 28. Self‑Regulation and Personality  609
of integrating models of self-  regulation and 
personality.
Self-Regulation Domain  Space
The term self-  regulation  refers to a broad 
and heterogeneous set of psychological 
constructs implicated in autonomous goal 
pursuit, which involves conscious and non -
conscious processes that influence goal pur -
suit in the moment (e.g., impulse control, 
delay of gratification) and over time (e.g., 
habit formation, strategic selection of situ -
ations; Duckworth, Milkman, & Laibson, 
2018). A subset of these constructs includes 
structures and processes that support many 
essential neurobiological and cognitive 
functions but are of critical importance to 
self- regulation. We refer to these as collec -
tively as the foundation,  from which self- 
regulation emerges during childhood and on 
which it draws from adolescence into adult -
hood. These basic capacities are implicated 
in a set of processes  that, together, consti -
tute self-  regulation proper. These processes 
make possible a set of goal-  related activities  
that serve the needs and desires of people in 
a position to direct their own behavior. In 
broad terms, self-  regulation is “voluntary 
action management” (Karoly, 1993, p. 24) 
made possible by a system of interdependent 
psychological structures and mechanisms 
(Bandura, 1991; Karoly, 1993), which we 
outline in the remainder of this section.
Foundation
Executive function, temperament, and se -
lected dimensions of personality form the 
psychological foundation on which self- 
regulation rests. Executive functions  are 
basic cognitive processes that support the 
mental activity involved in self-  regulation 
(e.g., adoption of goals, anticipation of goal- 
relevant affordances and obstacles, monitor -
ing progress toward goal attainment). Spe -
cifically, they allow for planning, decision 
making, error correction, and the inhibition 
of prepotent responses (Norman & Shallice, 
1986), skills that are critical in goal pursuit. 
Individual differences in executive skills are 
first evident in temperament and later in per -
sonality, the more specialized and proximal foundations of self-  regulation. Conceptual 
and empirical integration of executive skills 
across the many tasks by which they are as -
sessed points to a single overarching skill, 
inhibition, and two more specific skills, up -
dating of working memory and shifting be -
tween tasks or mental states (Miyake et al., 
2000).
Temperament  is the bridge between ex -
ecutive function and fundamental features 
of personality that underpin self-  regulation 
(Rothbart, 2007). The link between tem -
perament and self-  regulation is explicit 
in some definitions of temperament (e.g., 
“constitutionally based individual differ -
ences in reactivity and self-  regulation, in the 
domains of affect, activity, and attention” 
(Rothbart & Bates, 2006, p. 100), but it is 
at least implied in nearly all (Shiner et al., 
2012). A useful distinction can be drawn 
between automatic or involuntary aspects 
of temperament and aspects that are sub -
ject to conscious behavioral control (Der -
ryberry & Rothbart, 1997; Eisenberg & 
Morris, 2002). Automatic processes  (also 
called reactive processes ) include impulsiv -
ity or reactivity to positive or negative stim -
uli. Individual differences in these processes 
are associated with differences in neural 
systems (e.g., the behavioral activation and 
inhibition systems; Gray, 1981). Conscious 
processes include effortful control, the abil -
ity to inhibit a prepotent response, and to 
plan and carry out goal-  directed behavior 
(Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan, 2000). 
Several more fundamental executive control 
processes underlie effortful control, includ -
ing attentional focusing, inhibition of dis -
traction, and monitoring of goal pursuit (see 
Nigg, 2017, for a review).
These temperamental processes fore -
shadow aspects of personality  that in ado -
lescence and beyond, support or undermine 
self- regulation (Shiner, Masten, & Roberts, 
2003). The aspect of personality that most 
clearly supports self-  regulation is conscien -
tiousness. Its relevance is most clear in the 
five- factor model conceptualization, which 
specifies self-  discipline, deliberation, and 
competence as facets and “plans before 
travel” and “gives up on self-  improvements” 
(reversed) as nuances (Mõttus, Kandler, 
Bleidorn, Riemann, & McCrae, 2016). Con -
versely, particular facets of neuroticism— 