a comment, as
requested for this assignment.

Main Body Questions/Answers

Does the discussion fulfills the promise made by the thesis? Comment. What, if anything
strays? What, if anything, would you like to have heard more about?

Sara’s discussion throughout fulfulls the promise made in the thesis and the sentences

following the thesis. Sara has a clear organizational structure and, as the reader, I was

able to easily follow it.

Does this section seem focused and with good flow or does it jump from point to point, like
a list of different discussion points? If the latter is true, which one or two points seem like
the best ones to focus on?

The main body of her review has a good flow, as it moves from infants to toddlers to

preschoolers and demonstrates the appropriate progression of regulation throughout.

Does the review seem complete, or would you like to see it develop the discussion of the
thesis topic further?
This review seems complete and well though out.

Does the author provide any constructive criticism regarding any limitations of the research
reviewed, or suggest new questions for research to explore related to their topic?
Comment on this if questions arise in your mind that are not raised.

Sara brings to light the limitations of the research at the end of her review, however, she

does not include specific limitations in each section of the paper. It is my opinion that this

was a good choice for Sara’s paper, as additional limitations in each section would take

away from the flow of the paper.

Introduction & Conclusion Questions/Answers

On a scale of 1-5 (5=high), how engaging and useful did you find the lead? If the lead
doesn't mention the topic, does the paper get to this information soon enough?
Suggestions?

On a scale of one to five, five being high, I felt the introduction was a four, as I found it

engaging and useful to understand the focus of the paper. Right from the start, Sara

understood the importance of sharing the topic of her paper and providing insight around it.

My only suggestion would be to possibly adding definitions of co-regulation and self-

regulation, as the reader may not always be familiar with those terms.

On a scale of 1-5 (5=high), how well-reasoned and useful did you find the conclusion (last
paragraph? Does the conclusion return to the main thesis and synthesize elements of IR
research by stating an overall assessment of the knowledge gained (and gaps in the
literature) from the articles reviewed? Or does the conclusion primarily repeat the thesis
without pulling things together thoughtfully, or introduce totally new topics? What do you
walk away from the conclusions understanding about the topic reviewed?

On a scale of one to five, five being high, I felt the the conclusion was a three. After the

initial paragraph of the conclusion section, where Sara introduced new information, I feel

that it moved to a four. The conclusion, after the first paragraph, allowed for a summary of

the information provided prior. The conclusion returns to the thesis and wraps up this

paper well. Sara included the limitations, which allowed for some reflection for the reader

as to what may be beneficial to read and review next. I understand, after reading the
conclusion, the summary of steps taken in order to get to self-regulation for children, as

well as, limitations that are faced within the research at this point.

Final Questions/Answers

What do you take as the focus or main point of this draft?

The focus of this paper is the development of regulation from infancy to preschool and the
impact adults have in this development.

What, specifically, interested you about the draft?

I was intersted in the information regarding infancy and preschoolers, as I have a 3 week
old infant and a nearly four year old who will be staring preschool in the Fall. The
information provided in this review is useful to me as a parent and as a professional!
Thanks Sara!

What’s the top praise you have for your peer on their IR draft?

Top praise I have for Sara is her organization of this paper, as well as, the way she
summarized each of the research articles. Sara packed a lot of good information in without
making me, as the reader, feel overwhelmed throughout.

What do you suggest as the single most important revision your peer could make?

As stated in some of my comments, Sara may benefit from including definitions to term that
are likely unfamiliar to some readers.