Thus, by mid to late childhood, children who improved in terms of internalizing problems showed evidence of being fairly well regulated (somewhat high in EC). In additional analyses, however, we found that high attentional EC and low impulsivity marginally predicted the group that never had internalizing problems versus those who improved at T3 (not controlling T1; in two of four analyses each). There were no differences in inhibitory control or the puzzle task. Stably low internalizing status versus improvement status was predicted by low anger and sadness (in three of four contrasts each). Thus, improvers were children with a temperamental disadvantage (for biological and/or socialization reasons) at a young age (which might account for their somewhat elevated rate of mother-reported internalizing at T1 compared with stable lows; see Footnote 1) that dissipated somewhat with time. Improvers may have been children who were exposed to a more favorable social environment that fostered the development of EC over time or were late bloomers in regard to EC. It will be important in future work to identify factors that account for changes in maladjustment and learn whether changes in dispositional factors contribute to improvements or are merely correlates of change in maladjustment.
