toddlers’ and preschoolers’ executive functioning: links to prior parent- child relationships

Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ executive functioning: Links

to prior parent-child relationships

Annie Bernier

Department of PsychologyUniversity of Montreal

Canada

What is executive functioning?

Higher-order cognitive processes Self-regulation; conscious control of

thought, behavior and emotion

planning inhibitory control working memory set-shifting

How important is it ?

Socio-emotional, cognitive and academic outcomes theory of mind (social cognition) mathematics, arithmetic, reading,

reasoning, academic achievement communication, social skills, emotion

regulation

Concurrently and longitudinally; in normative and clinical samples; at different ages.

Where does it come from?

Clinical neuropsychology (frontal injuries)

Brain maturation, prefrontal cortex

Executive tasks used to assess frontal

integrity

Where does it come from?

first few years of life: remarkable brain plasticity, over-production and pruning of synaptic connections (Huttenlocher & Dabholkar, 1997)

largely determined by experience - use (Greenough & Black, 1992; Nelson & Bloom, 1997)

prefrontal cortex: protracted post-natal development (Huttenlocher, 2002)

Executive functioning and caregiving

Parent-child relations believed to impact:

infants’ neurobiological structures (Hofer, 1995; Kraemer, 1992; Schore, 1996)

frontal brain structures (Glaser, 2000; Gunnar et al., 2006)

executive functioning (Carlson, 2003; Hughes & Ensor, 2009; Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Lewis & Carpendale, 2009)

Participants

65-80 families (45% boys) Middle class:

Median income: $60,000-$80,000

Parental education: M = 15 years (57% college degree)

Age: M = 31 (mothers), 33 (fathers) 84% Caucasian 82% French-speaking

Time point Parenting AttachmentExecutive

functioning

T1: 12 months

T2: 15 months

T3: 18 months

T4: 2 years

T5: 3 years


functioning

T1: 12 months Maternal sensitivity;Maternal mind-mindedness

T2: 15 months Maternal autonomy-support

T3: 18 months Father-child mutually responsive orientation

T4: 2 years

T5: 3 years

Measures

Maternal Sensitivity: The Maternal Behavior Q-Sort (Pederson & Moran, 1995)

Observations throughout a 2-hour home-visit 90 items describing potential maternal

behaviors are sorted by the observer into 9 groups (1= unlike mother; 9= very much like mother)

Maternal sensitivity score = correlation between the observer’s sort of the 90 items and a criterion sort for the prototypically sensitive mother.

ICC = .87

Measures

Mind-mindedness: Meins’ observational coding system (Meins et al., 2001)

10-minute mother-infant free-play sequence Maternal behavior coded for number of

appropriate maternal comments on infant’s mental states and processes

ICC = .87

Measures

Autonomy-support: Whipple, Bernier, & Mageau’s (2010) coding system

Task designed to be too difficult for the child

Videotaped maternal behavior coded for: Intervention according to infant’s needs Verbalisations: pertinent suggestions Flexibility & perspective-taking Following infant’s pace, providing choices

a = .89; ICC = .86

Measures

Father-child interactions: Mutually Responsive Orientation scale (Kochanska et al., 2008)

10-minute father-infant free-play sequence Coded for

Harmonious Communication Mutual Cooperation Emotional Ambiance

r’s between .90 and .95 ICC = .89


functioning




T4: 2 years

T5: 3 years


functioning



Mother-child attachment security


T4: 2 years Mother-child attachment security

T5: 3 years

Measures

Mother-child attachment security: The Attachment Behavior Q-Sort (Waters, 1995)

Observations throughout a 2-hour home-visit 90 items describing potential infant behaviors

are sorted by the observer into 9 groups (1= unlike infant; 9= very much like infant)

Attachment security score = correlation between the observer’s sort of the 90 items and a criterion sort for the prototypically securely attached infant.

ICC = .75 15 months-2 years: r = .38, p < .01


functioning






T5: 3 years


functioning





√


√

T5: 3 years√

Measures

Executive functioning 18 months: Downward adaptation of Hughes & Ensor’s (2005) “Spin the Pots”

Sticker hidden under 1 of 3 pots; pots covered

3 trials; score: 0-3

Taps into working memory

Measures

Executive functioning 2 years

Spin the Pots (Hughes & Ensor, 2005)

Shape Stroop (Kochanska et al., 2000)

Baby Stroop (adapted from Hughes & Ensor, 2005)

Delay of Gratification, 5, 10, 15, 20 seconds (Kochanska et al., 2000)

Measures

Executive functioning 3 years

Bear/Dragon (Reed, Pien, & Rothbart, 1984)

Day/Night (Gerstad, Hong, & Diamond, 1994)

Dimensional Change Card Sort (Zelazo, 2006)

Delay of Gratification, 10, 20, 30, 45 seconds (Kochanska et al., 2000)

Task Factor 1 Factor 2

Bear/Dragon .29 .80

Day/Night .20 .59

DCCS .17 .73

Delay 10 sec.

.82 .11

Delay 20 sec.

.93 .09

Delay 30 sec.

.92 .19

Delay 45 sec.

.64 .22Factor 1: Impulse controlFactor 2: Conflict-EF(Carlson & Moses, 2001; Carlson et al., 2004)


functioning





√


√

T5: 3 years√

18-month working memory

2-year Conflict-EF

2-year Impulse Control

Maternal sensitivity

.20t .25* .07

Mind-mindedness .35** .23t .22t

Autonomy support

.38* .31* .13

t p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01

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, 326-339.

A broader view of caregiving

Maternal sensitivity, mind-mindedness, and autonomy-support at 12-15 months related to child subsequent EF (18 months and 2 years) (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010)

Paternal interactive behavior: quality of father-child interactions related to children’s self-regulatory capacities (Kochanska et al., 2008)

Child attachment security: safe and orderly relational context to practice emerging regulatory skills, harmonious joint play activities (Kochanska & Aksan, 1995; Landry & Smith, 2010; Perez & Gauvain, 2010)


functioning





√


√

T5: 3 years√

Score Factor loading

Maternal sensitivity .69

Maternal mind-mindedness

.80

Maternal autonomy-support

.54

Father-child interactions .65


functioning





√


√

T5: 3 years√

3-year Conflict-EF

3-year Impulse Control

Parenting .38** .37**

Child attachment .55*** .24*

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Zero-order correlations between caregiving indicators and child EF

Block R² ∆R² F Change

Initial b Final b

1. Prior impulse control2. SES

Verbal ability

3. Parenting

4. Attachment security

Summary of regression analysis predicting Impulse Control

t p < .10; * p < .05


Initial b Final b

1. Prior impulse control

.076 4.25* .28* .17

2. SES .15 .13

Verbal ability .198 .122 3.82* .26t .26t

3. Parenting .204 .006 0.35 .08 .09


.205 .001 0.03 .01 .01

Summary of regression analysis predicting Impulse Control

t p < .10; * p < .05


Initial b

Final b

1. Prior conflict-EF .053 2.88* .23*

2. SES .21

Verbal ability .136 .083 3.23* .18

3. Parenting


Summary of regression analysis predicting Conflict-EF

* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001


Initial b

Final b


2. SES .21

Verbal ability .136 .083 3.23* .18

3. Parenting .200 .064 4.25* .27*



* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001


Initial b

Final b


2. SES .21

Verbal ability .136 .083 3.23* .18

3. Parenting .200 .064 4.25* .27*


.316 .116 8.81** .41**


* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001


Initial b

Final b

1. Prior conflict-EF .053 2.88* .23* .08

2. SES .21 .14

Verbal ability .136 .083 3.23* .18 .16

3. Parenting .200 .064 4.25* .27* .06


.316 .116 8.81** .41** .41**


* p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

Summing Up

Children experiencing higher-quality parenting and those more securely attached to their mothers were found to perform better on conflict-EF at 3 years of age, and to show greater change in conflict-EF performance between the ages 2 and 3.

Explained by attachment security specifically

Why attachment security?1) Conceptual explanations

Attachment activated in emotionally challenging contexts (frustration associated with a difficult task, delaying gratification, etc).

Securely attached dyads (De Wolff & Van IJzendoorn, 1997)

Appropriate strategies taught Positive emotional atmosphere

Successful reduction of child negative emotional arousal (Calkins, 2004; Calkins & Hill, 2007)

Internalization of skills in own repertoire Generalized and used outside of the relationship

Why attachment security?2) Psychophysiological explanations

Emotional and behavioral regulation are subsumed by appropriate neurobiological functioning (Calkins & Hill, 2007)

Early attachment relationships relate to parasympathetic responses (Oosterman et al., 2007;

2010) neuroendocrine regulation (Hertsgaard et al., 1995; Luijk

et al., 2010)

More advanced psychobiological regulation, supporting the development of neural systems that subsume children’s executive development

But what about impulse control?

Parenting and child development: From direct

links to moderation models

Differential susceptibility: different children react differently to similar parenting (Belsky,

1997)

Parenting interacts with child characteristics in impacting child outcomes (e.g., Barry et al., 2008; Crockenberg & Leerkes, 2006; Kochanska et al., 2007; 2009; Spangler et al., 2009)



More (biologically/genetically) vulnerable children are more susceptible to caregiving influences (see Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 2011; Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, Van IJzendoorn, 2011)

High quality parenting protects the child against biological adversity (e.g., Barry et al., 2008; Kochanska et al., 2009; Spangler et al., 2009)



Parenting interacts with child characteristics in impacting child outcomes

Does parenting interact with environmental characteristics in impacting child outcomes? Are more environmentally vulnerable children

more susceptible to parenting? Does parenting protect the child against

environmental disadvantage?

A few examples

Higher quality parenting is associated with lower levels of children’s externalizing behavior problems, particularly among children from low-SES backgrounds (Beyers et al., 2003; Schonberg & Shaw, 2007; Supplee et al., 2007)

High quality daycare is especially beneficial for children living in social disadvantage Geoffroy et al., 2007: high quality daycare is beneficial for

children’s language skills, only in lower-SES families

High quality daycare protects the child against the negative consequences of social disadvantage Dearing et al., 2009: low income less predictive of school

underachievement for children exposed to high quality daycare

The research questions

Does parenting interact with family SES in predicting children’s executive functioning?

Does parenting interact with child temperament in predicting children’s executive functioning?


functioning





√


√

T5: 3 years√


functioning

T1: 12 months Maternal sensitivity

T2: 15 months

T3: 18 months

T4: 2 years

T5: 3 years√

Time point Parenting TemperamentExecutive

functioning

T1: 12 months Maternal sensitivity

T2: 15 months√

T3: 18 months

T4: 2 years

T5: 3 years√

Measures

Maternal Behavior: The Maternal Behavior Q-Sort (Pederson & Moran, 1995)

Observations throughout a 1.5-hour home-visit

90 items describing potential maternal behaviors are sorted into 9 groups (1= unlike mother; 9= very much like mother)

Maternal sensitivity score = correlation between the observer’s sort of the 90 items and a criterion sort for the prototypically sensitive mother.

Measures

The Maternal Behavior Q-Sort

Seven theoretically-derived domains (O’Connor, Xue, Morley, Moran, Pederson, Bento, & Bailey, SRCD 2009):

Social Interaction/Enthusiasm (11 items, a =.85) Response to Negative Affect/Distress (7 items, a =.84) Positive Affect and Attitude (7 items, a =.89) Hostility/Rejection/Rigidity (8 items, a =.81) Sensitivity/Responsiveness (27 items, a =.89) Teaching Orientation/Independence (9 items, a =.61) Physical Contact/Proximity (7 items, a =.84)

Inter-correlations between .44 and .79, mean r = . 59

Measures

Socio-economic status

Maternal education

Family income

Correlation: r = .65

Standardized averaged score for SES

Measures

Child temperament: The Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (Bates, Freeland & Lounsbury, 1979).

32 items

mothers’ perceptions of their child’s characteristics

unadaptability

persistence

social fear

difficultness

Measures

Child temperament: The Infant Characteristics Questionnaire (Bates, Freeland & Lounsbury, 1979).

32 items

mothers’ perceptions of their child’s characteristics

unadaptability

persistence

social fear

difficultness (a = .85)

Social inter-action

Response to

distress

Positive affect

Hostility/

Reject

Sensiti-vity

Teach/Indep.

Proximity

Conflict-EF --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Impulsecontrol * --- --- --- * * *

* p < .05; * p < .10

Interaction effects between SES and maternal behavior

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

Social Interaction score (Mother)

Impulse Control(Child)

LowSES

HighSES

Different processes according to context

Parenting does relate to impulse control, but only among less advantaged families

Less advantaged children are more susceptible than their more advantaged counterparts

High quality parenting protects against lower SES

-1,5

-1

-0,5

0

0,5

1

1,5

Social Interaction score (Mother)

Impulse Control(Child)

LowSES

HighSES

Interaction effects between child temperament

and maternal behavior

Social inter-action

Response to

distress

Positive affect

Hostility/

Reject

Sensiti-vity

Teach/Indep.

Proximity

Conflict-EF --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Impulsecontrol * * * * * --- *

* p < .05

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

High Difficultness β = .42 p < .00

Low Difficultness β = .02 ns

Low High Response to distress

Imp

uls

e co

ntr

ol

Parenting and EF: A case of differential susceptibility?

More difficult children are more susceptible to caregiving influences

“For better and for worse” (Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg & Van IJzendoorn, 2007)

Summing Up

High quality parenting and secure attachment: “beneficial” for child conflict-EF, across temperamental and socio-economic conditions

High quality parenting: “beneficial” for child impulse control only for more vulnerable children Difficult temperament Lower socio-economic status

Robust, generalizable? Conway & Stifter, 2012 Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, 2013

Lots more work to do

Mechanisms for the caregiving-EF links Social level

Neurobiological level

Language skills

Child expressivevocabulary

Maternal autonomy-

support

Child EF = .07

= .41** = .40**

Matte-Gagné, C. & Bernier, A. (2011). Prospective relations between maternal autonomy support and child executive functioning: Investigating the mediating role of child language ability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 110, 611-625.

Lots more work to do

Mechanisms for the caregiving-EF links Social level

Neurobiological level

Language skills

Other moderators Gender

Physiological reactivity

Sleep

Other social influences

Thank you to….Natasha Whipple, Émilie Rochette, Natasha Ballen, Isabelle Demers, Jessica Laranjo, Célia Matte-Gagné, Marie-Ève Bélanger, Stéphanie Bordeleau, Marie Deschênes, Gabrielle Lalonde, Christine Gagné, Andrée-Anne Bouvette-Turcot, Nadine Marzougui.

toddlers’ and preschoolers’ executive functioning: links to prior parent- child relationships

Documents

executive functioning

years t5

years of life

months fatherchild

sequencematernal behavior

months t4

months t3

frontal integritywhere