HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2016 February 1; 25(1): 3–7. doi:10.1177/0963721415622634.

Developmental Science and Executive Function

Clancy Blair, PhD
Department of Applied Psychology, Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human
Development, New York University, Kimball Hall, 246 Greene St., 8th floor, NY NY 10003

Abstract
Executive function abilities, including working memory, inhibitory control, and the flexible
Author Manuscript

volitional shifting of the focus of attention provide a foundation for reflection on experience,
reasoning, and the purposeful regulation of behavior. These abilities and their underlying
neurobiology, however, are inherently malleable and influenced by characteristics of individuals
and contexts. Implications of this malleability for research on the development of executive
function in early childhood, for the prospect that these abilities can be fostered and promoted by
specific types of activities, and for issues relating to the reliable and valid measurement of
executive function are considered.

Executive function, defined as the ability to hold in mind information in working memory,
to inhibit fast and unthinking responses to stimulation, and to flexibly shift the focus of
one’s mental frame, is more or less the foundation for the intentional, volitional self-directed
control of behavior. The cognitive skills that make up this construct help us to limit
Author Manuscript

impulsive responses, to regulate emotions, and to avoid bad decisions that might bring short-
term gain but longer-term problems. On the more positive side, these thinking skills
contribute to the basis for doing well in school and work, for solving problems and planning
ahead, and leading our lives in ways that make them a little easier and little less chaotic.

Given the advantages of EF, the purpose of this essay is to describe an approach to the
construct that is grounded in developmental science and the neurobiology of cognitive
control, and to use this approach to illuminate some current research directions. One such
direction concerns construct definition and differentiation of EF from other aspects of self-
regulation. A second concerns the relation of EF to stress, particularly for individuals facing
high levels of social and economic disadvantage. A third concerns the trainability of EF. A
fourth, and overarching direction concerns the reliability and validity of EF assessments.
Author Manuscript

A little neurobiology
Executive functions, particularly working memory, have been the bread and butter of
cognitive neuroscience and relations between brain activity and EF behavior are well
established. For example, it is well established that specific aspects of EF are associated
with specific areas of PFC, and that these areas of PFC are interconnected with numerous
regions throughout the brain; including other cortical regions but also most importantly for
present purposes, subcortical midbrain structures associated with emotional reactivity and
the stress response (Barbas & Zikopoulos, 2007). In brief, the midbrain areas very rapidly
(prior to conscious awareness) register stimulation. In turn, activity in the midbrain signals
 Blair Page 2

to PFC through neurochemical messengers (neurotransmitters), some which are associated

Author Manuscript

with the stress response and, generally speaking, help to direct our attention and thinking
skills to things that are meaningful to us and away from things that are not. In a word, the
interconnected midbrain-to-higher-brain circuitry underlies the goal-directed purposeful
nature of EF.

Which is all well and good when stimulation leads to responses in emotion and attention
systems and to an increase in neurotransmitters, dopamine and norepinephrine, that are in a
moderate range. The relation of EF to emotion and stress, however, is a double-edged sword
(Arnsten, 2009). Just as moderate increase in dopamine and norepinephrine facilitates
activity in neurons in PFC and thereby facilitates EF, too much increase, indicating that the
person is stressed out and overstimulated, or too little increase, indicating boredom and
lethargy, inhibits neural activity in PFC, and consequently the valuable thinking skills that
this activity supports. To be clear, this neurobiology has been most specifically
Author Manuscript

demonstrated in nonhuman primates for the spatial working memory aspect of EF

(Vijayraghavan et al., 2007). The process, however, applies to PFC generally and is one in
which chronic stress has been shown in animal models to reduce the size and density of
neurons in PFC and to lead to impairments in cognitive flexibility as well as working
memory (Holmes & Wellman, 2009).

EF and self-regulation
One implication of the neurobiology outlined above is to consider EF as one component of a
larger system of self-regulation. A narrow definition might equate EF and self-regulation on
the premise that self-regulation refers only to the intentional and conscious control of
behavior. The developmental approach, however, recognizes that regulation of the stress
Author Manuscript

response and of emotion and attention can and does occur outside of conscious awareness,
perhaps exclusively so in the infant and toddler period, with implications for the
development of the conscious control of behavior through EF. Here, self-regulation is
understood as a recursive system (Luu & Tucker, 2004); both volitional and top down as
well as non-volitional and bottom up. This recursive approach is premised on the
neurobiology described above, and indicates that ‘higher level’ EF abilities both affect and
are affected by ‘lower level’ processes associated with the automatic, nonconscious
management of emotional and physiological responses to stimulation. The focus on
recursive relations between volitional and automatic influences is also seen in Zelazo’s
(Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007) Iterative Reprocessing Model, in which intentional, top down
EF is understood to emerge from repeated, iterative, bottom up automatic processing of
information.
Author Manuscript

A focus on levels of analysis in research on EF and self-regulation helps to differentiate EF

from related constructs. EF is to some extent synonymous with effortful control, delay of
gratification, and emotion regulation. Behavior in each of the latter constructs, however, can
be parsed into intentional and non-intentional (habitual) components. That is, we can
regulate emotion and resist gratification through the intentional control of behavior using EF
but also employ less intentional and volitional strategies to regulate emotion and behavior,
particularly in childhood (Cole, Martin, & Dennis, 2004). To the extent to which an

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
 Blair Page 3

individual employs intentional control of attention and holds information in mind when
Author Manuscript

regulating emotion or resisting temptation, these would be considered executive tasks.

The focus on levels of analysis in the developmental science approach also has implications
for understanding the development of EF. Although some studies have shown that EF-types
of abilities are present very early in life (Kovacs & Mehler, 2007), a small number of
longitudinal studies have shown that individual differences in attention, emotion, and the
physiological response to stress in infancy and the toddler period predict later EF. In one,
visual recognition memory and processing speed in infancy were uniquely related to EF at
age 11 years (Rose, Feldman, & Jankowski, 2012). In another, observed emotional reactivity
to a scary mask at age 15 months combined with behaviors indicative of the regulation of
emotion (e.g., avoidance, self-soothing) was associated with better EF at age 4 years
(Ursache et al., 2013). In a third, communicative gestures at age 15 months and language at
age 2 and 3 years were highly predictive of EF at age 4 (Kuhn et al., 2015). Of course, these
Author Manuscript

longitudinal relations among constructs do not imply causality. They are, however,
consistent with a developmental theory in which complex intentional behavior arises from
less complex, less intentional behavior.

EF in the context of poverty

A further research direction addressed by the developmental science approach and the
neurobiology on which it is based concerns the idea that EF skills can be hard to come by
when we need them the most; particularly for individuals in poverty and other highly
stressful contexts. Our nervous systems are wired in a way that when under stress we are
more reactive and less reflective. From the 20-20 hindsight of evolutionary explanations for
behavior, this makes sense. When an urgent situation requires an immediate response (think
Author Manuscript

encountering a predator at the watering hole, or an intruder in your home), reflecting on the
situation will probably only compound the problem.

Such an understanding of EF leads to some specific hypotheses about the relation of early
experience to the development of EF. Two longitudinal studies have shown that the physical
and psychosocial characteristics of poverty are physiologically stressful for young children,
altering hormone levels and making the stress response less flexible (Blair et al., 2011a;
Evans 2003). In turn, such effects of experience on the stress response have been shown to
partially mediate the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage on EF abilities in childhood
(Blair et al., 2011b; Evans & Schamberg, 2009). In one of these (Blair et al., 2011b), the
effect of poverty on EF at age 3 years was partially mediated through parenting quality. In
another (Evans et al., 2007), a supportive relationship with the mother was found to
moderate effects of poverty on EF in early adolescence. Given the centrality of EF to school
Author Manuscript

readiness and achievement, such shaping of EF in childhood would appear to be a primary

contributor to poverty-related gaps in school readiness and school achievement (Blair &
Raver, 2015).

Trainability of EF
If EF can be compromised under conditions of disadvantage, both developmentally and at a
given point in time, then EF should equally well be supported under favorable conditions.

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
 Blair Page 4

Identifying the parameters of this malleability and the extent to which it might be greater at
Author Manuscript

some points during development than others (i.e., sensitive periods) is a primary research
goal. To date, this malleability has been primarily demonstrated through various training
approaches that for purposes of this review can be grouped as direct versus indirect. Direct
training involves repetitive practice on a specific EF task, usually a working memory task, in
which improvement in performance on that task is the goal (Klingberg, 2010). Indirect
training involves repetitive practice on activities that exercise EF, such as learning
mathematics or martial arts, in which becoming better at math or becoming a martial arts
master is the goal.

Training approaches, both direct and indirect, have been comprehensively reviewed (e.g.,
Diamond & Lee, 2011; Melby-Lervag & Hulme, 2013), most extensively in the instance of
direct training. With few exceptions (Shipstead, Redick, & Engle, 2012), the general
conclusion of these reviews is that training works. Direct training, however, has produced an
Author Manuscript

interesting set of findings in which training results in near transfer while findings for far
transfer are mixed.

Without question, effects of direct training of working memory are impressive. Changes in
performance are frequently accompanied by changes in aspects of the neural circuitry that
supports EF. Given mixed results for far transfer, however, perhaps indirect training, that is,
training in which EF practice is embedded in activities in which EF will ultimately be put to
use, will be most effective. Evidence for this is seen in randomized controlled trial (RCT)
evaluations of school readiness and early education programs focusing for the most part
indirectly on EF (although see Schmitt, McClelland, Tominey, & Acock, 2015 for
something of an exception.) Evaluations of programs focusing on the regulation of emotion
and attention as well as on EF have generally yielded positive results, not only on measures
Author Manuscript

of EF, but also on academic and social-emotional outcomes. Two approaches have focused
on emotion regulation and the regulation of behavior in preschool classrooms with children
in poverty (Bierman et al., 2008; Raver et al., 2009), with one of these demonstrating that
the program led to increases in EF and through EF, higher levels of academic ability in
preschool (Raver et al., 2011). Similar results are seen in evaluations high quality preK and
kindergarten programs that emphasize child-directed learning and exploration, such as Tools
of the Mind (Bodrova & Leong, 2007) and Opening the World of Learning (Schickedanz &
Dickinson, 2005). Effects of RCT evaluations of these programs have yielded effects on EF
as well as academic outcomes (Blair & Raver, 2014; Weiland & Yoshikawa, 2013).

There is still much to be learned about conditions under which EF can be improved and the
extent to which educational approaches focusing on EF can be expected to affect children’s
Author Manuscript

academic progress. For example, two recent meta-analyses examining relations between EF
and academic achievement (Allan, Hume, Allan, Farrington, & Lonigan, 2014; Jacob &
Parkinson, 2015) came to opposite conclusions. And a recent a large scale evaluation of the
Tools of the Mind prekindergarten program found no effects of the program on any aspect of
children’s development (Wilson & Farran, 2012). Research is needed on variation in
effectiveness of EF training, both direct and indirect. Individual differences in children’s
initial EF skills could be one such influence, as well as variation in EF in children’s
caregivers, including teachers as well as parents.

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
 Blair Page 5

Measurement of EF
Author Manuscript

Finally, the developmental science approach helps to address the longstanding issue that
measures of EF tend to correlate moderately, at best, and not at all, at worst (Rabbitt, 1998).
With one or two notable exceptions (Zelazo et al., 2013), this leads to a situation in which
observed score composites of two or more EF tasks tend to have poor internal consistency
reliability and retest reliability (Carlson, Mandell, & Williams, 2004; Willoughby, Pek,
Blair, & the FLP Investigators 2013). This is troubling in that for most psychological
constructs, a greater number of measures tends to increase the reliability of measurement.
Researchers have attempted to circumvent this state of affairs using confirmatory factor
analysis and provide persuasive evidence that EF in early childhood is composed of a single
latent factor (Wiebe et al., 2008). Unfortunately, even in the instance of excellent global
model fit, the reliability of the observed indicators places an upward limit on the reliability
of the latent factor (Willoughby et al., 2013).
Author Manuscript

Issues with reliability could indicate that measures of EF are poor measures of the construct,
or even that the construct is poorly defined and operationalized. More likely, however,
moderate reliability is indicative of the inherent malleability of EF and, in early childhood, a
consequence of the rapid pace of EF development (Carlson, 2005). Given that EF is to some
extent dependent on lower level processes and moderate levels of physiological stimulation,
it is understandable that performance on a battery of EF tasks in a given assessment session
might show uneven levels of performance within and between individuals. Momentary
lapses in attention that are systematically related to the location of a given task in a battery
of EF tasks and a tendency to respond reflexively and automatically to some but not to other
tasks would produce low internal consistency reliability. Much the same applies to estimates
of retest reliability. One possible solution would be to shorten task batteries, and also to
Author Manuscript

focus specifically on a single dimension of EF, such as working memory or the flexible
shifting of attention. Doing so, however, would not necessarily result in higher correlations
among tasks or better retest reliability.

Conclusion
Ongoing research to identify sources of within and between person variability in EF,
including aspects of experience as well as more trait-like aspects of the person, such as
temperament, personality or even genetic markers, can address key questions about the
malleability of the construct. A focus on variability and malleability will have implications
for all of the research directions discussed here, including construct differentiation, the
relation of stress to EF, the use of research on EF as a basis for educational practice (Blair &
Raver, 2015), and the measurement of EF (Willoughby, Holochwost, Blanton, & Blair,
Author Manuscript

2014). In sum, research on EF and related aspects of self-regulation can play an integrative
role in psychological science (Posner & Rothbart, 2007). It can help unite distinct but
interrelated areas of research in a comprehensive approach to human development that
serves as a basis for action, putting science to work to promote wellbeing.

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
 Blair Page 6

References
Author Manuscript

Allan NP, Hume LE, Allan DM, Farrington AL, Lonigan CJ. Relations between inhibitory control and
the development of academic skills in preschool and kindergarten: A meta-analysis. Developmental
Psychology. 2014; 50:2368–2379. [PubMed: 25069051]
Arnsten AF. Stress signaling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature
Reviews Neuroscience. 2009; 10(6):410–422. [PubMed: 19455173]
Bierman KL, Domitrovich CE, Nix RL, Gest SD, Welsh JA, Greenberg MT, Blair C, Nelson K, Gill S.
Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI Program. Child
Development. 2008; 79(6):1802–1817. [PubMed: 19037951]
Barbas H, Zikopoulos B. The prefrontal cortex and flexible behavior. Neuroscientist. 2007; 13:532–
545. [PubMed: 17901261]
Blair C, Raver CC, Granger D, Mills-Koonce R, Hibel L, the FLP Investigators. Allostasis and
allostatic load in the context of poverty in early childhood. Development and Psychopathology.
2011a; 23:845–857. [PubMed: 21756436]
Blair C, Granger D, Willoughby M, Mills-Koonce R, Cox M, Greenberg MT, Kivlighan K, Fortunato
Author Manuscript

C, the FLP Investigators. Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive
functions in early childhood. Child Development. 2011b; 82:1970–1984. [PubMed: 22026915]
Blair C, Raver CC. Closing the achievement gap through modification of neurocognitive and
neuroendocrine function: Results from a cluster randomized controlled trial of an innovative
approach to the education of children in kindergarten. PLOS ONE. 2014; 9(11):e112393. [PubMed:
25389751]
Blair C, Raver CC. School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach.
Annual Review of Psychology. 2015; 66:711–731.
Bodrova, E.; Leong, DJ. Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education.
Second edition. Merrill/Prentice Hall; New York: 2007.
Carlson SM. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children.
Developmental Neuropsychology. 2005; 28(2):595–616. [PubMed: 16144429]
Carlson SM, Mandell DJ, Williams L. Executive function and theory of mind: stability and prediction
from ages 2 to 3. Developmental Psychology. 2004; 40(6):1105–1122. [PubMed: 15535760]
Author Manuscript

Cole P, Martin S, Dennis T. Emotion regulation as a scientific construct. Child Development. 2004;
75:317–333. [PubMed: 15056186]
Cunningham WA, Zelazo PD. Attitudes and evaluations: A social cognitive neuroscience perspective.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007; 11(3):97–104. [PubMed: 17276131]
Diamond A, Lee K. Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12
years old. Science. 2011; 333(6045):959–964. [PubMed: 21852486]
Evans GW. A multimethodological analysis of cumulative risk and allostatic load among rural
children. Developmental Psychology. 2003; 39(5):924–933. [PubMed: 12952404]
Evans GW, Kim P, Ting AH, Tesher HB, Shannis D. Cumulative risk, maternal responsiveness, and
allostatic load among young adolescents. Developmental Psychology. 2007; 43(2):341–351.
[PubMed: 17352543]
Evans GW, Schamberg MA. Childhood poverty, chronic stress, and adult working memory.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2009; 106(16):6545–6549.
Holmes A, Wellman C. Stress-induced prefrontal reorganization and executive dysfunction in rodents.
Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 2009; 33:773–783. [PubMed: 19111570]
Author Manuscript

Jacob, R.; Parkinson, J. The potential for school-based interventions that target executive function to
improve academic achievement: A review. Review of Educational Research. 2015.
Klingberg T. Training and plasticity of working memory. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2010; 14(7):
317–324. [PubMed: 20630350]
Kovács ÁM, Mehler J. Cognitive gains in 7-month-old bilingual infants. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences. 2009; 106(16):6556–6560.

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.
 Blair Page 7

Kuhn LJ, Willoughby MT, Wilbourn MP, Vernon-Feagans L, Blair C. Early communicative gestures
prospectively predict language development and executive function in early childhood. Child
Author Manuscript

Development. 2014; 85(5):1898–1914. [PubMed: 24773289]

Luu, P.; Tucker, DM. Self-regulation by the medial frontal cortex. In: Beauregard, M., editor.
Consciousness, emotional self-regulation and the brain. John Benjamins Publishing Co;
Philadelphia PA: 2004. p. 123-129.
Melby-Lervåg M, Hulme C. Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review.
Developmental Psychology. 2013; 49(2):270. [PubMed: 22612437]
Rabbitt, P. Introduction: Methodologies and models in the study of executive function. In: Rabbitt, P.,
editor. Methodology of frontal and executive function. Psychology Press; New York NY: 1997. p.
1-38.
Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining CP, Zhai F, Metzger M, Solomon B. Targeting children’s behavior
problems in preschool classrooms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology. 2009; 77(2):302–316. [PubMed: 19309189]
Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining CP, Zhai F, Bub K, Pressler E. CSRP's impact on low-income
preschoolers' pre-academic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development.
Author Manuscript

2011; 82(1):362–378. [PubMed: 21291447]

Rose SA, Feldman JF, Jankowski JJ. Implications of infant cognition for executive functions at age 11.
Psychological Science. 2012; 23(11):1345–1355. [PubMed: 23027882]
Posner MI, Rothbart MK. Research on attention networks as a model for the integration of
psychological science. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58:1–23.
Schickedanz, J.; Dickinson, D. Opening the world of learning. Pearson; Iowa City, IA: 2005.
Schmitt SA, McClelland MM, Tominey SL, Acock AC. Strengthening school readiness for Head Start
children: Evaluation of a self-regulation intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015;
30:20–31.
Shipstead Z, Redick TS, Engle RW. Is working memory training effective? Psychological Bulletin.
2012; 138:628–654. [PubMed: 22409508]
Taylor SE, Klein LC, Lewis BP, Gruenewald TL, Gurung RA, Updegraff JA. Biobehavioral responses
to stress in females: tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review. 2000; 107:411–
429. [PubMed: 10941275]
Author Manuscript

Ursache A, Blair C, Stifter C, Voegtline K, the FLP Investigators. Emotional reactivity and regulation
in infancy interact to predict executive functioning in early childhood. Developmental Psychology.
2013; 49:127–137. [PubMed: 22563678]
Vijayraghavan S, Wang M, Birnbaum SG, Williams GV, Arnsten AF. Inverted-U dopamine D1
receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory. Nature Neuroscience. 2007;
10(3):376–384. [PubMed: 17277774]
Weiland C, Yoshikawa H. Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children's mathematics, language,
literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development. 2013; 84:2112–2130.
[PubMed: 23534487]
Wiebe SA, Espy KA, Charak D. Using confirmatory factor analysis to understand executive control in
preschool children: I. Latent structure. Developmental Psychology. 2008; 44(2):575–587.
[PubMed: 18331145]
Willoughby M, Holochwost A, Blanton Z, Blair C. Executive functions: Formative versus reflective
measurement. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives. 2014; 12:69–95.
Willoughby M, Pek J, Blair C, the FLP Investigators. Measuring executive function in early childhood:
Author Manuscript

A focus on maximal reliability and the derivation of short forms. Psychological Assessment. 2013;
25:664–670. [PubMed: 23397928]
Wilson, S.; Farran, D. Experimental evaluation of the Tools of the Mind curriculum. Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness Spring Conference; Washington, DC. Mar 8. 2012
Zelazo PD, Anderson JE, Richler J, Wallner-Allen K, Beaumont JL, Weintraub S. NIH Toolbox
cognition battery (CB): Measuring executive function and attention. Monographs of the Society
for Research in Child Development. 2013; 78(4):16–33. [PubMed: 23952200]

Curr Dir Psychol Sci. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 February 01.