Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ executive functioning: Links to prior parent- child relationships

1. Toddlers’ and preschoolers’ executive functioning: Links to prior parent-childrelationships Annie Bernier Department of Psychology University of Montreal Canada

2. What is executive functioning? • Higher-order cognitive processes • Self-regulation; conscious control of thought, behavior and emotion • planning • inhibitory control • working memory • set-shifting

3. 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.

4. Where does it come from? • Clinical neuropsychology (frontal injuries) • Brain maturation, prefrontal cortex • Executivetasksused to assess frontal integrity

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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

11. Measures • MaternalSensitivity: 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

12. Measures Mind-mindedness: Meins’ observationalcoding 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

13. 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’sneeds • Verbalisations: pertinent suggestions • Flexibility & perspective-taking • Following infant’s pace, providing choices • a = .89; ICC = .86

14. 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

17. Measures • Mother-childattachmentsecurity: 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

20. 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

21. Measures Executivefunctioning 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)

22. Measures Executivefunctioning 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)

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

26. tp < .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.

27. 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)

33. Zero-order correlations between caregiving indicators and child EF * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

34. Summary of regression analysis predicting Impulse Control tp < .10; * p < .05

35. Summary of regression analysis predicting Impulse Control tp < .10; * p < .05

36. Summary of regression analysis predicting Conflict-EF * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

37. Summary of regression analysis predicting Conflict-EF * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

38. Summary of regression analysis predicting Conflict-EF * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

39. Summary of regression analysis predicting Conflict-EF * p < .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. But what about impulse control?

44. 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)

45. Parenting and child development: From direct links to moderation models • 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)

46. Parenting and child development: From direct links to moderation models • 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?

47. 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

48. The research questions • Does parenting interact with family SES in predicting children’s executive functioning? • Does parenting interact with child temperamentin predicting children’s executive functioning?