Executive Function During The Preschool Years

Running head: EXECUTIVE FUNCTION DURING PRESCHOOL
Executive Function During the Preschool Years
Daniela Aldoney
University of Maryland, College Park

EXECUTIVE FUNCTION DURING PRESCHOOL 2
No
Executive Function During the Preschool Years
Research focused on executive function (EF) --higher order thought processes that are
foundational for reasoning and problem solving-- has grown exponentially during the last decade
(Blair, Raver, & Berry, 2013; Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). Executive functioning is
associated with children’s social and cognitive skills needed to succeed in school. Children with
higher EF skills are able to direct their attention away from competing social and environmental
demands to other tasks and develop better coping strategies for managing stressors (Blair, 2002,
2010; Compas, Connor-Smith, Saltzman, Thomsen, & Wadsworth, 2001; Raver, 2004). This
ability, in turn, helps children be better equipped to learn in the classroom by following
instructions, finishing a task, and paying attention (e.g., Blair & Razza, 2007; Denham et al.,
2012). Executive function has been positively linked to better math and literacy skills (Blair,
Granger, & Razza, 2005; Denham et al., 2012; Espy et al., 2004; Ponitz, McClelland, Matthews,
& Morrison, 2009; Pritchard & Woodward, 2011; Raver, 2012; Raver et al., 2011; Thorell, 2007;
Weiland, Barata, & Yoshikawa, 2014) socio emotional competencies (e.g., Bierman, Nix,
Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008; Hughes, Dunn, & White, 1998; Razza & Blair, 2009)
and theory of mind (e.g., Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004; Carlson, Moses, & Breton, 2002).
Moreover, a new line of research suggests that EF may protect children against the harmful
effects of poverty on their cognitive capacities (Evans & Kim, 2013; Li-Grining, 2007). That is,
children who live in poor environments have higher cognitive skills when they have better EF
skills.
For the most part, the extant research on EF has not been integrated into a comprehensive
overview of what we know about the sources of variation in the development of EF in childhood,
where are the gaps in research, and what are the next steps. I address this gap by reviewing the
literature on the development of EF from infancy to age 5, a period that sets the stage for the
development of higher cognitive skills in adulthood (Garon et al., 2008; Raver, Blair,
Willoughby, & Family Life Project Key Investigators, 2013; Zelazo, Müller, Frye, &
Marcovitch, 2003). I use Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model as an organizational framework
(Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994; Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006) because it conceptualizes child
development as influenced by factors at many levels, including individual (biological)
characteristics, family processes (parent-child relationship and home environment), and the distal
environmental context (SES and culture). I organize this review as follows: (1) development of
EF during the preschool years; (2) theoretical model and empirical evidence; and (3) analytical
summary and directions for research.
The Development of EF during the Preschool Years
Unlike research on cognitive development that is based on widely accepted consensus of
what it is and how to measure it, research on EF is based on multiple definitions, with little
consensus about what it is and how to measure it. Therefore, I start this section with a brief
description of how EF has been defined and operationalized followed by a section on the
developmental trajectory of EF in the early childhood period.
Defining Executive Function
Executive functioning is difficult to define because definitions vary depending on
research traditions (Zelazo et al., 2003; Zhou, Chen, & Main, 2012) and it may overlap with
other constructs within the domain of self- regulation (e.g., emotional regulation). Moreover,
terms such as effortful control, cognitive control, inhibitory control, and self-control are also
used as synonymous of EF in the literature (see Table 1). Despite the variations in nomenclature,
there are some key points of consensus in defining EF. In general, EF refers to the cognitive
aspect of self-regulation and encompasses three related but distinct higher-order processes:
working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility (Bassett, Denham, Wyatt, &
Warren-Khot, 2012; Denham et al., 2012; Garon et al., 2008). Working memory (WM) refers to
the ability to maintain and manipulate information in mind for short periods of time while
performing some operation on it (Willoughby, Wirth, Blair, & Family Life Project Investigators,
2012). Inhibitory control is defined as the ability to suppress prepotent responses and it reflects
the infant’s emergent ability to impose cognitive control over behavior (Willoughby et al., 2012).
Cognitive flexibility (also refer to as set shifting or attention shifting) is the ability to direct one’s
attention as necessary to a given stimulus (Morrison, Ponitz, & McClelland, 2010). Cognitive
flexibility allows children to sustain and switch attention from one stimulus to the next and shift
tasks when necessary (Bierman et al., 2008). Based on these definitional issues, this review
includes studies on EF assessed by working memory, inhibitory control, and/or cognitive
flexibility tasks (see Table 1 and 2 for a list and description of EF tasks).
Even tough EF research tends to focus on seemingly emotionally neutral skills -- working
memory, inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility-- emotion and cognition are tightly
intertwined in our brain and behavior (for a review see Lewis & Todd, 2007). In an effort to
bridge the affective and cognitive aspects of EF, Zelazo and Müller (2002) proposed the
distinction of cool and hot executive functions. Cool EF comprises affectively neutral, slow
acting cognitive processes such as working memory and many complex response inhibition and
cognitive flexibility tasks (Bassett et al., 2012). In contrast, hot EF refers to more reflexive and
fast acting cognitive processes in which affective and motivational aspects are salient (Bassett et
al., 2012; Brock, Rimm-Kaufman, Nathanson, & Grimm, 2009). Hot and cool EF have been
found to be differentially related to child outcomes (Brock et al., 2009; Denham et al., 2012;
Dennis, Brotman, Huang, & Gouley, 2007). Cool EF skills have shown to be related to children’s
performance on literacy and math skills (Brock et al., 2009; McClelland et al., 2007; Thorell,
2007; Willoughby, Kupersmidt, Voegler-Lee, & Bryant, 2011) whereas hot EF skills during
childhood (assessed through delay of gratification tasks) have been linked to the ability to
concentrate and tolerate frustration (Mischel, Shoda, & Peake, 1988; Willoughby et al., 2011)
and to better social competence as rated by parents and teachers (Denham et al., 2012; Mischel,
Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989).
In sum, to date there is no general consensus on one definition for EF; however, most
researchers agree that it comprises working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility
skills. Cool and hot EF denote the degree to which skills tap emotional content. This recognition
is important because studies suggest that “pure cognitive tasks” predict different aspects of child
development compared to more affectively loaded EF tasks.
The Development of Executive Functioning during Early Childhood
EF skills emerge during the first year of life and continue developing throughout
adolescence in a stepwise fashion (Anderson, 2002): Children gain more voluntary control over
attention, improve their ability to hold and manipulate representation in mind, and are able to
inhibit a response using a rule held in mind (Garon et al., 2008). These abilities allow children to,
for example, stop an enjoyable activity in response to caregivers’ requests.
Between the ages of 3 to 5, children show further improvements in the ability to integrate
working memory and inhibitory control and thus coordinate simpler skills into more complex
ones (e.g., Carlson, 2005; Kochanksa et al., 1996; 1997). After the age of 3 children are more
capable of overcoming strong conflicts to coordinate representations and response inhibition and
exhibit flexibility by adjusting their attention to perform disengage from a mental set (i.e. set
shifting). The ability of set shifting, also known as cognitive flexibility, is the latest to emerge in
the life span likely because it relies on both working memory and inhibitory control (Garon et al.,
2008). Advances in other domains of development such as physical, cognitive or social, also help
children to progress in their regulatory skills. For example, motor skills allow the child to
approach or avoid diverse stimuli in a more direct way (Hrabok & Kerns, 2010) and
improvements in language enables the child to use verbal mediation (Flavell, Green, Flavell, &
Grossman, 1997).
Neuroscience data show that EF is highly dependent on the frontal lobe. The prefrontal
cortex is involved in key aspects of EF, including problem solving, planning, inhibitory control,
working memory and the execution of goal directed and intentional behavior (Hrabok & Kerns,
2010). Diverse studies, based on neuroimaging and direct assessment data, have documented
important maturational changes in the prefrontal-based circuitry during the early childhood
period which allow children to perform better on self-regulatory task (e.g., Willoughby et al.,
2012)
Sources of Variability in Children’s EF: Theory and Empirical evidence
Scholars interested in understanding the diverse sources of influence of EF during early
childhood have done so from multiple perspectives, including sociocultural theory, biological
and neuroscience models, parenting theories, and bioecological models. In this section I review
the empirical literature on sources of variability on children’s EF during the preschool period
using the Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model as organizational framework because it is broad
and it can accommodate various levels of influence and diverse perspectives. First, I present the
basis of Bronfenbrenner bioecological model and then I discuss the empirical evidence on
individual differences on EF during the preschool years.
Bioecological Model
According to the bioecological model of human development, child’s development
occurs within multiple contexts and is affected by factors at many levels, including individual
(biological) characteristics, family processes, and the environmental context, as well as the
interactions among these levels. Bronfenbenner highlight the importance of four aspects in
human development: processes, person, context, and time (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998,
2006).
Processes, especially proximal processes, refer to the exchanges between the developing
person and her/his immediate environment and are the major driving force of development
(Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998). Examples of proximal processes are parent-child relationship
or teachers scaffolding of learning opportunities. Person is defined as the characteristics of the
organism such as genetic composition, gender or temperament. Person variables can directly
shape proximal processes or modify their impact on development. Context refers to the multiple
spheres of the social and physical environment and includes micro, meso, exo, and
macrosystems. Microsystem is where the proximal processes occur and refers to interpersonal
relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting (Bronfenbrenner,
1994). During infancy the micro-system consists basically in the home, involving mainly
interactions with caregivers (i.e. mothers and fathers). As the child ages, the microsystem is more
complex, involving more people and environments - such as teachers, child-care center, or
preschool. The mesosystem is defined as comprising the relationships existing between two or
more settings; it focused on the capacity of one microsystem (e.g., home) to influence another
microsystem (e.g., childcare). The exosystem refers to the link between a microsystem in which
the child is involved directly with settings in which the child does not participate directly (e.g.,
the effects of parent’s job on child development). The macrosystem consists of the larger-scale
cultural, political, and economic forces (e.g., culture and income) that shape all other levels of
context that surround the child. Finally, the fourth of the components, time, refer to aspects such
as chronological age, duration and continuity of exposure, and historical period.
I organize the existing literature on children’s EF during the preschool years by child’s
own characteristics (person level) and processes in the microsystem (parent-child relationship
and home environment) and in the macrosytem (socioeconomic status and culture).
Empirical Evidence on Individual differences on EF
Child characteristics: Person level. Children are not passive recipients of their own
development. Through their temperament, gender, and language ability they shape the way they
interact and are affected by proximal and distal factors (Bell & Deater-Deckard, 2007).
Temperament. Temperament is broadly defined as constitutionally based individual
differences in behavioral characteristics, especially those reflecting reactivity, that are relatively
consistent across situations and over time (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). Most studies examining the
relation between temperament and EF have focus on one aspect of children’s temperament
namely effortful control (i.e. attentional focusing, inhibitory control, perceptual sensitivity, and
low intensity pleasure). These studies typically use correlational analysis and have reported
positive and moderate associations between parent or teacher-reported effortful control (using
the childhood behavioral questionnaire, CBQ) and performance on EF tasks (especially
emotionally neutral -cool EF- tasks) in preschool children. In a study with 170 predominantly
white children enrolled in Head Start, Blair & Razza (2007) found positive concurrent
associations between performance on peg tapping task (for a description of EF tasks see Table 2)
and teacher and parent report on effortful control in pre-K. Rothbart and colleagues (2003)
reported similar results with 192 younger children ages 18 to 36 months from a predominantly
white middle-class sample; children who performed relatively better in a spatial conflict task
were also rated by their parents as having relatively higher levels of temperamental effortful
control. Other studies have found similar positive relationships using the same spatial conflict
tasks with 2-3 year-old children (Gerardi-Caulton, 2000); and set shifting and working memory
tasks with 3-5-year-olds (Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, & Zelazo, 2005).
When examining the association between EF tasks that tap onto emotional responses (hot
EF) and temperamental effortful control, the results have not been as consistent. Davis, Bruce, &
Gunnar (2002) in a study with 61 kindergarten children from middle to upper-class families,
found a positive correlation between parents report on their 5-6 year-old children’s temperament
(using the CBQ) and children’s EF measured with a delay of gratification task. In a study with 98
children between the ages of 3-5 Hongwanishkul et al. (2005) failed to find this patter of relation.
One plausible explanation for the inconsistent results may be that these studies used different
versions of delay of gratification tasks, which may elicit different type of responses. The version
used by Davis, Bruce, & Gunnar (2002) assessed how long children wait before engaging in a
desired activity (e.g., gift wrap task) while in the version used by Hongwanishkul et al. (2005)
children had to choose between receiving one price immediately or several after waiting a certain
amount of time.
A relatively new line of research testing the differential susceptibility hypothesis suggests
that temperamental differences interact with environmental experiences to shape development
(Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Belsky, 2005). Temperament may
enhance or diminish a children’s sensitivity to all environmental influences, whether positive or
negative (Belsky, 2005). That is, children with difficult temperament are able to thrive under
good conditions but will also do very poorly under bad conditions. In a longitudinal study with
more than 1,000 children from predominantly low-income background, Raver and colleagues
(2013) assessed temperamental proneness to high negative emotional reactivity through direct
observation and found that children with temperamental profiles of high reactivity performed
higher on EF tasks at 48 months when they were exposed to low economic strain compared to
children who had the same temperamental profile but were exposed to chronic high financial
strain. In contrast, exposure to chronic financial strain across infancy and early childhood was
not associated with EF performance for children who had temperamental profiles of low
reactivity in infancy. It may be the case that low reactivity children (i.e. adaptable, easy to
soothe) are also exposed to more positive parenting (i.e. warm and responsive parenting) than
their counterparts (Putnam, Sanson, & Rothbart, 2002), which has been linked to better EF
(discussed later in this paper). However, this study did not include any measure of parenting.
These findings suggest that the developmental trajectory of EF is not only influenced by a
particular temperamental profile, but also by environmental demands imposed on children.
In sum, the associations between temperamental effortful control and EF tend to be small
to moderate and data are based mostly on correlational and cross sectional data that do not
contribute to understand the mechanisms between temperament and changes in EF over time. An
emerging line of research based on the differential susceptibility hypothesis offers a more
complex analysis suggesting that temperament (low reactivity) may have a buffering effect on
the negative impact of adverse environment on children’s EF.

Gender. Studies on the association between gender and EF tend to show that overall girls
outperform boys (e.g., Bassett et al., 2012; Carlson & Moses, 2001; Hughes & Ensor, 2005; Li-
Grining, 2007; McCabe & Brooks-Gunn, 2007; Wiebe, Espy, & Charak, 2008). More
specifically, girls perform better than boys on hot executive functions (i.e. delay of gratifications
tasks; Bassett et al., 2012; Li-Grining, 2007; McCabe & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). These findings
suggest that gender differences lay on the affective/motivational aspects of executive function
instead to more cognitively oriented and less affective task (i.e. cool EF).
Gender differences in children’s EF have been attributed in part to biological differences
in brain maturation. Researchers have found that the prefrontal cortex -- the neural substrate of
EF -- reaches maturity more quickly in girls than in boys (Giedd et al., 1999). Others argue that
socialization processes play an important role too (Bull, Espy, Wiebe, Sheffield, & Nelson,
2011). Girls may be socialized to delay gratification and be more compliant; boys may be more
susceptible to being aroused and thus needing more effort to “calm-down” which can interfere in
their performance in hot EF tasks (Bassett et al., 2012; Keenan & Shaw, 1997). Studies exploring
both hot and cool EF have reported inconsistent results. Carlson and Moses (2001) assessed
predominantly white children age 3-4 with a battery of EF tasks (e.g., grass/snow, gift delay,
whisper) and found that girls outperformed boys but only on the cool EF tasks. In a sample of
116 low-income children, girls showed better regulatory skills only in one of the hot EF tasks
administered, namely the gift-wrap; no significant gender differences were found in the snack
delay task (McCabe & Brooks-Gunn, 2007). Similar results were reported by Caughy and
colleagues (2013) with 30-months old low-income minority children. Girls waited longer than
boys on the snack delay task but not on the gift-wrap. Moreover, this study did not find a
consistent pattern of gender differences across six EF tasks. Finally, Owen et al. (2013) found
that girls (African American and Latino) showed significantly better performance on cool EF
tasks but only marginally better performance on hot EF tasks (snack delay, gift wrap, and
forbidden toy) than boys.
One reason for inconsistences in research exploring gender and EF may lay in the use of
specific task rather than EF composite scores. Some researchers (e.g., Caughy et al., 2013) have
suggested that girls/boys differences on a specific task may reflect task-specific characteristics
rather than differences in the underlying self-regulation skill. Psychometric analyses of EF tasks
show that only one-fourth to one-half of the observed variation in any given EF task represents
true ability (Willoughby et al., 2012). Aggregating performance across tasks improves the
precision of measurement of EF ability offering more robust results (Willoughby, Pek, & Blair,
2013). This may be one reason why most studies using batteries of EF instead of isolated tasks
tend to show more consistent results favoring girls (e.g., Bassett et al., 2012; Owen et al., 2013;
Wiebe et al., 2008). Another plausible reason may be age related differences. Based on the fact
that a large portion of the age related EF changes occur during the preschool period (Carlson,
2005), it is possible that gender related performance at 3 and 4 years of age may differ. Caughy
and her team followed boys and girls over a 6 months period and reported that when measured
close to 30 months of age girls outperform boys on snack delay task, but this advantage was not
observed when children were assessed closer to 36 months of age (Caughy et al., 2013). So, boys
may take a little longer to develop EF, but they may catch up to girls. Finally, not all studies
control for children’s verbal ability – an aspect that has been linked to better EF. Thus girls
higher scores on EF tasks maybe driven by the fact that girls outperform boys in most aspect of
verbal performance (Kimura, 1999).

In sum, based on gender socialization theories that suggest that girls may be socialized to
delay gratification and be more compliant than boys and different brain maturation processes for
girls and boys one would expect a clear girl supremacy in EF task. However, results are
inconsistent, with differences between girls and boys performance in EF found for some types of
tasks but not others. Measurement issues, reporting individual tasks performance instead of
composite scores in EF and confounding variables, such as language ability, may be preventing
of having a clearer pictures related to gender and EF. Studies on gender and EF tend to report
direct effects and do not examine the mechanism through which gender affects children
performance on EF.
Language. From a sociocultural perspective, improved language may support children’s
EF skills by enhancing children’s outer and then inner speech, which allows them to reflect
upon, organize, and plan their behavior (Müller, Jacques, Brocki, & Zelazo, 2009; Vygotsky,
1978). Several studies have found support for this hypothesis showing that higher verbal ability
(receptive and expressive vocabulary) is positively associated with children’s performance in EF
tasks among toddlers and preschoolers (e.g., Carlson et al., 2004; Hughes & Ensor, 2005).
In a small cross sectional study of 20 four-year-old white children, Wolfe and Bell (2004)
showed that children’s receptive vocabulary (measured with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Test; PPVT) predicted their performance on cool EF tasks (e.g., day/night task). Similarly,
Hughes & Ensor (2005) studied 129 two-year olds from disadvantaged socioeconomic
background in the UK, finding that expressive and receptive verbal ability significantly predicted
cool EF scores. Another study with 98 three to five-year-old children reported similar results:
receptive vocabulary was positively correlated with cool, but not hot EF measures
(Hongwanishkul et al., 2005). Finally, a small study with 50 African American kindergarten
children from diverse economic background showed that language predicted EF accounting for
9.4% of the variance (Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005). These studies are cross-sectional, and
thus do not permit to make causal claims between language ability and EF.
Evidence for a causal effect between language ability and EF is beginning to emerge.
Hughes & Ensor (2009) built on their 2005 study and tested children again at 4 years of age.
Results showed that together with EF at age 2, concurrent verbal ability explained 48% of the
variance in EF at age 4. However, later studies both support and failed to support these findings.
Fuhs & Day (2011) tested 132 Head Start children between 3-5 years of age who spoke English
as a first language in the fall and spring of their preschool year. They administered a battery of
cool EF tasks and a test for receptive and expressive language skills (WAIS verbal subscales).
They found that fall verbal ability supported spring EF, controlling for fall EF. The opposite path
was not significant: fall EF did not support spring verbal ability, controlling for fall verbal
ability. Weiland et al. (2014) reported a different pattern of association. In a study with 400
children (majority Hispanic and African American from low-income families) they found that
cool EF (measured with a battery of EF tasks) at the beginning of preschool was a significant
predictor of end-of-preschool receptive vocabulary (PPVT), controlling for beginning-of-
preschool receptive vocabulary. But receptive vocabulary at the beginning of preschool was not
associated with EF at the end of preschool after controlling for EF at the beginning of preschool.
The authors attribute the contradictory results to the fact that both studies measured different
aspects of verbal ability. Weiland and colleagues (2014) suggested that the hypothesis that better
vocabulary may support EF might only hold for expressive vocabulary or general verbal ability
and not receptive vocabulary, which was measured in their study. This explanation is not
supported by previous findings – mostly concurrently—that have consistently linked receptive
vocabulary and EF.
An exciting new line of research shows that speaking two languages may confer some EF
advantage (Bialystok, 2007; Bialystok & Craok, 2010; Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008; Poulin-
Dubois, Blaye, Coutya, & Bialystok, 2011). Bilinguals are more efficient than monolinguals in
inhibitory control and set shifting tasks (e.g., Bialystok, Craik, & Luk, 2008; Hernández, Costa,
& Humphreys, 2012). Suppressing one language to speak or talk in another results in a higher
level of control that is related to same executive functions used to control attention and
inhibition. Bialystok (2004) examined Chinese monolingual and bilingual children and EF using
the Dimensional Change Card (DCCS). After controlling for verbal ability the 4-year-old
Chinese-English bilingual preschoolers performed significantly better than there English
monolingual speakers counterparts. Other studies have confirmed the bilingual advantage in
preschool children using the Simon task with 4-year-olds (Martin-Rhee, M., & Bialystok, 2008),
battery of conflict tasks with prekindergarten children (e.g. Simons says, DCCS; Carlson &
Meltzoff, 2008), shape stroop task with 2-year-olds (Poulin-Dubois et al. , 2011), and eye-
tracking techniques with 7-9 –month-old infants (Kovács & Mehler, 2009a, 2009b). An
important challenge in reviewing the literature on bilingualism and EF is that there is no uniform
guideline used to define bilingualism (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008; Mindt et al., 2008); therefore, it
is difficult to make comparisons across these studies. How exactly different exposure
experiences and degrees of proficiency contribute to children’s performances on EF tasks is
unclear.
In sum, studies suggest that children verbal ability is positively related to EF in preschool
children. However, most of these data from cross-sectional making it difficult to discern how
language and EF interact which each other during the preschool years. Most of the studies have
been conducted with low-income children limiting the generalization of the results to children
from varying socioeconomic environments. Studies show that bilingualism, variably defined,
may enhance children’s EF skills. Aspects such as how soon this advantage emerges on how
does the relation between EF and bilingualism develops over time have not been investigated.
Most studies have been conducted with children from middle or high SES, thus less is know on
how EF and bilingualism are interrelated for children’s from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Processes in the Microsystem
Mother –child relationship. Although parent-child relations represent the core of young
children’s proximal processes, especially during the first years of life (Bornstein, 2002), and are
hence most important sources of variation for development, it has received relative little
empirical attention to how it is related to EF (Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné,
2012; Blair et al., 2013; Carlson, Zelazo, & Faja, 2013). The extant body of research on this
topic has generally focused on three parenting dimensions: scaffolding (or autonomy support),
sensitivity, and mind-mindedness (Carlson, 2003).
Maternal scaffolding (e.g., encouraging the child in the pursuit of the task) is shown to
be a stronger predictor of children’s EF than mind-mindedness. Based on sociocultural theory
scaffolding provides children with the support that is necessary for them to accomplish goals that
otherwise would be beyond their ability level (Vygotsky, 1978). It is hypothesize that through
scaffolding children gradually learn to take more regulatory responsibility for the task and
ultimately internalize skills that will allow them to solve problems independently (i.e., self-
regulation). Research has examined the scaffolding process mostly in the mother-child dyad by
observing how mothers guide their children in the completion of a difficult task (e.g., organizing
puzzle pieces).
In a unique study 80 middle-class mothers in Canada were assessed for their use of
scaffolding during a puzzle task with their young children (e.g., mother intervenes according to
child’s need, encourages her child in the pursuit of the task, follows her child’s pace), sensitivity
during in-home mother–infant interactions (using a maternal behavioral q-sort; MBQS) and
mind-mindedness (e.g., mothers comments on mental processes, on infant’s mental states or
emotional engagement during mother-child interaction). Scaffolding and sensitivity explained
10% of the variance on children’s performance on a conflict task at 26 month of age, even
controlling for children’s Bayley scores at 12 months. Maternal mind-mindedness at 15 months
was only correlated to children’s performance at 18 months, but not at 26 months (Bernier,
Carlson, & Whipple, 2010).
Another Canadian study reported that mothers’ use of utterances that elaborated on
child’s course of action during a puzzle task (scaffolding) was concurrently linked to better EF,
controlling for caregiver education and child verbal ability (Bibok, Carpendale, & Müller, 2009).
Similarly, a longitudinal study with mostly white and educated families in Canada found that
mother’s scaffolding at age 3 predicted children EF at age 4. Accounting for age, gender, verbal
ability and EF skills at ages 2 and 3, maternal scaffolding when children were 2 and 3 years old
accounted for an additional 9% of variance in cool EF at age 4 (Hammond, Müller, Carpendale,
Bibok, & Liebermann-Finestone, 2012). Comparable results were reported by Hughes and Ensor
(2009) who tested the longitudinal predictive value of maternal scaffolding on children’s EF in
an economically disadvantaged sample in the UK. Controlling for EF and verbal ability at age 2,
mothers’ use of open ended questions, praise or encouragement and elaboration was predictive of
children better EF at age 4.
Interestingly all of the studies reviewed above have only examined the link between
mothers’ scaffolding and children’s cool EF (with tasks such as shape stroop, trucks game, spin
the pot). The few studies that have incorporate both cool and hot EF tasks in their designs have
reported inconsistent findings. Whereas Bernier et al., (2010) found that maternal scaffolding
was predictive of children cool (categorization and stroop like tasks) but not hot EF (snack
delay), Li-Grining (2007) reported the opposite. Mothers’ assistance to their 2-4 year-old
children when necessary during a puzzle task enhanced their hot EF (measured as their capacity
to delay gratification) but not their cool EF (shape and turtle/rabbit task) net of child’s age and
ecological risk. One way that these discrepancies may be explained is by the different
conceptualization of scaffolding used in the studies. Bernier et al. used a much more complex
conceptualization of scaffolding than Li-Gringin; their codes included taking their child’s
perspective, demonstrating flexibility in their attempts to keep the child on task, and following
child’s pace. In contrast, Li-Gringin used the proxy “connectedness” (defined as providing help
to child if necessary) for scaffolding.
Studies have also reported indirect pathways between children EF and maternal
scaffolding through children verbal ability. In a study with 253 children from middle to lower
socioeconomic background, Landry and colleagues found that mothers’ scaffolding of children’s
activities at age 3 predicted greater EF at age 6 through its impact on children’s receptive and
expressive language at age four (Landry, Miller-Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 2002). Similarly,
Hammond et al. (2012) with a higher SES sample, found that scaffolding at age 2 was indirectly
related to children’s EF at age 4 through children’s receptive language at age 3.

Parenting sensitivity includes positive parenting behaviors such as responsiveness,
warmth, emotional availability and physical and affective presence during the interaction with
the child (Chase-Lansdale, Wakschlag, & Brooks-Gunn, 1995). Several studies have shown
empirical support to Kopp’s contention (1982) that mothers’ prompt and effective response to
their infants’ distress helps children to modulate their immediate arousal. Using laboratory EF
assessment on a sample of 106 white middle-class children, Kochanska, Murray, & Harlan
(2000) found that maternal responsiveness (i.e., promptness, engagement, sensitivity, acceptance,
cooperation, and availability) during daily activities such as play or clean up with their 22-month
old children was related to children’s regulatory skills concurrently and longitudinally (at 33
months). Maternal responsiveness added 5% of variance in explaining children’s EF at 33
months, net of earlier scores on EF and mother socialization scores (characteristics such as a
prudent, sensible lifestyle, self-discipline, and dependability). Studies using a diverse set of
methodologies with diverse samples, including q-sort assessment and the HOME scale for
maternal sensitivity, and a structured play activity with children have found similar results
(Bernier et al., 2010; Mistry, Benner, Biesanz, Clark, & Howes, 2010). To my knowledge studies
exploring possible mechanism through which maternal sensitivity improves EF have not yet been
published.
A study using data from the Family Life Project (n=1,292) tested the bidirectional
relationship between parenting and child EF. Results showed that mothers’ responsiveness and
sensitivity (measures through the HOME scale and observed mother-child interaction) at age 3
predicted better cool EF at age 5 and that higher levels of children’s cool EF abilities elicited
higher quality care from mothers’ (Blair et al., 2013). Interestingly, they found that the
bidirectional association between parenting and child EF was statistically significant only for
maternal responsiveness measured by HOME scale and did not hold for the observed measure of
parenting sensitivity. Future research will help to determine if these results are an artifact of
measurement issues of if they reflect differential effects of child characteristic on specific aspects
of parenting.
Another aspect of the parent-child relationship that has been tested in relation to EF is
attachment security. Attachment researchers have proposed that caregivers initially act as
external regulators of the infant’s rhythms and affect, gradually facilitating the child’s increasing
capacity to move from being externally regulated to self-regulate. Moreover, attachment theory
stays that securely attached infants have inner working models in which the caregiver is
represented as available to provide help when necessary (Grossmann, Grossmann, Kindler, &
Zimmermann, 2008). Thus, securely attached children need to devote fewer cognitive resources
to monitoring the caregiver’s availability during exploration, resulting in opportunities to
develop the self- regulated action, which is the basis for the development of EF skills (Bernier et
al., 2012).
Bernier et al. (2012) evaluated parent-child relationship quality (composite of the
scaffolding, sensitivity, and mind-mindedness) and child attachment security to their mothers
during home visit reporting that, together, these two aspects of parenting significantly predicted
children cool but not hot EF at age 3 (controlling for children EF at age 2). A further analysis
suggested that attachment security was more relevant that any of the other aspects of parenting
linked to children’s EF. Even tough the two indices of parenting (relationship quality and
attachment), together, contributed with a unique variance of 18% only attachment security
significantly predicted EF performance at age 3 above and beyond child verbal ability, prior EF,
family SES and parenting quality. These results are in line with previous studies that linked
parent- child attachment relationship to the development of children’s neurobiological structure,
especially frontal brain structure responsible for EF (Glaser, 2000; Schore, 2001).
In contrast to positive aspects of parent-child interactions, negative aspects of parenting
(e.g., negative control and power assertion) have shown to have detrimental effects on children’s
EF. In a study with 69 white children and their mothers, Silverman & Ragusa (1992) found that
mothers’ negative parenting (e.g., strictness, aggravation, and negative control) during mother-
child interaction as well as in a self-report on rearing attitudes at 24-months negatively predicted
their children’s inhibitory control two years later. In another study, maternal power assertive
control was inversely correlated to children emerging internalization and self-regulation
(committed compliance; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995). In a more recent study maternal and
paternal power assertion (use of threat, negative and angry control during parent-child
interaction) at 38 months predicted lower EF abilities at 52 months (Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco,
& Adams, 2008). Power assertive parenting control is likely to promote inappropriate regulatory
behavior because it may direct children’s attention to the power differential rather than
reasoning, which does not provide children with the opportunities to develop self-regulation
(Scaramella & Leve, 2004; Talwar, Carlson, & Lee, 2011). Other aspects of parenting such as
inconsistent parenting have not been found to predict children EF once other child
characteristics, such as previous EF and child’s verbal ability are account for (Hughes & Ensor,
2009).
In sum, depending on the parenting dimension included in the model, studies controlling
for language and previous EF show that parenting account for between 5 – 18% of the variance
on children’s EF. While power assertion and negative control seem to negatively affect
children’s EF, inconsistent parenting seems not to. Limited research exists on the mechanism
through with mothering affect children’s EF during the preschool years. Virtually no study has
explored how the two aspects of parenting (positive and negative) influences children’s EF. The
few studies that have examined the differential effect of mothering on cool and hot EF, suggest
that cool EF (i.e., emotionally neutral EF tasks) are more susceptible to the quality of the mother-
child relationship than hot EF. Moreover, almost all studies include white middle-class samples,
thus it is unclear if the associations between the mother-child relationship and children’s EF
reported here are observable in families from other ethnicities and socioeconomic strata.
Father –child relationships. One of the major limitations of studies on parenting
reviewed above is that none of them included fathers’ parenting or controlled for fathers’
influence (see Kochanska et al., 2008 for exception). This is a striking fact because a growing
body of literature indicates that father make unique and important contribution to children’s
development over and above the contribution of mothers (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2000; Cabrera,
Shannon, West, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006). Father may affect children’s EF directly or indirectly
via other family and contextual factors (e.g., the mother-father relationship; Cabrera, Fitzgerald,
Bradley, & Roggman, 2007).
In terms of differences between mothers and fathers, there is a body of research
suggesting that fathers tend to hold more physically stimulating interactions with their children
(Bretherton, Lambert, & Golby, 2005) and to engage in more rough-and-tumble play (rough
housing--vigorous physical interactions that would be aggressive outside of a playful context)
than mothers (John, Halliburton, & Humphrey, 2013; MacDonald & Parke, 1984). Such highly
arousing type of interactions provide children with important opportunities to manage emotions
and boundaries and develop adequate social competence when trying to control aggression which
are foundational for their regulatory skills (Flanders, Leo, Paquette, Pihl, & Seguin, 2009;
Paquette, 2004)
The few studies of parenting that have included fathers have generally focused on the
quality of parent-child relationships (e.g., sensitivity and responsiveness) using observational
data. In a study by Kochanska, Aksan, Prisco, and Adams (2008) with 120 white-middle class
families showed a similar pattern of relationship for mother and fathers: Children who had
experienced a highly mutually responsive relationship with their fathers (or mother) during the
first two years of life displayed overall strong self-regulatory capacities assessed by a battery of
tasks at 52 months. The negative relation between parental power assertion and children’s
executive control again was observable for both the mother-child and father-child interactions.
In a study with 18-36 months old children (n=80) from mostly white and middle class
families Lindsey et al., (2009) found that the connection between parent-child mutual
compliance during play (the extent to which parent and child are engaged in mutually focused,
reciprocal, and responsive behavioral exchanges) and child EF (inhibitory control task; engaging
with a forbidden toy) was particularly robust for father–child dyads compared to the mother-
child dyads. Father–child mutual compliance predicted two types of children inhibitory control
behaviors (active and minimal engagement) while mother- child mutual compliance was only
predictive of one. Owen et al. (2013) found that the maternal sensitive, warmth and stimulating
behaviors were positively related to children EF at 30 months (specifically cool EF); this
association was no longer significant when accounting for fathering quality (sensitivity,
cognitive stimulation and positive regard, and low detachment, intrusiveness, and negative
regard). However, positive mothering maintained its predictable value for hot EF (e.g. snack
delay and gift wrap). This data suggest that mothers and father may have different pathways of
influence on EF.
In sum, studies with fathers suggest that positive aspects of fathering (e.g., sensitivity,
responsiveness, and involvement) have unique influence on children EF above and beyond
mother influence (Lindsey et al., 2009; Owen et al., 2013). However, the number of studies
including mothers and father is still very limited, especially among minority families. Most
research only examines one parent without considering the influence of the other providing
incomplete information on the pathways of association between parenting and children’s EF.
More studies examining differential impact of father and mothers on hot and cool EF and
possible additive and multiplicative effects of mothering and fathering on children’s EF are
needed.
Home environment. Children develop EF in an environment that supports their
competencies by, among other things, providing children with guidelines and rules that they can
understand and follow (Grolnick & Farkas, 2002). When children grow up in homes that are
characterized by frenetic activity, lack structure, unpredictability in everyday activities, and high
levels of ambiental noise (i.e. chaotic environments) the process of developing EF can be
hindered (e.g., Evans, Gonnella, Marcynyszyn, Gentile, & Salpekar, 2005; Hughes & Ensor,
2009; Martin, Razza, & Brooks-Gunn, 2012)
Based on optimal stimulation hypothesis researchers have proposed that chaotic
environments may hinder the development of the neural networks involved in self- regulation
because in chaotic environments children are exposed to nonoptimal levels of stimulation
(Bierman et al., 2008; Evans & Wachs, 2010). Critical components of chaotic home
environments are high levels of noise, crowding and instability, and lack of regularities such as
family routines or rituals (Bronfenbrenner & Evans, 2000; Evans, 2006; Wachs, 1989). It’s
important to note that even though chaos is not evenly distributed in the population and low-
income families are more likely to face chaotic living conditions (Evans et al., 2005) several
empirical findings have shown that chaos is more than a proxy for low SES (for a review see
Evans & Wachs, 2010).
Children raised in chaotic environments may adapt to the high demands of these contexts
by “tuning out” from environment and shifting their attention away from over-stimulating and
unpredictable stimuli (Evans, 2006). This might be an adaptive strategy at first that help them to
cope with the over-arousal produced by the environment characteristics, but on the long term it
may reduce their exposure to key socialization aspects and in turn affect their development. In
fact, an emerging body of research shows that chaos, is negatively linked to a series of children
outcomes (Evans & Wachs, 2010). To my knowledge only three empirical studies assessing the
association between household chaos and EF in preschool children have been published to date.
Hughes and Ensor (2009) studied 125 children from disadvantage background in the UK.
When children were 2 years of age mothers answered the CHAOS scale, a parental self-report
measure of 15 questions (e.g., there is often a fuss going on at home; in the mornings, you have a
regular routine) to assess the degree of chaos in the household. Children received a series of EF
evaluations at age 2 and 4. Controlling for EF at age 2 and concurrent verbal ability, results
showed that family chaos was associated with lack of improvement in EF between the ages of 2
and 4. One critique of studies based on the CHAOS scale is that it only assesses some
dimensions of chaos (disorganization and routines). Researcher interested in evaluating other
aspects such as crowding condition, background noise, family instability, and residential stability
have used direct assessment (measure on noise exposure), or have included these items on
questionnaires (e.g., hours that TV is on, number of rooms in the home). Using a subsample of
the Project of Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) Martin, Razza and
Brooks-Gunn (2012) explored different dimension of household chaos (i.e. family instability,
routines, TV on, crowding, and noise) when children were 2 ½ years old. They tested for the
independent contributions of each of these aspects to children’s hot and cool EF (delay of
gratification and inhibitory control skills) two and a half years later. Controlling for income,
education, family size, and race/ethnicity only lack of routines was negatively associated to hot
EF skills (i.e. delay of gratification task). Raver and colleagues (2013) also tested the impact of
other aspects of family chaos, namely noisy, crowded, and unsafe housing conditions on
children’s EF. Using data from a large longitudinal study with low-income families (n= 1,259)
the authors found no link between these aspects of chaos and children’s EF at 48 months. These
finding suggest that chaos might be channeled through its effects on family routines to hinder
self-regulation. This is an important area of future research.
Daily family routines in children’s life help them to develop self-regulatory skills because
it teaches children that events are predictable, and that there are rewards for waiting. A child who
does not have many routines may learn that opportunities for rewards are erratic and that s/he
should pursue rewards when they are available instead of waiting for the ‘right’ moment because
they may never come. An unpredictable environment may undermine child’s confidence to
influence her environment and to predict consequences, which might result in chronically high or
flat state of arousal instead of learning to regulate her arousal according to situational needs
(Zalewski et al., 2012).
Another potential pathway for chaos to influence children’s regulatory behavior is
through parenting. Parents who live in chaotic environment demonstrate less optimal parenting
(e.g., less warmth and more harsh disciple; Coldwell, Pike, & Dunn, 2006; Dumas et al., 2005),
less responsiveness and offer fewer learning stimulation opportunities; Corapci & Wachs, 2002).
Martin et al. (2012) tested this pathway -- controlling for a host of demographic characteristics,
such as household income, number of residents, and maternal education-- and found no
mediation through either maternal warmth or provision of learning materials (assessed by the
HOME). The authors state that these results suggest the salience of routines in and of themselves
for the development of children’s EF.
In summary, even though studies examining home environment and EF rarely include
preschool children, findings collectively suggest that living in chaotic homes, specially in those
lacking of regular routines, is negatively related to EF (Martin et al., 2012). However, most
studies only explored direct pathways thus the mechanisms through which chaos affect
children’s EF are unknown. Previous studies have shown that children growing up in chaotic
houses tend to have lower verbal ability compared to children living in less chaotic (Vernon-
Feagans, Garrett-Peters, Willoughby, & Mills-Koonce, 2012). Given the relation between verbal
ability and EF this could be a plausible pathway to test between EF and chaos. To my knowledge
no published study has tested this association in preschool children.
Processes in the Macrosystem
The macrosystem refers to the more distal layer of influence in child development. It
incorporates cultural, political, and economical factors that may directly but also indirectly
impact child development through more proximal processes such as the parent-child interactions.
In the next section I focus on socioeconomic status and culture because these have been identify
as distal factors that influence children’s EF.

Socioeconomic status. Traditionally, the effects of SES (education, income, and
occupation) on children’s development have mostly focused on cognitive outcomes (Hoff, 2006;
Sirin, 2005). In the last decade, researchers have begun to examine how SES is related to EF
(e.g, Blair et al., 2011; Li-Grining, 2007; Mezzacappa, 2004; Mistry et al., 2010). SES has been
shown to affect EF directly and indirectly by negatively impacting proximal processes such as
parenting or the home environment quality. In a pioneer study, (Mezzacappa, 2004) tested 246
six-year-old children and found that SES predicted children’s performance on one EF task (fish
flanker). Children from more socially advantaged background exhibit better scores on both
aspects of the EF task, reaction time and accuracy, than did their less advantaged counterparts.
Li-Gringin (2007) reported that poverty related risks (e.g., income, maternal stress, neighborhood
quality) compromised children executive control in children ages 2-4. More recently, Rhoades et
al. (2011) using data from the Family Life Project found that early exposure to poverty was a
significant predicator of poor EF among 3-year-old children.
Why does SES result in poor regulatory behaviors? Two pathways are generally tested:
investment model and the child pathway. According to the investment model, parents who lack
resources such as education and income have children with poor EF because they cannot provide
them with stimulating materials and experiences as well positive ways of parenting to promote
their development (Conger, Conger, & Martin, 2010; Evans & Kim, 2013; Haveman & Wolfe,
1994). Mistry and colleagues analyzed a subsample of the EHS evaluation project (n= 1,851) and
examined how economic related risk (e.g., ability to meet basic needs income-to-need ration,
unemployment) affected children regulatory skills. They found that maternal language
stimulation and warmth (measured with the HOME) partially mediated the association between
economic risk and children’s poorer self- regulation (Mistry et al., 2010). Similarly, in a
predominantly low-income population-based longitudinal sample of 1,292 children Blair and
colleagues (2011) found that two indicators of SES – maternal education and income-to-needs
ratio – predicted lower EF through its impact on mothering quality (coded from mother-child
interactions). Income-to-needs was related to EF only through negative mothering, but maternal
education was indirectly related to EF through positive and negative mothering.
The effects of poverty on children’s EF are also channeled through its effects on
children’s language. In a small cross sectional study with 50 African American kindergarten
children Noble and colleagues found that SES accounted for 15.3% of the variance in EF
(composite of inhibitory control tasks). Further analyses demonstrated that the relation between
growing up in a low SES home and presenting lower EF was completely mediated by children’s
language ability (Noble et al., 2005). Similar pattern was reported by Hughes and Ensor (2009)
in their study with 2-year-old children: when verbal ability was included as predictor, the social
disadvantage variable (composed by aspects such as income, education, unemployment, poor
neighborhood, no access to car) no longer predicted unique variance on children’s EF. However,
Dilworth-Bart (2012) and Rhoades, Greenberg, and Blair (2011) found no support for this
meditational path in their studies. Perhaps, Dilworth-Bart’s small sample size (n=49) and
Rhoades et al.’s conceptualization of poverty related risk (which included not only economic
aspects but also stressors, social support, crowding conditions, and health information) might
help to explain these discordant results.
Another pathway that explains why SES has negative effects on children’s EF is through
child coping strategies. Biological and neuroscience models show that children facing poverty-
related risks exhibit altered neuroendocrine stress response, which in turn, negatively affects
children’s self-regulatory capacity (e.g, Blair et al., 2011; Zalewski et al., 2012). More
specifically, poverty have been linked to higher allostatic load and this pattern of stress response
has been shown to compromised EF for young children (Blair, 2010). In a prospective
longitudinal study using data from the Family Life Project, Blair and colleagues (2011) found
that maternal education (but not income-to-need) was indirectly related to EF through the path
including positive parenting and children’s overall resting cortisol level (i.e. stress response).
Similarly, in a study with 79 preschool children, (Zalewski et al., 2012) found that poverty
(household income) was related to children’s cortisol level, which in turn predicted children’s
performance on a EF battery.
In sum, studies show that SES has a negative direct and indirect link with children’s EF
through parenting and children language and coping skills. The literature does not offer a clear
answer to what indicators of SES (e.g., income-to-need or maternal education) are most
predictive of children’s EF, but researchers have identified maternal education to be the strongest
predictor (Bornstein & Bradley, 2003). However, it is possible that income and education matter
differently for different outcomes and at different times. For example, in the cognitive domain,
lack of income is most damaging for children during the early years than during the later years
(Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997). Education, on the other hand, might be more negatively related
to social development both early and in later development. Another aspect that needs further
attention is the differential impact of SES on hot and cool EF. Preliminary data suggest no
impact of SES on hot EF (e.g., delay of gratification tasks; Li-Grining, 2007; Noble et al., 2007,
2005).
Culture. Culture, broadly defined as the customs, practices, and parental values and
beliefs about raising children, influences child development by impacting the way parents
interact with their children (e.g., Rogoff, 2003; Super & Harkness, 2002; Weisner, 2002). The
way in which culture may explain differences in EF has not been directly studied; instead culture
has been implicated indirectly by either comparing children from countries with different
“cultural orientation” (cross cultural perspective) or by comparing children from diverse ethnic
groups within the U.S.
Cross-cultural research examining EF differences have mainly focused on middle class
samples and consistently find that Asian children (i.e., Korean, Japanese, and Chinese)
outperform their American and British counterparts on cool EF tasks (e.g., Imada, Carlson, &
Itakura, 2013; Lan, Legare, Ponitz, Li, & Morrison, 2011; Oh & Lewis, 2008; Sabbagh, Xu,
Carlson, Moses, & Lee, 2006). These differences have been attributed to the cultural emphasis
on self-control, based on Confucius philosophy, during childhood in Asian countries. The
development of self-control, along with obedience and respect, has long been considered to be
the cornerstone of educational practices such as teaching children to follow directions and pay
attention in China and Korea (Kwon, 2004; Lan et al., 2009). In contrast, some researchers have
noted that American preschool classroom tend to place emphasis on independence, creativity,
and self-expression (Tobin, Hsueh, & Karasawa, 2009). However, these studies view culture as
dichotomous (i.e., collectivistic vs. individualistic) and static (i.e., not changing over time).
Scholars have criticized this view because it promotes a simplistic notion of culture that does not
account for the degree and coexistence of different sets of beliefs (Killen & Wainryb, 2000;
Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2008). Moreover, these studies equate country of origin with culture,
obscuring meaningful differences by SES, and geographical location (rural vs. urban) and hence
promoting a false belief of homogeneity within and across cultural groups.
In contrast, studies in the U.S. of how the cultural context (i.e., beliefs, values, parenting
practices) promotes differences in EF skills are generally lacking. The extant research has
focused on ethnic/racial differences, which has implicitly taken to imply cultural differences.
This research has found links between race/ethnicity and EF favoring white children (e.g., Blair
et al., 2011; Caughy, Mills, Tresch, & Hurst, 2013; Fuhs, Farran, & Nesbitt, 2013). A problem
with this research is that it confounds SES with ethnicity thus any differences between the
groups is likely to reflect SES differences rather than cultural differences. Minority children are
disproportionately more likely to live in poverty compared to white children (Addy, Engelhardt,
& Skinner, 2014; Macartney, 2011). A future line of research would be to examine aspects of the
cultural context (e.g., linguistic), independent of the effects of SES that may promote EF among
low-income children. For example, many bilingual children show better EF skills (i.e., inhibitory
control) than their monolingual counterparts (Bialystok et al., 2008; Poulin-Dubois et al., 2011).
The question is whether low-income minority children who grow up in bilingual environments
also show similar advantages.
Future Directions
Over the last decade, major advances have been made to understand the sources of
individual differences in children’s EF. Yet many aspects have yet to be investigated. This
section synthesizes the gaps in the literature and proposes directions for research based on these
gaps.
First, even though there is growing evidence of the independent and unique contribution
of fathers on child development (e.g., Cabrera, Shannon, & Tamis-Lemonda, 2007; Tamis-
LeMonda, Shannon, Cabrera, & Lamb, 2004), few studies of EF have incorporated fathers into
their designs. Understanding what fathers do to promote children’s EF is an important future step
for research. There is also a poor understanding of how both mothers and fathers simultaneously
contribute to their children’s EF. Emerging data suggest that fathers contribute to the
development of children’s regulatory skills above and beyond mothers’ (Lindsey et al., 2009)
and that mothers and fathers may contribute differently to children’s hot and cool EF (Owen et
al., 2013). Future research should explore in more depth the additive and interactive impact of
fathers and mothers on children EF. Can high quality fathering buffer the effects of low quality
mothering on children’s EF? Do children with “two good” parents develop better EF than
children with only a “good” parent? Given that fathers and mothers interact with their children in
a different manner (John et al., 2013), do they contribute to children’s EF through different
mechanism?
Second, there is a lack of information on the mechanics through which parenting --
mothering and fathering --influences children’s EF. Many studies concluded that parenting
predicts children’s EF; however, very few examine the pathways of influence. Findings show
that maternal scaffolding promotes children’s languages skills, which in turn help them to
improve their EF performance. This pathway of association has not been tested with other
parenting dimensions. Given that each dimension of parenting included in this review (e.g.,
scaffolding, sensitivity, responsiveness) refer to specific parent behaviors if it reasonable to think
that each aspect may contribute to children’s EF by promoting specific skills. For example,
parental responsiveness and sensitivity may promote children’s compliance and turn taking
which in turn help children to perform better on EF tasks.
Third, Bronfenbrenners’ theory posits that child development is also influence by child’s
own characteristics. Theoretically, temperament and gender do not only affect children’s EF
directly; they also shape the way children interact with their caregivers and the ways they are
affected by proximal and distal factors. The literature offers little understanding on how children
characteristics interact with other variables to impact their EF skills. For example, most studies
reviewed for this paper controlled for gender instead of incorporating it in the model to explain
variability in EF skills. Future research needs to explore whether there are different pathways of
influence between parenting and children’s EF for boys and girls. Given that boys, in general,
show more disregulation (e.g., Bassett et al., 2012; Carlson & Moses, 2001), it would be
important to understand its sources. Another way child effect can be assessed is through testing
bidirectional processes between children characteristics and parenting practices in relation to EF
(Bernier et al., 2010). Studies show that parenting influence children’s EF, but few have
examined how differential levels of EF affects the way parents interact with their children and
consequently promote their EF skills. Future studies could more specifically examine the
transactional relation between different dimensions of parenting (e.g., scaffolding, intrusiveness)
and children’s EF. Results would provide important data on how to promote positive feedback in
which positive contexts lead to more optimal EF in the home setting.
Fourth, more research is needed to better understand how culture is linked to children’s
EF. Future research needs to go beyond reporting difference across cultural and ethnic groups
and examine what specific aspects related to culture (beliefs, practices, values) may account for
EF differences. How do specific socialization practices, values, and beliefs may promote
children EF? Is it the promotion of respect and obedience that help children to develop better
self-regulation? How do values and beliefs interact with other contextual characteristics such as
poverty? Another question future research needs to address is whether ethnic minority children
growing up in a bilingual environment show the same EF advantages reported in bilingual white
middle-class children. Is bilingualism able to protect low-income ethnic minority children from
the detriment effects of poverty on their EF skills?

Fifth, this review shows that most research does not differentiate between hot and cool
EF. This is an important distinction because research has shown that cool and hot EF predicts to
different outcomes and that different neural substrates underlie performance on each of these
tasks (Willoughby et al., 2011). Given this information it is plausible to think that different
aspects of the child context may differently promote cool and hot aspects of EF. This hypothesis
is difficult to test because most studies have either focus on one aspect of EF (mostly cool) or
created a general EF scores with a composite of hot and cool tasks (Table 1). Moreover, the few
studies examining children’s hot and cool EF report inconsistent findings. While one study found
that quality of parenting and attachment security predicted to cool but not hot EF (Bernier et al.,
2012), another study reported that positive mothering predicted hot EF (Owen et al, 2013).
Contradictory results have been also reported for maternal scaffolding (Bernier et al., 2010; Li-
Grining, 2007). There is a need for more research that can shed light on distinct pathways to hot
and cool EF tasks. Intervention targeting behavioral and academic aspects of school readiness
may benefit from this type of studies.
Finally, studies are characterized by inconsistent definitions and measures of EF because
EF is studied by researchers from different disciplines, with corresponding differences in
language (terminology) and measurement preferences (Willoughby et al., 2011). For example,
across articles reviewed for this paper, the terms effortful control, cognitive self-regulation and
inhibitory control were used as synonymous of EF (Table 1). Only recently the field is coming to
an agreement regarding exactly what underlying EF skills each measure taps and how to most
reliable test EF in the preschool years (Willoughby et al., 2013; Zelazo et al., 2013). Thus, the
standards (e.g., number and type of EF tasks included) between studies conducted five or more
years ago and more recent ones may differ significantly making it hard to compare studies. To
address these gaps in the field of EF a group of researchers are working in generating a set of
materials (e.g., visual maps and database) to help the field define, understand, and communicate
about EF (Jones & Bailey, 2014). Another important effort has been made by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) by developing the NIH Toolbox, which is a multidimensional set of
brief measures assessing cognitive, emotional, motor, and sensory function from ages 3 to 85. It
includes three EF tasks to assess cognitive flexibility, inhibitory control, and working memory
and is available in English and Spanish and reliability and validity studies revealed good
developmental sensitivity across childhood, good test–retest reliability, and good convergent
validity (Zelazo et al., 2013). Efforts such as these will move the field forward by offering more
uniform guidelines to design, conduct, and evaluate studies exploring source of variability in the
preschool period.
Conclusions
The main goal of this paper was to review the literature on predictors of EF in preschool
children using Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory as organizational framework. The
bioecological model highlights the importance of understanding child development as influenced
by diverse spheres including child’s own characteristics, proximal, and distal processes.
Organized by child’s own characteristics, parent-child relationship and home environment, and
more distal processes such as SES and culture in this review I analyzed empirical researcher
coming from diverse theoretical perspectives.
Much research suggests that children are an important influence on their own
development. Children’s temperament, gender, and verbal ability (expressive, receptive, and
bilingualism) explain some of the variability on children’s EF during the preschool years.
Additionally, parent-child interactions characterized by scaffolding, sensitivity, and secure

attachment result in children with higher EF skills whereas parent’s use of power assertion result
in children with lower EF skills. These pathways have been predominantly tested with mothers.
Other processes occurring in the home, such as lack of routines, have a negative impact on
children’s ability to regulate. Finally, SES was identified as a distal factor that is relevant for the
development of children’s EF during the preschool years. SES negatively influences child’s EF
directly and through proximal family processes (i.e. parenting). The impact of another distal
factor --culture-- on children’s EF has not been clearly established in the literature.
This review led to several gaps in the current literature and directions for future research.
Even though studies has shown strong evidence for fathers’ unique contribution to their
children’s development (e.g., Cabrera et al., 2007) there is still a bias in the literature that
mothers are sufficient to study. Consequently, the extant literature provides a poor understanding
on father’s contribution to children’s EF. Little is know on specific fathering characteristics and
on the way fathers and mothers simultaneously contribute to promote EF skill in their children.
Future research should address this gap by including both mothers and fathers in their design and
by examining the additive and multiplicative effects of both parents.
Studies that examine the mechanism though which the parent-child relationship impacts
children’s EF are still limited. The literature suggests that maternal scaffolding improves
children’s verbal ability and in turn, enhance their EF performance. However if this or other
pathways apply to other parenting dimensions is an empirical question that needs further
examination. Similarly, studies highlights child’s contribution to his own development, but few
have examine the mechanism through which this occurs for EF. More information is needed on
the moderating effects of gender and temperament as well as bidirectional association between
children’s characteristics and EF.

This review revealed a lack of understanding on cultural factors affecting children’s EF.
Most research has compared EF performance of children from western and Asian countries
assuming that the differences observed respond to diverse socialization practices. Future research
needs to incorporate direct measures of child rearing values, beliefs, and goals to better
understand how culture affects the development of EF during the preschool years. Moreover,
they need to control for other factors that account for variability in children’s EF such as SES,
and parenting quality. Given that many minority children grow in bilingual environments in the
U.S., future research should examine if bilingualism confer and advantage in EF for low-income
children as it has been show for middle-class children.
Finally, the field would benefit from future studies that disentangle the differential
pathways to hot and cool EF. An important body of literature shows that cool and hot EF predict
to different outcomes (academic and social skills respectively; e.g., Willoughby et al., 2011), but
few studies examining predictors of EF during the preschool period have incorporated both cool
and hot tasks in their design. Future research should examine the children’s specific everyday
experiences and interactions that might differentially contribute to individual differences in hot
versus cool EF. This information would be beneficial for intervention considering differential
enhancement of social and academic skills through EF during childhood.

References
Addy, S., Engelhardt, W., & Skinner, C. (2014). Basic facts about low-income children.
Retrieved from http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_1076.html.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood.
Child Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82.
Bassett, H. H., Denham, S., Wyatt, T. M., & Warren-Khot, H. K. (2012). Refining the preschool
self-regulation assessment for use in preschool classrooms. Infant and Child Development,
21(6), 596– 616. doi:10.1002/icd
Bell, M. A., & Deater-Deckard, K. (2007). Biological systems and the development of self-
regulation: Integrating behavior, genetics, and psychophysiology. Journal of Developmental
and Behavioral Pediatrics, 28(5), 409–420. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181131fc7
Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influence: An evolutionary hypothesis and
some evidence. In B. Ellis & D. Bjorklund (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary
psychology and child development (pp. 139–163). New York, NY: Guilford.
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for
worse. Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 16(6), 300–304.
Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., Deschênes, M., & Matte-Gagné, C. (2012). Social factors in the
development of early executive functioning: A closer look at the caregiving environment.
Developmental Science, 15(1), 12–24. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2011.01093.x

Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self-regulation:
Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Development,
81(1), 326–39. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x
Bialystok, E. (2007). Cognitive effects of bilingualism: How linguistic experience leads to
cognitive change. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 10(3),
210–223. doi:10.2167/beb441.0
Bialystok, E., & Craik, F. (2010). Cognitive and linguistic processing in the bilingual mind.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19(1), 19–23.
Bialystok, E., Craik, F., & Luk, G. (2008). Cognitive control and lexical access in younger and
older bilinguals. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
34(4), 859–73. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.34.4.859
Bialystok, E., & Martin, M. M. (2004). Attention and inhibition in bilingual children: Evidence
from the dimensional change card sort task. Developmental Science, 7(3), 325–339.
Bibok, M. B., Carpendale, J. I. M., & Müller, U. (2009). Parental scaffolding and the
development of executive function. In C. Lewis & J. I. M. Carpendale (Eds.), New
Directions in Child and Adolescent Development (pp. 17–34). doi:10.1002/cd
Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive
functions and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head
Start REDI program. Development Psychopathology, 20(3), 821–843.
doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394.Executive
Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological
conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57(2),
111–127. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.57.2.111
Blair, C. (2010). Stress and the development of self-regulation in context. Child Development
Perspectives, 4(3), 181–188. doi:10.1111/j.1750-8606.2010.00145.x
Blair, C., Granger, D., & Razza, R. P. (2005). Cortisol reactivity is positively related to executive
function in preschool children attending Head Start. Child Development, 76(3), 554–567.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00863.x
Blair, C., Granger, D., Willoughby, M. T., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M. J., Greenberg, M. T., …
The Family Life Project Investigators. (2011). Executive functions in early childhood. Child
Development, 82(6), 1970–1984. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x.Salivary
Blair, C., Raver, C. C., & Berry, D. J. (2013). Two approaches to estimating the effect of
parenting on the development of executive function in early childhood. Developmental
Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0033647
Blair, C., & Razza, R. P. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief
understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development,
78(2), 647–63. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01019.x
Bornstein, M. H. (2002). Parenting infants. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting
(Vol. 1, pp. 3–43). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bornstein, M. H., & Bradley, R. H. (Eds.). (2003). Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child
development. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bretherton, I., Lambert, J. D., & Golby, B. (2005). Involved fathers of preschool children as seen
by themselves and their wives: Accounts of attachment, socialization, and companionship.
Attachment & Human Development, 7(3), 229–251. doi:10.1080/14616730500138341
Brock, L. L., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Nathanson, L., & Grimm, K. J. (2009). The contributions of
“hot” and “cool” executive function to children’s academic achievement, learning-related

behaviors, and engagement in kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(3),
337–349. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.06.001
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1994). Ecological models of human development. In M. Gauvain & M.
Cole (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (pp. 37–43). New York, NY:
Freeman.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental
perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101(4), 568–586.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Evans, G. W. (2000). Developmental science in the 21st century:
Emerging questions, theoretical models, research designs and empirical findings. Social
Development, 9(1), 115–125.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In W.
Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 993–1023). New
York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In
W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Child Psychology (pp. 793– 828). New
York, NY: John Wiley.
Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1997). Effects of poverty on children. The Future of
Children, 7(2), 55–71.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., Wiebe, S. A., Sheffield, T. D., & Nelson, J. M. (2011). Using confirmatory
factor analysis to understand executive control in preschool children: Sources of variation in
emergent mathematic achievement. Developmental Science, 14(4), 679–692.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2010.01012.x.
Cabrera, N. J., Fitzgerald, H. E., Bradley, R. H., & Roggman, L. A. (2007). Modeling the
dynamics of paternal influences on children over the life course. Applied Developmental
Science, 11(4), 185–189. doi:10.1080/10888690701762027
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J., & Tamis-Lemonda, C. S. (2007). Fathers’ influence on their
children's cognitive and emotional development: From toddlers to Pre-K. Applied
Developmental Science, 11(4), 208–213. doi:10.1080/10888690701762100
Cabrera, N. J., Shannon, J., West, J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Parental interactions with Latino
infants: Variation by country of origin and English proficiency. Child Development, 77(5),
1190–1207. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00928.x
Carlson, S. M. (2003). Executive function in context: Development, measurement, theory, and
experience. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 138–151.
Carlson, S. M. (2005). Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool
children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 595–616. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2802
Carlson, S. M., Mandell, D. J., & Williams, L. (2004). Executive function and theory of mind:
Stability and prediction from ages 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology, 40(6), 1105–1122.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.6.1105
Carlson, S. M., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2008). Bilingual experience and executive functioning in
young children. Developmental Science, 11(2), 282–98. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
7687.2008.00675.x
Carlson, S. M., & Moses, L. J. (2001). Individual differences in inhibitory control and children’s
theory of mind. Child Development, 72(4), 1032–1053.

Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Breton, C. (2002). How specific is the relation between executive
function and theory of mind? Contributions of inhibitory control and working memory.
Infant and Child Development, 92, 73–92. doi:10.1002/icd.
Carlson, S. M., Zelazo, P. D., & Faja, S. (2013). Executive function. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Developmental Psychology (pp. 706–743). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Caughy, M. O., Mills, B., Tresch, M., & Hurst, J. R. (2013). Emergent self-regulation skills
among very young ethnic minority children: A confirmatory factor model. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 116(4), 839–855.
Chase-Lansdale, P. L., Wakschlag, L. S., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1995). A psychological
perspective on the development of caring in children and youth: The role of the family.
Journal of Adolescence, 18, 515–556.
Coldwell, J., Pike, A., & Dunn, J. (2006). Household chaos--links with parenting and child
behaviour. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 47(11),
1116–1122. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01655.x
Compas, B. E., Connor-Smith, J. K., Saltzman, H., Thomsen, A. H., & Wadsworth, M. E.
(2001). Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and
potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin, 127(1), 87–127.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.127.1.87
Conger, R. D., Conger, K. J., & Martin, M. J. (2010). Socioeconomic status, family processes,
and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(3), 685–704.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00725.x.
Corapci, F., & Wachs, T. D. (2002). Does parental mood or efficacy mediate the influence of
environmental chaos upon parenting behavior ? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48(2), 182–201.
Davis, E. P., Bruce, J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2002). The anterior attention network: Associations
with temperament and neuroendocrine activity in 6-year-old children. Developmental
Psychobiology, 40(1), 43–56. doi:10.1002/dev.10012
Denham, S., Warren-Khot, H. K., Bassett, H. H., Wyatt, T., & Perna, A. (2012). Factor structure
of self-regulation in preschoolers: Testing models of a field-based assessment for predicting
early school readiness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 111(3), 386–404.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.10.002
Dennis, T. A., Brotman, L. M., Huang, K.-Y., & Gouley, K. K. (2007). Effortful control, social
competence, and adjustment problems in children at risk for psychopathology. Journal of
Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 36(3), 442–454.
doi:10.1080/15374410701448513
Dilworth-Bart, J. E. (2012). Does executive function mediate SES and home quality associations
with academic readiness? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(3), 416–425.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.002
Dumas, J. E., Nissley, J., Nordstrom, A., Smith, E. P., Prinz, R. J., & Levine, D. W. (2005).
Home chaos: Sociodemographic, parenting, interactional, and child correlates and child
correlates. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(1), 93–104.
doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3401
Espy, K. A., McDiarmid, M. M., Cwik, M. F., Stalets, M. M., Hamby, A., & Senn, T. E. (2004).
The contribution of executive functions to emergent mathematic skills in preschool

children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(1), 465–486.
doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2601_6
Evans, G. W. (2006). Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of
Psychology, 57, 423–451. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190057
Evans, G. W., Gonnella, C., Marcynyszyn, L. A., Gentile, L., & Salpekar, N. (2005). The role of
chaos in poverty and children’s socioemotional adjustment. Psychological Science, 16(7),
560–565. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2005.01575.x
Evans, G. W., & Kim, P. (2013). Childhood poverty, chronic stress, self-regulation, and coping.
Child Development Perspectives, 7(1), 43–48. doi:10.1111/cdep.12013
Evans, G. W., & Wachs, T. D. (2010). Chaos and its influence on children’s development.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Flanders, J. L., Leo, V., Paquette, D., Pihl, R. O., & Seguin, J. R. (2009). Rough-and-tumble play
and the regulation of agression: An observational study of father-child play dyads.
Aggressive Behavior, 35(4), 285–295. doi:10.1002/ab.20309
Flavell, J., Green, F. L., Flavell, E. R., & Grossman, J. B. (1997). The development of children’s
knowledge about inner speech. Child Development, 68(1), 39–47.
Fuhs, M. W., & Day, J. D. (2011). Verbal ability and executive functioning development in
preschoolers at Head Start. Developmental Psychology, 47(2), 404–416.
doi:10.1037/a0021065
Fuhs, M. W., Farran, D. C., & Nesbitt, K. T. (2013). Preschool classroom processes as predictors
of children’s cognitive self-regulation skills development. School Psychology Quarterly,
28(4), 347–359. doi:10.1037/spq0000031

Garon, N., Bryson, S. E., & Smith, I. M. (2008). Executive function in preschoolers: A review
using an integrative framework. Psychological Bulletin, 134(1), 31–60. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.134.1.31
Gerardi-Caulton, G. (2000). Sensitivity to spatial conflict and the development of self-regulation
in children 24- 36 months of age. Developmental Science, 4(4), 397–404.
Giedd, J. N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N. O., Castellanos, F. X., Liu, H., Zijdenbos, A., …
Rapoport, J. L. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A
longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10), 861–863. doi:10.1038/13158
Glaser, D. (2000). Child abuse and neglect and the brain-A review. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 41(1), 97–116.
Grolnick, W. S., & Farkas, G. (2002). Parenting and the development of children’s self-
regulation. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting (Vol. 5, pp. 89–110).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grossmann, K., Grossmann, K. E., Kindler, H., & Zimmermann, P. (2008). A wider view of
attachment and exploration: The influence of mothers and fathers on the development of
psychological security from infancy to young adulthood. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver
(Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, reserach, and clinical applications (pp. 857–879).
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hammond, S. I., Müller, U., Carpendale, J. I. M., Bibok, M. B., & Liebermann-Finestone, D. P.
(2012). The effects of parental scaffolding on preschoolers’ executive function.
Developmental Psychology, 48(1), 271–281. doi:10.1037/a0025519
Haveman, R., & Wolfe, B. (1994). Succeeding generations: On the effects of investments on
children. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hernández, M., Costa, A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2012). Escaping capture: Bilingualism
modulates distraction from working memory. Cognition, 122, 37–50.
doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2011.08.002
Hoff, E. (2006). How social contexts support and shape language development. Developmental
Review, 26(1), 55–88. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2005.11.002
Hongwanishkul, D., Happaney, K. R., Lee, S. C., & Zelazo, P. D. (2005). Developmental
neuropsychology assessment of hot and cool executive function in young children: Age-
related changes and individual differences. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 617–
644. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2802
Hrabok, M., & Kerns, K. A. (2010). The development of self-regulation: a neuropsychological
perspective. In B. Sokol, U. Müller, J. Carpendale, A. J. Young, & G. Iarocci (Eds.), Self-
and Social-Regulation: Exploring the Relations Between Social Interaction, Social
Understanding, and the Development of Executive Functions (pp. 129– 154). New York:
Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195327694.001.0001
Hughes, C. H., Dunn, J., & White, A. (1998). Trick or treat?: Uneven understanding of mind and
emotion and executive dysfunction in “hard-to-manage” preschoolers. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 39(7), 981–994.
Hughes, C. H., & Ensor, R. (2005). Executive function and theory of mind in 2 year olds: A
family affair ? Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(2), 645–668.
doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2802
Hughes, C. H., & Ensor, R. A. (2009). How do families help or hinder the emergence of early
executive function? In C. Lewis & J. I. M. Carpendale (Eds.), New Directions in Child and
Adolescent Development (pp. 35–50). doi:10.1002/cd

Imada, T., Carlson, S. M., & Itakura, S. (2013). East-West cultural differences in context-
sensitivity are evident in early childhood. Developmental Science, 16(2), 198–208.
doi:10.1111/desc.12016
John, A., Halliburton, A., & Humphrey, J. (2013). Child-mother and child-father play interaction
patterns with preschoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 183(3-4), 483–497.
Jones, S., & Bailey, R. (July, 2014). Mapping executive function: Technical and applied
definitions and their implications for the classroom. Mapping executive function: Technical
and applied definitions and their implications for the classroom. Paper presented at the
Head Start’s National Research Conference on Early Childhood Program, Washington, DC.
Keenan, K., & Shaw, D. (1997). Developmental and social influences on young girls’ early
problem behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 95–113.
Killen, M., & Wainryb, C. (2000). Independence and interdependence in diverse cultural
contexts. New Directions in Child and Adolescent Development, 87, 5–21.
Kimura, D. (1999). Sex and cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (1995). Mother-child mutually positive affect, the quality of child
compliance to requests and prohibitions, and maternal control as correlates of early
internalization. Child Development, 66, 236–254.
Kochanska, G., Aksan, N., Prisco, T. R., & Adams, E. E. (2008). Mother-child and father-child
mutually responsive orientation in the first 2 years and children’s outcomes at preschool
age: Mechanisms of influence. Child Development, 79(1), 30–44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8624.2007.01109.x
Kochanska, G., Murray, K. T., & Harlan, E. T. (2000). Effortful control in early childhood:
Continuity and change, antecedents, and implications for social development.
Developmental Psychology, 36(2), 220–32.
Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective.
Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 199–214.
Kovács, A. M., & Mehler, J. (2009a). Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(16),
6556–6560. doi:10.1073/pnas.0811323106
Kovács, A. M., & Mehler, J. (2009b). Flexible learning of multiple speech structures in bilingual
infants. Science, 325(5940), 611–612. doi:10.1126/science.1173947
Kwon, Y. (2004). Early childhood education in Korea: Discrepancy between national
kindergarten curriculum and practices. Educational Review, 56(3), 297–312.
doi:10.1080/0013191042000201208
Lan, X., Legare, C. H., Ponitz, C. C., Li, S., & Morrison, F. J. (2011). Investigating the links
between the subcomponents of executive function and academic achievement: A cross-
cultural analysis of Chinese and American preschoolers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 108(3), 677–692. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.11.001
Lan, X., Ponitz, C. C., Miller, K. F., Li, S., Cortina, K., Perry, M., & Fang, G. (2009). Keeping
their attention: Classroom practices associated with behavioral engagement in first grade
mathematics classes in China and the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
24(2), 198–211. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.03.002

Landry, S. H., Miller-Loncar, C. L., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2002). The role of early
parenting in children’s development of executive processes. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 21(1), 15–41. doi:10.1207/S15326942DN2101
Lewis, M. D., & Todd, R. M. (2007). The self-regulating brain: Cortical-subcortical feedback
and the development of intelligent action. Cognitive Development, 22(4), 406–430.
doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.004
Li-Grining, C. P. (2007). Effortful control among low-income preschoolers in Three Cities:
Stability, change, and individual differences. Developmental Psychology, 43(1), 208–221.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.1.208
Lindsey, E. W., Cremeens, P. R., Colwell, M. J., & Caldera, Y. M. (2009). The structure of
parent-child dyadic synchrony in toddlerhood and children’s communication competence
and self-control. Social Development, 18(2), 375–396. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9507.2008.00489.x
Macartney, S. (2011). Poverty in the United States 2009 and 2010: Selected race groups and
Hispanic origin. Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-05.pdf.
MacDonald, K., & Parke, R. D. (1984). Bridging the gap: Parent-child play interaction and peer
interactive competence. Child Development, 55(4), 1265–1277.
Martin, A., Razza, R. P., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2012). Specifying the links between household
chaos and preschool children’s development. Early Child Development and Care, 182(10),
1247–1263. doi:10.1080/03004430.2011.605522.
Martin-Rhee, M., M., & Bialystok, E. (2008). The development of two types of inhibitory
control in monolingual and bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 11,
81–93. doi:10.1017/S1366728907003227
McCabe, L. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). With a little help from my friends?: Self-regulation in
groups of young children. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28(6), 584–605. doi:10.1002/imhj.
McClelland, M. M., Cameron, C. E., Connor, C. M., Farris, C. L., Jewkes, A. M., & Morrison, F.
J. (2007). Links between behavioral regulation and preschoolers’ literacy, vocabulary, and
math skills. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 947–959. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.947
Mezzacappa, E. (2004). Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: Developmental properties
and sociodemographic correlates in an epidemiological sample of young, urban children.
Child Development, 75(5), 1373–1386. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00746.x
Mindt, M. R., Arentoft, A., Germano, K. K., D’Aquila, E., Schneier, D., Pizzirusso, M., …
Gollan, T. H. (2008). Neuropsychological, cognitive, and theoretical considerations for
evaluation of bilingual individuals. Neuropsychological Review, 18(3), 255–268.
doi:10.1007/s11065-008-9069-7
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Peake, P. K. (1988). The nature of adolescent competencies predicted
by preschool delay of gratification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4),
687–696.
Mischel, W., Shoda, Y., & Rodriguez, M. (1989). Delay of gratification in children. Science,
244(4907), 933–938. doi:10.1126/science.2658056
Mistry, R., Benner, A. D., Biesanz, J. C., Clark, S. L., & Howes, C. (2010). Family and social
risk, and parental investments during the early childhood years as predictors of low-income
children’s school readiness outcomes. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(4), 432–
449. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.01.002
Morrison, F. J., Ponitz, C. C., & McClelland, M. M. (2010). Self‐ regulation and academic
achievement in the transition to school. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child

development at the intersection of emotion and cognition (pp. 203–224). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Müller, U., Jacques, S., Brocki, K., & Zelazo, P. D. (2009). The executive functions of language
in preschool children. In A. Winsler, C. Fernyhough, & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech,
executive functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp. 53–68). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Noble, K. G., McCandliss, B. D., & Farah, M. J. (2007). Socioeconomic gradients predict
individual differences in neurocognitive abilities. Developmental Science, 10(4), 464–80.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00600.x
Noble, K. G., Norman, M. F., & Farah, M. J. (2005). Neurocognitive correlates of
socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. Developmental Science, 8(1), 74–87.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2005.00394.x
Oh, S., & Lewis, C. (2008). Korean preschoolers’ advanced inhibitory control and its relation to
other executive skills and mental state understanding. Child Development, 79(1), 80–99.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01112.x
Owen, M. T., Caughy, M. O., Hurst, J. R., Amos, M., Hasanizadeh, N., & Mata-Otero, A.-M.
(2013). Unique contribution of fathering to emerging self-regulation in low-income
minority preschoolers. Early Childhood Development and Care, 183(3-4), 464–482.
Paquette, D. (2004). Theorizing the father-child relationship: Mechanisms and developmental
outcomes. Human Development, 47(4), 193–219. doi:10.1159/000078723
Ponitz, C. C., McClelland, M. M., Matthews, J. S., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). A structured
observation of behavioral self-regulation and its contribution to kindergarten outcomes.
Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 605–619. doi:10.1037/a0015365

Poulin-Dubois, D., Blaye, A., Coutya, J., & Bialystok, E. (2011). The effects of bilingualism on
toddlers’ executive functioning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 567–
579. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.10.009
Pritchard, V. E., & Woodward, L. J. (2011). Preschool executive control on the shape school
task: Measurement considerations and utility. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 31–43.
doi:10.1037/a0021095
Putnam, S. P., Sanson, A. V., & Rothbart, M. K. (2002). Child temperament and parenting. In M.
H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Parenting (pp. Vol. 1, 255–278). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Raver, C. C. (2004). Placing emotional self-regulation in sociocultural and socioeconomic
contexts. Child Development, 75(2), 346–353. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00676.x
Raver, C. C. (2012). Low-Income children’s self-regulation in the classroom: Scientific inquiry
for social change. American Psychologist, 681–689. doi:10.1037/a00xxxxx
Raver, C. C., Blair, C., Willoughby, M. T., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2013).
Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of
differential susceptibility. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 292–304.
doi:10.1037/a0028343
Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C. P., Pressler, E., Zhai, F., & Bub, K. (2011). CSRP’s
impact on low-income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating
mechanism. Child Development, 82(1), 362–378. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01561.x
Raver, C. C., McCoy, D. C., Lowenstein, A. E., & Pess, R. (2013). Predicting individual
differences in low-income children’s executive control from early to middle childhood.
Developmental Science, 16(3), 394–408. doi:10.1111/desc.12027

Razza, R. P., & Blair, C. (2009). Associations among false-belief understanding, executive
function, and social competence: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology,
30(3), 332–343. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.020
Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., Lanza, S. T., & Blair, C. (2011). Demographic and familial
predictor of early executive function development: Contribution of person-centered
perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(3), 638–662.
doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.004
Rogoff, B. (2003). The culture nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (1998). Temperament. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 105–176). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Rothbart, M. K., Ellis, L. K., Rueda, M. R., & Posner, M. I. (2003). Developing mechanisms of
temperamental effortful control. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1113–1143.
Sabbagh, M. A., Xu, F., Carlson, S. M., Moses, L. J., & Lee, K. (2006). The development of
executive functioning and theory of mind: A comparison of Chinese and U.S. preschoolers.
Psychological Science, 17(1), 74–81. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01667.x.
Scaramella, L. V., & Leve, L. D. (2004). Clarifying parent-child reciprocities during early
childhood: The early childhood coercion model. Clinical Child and Family Psychology
Review, 7(2), 89–107.
Schore, A. N. (2001). Effects of a secure attachment relationship on right brain development,
affect regulation, and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journal, 22(1-2), 7–66.
Silverman, I. W., & Ragusa, D. M. (1992). A short-term longitudinal study of the early
development of self-regulation. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(4), 415–435.
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of Educational Research, 75(3), 417–453.
Super, C. M., & Harkness, S. (2002). Culture structures the environment for development.
Human Development, 45(4), 270–274. doi:10.1159/000064988
Talwar, V., Carlson, S. M., & Lee, K. (2011). Effects of a punitive environment on children’s
executive functioning: A natural experiment. Social Development, 20(4), 805–824.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00617.x
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Shannon, J., Cabrera, N. J., & Lamb, M. E. (2004). Fathers and mothers
at play with their 2- and 3-year-olds: Contributions to language and cognitive development.
Child Development, 75(6), 1806–20. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00818.x
Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Way, N., Hughes, D., Yoshikawa, H., Kalman, R. K., & Niwa, E. Y.
(2008). Parents’ goals for children: The dynamic coexistence of individualism and
collectivism in cultures and individuals. Social Development, 17(1), 183– 209.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00419.x
Thorell, L. B. (2007). Do delay aversion and executive function deficits make distinct
contributions to the functional impact of ADHD symptoms? A study of early academic skill
deficits. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 48(11), 1061–
1070. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01777.x
Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three culutres revisited: China,
Japan, and the United States. University of Chicago Press.

Vernon-Feagans, L., Garrett-Peters, P., Willoughby, M. T., & Mills-Koonce, R. (2012). Chaos,
poverty, and parenting: Predictors of early language development. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 27(3), 339–351. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.11.001
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wachs, T. D. (1989). The nature of the physical microenvironment: An expanded classification
system. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 35(4), 399–419.
Weiland, C., Barata, M. C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2014). The co-occurring development of
executive function skills and receptive vocabulary in preschool- aged children: A look at the
direction of the developmental pathways. Infancy and Child Development, 23, 4–21.
doi:10.1002/icd
Weisner, T. S. (2002). Ecocultural understanding of children’s developmental pathways. Human
Development, 45(4), 275–281. doi:10.1159/000064989
Wiebe, S. A., Espy, K. A., & Charak, D. (2008). Using confirmatory factor analysis to
understand executive control in preschool children: I. latent structure. Developmental
Psychology, 44(2), 575–587. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.575
Willoughby, M. T., Kupersmidt, J., Voegler-Lee, M., & Bryant, D. (2011). Contributions of hot
and cool self-regulation to preschool disruptive behavior and academic achievement.
Developmental Neuropsychology, 36(2), 162–180. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.549980
Willoughby, M. T., Pek, J., & Blair, C. (2013). Measuring executive function in early childhood:
A focus on maximal reliability and the derivation of short forms. Psychological Assessment,
25(2), 664–670. doi:10.1037/a0031747

Willoughby, M. T., Wirth, R. J., Blair, C., & Family Life Project Investigators. (2012).
Executive function in early childhood: Longitudinal measurement invariance and
developmental change. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 418–431. doi:10.1037/a0025779
Wolfe, C. D., & Bell, M. A. (2004). Working memory and inhibitory control in early childhood:
Contributions from physiology, temperament, and language. Developmental Psychobiology,
44(1), 68–83. doi:10.1002/dev.10152
Zalewski, M., Lengua, L. J., Fisher, P. A., Trancik, A., Bush, N. R., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2012).
Poverty and single parenting: Relations with preschoolers’ cortisol and effortful control.
Infant and Child Development, 21, 537–554. doi:10.1002/icd
Zelazo, P. D., Anderson, J. E., Richler, J., Wallner-Allen, K., Beaumont, J. L., & Weintraub, S.
(2013). II. NIH Toolbox Cognition Battery (CB): Measuring executive function and
attention. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 78(4), 16–33.
doi:10.1111/mono.12032
Zelazo, P. D., & Müller, U. (2002). Executive function in typical and atypical development. In
U. Goswami (Ed.), Handbook of childhood cognitive development (pp. 445–469). Oxford:
Blackwell.
Zelazo, P. D., Müller, U., Frye, D., & Marcovitch, S. (2003). The development of executive
function in early childhood. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
68(3), i–151.
Zhou, Q., Chen, S. H., & Main, A. (2012). Commonalities and differences in the research on
children’s effortful control and executive function: A call for an integrated model of self-
regulation. Child Development Perspectives, 6(2), 112–121. doi:10.1111/j.1750-
8606.2011.00176.x
Table 1. EF definition and assessments used in studies included in this review
Dimension of EF assessed and tasks Hot/cool

Authors EF definition Working Inhibitory control Cognitive inclusion
memory flexibility and
analysis
Basset et al., 2012 Self- -- Pencil tap, tower -- Both,
regulation turn-taking, toy separate
wrap, toy wait, snack analysis
delay, tongue task,
balance beam
Bernier, Carlson, & Executive Hide the pots, Snack delay, shape Baby stroop Both,
Whipple, 2010 function categorization stroop separate
(WM version) analysis
Bernier, Carlson, Executive Spin the pots Day/night, snack Baby stroop, Both,
Deschenes & function delay, Bear/dragon, Dimensional separate
Matte-Gagne, 2012 shape stroop Change Card analysis
Sort
Bialystock, 2004 Inhibitory Forward digit -- Computerized Cool
control span dimensional
change card
sort: Color
shape, color
object, place-
kind, function
location.
Bialystock, Craik Cognitive/exe Forward and Simon arrows task, -- Cool
& Luk, 2008 cutive control backward Corsi the stroop color-
blocks, self- naming test, and the
ordered pointing sustained attention to
test. response task.
Bibok, Carpendale, Executive -- Shape stroop task Spatial Cool
Müller, 2009 function reversal task;
reverse
categorization
Blair & Razza, Executive -- Peg-tapping measure Item-selection Cool
2007 function
Blair et al., 2011 Executive Working Spatial conflict task Item-selection Cool
function memory span
like task
Blair, Raver, Executive Working Spatial conflict task, Something is Cool
Berry, & Family function memory span silly sounds, animal the same game
Life Project like task go/no-go
Investigators, 2013 (houses)
Carlson & Executive Visually cued Simon says Dimensional Cool
Meltzoff, 2008 function recall change card
sort (modified
version)
Carlson, Mandell, Executive Multilocation Reverse --- Both,

& Williams, 2004 function search categorization, shape composite
stroop, snack delay,
gift delay.
Carlson & Moses, Inhibitory -- Day/night, Card sort. Both,

2001 control grass/snow, spatial KRISP composite
conflict,
bear/dragon, pinball,
gift delay, tower
task, whisper.
Caughy, Mills, Self- Working Snack delay, wrap Dimensional Both,
Tresch, & Hurst, regulation/exe memory span gift, mommy & me, change card composite
2013 cutive like task forbidden toy, walk a sort
function line slowly, head &
toes, shape stroop.
Davis, Bruce, & Inhibitory -- Go/No-go task, -- Both,
Gunnar, 2002 control/delay attentional control, separate
of dinky toys, gift wrap analysis
gratification
Dilworth-Bart, Executive Working Peg tapping, fish -- Cool
2012 function memory subtests flanker
of the SB5
Fuhs & Day, 2011 Executive -- Head & toes, Item selection Cool
function day/night, BRIEF task (FIST),
Teacher report. spatial reversal
task, BRIEF
Teacher report.
Fuhs, Farran, & Cognitive Corsi Blocks Peg tapping, Head & Dimensional Cool
Nesbitt, 2013 self- toes change card
regulation sort
Gerardi-Caulton, Executive -- Spatial conflict task -- Cool
2000 attention/
Self-
regulation
Hammond, Müller, Executive Spin the pots Shape stroop, spatial -- Cool
Carpendale, Bibok, function spam, delayed
& Liebermann- alternation, reverse
Finestone, 2012 categorization,
bear/alligator, hand
game, counting and
labeling, tower of
Hanoi
Hernandez, Costa, Cognitive Visual search Visual search task- --- Cool
& Humphreys, control task-WM identify and
2010 condition singleton condition
Hongwanishkul, Executive Self ordered Children's gambling Dimensional Both,
Happaney, Lee & function pointing task task, delay of change card separate
Zelazo, 2005 gratification task sort analysis
Hughes & Ensor, Executive Spin the pots, Beads tasks, detour Baby stroop, Cool
2005 function reaching task trucks task
Hughes & Ensor, Executive Spin the pots Stroop task, detour Truck task Cool
2009 function reaching task, tower
of London (Hanoi)
Imada, Carlson, & Executive -- Gift delay Dimension Both,

Itukura, 2013 function change card separate
sort analysis
Kochanska, Effortful -- Snack delay, -- Both,
Murray, & Harlan, control wrapped gift, gift in composite
2000 bag, walk a line
slowly, tower task,
tongue, dinky toys;
turtle and rabbit,
shapes stroop,
whisper.
Kochanska Aksan, Self- -- Bird/dragon, red- -- Both,
Prisco, & Adams, regulation green signs, go, composite
2008 no/go, whisper,
tongue, snack delay,
dinky toys,
telephone poles,
walk-a line-slowly,
turtle and rabbit,
day/night, snow,
grass, tower task.
Kovacs & Mehler, Cognitive -- Eye tracking -- Cool
2009a control procedure
Kovacs & Mehler, Cognitive -- Eye tracking -- Cool
2009b control procedure
Lan, Legare, Executive Sentence Head & toes -- Cool
Ponitz, Li, & function completion task
Morrison, 2011
Landry, Miller- Executive -- Child independent Spatial reverse Cool
Loncar, Smith, & process play task
Swank, 2002
Lindsey, Self-control -- Forbidden toy -- Hot
Creemens,
Colwell, &
Caldera, 2009
Li-Gringing, 2007 Effortful -- Snack delay, gift- -- Both,
control wrap, shape task, separate
turtle/rabbit. analysis
Martin-Rhee & Inhibitory Forward digit Simon task, -- Cool
Bialystock, 2008 control span day/night
Martin, Razza, & Self- -- Gift wrap, walk a -- Both,
Brooks-Gunn, regulation line slowly, circles separate
2012 analysis
McCabe & Brooks- Self- -- Snack delay, gift -- Both,
Gunn, 2007 regulation wrap, walk a line separate
analysis
Mezzacapa, 2004 Executive -- Fish flanker -- Cool
attention
Mistry, Benner, Regulation -- LIPS-R, child -- Cool
Biesanz, Clark, & independent play
Howes, 2010
Noble, Executive Spatial working Go/no-go task, delay Reversal Both,
McCandliss, & function memory task, of gratification task, learning task separate
Farah, 2007 delayed NEPSY (stroop task) analysis
nonmatch task
Noble, Norman, & Executive Spatial working Go/no-go task, delay Dimensional Both,
Farah, 2005 function memory task of gratification task change card separate
sort analysis
Oh & Lewis, 2008 Executive Eight boxes Day/night, gift wrap, Dimensional Both,
function task, backward tower task, blue/red, change card separate
word span tapping test sort analysis
Owen et al., 2013 Self- -- Snack delay, gift -- Both,
regulation wrap, forbidden toy, separate
mommy and me analysis
Poulin-Dubois, Executive -- Gift delay, snack Mulitlocation, Both,
Blaye, Coutya & function delay shape stroop, separate
Bialystock, 2011 reverse analysis
categorization
Raver, McCoy, Executive -- Balance bean, pencil -- Cool
Lowenstein, & control tap, PSRA Assessor
Pess, 2013 Report
Raver, Blair, Executive Working Spatial conflict task Item selection Cool
Willoughby, & The function memory span- task
Family Life Project type task,
Key Investigators,
2013
Rhoades, Executive Working Simon says Item selection Cool
Greenberg, Lanza, function memory span - task
& Blair, 2011 type task
Rothbart, Ellis, Effortful -- Spatial conflict task -- Cool

Rueda, & Posner, control
2003
Sabbagh, Xu, Executive -- Day/night, Dimensional Cool
Carlson, Moses & function grass/snow, change card
Lee, 2006 bear/dragon, tower sort
task, KRISP,
whisper
Silverman & Self- -- Four delay/response -- Hot
Ragusa, 1992 regulation inhibition tasks
Weiland, Barata, & Executive Two digit span Pencil tap Dimensional Cool
Yoskikawa, 2014 function tasks change card
sort
Wiebe, Espy, & Executive Six boxes task, Delayed response -- Cool
Charak, 2008 function digit span, task, whisper, shape
delayed school task, tower of
alternation task Hanoi, NEPSY
visual attention task,
NEPSY
Wolfe & Bell, WMIC -- Day/night and yes/no -- Cool
2004 (Working version
memory and
Inhibitory
control)
Zalewski et al., Effortful -- Bear/dragon, day/ -- Both,
2012 control night, grass/snow, composite
butterfly, gift delay
Table 2. Description of EF measures
Name of task Description EF dimension

WM IC SS Hot/
Cool
Animal go/ no The child is presented with a large button that clicks when X Cool
go pressed and is instructed to click the button every time that they
see an animal except when that animal is a pig.
Attention Three stimuli are presented in a row on a computer screen. The X Cool
control stimuli varied in shape (circles or squares) and in color (black or
white). The child is asked to determine which of the three stimuli
was different from the other two.
Baby stroop The child is asked to match spoons and bowls according to size X Cool
(large and small) and then sort large spoon with small bowls and
small bowls with large bowls in the "silly" game
Balance beam The child is asked to walk on a short length of tape for 3 trials; X Cool
reduce speed for second trial and slower for the third (similar to
walk-a-line-slowly)
Bear/dragon Is a simplified version of "Simon Says" in which children are X Cool
asked to perform the action suggested by one puppet and to
inhibit the actions suggested by another puppet
BRIEF Teacher The BRIEF–P (Gioia et al., 2001) includes two subscales X X Cool
report (inhibition and shifting) and completed by teachers to obtain an
assessment of these behaviors in the classroom.
Categorization The child is taught a categorization rule whereby baby animals X Cool
were sorted together in the ‘‘baby box,’’ whereas adult animals
were placed into the ‘‘mommy box.’ The child is asked to order
6 animals following this rule.
Circles The child is asked to draw a circle without lifting their crayon X Cool
while staying inside the lines of two concentric circles printed on
the page. Child is asked to draw at normal speed, then at fast
speed, and then at slow speed.
Counting and The experimenter presents three objects to the child (a toy frog, a X Cool
labeling pencil, and a spoon), and then points to and labeled each object.
Then, the experimenter points to and counts each object. Finally,
the experimenter interlaces labeling and counting (e.g., “One is a
frog”). Children were then given three different objects (car,
penny, dog) and instructed to repeat the three steps.
Day/night The child is required to say “day” when the experimenter holds X Cool
up a black card with stars and to say “night” when the
experimenter holds up a white card with a bright sun. Another
version of this task is grass/snow.
Delayed The child is presented with a single shape for 4 seconds, X Cool
nonmatch task followed by a 1-second delay. A response screen containing the
original figure and one new figure is then presented. The child is
asked to ‘point to the shape that is different from the one you just
saw’.
Detour reaching A shiny metal box with a window through which the child could X Cool
task reach to retrieve a marble placed on a platform. However, direct
reaches through this window activated an infrared sensor,
causing the marble to drop out of sight through a trapdoor.
Dinky toys A delay of gratification task in which the child is allowed to X Hot
choose a prize from a plastic box. The child is instructed to keep
their hands in their lap and to make their choice without touching
or pointing.
Dimensional The child is given cards with pictures of different shapes in X
Change Card different colors and is taught to sort them by one dimension
(DCCS) (shape or color). After achieving this, the child is asked to sort
the cards by the other dimension.
Eight boxes task The child is required to find eight stickers one by one hidden in X Cool
eight boxes that differed from one another by color and patterns
decorated on their lids. Whenever each child opened a box, the
experimenter re-covered it, placed a big screen between him/her
and the boxes, and scrambled them while they counted to 10
together to fill the delay.
Fish flanker The child is asked to ‘‘feed’’ a hungry fish as quickly as possible X Cool
each time it appeared on the screen. On trials with flankers, child
is instructed to focus and respond only to the orientation of the
central, target fish.
Forbidden toy The child and experimenter play with an attractive toy car that X Hot
moved on its own after shaking it. After 60 s of back-and-forth
play with the experimenter, the child is asked not to touch or play
with the car until the visitor returned to the room (150 s)
Forward digit The child is asked to repeat a list of digits. Other versions may X Cool
span include words.
Forward and In the forward condition, the experimenter taps a sequence of X Cool
backward Corsi blocks, and the child is required to repeat the sequence in the
blocks same order. In the backward condition, the sequence
demonstrated by the experimenter is repeated by the childin
reverse order,
Gambling task The child needs to defer short-term gains to receive a larger, X Hot
long-term reward outcome. Cards in one deck (striped) offer
more rewards per trial but were disadvantageous across trials due
to occasional large losses; cards in the other deck (dotted)
offered fewer rewards per trial but were advantageous overall.
Gift/toy Delay of gratification task. The child is asked not to peek while X Hot
wrap/delay assessor wraps a gift/toy in tissue/bag for 1 min.
Gift-in-bag The experimenter brings a colorful paper bag containing a X Hot
wrapped gift, placed the bag on the table, asks the child to wait in
his or her chair and not touch the bag until she brought the bow,
and left.
Grass/snow Child is instructed to point to the white card when experimenter X Cool
said "grass" and to the green card when experimenter said
"snow". Similar to day/night, mommy & me tasks.
Hand game The child is asked to imitate the experimenter’s hand gestures as X Cool
they made either a fist or index point. After eight imitation trials
had been administered in a pseudorandom order, the child is
instructed to point a finger when the experimenter showed a fist
and vice versa. Similar to peg tapping task.
Head & toes The child must touch his or her head when the experimenter X Cool
touches his or her toes and vice versa.
Hide the pots The experimenter hides a sticker under one of three pots, pots are X Cool
covered with a blanket before the child is invited to find the
sticker on each trial.
Independent The child is required to develop play goals and strategies to X Cool
play achieve these goals as well as carry out these strategies to attain
the play goal without external support.
Item selection The child is presented with pictures of three items that vary along X Cool
some combination of two of three dimensions, including size,
shape, and color. Following a pretest, the child is presented with

15 trials in which s/he is instructed to point to two objects that go
together in one way. The child is then instructed to point to two
objects that go together in another way.
KRISP The child is required to match a target picture to one from a set X Cool
(ranging from four to six pictures in size) in which all but one
differed from the target in minor details, for example, line
drawings of cats with slightly different whiskers, ears, and tails.
LIPS-R Leiter International Performance Scale-Revised (LIPS-R; Leiter, X
1997), the child is presented with four sheets of paper, one at a
time. Each sheet had a target picture at the top (a puppet) and 16
pictures below the target (puppets and balls). For each page,
children had 30s to cross out all pictures that were identical to
the target.
Mommy & Me The child is presented with pictures of both the child and his or X Cool
her mother. The child is instructed to point to his or her own
picture when the visitor said ''point to Mommy'' and to point to
the picture of the mother when the visitor said ''point to [child's
name].''
Multilocation This task requires children not only to track changes in the X Cool
search location of a hidden reward but also to associate a symbol with
the correct location. Similar to spin the pots.
Peg tapping/ Children have to inhibit the tendency to imitate the experimenter X Cool
Pencil Tap by tapping twice when the experimenter taps once and vice
versa.
Pinball The child is presented with a tabletop pinball machine and the X Cool
experimenter demonstrates how to use the plunger to spring the
ball forward. The objective is to make the ball land in one of six
holes so that a colorful character would pop up. After practicing
with the plunger, the experimenter asks the child to hold it back
all the way until s/he sais "Go!"
PSRA assessor A 28-item paper-and-pencil completed by the assessor after EF X Cool
report tasks are administered. It includes items targeting children’s
concentration, distractibility, impulsivity, and regulation of
arousal (e.g. ‘[child is] distracted by sights and sounds’).
Reverse Children were required to sort big and little blocks according to X Cool
categorization their size into big and little buckets and then to reverse this
categorization scheme so that the big blocks would go into the
little bucket and vice versa.
Self-ordered Child is presented with 12 pages, each with 12 drawing on it X Cool
pointing test (shapes) and is instructed to examine each page of the booklet in
order and point to one pattern on each page without pointing to
the same pattern more than once.
Sentence The child is instructed to listen to a set of short sentences from X Cool
completion task the experimenter. Each sentence was missing its final word (e.g.,
‘‘Twinkle, twinkle, little ____’’). The child is asked to complete
the sentence. After completing a set of sentences, the child is
required to recall the final word in each sentence in the set.
Shape stroop Stroop-like task. Children were shown cards depicting one small X Cool
fruit embedded in a larger one, and asked to point to each of the
small fruits in turn.
Silly sounds The experimenter asks the child to make the sounds of a dog and X Cool
then a cat. The experimenter then introduces the idea that, in the
Silly Sounds game, dogs make the sounds of cats and vice versa.
Simon task The child I asked to perform a movement indicated by a verbal X Cool
command given and performed by the experimenter, but only if

the command was preceded by the phrase “Simon says”
Simon arrow Computerized version of Simon task. This version uses X Cool
task directional arrows as the stimuli. In the first condition, the child
has to press the response key in the direction opposite to that
indicated by the arrow. In the second condition the child has to
press the response key indicating the direction that the arrow is
pointing, irrespective of the position.
Snack delay Delay of gratification task. The child is asked to wait before X Hot
getting a candy/snack from under a cup for 3 rounds (10, 20, 30,
and 60 s).
Spatial conflict Two ‘‘houses,’’ outlined in black, are located at the lower left X Cool
task and right corners of the touch-screen monitor. The experimenter
instructs the child to help the target stimulus (e.g., the ‘‘lion’’)
find its home. A pair of pictures (e.g., a bear and a lion) appeared
inside the black houses. Children are required to ignore the
spatial location of the picture and respond based on picture
identity.
Spatial reverse This task requires children to understand the goal of the task as X Cool
task presented by an examiner, remember where an object is hidden
after a brief delay, and have the flexibility to switch strategies for
finding the hidden object based on information learned when an
error is made.
Spatial working Eight identical opaque bottles, each with a ball placed inside are X Cool
memory task placed in a rectangular container with one compartment for each
bottle, arranged in two rows of four. The child is instructed to
point to any bottle; when the child points to a bottle, the ball is
removed. The entire container (containing all eight bottles) is
then covered with a cloth, spun and returned to its original
position relative to the child. The child is then instructed to pick
a new bottle that she has not already looked in.
Spin the pot Multilocation search task in which child has to find stickers X Cool
hidden in six of eight attractive and visually distinct boxes on a
Lazy Susan tray, which could be covered and spun between
trials.
Something is the The child is shown a page containing two pictures that are X Cool
same game similar along one dimension (content, color, or size). The
experimenter then explicitly states the dimension of similarity.
The next page presents the same two pictures, plus a new third
picture. The third picture is similar to one of the first two pictures
along a dimension that is different from that of the similarity of
the first two pictures (e.g., if the first two pictures were similar
along the dimension of shape, the third card would be similar to
one of the first two along the dimension of color or size.) The
child is asked to choose which of the two original pictures is the
same as the new picture.
Sustained The digits from 1 to 9 are presented one at a time in the center of X Cool
attention to the screen in random order. The child is asked to press the
response task response key as quickly as possible, except if the number 3
appeared. When they saw the number 3, participants were told,
they should not press anything and wait for the next number.
Tower task The child is asked to build a tower of blocks while taking turns X Cool
with the assessor.
Tower of Hanoi The child is told that the aim of the task is to copy the goal X Cool
(London) arrangement by moving the balls one at a time (large sponge
balls were chosen to make it difficult for children to hold more

than one ball in their hand). On each problem the child is
encouraged to think about how they could solve the problem
before s/he began to move the balls.
Tongue task The child must hold a chocolate candy on his or her tongue but X Hot
not swallow it until told to do so.
Trucks task On each trial, children and asked to guess which truck gave a X Cool
reward (raisins or stickers). The rule (which truck gave rewards)
was determined by children’s first choices, which were always
counted as correct; feedback was given on each trial. Rule-
switching trials were only administered to children who passed
the rule-learning phase (4+ correct on the last 5 trials) and
involved a new set of cards, with the same trucks, but a different-
coloured mount. To succeed on this phase, children were
required to choose the previously un-reinforced trucks.
Turtle/rabbit The experimenter gives the child a picture of a path leading to a X Cool
task house and asked him or her to draw lines representing a turtle
slowly going “home” and a rabbit quickly going “home.”
Visual cue The experimenter shows the child 12 pictures and points of X Cool
record things that Pat (a puppet) likes. When s/he finished showing the
pictures the experimenter asks the child to point only to the
things Pat likes.
Walk a line The child is asked to walk the length of a six- foot-long line at X Cool
slowly normal speed, and then twice more at a very slow speed.
Working The child is presented with a line drawing of an animal figure X Cool
memory span above, which is a color dot. Both the animal and color dot are
like task located within the outline of a house. The examiner asks the
child to name the animal and then to name the color. The
examiner then flips a page containing only the outline of the
house. The examiner then asks the child which animal
was/is/lives in the house.
Whisper Child is asked to whisper the names of 10 cartoon characters X Cool
presented on 10 different laminated cards. Six of the characters
were familiar and four are unfamiliar to most children.

Executive Function During The Preschool Years

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Executive Function During The Preschool Years

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running head: EXECUTIVE FUNCTION DURING PRESCHOOL

Executive Function During the Preschool Years

University of Maryland, College Park

Executive Function During the Preschool Years

Marcovitch, 2003). I use Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model as an organizational framework

development as influenced by factors at many levels, including individual (biological)

summary and directions for research.

The Development of EF during the Preschool Years

Unlike research on cognitive development that is based on widely accepted consensus of

developmental trajectory of EF in the early childhood period.

Defining Executive Function

Executive functioning is difficult to define because definitions vary depending on

includes studies on EF assessed by working memory, inhibitory control, and/or cognitive

Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989).

development compared to more affectively loaded EF tasks.

The Development of Executive Functioning during Early Childhood

for example, stop an enjoyable activity in response to caregivers’ requests.

Sources of Variability in Children’s EF: Theory and Empirical evidence

Scholars interested in understanding the diverse sources of influence of EF during early

using the Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological model as organizational framework because it is broad

individual differences on EF during the preschool years.

According to the bioecological model of human development, child’s development

or teachers scaffolding of learning opportunities. Person is defined as the characteristics of the

relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting (Bronfenbrenner,

as chronological age, duration and continuity of exposure, and historical period.

Empirical Evidence on Individual differences on EF

Temperament. Temperament is broadly defined as constitutionally based individual

the childhood behavioral questionnaire, CBQ) and performance on EF tasks (especially

tasks with 3-5-year-olds (Hongwanishkul, Happaney, Lee, & Zelazo, 2005).

that temperamental differences interact with environmental experiences to shape development

enhance or diminish a children’s sensitivity to all environmental influences, whether positive or

particular temperamental profile, but also by environmental demands imposed on children.

the negative impact of adverse environment on children’s EF.

Gender differences in children’s EF have been attributed in part to biological differences

forbidden toy) than boys.

verbal performance (Kimura, 1999).

Language. From a sociocultural perspective, improved language may support children’s

(receptive and expressive vocabulary) is positively associated with children’s performance in EF

predictor of end-of-preschool receptive vocabulary (PPVT), controlling for beginning-of-

supported by previous findings – mostly concurrently—that have consistently linked receptive

vocabulary and EF.

Chinese-English bilingual preschoolers performed significantly better than there English

experiences and degrees of proficiency contribute to children’s performances on EF tasks is

Processes in the Microsystem

empirical attention to how it is related to EF (Bernier, Carlson, Deschênes, & Matte-Gagné,

sensitivity, and mind-mindedness (Carlson, 2003).

be a stronger predictor of children’s EF than mind-mindedness. Based on sociocultural theory

mind-mindedness (e.g., mothers comments on mental processes, on infant’s mental states or

emotional engagement during mother-child interaction). Scaffolding and sensitivity explained

controlling for children’s Bayley scores at 12 months. Maternal mind-mindedness at 15 months

Carlson, & Whipple, 2010).

accounted for an additional 9% of variance in cool EF at age 4 (Hammond, Müller, Carpendale,

children better EF at age 4.

to child if necessary) for scaffolding.

related to children’s EF at age 4 through children’s receptive language at age 3.

Parenting sensitivity includes positive parenting behaviors such as responsiveness,

months). Maternal responsiveness added 5% of variance in explaining children’s EF at 33

to monitoring the caregiver’s availability during exploration, resulting in opportunities to

Bernier et al. (2012) evaluated parent-child relationship quality (composite of the

parent- child attachment relationship to the development of children’s neurobiological structure,

In contrast to positive aspects of parent-child interactions, negative aspects of parenting

child interaction as well as in a self-report on rearing attitudes at 24-months negatively predicted

control was inversely correlated to children emerging internalization and self-regulation