NUTRITION RESEARCH PAPER TOPIC: Obesity among adolescents

Parent-child interaction, self-regulation, and obesity prevention in early childhood

Sarah E. Anderson, PhDa,* and Sarah A. Keim, PhDb

aDivision of Epidemiology, College of Public Health, The Ohio State University, 336 Cunz Hall, 1841 Neil Ave, Columbus, Ohio, 43210, Ph. # 614 688 3600; Fax # 614 688-3533, [email protected] bCenter for Biobehavioral Health, The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, Nationwide Children's Hospital, 700 Children's Drive, Columbus, Ohio 43205, Ph. #614 722 2000, [email protected]

Abstract

This paper describes the epidemiologic evidence linking parent-child relationships, self-regulation,

and weight status with a focus on early childhood. The emotional quality of parent-child

interactions may influence children’s risk for obesity through multiple pathways. Prospective

studies linking observer ratings of young children’s self-regulation, particularly inhibitory control,

to future weight status are discussed. Although findings are preliminary, promoting positive

relationships between parents/caregivers and young children holds promise as a component of

efforts to prevent childhood obesity. Multi-disciplinary collaborations between researchers with

training in developmental science and child health should be encouraged.

Keywords

self-regulation; epidemiology; early childhood; obesity; parenting

Introduction

The importance of focusing obesity prevention efforts in early childhood – before children

become overweight - is increasingly recognized [1, 2]. Treatment of obesity is challenging

[3], and a majority of children who become obese by 8th grade enter kindergarten already

overweight [4]. Although the evidence base for obesity prevention in early childhood is

growing [5–7], outcomes associated with the available prevention strategies have been

modest and may not be sustained [8]. Thus, our understanding of how to prevent obesity in

toddlers and preschoolers remains limited [2, 9]. Within this context, researchers are

considering approaches to obesity prevention that are broader than diet and physical activity.

*Corresponding author.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines Conflict of Interest Sarah E. Anderson and Sarah A. Keim declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

HHS Public Access Author manuscript Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

Published in final edited form as: Curr Obes Rep. 2016 June ; 5(2): 192–200. doi:10.1007/s13679-016-0208-9.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Emerging evidence suggests that the emotional quality of relationships between parents and

young children impacts risk for obesity [10–17]. Decades of research by developmental

scientists demonstrates that positive parent-child relationships support children’s

development of self-regulation [18, 19]. There is evidence that children who have lower

levels of self-regulation have increased risk for obesity [20–26], but this is an emerging area

of research [27], and what is meant by “self-regulation” in relation to children’s risk for

obesity varies across studies.

This paper describes the epidemiologic evidence linking parent-child relationships, self-

regulation, and weight status with a focus on early childhood. The biological basis for

associations are briefly discussed and future research directions noted.

Evidence linking poor-quality parent-child interaction in young children to

risk for obesity

Parenting and its relation to children’s weight status is an active area of research [28–32]

with growing appreciation of distinctions between parenting styles and parenting practices

[33, 34], the bidirectional nature of parent-child interactions [15, 35], and the limitations of

relying on parental self-report for assessment [36–38].

High-quality observational methods to assess the quality of interactions between a young

child and his/her primary caregiver (often the child’s mother) have been developed over

many decades and used routinely by developmental scientists to understand children’s

social, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes [39–41]. Aspects of parental behavior commonly

assessed are responsiveness and sensitivity to the child’s cues, positive and negative affect,

intrusiveness, detachment, cognitive stimulation, and respect for autonomy [39, 42]. The

child’s affect and behavior, including clarity of cues, as well as the mutuality or synchrony

between the child and caregiver can be observed and assessed [39–41]. High quality

interactions are marked by the parent’s attunement and sensitive and appropriate responses

to the child, and mutuality and synchrony within the parent-child dyad. Parent-child

relationship quality evolves over time as parents and children alter their behavior in learned

response to each other’s behaviors and reactions.

Positive parent-child interactions underlie children’s attachment security [43–46]. A secure

pattern of attachment reflects the child’s integrated belief, based on experienced patterns of

interaction with their parent/caregiver, that returning to the parent/caregiver when stressed

will be a source of comfort [43, 47]. Securely attached toddlers explore and play when they

are close to their parent/caregiver, become distressed when separated, but are comforted

easily and able to return to play. Insecurely attached children may cling to their parent/

caregiver, ignoring the attractions in the environment, protesting strongly or not allowing

separation from the parent/caregiver, but not necessarily being comforted by this person’s

return; alternatively, insecurely attached children may appear precociously self-sufficient,

ignoring the parent/caregiver and not seeking them out as a source of comfort or support

when scared or stressed [48]. Attachment security has been shown to predict variations in

children’s, adolescents and adults functioning across multiple domains and contexts [49].

Anderson and Keim Page 2

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Physiologic measures of healthy stress response are evident in a secure pattern of attachment

[50].

Attachment security and parent-child interactions have been studied prospectively in relation

to risk for obesity. The Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) was a

large (> 10,000 children) nationally representative sample of US children born in 2001 who

were comprehensively assessed through measurements, observations, parent- and caregiver-

reports at multiple time points across infancy to kindergarten-entry [51]. The large size,

population-based sampling, repeated assessments, and standardized observations of children

and parents in their homes made the ECLS-B an excellent study within which to examine

associations between attachment security and risk for obesity. Attachment security was

assessed in ECLS-B at 24 months of age using the Toddler Attachment Sort [52–54] which

was completed by interviewers after they had spent 2–3 hours in the child’s home. The

children who were in the lowest quartile of attachment security (least likely to be securely

attached to their primary caregiver/mother) were more likely to be obese (sex-specific BMI-

for-age ≥95th percentile of the US growth reference [55]) at 4.5 years than the children who

were more securely attached as toddlers [12]. This association was robust to adjustment for

multiple potentially confounding variables including observations of maternal sensitivity/

responsiveness and child behavior [12].

At 9 months of age, the Nursing Child Assessment Teaching Scale (NCATS) was utilized in

ECLS-B. This observational measure assesses the quality of interaction between infants and

caregivers [40]. There was a trend for lower maternal sensitivity and responsiveness in

interaction with their 9-month-old infant to be related to higher risk for obesity at 5.5 years

[11]. In contrast, there was no evidence that infant’s clarity of cues or engagement with their

mother was related to obesity risk. However, although these findings are consistent with the

theory that low maternal responsiveness contributes to risk for obesity, the strength of the

association was not large and adjustment for sociodemographic characteristics, such as

household income and maternal education, attenuated the association such that it was no

longer statistically significant [11]. However, there were strong, stepwise relationships

between levels of income and maternal education and the likelihood of being in the lowest

quartile of maternal responsiveness on the NCATS [11]. Thus, socioeconomic context may

be an upstream factor impacting the quality of maternal interaction which would argue that

models predicting obesity from some aspects of parenting are over-controlled if adjusted for

sociodemographic factors.

Another national cohort, though smaller and not representative of the U.S. population

overall, has contributed substantially to understanding contributors to children’s well-being.

The NICHD Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development (SECCYD) enrolled more

than a thousand families from across the US at the birth of their healthy infant in 1991 and

assessed them regularly up until age 15 years [39, 56, 57]. Maternal sensitivity and

responsiveness in interaction with the cohort child was coded from recorded, semi-structured

play-based interactions at 6, 15, 24, 36, and 54 months of age [39, 58]. Researchers, using

different analytic approaches, have studied each of these assessments in relation to weight

and obesity related outcomes. There is modest correlation between measures of maternal

sensitivity and responsiveness across time [39, 58], and high stability of child weight status

Anderson and Keim Page 3

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

[59]. In 2006, Rhee and colleagues reported that higher maternal sensitivity (above the

median in the sample) assessed when children were 54 months old was associated with

reduced odds of obesity at age 7 years [17]. Children whose mother displayed low sensitivity

and responsiveness (lowest quartile) in interactions at 15, 24, and/or 36 months were at

higher risk for obesity assessed in adolescence at a mean age of 15 years [10]. The

association was cumulative such that the prevalence of obesity in adolescence was highest

when low maternal sensitivity was observed at ≥2 of the 3 time points [10]. Insecure

attachment at 24 months was also associated with increased risk for adolescent obesity, but

insecure attachment at 15 and 36 months were not [10].

As early as 6 months of age there is evidence that the quality of parent-child interaction is

associated with risk for obesity. In an analysis of SECCYD, low maternal sensitivity (below

the median) at 6 months predicted higher weight status and risk for obesity in early and

middle childhood (through age 12) with some evidence for a combined effect of difficult

child temperament and low maternal sensitivity at 6 months with higher school-age weight

status [16]. In the Maternal Adversity, Vulnerability, and Neurodevelopment (MAVAN)

Study, maternal sensitivity, assessed through coding of approximately 30 minutes of mothers

playing with their 6-month-old infant, was associated with higher BMI and overweight/

obesity among girls but not boys at 48 months of age [14]. Maternal sensitivity was modeled

as a continuous variable which assumes a linear association between each unit difference in

maternal sensitivity and BMI. Low maternal sensitivity was not defined or examined

separately [14].

Fewer studies have evaluated the role of observed paternal sensitivity in father-child

interaction or children’s attachment security with their father relative to children’s weight

status. The pattern of children’s attachment to their mother and father (as well as to other

caregivers or siblings) may differ [43]. Evidence regarding the association of paternal

sensitivity and child obesity is limited. In a cross-sectional analysis of the 15-year

assessment in the SECCYD, maternal and paternal sensitivity were coded from observations

of adolescents discussing an area of conflict (e.g., homework, chores) with their mother and,

separately, their father [13]. As is consistent with analyses of children in SECCYD when

they were younger [10, 16, 17], low maternal sensitivity (lowest quartile) observed during

adolescence was associated concurrently with greater prevalence of adolescent obesity, but

paternal sensitivity was not associated with adolescent weight status [13]. Using parent self-

reports of their parenting behaviors and warmth, a cross-sectional analysis of a large

representative study of Australian preschool-aged children found that neither paternal nor

maternal warmth was associated with child weight status, but fathers who reported more

frequently setting and enforcing limits on their child’s behavior had children with a lower

prevalence of overweight or obesity [60].

Potential pathways

There are many ways in which poor quality maternal-child interactions could affect

children’s risk for obesity and understanding potential pathways is an active area of

research. Warm-responsive parenting may promote healthy weight in children by influencing

how the autonomic nervous system develops. Human brains develop in the context of social

Anderson and Keim Page 4

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

interaction [61]. The process by which children develop the capacity to regulate their

emotions and respond to stress has been studied extensively by developmental scientists [62,

63]. Variation in emotional reactivity in infants can be influenced by caregiving [49]. How

caregivers respond to infants and young children may impact the organization of their

emerging physiologic responses to stress [61]. The physiologic mechanisms regulating

energy balance are complex and intimately interconnected with the autonomic nervous

system which is developing rapidly early in life [64]. In response to stress the sympathetic

nervous system and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis signal neuroendocrine

changes resulting in physiologic arousal and impacting appetite and mood [65, 66]. The

synchrony between the brain’s signals and body’s response may predict whether an

individual experiences increased or decreased appetite in response to stress [67]. Adaptation

to prolonged or extreme stress may involve habituation and inefficiency in the brain’s energy

demand signals with the result that increased food intake is required to signal glucose

homeostasis [67, 68]. Stress reactivity may be transmitted across generations via epigenetic

changes [69].

Another pathway from the quality of parent-child interaction to obesity may be through

children’s capacity for self-regulation. Self-regulation is a multi-dimensional construct that

encompasses the conscious and unconscious [70] neurocognitive processes by which

individuals manage and regulate their attention and arousal in order to engage in goal-

directed behavior [71, 72]. Self-regulation predicts many positive outcomes for children

[73–75]. Self-regulation is modifiable [63, 72], and interventions to improve self-regulation

have been developed [76, 77].

Parents’ own pattern of attachment, emotional reactivity and self-regulation are factors

influencing their parenting behaviors and their interactions with their child. A cross-

sectional study of a diverse sample of approximately 500 primary caregivers of 2.5 to 3.5

year-old children (90% were female and 94% were the biological parent of the subject child)

recruited from child care centers in Illinois demonstrated associations between caregiver’s

own attachment style, their pattern of responding to the child’s negative emotions, the rules

and routines around meals and television viewing they implement, and the child’s frequency

of eating unhealthful foods (i.e., sugar-sweetened beverages, fast food, sweets, and salty

snacks) [78]. Caregivers’ insecure attachment representations were associated with poor

emotion regulation strategies in response to the child’s negative emotions, fewer mealtime

routines, more television, greater use of feeding practices thought to promote obesity, and an

unhealthier child diet [78]. This study is unique in bringing these associations together and

foreshadows the potential for longitudinal studies including direct observation rather than

caregiver self-report to move forward our understanding of these complex interrelationships

and how they may impact child weight.

Aspects of self-regulation and their assessment in young children

The term ‘self-regulation’ is used variously by different fields and researchers, and, is

sometimes, but not always, distinguished from ‘executive function’ [71]. Aspects of self-

regulation include attention, inhibitory control, emotion regulation, cognitive flexibility and

planning. Researchers have recently developed many laboratory-based measures of self-

Anderson and Keim Page 5

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

regulation for preschool-aged children [79, 80]. It is now clear that the preschool years (ages

3–5) represent a period of significant development of higher-level executive functions. While

many 36-month-olds cannot consistently inhibit a simple response to give a different

response per instructions, most 6-year-olds can maintain attention and plan out multiple

complex steps to solve a puzzle [79]. Table 1 describes some of the most-commonly used

assessments for children ages 3 to 6 years.

Development of executive functions in the preschool years has been correlated with school

achievement and other long-term outcomes. Young children who can inhibit response

appropriately, sustain attention, and plan out their actions have been shown to perform better

academically, and once they emerge, executive function abilities appear to be relatively

stable over decades [74, 75, 81].

Evidence linking self-regulation in young children to risk for obesity

Despite extensive research on the role of executive function on important cognitive and

academic outcomes, there is less evidence for their role in growth and obesity outcomes,

particularly in young children [21, 82]. In addition, the facets of executive function that most

strongly predict childhood metabolic outcomes remains an active area of research. Inhibitory

control has been perhaps the most active area of investigation to date [20, 22, 23, 26, 83], but

others domains, such as emotion regulation [24], may also play a role and require further

study. Understanding the extent to which children’s executive function and general self-

regulation relate to appetite and self-regulation in the context of eating will be important and

is an active area of research [84–86]. Our focus in this article is on domains of general self-

regulation assessed in children who are under 6 years of age using observational/laboratory

procedures (i.e., not parent-report) in relation to their weight status or risk for obesity

assessed subsequently. Prospective studies are outlined in Table 2 and discussed in the next

section.

Analyses of the national Study of Early Childcare and Youth Development indicate that

children who, at 3 and 5 years, had more difficulty waiting in laboratory protocols in which

they were asked by a researcher to either not touch an attractive toy at 3 years (Gift delay) or

to wait 7 minutes to receive a larger portion of a favorite snack food at 5 years (snack delay)

were more likely to have high BMI [20] or be overweight [23] at 11–12 years of age.

A series of studies conducted by Graziano, Calkins, Keane and O’Brien [24, 25, 87] provide

evidence linking young children’s self-regulation to increased risk for obesity. Using a

prospective design, with repeated measurement of weight status, they assessed several

hundred children from 2 to 10 years of age. At age 2, children participated in laboratory

protocols designed to assess their emotional reactivity and ability to regulate emotion, as

well as sustained attention (percentage time spent looking at a 5 minute cartoon video) and

inhibitory control/delay of gratification (child was presented with an attractively wrapped

gift and told not to touch or open it for 2 minutes; time touching the gift was measured).

Emotional reactivity and emotion regulation were rated by trained observers based on the

child’s response to two potentially frustrating situations (holding a clear, but impossible to

open, box containing an attractive toy for 2 minutes, and being restrained by a high chair

Anderson and Keim Page 6

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

without any toys for 5 minutes); the extent to which the child got upset (e.g., fussed, threw a

tantrum) measured emotional reactivity and emotion regulation was measured as the extent

to which the child used self-soothing or distraction to cope with the situation [24].

Emotional reactivity and emotion regulation were rated separately in each of the two

frustration tasks but the measures were highly correlated (r=−0.91) and thus the final

analytic variable was the average of the 4 measures. The performance of these 2-year-old

children in these domains of self-regulation was related to their body mass index (BMI) and

risk for overweight/obesity at 5.5 years [24] and 10 years [25]. Emotion regulation and

inhibitory control were more strongly linked to child weight at 5.5 years than was sustained

attention [24], but in subsequent analysis these 3 aspects of self-regulation were combined in

relation to child weight at age 10 [25]. Of the studies examining children’s self-regulation

and later weight outcomes, this is the youngest age at which self-regulation was assessed.

These researchers also measured children’s heart rate variability/cardiac reactivity at 5.5

years and found that obesity at age 10 was associated with reduced cardiac reactivity for

African American but not white youth [87]. Cardiac reactivity, or vagal tone, is a

physiological measure of the autonomic nervous system’s ability to adapt flexibly and

maintain homeostasis across a range of changing and more or less stressful environments.

Low cardiac reactivity indicates greater vulnerability to physiologic dysregulation in

response to stress. Premature infants have reduced cardiac reactivity [88], and animal studies

demonstrate how changes in the quality of care provided in early life can have profound and

long-term impacts of the reactivity of an organism in response to stress [69, 89].

The “classic” delay of gratification task for preschool-aged children was developed by

Walter Mischel at Stanford University in the 1960s and 1970s [90]. Often referred to as the

marshmallow task, it is the basis for the snack delay procedures widely used to assess

inhibitory control in young children. The four-year-olds studied at Stanford were recontacted

in 2002–2004 as adults (mean age = 39 years) and asked to self-report their current height

and weight from which BMI was calculated. A recently published analysis [22] found a

linear relationship between the time children were able to wait as preschoolers and their

adult BMI; each additional minute of waiting at age 4 was associated with a 0.2 unit lower

BMI in adulthood [22]. Although the variance in adult BMI explained by children’s self-

regulation 30 years earlier when they were preschoolers was not large (< 5%), it was

statistically significant with only a modest sample size (n=164) [22]. The finding is

meaningful. For example, based on their linear model which adjusted for sex, adult BMI

would be predicted to be 2 units higher for a child who waited 12 minutes compared to a

child who waited only 2 minutes.

To date, few prospective analyses of young children’s general self-regulation in relation to

future weight status or risk for overweight or obesity have been published (see Table 2).

However, the evidence from this limited base of research is fairly consistent. It is important

to note that the analyses published by Francis and Susman [20] and by Seeyave et al [23] are

not independent as both utilize data from SECCYD, though with different analytic

approaches. A cross-sectional analysis of the MAVAN cohort also suggests that poorer

response inhibition at age 4 is associated with higher weight status, particularly in girls [26].

Anderson and Keim Page 7

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

As the MAVAN cohort is ongoing, results from prospective analyses are likely to be

available in the future.

Implications for obesity prevention

Although findings are preliminary, promoting positive relationships between parents/

caregivers and young children holds promise as a component of efforts to prevent childhood

obesity and bring down the high burden of obesity-related health impacts. Children’s brains

and the physiology underlying their responses to stress, emotional reactivity, and self-

regulatory capacities are developed through repeated interactions with the adults who care

for them. Sensitive and response caregiving promotes secure attachment and may also

impact metabolic regulation, appetite, and how emotions and appetite are interpreted.

Parenting interventions that have been designed to reduce children’s risk for behavior

problems have shown inadvertent positive benefits for obesity prevention [91]. Interventions

to improve parent-child interactions are feasible within pediatric primary care settings and

are likely to offer multiple benefits to children and families across domains [101].

Conclusions

This brief review highlights emerging research on interrelationships between the emotional

quality of interactions between parents and young children, self-regulation, and obesity.

Many aspects of self-regulation can be assessed in preschool-aged children. Inhibitory

control has been most often studied in the context of childhood obesity. Additional research

is needed to confirm and extend the evidence base. Multi-disciplinary collaborations

between researchers with differing perspectives on children’s growth and development

within families is likely to suggest new approaches to childhood obesity prevention [27].

Acknowledgments

Partial support for this article provided by NIH grant R21DK104188 to Sarah Anderson.

References

* Of importance

1. Dietz WH, Economos CD. Progress in the control of childhood obesity. Pediatrics. 2015; 135(3):e559–e561. [PubMed: 25667238]

2. Lumeng JC, et al. Prevention of obesity in infancy and early childhood: A National Institutes of Health workshop. JAMA pediatrics. 2015; 169(5):484–490. [PubMed: 25775180]

3. Peirson L, et al. Treatment of overweight and obesity in children and youth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Medical Association Open Access Journal. 2015; 3(1):E35–E46.

4. Cunningham SA, Kramer MR, Narayan KMV. Incidence of childhood obesity in the United States. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 370(5):403–411. [PubMed: 24476431]

5. Laws R, et al. The impact of interventions to prevent obesity or improve obesity related behaviours in children (0–5 years) from socioeconomically disadvantaged and/or indigenous families: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2014; 14:779. [PubMed: 25084804]

6. Seburg E, et al. A review of primary care-based childhood obesity prevention and treatment interventions. Current Obesity Reports. 2015; 4(2):157–173. [PubMed: 26213643]

Anderson and Keim Page 8

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

7. Yavuz HM, et al. Interventions aimed at reducing obesity in early childhood: a meta-analysis of programs that involve parents. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2015; 56(6):677–692. [PubMed: 25292319]

8. Wen L, et al. Sustainability of effects of an early childhood obesity prevention trial over time: A further 3-year follow-up of the healthy beginnings trial. JAMA pediatrics. 2015; 169(6):543–551. [PubMed: 25893283]

9. Summerbell CD, et al. Evidence-based recommendations for the development of obesity prevention programs targeted at preschool children. Obesity Reviews. 2012; 13:129–132. [PubMed: 22309071]

10. Anderson SE, et al. Quality of early maternal-child relationship and risk of adolescent obesity.

Pediatrics. 2012; 129(1):132–140. [PubMed: 22201144] * This article describes analyses of a US

cohort of children born in 2001 in which observations of mothers with their children were made at

3 times points in early childhood (15, 24, 36 months). The extent to which mothers displayed low

sensitivity in interaction with their child or the child demonstrated an insecure pattern of

attachment was associated with greater risk for obesity at a mean age of 15 years.

11. Anderson SE, Lemeshow S, Whitaker RC. Maternal-infant relationship quality and risk of obesity at

age 5.5 years in a national US cohort. BMC Pediatrics. 2014; 14(1):54. [PubMed: 24564412] *

Interactions between 9-month-old infants and their mothers were observed and coded for maternal

and child contributors to positive relationship quality which was related to children's risk for

obesity at kindergarten-age. Maternal but not child components of relationship quality predicted

risk for obesity.

12. Anderson SE, Whitaker RC. Attachment security and obesity in US preschool-aged children. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2011; 165(3):235–242. [PubMed: 21383273]

13. Davis RN, et al. Adolescent obesity and maternal and paternal sensitivity and monitoring. International Journal of Pediatric Obesity. 2011; 6(2-2):E457–E463. [PubMed: 21265607]

14. Wendland BE, et al. Low maternal sensitivity at 6 months of age predicts higher BMI in 48 month old girls but not boys. Appetite. 2014; 82:97–102. [PubMed: 25049136]

15. Skouteris H, et al. Parent–child interactions and obesity prevention: a systematic review of the literature. Early Child Development and Care. 2012; 182(2):153–174.

16. Wu TJ, et al. Joint effects of child temperament and maternal sensitivity on the development of childhood obesity. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2011; 15(4):469–477. [PubMed: 20358395]

17. Rhee KE, et al. Parenting styles and overweight status in first grade. Pediatrics. 2006; 117(6): 2047–2054. [PubMed: 16740847]

18. Kochanska G, Coy KC, Murray KT. The development of self-regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development. 2001; 72(4):1091–1111. [PubMed: 11480936]

19. Kochanska G, Philibert RA, Barry RA. Interplay of genes and early mother-child relationship in the development of self-regulation from toddler to preschool age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2009; 50(11):1331–1338. [PubMed: 19207629]

20. Francis LA, Susman EJ. Self-regulation and rapid weight gain in children from age 3 to 12 Years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2009; 163(4):297–302. [PubMed: 19349557]

21. Liang J, et al. Neurocognitive correlates of obesity and obesity-related behaviors in children and adolescents. International Journal of Obesity. 2014; 38(4):494–506. [PubMed: 23913029]

22. Schlam TR, et al. Preschoolers' delay of gratification predicts their body mass 30 years later. Journal of

Pediatrics. 2013; 162(1):90–93. [PubMed: 22906511] * This article provides evidence that

preschool-aged children with lower levels of self-regulation had higher weight status in adulthood.

The length of follow-up makes this study unique.

Anderson and Keim Page 9

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

23. Seeyave DM, et al. Ability to delay gratification at age 4 years and risk of overweight at age 11 years. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2009; 163(4):303–308. [PubMed: 19349558]

24. Graziano PA, Calkins SD, Keane SP. Toddler self-regulation skills predict risk for pediatric obesity. International Journal of Obesity. 2010; 34(4):633–641. [PubMed: 20065961]

25. Graziano PA, et al. Predicting weight outcomes in preadolescence: the role of toddlers' self- regulation skills and the temperament dimension of pleasure. International Journal of Obesity. 2013; 37(7):937–942. [PubMed: 23044856]

26. Levitan R, et al. Gender differences in the association between stop-signal reaction times, body mass indices and/or spontaneous food intake in pre-school children: an early model of compromised inhibitory control and obesity. International Journal of Obesity. 2015; 39(4):614– 619. [PubMed: 25512364]

27. Whitaker RC, Gooze RA. Self-regulation and obesity prevention: a valuable intersection between developmental psychology and pediatrics. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. 2009; 163(4):386–387. [PubMed: 19349570]

28. Hubbs-Tait L, et al. Relation of parenting styles, feeding styles and feeding practices to child overweight and obesity. Direct and moderated effects. Appetite. 2013; 71C:126–136. [PubMed: 23962403]

29. Hughes SO, et al. Food parenting measurement issues: working group consensus report. Childhood Obesity. 2013; 9(Suppl):S95–S102. [PubMed: 23944928]

30. Kremers S, et al. General and food-specific parenting: measures and interplay. Childhood Obesity. 2013; 9(Suppl):S22–S31. [PubMed: 23944921]

31. Lloyd AB, et al. Maternal and paternal parenting practices and their influence on children's adiposity, screen-time, diet and physical activity. Appetite. 2014; 79:149–157. [PubMed: 24751915]

32. Gerards SM, Kremers SP. The role of food parenting skills and the home food environment in children's weight gain and obesity. Current Obesity Reports. 2015; 4(1):30–36. [PubMed: 25741454]

33. Darling N, Steinberg L. Parenting style as context: an integrative model. Psychological Bulletin. 1993; 113(3):487–496.

34. Power TG. Parenting dimensions and styles: a brief history and recommendations for future research. Childhood Obesity. 2013; 9(Suppl):S14–S21. [PubMed: 23944920]

35. Ventura AK, Birch LL. Does parenting affect children's eating and weight status? International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 2008; 5:15. [PubMed: 18346282]

36. Bergmeier H, Skouteris H, Hetherington M. Systematic research review of observational approaches used to evaluate mother-child mealtime interactions during preschool years. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. 2015; 101(1):7–15. [PubMed: 25527745]

37. Demir D, et al. An observational approach to testing bi-directional parent–child interactions as influential to child eating and weight. Early Child Development and Care. 2012; 182(8):943–950.

38. Farrow C, Blissett J, Haycraft E. Does child weight influence how mothers report their feeding practices? International Journal of Pediatric Obesity. 2011; 6(3–4):306–313. [PubMed: 21728778]

39. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child care and mother-child interaction in the first 3 years of life. Developmental Psychology. 1999; 35(6):1399–1413. [PubMed: 10563730]

40. Sumner, G.; Spietz, A., editors. NCAST Caregiver/Parent-Child Teaching Manual. Seattle: NCAST Publications, University of Washington, School of Nursing; 1994.

41. Aksan N, Kochanska G, Ortmann MR. Mutually responsive orientation between parents and their young children: toward methodological advances in the science of relationships. Developmental Psychology. 2006; 42(5):833–848. [PubMed: 16953690]

42. Mills-Koonce WR, et al. Father contributions to cortisol responses in infancy and toddlerhood. Developmental Psychology. 2011; 47(2):388–395. [PubMed: 21142362]

43. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss: Vol 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books; 1969.

44. Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, van IJzendoorn MH, Juffer F. Less is more: meta-analyses of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin. 2003; 129(2): 195–215. [PubMed: 12696839]

Anderson and Keim Page 10

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

45. De Wolff MS, van IJzendoorn MH. Sensitivity and attachment: a meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment. Child Development. 1997; 68(4):571–591. [PubMed: 9306636]

46. Belsky, J.; Fearon, RM. Precursors of attachment security. In: Cassidy, J.; Shaver, PR., editors. Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical applications. New York, NY US: Guilford Press; 2008. p. 295-316.

47. Ainsworth, MDS.; Bell, SM.; Stayton, DJ. Individual differences in strange situation behavior of one year olds. In: Schaffer, HR., editor. The origins of human social relations. New York: Academic Press; 1971.

48. Ainsworth, MD., et al. Patterns of attachment : a psychological study of the Strange Situation. Vol. xviii. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1978. p. 391

49. Sroufe LA. Attachment and development: a prospective, longitudinal study from birth to adulthood. Attachment & Human Development. 2005; 7(4):349–367. [PubMed: 16332580]

50. Gunnar MR, et al. Stress reactivity and attachment security. Developmental Psychobiology. 1996; 29(3):191–204. [PubMed: 8666128]

51. Snow, K., et al. Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), Kindergarten 2006 and 2007 Data File User’s Manual (2010-010). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education; 2009.

52. Waters E, Deane KE. Defining and assessing individual-differences in attachment relationships: Q- methodology and the organization of behavior in infancy and early-childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development. 1985; 50(1–2):41–65.

53. Andreassen C, West J. Measuring socioemotional functioning in a national birth cohort study. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2007; 28(6):627–646.

54. van IJzendoorn MH, et al. Assessing attachment security with the Attachment Q Sort: meta- analytic evidence for the validity of the observer AQS. Child Development. 2004; 75(4):1188– 1213. [PubMed: 15260872]

55. Kuczmarski RJ, et al. 2000 CDC Growth Charts for the United States: methods and development. Vital and Health Statistics. Series 11. 2002; (246):1–190.

56. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child care and child development: the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. In: Friedman, SL.; Haywood, HC., editors. Developmental follow-up: concepts, domains, and methods. New York: Academic Press; 1994. p. 377-396.

57. NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Overview of Health and Physical Development Assessment (HPDA) Visit, Operations Manual - Phase IV, Chapter 85.1. 2006.

58. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Early child care and mother-child interaction from 36 months through first grade. Infant Behavior & Development. 2003; 26(3):345–370.

59. Bradley RH, et al. The relationship between body mass index and behavior in children. Journal of Pediatrics. 2008; 153(5):629–634. [PubMed: 18639889]

60. Wake M, et al. Preschooler obesity and parenting styles of mothers and fathers: Australian national population study. Pediatrics. 2007; 120(6):e1520–e1527. [PubMed: 18055667]

61. Schore AN. Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development, affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal. 2001; 22(1–2):7–66.

62. Power TG. Stress and coping in childhood: the parents' role. Parenting-Science and Practice. 2004; 4(4):271–317.

63. Fonagy P, Target M. Early intervention and the development of self-regulation. Psychoanalytic Inquiry. 2002; 22(3):307–335.

64. Schore AN. Back to basics: attachment, affect regulation, and the developing right brain: linking developmental neuroscience to pediatrics. Pediatrics in Review. 2005; 26(6):204–217. [PubMed: 15930328]

65. McEwen BS. Understanding the potency of stressful early life experiences on brain and body function. Metabolism Clinical & Experimental. 2008; 57(Suppl 2):S11–S15. [PubMed: 18803958]

66. Shonkoff JP, Boyce WT, McEwen BS. Neuroscience, molecular biology, and the childhood roots of health disparities building a new framework for health promotion and disease prevention. JAMA. 2009; 301(21):2252–2259. [PubMed: 19491187]

Anderson and Keim Page 11

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

67. Peters A, et al. The selfish brain: stress and eating behavior. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2011; 5:74. [PubMed: 21660101]

68. Peters A, Langemann D. Stress and eating behavior. F1000 Biology Reports. 2010; 2(13)

69. Meaney MJ. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2001; 24:1161–1192.

70. Papies, EK.; Aarts, H. Nonconcious self-regulation, or the automatic pilot of human behavor. In: Vohs, KD.; Baumeister, RF., editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011. p. 125-142.

71. Blair, C.; Ursache, A. A bidirectional model of executive functions and self-regulation. In: Vohs, KD.; Baumeister, RF., editors. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and Applications. New York: The Guilford Press; 2011. p. 300-320.

72. Vohs, KD. Handbook of self-regulation: research, theory, and applications. 2nd. Baumeister, RF., editor. New York: Guilford Press; 2011.

73. Kochanska G, Murray KT, Harlan ET. Effortful control in early childhood: continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development. Developmental Psychology. 2000; 36(2): 220–232. [PubMed: 10749079]

74. Müller U, et al. Executive function, school readiness, and school achievement. Applied cognitive research in K-3 classrooms. 2008:41–83.

75. Casey B, et al. Behavioral and neural correlates of delay of gratification 40 years later. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2011; 108(36):14998–15003.

76. Blair C, Diamond A. Biological processes in prevention and intervention: The promotion of self- regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and psychopathology. 2008; 20(03):899–911. [PubMed: 18606037]

77. Diamond A, et al. Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science. 2007; 318(5855):1387– 1388. [PubMed: 18048670]

78. Bost KK, et al. Associations between adult attachment style, emotion regulation, and preschool children's food consumption. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics. 2014; 35(1): 50–61. [PubMed: 24356497]

79. Carlson SM. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology. 2005; 28(2):595–616. [PubMed: 16144429]

80. Isquith PK, et al. Assessment of executive function in preschool-aged children. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews. 2005; 11(3):209–215. [PubMed: 16161093]

81. Clark CA, Pritchard VE, Woodward LJ. Preschool executive functioning abilities predict early mathematics achievement. Developmental psychology. 2010; 46(5):1176. [PubMed: 20822231]

82. Reinert KR, Po'e EK, Barkin SL. The relationship between executive function and obesity in children and adolescents: a systematic literature review. Journal of obesity. 2013; 2013

83. Jones A, et al. Inhibitory control training for appetitive behaviour change: A meta-analytic investigation of mechanisms of action and moderators of effectiveness. Appetite. 2016; 97:16–28. [PubMed: 26592707]

84. Frankel LA, et al. Parental influences on children's self-regulation of energy intake: insights from developmental literature on emotion regulation. Journal of Obesity. 2012; 2012:327259. [PubMed: 22545206]

85. Pieper JR, Laugero KD. Preschool children with lower executive function may be more vulnerable to emotional-based eating in the absence of hunger. Appetite. 2013; 62:103–109. [PubMed: 23211377]

86. Hughes SO, et al. Executive functioning, emotion regulation, eating self-regulation, and weight status in low-income preschool children: how do they relate? Appetite. 2015; 89:1–9. [PubMed: 25596501]

87. Graziano PA, et al. Cardiovascular regulation profile predicts developmental trajectory of BMI and pediatric obesity. Obesity. 2011; 19(9):1818–1825. [PubMed: 21546929]

88. Porges SW. Physiological regulation in high-risk infants: a model for assessment and potential intervention. Development and Psychopathology. 1996; 8(01):43–58.

Anderson and Keim Page 12

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

89. Boyce WT, Ellis BJ. Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary-developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology. 2005; 17(2):271– 301. [PubMed: 16761546]

90. Mischel W, Ebbesen EB, Raskoff Zeiss A. Cognitive and attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1972; 21(2):204. [PubMed: 5010404]

91. Brotman LM, et al. Early childhood family intervention and long-term obesity prevention among high-risk minority youth. Pediatrics. 2012; 129(3):e621–e628. [PubMed: 22311988]

92. Gordon AC, Olson DR. The relation between acquisition of a theory of mind and the capacity to hold in mind. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology. 1998; 68(1):70–83. [PubMed: 9473316]

93. Gerstadt CL, Hong YJ, Diamond A. The relationship between cognition and action: performance of children 31/2–7 years old on a Stroop-like day-night test. Cognition. 1994; 53(2):129–153. [PubMed: 7805351]

94. Carlson SM, Moses LJ. Individual differences in inhibitory control and children's theory of mind. Child Dev. 2001; 72(4):1032–1053. [PubMed: 11480933]

95. Saarni C. An observational study of children's attempts to monitor their expressive behavior. Child Development. 1984:1504–1513.

96. Zelazo PD, et al. The development of executive function in early childhood. Monographs of the society for research in child development. 2003:i–151. [PubMed: 12875200]

97. Welsh MC. Rule-guided behavior and self-monitoring on the Tower of Hanoi disk-transfer task. Cognitive Development. 1991; 6(1):59–76.

98. Espy KA. The Shape School: Assessing executive function in preschool children. Developmental Neuropsychology. 1997; 13(4):495–499.

99. Gioia GA, et al. Test review behavior rating inventory of executive function. Child Neuropsychology. 2000; 6(3):235–238. [PubMed: 11419452]

100. Mahone EM, Pillion JP, Hiemenz JR. Initial development of an auditory continuous performance test for preschoolers. Journal of Attention Disorders. 2001; 5(2):93–106.

101. Weisleder A, et al. Promotion of positive parenting and prevention of socioemotional disparities. Pediatrics. 2016 Feb 1. peds-2015.

Anderson and Keim Page 13

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Anderson and Keim Page 14

Table 1

Commonly used assessments of aspects of self-regulation in preschool-aged children

Measure Primary Executive Function Demand(s)

Evaluated

Format Reference

Snack delay Inhibitory control Task Kochanska 2000 [73]

Gift delay Inhibitory control Task Kochanska 2000 [73]

Count and Label Working memory Task Gordon & Olson 1998 [92]

Day/Night, Grass/Snow Inhibitory control, working memory

Task Gerstadt 1994 [93]; Carlson & Moses 2001 [94]

Disappointing gift Emotion regulation Task Saarni 1984 [95]

Standard Dimensional Change Card Sort

Working memory Task Zelazo 2003 [96]

Tower of Hanoi Planning Task Welsh 1991 [97]

Shape School Switching, inhibitory control

Task Espy 1997 [98]

BRIEF-P Multi-dimensional Parent or teacher report

Gioia 2000 [99]

Continuous Performance Test (CPT)

Attention, Inhibitory Control

Computerized test

Mahone 2001 [100]

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.

A u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t A

u th

o r M

a n u scrip

t

Anderson and Keim Page 15

Table 2

Assessment and definition of self-regulation in studies linking self-regulation in young children (<6 years) to

future obesity risk

Reference Aspect (s) of self- regulation assessed

Assessment/method Scoring Analysis variable/findings

Francis, 2009 [20]

Inhibitory control “Waiting game” Child (age 36m) asked to refrain from touching an attractive toy while researcher out of the room for 150 sec.

Time child waited before touching the toy. Dichotomized as <75, ≥75 sec.

Four mutually exclusive groups of children were defined based on the combination of performance to the age 3 and age 5 tasks: low at both ages; high at both ages; low at age 3; low at age 5. BMI z-score for children who were low at both ages was higher across childhood (age 3 to age 12 years).

Inhibitory control/delay of gratification

“Snack delay” Child (age 54m) told he/she could have small number of a favorite food right away or wait 7 min for the researcher to return and get a larger number.

Time child waited before eating/touching the snack. Dichotomized as <210, ≥210 sec.

Seeyave, 2009 [23]

Inhibitory control/delay of gratification

“Snack delay” Child (age 54m) told he/she could have small number of a favorite food right away or wait 7 min for the researcher to return and get a larger number.

Whether the child waited the full 7 min for the researcher to return or not (binary variable).

Children who did not wait the full 7 minutes had odds of overweight at age 11 years that were approximately 1.3 times those of children who did wait.

Graziano, 2010 [24] and 2013 [25]

Frustration tolerance/reactivity and emotion regulation

“Prize in the box” and “High chair” In two separate tasks, Child (age 24m) given a clear box containing a toy that they were unable to access for 2 min; child put in a high chair without toys for 5 min.

Child’s negative emotion (fussing, crying, etc) was rated from 0 (none) to 4 (extreme distress). The extent to which the child regulated their distress by self- soothing, distraction etc was also rated on a 0 to 4 scale.

Measures of reactivity and emotion regulation were highly correlated and combined in analyses. Children who displayed less frustration and were more able to regulate their emotions, and children who spent less time touching the gift had lower BMI z-scores at 5.5 years. Sustained attention was less strongly related to child weight at 5.5 years. All 3 measures of self- regulation at age 2 were combined and better self-regulation was associated with lower weight status when children were 10 years old.

Sustained attention Child (age 24m) shown a 5-min cartoon video.

Proportion of time that child was watching the video measured.

Inhibitory control/delay of gratification

“Gift delay” Child (age 24m) presented with an attractively wrapped gift and told he/she could not touch it for 2 min.

Proportion of time the child was touching the gift (reverse scored).

Schlam, 2013 [22]

Inhibitory control/delay of gratification

“Snack delay” Child (age 4 years) told they could have a larger reward (2 vs 1 cookies, marshmallows, or pretzels) if they waited for the experimenter to return (~15 min) or they could ring a bell to bring back the experimenter and they could have the smaller reward (i.e., one marshmallow, etc).

The number of minutes the child waited was measured (top coded at 15 minutes).

Greater ability to delay gratification at age 4 was associated with self-reported BMI when participants were recontacted as adults at a mean age of 39 years. Each additional minute waited predicted a 0.2 unit lower BMI in adulthood.

Curr Obes Rep. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 June 01.