Socioeconomic status and executive function in early childhood: Exploring proximal mechanisms

Abstract

Although there is substantial evidence that socioeconomic status (SES) predicts children's executive function (EF), the mechanisms underlying this association are poorly understood. This study tested the utility of two theories proposed to link SES to children's EF: the family stress model and the family investment model. Data came from the Midwestern Infant Development Study (N = 151). To measure SES, parental education and income were assessed during pregnancy, and income was also assessed when children were 6 and 36 months old. Children's EF, operationalized as working memory/inhibitory control (WMIC) and self‐control, was assessed at 36 months of age, along with potential mediators including maternal psychological distress, harsh parenting, and cognitive stimulation. Using structural equation modeling, we tested simultaneous pathways from SES to EF: (a) via maternal psychological distress to harsh parenting (family stress model) and (b) via cognitive stimulation (family investment model). Of the SES measures, lower education predicted poorer WMIC directly and indirectly via greater maternal psychological distress. Lower education also predicted poorer self‐control via greater maternal psychological distress. This effect was partially suppressed by an indirect path from lower education to better self‐control via greater psychological distress and increased harsh parenting. Cognitive stimulation did not act as a mediator. Income was not directly or indirectly associated with EF. These findings provide partial support for the family stress model and suggest that family functioning is an important proximal mechanism for children's EF development. This study also highlights the importance of considering SES as a multidimensional construct.

Early childhood poverty and adult executive functioning: Distinct, mediating pathways for different domains of executive functioning

“…This is the fifth study, after Lengua et al (2014), Hackman et al (2015), Blair et al, (2011), and Vrantsidis et al (2020), to demonstrate that pathways linking early disadvantage to EF development reflect different components, respectively of the ecological context of childhood disadvantage. We show that diminished working memory, a well‐documented correlate of childhood disadvantage, is explained, in part, by elevated levels of chronic physiological stress.…”

“…Cognitive enrichment remained a unique and independent mediator for income and education, but maternal sensitivity was also a unique mediator of the relation between maternal education and planning. More recently, the positive association of parental education and an EF composite consisting of working memory and inhibitory control in 36‐month‐olds was partially mediated by maternal psychological distress (Vrantsidis et al, 2020). This pathway was robust to inclusion of parental harshness and cognitive enrichment, respectively, as alternative mediators in the model.…”

Deprivation and threat as developmental mediators in the relation between early life socioeconomic status and executive functioning outcomes in early childhood

“…By no means mutually exclusive, these two frameworks provide potential explanations for why lower SES is related to increased threat and deprivation. There is substantial literature in which associations of both of these frameworks to child social-emotional and cognitive outcomes are well established ( Hackman et al, 2015 ; Noble et al, 2007 ; Sohr-Preston et al, 2013 ; Vrantsidis et al, 2019 ). The insight gained in this analysis is that the bulk of variance in child cognitive outcomes in early childhood in the context of poverty is accounted for by the Family Investment Model, operationalized here as deprivation.…”

“…However, emerging research has shown that poverty is not just the absence of expected stimulation, as traditionally framed. There is an emerging body of work suggesting that children growing up in poverty are also more likely to experience heightened levels of threat as well ( Conger et al, 2010 ; Johnson et al, 2016 ; Vrantsidis et al, 2019 ), suggesting that early life poverty may be better characterized by not only the absence of expected beneficial input but also the presence of stressful or threatening input ( Blair and Raver, 2012 ). However, few studies have examined dimensions of deprivation and threat specifically in the context of early life poverty, and as such little is known about how deprivation and threat may jointly and independently influence child development within low-SES contexts.…”

Family socio‐economic status and children’s executive function: The moderating effects of parental subjective socio‐economic status and children’s subjective social mobility

“…; Vrantsidis, Clark, Chevalier, Espy, & Wiebe, 2019). However, limited work has attempted to explore various potential protective variables (e.g., parents’ or children’s perceptions of the environment) that buffer against the deleterious effects of a low family SES on the specific components of executive function.…”