The Differential Effect of Pride Versus Joy on Childrenâ€™S Ability to Delay

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Child Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jecp

Brief Report Too proud to regulate: The differential effect of pride versus joy on children’s ability to delay gratiﬁcation ⇑ Einav Shimoni , Marwa Asbe, Tal Eyal, Andrea Berger

Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 69978, Israel article info abstract

Article history: We examined the effect of the distinct positive emotions pride and Available online 28 August 2015 joy on children’s self-regulation, focusing on their ability to delay gratification (i.e., resist a temptation in favor of a long-term goal). Keywords: We hypothesized that because pride corresponds to the attainment Self-regulation of long-term goals and joy corresponds to the attainment of imme- Delay of gratification diate desires, the experience of pride may signal sufficient progress Delay discounting Joy toward a long-term goal, resulting in less delay of gratification than Pride the experience of joy. To test this hypothesis, we induced an experi- Positive emotion ence of pride or joy in 8-year-old children. At this age, the ability to self-regulate—and to experience pride and joy distinctively—is relatively mature. We then measured performance in a delay discounting task. We found that, compared with the joy condition and a control condition, children who experienced pride performed worse on the delay discounting task (p = .045), indicating poorer self-regulation. This result suggests that emotions may function as cues for sufficient goal pursuit, thereby influencing self-regulation from a very young age. Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Introduction

Children are frequently required to self-regulate throughout their day. They need to wait for their turn in a game, to ﬁnish dinner before having dessert, and so forth. Self-regulation involves

⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (E. Shimoni). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.017 0022-0965/Ó 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 276 E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282 modulating one’s behavior, thoughts, and feelings to pursue goals, often overcoming prepotent coun- terproductive responses (Berger, 2011; Bronson, 2000). The development of self-regulation during childhood is critical for children’s social and academic adjustment (Neuenschwander, Röthlisberger, Cimeli, & Roebers, 2012) and has long-term implications such as success in college, social competence, health, wealth, and low rates of criminal behavior (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). An important factor influencing the ability to self-regulate is emotion (Carver & Scheier, 1990; Higgins, 1987). We explored the influence of positive emotions on a specific form of self-regulation—delay of gratification. When delaying gratification, a child is required to resist immediate temptation in favor of a long-term goal (e.g., Mischel et al., 1989). Research with adults shows that the distinct emotions pride and joy correspond to different types of goals (long-term vs. temptations, respectively), leading to differential influences on self-regulation (Eyal & Fishbach, 2010; Katzir, Eyal, Meiran, & Kessler, 2010). The role of distinct positive emotions in self-regulation at younger ages has not received much empirical or theoretical attention.

Development of self-regulation and ability to delay gratiﬁcation

The ability to self-regulate develops during early childhood, mostly between 3 and 5 years of age (Carlson, 2005). Further development of self-regulation occurs during the early school years and depends on the maturation of cognitive mechanisms dealing with conflict (Berger, 2011). Some stud- ies show only subtle differences between the ability to deal with conflict during middle childhood (7 years of age) and adulthood (Rueda et al., 2004), whereas other research shows profound differences, mainly in brain activation during conflict (Rueda, Checa, & Rothbart, 2010). Thus, in some respects the self-regulatory ability of children is similar to that of adults, but in other respects it requires further development. A classic paradigm used to evaluate preschoolers’ self-regulation is the delay of gratification task (Mischel et al., 1989), whereby children choose between a single marshmallow now (small immediate reward) and two marshmallows later (larger delayed reward). The time children wait is an indication of their ability to delay gratification. A task extensively used to measure self-regulation of 6- and 7-year-olds and above is the delay discounting task (Scheres, Tontsch, Thoeny, & Sumiya, 2014). This task presents repeated choices between small immediate rewards and larger delayed rewards. The delay durations and reward magnitudes vary. Delay discounting refers to the tendency to discount the subjective value of a reward as a function of the delay in receiving it. The ability to delay gratification is expressed by a single parameter (area under the discounting curve, AUC) that captures the trade-off between reward magnitude and delay, indicating how steeply one discounts. Choosing to wait for the delayed reward reflects better self-regulation (Critchfield & Kollins, 2001).

Positive emotions and delay of gratiﬁcation

Even after self-regulation matures, it may still be affected by a range of factors, including emotions (Fry, 1975). Past research has mainly compared positive and negative affect, typically induced by asking a child to recall experiences he or she likes or dislikes. This research showed that recalling positive experiences enhanced delay times more than recalling negative experiences in 3- to 5-year-olds (Moore, Clyburn, & Underwood, 1976), presumably because positive affect enhanced a sense of competence and expectancy for success. Importantly, whereas Moore and colleagues examined the influence of general positive emotion on delay of gratification, we tested the influence of discrete positive emotions (pride vs. joy) on self-regulation. A different view on the influence of positive emotion on self-regulation comes from literature on adults’ self-regulation, in particular the cybernetic model (Carver & Scheier, 1990) and self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), according to which positive emotions signal that an individual has made sufficient progress toward a goal. The cybernetic model proposes that when people have multiple goals, positive feelings inform them that they are doing better than needed on one of their goals and can reduce further effort on that goal and attend to other salient goals (Carver & Scheier, 1990). Similarly, the self-discrepancy theory proposes that positive feelings indicate no discrepancy between one’s current behavior and progress toward desired goals (Higgins, 1987). Although this E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282 277 framework was not directly tested on children, the self-discrepancy theory addresses the developmental stages through which self-regulation develops and suggests that 4- to 6-year-olds are capable of understanding discrepancies between a valued end state (i.e., a standard) and actual behavior. They also understand that positive feelings arise when their behavior matches a standard, indicating that further progress on that goal is not required (Moretti & Higgins, 1999).

The current research

Our research examined the role of joy and pride in children’s delay of gratification. Although both are positive and highly desirable emotions, they differ in important ways. Joy is a basic emotion experienced following a tangible and immediate reward that serves hedonic, appetitive, and survival needs (Lazarus, 1991). Pride is a self-conscious emotion experienced when an individual evaluates himself or herself in light of social expectations and high-order goals (Tangney, Stuewig, & Mashek, 2007). Thus, people experience these distinct emotions when they attain different types of goals—joy when gaining an immediate reward and pride when attaining a long-term goal (Eyal & Fishbach, 2010). We suggest that because feelings of pride and joy signal the attainment of a corresponding goal, when facing a conflict between goals, feeling pride following progress on a long-term goal is likely to result in less subsequent effort on that goal and the shift of one’s effort to the salient short-term desire. Feeling joy, however, is likely to signal progress on a short-term desire and, therefore, is likely to shift one’s effort to the salient long-term goal. Indeed, research on consumer decisions has found that participants who experienced pride made more indulgent choices (e.g., an entertainment gift) over utilitarian choices (e.g., school supplies) than participants who experienced joy (Wilcox, Kramer, & Sen, 2011). We tested whether pride and joy differentially influence self-regulation at the early age of 8 years. Previous research shows that 4-year-olds are able to delay gratification (e.g., Mischel et al., 1989) and that between 4 and 7 years of age children improve their ability to distinguish between joy and pride (Tracy, Robins, & Lagattuta, 2005). By 8 years of age, self-regulation is relatively mature and children acquire mastery in reading and writing (Rueda et al., 2004). If, indeed, young children’s self-regulation efforts are differentially affected by pride and joy, this might imply that the information that emotions entail about progress on different types of goals is basic and does not necessarily depend on excessive learning. To test the influence of distinct emotions on children’s self-regulation, we had 8-year-olds recall a past event that made them joyful versus proud. Participants then performed a computerized delay discounting task that was developed and validated among 7- to 12-year-olds by Asbe (2011). This task presents a choice between an immediate small reward and a delayed larger reward. When delaying gratification, the child is required to refrain from an immediate reward to pursue a long-term goal. Pride may signal sufficient progress toward achieving a long-term goal and indicate that one can suc- cumb to the competing short-term desire. Joy, on the other hand, may signal the achievement of immediate desires and, therefore, indicate that one can attend to competing long-term goals. There- fore, we predicted that feeling pride would lead to poorer performance and feeling joy would lead to better performance on the delay discounting task compared with control.

Method

Pretest

We conducted a pretest to ensure that recalling a pride- versus joy-eliciting event aroused the expected emotional experience. A total of 30 third-graders from Beer Sheva, Israel, participated in the pretest, following the consent of their parents1 (Table 1 presents participants’ characteristics and pretest results). We randomly assigned participants to conditions. Applying the exclusion criterion used

1 We found no gender effects in either the pretest or the study. 278 E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282

Table 1 Characteristics and results of the three experiment groups.

Pride Joy Control Pretest Number of participants 10 9 10 Proportion of boys .500 .556 .500 Mean age (months) 102.10 102.78 102.60 (2.51) (4.82) (3.72) Emotion rate 5.60 1.78 2.70 (1.71) (1.64) (1.34) Emotion intensity (absolute difference from midpoint) 2.00a 2.67a 1.50b (1.15) (0.50) (1.08) Experiment Number of participants 29 28 30 Mean age (months) 104.21 104.75 105.43 (3.96) (3.95) (3.05) Proportion of boys .520 .500 .500 Story length (s) 57.14a 50.29a 21.80b (19.08) (26.66) (5.86) AUC score 0.52a 0.60b 0.59b (0.14) (0.14) (0.14) Similarities score 14.10 14.25 14.20 (3.17) (2.29) (2.95) Coding B score 38.76 40.68 38.40 (7.84) (9.24) (7.71)

Note. Means with different superscripts are significantly different from each other. previously (Katzir et al., 2010), we removed 1 participant from the joy condition for describing an emotional event different than requested. To induce emotion, participants described a recent event that made them feel pride or joy (for a similar manipulation, see Seidner, Stipek, & Feshbach, 1988). The experimenter said, ‘‘Tell me about something that recently happened that made you experience strong feelings of pride [joy].’’ To encour- age a detailed description, the experimenter added, ‘‘What did you do, what did you think, what did you feel?’’ If participants did not remember, the experimenter elaborated, ‘‘Maybe you succeeded in something you really wanted or did something good for someone’’ (pride) or ‘‘Maybe you really enjoyed something or did something fun’’ (joy). In the control group, participants counted from 1 to 30 (see Moore et al., 1976), a task that engages participants in verbal interaction with the experimenter without eliciting specific feelings. Next, the experimenter asked participants to point to the picture that best reflected how they cur- rently felt using a 7-point scale consisting of photos of a child with the same age and gender as the participant (Fig. 1). We instructed children in the photos to pose with expressions similar to the adult poses in photos used by Tracy and colleagues (2005). The scale gradually changed from expressions of very intense joy to less intense joy on one end of the scale to expressions of very intense pride to less intense pride on the other end of the scale, with a neutral expression at the midpoint. We counterbal- anced the side on which each emotion appeared. We coded responses on a 7-point scale (1 = most joyful, 7=proudest). To test whether recalling an emotional event elicited the corresponding emotion, we computed the difference between the mean emotion rating and the scale’s midpoint (4, i.e., neutral expression). One-sample t-tests revealed that recalling a pride event elicited pride that was significantly different from the midpoint, t(9) = 2.95, p = .016, d = 0.99, and recalling a joy event elicited joy that was significantly different from the midpoint, t(8) = À4.06, p = .004, d = À1.51. Unexpectedly, control condition participants also reported joy that was significantly different from the midpoint, t(9) = À3.07, p = .013, d = À1.02. As expected, our pride manipulation successfully elicited pride and the joy manipulation elicited joy. However, the control condition also elicited some sense of joy. To test whether the conditions differed in emotion intensity, we computed the absolute distance of each rating from the midpoint, leading to scores ranging from 0 to 3. A one-way analysis of variance E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282 279

Fig. 1. Experienced emotion rating scale.

2 (ANOVA) of emotion on intensity yielded a signiﬁcant effect,F(2, 26) = 3.43, p = .048, gp = .209. Partic- ipants in the emotion conditions felt more intense emotion than control condition participants, F(1, 2 26) = 4.82, p = .037, gp = .156. However, there was no difference in intensity between pride and joy, 2 F(1, 26) = 2.23, p = .147, gp = .079. These ﬁndings indicate that our manipulation was effective in eliciting pride and joy to a similar extent, which differed from the control condition.

Participants

A total of 94 third-graders with characteristics similar to the pretest children participated in this study (see Table 1). Applying the exclusion criterion of the pretest, we removed 5 participants from the joy condition and 2 participants from the pride condition.

Materials and procedure

The experiment was performed in individual sessions in a quiet room at the child’s school. The child sat next to a table with a laptop computer; the experimenter sat facing the child. The experimenter ﬁrst established rapport with the child, asking for the child’s name, number of siblings, and favorite class in school. To induce emotion, we used the manipulation from the pretest2 (for the topics of emotional events, see online supplementary material). Next, the experimenter introduced the delay discounting task (Asbe, 2011), presenting a choice between two dogs: one awarding an immediate small number of points and one awarding a delayed larger number of points. The dogs were displayed side by side at the top of the screen; the number of points each dog would award and the delay duration appeared next to the dogs.

2 We found no difference in the time it took participants to describe a pride event and a joy event, F(1, 84) = 1.85, p = .177, 2 gp = .022, indicating that the emotion conditions were matched in length of interaction with experimenter and task difﬁculty. However, it took participants longer to describe an emotion event than to count to 30 in the control condition, F(1, 84) = 55.36, 2 p < .001, gp = .397, possibly because the experimenter provided elaborate explanations and examples in the emotion conditions. 280 E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282

The experimenter told the child that there would be 5 practice trials followed by 40 trials and that the child should try to earn as many points as possible. To make a choice, the child pressed the ‘‘S’’ or ‘‘K’’ key for the left or right dog, respectively. Throughout the task, the accumulated number of points appeared at the bottom-right corner of the screen. The value of the large reward was ﬁxed (10 points), but the delay duration varied across trials (2, 10, 20, 30, and 40 s). The value of the small reward varied (2, 4, 6, and 8 points) but was obtained immediately. The trials were separated into two blocks, with a 6-s inter-block interval. The number of trials appeared on the left side of the screen. After each trial, a smiley face highlighted the number of completed trials. We included a ‘‘post-reward’’ delay to balance the overall time of the trials, which enabled differentiation between delay aversion and impulsivity (Marco et al., 2009).3 The task lasted approximately 20 min. Finally, because self-regulation skills have been found to be related to intelligence (Brydges, Reid, Fox, & Anderson, 2012), participants completed two subtests from the Hebrew version of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC; Wechsler, 1974) designed for 6- to 14-year-olds. Similarities measures abstract reasoning and conceptualization abilities by asking the child to explain how 18 pairs of objects or concepts are alike. Coding B measures visual motor skills and coordination by asking the child to copy as many digit–symbol codes as possible within 120 s.

Results

Table 1 presents means and standard deviations for all measures.

Delay discounting

We calculated the AUC by assigning each participant the magnitude of the immediate reward that is indifferent to the larger delayed reward in each delay period. This value indicates how much the larger delayed reward is discounted due to the delay in receiving it (Critchfield & Kollins, 2001). The possible subjective values were 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, assigned to the number of delayed rewards selected out of the four steps and calculated by finding the average value of the ascending and descending blocks, normalized by dividing by 10 (the actual delayed reward). We normalized the delay periods by dividing by 40 (the largest delay). These values represent the x-axis (delay period) and y-axis (subjective value) of a discounting data graph, which is the basis for calculating AUC (for a demonstration, see online supplementary material). The AUC ranges from 0.19 to 0.76, with smaller AUC values indicating steeper discounting (lower subjective value for the delayed rewards). A one-way ANOVA of emotion on AUC scores yielded an effect of emotion, F(2, 84) = 3.21, p = .045, 2 gp = .071. Participants who described a pride-eliciting event scored lower on the delayed discounting 2 task than participants who described a joy-eliciting event, F(1, 84) = 5.22, p = .025, gp = .059, and con- 2 trol, F(1, 84) = 4.37, p = .040, gp = .049. There was no difference between performance in the joy and control conditions (F < 1). Thus, as predicted, pride harmed self-regulation, presumably because it sig- naled sufficient progress on long-term goals and, thus, allowed participants to relax subsequent effort in pursuit of such goals. However, joy did not benefit self-regulation.

WISC subtest grades

The Coding B score was the number of correctly matched symbols within a 120-s time frame, with a range of 0 to 119. We coded responses on Similarities as 0, 1, or 2—depending on their quality—and computed their sum, with a range of 0 to 32. AUC was positively correlated with the Similarities score, r(87) = .22, p = .042, but not with the Coding B score, r(87) = .09, p = .432. However, when including Similarities scores as a covariate, the effect of emotion on AUC scores remained the same. Thus, intelligence did not interact with the effect of emotion on delay discounting.

3 Delay aversion is the tendency to choose the small immediate reward when the delay occurs within the response–reward interval but to prefer the larger delayed reward when the delay occurs after receiving the reward. Children who choose the immediate reward regardless of the delay timing are considered impulsive with respect to reward. E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282 281

Discussion

Recalling a pride-eliciting event led to greater preference of an immediate small reward over a larger delayed reward compared with recalling a joy-eliciting event or a control condition. These findings support our hypothesis; when presented with a conflict between a long-term goal and a short-term goal, experiencing pride signals sufficient progress in pursuing a long-term goal, allowing the pursuit of the pressing short-term goal. Our results show that different positive emotions have distinct influences on self-regulation even for 8-year-olds. These findings suggest that information about progress made on specific goals (short term vs. long term) is inherent to the experience of joy and pride and is not necessarily dependent on learning about emotion–goal relations. Children experience positive emotions from the beginning of life. Infants experience a positive state indicated by satiation, attention, and responsivity to environment. This general emotion gradually diverges to more distinct emotions by 3 months of age. Feelings of pride emerge relatively late, between 2 and 3 years of age, because they require the development of self-awareness and self-evaluation (Lewis, 2008). Interestingly, at around this age the first signs of self-regulation also appear, as expressed by the ability to comply with the requirements of ‘‘do and don’t’’ (Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). By 4 years of age, children can distinguish between expressions of pride and joy, a capability that continues to improve until 7 years of age (Tracy et al., 2005). We chose to study 8-year-olds because they are able to regulate behavior and share with others their discrete emotional experiences. Our results support the notion that emotions have a role in guiding goal-related behavior and that their functionality is likely to be at play from the time these emotions develop. Contrary to our hypothesis, experiencing joy did not improve delay discounting compared with a control condition. This finding, along with the results of the pretest, might suggest that our control condition was not as neutral as expected. It is possible that the experiment was enjoyable for the children, making the control and joy conditions similar. This study focused on positive emotions. A related question is whether a similar effect would emerge for negative emotions. Basic negative emotions (e.g., sadness) and negative self-conscious emotions (e.g., guilt) were also found to be related to the pursuit of short-term versus long-term goals (Eyal & Fishbach, 2010). Specifically, basic negative emotions are experienced following failure to achieve a short-term goal, whereas self-conscious emotions are experienced following failure to achieve a long-term goal. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that experiencing negative emotions would lead to the opposite effect of positive emotions for self-regulation. Indeed, Zemack-Rugar, Bettman, and Fitzsimons (2007) found that adult participants primed with guilt concepts exhibited more self-regulation by behaving less indulgently than participants primed with sadness concepts. Future research should examine whether the effect of experienced negative emotions on self-regulation is present during childhood or develops at a later developmental stage. Whereas experienced emotions signal sufficient pursuit of a corresponding goal (Carver & Scheier, 1990), it has been shown with adults that considered emotions (i.e., emotions that the individual does not actually feel) prime the corresponding goal, encouraging the pursuit of that goal (Katzir et al., 2010). Specifically, considering a future joy-eliciting event resulted in decreased self-regulation compared with considering a future pride-eliciting event. Our study explored the influence of emotional experience on self-regulation. An interesting question for future research would be whether children who consider pride without feeling it would show better self-regulation compared with children who consider joy. Our research focused on a specific age group and a particular self-regulation task that mostly requires inhibitory abilities. To draw more general conclusions about the role of positive emotions in children’s self-regulation, our prediction should be tested among younger children and adolescents with self-regulation tasks that require other executive functions such as switching and working memory.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that emotions may function as cues for sufficient goal pursuit and, therefore, influence self-regulation from a young age. Beyond their theoretical significance, our findings have 282 E. Shimoni et al. / Journal of Experimental Child Psychology 141 (2016) 275–282 important and counterintuitive applied implications. Experiencing positive emotions is typically viewed as desirable and adaptive in educational settings. However, some emotions may be more ben- eficial for self-regulation than others. For educators who wish to promote children’s self-regulation efforts, it might be better to first engage them in a fun game than to praise their achievements.

Acknowledgements

We thank Ora Kofman for her comments on earlier versions of the manuscript, Maayan Katzir for her assistance with data analysis, and Yoav Gal for his valuable technical assistance. We also thank the schools, staff, and children, who participated.

Appendix A. Supplementary data

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.07.017.

References

Asbe, M., (2011). The development of temporal discounting among children in relation to sense of time and strategy use. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. Berger, A. (2011). Self-regulation: Brain, cognition, and development. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Bronson, M. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: Nature and nurture. New York: Guilford. Brydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Fox, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40, 458–469. Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28, 595–616. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review, 97, 19–35. Critchfield, T. S., & Kollins, S. H. (2001). Temporal discounting: Basic research and the analysis of socially important behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 34, 101–122. Eyal, T., & Fishbach, A. (2010). Do global and local systems feel different? Psychological Inquiry, 21, 213–215. Fry, P. S. (1975). Affect and resistance to temptation. Developmental Psychology, 11, 466–472. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. Katzir, M., Eyal, T., Meiran, N., & Kessler, Y. (2010). Imagined positive emotions and inhibitory control: The differentiated effect of pride versus happiness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1314–1320. 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. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Lewis, M. (2008). The emergence of human emotions. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 304–319). New York: Guilford. Marco, R., Miranda, A., Schlotz, W., Melia, A., Mulligan, A., Müller, U., et al (2009). Delay and reward choice in ADHD: An experimental test of the role of delay aversion. Neuropsychology, 23, 367–380. Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. I. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science, 244, 933–938. Moore, B. S., Clyburn, A., & Underwood, B. (1976). The role of affect in delay of gratification. Child Development, 47, 273–276. Moretti, M. M., & Higgins, E. T. (1999). Own versus other standpoints in self-regulation: Developmental antecedents and functional consequences. Review of General Psychology, 3, 188–223. Neuenschwander, R., Röthlisberger, M., Cimeli, P., & Roebers, C. M. (2012). How do different aspects of self-regulation predict successful adaptation to school? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 353–371. Rueda, M. R., Checa, P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2010). Contributions of attentional control to socioemotional and academic development. Early Education and Development, 21, 744–764. Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., et al (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42, 1029–1040. Scheres, A., Tontsch, C., Thoeny, A. L., & Sumiya, M. (2014). Temporal reward discounting in children, adolescents, and emerging adults during an experiential task. Developmental Psychology, 5, 711. Seidner, L. B., Stipek, D. J., & Feshbach, N. D. (1988). A developmental analysis of elementary school-aged children’s concepts of pride and embarrassment. Child Development, 59, 367–377. Tangney, J. P., Stuewig, J., & Mashek, D. J. (2007). What’s moral about the self-conscious emotions? In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 21–37). New York: Guilford. Tracy, J. L., Robins, R. W., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2005). Can children recognize pride? Emotion, 5, 251–257. Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation. Wilcox, K., Kramer, T., & Sen, S. (2011). Indulgence or self-control: A dual process model of the effect of incidental pride on indulgent choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 38, 151–163. Zemack-Rugar, Y., Bettman, J. R., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2007). The effects of nonconsciously priming emotion concepts on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 927–939.