Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 950–958 | Cite as

Relations among Temperament, Familial Socioeconomic Status, and Inhibitory Control in Typically Developing Four-Year-Old Children

  • Raha HassanEmail author
  • Ann S. Mills
  • Kimberly L. Day
  • Ryan J. Van Lieshout
  • Louis A. Schmidt
Original Paper



Since inhibitory control has been implicated in children’s ability to successfully navigate their social and academic environments, it is important to explore factors underlying its development. We examined whether attentional focusing (a temperamental factor) and socioeconomic status (a caregiving environmental factor) influenced children’s inhibitory control.


Inhibitory control was coded from an observed behavioral task (Dinky Toys) and children’s temperament and socioeconomic status were indexed via parent report in 70 (36 girls; M age = 4.40 years) typically developing 4-year-old children.


We found that children low in attentional focusing were differentially sensitive to their caregiving environment in predicting inhibitory control (p= .001): children with low attentional focusing displayed the highest and lowest levels of inhibitory control when their familial socioeconomic status was high and low, respectively. Children with high attentional focusing exhibited an average amount of inhibitory control regardless of their familial socioeconomic status (p= .20).


Findings provide support for a differential susceptibility hypothesis and suggest that plasticity in low attentional focusing may be beneficial to children in some caregiving environments. Findings also highlight the importance of considering factors internal and external to the child when exploring influences on inhibitory control.


Temperament Socioeconomic status Attentional focusing Inhibitory control Differential susceptibility 



This work was supported by an Undergraduate Student Research Award awarded to R.H., a Lawson Foundation Post-doctoral Fellowship awarded to K.L.D., and an operating grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2016-06194) awarded to L.A.S.. We wish to thank the many children and families who participated in the study. We also wish to thank Rachael Adcock, Lauren Poulin, Natalie Stearns, and Richard Xu for their assistance with recruitment, data collection, video transcription, and coding.

Author contribution

R.H. aided with data collection, conceptualized and executed the data analyses, wrote the manuscript, and handled revisions. A.S.M. aided with conducting the analyses and edited the final manuscript. K.L.D. designed and executed the study, aided with data collection, and edited the final manuscript. R.V.L. edited multiple drafts of the manuscript. L.A.S. aided in conceptualizing the manuscript, edited the final manuscript, aided with handling revisions, and provided funding, research support and resources.

Compliance with ethical standards

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. IRB approval was granted by McMaster University Research Ethics Board.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

Informed consent and assent were obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. Ahadi, S. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Ye, R. (1993). Children’s temperament in the US and China: similarities and differences. European Journal of Personality, 7, 359–378. Scholar
  2. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  3. Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. Scholar
  4. 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. Scholar
  5. Bjorklund, D. F., & Kipp, K. (1996). Parental investment theory and gender differences in the evolution of inhibition mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 120, 163–188. Scholar
  6. Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and externalizing behavior in first grade: a test of the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 124–131. Scholar
  7. Brody, G. H., Murry, V. M., Kim, S., & Brown, A. C. (2002). Longitudinal pathways to competence and psychological adjustment among African American children living in rural single–parent households. Child Development, 73, 1505–1516. Scholar
  8. Conger, R. D. & Conger, K. J. (2002). Resilience in Midwestern families: Selected findings from the first decade of a prospective, longitudinal study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 64, 361–373. Scholar
  9. Davis, E. P., Donzella, B., Krueger, W. K., & Gunnar, M. R. (1999). The start of a new school year: individual differences in salivary cortisol response in relation to child temperament. Developmental Psychobiology, 35, 188–196. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302(199911)35:3 < 188::AID-DEV3 > 3.0.CO;2-K.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. Scholar
  11. Else-Quest, N. M., Hyde, J. S., Goldsmith, H. H., & Van Hulle, C. A. (2006). Gender differences in temperament: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 33–72. Scholar
  12. Evans, G. W., & Rosenbaum, J. (2008). Self-regulation and the income-achievement gap. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 504–514. Scholar
  13. Gagnon, S. G., Huelsman, T. J., Reichard, A. E., Kidder-Ashley, P., Griggs, M. S., & Struby, J. et al. (2014). Help me play! Parental behaviors, child temperament, and preschool peer play. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 23, 872–884. Scholar
  14. Hoff, E, Laursen, B., & Tardiff, T. (2002). Socioeconomic status and parenting. In: M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting. (pp. 231–252). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven.: Yale University.Google Scholar
  16. Karreman, 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, 561–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood: continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology, 36, 220–232. Scholar
  18. Kochanska, G., Murray, K., Jacques, T. Y., Koenig, A. L., & Vandegeest, K. A. (1996). Inhibitory control in young children and its role in emerging internalization. Child Development, 67, 490–507. Scholar
  19. Lipina, S. J., Martelli, M. I., Vuelta, B., & Colombo, J. A. (2005). Performance on the A-not-B task of Argentinean infants from unsatisfied and satisfied basic needs homes. Interamerican Journal of Psychology, 39, 49–60.Google Scholar
  20. Miech, R., Essex, M. J., & Goldsmith, H. H. (2001). Socioeconomic status and the adjustment to school: the role of self-regulation during early childhood. Sociology of Education, 74, 102–120. Scholar
  21. Monroe, S. M. & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425. Scholar
  22. Muris, P., de Jong, P. J., & Engelen, S. (2004). Relationships between neuroticism, attentional control, and anxiety disorders symptoms in non-clinical children. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 789–797. Scholar
  23. Pardo, J. V., Pardo, P. J., Janer, K. W., & Raichle, M. E. (1990). The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 87, 256–259. Scholar
  24. Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 102–112. Scholar
  25. Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2009). The contribution of inhibitory control to preschoolers’ social–emotional competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30, 310–320. Scholar
  26. Rothbart, M. K (1989). Temperament and development. In: G. A. Kohnstamm, J. A. Bates & M. K. Rothbart (eds.), Temperament in childhood. (pp. 187–247). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Rothbart, M. K., & Ahadi, S. A. (1994). Temperament and the development of personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 55–66. Scholar
  28. Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., & Hershey, K. L. (1994a). Temperament and social behavior in childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 40, 21–39.Google Scholar
  29. Rothbart, M. K., Derryberry, D., & Posner, M. I. (1994b). A psychobiological approach to the development of temperament. In: J. E. Bates & T. D. Wachs (eds.), Temperament: Individual differences at the interface of biologyand behavior. (pp. 83–116). Washington: DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rudasill, K. M., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. E. (2009). Teacher–child relationship quality: the roles of child temperament and teacher–child interactions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24, 107–120. Scholar
  31. Silverman, I. W. (2003). Gender differences in delay of gratification: a meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 49, 451–463. Scholar
  32. Statistics Canada. (2017). Median total income, by family type, by census metropolitan area (all census families), 2015 census.
  33. Van Zeijl, J., Mesman, J., Stolk, M. N., Alink, L. R., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., et al. (2007). Differential susceptibility to discipline: the moderating effect of child temperament on the association between maternal discipline and early childhood externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 626–636. Scholar
  34. Zuckerman, M. (1999). Diathesis–stress models. In M. Zuckerman (Ed.) Vulnerability to psychopathology: Abiosocial model. (pp. 3–23). Washington: DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology Neuroscience & BehaviourMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of West FloridaPensacolaUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychiatry and Behavioural NeurosciencesMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations