612 vI. SELF‑ AND S OCIAL P ROCESSES
descriptors, offering useful descriptive ac -
counts of the basic content and structure of 
personality space, with little attention to the 
mechanisms that characterize personality 
and are influenced by it (e.g., Costa & Mc -
Crae, 1992; John, 1990). With near consen -
sus on the structure of personality, these de -
scriptive models have been embellished and 
expanded to propose mechanisms that sug -
gest a direct role of self-  regulation in basic 
personality processes, as well as ways in 
which personality influences self-  regulatory 
processes (e.g., Denissen & Penke, 2008; De -
Young, 2015; McCrae & Costa, 1996; Van 
Egeren, 2009). The convergence of theoreti -
cal models of self-  regulation and personality 
have revealed many connections, which we 
review in this section.
Models of  Temperament
Temperament, evident in infancy, is the 
earliest expression of individual differences 
relevant for self-  regulation. Early models 
focused on consistency in expressed behav -
ior, expressly excluding issues of motivation 
and control (e.g., Thomas & Chess, 1977). 
Later models added components that hint 
of a connection with rudimentary forms 
of self-  regulation. For example, synthesiz -
ing definitions from multiple perspectives, 
McCall (in Goldsmith et al., 1987) defined 
temperament  as “basic dispositions inher -
ent in the person that underlie and modu -
late the expression of activity, reactivity, 
emotionality, and sociability” (p. 524); the 
modulation of behavioral and emotional ex -
pression suggests some capacity for control -
ling, perhaps strategically, behavior. Newer 
models, reflecting increased understanding 
of the brain regions relevant for mental ac -
tivity essential for self-  regulation (e.g., Ban -
field, Wyland, Macrae, Münte, & Heather -
ton, 2004) and their activity during infancy 
(e.g., Posner, Rothbart, Sheese, & Voelker, 
2012) fully incorporate self-  regulation in 
models of temperament. Rothbart and Bates 
(2006) offer a clear expression of this view, 
defining temperament  as “individual differ -
ences in reactivity and self-  regulation, in the 
domains of affect, activity, and attention” 
(p. 100).
A specific facet of temperament reflec -
tive of this model is effortful control,  the ability to inhibit a prepotent response, and 
to plan and carry out goal-  directed behav -
ior (Kochanska et al., 2000). Many of the 
processes underlying effortful control are 
also studied as executive control processes, 
such as attentional focusing, inhibition of 
distraction, and monitoring of goal pursuit. 
Effortful control abilities measured early in 
life have robust associations with outcomes 
many years later. As assessed with parent 
reports, teacher reports, and behavioral 
measures, effortful control abilities predict 
social competence and social acceptance, 
negative and positive emotion, and external -
izing behaviors such as aggression in cross- 
sectional studies and in longitudinal studies 
spanning several years (e.g., Atherton, Law -
son, Ferrer, & Robins, 2020; Sethi, Mischel, 
Aber, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 2000; for sum -
maries, see Eisenberg, Eggum, Sallquist, & 
Edwards, 2010; Tobin & Graziano, 2006). 
Such associations imply that effortful con -
trol in childhood is foundational for self- 
regulation in adolescence and young adult -
hood. Alternatively, and consistent with 
definitions of similar constructs (e.g., Roth -
bart & Bates, 2006), effortful control may 
be viewed as  self-  regulation, though less so -
phisticated and effective than self-  regulation 
when neuromaturation is complete.
Further evidence that highlights con -
nections between temperament and self- 
regulation comes from longitudinal studies 
that follow research participants from early 
childhood into adulthood. The most com -
prehensive study of this type that includes 
measures of temperament and later measures 
of behaviors reflective of self-  regulation is 
the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and 
Development Study, in which a complete 
birth cohort in Dunedin, New Zealand, was 
assessed every 2–3 years from birth to age 
21 (Silva, 1990). At age 3, observational 
assessments of temperament provided data 
for a classification analysis that revealed 
five types of children, distinguishable on 
characteristics from which individual differ -
ences in self-  regulation emerge. About 10% 
of the sample (of which almost two-  thirds 
was male) was classified as undercontrolled,  
characterized by impulsivity, irritability, 
hyperactivity, emotional lability, and lack -
ing in persistence. At the age 21 assessment, 
information was obtained on a variety of 