Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

DOI 10.1007/s10648-017-9411-9

M E TA - A N A LY S I S

Parental Behaviours Predicting Early Childhood

Executive Functions: a Meta-Analysis

Debora S. Valcan 1 & Helen Davis 1 &

Deborah Pino-Pasternak 1

Published online: 12 May 2017

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Abstract Recent research indicates that parental behaviours may influence the develop-
ment of executive functions (EFs) during early childhood, which are proposed to serve as
domain-general building blocks for later classroom behaviour and academic achieve-
ment. However, questions remain about the strength of the association between parenting
and child EFs, more specifically which parental behaviours are most strongly associated
with child EFs, and whether there is a critical period in early childhood during which
parental behaviour is more influential. A meta-analysis was therefore conducted to
determine the strength of the relation between various parental behaviours and EFs in
children aged 0 to 8 years. We identified 42 studies published between 2000 and 2016,
with an average of 12.77 months elapsing in the measurement of parent and child
variables. Parental behaviours were categorised as positive (e.g. warmth, responsiveness,
sensitivity), negative (e.g. control, intrusiveness, detachment) and cognitive (e.g. auton-
omy support, scaffolding, cognitive stimulation). Results revealed significant associa-
tions (ps < .001) between composite EF and positive (r = .25), negative (r = −.22) and
cognitive (r = .20) parental behaviours. Associations between cognitive parental behav-
iours and EFs were significantly moderated by child age, with younger children showing
a stronger effect size, whereas positive and negative parental behaviours showed a stable
association with EFs across ages. We conclude that modest, naturally occurring associ-
ations exist between parental behaviours and future EFs and that early childhood may be
a critical period during which cognitive parental behaviour is especially influential.

Keywords Parenting . Inhibition . Shifting . Working memory . Executive functions . Early

childhood

* Debora S. Valcan
d.valcan@murdoch.edu.au

1
Department of Education, Murdoch University, 90 South Street, Murdoch, Perth, WA 6150, Australia
608 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Executive functions (EFs), a set of higher-order cognitive processes, are increasingly

recognised as critical in fostering children’s academic achievement, more specifically
math and reading (Borella et al. 2010; Duncan et al. 2007; Gathercole et al. 2004b). EFs
include inhibition, shifting and working memory (Diamond 2006; Miyake et al. 2000).
These skills are argued to be crucial for academic success (St Clair-Thompson and
Gathercole 2006; Van der Stel and Veenman 2014), as they enable children to engage
in a range of relevant cognitive and social processes, such as shifting attention as needed,
recalling information (e.g. classroom rules), resisting interference from competing stimuli
during class and inhibiting the tendency to react negatively to social provocation (Bernier
et al. 2015). EFs have been argued to influence fluid intelligence (Brydges at al. 2012;
Duan et al. 2010), socioemotional competence (Carlson and Wang 2007; Kochanska
et al. 2000) and theory of mind (Devine and Hughes 2014; Hughes and Ensor 2005;
Poulin-Dubois and Yott 2014), with impairments in the development of EFs associated
with developmental disorders, such as autism and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder
(Willcutt et al. 2005), and poorer academic achievement (Biederman et al. 2004). A
recent study (Best et al. 2011) examined the relations between EFs and academic
achievement in a large sample of school students (N = 1395) aged 5 to 17, representative
of the US population in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, parental education, geographic
region and community setting, and found that EFs correlated with math and reading
achievement (r = .21–.69). Furthermore, longitudinal research suggests that EFs contrib-
ute to academic achievement rather than academic achievement to EFs (e.g. Bull et al.
2008). According to Bull et al. (2008), EFs are domain-general as opposed to domain-
specific skills and operate as building blocks for the development of math and reading
skills. Therefore, researchers interested in enhancing children’s academic achievement at
school have begun to consider factors that might promote the development of EFs as part
of the suite of influences on achievement.
EFs improve dramatically throughout childhood, and this phenomenon has been attributed
to the maturation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC; Stuss and Alexander 2000). More
recently, researchers’ attention has turned to environmental factors that may promote or impair
the development of EFs. Early childhood is proposed to be a sensitive period for the
development of EFs (Diamond 2002), and parental behaviour during this period has been
targeted as a likely influence.
A number of parent-related variables, including socioeconomic status (SES), parent edu-
cation level and parental behaviours, have been shown to correlate with EFs in children
(Carlson 2003; Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014). While causal relations cannot be determined
from correlation alone (and, indeed, as we shall discuss, bi-directionality is plausible in this
context), correlational research is an important first step in identifying potential causal
pathways that might later be tested through experimental methods. In this vein, recent research
highlights the relevance of parents’ behaviours during interactions with their young children in
the development of these children’s EFs, suggesting that the actions of parents may enhance or
diminish the development of these higher-order cognitive processes (e.g. Bernier et al. 2010,
2012; Blair et al. 2014; Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014).
Correlational research has been conducted to investigate a range of parental behav-
iours in connection with various EFs (Meuwissen and Carlson 2015), with results
ranging from strongly positive associations (r = .46, Taylor et al. 2015) to non-
significant or even significantly negative associations (r = −.33, Bibok et al. 2009).
Thus, it is timely to conduct a quantitative meta-analysis of these studies to clarify the
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 609

strength and direction of any global effect and to compare the relative strength of the
associations between different candidate parental behaviours and early-childhood EFs.
Therefore, we aim, firstly, to quantify the associations between positive, negative and
cognitive parental behaviours and global EF in childhood, using meta-analysis. Secondly,
given the diversity of results reported in the literature, we aim to test potential moder-
ators of the association between parental behaviours and global EF, such as sample
characteristics and other methodological factors. Thirdly, we aim to test whether the
effect sizes are stronger among studies involving younger children, consistent with the
existence of a critical period for EF development early in life when parental influence is
stronger. Fourthly, given the multidimensional nature of the EF construct (Miyake et al.
2000), we aim to determine whether parental behaviours differentially relate to the three
separate subcomponents of EF, inhibition, shifting and working memory.

Executive Functions

EFs comprise a wide range of cognitive processes that are associated with intentional
goal-directed behaviour (Brydges et al. 2012). Neurologically, EFs appear to be support-
ed by the PFC of the brain and supporting subcortical loops (Stuss and Alexander 2000).
Cognitive and neuropsychological assessments show that EFs emerge during the first few
years of life and continue to strengthen significantly throughout childhood and adoles-
cence (Best et al. 2011).
Since the seminal research of Miyake et al. (2000), which investigated the structure of EFs
in adults, they have been understood to show both Bunity and diversity^ (p. 49). Consequently,
there has been a focus in the literature on three correlated but distinguishable components of
EF: inhibition, shifting and working memory updating. There is also evidence that these
components of EF may vary somewhat in their developmental trajectories (Best and Miller
2010).
Inhibition refers to the ability to deliberately withhold responses that are dominant,
automatic or prepotent and to resist distractions (Diamond 2006; Miyake et al. 2000). One
example of an inhibition task for children is the day/night task (Gerstadt et al. 1994). Children
are required to say Bday^ when they see pictures of the stars and moon and Bnight^ when see
pictures of the sun, inhibiting the tendency to name what they see. Inhibition appears to be
severely limited in the first 3 years of life (Best and Miller 2010). By the age of 4 years,
children show signs of successful performance on both simple (e.g. pure response inhibition)
and complex (e.g. response inhibition, alternative response and resistance to distraction)
inhibition tasks. Inhibition continues to improve from 4 to 8 years of age (Romine and
Reynolds 2005) and more gradually at later ages.
Shifting refers to the ability to switch between two or more tasks, operations and
mental sets (Monsell 1996). It is also referred to as Battention switching^ or Btask
switching^ (Miyake et al. 2000) and is measured by tasks such as the Wisconsin Card
Sorting Task (WCST; Heaton et al. 1993), in which children sort a set of cards based on
implicit rules that change. To complete the task successfully, children are required to
switch between rules. The ability to shift attention also improves with age (Anderson
2002). Children aged 3 to 4 years can successfully shift between two simple response
sets in which the rules of the task are placed in the context of a story (Hughes 1998). For
example, in a simplified version of the WCST (Hughes 1998), children aged between 3
610 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

and 4 years were able to determine a teddy bear’s favourite shape, using feedback, and
then shifted to determine a second teddy bear’s favourite colour, using different feed-
backs. Research has shown that shifting ability continues to improve from 4 years of age
through to adolescence (Davidson et al. 2006; Huizinga et al. 2006; Luciana and Nelson
1998).
Working memory refers to the ability to retain and mentally manipulate information
(Diamond 2006). The latter can refer to such processes as updating, where the individual
monitors incoming information and uses it to replace information that is no longer
relevant (Morris and Jones 1990); mental transformation of information (Engel de
Abreu et al. 2010); or encoding stimuli for later recall under distracting conditions
(Kane and Engle 2003), and there are various competing views in the literature on the
relative importance of these processes in the definition of working memory and, conse-
quently, its measurement. The matter is further complicated by the problem that measures
commonly used for adults are often prohibitively difficult for young children and that the
working memory components most relevant to complex reasoning may differ between
adults and children (e.g. Cowan et at. 2010). Thus, for the purposes of the present paper,
we conceptualise working memory more broadly to capture what is common to the tasks
used in the present meta-analysis. Span tasks, such as digits backwards (Wechsler 2003),
are among the most widely used tasks to measure the development of working memory
and are suitable for use with children from about 4 years of age. Gathercole et al. (2004a)
found that working memory develops from an early age through to adolescence, showing
a linear increase from 4 to 14 years of age and levelling off between 14 and 15 years of
age, across most of the tasks examined.
Miyake et al. (2000), investigating the factor structure of EFs in adults, presented
evidence indicating that, though correlated (r = .42 to .63), the latent variables for each
of the three EFs are clearly separable. The use of a latent variable approach helps reduce
the task impurity problem that any single task intended to measure an EF unavoidably
taps both executive and non-executive processes (Rabbitt 1997). Many studies following
Miyake et al. (2000) have replicated this structure of EFs. For example, Friedman et al.
(2006) found a three-factor structure of EFs among those aged 16 to 18 years. However,
there is some dispute over whether it generalises to children. Although some studies
confirm Miyake et al.’s findings in children aged between 8 and 13 years (Duan et al.
2010; Lehto et al. 2003) and in children aged between 4 and 7 years (Pennequin et al.
2010), others have reported the structure of EFs to be unitary up to 7 years of age (e.g.
Brydges et al. 2012; Shing et al. 2010; Wiebe et al. 2008; Willoughby et al. 2012) and to
become increasingly differentiated from 7 years of age (Shing et al. 2010), with the three
components only reliably distinguishable by 10–11 years of age (Wu et al. 2011).
Consequently, the literature on EFs is mixed in its measurement of EF as a unitary
versus a multidimensional construct, with most studies treating it as unitary, but a
substantial minority reporting on components.
As noted previously, there is strong evidence that EFs depend upon the PFC of the brain
and supporting subcortical loops (Stuss and Alexander 2000). The PFC has a prolonged
developmental period relative to other brain regions and, thus, may be particularly susceptible
to (or dependent on) environmental factors. It is reasonable to expect that EF performance
might vary with positive and negative environmental factors (Kolb et al. 2012). When the PFC
is exposed to different environmental factors, it may develop in different ways; for example,
maltreatment in early childhood is associated with EF deficits (e.g. Pechtel and Pizzagalli
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 611

2011), while parental scaffolding behaviour is associated with higher EF performance (e.g.
Bernier et al. 2010).

Categories of Parental Behaviours

Parental behaviours can be grouped into two theoretically driven categories:

socioemotional and instructional (Pino-Pasternak and Whitebread 2010). The classic
socioemotional parental behaviours include warmth, responsiveness and control
(Baumrind 1967). Parental warmth is defined by displays of support, affection and
encouragement (Maccoby and Martin 1983), whereas responsiveness is characterised
by the provision of appropriate, timely, contingent responses to the child’s needs and
feelings (Landry et al. 2006). Parental control refers to the parents’ efforts to control their
children’s behaviour, including problem-solving through coercion, harsh discipline, pun-
ishment and physical force (Rhee et al. 2015; Roskam et al. 2014). Although specific
parental behaviours are expected to have distinct effects on child development,
socioemotional behaviours can be grouped broadly into positive and negative behaviours
(Blair et al. 2011). Positive behaviours include warmth and responsiveness (Bindman
et al. 2015; Blair et al. 2011, 2014), and negative behaviours include control and
intrusiveness (Blair et al. 2011; Meuwissen and Carlson 2015; Roskam et al. 2014).
Though much of the literature focuses on socioemotional behaviours, growing attention has
been given to instructional behaviours of parenting, such as scaffolding (both physical and
verbal; Matte-Gagné and Bernier 2011). Scaffolding involves deliberately helping children to
tackle aspects of problem-solving tasks that they cannot yet perform independently, by
enhancing support after failure and withdrawing support after success (Matte-Gagné and
Bernier 2011; Lewis and Carpendale 2009). This classification also includes autonomy
support, which refers to parental behaviours that aim to encourage children’s choices, goals
and independent problem-solving (Grolnick and Ryan 1989; Matte-Gagné and Bernier 2011).
Parents who support children’s autonomy take their perspective, respect their pace and ensure
they play an active role in the completion of problem-solving tasks (Matte-Gagné and Bernier
2011).
Previous research shows that parental behaviours correlate weakly but significantly with
each other. For example, Roskam et al. (2014) found that parents who adopt positive parental
behaviours also tend to engage in more autonomy support behaviours and fewer controlling
behaviours, but the correlations were sufficiently modest that the dimensions of parental
behaviour can be considered relatively independent. Thus, for the purposes of the present
meta-analysis, three comprehensive categories were adopted, namely positive parental behav-
iours (e.g. warmth and responsiveness), negative parental behaviours (e.g. control and intru-
siveness) and cognitive parental behaviours (e.g. scaffolding and autonomy support, see the
BMethod^ section for further details).

Parental Behaviours and Children’s Executive Function

The role of parental behaviours in the development of EFs has only recently received
attention, and a small but growing body of research literature suggests that the two are
related. Much of the evidence comes from longitudinal research, suggesting that parental
612 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

behaviours predict the development of EFs in children (e.g. Bernier et al. 2012; Blair
et al. 2011, 2014; Cuevas et al. 2014; Matte-Gagné and Bernier 2011; Meuwissen and
Carlson 2015). Although conclusions about causation are not possible without ruling out
alternative interpretations, predictive results are consistent with a potential causal path-
way. Higher levels of EFs have been associated with a higher incidence of positive
parental behaviours, such as parental sensitivity, responsiveness and warmth (e.g. Bernier
et al. 2010, 2012; Bindman et al. 2015; Blair et al. 2011), whereas lower levels of EFs
have been associated with a higher incidence of negative parental behaviours such as
intrusiveness, detachment and control (e.g. Blair et al. 2011; Cuevas et al. 2014;
Meuwissen and Carlson 2015).
According to attachment theory (Ainsworth 1973), positive parental behaviours foster the
internalisation of self-regulatory processes, which would be expected to include aspects of
EFs, whereas negative parental behaviours, such as control, may diminish the internalisation of
self-regulatory processes and thus hinder the development of EFs. For example, according to
Diamond (2012), when an individual is sad, stressed, lonely or not physically fit, the prefrontal
cortex and EFs are the first to suffer. Unmet emotional, social and physical needs impede EF.
Thus, parenting may potentially affect both the development of the fundamental skills
involved in EF and also whether or not a child possessing such skills displays them
behaviourally.
A greater incidence of parental scaffolding and autonomy support has also been associated
with higher levels of EFs, both concurrently and over time (e.g. Bibok et al. 2009; Hughes and
Ensor 2009). Vygotsky proposed that interactions with significant others, such as parents, can
structure a child’s mental processes (Vygotsky 1978) and, as a result, foster EF development,
for example by directing attention away from irrelevant information, helping the child switch
her focus and encouraging the child to update his working memory by thinking aloud. The
child can then learn from the modelled behaviour and interaction and, as a result, achieve
independence. According to Wertsch et al. (1980), scaffolding is a mechanism that allows a
child’s external processes to become internalised. Hence, scaffolding problem-solving (e.g.
setting goals, prompting the child to evaluate progress, providing support only when required)
may help children become less dependent on adults and more independent in their problem-
solving.
Positive, negative and cognitive parental behaviours have been shown to remain signifi-
cantly related to EFs even when controlling for child-related variables, such as age, gender and
verbal intelligence, and parent-related variables, such as SES (e.g. Blair et al. 2014;
Meuwissen and Carlson 2015). Hence, the association between parental behaviours and EFs
does not appear to be solely attributable to factors such as shared environmental advantage or
stressors or to shared genes for more general cognitive abilities.

Diversity of Previous Findings

As noted earlier, findings from studies investigating associations between parenting

variables and EFs show that the magnitude of these associations can vary greatly across
studies (e.g. Ato et al. 2015; Kochanska and Knaack 2003). Similar variability is also
seen within each specific dimension of parenting (i.e. positive, negative and cognitive
parental behaviours). For example, Clark and Woodward (2015) report a weak correla-
tion (r = .10) between positive parental behaviours and EFs, whereas Taylor et al. (2015)
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 613

report a moderate correlation (r = .46). Further, reported associations between negative

parental behaviours and EFs range from weak (r = −.17; Rochette and Bernier 2014) to
substantial (r = −.54; Kochanska and Knaack 2003), as do reported correlations between
cognitive parental behaviours and EFs (r = .11 from Blankson et al. (2011) to r = .46
from Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2011)). Thus, parental behaviours could explain any-
thing from 1 to 30% of the variance in EFs, and meta-analysis would provide a more
reliable estimate of the magnitude and practical significance of the association between
parental behaviours and EFs across a comprehensive body of literature. Additionally,
meta-analysis would assist in identifying whether associations are stronger for some
parental behaviours or EFs than others (Vandenbroucke et al. 2016). For example, one
might argue that socioemotional behaviours should have a general effect on children’s
motivation and confidence in cognitive tasks, resulting in a weak but consistent perfor-
mance advantage, whereas scaffolding behaviours might be specifically influential on
more complex EF tasks where strategy comes into play as well as general effort. The
degree of specificity of associations is currently unknown.

Potential Confounding and Moderating Variables

The development of EFs has also been reported to relate to some additional key
variables, both parent-related and child-related variables. These may, in part, account
for the variability in results reported. SES and ethnicity are among the parent-related
variables that predict child EFs. Children whose parents come from higher-SES back-
grounds perform better on EF tasks (e.g. Hughes and Ensor 2009; Rochette and Bernier
2014; Sarsour et al. 2011). The mechanisms through which SES might influence the
relationship between parental behaviours and EFs are illustrated by the idea of capital
(Rochette and Bernier 2014). It has been proposed that access to different types of
capital, such as income and education, better equips families to provide an enriching
environment, favourable to optimal child development. On the other hand, lower-SES
families have limited access to these material resources, increasing their developmental
risk (Rochette and Bernier 2014). Better resourcing might also free up parental time and
mental energy to invest in their interactions with their children (Raven 1989).
Turkheimer et al. (2003) have argued that, among high-SES groups with very favourable
environments, individual variation in cognitive abilities is almost exclusively genetic in
origin, whereas the lower the SES of the sample, the stronger the influence of environ-
mental variables. From this, we might expect that parental behaviours would be partic-
ularly influential on EF among children from lower-SES backgrounds.
Differences exist between ethnic groups, both in the parenting styles they typically
adopt (and, consequently, their parental behaviours; Bornstein 2012; Nauck and Lotter
2015) and in the child outcomes associated with these parental behaviours. For example,
European American mothers have been found to value autonomy and to use suggestions,
rather than commands, in their interactions with their children, while Puerto Rican
mothers value connected interdependence and use more direct means of structuring their
children’s behaviour (commands, physical positioning and restraints and direct attempts
to capture their children’s attention; Harwood et al. 1999. In addition, high levels of
warmth and control have been found among African American parents, while high levels
of warmth but low levels of control were found for European Americans (Deater-
614 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Deckard et al. 2011). Furthermore, international studies have shown that parents’ use of
control behaviours such as physical punishment is much more strongly linked to child
problems with inhibition of aggressive behaviour in countries where physical punishment
is uncommon compared to those where it is normative (Lansford et al. 2005), indicating
that contextual factors can moderate the effects of parental behaviour. Should such
cultural moderation effects translate into ethnic moderation effects within nationalities,
this would have important consequences not only for our theoretical understanding of
factors influencing EF development but also for the recommendations we make to
parents.
As outlined previously, EFs undergo a dramatic change with age (Best and Miller 2010), so
age of child must be factored into any investigation of the effects of parenting. Furthermore, it
has been proposed that early childhood might be a critical period for EF development, with
environmental effects including parental behaviour being particularly influential during these
years (Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014). If this is the case, we would expect the age of child to
statistically moderate the correlation between the two variables, with the correlation weakening
as children advance into middle childhood. This is a particularly ambitious prediction to make
because the reliability of children’s task performance tends to increase with age (Anastasi and
Urbina 1997); hence, observed correlations involving such measures would tend to increase
too due to reductions in error variance. As this effect runs counter to the direction of the critical
period hypothesis, any critical period effects would need to be quite strong to be empirically
detectable.

Measurement and Design Issues

As mentioned earlier, much evidence that parental behaviours predict EF development in

children comes from longitudinal studies (e.g. Bernier et al. 2010, 2012; Blair et al.
2011, 2014), where variables are measured at different time points. Hence, the magnitude
of a relationship between variables measured at different time points may depend upon
the amount of time that elapses between their measurements (i.e. the lag between time
points). Typically, we would expect the influence of one variable on another to diminish
as time lag increases but, in a developmental context, some variables such as early
parental behaviours could maintain, or even increase, their predictive value over time as
their consequences play out. Therefore, Selig et al. (2012) recommend moderator anal-
ysis of time lag to determine whether correlations differ as a function of time. Given that
we wish to test the critical period hypothesis that parental behaviour is more influential
on younger children than older ones, it is important to disambiguate whether any such
effect is due to child age or to time lag.
Measures of EFs used in studies of parental behaviour and EF development include
both objective tasks and adult (typically, parent or teacher) report. Adult report data offer
the advantages of providing insight into children’s behaviour over a longer time frame
and across a variety of situations, and of being more easily gathered, compared to
objective measures. However, such measures also run a greater risk of subjective
interpretation and bias. For example, parents’ interpretation of their child’s behaviour
may vary depending on factors such as their own understanding of developmentally
appropriate child behaviour and their own parenting self-efficacy (Coleman and Karraker
1997), and this variation would tend to decrease observed correlations. Similarly,
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 615

measures of parental behaviours include observations of interactions with children, self-

report questionnaires and interviews. These measures all specify parental behaviours that
are directed toward a specific child (e.g. scaffolding) as opposed to personal parental
characteristics, such as depression, or parental attitudes (Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014), but
the same issue of modality of measurement potentially affecting results applies here, too.
Thus, an important question is whether measurement modality of EFs and parental
behaviours affects the observed association between the two.

The Current Meta-Analyses

The first aim of the present study was to establish through weighted mean meta-analysis the
magnitude of the association between global EF in early childhood and positive, negative and
cognitive parental behaviours, respectively (main analysis). We hypothesised that positive and
cognitive parental behaviours would predict significantly higher EF in children but that
negative parental behaviour would predict significantly lower EF.
Secondly, in view of the range of other variables that may influence the degree of
association between parental behaviours and global EF, we sought to test moderation effects
(Jose 2013) for ethnicity, SES and measurement modality of both parental behaviours and EFs.
We predicted that the correlations between all three parental behaviours and EFs would be
stronger in samples of lower SES compared to those of higher SES and that effects for parental
control would be stronger in predominantly European American samples than in ethnically
mixed samples. We predicted stronger correlations from studies where parental behaviour was
rated by an independent observer and where EFs were measured by objective tasks than where
they were measured by subjective report.
Thirdly, we also sought to investigate whether correlations between parental behaviour and
EF diminished as a function of child age or time lag between measurements. We predicted that,
if there is a critical period for EF development in early childhood when parental behaviour is
influential, the magnitude of the correlation estimates would be greater for studies involving
younger children relative to those involving older children and that this age moderation effect
would be stronger than any systematic decrease in correlation associated with time lag.
Finally, we sought to test whether the effect size of the relationship differed across the three
components of EF: inhibition, shifting and working memory. For the studies that reported on
separate components of EF (inhibition, shifting and working memory), meta-analyses were
conducted for each EF component separately (secondary analysis). We predicted that cognitive
parental behaviour would be more influential than socioemotional behaviour on more strate-
gically complex EF tasks, such as shifting, relative to simpler tasks, such as inhibition.

Method

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

Studies were included if they met the following criteria:

1. The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal, as these are considered to provide
some degree of quality control (Karreman et al. 2006).
616 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

2. The study reported quantitative associations between parental behaviours and children’s
EFs, either longitudinally or concurrently or both.
3. The study measured both parental behaviours (socioemotional and instructional parental
behaviours) and global EF or at least one subcomponent (inhibition, shifting or working
memory).
4. The study reported effect sizes or provided sufficient information to allow calculation of
effect sizes, or the authors of the study supplied such information upon request.
5. The study provided results for typically developing children up to 8 years of age to capture
the hypothesised critical early childhood period for the development of EFs (Anderson
2002; Diamond 2002).

Studies were excluded if they met the following criterion:

1. The study focused on populations at risk of atypical development, such as children with a
developmental disorder; low birth weight (LBW); parents exposed to intimate partner
violence; or mental health issues, such as depression.

Search Procedures and Selection of Studies

A three-step search procedure was conducted to select the studies. First, an electronic search
was conducted in four online databases: Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC),
PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES and MEDLINE. The search involved combining the term par-
enting with terms referring to EFs: (parent* OR patern* OR matern* or father OR mother OR
parent-child interaction) AND (executive function* OR inhibit* OR effortful control OR
shifting OR switching OR cognitive flexibility OR updating OR working memory). This
database search identified 787 publications. Second, a manual search of the reference list of
each of the selected studies was conducted to retrieve additional studies. Third, references from
previous reviews (e.g. Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014) were also manually searched to identify
other studies.
The search identified 804 studies. Forty-seven studies met the initial inclusion/exclusion
criteria. One of the common reasons for eliminating a study that otherwise met the inclusion
criteria was not meeting the criterion of providing sufficient information to allow calculation of
effect sizes. To avoid bias due to some studies reporting on the same sample, only 42 of the
studies identified were included in the analysis (see the following section and Appendix 1).
Out of the 42 studies, 41 studies were used for the main analysis involving global EF and 19
studies for the secondary analysis involving subcomponents of EF.
All the studies were selected by the first author; however, a second rater coded a random
subsample of 161 studies (20% of the 804 studies detected during the literature search) to
determine the reliability of the selection process. The inter-rater agreement was high (96%).
The disagreement between coders was resolved by discussion.

Same Sample Studies

Exclusion and inclusion criteria were developed to account for studies that used the same
sample, for example data from the Family Life Project was used in six out of 47 studies
identified in the initial search.
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 617

Studies were considered for exclusion if they met the following criteria (see Appendix 2):

1. Included data from the same sample

2. Reported the same parenting variables

Where two studies were identified for potential exclusion on this basis, the following
criteria were applied sequentially (in order of presentation) to determine whether to include
both studies and, if not, to decide which to exclude

1. Where one study measured a dimension of parenting not examined by the other study,
both studies were retained and their non-overlapping portions were included in separate
analyses. For example, Kok et al. (2014) and Lucassen et al. (2015) used the same sample;
however, Kok et al. (2014) reported only on positive parental behaviours, whereas
Lucassen et al. (2015) reported on both positive parental behaviours and negative
parental behaviours. Hence, in the analysis, we included results on positive parental
behaviours from the study by Kok et al. (2014) and results on only negative parental
behaviours from the study by Lucassen et al. (2015).
2. When one study provided correlations between parenting and global EF whereas the other
study using the same sample provided correlations between parenting and separate
components of EF, the first was included only in the main analysis while the second
was used only in the secondary analysis.
3. A study that included a unique informant (e.g. fathers) was selected over one where that
informant was not present.
4. A study with more time points was selected over a study with fewer time points, given that
age is of special interest to the present meta-analysis.
5. A study with a larger sample size was selected over a study with a smaller sample size.

Coding

Information on the following variables was coded from each study (see Appendix 1):
publication year, number of parent-child dyads, ethnicity (either Caucasian, non-
Caucasian or mixed; mixed means different ethnic groups such as Caucasian, African
American, Asian American and Mexican/Hispanic American were combined), SES
(based on the information available from the studies: income and/or education level,
categorised as either low, medium or high SES in the present analysis), parent gender
classification (mother, father or both), children’s mean age at EF assessment (if the mean
age was not provided, the mean age was estimated by taking the midpoint of the reported
range), study design (concurrent or longitudinal), parental behaviours (e.g. responsive-
ness, warmth, control, negative regard, scaffolding and autonomy support), time point of
parental behaviour assessment (i.e. corresponding age(s) of child), method used to
measure parental behaviours (self-report, child-parent interaction, interview), compo-
nents of EF (inhibition, shifting, working memory), structure of EF (unitary or compo-
nential) and assessment method of EFs (task and/or adult report). These variables were
served to capture descriptive information about the studies represented and to allow
moderation analysis. Data needed for calculating effect sizes were also coded, more
specifically the correlation coefficient(s) of each study.
618 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Categories of Parental Behaviours Parental behaviours were grouped into three cate-
gories: positive parental behaviours, negative parental behaviours and cognitive parental
behaviours, not only because these capture the most commonly measured parental
behaviours in the relation to children’s EFs but also because the number of studies that
examined the same specific parental behaviour was consistently low (see Appendix 1).
The positive parental behaviour category includes the following behaviours: support,
involvement, communication, sensitivity, warmth, responsiveness, positive regard,
praise, explanation, affect and physical proximity. The negative parental behaviour
category includes direction, intrusiveness, negative regard, negative affect, detachment,
hostility, control, power assertion, harsh parenting and rejection. Lastly, the cognitive
category includes cognitive stimulation, scaffolding, cognitive assistance, attention main-
taining and redirection, suggestion and autonomy support. See Appendix 3 for a descrip-
tion of these as defined by the original authors’ of the selected studies.

Components of Executive Function The selected studies measured the three EF com-
ponents proposed by Miyake et al. (2000): inhibition, shifting and working memory. The
majority (n = 23) of the studies reported on these three EF components as a global
composite. Where authors (n = 6) reported on these three EF components both as a
global composite and separately, the authors’ composite score was used for the main
analysis. Where studies only reported on the three EF components separately (n = 13), a
global composite effect was also calculated (see the next section for details). Studies that
reported on parenting and separate components of EF were used for the secondary
analysis.

Effect Size Calculation

The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis version 3.0 (CMA; Borenstein et al. 2005) statistical
software was used to calculate effect size estimates. The effect sizes in the present study
represent effect sizes in which the parental measures precede the EF measures. The selected
studies provided correlation coefficients and the sample size, which were entered into CMA to
estimate effect sizes.
Where a study examined multiple parental behaviours within the same category (e.g.
warmth and inhibition, responsiveness and inhibition), we first averaged the effect size within
category (e.g. positive parental behaviour and inhibition). This was done by converting each r
to Fisher’s Z, computing the mean Z and then converting Z back to r. For the main analysis, the
same procedure was applied to generate a global EF effect size from studies that reported only
separate components of EF, as well as studies that reported the correlations between parental
behaviours and EFs across different time points. According to Durlak and Lipsey (1991), the
calculation of average effect sizes per category is recommended when dealing with studies that
report varying numbers of correlations to avoid biasing results without discarding important
information on different categories.

Heterogeneity and the Random Effects Model

To calculate the overall correlation effect size for each of the three categories of parental
behaviours and EFs, a weighted random effects model was used to increase
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 619

generalisability. Because of the diversity in methodology (e.g. different measures used to

assess parental behaviours and EFs across studies and different conceptualisations of
parental behaviours across studies), effect sizes were expected to vary, reflecting a true
variation (heterogeneity) both in the effect size across studies and within-study sampling
error; hence, a random effects model was used (Borenstein et al. 2007; Lipsey and
Wilson 2001). A significant Q statistic indicates the heterogeneity of effect sizes
(Borenstein et al. 2009). Because the Q statistic is underpowered when analysing a small
number of studies, the I2 (expressed as a percentage) was also used as a measure of
heterogeneity. According to Higgins and Green (2011), an I2 between 50 and 90%
indicates substantial heterogeneity.

Publication Bias and Outliers

Rosenthal’s (1995) fail-safe N was calculated to determine whether publication bias was
present (see Table 1). Rosenthal’s fail-safe N indicates the number of studies with non-
significant results that would be required to bring the mean effect size to non-significance
(Durlak and Lipsey 1991). Further, a visual inspection of a forest plot was conducted to
identify any outliers.

Moderator Analyses

Moderator analyses were conducted to investigate systematic differences between

studies, using a between-groups (Q b) mixed effects analysis (Borenstein et al. 2009).
A significant Q b indicates that the subgroups of effect sizes are significantly different
from one another. According to current standards, a minimum of four studies per
category is needed to conduct moderator analyses (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al.
2003). For the continuous linear moderators, child age and time lag, meta-regression
was conducted.

Secondary Analyses

Secondary meta-analyses were conducted on the subset of studies that reported sufficient
information to distinguish between the three parental behaviour categories and the three
separate components of EF (inhibition, shifting and working memory).

Table 1 Effect sizes for the associations between parental behaviour categories and global executive function

Parental behaviour No.a kb r 95% CI Qc Fail-safe N

Positive 8653 23 .25*** .20–.29 70.84*** 2431

Negative 4322 15 −.22*** −.27 to −.17 31.36** 627
Cognitive 3913 18 .20*** .16–.26 19.77 605

CI confidence interval
**p < .01; ***p < .001
a
The number of parent-child dyads
b
The number of studies
c
Heterogeneity estimate
620 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Results

The 42 studies included in the meta-analysis reported data from 11,543 families (N ranging
from 32 to 1306). The age of child participants at EF assessment ranged from 18 months to
8 years (M = 45.57; SD = 13.73). Thirty-one of the studies were had a longitudinal design;
hence, the correlations represent an average time-lagged prediction over 12.77 months. Thirty-
three studies examined parental behaviours of mothers only, one study examined parental
behaviours of fathers only and eight studies examined parental behaviours of both mothers and
fathers. However, in the latter group, the majority of the participants were mothers. In addition,
14 studies measured positive parental behaviours only, five studies measured negative parental
behaviours only and nine studies measured cognitive parental behaviours only. Seven studies
measured both positive and negative parental behaviours, four studies measured both positive
parental behaviours and cognitive parental behaviours and three studies measured both
negative parental behaviours and cognitive parental behaviours. Only one study measured
all three parental categories. For details of study characteristics, see Appendix 1.

Main Analysis

Results of the meta-analyses for the associations between the three categories of parental
behaviours and children’s global EF are shown in Table 1 (n = 41 studies). Although effect
sizes (r) were small, children performed better on EF tasks when parental behaviours were
more positive, more cognitive and less negative during parent-child interactions. Confidence
intervals overlap, indicating correlations of comparable absolute magnitude across all three
parental behaviour categories.

Publication Bias and Outliers

To check whether the results were biased by disproportionate sample sizes, windsorising
(Lipsey and Wilson 2001) was conducted: for each meta-analysis, the largest sample size
was allocated to the study with the next largest sample size and analyses were re-run. The
effect size estimates for positive, negative and cognitive behaviours did not change: r = .25,
−.22 and .20, respectively, indicating that publication bias was unlikely to be distorting the
results (Karreman et al. 2006). Further, a visual analysis of a funnel plot for each parental
behaviour category in relation to global EF showed no potential outlying studies.

Heterogeneity

The heterogeneity statistic (Q, see Table 1) was significant for positive parental behaviours,
I2 = 79.00, indicating that 79% of the variance is attributable to true heterogeneity. Heterogeneity
was also significant for negative behaviours, I2 = 70.00, but not for parental cognitive behaviours,
I2 = 29.00, indicating low heterogeneity of results for this category (Higgins and Green 2011). For
the range of associated effect sizes and the precision of each estimate, see Appendix 4.

Categorical Moderator Analysis

For positive and negative parental behaviours, which showed statistically significant hetero-
geneity, categorical moderator analyses were conducted to determine whether the excess
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 621

variability could be accounted for by identifiable differences between studies. According to

guidelines, a minimum of four studies per category is required to conduct categorical moder-
ator analyses (Bakermans-Kranenburg et al. 2003). The following potential moderator vari-
ables were examined: ethnicity, SES, parental behaviour measurement modality (parent-child
interaction, self-report or observation) and EF measurement modality (adult report or task).
See Appendix 1.
No significant effects of ethnicity or SES were found for positive or negative parental
behaviours. We did not proceed with moderator analysis for modality of measurement of
parental behaviour or EF because the minimum number of studies for one or more of the
categories for the parent behaviour method (positive: observation, k = 2; self-report,
k = 3; parent-child interaction, k = 18; negative: observation, k = 1; self-report, k = 1;
parent-child interaction, k = 11; both self-report and parent-child interaction, k = 2) and
the EF method (positive: adult report, k = 4; task, k = 19; both adult report and task,
k = 1; negative: adult report, k = 2; task, k = 12; both adult report and task, k = 1) did not
meet requirements.
The heterogeneity statistic was not significant for cognitive parental behaviours, so consis-
tent with the advice of Jose (2013), we considered moderator analyses only where we had a
priori hypotheses concerning moderation effects involving cognitive behaviours: ethnicity,
SES and modality of measurement for parental behaviour and for EF.
No significant moderation effects of ethnicity or SES were found for cognitive parental
behaviours. Moderator analysis for modality of measurement of parental behaviour and EF
was not possible, as the number of studies per category for parent behaviour (observation,
k = 1; self-report, k = 2; parent-child interaction, k = 12; both self-report and parent-child
interaction, k = 3) and EF (adult report, k = 2; task, k = 15; both adult report and task, k = 1) did
not meet requirements.

Meta-Regression Analysis

Meta-regression analysis (Borenstein et al. 2009) was conducted to determine whether the
continuous, linear variables mean child age at EF assessment and average time lag between
parental behaviour and EF assessment moderated the association between parental behaviours
and global EF.
The mean age of child significantly moderated the association between cognitive
parental behaviours and global EF (Q model (1) = 7.57, p = .01, β = −0.01,
R2 = 1.00), indicating that as age increases, the correlation between cognitive parental
behaviours and EFs decreases. No significant age moderation effects were found for the
association between positive or negative parental behaviours and EF. In addition, the
average time lag between assessments did not significantly moderate the association
between any of the parental behaviours and global EF.

Secondary Analysis

A secondary analysis of 19 studies was conducted to examine specific links between the three
parental behaviour categories and separate components of EF (inhibition, shifting and working
memory). Results of the analyses are shown in Table 2. Because of the small number of
available studies (k = 1), analyses were not possible for associations between negative parental
behaviours and shifting or negative parental behaviours and working memory.
622 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Table 2 Effect sizes for the associations between parental behaviours and inhibition, shifting and working
memory

Parental behaviour No.a kb r 95% CI Qc I2 (%)

Inhibition
Positive 4775 11 .15*** .10–.20 26.78*** 63.66
Negative 1503 7 −.18** −.25 to .10 10.89 44.90
Cognitive 1790 7 .19* .00–.28 12.01 50.04
Shifting
Positive 3451 7 .10** .02–.15 17.12** 64.92
Negative N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cognitive 1597 5 .20*** .15–.25 0.54 0.00
Working memory
Positive 2299 7 .21*** .08–.33 41.66*** 88.00
Negative N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Cognitive 328 5 .20*** .12–.33 3.66 0.00

CI confidence interval, N/A not available

*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
a
The number of parent-child dyads
b
The number of the studies
c
Heterogeneity estimate

All of the estimable effects remain significant, though tending to be somewhat weaker
than their counterparts in the global EF analysis. The decrease is particularly marked for
the effect of positive parental behaviours on shifting and inhibition, but negligible for the
effect of cognitive behaviours on any of the EF variables. Contrary to our hypothesis,
cognitive behaviour was no more closely related to shifting than to inhibition; however,
positive behaviour does appear to be somewhat less associated with shifting than
inhibition.

Discussion

We aimed with this meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the association between
parental behaviours and EFs, as a global composite and separately, in children, taking
into account extant empirical evidence from the last 16 years. Estimates for global and
individual EFs indicated weak but significant effects in the predicted directions. Al-
though point estimates of effect sizes varied slightly depending on specific parental
behaviour and EF, confidence intervals overlapped, often to a large extent, suggesting
that the underlying effects were likely to be similar in magnitude. This supports the
notion that both socioemotional and cognitive dimensions of parental behaviour are
relevant to the development of EFs. The correlations of the present meta-analysis
represent prediction over an average time period of 12.77 months. Although conclusions
about causation are not possible from the data analysed, the conditions of causality that
putative causes and effects should co-vary and that putative causes should precede
putative effects (Oppewal 2010) are met by this research.
Consistent with hypotheses, positive parental behaviours were associated with higher global
EF in children (r = .25), as well as better inhibition (r = .15), shifting (r = .10) and working
memory (r = .21). These findings are consistent with the notion that experiencing a safe,
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 623

positive emotional environment enhances children’s cognitive development while environ-

ments that cause stress, sadness and loneliness may restrict it (Diamond 2013). This could
occur via several pathways. Firstly, children who feel physically and emotionally safe are more
likely to explore their environment and learn from the experiences it affords (Ainsworth 1973;
Carlson 2009; Maccoby and Martin 1983). An absence of negative emotions may allow
children to focus their attention on tasks requiring thought (Dierckx et al. 2011; Feldman
2003), and parental responsiveness, by definition, involves focusing joint attention on identi-
fying problems and their solutions. Secondly, parental warmth may encourage positive emo-
tions and optimism in their children (Roskam et al. 2014). The motivation to attempt to solve a
problem relies on the belief that one can indeed succeed (Schunk 1991). Notwithstanding
young children’s notorious over-estimation of their own competence, Bjorklund (1997) notes
that, among pre-schoolers (and in contrast to older age groups), greater over-optimism
concerning one’s abilities is associated with better cognitive performance. Parents may play a
central role in supplying this. Thirdly, positive parental behaviour may support the development
of resilience, enabling children to become persistent problem-solvers. Supportive behaviours
and unconditional positive regard from parents may act as a buffer against the negative
emotions associated with task failure. The internalisation of these behaviours may allow
children to better regulate their own emotions and responses to challenge (Diamond 2013).
Negative parental behaviours were associated with lower global EF (r = −.22) and lower
inhibition (r = −.18) but have not been adequately investigated to allow analysis in relation to
shifting or working memory. The reasons for this association are likely to include the reverse
of those discussed under positive parenting if negative socioemotional responses induce in
children fear, pessimism and the expectation that punishment will follow their attempts to use
initiative. Similarly, neglectful behaviours from parents may be linked to emotional distur-
bances and relational anxiety, which may provoke negative and overactive child behaviours
intended at capturing parents’ attention (Roskam et al. 2014). Perhaps more interestingly from
a theoretical point of view, our results indicate that controlling behaviours, instead of assisting
children to withhold prepotent responses on command (as parents employing such behaviours
may imagine), may undermine children’s developing ability to control their own responses
(Williams et al. 2009), leaving them dependent on adults for behavioural regulation.
Cognitive parental behaviours were associated with higher global EF (r = .20) and better
inhibition (r = .19), shifting (r = .20) and working memory (r = .20). The children of parents
who encourage them to engage thoughtfully with the world, to take an independent, active role
in their own problem-solving (by using prompts, hints, questions and suggestions rather than
simply providing the answer, completing the task for them or directing their actions), as well as
applying scaffolding behaviours (e.g. setting goals, prompting children to evaluate progress,
providing support when required but reducing the support when they are successful), have
higher levels of EFs, consistent with Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas on cognitive apprenticeship.
Cognitive parental behaviours may influence children’s EF in several interlocking ways.
Cognitive stimulation supplied by parents in the form of materials, activities and interactions
creates opportunities for children to learn and gain experience at problem-solving that may
engage EFs (Bindman et al. 2015; Diamond 2013). For example, children exposed to a difficult
tangram puzzle might have the opportunity to practise withholding the tendency to force a
tangram piece, switching between pieces and recalling the design. Coupled with positive
socioemotional behaviours, stimulation is likely to create conditions under which children
willingly take up such opportunities. Scaffolding behaviours, such as discussing plans to tackle
complex tasks, directing children’s attention and offering prompts, may leverage a greater value
624 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

from cognitively stimulating experiences by providing structures that enable children to tackle
tasks and experience success, of which they would not be capable on their own (Vygotsky
1978). In addition to providing the raw materials for internalised thought processes, scaffolding
is likely to provide the motivational benefits of experiencing positive outcomes (Schunk 1991)
or at least interesting ones. Another aspect of cognitive parental behaviour likely to be important
to EF development is autonomy support (Bindman et al. 2015). According to Grolnick and
Ryan (1989), when parents encourage and support children’s autonomy as opposed to control-
ling children, they fulfil children’s inherent need for autonomy. As a result, children’s motiva-
tion is autonomous rather than controlled, allowing them to experience enjoyment and attribute
importance to their pursuits as opposed to experiencing internal (e.g. avoiding guilt) and/or
external (e.g. award attainment) pressure. Attribution of achievement to one’s own actions and
efforts enhances task motivation (Schunk 1991), and in young children, even when such
attributions are erroneous, they may enhance learning (Bjorklund 1997).
Taken together and in conjunction with the relatively weak correlations among different
parenting behaviours (Roskam et al. 2014), our results suggest that socioemotional and also
cognitive parental behaviours are relevant to the development of children’s EFs. This is
consistent with the view that there may be multiple pathways via which parents can influence
outcomes in their children.
We note that, in the present meta-analysis, we found somewhat larger point estimates of
effect sizes for global EF than individual EF components (consistent with Bernier et al. (2012),
Dilworth-Bart (2012) and Merz et al. (2016b)) and particularly those involving positive
parental behaviours. This is likely to be due to the psychometric properties of EF tasks
(Chan et al. 2008). Test-retest reliabilities are often relatively low for individual EF tasks
(Rabbitt 1997) and less reliable for individual EF tasks than composite EF. Thus, EF
component measures are likely to include proportionally more random error variance than
composite EF measures, reducing their maximum possible correlation with other variables.
Additionally, we might speculate that positive parental behaviours influence each EF differ-
ently, and these effects might be additive rather than overlapping, though validation of such an
interpretation would certainly require rigorous testing.

Moderator Analyses

Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status

We expected that parental behaviour would be more strongly correlated with EF at low levels
of SES and that controlling behaviours (high negative or low cognitive) would be more
detrimental to EF among samples of predominantly European American origin relative to
ethnically mixed samples. However, the present meta-analysis found no significant moderation
effects of ethnicity or SES for any of the three parental behaviours. Although our finding is not
consistent with previous research (e.g. Nauck and Lotter 2015; Sarsour et al. 2011), neither is
the null effect especially compelling, given that the majority of the studies’ samples available
for analysis showed little or unspecified ethnic variation and undifferentiated SES. It will be
necessary for more primary data to be gathered on specifically identified ethnic groups and
SES levels before we have a satisfactory answer to the question of their relevance in the
relationship of parental behaviour to EF development. Given the considerable practical
importance of this question in societies where educational attainment differs, sometimes
dramatically, between ethnic and SES groups, it would be worthy of further investigation.
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 625

Child Age and Time Lag

Consistent with the critical period hypothesis, the strength of association between cognitive
parental behaviours and EFs decreased with the age of the child. We were able to rule out the
competing hypothesis that this decline was due to the potential confounding factor: the time lag
between parental behaviour assessment and EF assessment (Selig et al. 2012), as this did not
significantly moderate the relationship. It has been argued that parenting during the earlier years
may be especially influential due to greater brain plasticity during this period (Kolb and Gibb
2011), which fits well with the observation that the PFC circuitry is maturing rapidly at this time
and susceptible to environmental experiences (Kolb et al. 2012), with this susceptibility
diminishing as middle childhood is entered. Young children are particularly dependent on parents
(or caregivers) for guidance, support and stimulation (Sameroff 2010), increasing the opportunity
for parenting to influence development during this period. Indeed, Bjorklund (1997) has theorised
that the unusually protracted developmental period has evolved in humans precisely to allow the
developing child to be influenced by caregivers. Nevertheless, we should interpret the present
finding with some caution. Other empirical studies, beyond the scope of the present meta-
analysis, have reported that parenting is still related to EFs in children aged 6 to 12 years
(Schroeder and Kelley 2009) as well as children aged 13 to 19 years (Fatima and Sheikh
2016). Also, as parents are just one component in a child’s social environment relevant to EF
development, our present findings would be equally consistent with the interpretation that
parental influence diminishes as children’s worlds expand to include teachers and other children
of various ages (Flynn 2016). Although our results cannot definitively demonstrate a critical
period (in its most technical sense), they may suggest a period of heightened sensitivity to parental
practices—specifically, cognitive ones—and support family intervention and education at this
time to give children the best opportunity to develop their EF potential and school readiness.
The present meta-analysis included participants from a wide age range, and diversity in the
tasks used to measure EFs is expected. The majority of the studies in this meta-analysis used
objective tasks to measure EFs, and these varied with the age of the children. For instance, Bernier
et al. (2010) assessed working memory in 18-month-old children using a BHide the Pots^ task,
which required children to hold the location of a sticker in memory, hidden under one of three
pots, and later identify it; in contrast, studies investigating older children (e.g. 60-month-old
children) used tasks such as digit span to assess working memory (e.g. Dilworth-Bart 2012).
Hence, the effect sizes in the present meta-analysis represent associations comprising diverse
tasks and age groups, making comparisons across ages difficult. As noted earlier, measures for
very young children tend to be less reliable than those for older children, both because young
children are inherently more variable in their performance and because it is possible to include
many more trials in measures for older children without inducing fatigue (Anastasi and Urbina
1997), making the effect of age in the meta-regression all the more remarkable as reliability
differences would work against this. Nevertheless, to better understand parenting effects on
specific EF competencies, it would be fruitful to examine specific age groups and specific tasks
rather than collapsing across different age groups (Best and Miller 2010).

Modality of Measurement

Although some of the studies in our meta-analysis used adult (typically, parent or teacher)
report to measure children’s EFs (e.g. Ato et al. 2015; Blankson et al. 2011; Roskam et al.
2014) or parental behaviours (e.g. Eason and Ramani 2016; Kok et al. 2014; Lucassen et al.
626 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

2015), the majority measured EFs through objective task performance and parental behaviour
through direct observation. Although this did not permit moderator analysis, we can conclude
that the data represented in our meta-analysis are relatively free from self-report bias. The use
of observations of parent-child interactions conducted in a standardised, contextualised setting
allows an individual variation among parents to be separated out from situational variance and
attenuates risky social desirability, both issues that can contaminate self-report measures (e.g.
Vernon-Feagans et al. 2016). The use of objective tasks to assess EFs similarly provides a
more standardised approach to measurement than parent or teacher report.

Environmental Effects or Genetic Effects

When attempting to identify environmental factors, such as parental behaviours, that enhance
children’s cognitive and academic outcomes, a central challenge is to determine whether naturally
occurring abilities—and their correlates—reflect something modifiable through environmental
intervention or something unmodifiable, such as genetics. We found small effect sizes in this
study, consistent with previous research (e.g. Hammond et al. 2012; Rochette and Bernier 2014;
Sulik et al. 2015) and with the relatively small environmental effects (relative to genetic effects)
generally found in behaviour genetic studies for cognitive abilities, especially for those that are
closely aligned with general intelligence (Pedersen et al. 1992). We also note that, for cognitive
abilities, genetic effects tend to increase with age (Plomin et al. 1997). For example, one
behavioural genetic twin study indicates that, by late adolescence, EF latent variable scores are
highly heritable—close to 100% for inhibition and updating working memory representations
and 81% for shifting, whereas individual EF tasks show around half their variance to be due to
non-shared environmental effects (i.e. not shared family environment; Friedman et al. 2008). This
appears to cast a pessimistic shadow on the magnitude and longevity of any influence of parental
behaviours in early childhood over cognitive abilities, including EFs. However, we believe for
several reasons that it would be premature to discount parenting as irrelevant.
Firstly, although the correlations between parental behaviours and EF are modest, they may, in
fact, represent a large proportion of the explicable environmental variance, which maximises (for
general cognitive ability, at least) around 3 to 4 years age at 20–30% of the total variance in ability
(Bishop et al. 2003). Secondly, we note Flynn’s (2016) criticism that social environmental effects
on cognitive abilities do not disappear with age but, rather, transfer from the family environment
to the school environment and, later, to work, friend and spouse effects.
Thirdly, intervention studies on parenting have demonstrated positive effects on children’s
EFs. For example, Merz et al. (2016a)examined the effects of a parental intervention and EFs
in children aged from 2.5 to 5 years. They examined the effects of a responsiveness-focused
intervention on inhibition, shifting, working memory and attention problems. The intervention
consisted of a responsiveness-focused online professional development course and mentoring.
Merz et al. (2016a, b) found that the younger children (M = 2.86 years) improved in delay
inhibition and attention problems as a result of the intervention. Similarly, interventions in
early childhood education have been shown to improve the development of EFs in children,
further supporting the importance of environmental effects (Bierman et al. 2008; Diamond
et al. 2007; Weiland and Yoshikawa 2013).
Fourthly, Plomin et al. (2013) point out that genetic and environmental effects on cognitive
abilities are often correlated, either (a) passively, whereby family environment is partly a
function of the genetics of other family members (e.g. children with genes associated with
poorer EFs will tend to find themselves surrounded by family members displaying relatively
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 627

poor EFs); (b) evocatively, whereby individuals have genetic behavioural tendencies that elicit
particular responses from the environment (e.g. the behaviour of children with genes associ-
ated with poor EFs may elicit a more controlling parental style); (c) or actively, whereby
individuals have genetic tendencies to seek out particular environments (e.g. children with
genes associated with better EFs may seek out cognitive challenges and parental input). Thus,
even constructs with high heritability are not pre-ordained but develop through environmental
interaction and may indeed be highly malleable through intervention.
Lastly, the interpretation of Friedman et al.’s (2008) finding that a shared family environment
accounted for close to zero variance in EFs, at either latent construct or individual task level by
late adolescence, is also less straightforward than it might appear. On the face of it, it implies that
environmental factors common to family members are of negligible importance, whereas
environmental factors that differ between siblings may be more relevant, accounting for up to
50% of the individual task variance. While this may seem inconsistent with our observation that
parental behaviours are related to child EFs, Plomin et al. (2013) note that parents’ directly
observed behaviour toward different offspring is not highly correlated—notwithstanding the fact
that parents report that they treat their children very similarly. Thus, it may be that parenting
effects are at least partly captured by non-shared environmental variance.

Limitations and Future Directions

Four main limitations of the current meta-analysis are worth noting. The first concerns the
coarse grain of the variables. We analysed broad categories of parental behaviours: positive,
negative and cognitive, and for the main analysis, EF was treated as a conglomerate of the
three EF components proposed by Miyake et al. (2000), mainly because the number of studies
consistently examining the same specific parental behaviours and separate components of EF
was low. As a result, specific links between more fine-grained parental behaviours and separate
components of EF (e.g. inhibition, shifting and working memory) were not testable. For
example, very few studies to date have investigated negative parental behaviours in relation
to specific components of EF. It remains an open question whether the correlations we have
observed among broad categories of behaviour are best understood in terms of commonalities
shared by specific component variables within a category or in terms of specific behaviours
each contributing discrete, additive effects to outcomes.
In addition, conceptualisations of parental behaviours across studies differ to some extent
and terms are sometimes used interchangeably; for example, Bernier et al. (2010) characterised
scaffolding as autonomy support, Brespecting the child’s rhythm, and ensuring that he or she
plays an active role in successful completion of the task^ (p. 335) whereas, according to other
definitions, scaffolding and autonomy support are two related but separate constructs (Fay-
Stammbach et al. 2014). Because conceptualisations of parental behaviours lack definitional
clarity and consistency in the literature, the current meta-analysis grouped related constructs
into categories based on the authors’ (of the original study) definition and their best fit within
the three parental categories. Future research is needed to develop a clearer theoretical
framework for defining the major dimensions of parental behaviour and their relation to
EFs. This would also clarify the extent to which relevant parenting dimensions are separable
and discrete versus different manifestations of general Bgood parenting^.
A second limitation was that analysis of moderator effects was not feasible for all of the
intended variables (see Appendix 1). Ethnicity and SES were not adequately differentiated to
628 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

permit a satisfactory investigation of moderation by ethnicity (Nauck and Lotter 2015) or

differences between advantaged and disadvantaged populations (Turkheimer et al. 2003). In
addition, we were unable to test the modality of measurement as a moderator. These potential
moderators deserve further attention.
A third limitation of the present meta-analysis is that its focus is on naturally occurring
associations between parental behaviours and EFs in children. Although establishing the exis-
tence of association is an appropriate goal early in a research program, it is insufficient to
demonstrate that parental behaviour plays a causal role in developing EFs (Fay-Stammbach
et al. 2014). Indeed, there are multiple plausible causal models that might account for the
associations we have observed (Plomin et al. 2013). Interventions, including parenting and
educational, can improve EF performance (e.g. Dowsett and Livesey 2000; Merz et al. 2016a,
b; Rueda et al. 2005), but further experimental research will be required to test whether
modification of parent behaviour is sufficient to enhance EF development, to discover which
specific behaviours might affect which aspects of EFs and to investigate whether optimal
parenting strategies for supporting EF development depend on child characteristics. Identifying
specific causal links between parenting and EFs would contribute to a better theoretical under-
standing of the processes underlying EF development (Fay-Stammbach et al. 2014), which, in
turn, would inform educational programs (for parents and teachers), intervention strategies and
early diagnostic tools to maximise children’s potential for school academic achievement.
In the fourth limitation, given that the main analyses investigated associations between
parenting and global EF (an overall score composed of individual EFs), it is possible that other
cognitive skills and non-executive processes, such as language or motor skills (Rabbitt 1997),
may have been captured in the estimated effect sizes. It is therefore recommended that future
studies adopt a latent variable approach to help reduce the task impurity problem.

Conclusion

The current meta-analysis is, to our knowledge, the first quantitative review examining
associations between parental behaviours and EFs in early childhood. Over an average time
of 12.77 months, positive parental behaviours (warmth, sensitivity, responsiveness, affect,
positive regard, support and physical proximity) predicted higher EFs (r = .25), while negative
parental behaviours (control, intrusiveness, negative regard, negative affect and detachment)
predicted lower EFs (r = −.22). In addition, cognitive parental behaviours (scaffolding,
autonomy support and cognitive stimulation) predicted higher EFs (r = .20). These results
confirm a modest but significant association between parental behaviour and children’s EF
development, which, in turn, equips children for the academic and social demands of formal
education (Borella et al. 2010; Duncan et al. 2007; Gathercole et al. 2004a, b; Garavan et al.
1999). Our findings lay the groundwork for future investigations of causal pathways. We also
found a significantly stronger association between cognitive parenting behaviour and EFs for
younger than older children, consistent with the notion of a critical period, during which
cognitive parenting might particularly influence EF development.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Appendix 1

Table 3 Characteristics of studies in the meta-analytic sample

Study Parent Child Design

No. Ethnicity SES Mother or father Average age of EF Time points of parent Time points of EF Design
assessment (months) assessment (months) assessments (months)

Ato et al. (2015) 474 N-CA L, M, H Mother 48 N/A N/A C

Bernier et al. (2010) 80 CA M Mother 22.55 12, 15 18, 26 L
Bernier et al. (2012) 62 CA M Mother 36.9 12, 15 36 L
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Bibok et al. (2009) 36 N/P N/P Mother 24 24 24 C

Bindman et al. (2013) 127 Mix M Mother 52.8 48 53 L
Bindman et al. (2015) 1306 Mix L, M, H Mother 54 6, 15, 24, 36 54 L
Blair et al. (2011) 1292 Mix L Mother 36 7, 15, 24 36 L
Blankson et al. (2011) 254 Mix L, M, H Mother 41.7 N/A N/A C
Clark and Woodward (2015) 113 CA L, M, H Mother 72 24, 48 72 L
Conway and Stifter (2012) 68 CA M Mother 55 24 55 L
Cuevas et al. (2014) 62 Mix M Mother 36 10, 24, 36 24, 36, 48 L
Dilworth-Bart (2012) 49 Mix M Mother 60 N/A N/A C
Eason and Ramani (2016) 32 Mix M Mother 63.26 N/A N/A C
Hammond et al. (2012) 82 CA M Both 48.29 24, 36 48 L
Hopkins et al. (2013) 796 Mix L, M, H Mother 53 N/A N/A C
Hughes and Ensor (2005) 128 CA L Mother 28.44 N/A N/A C
Hughes and Ensor (2009) 125 CA L, M, H Mother 48 24 48 L
Karreman et al. (2009) 89 CA H Both 36 N/A N/A C
Kochanska et al. (2000) 106 CA L, M, H Mother 27.5 9, 14, 22 22, 33 L
Kochanska and Knaack (2003) 106 CA L, M, H Mother 33 22, 33, 45 22, 33, 45 L
Kochanska and Kim (2014) 100 CA L, M, H Both 38 25 38 L
Kok et al. (2014) 544 CA M, H Mother 48.5 36 48 L
Kraybill and Bell (2012) 56 Mix M Mother 62.53 10 48, 72 L
Lengua et al. (2007) 103 Mix L, M, H Mother 36.6 36.6 36.6, 42 L
Lucassen et al. (2015) 607 CA M, H Both 48.4 36, 48 48 L
Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2011) 53 CA M Mother 36 15 36 L
Matte-Gagné et al. (2014) 78 CA L, M, H Mother 36 15, 36 36 L
Merz et al. (2015) 247 Mix L Both 36 24–48 24–48 and 3 months later L
Merz et al. (2016a, b) 534 N-CA L Mother 60 53 60 L
629
Table 3 (continued)
630

Study Parent Child Design

No. Ethnicity SES Mother or father Average age of EF Time points of parent Time points of EF Design
assessment (months) assessment (months) assessments (months)

Meuwissen and Carlson (2015) 110 CA L, M, H Father 37.68 N/A N/A C

Mileva-Seitz et al. (2015) 752 CA M, H Mother 51.5 14, 36 52 L
NICHD (2005) 710 Mix L, M, H Mother 83.7 6, 15, 24, 36 72 L
Rochette and Bernier (2014) 114 CA M Mother 36.82 12 36 L
Rochette and Bernier (2016) 74 CA S, L, M Mother 36 12 36 L
Roskam et al. (2014) 421 CA L, M, H Both 65.25 55, 65, 75 55, 65, 75 L
Schroeder and Kelley (2009) 100 Mix L, M, H Both 72 60–84 60–84 C
Taylor et al. (2013) 256 Mix L, M, H Mother 36 18 30, 42 L
Taylor et al. (2015) 192 Mix L, M, H Mother 54 42 54 L
Towe-Goodman et al. (2014) 620 Mix L Both 36 24 36 L
Veron-Feagans et al. (2016) 1145 Mix L Mother 48 6, 15, 24, 36 36, 48, 60 L
Li et al. (2016) 145 Mix L, M, H Mother 42 30 30, 42, 54 L
Zalewski et al. (2012) 78 Mix L, M, H Mother 36.6 N/A N/A C

Study Parental behaviour Executive function

Constructs Method Constructs Reported separately/ Method Measure

combined

Ato et al. (2015) P (support, involvement, communication), SR I COMB AR Attention Focusing and Inhibitory Control
C (autonomy) Subscale of Temperament Middle Childhood
Questionnaire
Bernier et al. (2010) P (sensitivity), C (autonomy) PCI I, S, WM Both T Hide the Pots; Categorization; Spin the Pots; Shape
Stroop; Baby Stroop
Bernier et al. (2012) P (sensitivity), C (autonomy) PCI I, S, WM Both T Bear/Dragon; Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional
Card Change Sort
Bibok et al. (2009) C (scaffolding) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Shape Stroop; Delayed Alternation; Reverse
Categorization
Bindman et al. (2013) N (direction), C (suggestion) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Head-Toes-Knees-Shoulders (HTKS)
Bindman et al. (2015) P (warmth), C (autonomy, cognitive stimulation) PCI I, S, WM SEP T Day/Night Stroop; Continuous Performance Test
Blair et al. (2011) P (sensitivity, responsive, positive regard, PCI I, S, WM COMB T
stimulation), N (intrusive, negative regard)
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649
Table 3 (continued)
Study
Blankson et al. (2011)
Clark and Woodward (2015)
Conway and Stifter (2012)
Cuevas et al. (2014)
Dilworth-Bart (2012)
Eason and Ramani (2016)
Hammond et al. (2012)
Hopkins et al. (2013)
Hughes and Ensor (2005)
Hughes and Ensor (2009)
Karreman et al. (2009)
Kochanska et al. (2000)
Kochanska and Knaack (2003)
Kochanska and Kim (2014)
Parental behaviour Executive function
Constructs Method Constructs Reported separately/ Method Measure
combined
Span-Like Working Memory Task, The Item
Selection Attention Shifting Task; Spatial
Conflict Inhibitory Control Task
C (cognitive stimulation) SR I, WM COMB T Day/Night Stroop; Number Recall Test
P (support), N (intrusiveness) PCI I, WM SEP T The Conner’s Kiddie Continuous Performance
Task, a visual search task; Backward Digit
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649
Span; Backward Corsi Blocks
C (attention maintaining and redirection) PCI I SEP T Three Pegs; Day/Night Stroop; Tapping Task
N (negative affect, intrusiveness, PCI I, S, WM COMB T A-not-B with Invisible Displacement; Crayon
detachment) Delay; Tongue Task; Simon-Says; Day/Night
Stroop; Dimensional Change Cart Sort
C (cognitive stimulation) OB I, S, WM Both T Peg Tapping; Fish Flanker; Span Task (SB5)
C (cognitive assistance) PCI WM SEP AR BRIEF-P
C (scaffolding) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Delayed Alternation; Spatial Span; Hand Game;
Counting and Labelling; Tower of Hanoi
N (hostility), C (scaffolding) SR, PCI I SEP T The Statue (NEPSY)
P (praise, explanation, responsiveness, PCI I, S, WM COMB T Spin the Pots; Truck Task; Baby Stroop; Beads
communication) (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
Detour-Reaching)
C (scaffolding) SR, PCI I, S, WM COMB T Spin the Pots; Truck Task; Stroop; Beads
(Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale,
Detour-Reaching)
P (warmth), N (control) PCI I SEP T Snack Delay; Wrapped Gift; Gift-in-Bag; Tongue
Task; Dinky Toys; Shapes
P (responsiveness) OB I COMB T Snack Delay; Wrapped Gift; Gift-in-Bag;
Walk-A-Line-Slowly; Tower; Shapes Task;
Tongue; Drink Toys; Turtle and Rabbit;
Drawing Activity; Whisper
N (maternal power assertion) OB I COMB T Snack Delay; Wrapped Gift; Gift-in-Bag;
Walk-A-Line-Slowly; Tower; Shapes Task;
Tongue; Drink Toys; Turtle and Rabbit; Drawing
Activity; Whisper; Red Sign/Green Sign; Bird
and Dragon; KRISP
P (responsiveness) PCI I COMB T Delaying (three tasks), slowing down motor
631
activity (two tasks), suppressing/initiating
Table 3 (continued)
632

Study Parental behaviour Executive function

Constructs Method Constructs Reported separately/ Method Measure

combined

activity (go/no-go, one task), lowering voice

(one task) and effortful attention (two tasks)
Kok et al. (2014) P (sensitivity) PCI I, S, WM Both AR BRIEF-P
Kraybill and Bell (2012) P (affect) PCI I, S, WM COMB T, AR Pig/Bull Task (an adapted version of the
Bear/Dragon); Dimensional Change
Card Sort; Yes-No Task; BRIEF-P
Lengua et al. (2007) N (negative affect), C (scaffolding) PCI I SEP T Bear/Dragon; Day/Night Stroop; Grass-Snow;
Butterfly (similar to Bgo/no go^)
Lucassen et al. (2015) P (sensitivity), N (harsh parenting) SR, PCI I, S SEP AR BRIEF-P
Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2011) C (autonomy) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional Change Cart Sort;
Bear/Dragon
Matte-Gagné et al. (2014) C (autonomy support) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional Change Cart Sort;
Bear/Dragon
Merz et al. (2015) P (responsiveness; warmth) PCI I SEP T Gift Delay-Wrap; Gift Delay-Bow; Snack
Delay Tasks
Merz et al. (2016a, b) P (responsiveness) PCI I, S, WM Both T Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional Change Cart Sort;
Bear/Dragon
Meuwissen and Carlson (2015) N (control), C (autonomy) PCI I, S, WM Both T, AR Bear/Dragon; Delay of Gratification; Minnesota
Executive Function Scale (MEFS); Gift Delay
Mileva-Seitz et al. (2015) P (sensitivity) PCI I, S, WM SEP T Auditory Continuous Performance Test for
Pre-Schoolers; Forward Short-Term Memory
Test; Backward Working Memory Test
NICHD (2005) P (sensitivity) PCI WM SEP T Continuous Performance Task; Memory for
Sentences; Memory for Names
Rochette and Bernier (2014) P (responsive, affect, sensitivity, PCI I, S, WM COMB T Bear/Dragon; Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional
physical proximity), N (hostility, Change Card Sorting
rejection)
Rochette and Bernier (2016) P (responsive, affect, sensitivity, PCI I, S, WM COMB T Bear/Dragon; Day/Night Stroop; Dimensional
physical proximity), N (hostility, Change Card Sorting
rejection)
Roskam et al. (2014) P (positive regard), N (negative control) SR I SEP T Three Blobs; Luria’s Hand Game; Card Sorting
Test; Cat-Dog-Fish Stroop; Monster Stroop;
NEPSY Statue
Schroeder and Kelley (2009) P (support) SR I, S, WM SEP AR BRIEF-P
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

N (intrusiveness) PCI I, S COMB AR

Table 3 (continued)

Study Parental behaviour Executive function

Constructs Method Constructs Reported separately/ Method Measure

combined

Taylor et al. (2013) Early Childhood Behaviour Questionnaire

Taylor et al. (2015)
P (warmth, sensitivity)
(subscales: attention focusing, attention
shifting and inhibitory control)
PCI I, S COMB AR Children’s Behaviour Questionnaires (subscales:
attention focusing, attention shifting and
inhibitory control)
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Towe-Goodman et al. (2014)
Veron-Feagans et al. (2016)
Li et al. (2016)
Zalewski et al. (2012)
P (sensitivity) PCI I, S, WM COMB T Digit Span; Something’s the Same Game (adapted
from Flexible Item Selection Task); Silly
Sounds Stroop; Spatial Conflict; Animal Go/No
Go
P (responsive) OB I, S, WM COMB T Working Memory Span; Pick the Picture Game;
Silly Sounds Stroop; Spatial Conflict; Spatial
Conflict Arrows; Animal Go/No-Go;
Something’s the Same Game
P (sensitivity, warmth) PCI I COMB T Rabbit and Turtle; Gift Bag/Box; Dinky Toys
N (negative affect), C (scaffolding) PCI I COMB T Bear/Dragon; Day/Night Stroop; Grass-Snow;
Butterfly, Delay of Gratification

N/P not provided, N/A not applicable, CA Caucasian, N-CA non-Caucasian, Mix mixed, L low, M middle, H high, F female, M male, P positive parental behaviour, N negative parental
behaviour, C cognitive parental behaviour, SR self-report, PCI parent-child interaction, T task, AR adult report, OB observation, I inhibition, S shifting, WM working memory, SEP
separate, COMB combined, L longitudinal, C concurrent
633
 634

Appendix 2

Table 4 Selection process for studies reporting data from the same, or overlapping, samples

Study Sample size Time of assessment Positive parenting Negative parenting Cognitive parenting Included or Reason
(months) variables variables variables excluded

Parenting EF

Sample: family life project

Blair et al. (2011) 1292 7, 15, 24 36 Sensitivity, responsiveness, Intrusiveness, negative Included Measured both positive and negative
positive regard, regard parenting
cognitive stimulation Largest sample size
Rhoades et al. 1155 7 36 Positive regard Intrusiveness Excluded Parenting variables, time points and
(2011) sample size subset of
Blair et al. (2011)
Towe-Goodman 620 24 36 Sensitivity Included Unique: included fathers
et al. (2014)
Sulik et al. (2015) 1115 36, 60 36, 48, 60 Sensitivity, responsiveness Excluded Too similar in terms of variables to the
study by Blair et al. (2011)
Too similar in terms of the time points
examined in the study by
Veron-Feagans et al. (2016)
Vernon-Feagans 1145 6, 15, 24, 36 36, 48, 60 Responsiveness Included Unique: different measurement
et al. (2016) methods were used
EF was assessed at later times (48 and
60 months)
Larger sample size than that in the
study by Sulik et al. (2015)
Sample: generation R study
Kok et al. (2014) 544 36 48 Sensitivity Included Provided correlations between
positive parenting and global EF,
hence included in the primary
analysis
Lucassen et al. (2015) 607 36 48 Sensitivity Harsh parenting Included Included an extra variable (harsh
parenting), hence included the
data only on harsh parenting in
the analysis
Mileva-Seitz et al. 752 14, 36 52 Sensitivity Included Provided correlations between
(2015) positive parenting and separate
components of EF, hence included
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649
Table 4 (continued)

Study Sample size Time of assessment Positive parenting Negative parenting Cognitive parenting Included or Reason
(months) variables variables variables excluded

Parenting EF

data from this study only

in the secondary analysis
Sample: NICHD
Bindman et al. 1306 6, 15, 24, 36 54 Warmth Autonomy, cognitive Included Different variables from the study by
(2015) stimulation NICHD (2005)
NICHD (2005) 710 6, 15, 24, 36 72 Sensitivity Included Different variables from the study by
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Bindman et al. (2015)

Sample: studies by Spinrad et al. (2007)
Taylor et al. (2013) 256 18 30, 42 Intrusiveness Included Larger sample size than that in the
study by Taylor et al. (2013)
Taylor et al. (2013) 148 18 30, 42 Intrusiveness Excluded Used the same parenting variable
and child ages as the study by
Taylor et al. 2015
Taylor et al. (2015) 192 42 54 Warmth, sensitivity Included Included a different parenting variable
not examined in the previous two
studies (Taylor et al. (2013)
Li et al. (2016) 141 30 30, 42, 54 Warmth, sensitivity Included Examined different times points to
Taylor et al. (2015)
Sample: studies by Karreman et al. (2006, 2009)
Karreman et al. 89 36 36 Warmth Control Excluded 2009 study provide correlations
(2006) between parenting and EF (more
Karreman et al. 89 36 36 Warmth Control Included relevant to the present
(2009) meta-analysis)
Sample: studies by Kochanska et al. (2000, 2003)
Kochanska et al. 106 9, 14, 22 22, 33 Responsiveness Included Examined different variables
(2000)
Kochanska and 106 22, 33, 45 22, 33, 45 Maternal power assertion Included
Knaack (2003)
Sample: studies by Ato et al. (2014, 2015)
Ato et al. (2014) 474 48 48 Support, involvement, Autonomy Excluded The only difference between the two
communication studies is that the 2014 study added
Ato et al. (2015) 474 48 48 Support, involvement, Autonomy Included an extra variable not relevant to
communication the present meta-analysis
635
636 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Appendix 3

Table 5 Categorisation of parental behaviours in the meta-analysis and definitions by authors of the original
studies

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

Ato et al. (2015) Support, involvement, Support: the amount of social, emotional and
communication, autonomy economic support received
Involvement: the degree of interaction, knowledge and
acceptance parents believe they have with respect
to their children
Communication: the parents’ perception regarding the
effectiveness of their communication with their
children
Autonomy: parents’ attitudes in fostering or
facilitating independence in their children
Bernier et al. Sensitivity, autonomy Sensitivity: appropriate and consistent responses to
(2010) child’s signals
Autonomy: offering age-appropriate problem-solving
strategies
Bernier et al. Sensitivity, autonomy Sensitivity: appropriate and consistent responses to
(2012) child’s signals
Autonomy: offering age-appropriate problem-solving
strategies
Bibok et al. Scaffolding Scaffolding: elaborative and directive parental
(2009) utterances contingent upon children’s immediate
cognitive activity
Bindman et al. Direction, suggestion Direction: includes statements that directly express
(2013) commands (e.g. BPut the plate on the table^) and
direction statements that are qualified by a final
question (e.g. BI want you to help me with this,
ok?^)
Suggestion: ambiguous suggestion, questions that are
unclear as to whether or not they give the child a
choice (e.g. BDo you want to start cleaning up?^);
choice or questions that provide the child with two
or more alternatives (BDo you want to start setting
up, or should we write the invitations first?^);
single suggestion, a comment that gives the child
both a clear suggestion and a choice about whether
to accept that suggestion (e.g. BMaybe we could try
putting the napkins under the plates^); and transfer,
featuring statements or questions which cede
control of the situation to the child (e.g. BWhat
should we do next?^)
Bindman et al. Warmth, autonomy Warmth: showing positive regard (the use of a
(2015) positive tone of voice, positive facial expression,
physical affection or praise)
Autonomy: following children’s pace and interests in
the joint activity and allowing children to take the
lead when appropriate
Blair et al. Sensitivitya, responsivenessa, positive Sensitivity/responsiveness: appropriate and consistent
a a
(2011) regard , intrusiveness , negative responses to their child’s needs and feelings
regarda Positive regard: shows signs of praise and approval
Intrusiveness: the degree to which the parent controls
the child’s problem-solving attempts beyond what
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 637

Table 5 (continued)

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

seems to be necessary for the child to complete the

task
Negative regard: expresses anger, discontent, disdain,
disappointment, disapproval, hostility and/or re-
jection toward the child. The parent may criticise,
yell and make fun on their child; be belittle or
make sarcastic comments toward the child; and/or
be frustrated by what the child is saying and/or
doing; can be reflected in the caregiver’s tone of
voice, facial expressions and/or hostile acts
Blankson et al. Cognitive stimulation Cognitive stimulation: the extent to which toys and
(2011) learning materials are available in the home
environment, the child engages with toys and
learning materials and parents directly teach their
child concepts and take their child to places and
events that provide enrichment
Clark and Support, intrusiveness Support: included markers of scaffolding such as
Woodward leaning in toward the child when they were
(2015) experiencing difficulty, providing timely
assistance, structuring the interaction so that
children could easily access important pieces (e.g.
laying out the next piece) and providing
appropriate verbal or non-verbal prompts, inquiries
and feedback to support problem-solving
Intrusiveness: included excessive or inappropriately
controlling behaviour, such as dictatorial
instructions, non-verbal behaviours that were
abrupt and poorly timed or that negatively im-
pinged on the child’s personal space or focus of
attention, failure to allow the child time to process
instructions or attempt the task independently or
taking over the completion of the task, allowing
children little opportunity for autonomy
Conway and Attention maintaining and redirection Attention maintaining and redirection: verbal or
Stifter (2012) non-verbal behaviours that served to support, en-
courage or maintain the child’s current focus of
attention on the problem-solving task. Verbal be-
haviours included asking questions, commenting,
describing the task or giving praise, whereas
non-verbal maternal behaviours included pointing
toward the child’s current focus of attention
Cuevas et al. Negative affect, intrusiveness, Negative affect: negative tone, hostility and harsh or
(2014) detachment power-assertive control
Intrusiveness: the extent to which an interaction is
parent centred, rather than child centred, and is
characterised by behaviours such as expressing
negative affect, overstimulation or an
overwhelming increased pace of activity or
intrusive physical interactions with the child
Detachment: insensitive to the child’s needs
Dilworth-Bart Cognitive stimulation Cognitive stimulation: the presence of learning
(2012) materials, language stimulation, physical
environment, responsivity, academic stimulation,
modelling, variety and acceptance in the home
Cognitive assistance (directive and
elaborative guidance)
638 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Table 5 (continued)

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

Eason and Cognitive assistance: the extent to which parents

Ramani promoted children’s autonomy and independent
(2016) thinking during the activity
Directive guidance: commands, statements or
questions that limited children’s autonomy and
reduced their role in the activity, such as providing
an answer to a particular step or asking close-ended
questions that required little inference
Elaborative guidance: statements or questions that
built upon the child’s current role in the activity,
such as providing generalised statements about the
task, evaluating children’s ongoing actions or
asking questions that encouraged the child to think
conceptually and autonomously
Hammond et al. Scaffolding Scaffolding: parent provides consistent and
(2012) appropriate help/support when the child needs help
and, at times, backs down and observes
Hopkins et al. Hostility, scaffolding Hostilitya: showing signs of hostility (unfriendliness
(2013) or opposition)
Scaffolding: the ability to provide support on difficult
tasks to help the child achieve a level of
competence and then to withdraw support when no
longer needed
Hughes (1998) Praise, explanation, responsiveness, Positive parenting: use of explanation, praise and
communication (positive open-ended questioning; responsiveness to and
parenting) expansion on child’s comments, questions and be-
haviours
Talk: amount of speaking
Hughes and Scaffolding Scaffolding: the degree to which parents used
Ensor (2009) open-ended questions, praise or encouragement
and elaboration
Karreman et al. Warmth, control Warmth: the frequency and intensity of affect shown
(2009) toward the child by a parent, such as
encouragement, smiles, laughter and physical
affection
Control: the extent to which a parent is involved and
concerned that the child behaves or performs tasks
correctly and the degree to which a parent
criticises, ignores the child and is overtly annoyed
during the session
Kochanska et al. Responsiveness Responsiveness: promptness, engagement, sensitivity,
(2000) acceptance, cooperation, availability; following
child lead; adjusting stimulation to child state
Kochanska and Maternal power assertion Maternal power assertion: a global rating of assertive
Knaack control (mother controls in an assertive, firm
(2003) manner), a global rating of forceful control (uses
power, threatens, negative or angry control),
assertive physical intervention (holds child firmly,
moves him/her decisively, removes a toy from the
child’s hand, etc.) and forceful physical control
(shakes, slaps, spanks)
Kochanska and Responsiveness Responsiveness: coordinated routines, four items
Kim (2014) (dyad has no routines or routines are a source of
conflict; dyad has easy, comfortable, coordinated
routines); (b) harmonious communication, four
items (dyad does not communicate; dyad
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 639

Table 5 (continued)

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

communicates smoothly, in a connected

back-and-forth way); (c) mutual cooperation, three
items (dyad unable to cooperate, conflicts escalate;
parent and child adopt an open, willing, receptive
stance toward each other); (d) connectedness, three
items (dyad avoids each other, disconnected; dyad
in tune with each other); and (e) emotional
ambience, five items (negative ambience perme-
ates interaction; very positive, warm ambience,
with bouts of joy and displays of affection)
Kok et al. (2014) Sensitivity Sensitivity: responds and supports child’s needs,
desires, interests and behaviours
Kraybill and Bell Affect Affect: facial expressivity (i.e. smiling) and vocal
(2012) affect
Lengua et al. Negative affect, scaffolding Negative affect: the overall negative tone or level of
(2007) tension expressed by the mother and included
verbal and non-verbal expressions of irritation or
frustration with the child that were critical,
rejecting or invalidating
Scaffolding: refers to intervention by parents,
contingent on the child’s need while decreasing
support or directiveness to allow child autonomy,
again, contingent on the child’s need, and the
combination of responsiveness and respect for
autonomy reflected this concept
Lucassen et al. Sensitivity, harsh parenting Sensitivity: ability to perceive and to interpret
(2015) accurately the signals implicit in the child’s
behaviour and to respond to these signals promptly
Harsh parenting: coercive acts and negative
emotional expressions directed toward children
Matte-Gagné Autonomy Autonomy: the extent to which the parent (a) inter-
and Bernier vened according to the child’s needs and adapted
(2011) the task to create an optimal challenge for the child;
(b) encouraged the child in the pursuit of the task,
gave useful hints and suggestions and used a tone
of voice that communicated to the child that he was
there to help (equivalent to scaffolding); (c) took
the child’s perspective and demonstrated flexibility
in his attempts to keep the child on task; and (d)
followed the child’s pace, provided the child with
the opportunity to make choices and ensured that
the child played an active role in the completion of
the task
Matte-Gagné Autonomy support Autonomy: the extent to which the parent (a) inter-
et al. (2014) vened according to the child’s needs and adapted
the task to create an optimal challenge for the child;
(b) encouraged the child in the pursuit of the task,
gave useful hints and suggestions and used a tone
of voice that communicated to the child that he was
there to help (equivalent to scaffolding); (c) took
the child’s perspective and demonstrated flexibility
in his attempts to keep the child on task; and (d)
followed the child’s pace, provided the child with
the opportunity to make choices and ensured that
the child played an active role in the completion of
the task
640 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Table 5 (continued)

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

Merz et al. Warmth, responsiveness Warmth: warm acceptance (positive affect such as
(2015) smiles, positive tone of voice, praise,
encouragement, physical affection, acceptance of
child’s needs and interests and lack of negativity
toward the child)
Responsiveness: consistent involvement, prompt and
appropriate responses to the child’s signals,
following the child’s lead, expanding on the child’s
interests and absence of controlling behaviour
Merz et al. Responsiveness Responsiveness: consistent involvement, prompt and
(2016a, b) appropriate responses to the child’s signals,
following the child’s lead, expanding on the child’s
interests and absence of controlling behaviour
Meuwissen and Control, autonomy Control: providing too much help, taking over or
Carlson controlling the task
(2015) Autonomy (same description as the one provided in
the study by Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2011)
Mileva-Seitz Sensitivity Sensitivity: parent’s ability to accurately perceive the
et al. (2015) child’s signals and is able respond to them
appropriately and promptly
NICHD (2005) Sensitivity Sensitivity: supportive presence, hostility (reverse
scored) and respect for autonomy
Rochette and Responsivenessa, affecta, sensitivitya, Responsiveness/sensitivity: responds to child’s needs
Bernier physical proximitya, hostilitya, (e.g. interprets cues correctly)
(2014) rejectiona Affect: parent is warm (e.g. praises child)
Physical proximity: physical affection (e.g. hugs the
child)
Hostility/rejection: parent is hostile toward the child
and pushes the child away (e.g. is punitive)
Rochette and Responsivenessa, affecta, sensitivitya, Responsiveness/sensitivity: responds to child’s needs
a a
Bernier physical proximity , hostility , (e.g. interprets cues correctly)
(2016) rejectiona Affect: parent is warm (e.g. praises child)
Physical proximity: physical affection (e.g. hugs the
child)
Hostility/rejection: parent is hostile toward the child
and pushes the child away (e.g. is punitive)
Roskam et al. Positive regard, negative control Positive regard: positive parenting and expression
(2014) toward the child
Negative control: composed of discipline, harsh
punishment and ignoring
Schroeder and Support Support: the level of emotional and social support
Kelley (2009) provided
Taylor et al. Intrusiveness Intrusiveness: the degree of being intrusive; examples
(2013) of intrusive behaviour included offering a
continuous barrage of stimulation or toys, not
allowing the infant to influence the pace or focus of
play or pulling the child’s hands off objects he or
she is holding
Taylor et al. Warmth, sensitivity Warmth: the degree to which the mother interacted,
(2015) responded and reacted to her child, such as degree
of eye contact, using a pleasant tone of voice, the
physical proximity and contact between mother
and child, display of closeness, friendliness and the
degree of physical affection
Sensitivity: based on how well the mother was tuned
in to her child, such as providing an appropriate
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 641

Table 5 (continued)

Study Categorisation of parental behaviours Construct descriptions/definitions (as presented by the

(meta-analysis) authors of the original studies)

level of stimulation when needed, appropriate

soothing and attention focusing and
encouragement of the infant’s efforts
Towe-Goodman Sensitivity Sensitivity: the degree to which parents consistently
et al. (2014) display responsive, emotionally supportive
behaviours that are well-time, well-placed and ap-
propriate to the child’s cues
Veron-Feagans Responsiveness Responsiveness: intervening when appropriate (e.g.
et al. (2016) provide appropriate positive verbal instructions)
and showing signs of warmth and sensitivity
(responding to child’s needs)
Li et al. (2016) Sensitivity, warmth Sensitivity and warmth: refer to mother’s accepting,
supportive and responsive or contingent
behaviours toward the child
Zalewski et al. Negative affect, scaffolding Negative affect: assessed the negative tone expressed
(2012) by the mother and included verbal and non-verbal
expressions of irritation that were critical, rejecting
or invalidating
Scaffolding: refers to parental intervention that is
contingent to the child’s need while also supporting
child autonomy
a
Description not provided by the authors of the study; however, a theoretical definition is provided based on
previous studies
642 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Appendix 4

Table 6 Effect size for each study and total weighted mean effect size for correlations between parental
behaviours and children’s executive functions
Effect size for each study and total weighted mean effect size for correlations between parental behaviours and children’s executive functions
Study name r Parental behaviour Lower limit Upper limit Z-value p Correlation and 95% CI
(95% CI) (95%CI)
Ato et al. (2015) .280 Positive .195 .361 6.243 .000
Bernier et al. (2010) .250 Positive .032 .445 2.241 .025
Bernier et al. (2012) .400 Positive .167 .591 3.254 .001
Bindman et al. (2015) .176 Positive .123 .228 6.420 .000
Blair et al. (2011) .307 Positive .257 .356 11.389 .000
Clark et al. (2015) .100 Positive −.086 .280 1.052 .293
Hughes and Ensor (2005) .270 Positive .102 .423 3.108 .002
Karreman et al. (2009) .150 Positive −.060 .347 1.402 .161
Konchanska et al. (2000) .160 Positive −.032 .340 1.638 .101
Konchanska et al. (2014) .380 Positive .198 .536 3.940 .000
Kok et al. (2014) .130 Positive .046 .212 3.041 .002
Kraybill and Bell (2012) .290 Positive .029 .514 2.174 .030
Merz et al. (2015) .201 Positive .078 .318 3.183 .001
Merz et al. (2016) .110 Positive .025 .193 2.545 .011
NICHD (2005) .370 Positive .305 .432 10.328 .000
Rochette and Bernier (2014) .229 Positive .047 396 2.456 .014
Rochette and Bernier (2016) .330 Positive .110 .519 2.889 .004
Roskam et al. (2014) .175 Positive .081 .266 3.615 .000
Schroeder and Kelley (2010) .328 Positive .141 .493 3.354 .001
Taylor et al. (2015) .460 Positive .341 .565 6.837 .000
Towe-Goodman et al. (2014) .198 Positive .121 .272 4.984 .000
Veron-Feagans et al. (2016) .220 Positive .164 .274 7.558 .000
Li et al. (2016) .280 Positive .123 .424 3.428 .001
Total weighted mean effect .245 Positive .204 .285 11.309 .000 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Bindman et al. (2013) −.230 Negative −.398 −.058 -2.608 .009

Blair et al. (2011) −.223 Negative −.274 −.171 -8.143 .000
Clark et al. (2015) −.138 Negative −.315 .048 -1.457 .145
Cuevas et al. (2014) −.350 Negative −.552 −.110 -2.807 .005

Hopkins et al. (2013) −.100 Negative −.168 −.031 -2.825 .005

Karreman et al. (2009) −.290 Negative −.470 −.087 -2.769 .006
Konchanska et al. (2003) −.540 Negative −.663 −.389 -6.132 .000
Lengua et al. (2007) -0.170 Negative -0.352 0.024 -1.717 .086
Lucassen et al. (2015) −.192 Negative −.267 −.114 -4.778 .000
Meuwissen and Carlson (2015) −.296 Negative −.458 −.115 -3.156 .002
Rochette and Bernier (2014) −.170 Negative −.343 . 014 -1.809 .071
Rochette and Bernier (2016) −.260 Negative −.461 −.033 -2.242 .025
Roskam et al. (2014) −.180 Negative −.271 −.086 -3.721 .000
Taylor et al. (2013) −.260 Negative −.377 −.135 -4.009 .000
Zalewski et al. (2012) −.170 Negative −.378 .055 -1.487 .137
Total weighted mean effect −.223 Negative −.273 −.172 -8.441 .000 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00

Ato et al. (2015) .100 Cognitive .010 .188 2.178 .029

Bernier et al. (2010) .310 Cognitive .097 .496 2.813 .005
Bernier et al. (2012) .340 Cognitive .099 .544 2.720 .007
Bibok et al. (2009) .220 Cognitive −.117 .512 1.285 .199
Blankson et al. (2011) .110 Cognitive −.013 .230 1.750 .080
Conway and Stifter, (2012) .240 Cognitive .002 .453 1.973 .048
Dilworth-Bart (2012) .310 Cognitive .032 .544 2.174 .030
Eason and Ramani (2016) .132 Cognitive −.227 .460 .715 .475
Hammond et al. (2012) .275 Cognitive .062 .464 2.509 .012
Hopkins et al. (2013) .153 Cognitive .084 .220 4.343 .000
Hughes and Ensor (2005) .250 Cognitive .078 .408 2.821 .005
Lengua et al. (2007) .230 Cognitive .038 .405 2.342 .019
Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2011) .460 Cognitive .217 .650 3.517 .000
Matte-Gagné and Bernier (2014) .310 Cognitive .094 .498 2.776 .006
Meuwissen and Carlson (2015) .304 Cognitive .124 .465 3.247 .001
Zalewski et al. (2012) .230 Cognitive .008 .430 2.028 .043
Total weighted mean effect .200 Cognitive .162 .236 10.285 .000 -1.00 -0.50 0.00 0.50 1.00
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 643

References

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B. Cardwell & H. Ricciuti (Eds.),
Review of child development research (Vol. 3, pp. 1–94). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.
Anderson, P. (2002). Assessment and development of executive function (EF) during childhood. Child
Neuropsychology, 8(2), 71–82. doi:10.1076/chin.8.2.71.8724.
Ato, E., Galian, M., & Fernandez-Vilar, M. (2014). Gender as predictor of social rejection: the mediating/
moderating role of effortful control and parenting. Anales De Psicologia, 30(3), 1069–1078. doi:10.6018
/analesps.30.3.193171.
*Ato, E., Galián, M. D., & Fernández-Vilar, M. A. (2015). The moderating role of children’s effortful control in
the relation between marital adjustment and parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(11), 3341.
doi:10.1007/s10826-015-0136-4.
Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: meta-analyses of
sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological Bulletin, 129(2), 195–215.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.195.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic Psychology
Monographs, 75(1), 43–88.
Bernier, A., Beauchamp, M. H., Carlson, S. M., & Lalonde, G. (2015). A secure base from which to regulate:
attachment security in toddlerhood as a predictor of executive functioning at school entry. Developmental
Psychology, 51(9), 1177–1189. doi:10.1037/dev0000032.
*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 childrens executive functioning. Child Development, 81(1), 326–339. doi:10.1111
/j.1467-8624.2009.01397.x.
Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development,
81(6), 1641–1660. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x.
Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Naglieri, J. A. (2011). Relations between executive function and academic
achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(4), 327–336. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007.
*Bibok, M. B., Carpendale, J. I. M., & Müller, U. (2009). Parental scaffolding and the development of executive
function. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009(123), 17–34. doi:10.1002/cd.233.
Biederman, J., Monuteaux, M. C., Doyle, A. E., Seidman, L. J., Wilens, T. E., Ferrero, F... Faraone, S. V. (2004).
Impact of executive function deficits and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) on academic
outcomes in children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,72(5), 757–766. doi: 10.1037/0022-
006X.72.5.757
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 and Psychopathology, 20(3), 821–843. doi:10.1017/S0954579408000394.
Bindman, S., Hindman, A., Bowles, R., & Morrison, F. (2013). The contributions of parental management
language to executive function in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 28(3), 529–539.
doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2013.03.003.
*Bindman, S., Pomerantz, E., & Roisman, G. (2015). Do children’s executive functions account for associations
between early autonomy-supportive parenting and achievement through high school? Journal of
Educational Psychology, 107(3), 756–770. doi:10.1037/edu0000017.
Bishop, E. G., Cherny, S. S., Corley, R., Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2003). Developmental
genetic analysis of general cognitive ability from 1 to 12 years in a sample of adoptees, biological siblings,
and twins. Intelligence, 31, 31–49. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00112-5.
Bjorklund, D. F. (1997). The role of immaturity in human development. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 153–169.
*Blair, C., Granger, D. A., Willoughby, M., Mills-Koonce, R., Cox, M., Greenberg, M. T., et al., FLP
Investigators. (2011). Salivary cortisol mediates effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in
early childhood. Child Development, 82(6), 1970–1984. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01643.x.
Blair, C., Raver, C., Berry, D., & Family Life Project Investigators. (2014). Two approaches to estimating the
effect of parenting on the development of executive function in early childhood. Developmental Psychology,
50(2), 554–565. doi:10.1037/a0033647.
644 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

*Blankson, A. N., O'Brien, M., Leerkes, E. M., Marcovitch, S., & Calkins, S. D. (2011). Shyness and
vocabulary: the roles of executive functioning and home environmental stimulation. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 57(2), 105–128. doi:10.1353/mpq.2011.0007.
Borella, E., Carretti, B., & Pelegrina, S. (2010). The specific role of inhibition in reading comprehension in good
and poor comprehenders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(6), 541–552. doi:10.1177
/0022219410371676.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (version 3).
Englewood: Biostat.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. New
York: Wiley.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., & Rothstein, H. (2007). Meta-analysis: fixed effect vs. random effects. Retrieved from
https://www.meta-analysis.com/downloads/Meta-analysis%20fixed%20effect%20vs%20random%20effects.pdf
Bornstein, M. H. (2012). Cultural approaches to parenting. Parenting, 12(2–3), 212–221. doi:10.1080
/15295192.2012.683359.
Brydges, C. R., Reid, C. L., Fox, A. M., & Anderson, M. (2012). A unitary executive function predicts
intelligence in children. Intelligence, 40(5), 458–469. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2012.05.006.
Bull, R., Espy, K. A., & Wiebe, S. A. (2008). Short-term memory, working memory, and executive functioning in
preschoolers: longitudinal predictors of mathematical achievement at age 7 years. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 33(3), 205–228. doi:10.1080/87565640801982312.
Carlson, S. M. (2003). Executive function in context: development, measurement, theory, and experience. Monographs
of the Society for Research in Child Development, 68(3), 138–153. doi:10.1111/j.0037-976X.2003.00270.x.
Carlson, S. M. (2009). Social origins of executive function development. New Directions for Child and
Adolescent Development, 2009(123), 87–98. doi:10.1002/cd.237.
Carlson, S. M., & Wang, T. S. (2007). Inhibitory control and emotion regulation in preschool children. Cognitive
Development, 22(4), 489–510. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2007.08.002.
Chan, R. C. K., Shum, D., Toulopoulou, T., & Chen, E. Y. H. (2008). Assessment of executive functions: review
of instruments and identification of critical issues. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(2), 201–216.
doi:10.1016/j.acn.2007.08.010.
*Clark, C. A. C., & Woodward, L. J. (2015). Relation of perinatal risk and early parenting to executive control at
the transition to school. Developmental Science, 18(4), 525–542. doi:10.1111/desc.12232.
Coleman, P. K., & Karraker, K. H. (1997). Self-efficacy and parenting quality: findings and future applications.
Developmental Review, 18, 47–85.
*Conway, A., & Stifter, C. A. (2012). Longitudinal antecedents of executive function in preschoolers. Child
Development, 83(3), 1022–1036. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01756.x.
Cowan, N., Fristoe, N. M., Elliott, E. M., Brunner, R. P., & Saults, J. S. (2010). Scope of attention, control of
attention, and intelligence in children and adults. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1754–1768. doi:10.3758
/BF03195936.
*Cuevas, K., Deater-Deckard, K., Kim-Spoon, J., Watson, A. J., Morasch, K. C., & Bell, M. A. (2014). What’s
mom got to do with it? Contributions of maternal executive function and caregiving to the development of
executive function across early childhood. Developmental Science, 17(2), 224–238. doi:10.1111/desc.12073.
Davidson, M. C., Amso, D., Anderson, L. C., & Diamond, A. (2006). Development of cognitive control and
executive functions from 4 to 13 years: evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, and task
switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078. doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006.
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Malone, P. S., Alampay, L. P., Sorbring, E., Bacchini, D., et al., Avd för
psykologi och organisationsstudier. (2011). The association between parental warmth and control in thirteen
cultural groups. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(5), 790–794. doi:10.1037/a0025120.
Devine, R. T., & Hughes, C. (2014). Relations between false belief understanding and executive function in early
childhood: a meta-analysis. Child Development, 85(5), 1777–1794. doi:10.1111/cdev.12237.
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from birth to young adulthood: cognitive
functions, anatomy, and biochemistry. New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093
/acprof:oso/9780195134971.003.0029.
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. In E. Bialystok & F. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan
cognition: mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093
/acprof:oso/9780195169539.003.0006.
Diamond, A. (2012). Activities and programs that improve children’s executive functions. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 21(5), 335–341. doi:10.1177/0963721412453722.
Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. doi:10.1146/annurev-
psych-113011-143750.
Diamond, A., Barnett, W. S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control.
Science, 318(5855), 1387–1388. doi:10.1126/science.1151148.
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 645

Dierckx, B., Tulen, J. H. M., Tharner, A., Jaddoe, V. W., Hofman, A., Verhulst, F. C., & Tiemeier, H. (2011). Low
autonomic arousal as vulnerability to externalising behaviour in infants with hostile mothers. Psychiatry
Research, 185(1), 171–175. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2009.09.014.
*Dilworth-Bart, J. E. (2012). Does executive function mediate SES and home quality associations with academic
readiness? Early Childhood Research Quarterly. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.02.002.
Dowsett, S. M., & Livesey, D. J. (2000). The development of inhibitory control in preschool children: Effects of
Bexecutive skills^ training. Developmental Psychobiology, 36(2), 161–174. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2302
(200003)36:2<161::AID-DEV7>3.0.CO;2-0.
Duan, X., Wei, S., Wang, G., & Shi, J. (2010). The relationship between executive functions and intelligence on
11- to 12-year-old children. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 52(4), 419–431 Retrieved from
http://0search.proquest.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.au/docview/1400191031?accountid=12629.
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness
and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428.
Durlak, J. A., & Lipsey, M. W. (1991). A practitioner’s guide to meta-analysis. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 19(3), 291–332 Retrieved from http://0-search.proquest.com.prospero.murdoch.edu.
au/docview/205347034?accountid=12629.
*Eason, S. H., & Ramani, G. B. (2016). Parental guidance and children’s executive function: working memory
and planning as moderators during joint problem-solving: parental guidance and executive function. Infant
and Child Development. doi:10.1002/icd.1982.
Engel de Abreu, P. M. J., Conway, A. R. A., & Gathercole, S. E. (2010). Working memory and fluid intelligence
in young children. Intelligence, 38, 552–561. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2010.07.003.
Fatima, S., & Sheikh, H. (2016). Adolescent aggression as predicted from parent–child relationships and
executive functions. The American Journal of Psychology, 129(3), 283. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.129.3.0283.
Fay-Stammbach, T., Hawes, D., & Meredith, P. (2014). Parenting influences on executive function in early
childhood: a review. Child Development Perspectives, 8(4), 258–264. doi:10.1111/cdep.12095.
Feldman, R. (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: the coregulation of positive arousal. Infant
Mental Health Journal, 24(1), 1–23. doi:10.1002/imhj.10041.
Flynn, J. (2016). Does your family make you smarter? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Corley, R. P., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., & Hewitt, J. K. (2006). Not all executive functions
are related to intelligence. Psychological Science, 17(2), 172–179. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01681.x.
Friedman, N. P., Miyake, A., Young, S. E., DeFries, J. C., Corley, R. P., & Hewitt, J. K. (2008). Individual
differences in executive functions are almost entirely genetic in origin. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 137(2), 201–225. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.137.2.201.
Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., & Stein, E. A. (1999). Right hemispheric dominance of inhibitory control: an event-
related functional MRI study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 96(14), 8301–8306. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.14.8301.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (2004a). The structure of working memory from
4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177–190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.2.177.
Gathercole, S. E., Pickering, S. J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004b). Working memory skills and educational
attainment: evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age. Applied Cognitive
Psychology, 18(1), 1–16. doi:10.1002/acp.934.
Gerstadt, C. L., Hong, Y. J., & Diamond, A. (1994). The relationship between cognition and action: Performance
of children 3 1/2–7 years old on a stroop-like day-night test. Cognition, 53(2), 129–153. doi:10.1016/0010-
0277(94)90068-X.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143.
*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.
Harwood, R. L., Scholemerich, A., Schulze, P. A., & Gonzalez, Z. (1999). Cultural differences in maternal beliefs
and behaviors: a study of middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mother-infant pairs in four everyday
situations. Child Development, 70(4), 1005–1016.
Heaton, R. K., Chelune, G. J., Talley, J. L., Kay, G. G., & Curtiss, G. (1993). Wisconsin Card Sorting Test manual:
revised and expanded psychological assessment resources. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Retrieved from
http://handbook.cochrane.org/
*Hopkins, J., Lavigne, J. V., Gouze, K. R., LeBailly, S. A., & Bryant, F. B. (2013). Multi-domain models of risk
factors for depression and anxiety symptoms in preschoolers: evidence for common and specific factors.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41(5), 705–722. doi:10.1007/s10802-013-9723-2.
646 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Hughes, C. (1998). Executive function in preschoolers: links with theory of mind and verbal ability. British
Journal of Developmental Psychology, 16(2), 233–253 Retrieved from http://0search.proquest.com.
prospero.murdoch.edu.au/docview/218739617?accountid=12629.
*Hughes, C., & 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_5.
*Hughes, C. H., & Ensor, R. A. (2009). How do families help or hinder the emergence of early executive
function? New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009(123), 35–50. doi:10.1002/cd.234.
Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function:
developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036. doi:10.1016/j.
neuropsychologia.2006.01.010.
Jose, P. (2013). Doing statistical mediation and moderation. New York: Guildford.
Kane, M. J., & Engle, R. W. (2003). Working-memory capacity and the control of attention: the contributions of
goal neglect, response selection, and task set to Stroop interference. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 132, 47–70. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.132.1.47.
*Karreman, A., Van Tuijl, C., van Aken, M. A. G., & Dekovíc, M. (2009). Predicting young children’s
externalizing problems: interactions among effortful control, parenting, and child gender. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 55(2), 111–134. doi:10.1353/mpq.0.0020.
Karreman, A., Van Tuijl, C., Van Aken, M. A. G., & Deković, M. (2006). Parenting and self-regulation in
preschoolers: a meta-analysis. Infant and Child Development, 15(6), 561–579. doi:10.1002/icd.478.
*Kochanska, G., & Kim, S. (2014). A complex interplay among the parent-child relationship, effortful control,
and internalized, rule-compatible conduct in young children: evidence from two studies. Developmental
Psychology, 50(1), 8–21. doi:10.1037/a0032330.
*Kochanska, G., & Knaack, A. (2003). Effortful control as a personality characteristic of young children: anteced-
ents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Personality, 71(6), 1087–1112. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.7106008.
*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), 220–232.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.36.2.220.
*Kok, R., Lucassen, N., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., van IJzendoorn, M., Ghassabian, A., Roza, S., et al. (2014).
Parenting, corpus callosum, and executive function in preschool children. Child Neuropsychology, 20(5),
583–606. doi:10.1080/09297049.2013.832741.
Kolb, B., & Gibb, R. (2011). Brain plasticity and behaviour in the developing brain. Journal of the Canadian
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 20(4), 265–276 Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/pmc/articles/PMC3222570/?tool=pmcentrez.
Kolb, B., Mychasiuk, R., Muhammad, A., Li, Y., Frost, D. O., & Gibb, R. (2012). Experience and the developing
prefrontal cortex. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,
109(Supplement 2), 17186–17193. doi:10.1073/pnas.1121251109.
*Kraybill, J. H., & Bell, M. A. (2012). Infancy predictors of preschool and post-kindergarten executive function.
Developmental Psychobiology, 55(5), 530–538. doi:10.1002/dev.21057.
Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K., et al. (2005). Physical discipline
and children’s adjustment: cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234–1246.
Landry, S. H., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2006). Responsive parenting: establishing early foundations for
social, communication, and independent problem-solving skills. Developmental Psychology, 42(4), 627–
642. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.4.627.
Lehto, J. E., Juujärvi, P., Kooistra, L., & Pulkkinen, L. (2003). Dimensions of executive functioning: evidence
from children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 21(1), 59–80. doi:10.1348
/026151003321164627.
*Lengua, L. J., Honorado, E., & Bush, N. R. (2007). Contextual risk and parenting as predictors of effortful
control and social competence in preschool children. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 28(1),
40–55. doi:10.1016/j.appdev.2006.10.001.
Lewis, C., & Carpendale, J. I. M. (2009). Introduction: links between social interaction and executive function.
New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2009(123), 1–15. doi:10.1002/cd.232doi:10.1111
/j.0037-976X.2003.00270.x.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis (Vol. 49). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
*Lucassen, N., Kok, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., Jaddoe, V. W. V., Hofman, A.,
et al. (2015). Executive functions in early childhood: the role of maternal and paternal parenting practices.
British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 33(4), 489–505. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12112.
*Li, Y., Sulik, M. J., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., Lemery-Chalfant, K., Stover, D. A., & Verrelli, B. C. (2016).
Predicting childhood effortful control from interactions between early parenting quality and children’s
dopamine transporter gene haplotypes. Development and Psychopathology, 28(1), 199–212. doi:10.1017
/S0954579415000383.
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 647

Luciana, M., & Nelson, C. A. (1998). The functional emergence of prefrontally-guided working memory systems in
four- to eight-year-old children. Neuropsychologia, 36(3), 273–293. doi:10.1016/S0028-3932(97)00109-7.
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: parent-child interaction. In P.
H. Mussen & E. M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: vol 4. Socialization, personality,
and social development (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.
*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(4), 611–625. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.006.
*Matte-Gagné, C., Bernier, A., & Lalonde, G. (2014). Stability in maternal autonomy support and child executive
functioning. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(9), 2610. doi:10.1007/s10826-014-0063-9.
Merz, E., Landry, S., Johnson, U., Williams, J., & Jung, K. (2016a). Effects of a responsiveness-focused
intervention in family child care homes on children’s executive function. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 34, 128–139. doi:10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.10.003.
*Merz, E. C., Landry, S. H., Montroy, J. J., & Williams, J. M. (2016b). Bidirectional associations between
parental responsiveness and executive function during early childhood: parenting and executive function.
Social Development. doi:10.1111/sode.12204.
*Merz, E. C., Landry, S. H., Zucker, T. A., Barnes, M. A., Assel, M., Taylor, H. B., et al., The School Readiness
Research Consortium. (2015). Parenting predictors of delay inhibition in socioeconomically disadvantaged
preschoolers: parenting and delay inhibition. Infant and Child Development, 25(5), 371–390. doi:10.1002
/icd.1946.
*Meuwissen, A., & Carlson, S. (2015). Fathers matter: the role of father parenting in preschoolers’ executive
function development. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 140, 1–15. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2015.06.010.
*Mileva-Seitz, V., Ghassabian, A., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M., van den Brink, J., Linting, M., Jaddoe, V., et al.
(2015). Are boys more sensitive to sensitivity? Parenting and executive function in preschoolers. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 130, 193–208. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2014.08.008.
Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., Witzki, A. H., Howerter, A., & Wager, T. D. (2000). The unity and
diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex Bfrontal lobe^ tasks: a latent variable
analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0734.
Monsell, S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind: tutorial
essays in cognition (pp. 93–148). Hove: Erlbaum.
Morris, N., & Jones, D. M. (1990). Memory updating in working memory: the role of the central executive.
British Journal of Psychology, 81(2), 111–121. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1990.tb02349.x.
Nauck, B., & Lotter, V. (2015). Parenting styles and perceived instrumentality of schooling in native, Turkish,
and Vietnamese families in Germany. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 18(4), 845–869. doi:10.1007
/s11618-015-0630-x.
*NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Predicting individual differences in attention, memory,
and planning in first graders from experiences at home, child care, and school. Developmental Psychology,
41(1), 99–114. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.1.99.
Oppewal, H. (2010). Concept of causality and conditions for causality. In Wiley International encyclopedia of
marketing. doi:10.1002/9781444316568.wiem02059.
Pechtel, P., & Pizzagalli, D. A. (2011). Effects of early life stress on cognitive and affective function: an integrated
review of human literature. Psychopharmacology, 214(1), 55–70. doi:10.1007/s00213-010-2009-2.
Pedersen, N. L., Plomin, R., Nesselroade, J. R., & McClearn, G. E. (1992). A quantitative genetic analysis of
cognitive abilities during the second half of the life span. Psychological Science, 3(6), 346–353. doi:10.1111
/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00045.x.
Pennequin, V., Sorel, O., & Fontaine, R. (2010). Motor planning between 4 and 7 years of age: changes linked to
executive functions. Brain and Cognition, 74(2), 107–111. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2010.07.003.
Pino-Pasternak, D., & Whitebread, D. (2010). The role of parenting in children’s self-regulated learning.
Educational Research Review, 5(3), 220–242. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.07.001.
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2013). Behavioral genetics (Sixth ed.). New
York: Worth Publishers.
Plomin, R., Fulker, D. W., Corley, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1997). Nature, nurture, and cognitive development from
1 to 16 years: a parent-offspring adoption study. Psychological Science, 8(6), 442–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
9280.1997.tb00458.x.
Poulin-Dubois, D., & Yott, J. (2014). Executive functions and theory of mind understanding in young children: a
reciprocal relation? Psychologie Francaise, 59, 59. doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2013.11.002.
Rabbitt, P. (1997). Methodology of frontal and executive function. Hove: Psychology.
Raven, J. (1989). The Raven progressive matrices: a review of national norming studies and ethnic and
socioeconomic variation within the United States. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 1–16.
648 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649

Rhee, K. E., Dickstein, S., Jelalian, E., Boutelle, K., Seifer, R., & Wing, R. (2015). Development of the general
parenting observational scale to assess parenting during family meals. The International Journal of
Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12(1), 49. doi:10.1186/s12966-015-0207-3.
Rhoades, B. L., Greenberg, M. T., Lanza, S. T., & Blair, C. (2011). Demographic and familial predictors of early
executive function development: contribution of a person-centered perspective. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 108(3), 638–662. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2010.08.004.
*Rochette, É., & Bernier, A. (2014). Parenting, family socioeconomic status, and child executive functioning: a
longitudinal study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, (1982-), 60(4), 431–460. doi:10.13110
/merrpalmquar1982.60.4.0431.
*Rochette, E., & Bernier, A. (2016). Parenting and preschoolers executive functioning: a case of differential
susceptibility? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 40(2), 151–161. doi:10.1177
/0165025414557370.
Romine, C. B., & Reynolds, C. R. (2005). A model of the development of frontal lobe functioning: findings from
a meta-analysis. Applied Neuropsychology, 12(4), 190–201. doi:10.1207/s15324826an1204_2.
Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183–192. doi:10.1037
/0033-2909.118.2.183.
*Roskam, I., Stievenart, M., Meunier, J., & Noel, M. (2014). The development of children’s inhibition: does
parenting matter? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 122(1), 166–182. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2014.01.003.
Rueda, M. R., Rothbart, M. K., & McCandliss, B. D. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the
development of executive attention. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 102(41), 14931 Retrieved from http://www.pnas.org/content/102/41/14931.full.
Sameroff, A. (2010). A unified theory of development: a dialectic integration of nature and nurture. Child
Development, 81(1), 6–22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x.
Sarsour, K., Sheridan, M., Jutte, D., Nuru-Jeter, A., Hinshaw, S., & Boyce, W. T. (2011). Family socioeconomic
status and child executive functions: the roles of language, home environment, and single parenthood.
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(1), 120–132. doi:10.1017
/S1355617710001335.
*Schroeder, V. M., & Kelley, M. L. (2009). Associations between family environment, parenting practices, and
executive functioning of children with and without ADHD. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 18(2),
227–235. doi:10.1007/s10826-008-9223-0.
Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26, 207–231.
Selig, J. P., Preacher, K. J., & Little, T. D. (2012). Modeling time-dependent association in longitudinal data: a lag
as moderator approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 697. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715557.
Shing, Y. L., Lindenberger, U., Diamond, A., Li, S. C., & Davidson, M. C. (2010). Memory maintenance and
inhibitory control differentiate from early childhood to adolescence. Developmental Neuropsychology, 35(6),
679–697. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.508546.
Spinrad, T. L., Eisenberg, N., Gaertner, B., Popp, T., Smith, C. L., Kupfer, A., . . . Hofer, C. (2007). Relations of
maternal socialization and toddlers' effortful control to children’s adjustment and social competence.
Developmental Psychology, 43(5), 1170–1186. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.5.1170.
St Clair-Thompson, H. L., & Gathercole, S. E. (2006). Executive functions and achievements in school: shifting,
updating, inhibition, and working memory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(4), 745–
759. doi:10.1080/17470210500162854.
Stuss, D. T., & Alexander, M. P. (2000). Executive functions and the frontal lobes: a conceptual view.
Psychological Research Psychologische Forschung, 63(3), 289–298. doi:10.1007/s004269900007.
*Sulik, M. J., Blair, C., Mills-Koonce, R., Berry, D., Greenberg, M., Vernon-Feagans, L., et al., The Family Life
Project Investigators. (2015). Early parenting and the development of externalizing behavior problems:
longitudinal mediation through children’s executive function. Child Development, 86(5), 1588–1603.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12386.
*Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2015). Respiratory sinus arrhythmia, effortful control, and
parenting as predictors of children’s sympathy across early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 51(1), 17.
*Taylor, Z. E., Eisenberg, N., Spinrad, T. L., & Widaman, K. F. (2013). Longitudinal relations of intrusive
parenting and effortful control to ego-resiliency during early childhood. Child Development, 84(4), 1145–
1151. doi:10.1111/cdev.12054.
*Towe-Goodman, N., Willoughby, M., Blair, C., Gustafsson, H., Mills-Koonce, W., Cox, M., et al., The Family
Life Project Key Investigators. (2014). Fathers’ sensitive parenting and the development of early executive
functioning. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(6), 867–876. doi:10.1037/a0038128.
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies
heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14(6), 623–628. doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.
psci_1475.x.
Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:607–649 649

van der Stel, M., & Veenman, M. V. J. (2014). Metacognitive skills and intellectual ability of young adolescents:
a longitudinal study from a developmental perspective. European Journal of Psychology of Education,
29(1), 117–137. doi:10.1007/s10212-013-0190-5.
Vandenbroucke, L., Verschueren, K., Ceulemans, E., De Smedt, B., De Roover, K., & Baeyens, D. (2016).
Family demographic profiles and their relationship with the quality of executive functioning subcomponents
in kindergarten. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 34(2), 226–244. doi:10.1111/bjdp.12127.
*Vernon-Feagans, L., Willoughby, M., Garrett-Peters, P., & Family Life Project Key Investigators. (2016).
Predictors of behavioral regulation in kindergarten: household chaos, parenting, and early executive
functions. Developmental Psychology, 52(3), 430–441. doi:10.1037/dev0000087.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio: The
Psychological Corporation.
Weiland, C., & Yoshikawa, H. (2013). Impacts of a prekindergarten program on children’s mathematics,
language, literacy, executive function, and emotional skills. Child Development, 84(6), 2112–2130.
doi:10.1111/cdev.12099.
Wertsch, J. V., McNamee, G. D., McLane, J. B., & Budwig, N. A. (1980). The adult-child dyad as a problem-
solving system. Child Development, 51(4), 1215–1221. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1980.tb02672.x.
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.
Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive
function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biological Psychiatry,
57(11), 1336–1346. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006.
Williams, L. R., Degnan, K. A., Perez-Edgar, K. E., Henderson, H. A., Rubin, K. H., Pine, D. S., et al. (2009).
Impact of behavioral inhibition and parenting style on internalizing and externalizing problems from early
childhood through adolescence. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(8), 1063–1075. doi:10.1007
/s10802-009-9331-3.
Willoughby, M. T., Blair, C. B., Wirth, R. J., Greenberg, M., & Family Life Project Investigators. (2012). The
measurement of executive function at age 5: psychometric properties and relationship to academic achieve-
ment. Psychological Assessment, 24(1), 226–239. doi:10.1037/a0025361.
Wu, K. K., Chan, S. K., Leung, P. W. L., Liu, W. S., Leung, F. L. T., & Ng, R. (2011). Components and
developmental differences of executive functioning for school-aged children. Developmental
Neuropsychology, 36(3), 319–337. doi:10.1080/87565641.2010.549979.
*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: poverty, single parent status,
parenting, cortisol and effortful control. Infant and Child Development, 21(5), 537–554. doi:10.1002
/icd.1759.
 Reproduced with permission of copyright owner.
Further reproduction prohibited without permission.