Self-regulation refers to the ability to flexibility activate, monitor, inhibit, persevere and adapt one’s behaviour, attention, emotions and cognitive strategies in response to direction from internal cues, environmental stimuli and feedback from others in an attempt to attain personally relevant goals. It is the same as executive functioning. All executive functions require the prefrontal cortex which keeps maturing up until adulthood.

Flexibility (i.e. an executive function) can be measured using the Wisconsin card sorting task. Monitoring is required to formulate an expected state (1), observe the actual state (2) and be sensitive to discrepancy (3). It appears as if young kids are not able to formulate an expected state. Inhibiting refers to suppressing behaviour or emotions. Reactive inhibition refers to inhibition in response to a stimulus (e.g. do not respond to a buzzing phone). Proactive inhibition refers to inhibition before a stimulus to prevent the need for reactive inhibition (e.g. muting phone). Perseverance is lower in young children compared to adults and this is especially the case in young girls (e.g. children not persevering in behaviour while that is the best option).

Improvement in components of executive functions is believed to improve overall executive function. Executive function is associated with a wide variety of things (e.g. theory of mind). It is possible that executive functions do not consist of several components which are strongly related with other domains because evidence is limited (1), lab tasks do not consistently correlate with real-life outcomes (2) and it is not clear of how many components executive functioning consists (3). However, the differences in outcomes on lab tasks and real-life outcomes may be due to differences in motivation. It is thus clear that motivation is important in executive functions. In order to determine whether self-regulation applies, it is thus important to establish what the goal is (e.g. alcohol use can be goal-directed if the goal is to mingle with the crowd).

Developmental differences in self-regulation originate in differences in capacity to self-regulate. However, the capacity to self-regulate will only be used when one is motivated to self-regulate. In other words, the willingness to use the capacity is moderated by the motivation to attain a goal. Thus, self-regulation is affected by the capacity to self-regulate and the motivation to attain goals. The capacity and motivation to self-regulate are influenced by the environment (e.g. not motivated; distraction). The environment may draw attention to goals and may enhance motivation to attain these goals.

Age-related improvement on measures of executive functioning may reflect the acquisition of knowledge (1), beliefs (2) and values (3) that shape how self-control is used in service of particular goals. It is thus also important to keep the environment in mind when assessing executive functions. It may be useful to provide children with experiences that make them value control more, which, in turn, improves their awareness of the need for control in critical moments.

The differentiation between hot and cold executive functions may be incorrect because executive function performance will vary depending on the specific goal at hand and there is also motivational or affectionate significance when engaging executive functions.

Short-term associations with self-regulation are that a high self-regulation is characterized by better health and educational outcomes. Long-term associations with self-regulation are that a high self-regulation in childhood is characterized by better health and educational outcomes in adolescence and adulthood. It is not always clear whether a disorder manifests itself because of low self-regulation or whether low self-regulation is a symptom of the disorder.

The marshmallow tests appears to predict a variety of behaviours later in life. This effect is mainly explained by supportive environment. However, there is no consensus regarding this. This implies that the environment should be targeted in interventions for self-regulation. The marshmallow test may be used as a predictive tool.

Self-regulation is not optimal in certain environments. In certain environments, it is not necessarily a good idea to self-regulate. This may not be a good idea in environments that are very volatile (1), in untrustworthy environments (2) and in environments where deprivation occurs (3). Delay of gratification (i.e. Marshmallow test) may thus be influenced by the social and environmental circumstances. This implies that supportive environments influence delay of gratification.