What is Special Education? Executive Functioning 1 3 iStockphoto/Thinkstock Pre-Test Poplasen/iStock/Thinkstock 1. 1. You can use the terms disability and handicap interchangeably. T/F Learning Objectives 2. 2. The history of special education began in Europe. T/F 3. the 3. end Theoffirst legislation protected students with disabilities was passed in the 1950s. By thisAmerican chapter, you should that be able to: T/F • Compare and contrast core executive-function processes. 4. 4. All students with disabilities should be educated in special education classrooms. T/F • Describe common measurements of core executive-function processes and evaluate how results of the mea5. 5. Special education law is constantly reinterpreted. T/F surements are interpreted. 6.• Analyze Answershow canattention be foundsupports at the end of the chapter. executive functioning. • Explain how prefrontal and ventral striatum neural regions are associated with executive functions in emotional contexts. • Articulate how different factors influence young children’s willingness to delay gratification. • Connect efforts to train executive functions in children to relevant theories and findings. Pretest Questions  Pretest Questions 1. Children play a game in which they say “day” whenever they see a picture of the moon and “night” whenever they see a picture of the sun. Children cannot succeed on this task until they begin formal schooling around age 6 or 7. T/F 2. The inattentiveness of children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is solely a deficit in attention and is unrelated to other cognitive processes such as memory. T/F 3. By adolescence, the brain is still maturing, which may explain why adolescents engage in risk-taking more than younger children and adults. T/F 4. Young children find it easiest to delay gratification when they attend to a reward and are reminded why the reward is worth waiting for. T/F 5. There is evidence that practice can help improve children’s memory, but it is inconclusive whether the positive effects are long lasting. T/F Mr. Gupta, a preschool teacher, has been recently hired to lead a classroom of 3- and 4-year-old children. Nothing he learned in his education up to this point prepared him for setting up a classroom by himself. As he considers how to arrange the classroom in anticipation of the school year beginning, he recalls conflicting advice and material learned in classes. Gupta remembers from one of his early childhood education courses that the quality of the surrounding environment can impact learning. One experienced teacher told him that children love a brightly colored room with lots of decorations, posters, and charts on the walls. Classrooms should feel safe and inviting, since this can also impact learning. Another told him to make sure the room was free of clutter and decoration. Gupta realizes both recommendations probably cannot be met—a classroom that has a lot of wall decorations and other materials will also tend to be cluttered. He also wonders if he interpreted this correctly. Ideally, he would like to have a bright but organized room. Gupta also wonders if he should allow children to sit where they prefer. Should he assign seating during activities that require concentration and attention? He has learned that children should be encouraged to have freedom and self-control—does this freedom include choosing seating arrangements? He is also trying to decide how to reward good behaviors like paying attention to the teacher. He is considering placing an attractive reward—such as stickers or a small treat—in the front of the room each day to remind children that they will be rewarded for good behavior. While the visibility of the reward could serve as a reminder to children, it might also pose a distraction. He is unsure which alternative is better. Questions to Think About 1. How does the classroom environment impact learning? What factors must a teacher consider to optimize learning? 2. Are 3- and 4-year-olds capable of making good seating-arrangement decisions? How much control should children have in the classroom? What are some of the pros and cons of too much or too little control for this age group? Introduction 3. Rewards need to be used cautiously and appropriately. What reward system is best for increasing positive behaviors? What part of the brain responds to rewards? 4. What strategies can be used to keep a room clean and organized yet also appropriate for the students’ age? Introduction In 1972 researchers in New Zealand initiated a long-term study assessing more than 1,000 individuals during infancy and at various points thereafter (Moffitt et al., 2011). Central to the investigation was identifying whether cognitive differences in childhood predicted health and criminal outcomes in adulthood. The general idea was to see if early predictors can help prevent later difficulties. By the time participants were 32 years old, some had been convicted of crimes. Others had developed cardiovascular problems, substance dependencies, and/or other health-related concerns. The researchers found that self-control was an important childhood predictor of these poor outcomes. Measurements of self-control included ratings by parents and teachers of children’s impulsive and inattentive behaviors. The predictive role of self-control was evident even after accounting for differences in the children’s socioeconomic status and intelligence (Moffitt et al., 2011). Specifically, 11-year-olds who had difficulty paying attention, persisting when challenged, and refraining from acting impulsively were at risk for the variety of negative outcomes listed above. Why? One reason is that poor self-control in childhood was associated with harmful lifestyle choices in adolescence (a developmental period defined by this book as roughly ages 13 to 18). Adolescents who smoke, drop out of school, and in general make poor choices place themselves at risk for later problems in adulthood. These important findings raise many questions relevant to this chapter. What exactly is selfcontrol? Is it composed of a single cognitive factor, or is it the product of many interacting cognitive factors? Can children’s self-control improve through cognitive training and parental efforts? Although the New Zealand study informs us about the effects of poor self-control, it does not tell us anything about the underlying processes that cause self-control to develop in the first place. This chapter will examine contemporary theories and research providing insight into these questions. Core Themes and Executive Functioning The study of executive functions draws from IP theory. Remember from Chapter 1 that IP theory views the mind as computer-like in that information enters the system, is processed, and then is stored. This model of the mind is closely tied to the operation of executive functions. Executive functions first impact incoming information by influencing what enters the cognitive system and what is ignored. Executive functions then coordinate and regulate information once it enters the system. In IP theory, cognitive processes have a domain-general influence, and their development is continuous rather than stage-like. Notice how the research findings described at the beginning of this chapter illustrate both of these themes of our text. The impact of self-control was Executive Functions: Introduction Section 3.1 far-reaching (evidence of a domain-general impact). Moreover, the qualities that define selfcontrol (persistence and attention) are the same (continuous) from childhood onward. In addition, individual differences in self-control exhibited a degree of stability over time (Moffitt et al., 2011), demonstrating idiographic continuity. The two other themes also recur in this chapter. First, the nature–nurture theme is evident in the influence of both neurological development and the environment on executive functions. Second, IP theory approaches the study of cognition through careful analysis of a task’s demands. How a child performs on the task indicates the developmental strength of the cognitive process needed to successfully meet the task’s demands. We will carefully describe some common executive-function assessments in this chapter. The performance–competence theme is evident as we point out how particular performance demands of a task relate to specific executive-functioning processes. 3.1 Executive Functions: Introduction Self-control in the New Zealand study was defined by behaviors like persistence, attention, and impulse control. Psychologists group these and other related processes under the term executive functions (EFs). EFs are a set of cognitive processes that regulate thought and behavior in the service of attaining a goal (Diamond, 2013). EFs operate like a traffic cop at a busy intersection, flexibly directing the flow of information, often simultaneously blocking one stream of information while permitting another stream to advance. EF development is associated with the maturation of the prefrontal cortex, the anterior (front) portion of the frontal lobe of the brain (see Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1: The human brain and the executive functions The prefrontal cortex is located in the frontal lobe of the brain and is related to executive function development. The ventral striatum in the limbic region is associated with processing information related to rewards. Executive Functions: Introduction Section 3.1 Executive functions are crucial for successfully handling everyday situations in which distractions, mind wandering, and temptations have to be resisted. They provide a foundation for academic success. For example, a beginning reader commonly errs by skipping a word or line of text. The ability to pay close attention and concentrate on the text rather than on noises and other distractions enables the child to minimize these types of errors. Executive functions are generally characterized as a related set of processes. In the next section, we describe the nature of these processes and their interrelatedness. Before we begin, some key findings of EF development that are often supported in the research literature are presented in the following list. 1. Components of executive functions are moderately interrelated. They appear to share an underlying structure, but the components are also distinct from one another. EF components are both unified and diverse. 2. The development of executive functions has broad, domain-general implications. EFs are associated with a variety of academic and behavioral outcomes. 3. Individual differences in executive functions exhibit a degree of stability during development. Thus, children who lag in EF development tend to remain behind in subsequent years. However, EFs may also be sensitive to environmental influences and consequently subject to improvement with intervention. 4. Maturation in regions of the prefrontal cortex is closely associated with the development of executive functions. 5. Executive functions often undergo rapid development in early childhood (roughly ages 3 to 7). Development during later periods continues but generally at a more gradual pace (Best & Miller, 2010; Diamond, 2013; Miyake & Friedman, 2012). Core Executive-Function Processes For many children, homework is a weeknight ritual. Some nights the complexity and quantity of certain assignments pose significant challenges. The executive functions are crucial for meeting homework demands, since they regulate and coordinate the child’s cognitive efforts. Without the executive functions, students would be unable to concentrate and would simply respond to whatever distracting sounds or stimuli were present in the environment at any given moment. For any homework children complete, they have likely had to filter out some competing demands, whether incoming text messages, a television show in the next room, or nearby conversations between family members. It takes a number of cognitive processes working in a coordinated fashion to ignore distractions and produce self-regulated, goal-directed thought. What precisely are the cognitive components that underlie our ability to concentrate and think deeply and attentively? Most researchers regard working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting as three core processes of executive functioning (Diamond, 2013). Many also regard attention as a key construct that underlies and unifies these three components. We introduce these processes in this section and describe their measurement and development in Section 3.2. Working memory is the process of holding task-related information in mind while performing a task. If you change your computer password and look for a notepad to write it down, you are using working memory to keep in mind the password while you find a pad. Executive Functions: Introduction Section 3.1 Inhibitory control involves suppressing information, thoughts, and/or actions that interfere with a goal. When children play Simon Says, they get used to obeying the leader’s commands. Inhibitory control is necessary when the leader omits “Simon says” while commanding children to “jump up and down.” Note how working memory and inhibitory control are related in the Simon Says game. Children must actively maintain the game’s rules in working memory (for example, “Act only if I hear ‘Simon says’”) in order to successfully inhibit a response. Set shifting involves flexibly switching attention from one task-related dimension or rule to another. Switching attention is accompanied by making a new response. The A-not-B error described in Chapter 2 is a type of set-shifting problem. The infant’s attention is first directed toward location A because that is where the toy is repeatedly hidden. When the toy is relocated, the infant must exhibit flexibility and switch attention to the new location. The change in attention guides the accurate response of searching in the new location (B). Note again the apparent interrelatedness of the EF processes. As we indicated in Chapter 2, the A-not-B error also involves memory (remembering the most recent hiding place) and inhibition (suppressing the practiced motor action of reaching for location A). Attention supports these three core EF processes. Attention is, broadly speaking, a system that maintains alertness, directs our sensory system in response to stimuli, and regulates thoughts and feelings (Posner, 2012). To get a clearer picture of attention, we turn to the apt description written by William James (1890), a founding figure in the scientific study of psychology: It is the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seem several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness are of its essence. It implies withdrawal from some things in order to deal effectively with others, and is a condition which has a real opposite in the confused, dazed, scatterbrained state which in French is called distraction. (pp. 403–404) James’s vivid description highlights two features of attention that support executive functioning. One is the ability to focus on a task by filtering out distracting information. This capacity is termed executive attention (Petersen & Posner, 2012). Executive attention is an attentional system that handles and regulates conflicting information so that some information is processed while other information is suppressed or ignored. When a child is listening to a teacher and also hears laughter in the school hallway, the two conflicting sources of information—the teacher’s instruction and the peers’ laughter—have to be handled so that one is suppressed and the other is the object of focus. When conflict occurs, executive attention is the system responsible for regulating and controlling the child’s cognitive focus (toward the teacher in this particular instance). Section 3.1 Executive Functions: Introduction A second feature of attention involves concentration and sustaining an effortful task-related focus. Maintaining a concentrated focus over time draws on the process of sustained attention (Betts, Mckay, Maruff, & Anderson, 2006; see also Petersen & Posner, 2012). Sustained attention is the ability to achieve a state of readiness and maintain that state of arousal; it is like the engine that fuels the child’s efforts. Executive attention is like the engine driver steering those efforts toward the task requirements and away from distraction. Real-World Application: Executive Function and School Readiness The executive functions are linked to academic achievement (Best, Miller, & Naglieri, 2011). Take a moment and imagine the ideal student. What distinguishes him or her from the struggling student? Consider the role played by executive attention, working memory, sustained attention, inhibitory control, and set shifting. Then follow the web link below to read practical examples of how executive functions relate to school readiness in young children. http://www.naccrra.org/sites/default/files/default_site_pages/2012/executive_ function_11-27-12.pdf Critical-Thinking Question How do the instructional demands on executive functions increase from preschool to grade school? The Structure of Executive Functions The previous section identified core EF processes. In this section, we address how the processes are interrelated. This has been the focus of a great deal of research, because if the executive functions are related to one another, then deficiencies in one executive function can impact the other executive functions. For instance, efforts to help the child resist the impulse to talk out of turn might also need to account for how working memory and attention support inhibition. If Question to Consider a child is attentive to an instruction held in memory (“Take turns playing the game!”), he or she may be more Imagine an everyday preschool activity likely to hold an impulsive action in check. for a 4-year-old, such as playing simple When a variety of EF measurements are administered to individuals, statistical analyses generally reveal that core processes (working memory, set shifting, and inhibition) are moderately correlated to one another (Miyake & Friedman, 2012). These interrelations appear to emerge from a common underlying factor. Because the strength of the interrelations is only moderate, each process is also relatively distinct from the others, as shown in Figure 3.2. In essence, the executive functions are like a family in that the individual members are related and form a unit; however, each member of the family is also unique. counting games with a teacher and peers. As you imagine creating an informal counting game, how does each component of the executive function help the child successfully engage in the activity? For instance, which EF component would be especially relevant in helping the child sort numerals into even and odd piles and then sort them again by magnitude (for example, into categories above and below the number 5)? Section 3.2 Development of the Executive Functions Figure 3.2: A hypothetical model of the executive functions The three core EF processes of working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting are believed to be interrelated and supported by attentional processes. Working memory Attention Inhibitory control Set shifting Source: Adapted from Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008; Miyake et al., 2000; Pellicano, 2012. 3.2 Development of the Executive Functions In this section, we look at the measurement and development of the processes described in the previous section. We carefully focus on task measurements in this section because the tasks illustrate precisely how we define EF processes. A brief overview of common childhood measurements of the three core EF processes is found in Table 3.1. Given the influence of the executive functions in so many aspects of our lives, creating accurate measurements of them is a fundamental goal. Accurate measurements inform our understanding of the development of executive functions, our ability to identify individual differences, and our ability to track whether interventions lead to improvement. Table 3.1: Representative tasks measuring three EF core processes in children EF core process Inhibitory control Working memory Set shifting Typical task requirement • Day–night: Say “day” when viewing a card illustrating night, and say “night” when viewing a card illustrating day, over a series of trials. • Stroop: Name the ink color (for example, “red”) when it conflicts with the word (for example, blue) over a series of trials. • Backward digit span: Repeat a series of digits (for example, 1, 4, 2, 8) in the opposite order the digits are presented. • Corsi blocks (backward): Point to a series of blocks in the reverse of the order in which an experimenter points to them. • Dimensional change card sort task: Cards vary in color and shape. In the preswitch condition, children sort cards by one dimension (for instance, blue cards go here, red go there). In the post-switch condition, the same cards are sorted by a different dimension (for example, shape). • Advanced dimensional change card sort task: Cards differ by three dimensions (color, shape, and presence of a border). If there is a border, cards are sorted by color. If there is no border, cards are sorted by shape. Sources: Alloway, Gathercole, & Pickering, 2006; Gerstadt, Hong, & Diamond, 1994; MacLeod, 1991; Pickering, 2001; Zelazo, 2006. Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 Working Memory We are often faced with the need to keep information in mind while carrying out a task. For instance, children are frequently asked in school to remember a set of instructions while completing a worksheet filled with problems. Working memory is the domain-general capacity for coordinating, monitoring, and manipulating information held in short-term storage (Alloway et al., 2006; Baddeley, 2012). By short-term storage we mean a limited amount of information is held in mind for a limited amount of time. Strategies like verbal repetition can extend the amount of information held in short-term storage and the length of time it is stored. (Effective memory strategies are discussed more fully in Chapter 4.) The central executive is the capacity in working memory for strategically attending to and organizing information in short-term storage (Baddeley, 2012). One common measurement of the central executive involves asking children to recall a series of numbers in reverse order (see Table 3.1). The central executive is involved as the child attends to each number in the series, reorders the numbers, and employs strategies to help recall. The central executive acts, in essence, like a command center. The phonological loop is the component of working memory that temporarily stores verbal information such as driving directions or phone numbers. The visuospatial sketch pad is a second component of working memory that temporarily stores visual and spatial information like the colors and arrangement of different eyeglasses in a recently viewed display case. These short-term stores are subsystems in working memory that essentially hold whatever information the central executive allocates to them. Working memory often plays a central role in academic-related tasks (Gathercole, 2008). Consider, for instance, the importance of working memory for mentally multiplying two-digit numbers. A child mentally multiplying 18 × 12 has to carry out the arithmetic operations (for example, 2 × 8 as a first step) while also holding in working memory (a) the products of each multiplication and (b) task-related rules such as carrying a number to the tens place if a product is greater than 10. Complex directions also challenge working memory. If instructed to complete an in-class assignment by, say, “circling verbs with a blue marker and nouns with a red one for even-numbered problems,” the challenge of holding these rules in mind while performing the task could overwhelm children with low working-memory capacity. Spotlight on Research: A Working-Memory Task http://gocognitive.net/demo/working-memory-capacity After clicking on the above link, launch the demo and select “simple math” for an example of a working-memory task. The central executive is tested because attention must be strategically allocated to two tasks, addition and memorization, that are occurring at the same time. How did you do on the task? What are some ways to accommodate children who may have difficulty in tasks that involve working memory? Links between working memory and academic achievement are well established in the research literature. For instance, grade school children with high working-memory capacity Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 employ more sophisticated strategies when solving math problems than peers with lower capacity (Geary, Hoard, & Nugent, 2012). Working-memory differences among beginning readers predict reading comprehension (Nevo & Breznitz, 2011). More generally, individual differences in 5-year-olds’ working-memory capacity better predicted academic achievement than IQ scores when children were retested 6 years later (Alloway & Alloway, 2010). Developmentally, performance on tasks that measure working memory in children (see Table 3.1) is positively related to age. One study found steady improvement between ages 4 and 11 in the number of items recalled on a series of working-memory tasks (Alloway et al., 2006). In another study, the magnitude of age-related improvements was greater for 3- to 6-year-olds than for 8- to 15-year-olds, since improvement began to level off in early adolescence (Tulsky et al., 2013). Working-memory capacity plateaus by early adulthood (McAuley & White, 2011). Prefrontal and parietal (behind the prefrontal) cortical regions of the brain are associated with working-memory performance and are increasingly recruited as development occurs from childhood into adolescence (Bunge & Wright, 2007). Children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) tend to perform more poorly on working-memory tasks than their typically developing peers (Martinussen, Hayden, Hogg-Johnson, & Tannock, 2005). ADHD is a developmental disorder characterized by inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Approximately 5% of school-aged children are diagnosed with ADHD (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Deficits in the central executive component of working memory mean that children with ADHD are less likely to maintain a task-related focus than peers (Kofler, Rapport, Bolden, Sarver, & Raiker, 2010). For instance, classroom behavior that is off task among children with ADHD—such as fidgeting or looking toward the window—can result from difficulties holding in mind rules or instructions (Gathercole & Alloway, 2006; Kofler et al., 2010). If a child struggles to remember instructions to solve a problem, he or she might simply turn attention elsewhere out of frustration or boredom. Some helpful strategies for teachers to reduce working-memory demands include breaking assignments into small sections and simplifying instructions (Martinussen, Tannock, & Chaban, 2011). We discuss ADHD, additional strategies for overcoming working-memory limitations, and the results of efforts to improve working-memory performance in children later in this chapter. Inhibitory Control Young children’s transition to kindergarten and formal schooling can be difficult. Although there are many challenges children face, such as working independently and getting along with others, teachers identify “following directions” as the biggest obstacle to school readiness (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). Inhibitory control is fundamental to overcoming this obstacle. For instance, when children are directed to stop working on their art project and put their paper in a folder, they have to stop (inhibit) what they are doing and activate a new set of responses that comply with the instruction (Rimm-Kaufman, Curby, Grimm, Nathanson, & Brock, 2009). Inhibitory control is a broad concept. For instance, inhibition is an important component of attention when distracting information needs to be suppressed. Inhibition is also important Section 3.2 Development of the Executive Functions for stopping a counterproductive behavior prompted by emotions and arousal. A child may be tempted to run in the hallway unless inhibitory processes delay or halt the impulsive action. Inhibition is also an important component of test taking. Academic test questions often have a superficially obvious but incorrect solution that conflicts with a nonobvious, correct solution. Inhibitory control is needed to block the more visible and obvious option. We will discuss inhibitory processes as they relate to attention when we discuss executive attention later in this section. The inhibition of emotional, counterproductive responses is discussed in Section 3.3 on delay of gratification. At present, we focus on the inhibition of an action during cognitive tasks that possess conflicting solutions. These tasks typically have minimal emotional content and require the child to suppress, or stop, a dominant but inaccurate response in favor of a response that is less dominant but accurate. Many inhibitory-control assessments are derived from the classic Stroop task used in numerous psychological studies over the years (MacLeod, 1991). In the Stroop task, individuals view a series of color words printed in different ink colors (see Figure 3.3). The requirement to suppress the dominant response (reading the word) while activating the less dominant response (naming the ink color) is the essence of the inhibitory challenge. Figure 3.3: Stroop task Reading the words in the following figure is easy, and you can probably quickly and effortlessly read each word. However, if you ignore the words and instead name the ink color of each term, you will find the task is more effortful, takes longer to complete, and may result in occasional errors. Similarly, when instructed to name the ink color of each printed color name, children must inhibit the habitual response of reading the word. The conflict between a habitual response and an instructed, less familiar response taxes inhibitory control. BLUE GREEN YELLOW PINK RED ORANGE GREY BLACK PURPLE TAN WHITE BROWN Accuracy in Stroop task performance when color and word are in conflict increases from childhood to adolescence and is related to maturation of the prefrontal cortex (Adleman et al., 2002). However, the Stroop task is not useful for young children who are not old enough to read the colored words. Consequently, the task must be adapted by using pictures. Beginning around age 3, the day–night Stroop task (Gerstadt et al., 1994) is administered to assess inhibitory control in prereaders (see Table 3.1). Children are instructed to say “night” when they see the sun card and “day” when they see the moon card. Children show steady Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 improvement on the task between ages 3½ and 7 (Montgomery & Koeltzow, 2010). Children’s errors—saying “day” when they see the sun card or “night” when they see the moon card— usually do not occur because they forget the rules of the task (Montgomery & Koeltzow, 2010). Instead, an important source of difficulty is their tendency to respond too fast. Four- and 5-year-olds show significant improvement on the day–night task when experimenters slow children down between trials (Diamond, Kirkham, & Amso, 2002; Montgomery & Fosco, 2012). Thus, children’s competence is linked to whether the performance requirements of the task are altered to take speed into account. The benefits of slowing down give us a clue to the possible underlying processes of inhibitory control. Theoretically, the correct and incorrect responses are, in effect, racing to be activated on each trial of the day–night task (Simpson et al., 2012). Saying “day” to the sun picture is habitual and consequently faster than the correct response (saying “night” for the sun picture). The habitual, but incorrect, answer tends to arrive first to the “finish line” and is more readily activated (uttered) by the child than the correct answer. Slowing children down during the day–night task may permit a sufficient amount of time to activate the less dominant but accurate response. Interestingly, some 3-year-olds show a beginning ability to slow themselves down following an error on an inhibition task (Jones, Rothbart, & Posner, 2003). As might be expected, slowing down following an error tended to relate to their overall accuracy on the inhibition task. From a practical standpoint, young children may have difficulty pacing themselves when working on projects or taking tests and assessments. If young children are particularly prone to rush through items and tasks, deliberate efforts to help them slow their pace could be especially effective in reducing inhibitory errors. Set Shifting As we noted earlier, the A-not-B error occurs when infants find an object in location A and then keep searching at that location in subsequent trials even after seeing the object placed in a different location. This error is an early instance of perseveration, which is repeating a behavior even after experiencing changes in the environment that make the behavior inaccurate. Measurements of set shifting in children often retain the central elements of the A-not-B task: (a) Children follow a task rule that leads to success; (b) they are told the task rule has changed; and (c) an opportunity is presented to either continue behaving in the outdated manner or instead switch to a new, correct behavior. The cognitive flexibility inherent in set shifting is tied to educational achievement. For instance, cognitive flexibility is linked to reading skills among beginners and grade school children (Cartwright, 2012). Words have two properties for readers—the sounds associated with the letters in the words and the meaning of the word when it is read. A poor reader tends to be inattentive to meaning while reading, inflexibly focusing on the letters and associated sounds (Cartwright, 2012). Practice that encourages children to sort words by sound and then by meaning can improve reading comprehension (Cartwright, 2010, 2012). Such findings indicate that flexible thinking can be learned with practice. Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 The most commonly administered measurement of set shifting in young children is the dimensional change card sort (DCCS) task (Zelazo, 2006). Children are instructed to sort a set of cards by one of two dimensions found on each card. As Figure 3.4 illustrates, these card dimensions are typically shape (for example, a car or a dog) and color (for example, red or blue). Figure 3.4: The dimensional change card sort task By age 5 children generally succeed in the post-switch phase of this task. However, younger children often continue sorting by shape even after they are instructed to switch to color. Source: Adapted from Zelazo, P. D. (2006). The dimensional change card sort (DCCS): A method of assessing executive function in children. Nature Protocols, 1(1), 297–301. Three-year-olds can accurately sort by the first dimension. However, until around age 5 children typically experience difficulty on the post-switch trials (Zelazo, 2006). This means they continue sorting by the first dimension after being instructed to switch and sort by the second dimension. Maturation of the prefrontal cortex may support set shifting in early childhood (Moriguchi & Hiraki, 2011). There are various theories explaining children’s difficulties on the DCCS task (Espinet, Anderson, & Zelazo, 2013; Kirkham, Cruess, & Diamond, 2003; Zelazo, 2006). One theory suggests the problem is attentional inertia, meaning that children’s focus is stuck on the irrelevant, Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 outdated dimension of the card in the post-switch condition (Kirkham et al., 2003). For instance, if young children are instructed to sort by shape, they have difficulty breaking free from attending to the shape of the card when they are supposed to sort by color. Helping children attend to the new sorting dimension in the post-switch condition can lead to improved set-shifting performance (Kloo, Perner, Aichhorn, & Schmidhuber, 2010). For instance, 3-year-olds’ accuracy in the post-switch condition improved when they were prompted to verbally label the relevant dimension before sorting (Kirkham et al., 2003). That is, if the new dimension was color, the experimenter asked, “What’s this one (card)?” rather than simply telling the child, “Here’s a blue one.” Apparently, children’s language (“It’s a blue one!”) served as a useful tool for guiding their attention toward the newly relevant dimension on the card (although see Müller, Zelazo, Lurye, & Liebermann, 2008). Notice that using language as a tool to promote cognitive development is consistent with the social constructivist theories discussed in Chapter 1. Interpreting EF Task Performance You may have noticed that many of the tasks we described in this section tap more than one EF process. Task impurity occurs when performance on an EF task is influenced by the core process being measured and other EF processes. For instance, the DCCS task that measures set shifting also requires a degree of inhibition. The child must suppress the pre-switch manner of responding and activate a new, less practiced way of responding. Although primarily measuring working memory, the backward digit span task—in which children are asked to repeat a series of nonsequential digits in reverse order—also requires a degree of set shifting. The child has to overcome the familiar way of ordering the digits and instead follow the novel rule of repeating the digits in reverse order. Task impurity reminds us that the executive functions are interrelated. Consequently, it is very difficult to test one executive function in isolation from the others. From a practical perspective, task impurity means that if a child exhibits a deficit on an EF task, we cannot immediately conclude that the deficit is restricted to a single EF process. For instance, poor performance on working-memory tasks could reflect, to some extent, problems with set shifting in addition to working memory. The interrelatedness of the executive functions also means that deficits in one process could lead to deficits that are symptomatic of other processes. As we mentioned earlier, deficits in working memory could lead to symptoms of poor attention (Gathercole, Lamont, & Alloway, 2006). Mind wandering during an activity may be the consequence of forgetting the information needed to complete the task (Gathercole, 2008). In such instances children may give up on the task at hand and turn their attention elsewhere. In this example, we can see how outward symptoms (poor attention) could be caused by deficits in a related, but distinct, process (working memory). We should be cautious in immediately assuming that poor performance on an EF task is directly tied to an isolated deficiency in a single EF process. Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 Attention Attention skills in early childhood predict later school achievement (Duncan et al., 2007). Indeed, parental ratings of preschoolers’ ability to persist and maintain focus predicted later math and reading skills at age 21 (McClelland, Acock, Piccinin, Rhea, & Stallings, 2013). Moreover, those same ratings of attention were predictive of the likelihood the children would eventually complete college (McClelland et al., 2013). These findings are evidence of idiographic continuity in development. This means individual differences in attentiveness can persist over time. The importance of attention is underscored by its hypothesized role in supporting the core EF processes (Espy & Bull, 2005; Garon, Bryson, & Smith, 2008). In this section, we discuss the development of two central components of attention: executive attention and sustained attention. Executive Attention Imagine a young child is given the following arithmetic word problem: Billy has two apples. He traded one of his apples to a friend for two bananas. All together, how much fruit does Billy have after the trade? While solving the problem, the child has to block out external distractions like the ticking clock in the classroom, the birds singing outside, and noises from other children. Internally, the child cannot become distracted by thoughts of how yummy apples taste or by irrelevant questions like “Why would Billy’s friend trade two bananas for one apple?” Finally, the child must specifically attend to key words in the problem, like all together, while devoting less attention to relatively insignificant words in the problem. These various processes constitute executive attention. Executive attention is a cognitive function that (a) inhibits information that is distracting and/or in conflict with a task goal while (b) monitoring the relationship between a response and a task goal (Rueda, Posner, & Rothbart, 2005). When a child detects an error or filters out irrelevant information, executive attention is at work. It is a broad concept that extends to focusing attention inwardly (such as on-task rules) and/or outwardly (such as blocking out distracting information or noticing when a response is erroneous). As we noted in the inhibitory-control section, children as young as 3 can detect errors and slow down accordingly (Jones et al., 2003). Monitoring performance in this fashion is a form of executive attention. A more common measurement of executive attention in children asks them to selectively focus on a target item surrounded by distracting information. In flanker tasks children have to inhibit interfering information while maintaining focused attention on a target (see Figure 3.5). Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 Figure 3.5: The flanker test of executive attention Across a series of trials, children are instructed to push a button displaying an arrow pointing in the same direction as the middle fish, called the target fish. Executive attention is assessed in the incongruent condition, since children must inhibit the distraction of the surrounding fish. Source: Rueda, M. R., Fan, J., McCandliss, B. D., Halparin, J. D., Gruber, D. B., Lercari, L. P., et al. (2004). Development of attentional networks in childhood. Neuropsychologia, 42(8), 1029–1040. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. Spotlight on Research: Eriksen Flanker Test http://cognitivefun.net/test/6 Try a flanker test yourself! Use your keypad to indicate the direction of the arrow in the middle of the screen. Notice how the distracting information requires regulation and focus on the target. How well do you think a child under age 6 would perform on this task? Use the information in this section to support your response. Children significantly improve on the flanker task between ages 4 and 6 (Rueda et al., 2005). By age 7 children reach a relatively high level of accuracy, and thereafter age-related improvement into adolescence is more gradual (Zelazo et al., 2013). Given children’s struggle to ignore distracting information, we have information to answer the questions posed in our case study found at the beginning of the chapter. Children who struggle to filter out distracting information can benefit from strategic seating arrangements in the classroom (Carbone, 2001). Children prone to inattention would benefit from sitting where classroom noise is minimized. Possibilities include sitting next to peers who are relatively quiet and sitting away from windows or doors where outside noise is more likely to be detected. Sitting near the front of the class could minimize visual distractions associated with viewing other children. As we see below, the child struggling with attention should also be seated where other visual distractions, such as bulletin boards, are not visible. Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 In the News: Colorful Classrooms Take a moment and picture the walls of a typical kindergarten classroom. In your image are they decorated with drawings, charts, pictures of planets, the alphabet, posters, and so forth? Most of us consider these materials an essential part of kindergarten, believing that they make the school environment engaging for children and thus help them learn. Because of this, media attention was drawn to a recent study investigating if these colorful, attractive displays might actually distract young children’s attention away from the teacher. In a study with kindergarten children, three school lessons occurred in a setting with limited displays on the wall. In another condition, three lessons occurred in a setting featuring walls decorated with a variety of items. Children exhibited less on-task behavior in the decorated classroom than in the other condition. In particular, children were more likely to be distracted by the visual environment in the decorated classroom instead of attending to the teacher and the learning materials. Children also exhibited less learning in the decorated classroom than children in the other condition (Fisher, Godwin, & Seltman, 2014). To learn more about this study and the commentary about it, visit: http://well.blogs. nytimes.com/2014/06/09/rethinking-the-colorful-kindergarten-classroom/?_php=true&_ type=blogs&_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=1 Critical-Thinking Questions 1. After reading the article, do you believe the effect of a decorated colorful classroom would also negatively impact older children? Why or why not? 2. Can you think of a way to decorate a classroom that might not adversely impact kindergarteners’ focus? Note that the construct of executive attention is broad enough to overlap with the three EF components described in the previous section (Garon et al., 2008; McCabe et al., 2010). In some theories of Stroop task performance (Banich, 2009), executive attention is what directs the child’s focus toward the ink color rather than the word’s meaning. In the DCCS task, attention to the relevant post-switch dimension on the card and the change in instructions are both important for successful set shifting. In working-memory tasks, children must attend to and actively maintain the information while avoiding distractions. Given the centrality of executive attention, researchers have asked whether the process can be positively impacted through experience. For instance, one study found that giving young children 5 days to practice performing attention-related tasks—such as visually tracking items and ignoring distractions—improved performance on the flanker task described earlier (Rueda et al., 2005). Subsequent work suggested attention training resulted in increases in children’s scores on a measure of intelligence (Rueda, Checa, & Cómbita 2012). When training was completed, the effect was still discernible after 2 months. Speaking a second language can also promote executive attention development. As early as the preschool years, 4-year-old bilingual children performed better than same-aged monolingual children on executive attention tasks (Yang, Yang, & Lust, 2011). As we will discuss in Chapter 9, such findings contradict any suggestions that exposing children to two languages will confuse them and interfere with learning. Development of the Executive Functions Section 3.2 One possibility for the bilingual advantage is that bilingual people have experience blocking interference from the language they are not using when conversing in another language (Bialystok & Craik, 2010). This experience at suppressing interfering or potentially distracting information might then generalize to executive attention tasks. In addition, bilingual speakers are familiar with monitoring their language use in situations where they switch back and forth between different languages. While at home, a child may use one language when speaking to a parent and then talk to a friend in a different language. Routinely switching attention in this manner might also facilitate executive attention (Costa, Hernández, Costa-Faidella, & Sebastián-Gallés, 2009). Sustained Attention Children may become unfocused even in relatively distraction-free environments. A child may become bored and fidget or daydream instead of completing a worksheet. In this case the struggle with attention reflects boredom rather than external distracters. This explanation for the child’s inattention refers to limitations in sustained attention. Sustained attention is the process of maintaining a state of arousal and vigilance during task performance. Toddlers’ ability to sustain attention and become absorbed in a task or activity, as rated by independent observers, significantly increases between 18 and 30 months (Gaertner, Spinrad, & Eisenberg, 2008). These results are consistent with other findings that indicate substantial increases between 26 and 42 months in the ability to sustain attention over time (Ruff & Cappozoli, 2003). Individual differences during this period are somewhat stable, meaning that differences in how well children sustain attention may persist over time (Gaertner et al., 2008). This is another example of idiographic continuity in development. Beginning around age 4, a common measurement of sustained attention is the continuous performance test (CPT). CPTs require children to respond to target items that occasionally appear on a computer screen over an extended time. For instance, in a preschool version of the test, animal pictures briefly appear on a screen one at a time for 200 trials (Müller, Kerns, & Konkin, 2012). Children are instructed to press a space bar whenever a sheep appears and avoid pressing the space bar when other animals appear. Because of the overall large number of trials and the infrequency of the target’s appearance, the task primarily involves sitting still and waiting. The child must overcome boredom and distraction in order to remain focused on the task. Errors of commission occur when the child presses the space bar when a nontarget item appears. Errors of omission occur when the target appears but the child fails to respond, presumably because of inattentiveness. Preschoolers make a relatively high number of both types of errors over the course of testing (Müller, Kerns, & Konkin, 2012). Performance on CPTs shows gradual improvement between ages 6 and 12 before leveling off in early adolescence (Lin, Hsiao, & Chen, 1999). Sustained attention relates to ADHD. Prominent characteristics of the disorder, such as difficulty sitting still and focusing on one thing, may reflect a deficit in maintaining vigilance and alertness. In many studies, children ages 6 to 12 who were diagnosed with ADHD made significantly more omission (inattention) errors on CPTs than comparison groups (Huang-­ Pollock, Nigg, & Halperin, 2006; Huang-Pollock, Karalunas, Tam, & Moore, 2012). Children Section 3.3 Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning with ADHD have a tendency to drift off task at a greater rate than other children. As we suggested at the outset of this section, this form of inattention can occur even in the absence of outside distractions. More generally, some theories suggest that the difficulties ADHD children have in staying on task are associated with the default mode network of the brain (Sonuga-Barke & Castellanos, 2007). The default mode network refers to a set of organized neural regions associated with mind wandering (Mason et al., 2007; Weissman, Roberts, Visscher, & Woldorff, 2006). When working on homework or some other cognitive task, there is a balance between cognition that is unrelated to the task and cognition that is task related. The default mode network is the part of brain implicated in thought unrelated to the task. In contrast, other neural areas—such as the prefrontal cortex—are active when thinking is focused on the task at hand. A recent study of individuals aged 7 to 21 years found that regions associated with EF, such as the prefrontal Questions to Consider cortex, mature at a slower rate for individuals diagnosed with ADHD compared to control groups (Sripada, 1. Language was an effective tool for Kessler, & Angstadt, 2014). directing children’s attentional focus on Additionally, there were neural immaturities in individuals with ADHD in the connection between the default mode network and prefrontal regions of the brains (Sripada et al., 2014). This could mean that regions of the brain associated with executive functioning may have reduced control over activity in the default mode network. Intrusive thoughts (day-dreaming) may occur more frequently for children with ADHD than for others because of these neural immaturities (Sonuga-Barke & Castellanos, 2007). the DCCS task. Can you think of other ways language could help direct children in other EF areas, such as inhibition, working memory, and sustained attention? 2. Is your answer more consistent with IP theory or social constructivist theory? Why? 3.3 Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Some tasks and problems have emotional consequences. Consider the EF demands that occur when a child is reading a passage during a high-stakes exam. The child’s attention is not only directed toward the text but also perhaps to strong emotions associated with passing or failing the exam. The executive functions are required to regulate the child’s emotions while also contributing to task performance. This section examines the operation of EF processes within emotional circumstances. Researchers characterize the potential impact of emotional and motivational contexts on task performance by distinguishing between “hot” and “cool” aspects of executive functioning (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). Cool EF operates on traditional cognitive tasks that are generally neutral in emotional content. For instance, remembering instructions or strategies while solving homework math problems is a context that routinely elicits cool EF. Traditionally, a lot of developmental research focuses on this aspect of executive functioning, as we saw in the previous section. Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Section 3.3 Hot EF operates when emotions and/or motivation and arousal processes possess heightened relevance during task performance. Researchers are assessing hot EF when, for instance, they place candy in front of a young child and tell the child he or she can have the candy only by waiting until time is up (Willoughby, Kupersmidt, Voegler-Lee, & Bryant, 2011). In this example, inhibitory processes are activated in the context of suppressing an emotionally gratifying behavior. Even if a child knows the correct response to a problem, emotions can complicate the process of arriving at it. For instance, in one study 3-year-olds were given a choice between either immediately receiving one treat or receiving multiple treats after a short time. Many 3-year-olds failed to inhibit immediate gratification and chose to receive the lesser of the two rewards. Children’s heightened emotional investment in the decision interfered with their ability to exert inhibitory control and make a good decision. However, when the stakes were “cooled down” and children were asked to choose on behalf of the experimenter, many 3-yearolds indicated the experimenter should wait for the better reward (Prencipe & Zelazo, 2005). Hot EF in the Context of Risk The emotional significance of hot EF assessments often involves the possibility of loss or reward. To illustrate, researchers presented the Iowa gambling task to children aged 8 to 15 (Prencipe et al., 2011). The task is a competitive game in which participants select cards from any of four decks. Cards in each deck contain both losses and gains measured in play money. In two of the decks, cards deliver large, immediate gains, but overall those decks are stacked so that choosing from them ultimately results in a net loss. The other two decks deliver smaller rewards, but choosing from them leads to net gains. In the gambling study, only the oldest age group (14- to 15-year-olds) eventually figured out it was advantageous in the long run to accept smaller rewards (Prencipe et al., 2011). This study illustrates that adolescents are better able to inhibit immediately rewarding responses compared to younger children. Nevertheless, adolescents’ inhibitory abilities are still immature relative to those of adults. For instance, adults are better than adolescents at avoiding high risk and ultimately disadvantageous choices on measurements like the Iowa gambling task (Cauffman et al., 2010). Related, the presence of peers can inflate the value adolescents attach to a risky decision (Albert, Chein, & Steinberg, 2013). To illustrate, adolescents were more likely to take risks on a laboratory gambling task when they believed a peer was watching them compared to when they believed they were unobserved (Smith, Chein, & Steinberg, 2014). More generally, adolescents’ risk taking in sexual activity, drinking, and driving poses a significant societal concern (Steinberg, 2007). Adolescence is theorized as a period of heightened sensitivity toward and anticipation of rewards (Blakemore & Robbins, 2012). Thus, adolescence may be a period of imbalance in which on the one hand, the “brakes” necessary for inhibiting risky behavior are relatively immature, whereas on the other hand, decisions are biased toward attaining rewards and sensations (Casey, Jones, & Somerville, 2011). Dual Systems Theory According to dual systems theory, the imbalance between sensation seeking and inhibitory control is associated with neural development (Blakemore & Robbins, 2012; Casey et. al., 2011; Somerville, Jones, & Casey, 2010; Strang, Chein, & Steinberg, 2013). Dual systems theory posits that separable neural systems are responsible for inhibitory control (saying “no”) Section 3.3 Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning and risk taking or sensation seeking (saying “yes”). Further, the theory posits that both neural systems have not reached maturity in adolescence. Recall that the neural system associated with inhibitory control is the prefrontal cortex. Consistent with dual systems theory, the prefrontal cortex is still maturing in adolescence (Giedd, 2004). As noted earlier, evidence indicates adults outperform adolescents on some inhibitorycontrol measurements; adults also show increased activation in prefrontal regions of the brain compared to adolescents on those tasks (Rubia et al., 2006). The increased activation for adults compared to adolescents means those areas of the brain associated with EF are still maturing during adolescence. In essence, the prolonged immaturity of the prefrontal cortex may be a contributing factor to adolescents’ vulnerability on tasks and in situations requiring inhibition. The second area of the brain relevant to dual systems theory is the ventral striatum. The ventral striatum is associated with detecting emotionally rewarding stimuli. This region of the brain showed elevated activation for adolescents when processing rewards compared to individuals in earlier and later periods of development (Braams, Peters, Peper, Güroğlu, & Crone, 2014; Van Leijenhorst et al., 2010). By activation we mean that functional magnetic resonance imaging measurements indicated that neurons in that area of the brain were active when a reward (such as money) was received. According to dual systems theory, if the ventral striatum is overactive during adolescence, a person may have a tendency for risky decision making that is biased toward rewards rather than restraint (see Figure 3.6). Figure 3.6: Dual systems theory Sensation seeking peaks in adolescence (ages 14 to 18 in the graph). Although impulsivity decreases during adolescence, impulse control is still relatively immature compared to young adulthood (ages 20 to 24). 0.2 Observed means (z-score) 0.1 0.0 –0.1 Impulsivity –0.2 –0.3 Sensation seeking –0.4 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 Age Source: Harden, K. P., & Tucker-Drob, E. M. (2011). Individual differences in the development of sensation seeking and impulsivity during adolescence: Further evidence for a dual systems model. Developmental Psychology, 47(3), 739–746. Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Section 3.3 Two points of clarification are needed with respect to dual systems theory. First, this theory is still being tested, and more research is needed to determine how well it withstands additional scrutiny (Pfeifer & Allen, 2012). Second, risky decision making can be influenced by many environmental factors, such as peers, families, and cultural norms (Viner et al., 2012). Families in which parents drink, smoke, or model risky behavior increase the likelihood that adolescents will engage in those behaviors (Viner et al., 2012). Generally speaking, we should be wary of attributing behavior to just one factor such as, for instance, neural immaturities. As we mentioned in Chapter 1, separating nature and nurture in explaining behavior is rarely helpful; instead, it is more productive to ask how nature and nurture work together to produce cognitive development. Delay of Gratification Delay of gratification occurs when an immediate reward is refused in order to obtain a greater reward at a later time. The use of rewards in delay of gratification tasks introduces an emotional component, and therefore, these tasks are measuring hot EF. In a classic series of studies that began in the 1960s, 4-year-olds were told they could have two treats, such as marshmallows, if they waited for a departing experimenter to return (Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989). They were also told that if they could not wait, they should ring a bell, in which case the experimenter would return and they would receive just one treat. The length of time children withheld from ringing the bell increased with age (Mischel et al., 1989). Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the results, however, was revealed many years later when the researchers revisited the original participants. Individual differences in the amount of time children were able to delay gratification and refrain from ringing the bell were positively related to SAT scores in high school (Shoda, Mischel, & Peake, 1990). Additional follow-ups revealed that children who waited longer than their peers were, as adults, less likely to use drugs (Ayduk et al., 2000), less likely to be overweight (Schlam, Wilson, Shoda, Mischel, & Ayduk, 2013), and more likely to attain higher education degrees (Ayduk et al., 2000). Neurological Differences in Delay of Gratification In the delay of gratification study, neurological differences between high delayers (those who waited a relatively long time) and low delayers were also observed when those same children (now adults) were tested approximately 40 years after the initial study was administered (Casey et al., 2011). Brain imaging data revealed that high delayers more actively engaged a region of the prefrontal cortex than the low delayers on trials that required inhibiting a response to a stimulus. In addition, the ventral striatum (associated with rewards and motivation) was more active in low delayers when the inhibitory task required ignoring an emotionally positive stimulus. The authors of the study speculated that low delayers could overreact to emotion-provoking stimuli that interfere with inhibitory control. This means that when an attractive stimulus was presented, the low delayers recruited the “reward center” of the brain to an exaggerated extent, increasing their challenge of suppressing the emotional information when it was necessary to do so. Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Section 3.3 It is worth remembering that neural differences between groups could be the consequence, rather than the cause, of behavioral differences. We also caution that the effects summarized in the previous two paragraphs are often modest. This means that other factors substantially contribute to the developmental outcomes discussed. For instance, many environmental and cognitive factors beyond delay of gratification ultimately contribute to academic and behavioral outcomes. Recall that nature and nurture work together to produce development and change. Nevertheless, the long-lasting link between delay of gratification and later outcomes in adolescence and adulthood is intriguing. It prompts us to ask what factors impact children’s ability to resist temptation and wait for the better reward. Attention and Delay of Gratification Young children are routinely asked to delay gratification. Things they want to do immediately—play outside while sitting in class, talk during nap time, blurt out a comment instead of waiting for their turn, grab a snack before dinner—must be suppressed in order to follow rules. As we see in the next two sections, research provides some clues about how children can learn to gain control over their impulses. Researchers have found that attention plays a critical role in children’s delay of gratification. For instance, in one study treats were either covered or left exposed for the child to view (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970). Children waited nearly twice as long (approximately 11 minutes) when the treats were hidden. Preschoolers are generally unaware that attending to a reward actually increases the difficulty of delaying gratification (Mischel & Mischel, 1983). It is only as children approach their sixth birthday that they consistently judge that covering the reward is the better strategy for delaying gratification (Mischel & Mischel, 1983). This evidence applies to a question we asked at the outset of the chapter. Recall that the teacher was considering placing an attractive reward for good behavior at the front of room. On balance, this would probably not be a good idea, because young children’s focus on the reward could make it more difficult for them to wait for it. The importance of diverting attention is evident in Mischel’s (2012) observations: The kids who managed to delay were doing anything they could to distract themselves from the rewards and reduce their frustration while continuing to wait; for example, by fidgeting, squirming, hiding their eyes to not see the temptations, kicking the table, playing with their toes and fingers, picking their noses and ears in elaboratively imaginative ways. (p. 7) Other researchers have also found that inhibition is compromised by directly attending to a treat. In one study, 3-year-olds were instructed to point to a lesser reward (two candies) in order to obtain a greater reward (five candies). Many children pointed to the large number of candies even though doing so meant receiving the lesser reward (Carlson, Davis, & Leach, 2005). For these young children it was as though the very sight of a large amount of candy was so dominant that it overwhelmed the instruction to instead focus on (and point to) the smaller amount of candy. Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Section 3.3 In another condition of the study, the candy was placed inside a closed box. Children were taught that symbols on the boxes represented different amounts; for instance, a picture of an elephant was placed atop a box containing the larger number of candies, and a picture of a mouse symbolized the smaller amount of candy contained in another box. Children were much better at correctly pointing to the small amount of candy when it was not visible but instead symbolized by the mouse picture (see Figure 3.7). Symbolic representations were helpful substitutes that replaced the alluring perceptual features of the candy. The researchers conclude that distancing oneself from immediate properties of the rewards can help reduce the power of the temptation (Carlson et al., 2005; see also Addessi et al., 2014). From a practical standpoint, strategies that involve imagining the temptation as something without allure are similarly effective. If young children are taught, for instance, to think of marshmallows as fluffy clouds or pretzels as brown logs rather than yummy treats, delay of gratification substantially increases (Mischel & Baker, 1975). Figure 3.7: Delay of gratification using treats and symbols Three-year-olds find it difficult to inhibit pointing to a large amount of candy when it is visible. When the different amounts of candy are symbolized (with animal pictures), children more readily inhibit pointing to the box containing more candy. Source: Adapted from Carlson, S. M., Davis, A. C., & Leach, J. G. (2005). Less is more executive function and symbolic representation in preschool children. Psychological Science, 16(8), 609–616. Pretend Play and Delay of Gratification Some research suggests that experience with pretend play might be one way young children develop skills to use symbols and distance themselves from the immediate properties of stimuli. For instance, when a child pretends a banana is a telephone, the child is ignoring the alluring edible properties of the banana so long as the fruit is simply a symbolic prop in a game (Carlson, White, & Davis-Unger, 2014). Similarly, Vygotsky theorized that pretend play requires, and stimulates, self-control in young children. To illustrate, if a child is pretending that pieces of candy are cars, the game with the “cars” is ruined if the child cannot resist the impulse to unwrap the candy and start eating it. Section 3.3 Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Vygotsky (1978b) wrote: A child’s greatest self-control occurs in play. He achieves the maximum display of willpower when he renounces an immediate attraction in the game (such as candy, which by the rules of the game he is forbidden to eat because it represents something inedible). Ordinarily a child experiences subordination to rules in the renunciation of something he wants, but here subordination to a rule and renunciation of action on immediate impulse are the means to maximum pleasure. (p. 99) To date, evidence that pretend play improves children’s executive functions is inconclusive (Lillard et al., 2013). The possibility, however, is intriguing and continues to receive attention by researchers. Spotlight on Research: Social Trust and Delay of Gratification Children’s willingness to delay gratification may depend on how much they trust the promised reward will, in fact, arrive (Kidd, Palmeri, & Aslin, 2013). If children suspect the delayed reward may not be delivered, then it is reasonable for them to accept the lesser, but immediate, reward. To test this hypothesis, 3- to 5-year-old children were placed in two conditions featuring a “reliable” or “unreliable” experimenter. In the unreliable condition, the experimenter made a promise that was later broken. For instance, the experimenter promised to replace worn-out crayons with brand-new art supplies. Children were asked to wait while the investigator went into another room to retrieve the new supplies. After a predetermined amount of time, 2½ minutes, the experimenter returned and said, “I’m sorry, but I made a mistake. We don’t have any other art supplies after all” (Kidd et al., 2013, p. 111). A second broken promise occurred when the experimenter did not bring the children some colorful stickers. Next, a single marshmallow was revealed. The experimenter informed the children they could have two marshmallows, but first they would have to wait for the experimenter to retrieve the additional marshmallow. As the experimenter left the room, children were also told that if they ate the one marshmallow left on the table in front of them, they would not receive the second, promised marshmallow. Children in the unreliable condition waited, on average, roughly 3 minutes before eating the marshmallow (see Figure 3.8). In contrast, children in the reliable condition waited approximately 4 times longer! By comparison, preschoolers waited approximately 6 minutes, on average, in Mischel’s original delay of gratification studies (Mischel & Ebbesen, 1970). We can speculate on how children in each condition interpreted the situation. In the unreliable condition, children’s patience was relatively limited because they had grown to distrust the experimenter. In contrast, children in the reliable condition presumably learned to trust the experimenter and were willing to wait for a longer time for the promised reward. (continued) Section 3.3 Hot EF: Emotions and Executive Functioning Spotlight on Research: Social Trust and Delay of Gratification (continued) Figure 3.8: Differences in children’s delay of gratification when experimenters are reliable or unreliable 1.0 15 0.8 Reliable Reliable 0.6 0.4 0.2 Mean wait time (minutes) Proportion of children who waited 15 minutes Children who viewed reward-promising experimenters as reliable were more likely to wait 15 minutes for a better reward than those who saw the experimenters as unreliable. The figure on the right illustrates the differences in the average amount of time children were willing to delay gratification. 10 5 Unreliable Unreliable 0.0 Unreliable Reliable 0 Unreliable Reliable Source: Kidd, C., Palmeri, H., & Aslin, R. N. (2013). Rational snacking: Young children’s decision-making on the marshmallow task is moderated by beliefs about environmental reliability. Cognition, 126(1), 109–114. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier. These findings indicate that children’s views about the trustworthiness of others may be a factor that influences their willingness to delay gratification. Kidd et al. (2013) suggest that children growing up in challenging circumstances may find it difficult to wait for a delayed reward because they have learned to mistrust others. Financial struggles may prevent a parent from following through on a promised toy or gift; unsupervised older siblings may routinely cheat a young sibling out of an anticipated treat; and so forth. What appears to be impulsive behavior may, in actuality, be a reasonable cognitive strategy of capitalizing on the immediate reward instead of waiting for a promised one that will probably not materialize. Alternatively, children growing up in environments in which promises are routinely kept may be especially prepared to delay gratification in some circumstances. Critical-Thinking Questions 1. Think of some rewards or circumstances young children anticipate in the context of preschool and early childhood care. What factors impact the consistency of the delivery of those anticipated outcomes? 2. What are some ways that a preschool setting might feature consistency and reliability throughout the day? Environmental Influences on EF Section 3.4 Assessing delay of gratification in older children often involves money or game tokens rather than marshmallows. For instance, a common measurement asks children if they would prefer to immediately accept an envelope containing one dollar or wait a week and receive two dollars. In one study, the choice eighth graders made for either the immediate or better reward correlated with other measures of self-discipline (Duckworth & Seligman, 2005). In that study, adolescents’ overall self-discipline was a stronger predictor of school grades than IQ scores. Questions to Consider increases from early to late adolescence (Steinberg et al., 2009). One explanation for the change is the increased ability to anticipate future consequences (Steinberg et al., 2009). For instance, adolescents are more likely than younger children to endorse statements such as “Things work better if they are planned in advance.” 2. Why do you think delay of gratification in 4-year-olds predicts their SAT scores in high school? What does your answer say about the nature–nurture debate? 1. According to Vygotsky, play helps young children develop self-control. Could play positively impact selfcontrol beyond early childhood? For instance, could playing games that require a lot of rule following help or hinder self-control during adolescence? Do you think it would matter if the rulefollowing games were video games? Why or why not? Developmentally, choosing to wait for the better reward 3.4 Environmental Influences on EF If children who lag behind peers in cognitive development can make gains in executive functioning, it is hoped that these gains will lead to lasting improvement in school and other settings. For instance, a young child may have trouble adjusting to school. Perhaps the child talks out of turn or either rushes through activities or takes too long to complete assignments. Is there some activity or set of activities parents, teachers, and others can do to help the child make gains in areas like inhibition and attentiveness? Although this question emphasizes the influence of nurture on development, it is also the case that nature (brain maturation) may be especially open to the influence of the environment on executive functions. In particular, the prefrontal cortex, which is associated with EF development, takes a relatively long time to reach full maturity. In fact, maturation can continue into early adulthood (Giedd, 2004). The extended immaturity suggests the prefrontal cortex possesses plasticity. This means it may be modifiable by experiences. In this section, we first describe various interventions designed to improve children’s executive functions. Second, we look at how everyday parenting behaviors might also contribute to the optimal development of children’s executive functions. Interventions and training programs involve practicing EF tasks over time. Training can take place in schools or researchers’ labs. Typically, such programs are evaluated on at least three criteria. First, does training produce measureable gains for the executive function that is being trained? Second, if improvements occur, do they transfer to other related measurements and behaviors? For instance, if training efforts improve working-memory performance, are related constructs like inhibitory control and academic achievement also positively impacted? The Environmental Influences on EF Section 3.4 third criterion follows from the first two; namely, how long do the gains resulting from training last? To date, the research literature permits two general conclusions to be drawn about efforts to improve children’s executive functioning. Some evidence indicates that various interventions might be effective in improving executive functioning. However, evidence is inconclusive about whether improvements in executive functioning are long-lasting gains that transfer to academic and behavioral outcomes. Factors that may improve children’s executive functions include: 1. repeated practice on tasks and computerized activities that challenge executive function skills; 2. engagement in aerobic exercise and exergames (video games that stimulate physical activity) beginning as early as age 6; and 3. preschool curricula that support and promote opportunities to regulate emotion and attention, reduce stress, focus on communication skills, and/or encourage self-talk as a tool to regulate behavior (Best, 2012; Diamond, 2012; Guiney & Machado, 2013; Ursache, Blair, & Raver, 2012). Note how intervention efforts reflect theory and evidence discussed in this chapter. Aerobic exercise may improve blood supply to cortical areas and, in turn, promote the growth of new neurons (Davis et al., 2011). This theory is consistent with evidence we have discussed elsewhere that relates EF development to neural maturation. We have also seen in this chapter how practice can improve executive functioning on tasks. Also, our earlier discussion of bilingual effects on executive attention illustrated the role of language in facilitating executive functioning. In short, the interventions listed are motivated by, and expand on, theory and research. OJO Images/SuperStock Physical exercise may improve executive functioning in children. It must be emphasized, however, that these effects are not confirmed in the research literature (Melby-Lervåg & Hulme, 2013; Rapport, Orban, Kofler, & Friedman, 2013). Sometimes they are not replicated, and as we noted earlier, there is no consensus on whether observed improvements on executive function tasks are long lasting and impact social and academic outcomes. To illustrate, a body of research has examined whether training working memory improves outcomes for children diagnosed with ADHD. Training typically involves extensive, daily practice on computerized memory tasks. Practice may last a month or longer. If performance improves and the child demonstrates mastery, the tasks become increasingly difficult. In some respects, training is similar to learning to play a game. Mastery of beginning levels leads to higher and more challenging levels that, with practice, will also be eventually mastered. In a representative study, practice improved aspects of working memory in 7- to 11-yearold children with ADHD (Chacko et al., 2014). The improvement was evident in digit recall, Environmental Influences on EF Section 3.4 for instance, when working memory was measured a few weeks after training. However, the training did not impact ADHD symptoms (attention, impulsivity, and high activity level). Working-memory training’s lack of effect on ADHD symptoms is a common outcome in the research literature to date (Rapport et al., 2013). Thus, while some improvement in executive function can occur with training, the effects of that training on symptoms and behavior are still open to debate. Improving Executive Functions in the Classroom It should also be emphasized that training efforts are not substitutes for other means of intervention. In particular, adapting the environment so it does not overly tax executive functions is another way to help children. For instance, if a child exhibits poor working memory, adapting classroom demands, when possible, could positively impact academic performance. Gathercole (2008) suggests working-memory loads could be reduced in the classroom by: • • • • • having the teacher repeat important task information; using external memory aids like charts; restructuring complex tasks and instructions into small, meaningful units; encouraging the use of memory strategies; and creating a classroom environment in which the child can ask for help when instructions are forgotten. In addition, we have seen throughout the chapter evidence that direct intervention and instruction can improve EF performance. Recall, for instance, how directing children’s attention away from interfering information on the DCCS and delay of gratification tasks improved performance. Other factors, like slowing children down or lessening visual distractions in the classroom, also reduce EF demands. Parenting and Executive Functions Some of the characteristics of effective preschool curricula—low stress and an emphasis on using language for self-regulation—are also evident in certain parenting behaviors that may be particularly beneficial to the early development of executive functions. To illustrate, researchers in one study observed 15-month-olds and their mothers putting together two puzzles (Bernier, Carlson, & Whipple, 2010). Autonomy support occurred when mothers supplied emotional encouragement along with age-appropriate hints and suggestions. The suggestions were not too direct; that is, they assisted the child while still leaving room for the child to make choices and actively participate. Thus, autonomy (that is, a sense of independence) was encouraged but balanced with enough support and encouragement so that the child could successfully complete the task. Fifteen-month-olds whose mothers were high in autonomy support performed significantly better at follow-up (18 and 26 months) on EF measurements compared to children whose mothers were low in autonomy support. The authors suggest that parental hints, reminders, and suggestions in problem-solving contexts can teach children how language can serve as a tool for regulating and guiding behavior (see also Bibok, Carpendale, & Müller, 2009). This view is consistent with social constructivist theories that posit a crucial role for language in promoting cognitive development. Summary and Resources For instance, we know from discussions earlier in the chapter that inhibitory control improves if children slow down. If a parent helpfully reminds a toddler to “slow down,” the child may imitate the parent and begin repeating the same reminder. Self-reminders might then generalize to new circumstances and help the child regulate his or her own behavior. The use of language to teach and guide problem solving is discussed in Chapter 7. In contrast, there is a tendency for EF development to lag between ages 2 and 4 in children growing up in a family environment that is disorganized, unpredictable, and generally chaotic (Hughes & Ensor, 2009). In addition, children growing up in chronic poverty often experience high levels of stress, which is in turn linked to relatively low EF scores (Raver, Blair, & Willoughby, 2013). In early childhood, therefore, efforts to support inhibitory control can be especially useful in combating the adverse consequences of poverty on children’s development. These efforts include preschool classroom management by reinforcing positive behavior, establishing and enforcing clear rules and routines, and managing children’s negative behaviors (Raver et al., 2011). A structured environment at school can be a welcome contrast to instability at home. Poverty can involve moving frequently from home to home and/or having a parent be unpredictably available if work hours shift from week to week. It may be difficult for a child to learn to plan and follow rules under such circumstances. A positive and structured environment at school can help improve children’s inhibitory control, perhaps because children gain practice in remembering and following rules and also in planning and organizing their daily routines (Raver et al., 2011). Questions to Consider 1. If you only had time and resources to devote to training just one of the executive functions, which would you choose? Why? 2. Would it matter which age group you chose to work with? Why or why not? Summary and Resources Given the importance of executive functions in everyday life, we can see how delays in EF development coupled with a challenging home life can place a child at risk for poor outcomes. Hopefully, as researchers learn more about executive functions and the factors that support their development, efforts to help children in this foundational area of cognitive development will grow in effectiveness. Chapter Summary • • Three core executive functions are inhibitory control, set shifting, and working memory. These core processes are moderately related to one another. Attention enhances and supports the executive functions. Inhibitory control involves suppressing incorrect responses while activating correct ones. Set shifting is flexibly modifying behavior in the context of change. Working memory is maintaining task-related information in short-term storage while performing the task. Summary and Resources • • • • • • • • • The executive functions undergo rapid development in early childhood. Individual differences on tasks that measure the executive functions are consistently related to academic outcomes. Because of task impurity, poor performance on an executive function task could reflect deficits in more than one executive function process. Executive attention is a broad construct that involves maintaining a task-related focus. It supports working memory, inhibitory control, and set shifting. Sustained attention is the process of maintaining cognitive readiness. Children with ADHD have difficulty sustaining attention. The executive functions continue to develop in adolescence, as evidenced by adolescents’ vulnerability to poor executive functioning in emotional contexts (hot EF). Dual systems theory associates elevated risk-taking among adolescents with immaturity of the prefrontal cortex coupled with heightened sensitivity to rewards in the ventral striatum. Research investigating young children’s delay of gratification focuses on the importance of factors such as attention, cognitively distancing oneself from a temptation, pretend play, and children’s familiarity with receiving promised rewards. Individual differences in children’s ability to delay gratification are associated with differences in later academic and health outcomes. Children’s executive functions may be improved through training and parenting behaviors. Evidence is inconclusive about whether improvements in the executive functions are long lasting or have a wide impact on academic and social outcomes. Posttest Questions 1. The executive functions tend to develop most rapidly during which age period? a. b. c. d. early childhood (ages 3–7) middle childhood (ages 8–12) early adolescence (ages 13–15) late adolescence (ages 16–18) 2. Which statement about the structure of executive functions is FALSE? a. Three core processes of the executive functions are inhibition, working memory, and set shifting. b. The core processes of the executive functions are unrelated to one another in early childhood and become strongly interrelated during development. c. The core processes of the executive functions are both interrelated and distinct from one another. d. The core processes of the executive functions are each supported by attention. 3. Maintaining concentration and focus over an extended time is most closely associated with . a. b. c. d. sustained attention executive attention inhibitory control set shifting Summary and Resources 4. Suppose some children are instructed to sort cards of boats into the boat pile and cards of houses into the house pile. Some cards of houses and boats are red and others are blue. When later instructed to switch to sorting the cards by color, 3-yearolds will most likely . a. sort the cards randomly because they will forget the sorting rules b. put house and boat cards into a single pile because of the two-dimensional nature of the cards c. continue to sort the cards by shape d. switch and sort by color 5. All else being equal, children who are bilingual tend to . a. perform worse than monolingual children on tests of executive attention b. not understand instructions for executive attention tests, making comparisons with monolingual children invalid c. perform better than monolingual children on tests of executive attention d. perform the same as monolingual children on tests of executive attention 6. A child is given a task that involves sorting odd- and even-numbered cards one at a time into two piles. While doing so, the child must hold in mind the total number of cards in each pile. This task is most directly a test of the child’s . a. b. c. d. deductive reasoning “hot” inhibitory control working memory delay of gratification a. b. c. d. high; high low; low high; low low; high a. b. c. d. they attend to the reward they trust the experimenter who promised the delayed reward they do not attend to the reward they symbolize the reward so that its alluring properties are reduced a. b. c. d. relatively low SAT scores very few later outcomes increased incidence of obesity increased incidence of drug use 7. According to dual systems theory, compared to adulthood the period of adolescence is a time of inhibitory control and sensitivity to reward and sensation. 8. Young children tend to exhibit low delay of gratification when . 9. Evidence indicates that low delay of gratification in young children is related to all of the following EXCEPT . Summary and Resources 10. Research indicates that executive functions in toddlers are stimulated when parents . a. intervene and take over as soon as the child exhibits difficulty on a task b. let the child figure out a task completely on his or her own c. encourage the child to solve the task independently, but intervene when necessary to aid completion of the task d. create an unpredictable environment that requires the toddler to impose order over somewhat chaotic circumstances 11. Which statement about training executive functions is NOT accurate? a. Plasticity means the brain is potentially modifiable by interventions designed to impact the executive functions. b. Evidence indicates that some interventions might be effective in improving executive functioning. c. Evidence is inconclusive about whether interventions produce long-lasting gains in executive functioning. d. Extended working-memory practice conclusively leads to better academic and behavioral outcomes for children. Critical-Thinking Questions 1. How would you explain to an educational administrator why preschools should spend more time stimulating young children’s EF development? How would you respond if the administrator countered that training should instead be exclusively devoted to improving preschoolers’ traditional academic skills in areas like reading and math? 2. Task impurity characterizes many EF tasks. Describe how the DCCS task, which is designed to measure set shifting, also tests other EF processes. What does your answer suggest about the nature of the executive functions? 3. Ms. Lyons is a preschool teacher. Ten minutes before snack time, she begins to set out snacks while the children are completing worksheets. When snack time arrives, preschoolers go to the snack table one at a time while the others wait their turn. Some children find it difficult to delay gratification under these circumstances, and they often run to the snack table before they are allowed to do so. What changes could Lyons make that would facilitate delay of gratification during snack time? What simple suggestions could she give the children to help them delay gratification? 4. A professional company claims to have developed an effective training program to improve children’s working-memory capacity. What criteria would you use to determine the program’s effectiveness and decide whether your school should invest in it? Summary and Resources Key Terms attention A cognitive system that regulates mental activity, regulates the focus of the sensory system, and maintains alertness. attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) A developmental disorder characterized by acting on impulse, difficulty maintaining attentional focus, and elevated levels of motoric activity. autonomy support A type of parent-child interaction characterized by providing emotional support and age-appropriate prompts that encourage a sense of independence. central executive The working-memory capacity for strategically and actively maintaining information in short-term storage. cool EF The operation of executive functions during tasks and situations with relatively minimal emotional or arousing stimuli and/or consequences. default mode network Interrelated regions of the human brain associated with mind-wandering tendencies and inattention, typically less active when prefrontal neural regions are recruited for goal-directed behavior. delay of gratification The capacity to put off receiving an immediate reward in order to obtain a better reward after a length of time elapses. dual systems theory The theory that immaturity in two neural systems, related to sensation seeking and inhibitory control, contributes to elevated levels of risk-taking behavior. executive attention A process that regulates and inhibits distracting information that conflicts with task-related goals. executive functions (EFs) A constellation of cognitive processes that direct behavior in a plan-based, organized, and purposeful manner. hot EF The operation of executive functions when task-related features are motivationally and emotionally significant to the participant. inhibitory control The process of stopping a practiced and potent incorrect or irrelevant action or thought, often while activating a less potent but task-appropriate thought or action. perseveration The repetition of a behavior that was once appropriate but became outdated when a circumstance noticeably changed. phonological loop The short-term memory component that temporarily retains speechbased information. prefrontal cortex A region in the frontal lobe of the brain’s cerebral cortex associated with executive function development and use. set shifting The process of flexibly modifying behavior in response to changes in goals and/or circumstances. sustained attention The process of maintaining arousal and a task-related focus over a span of time. task impurity An imprecision in measurement that occurs for the executive functions when success on an assessment requires more than one executive function. ventral striatum A system of the brain involved in the processing of reward information. Summary and Resources visuospatial sketch pad A temporary storage system for holding visual and spatial information in memory. Additional Resources working memory The process of actively maintaining and organizing information in short-term storage while performing a task related to the information. Web Resources Building Brain Power: Executive Function and Young Children http://extension.psu.edu/youth/betterkidcare/news/2014/building-brain-powerexecutive-function-and-young-children This site provides an overview of executive functions and how to support their development in children. What Happens When the Development of Executive Function Goes Awry? http://www.aboutkidshealth.ca/En/News/Series/ExecutiveFunction/Pages/Executive-Function-Part-Five-What-happens-when-the-development-of-executive-functiongoes-awry.aspx A professor of child development discusses atypical development of executive functions. Further Reading Diamond, A., & Lee, K. (2011). Interventions shown to aid executive function development in children 4 to 12 years old. Science, 333(6045), 959–964. This article provides a comprehensive overview of possible effective interventions to promote executive-function development. Gathercole, S. E., & Alloway, T. P. (2008). Working memory and learning: A practical guide. London: Sage. This clear handbook addresses applying working-memory research to the classroom. Meltzer, L. (Ed.). (2011). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York: Guilford Press. This book discusses practical applications of executive-function research to the classroom. Mischel, W., Ayduk, O., Berman, M. G., Casey, B. J., Gotlib, I. H., Jonides, J., ... Shoda, Y. (2011). ‘Willpower’ over the life span: Decomposing self-regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 6(2), 252–256. This article broadly extends the concept of willpower from childhood all the way to adulthood. Ursache, A., Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). The promotion of self‐regulation as a means of enhancing school ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment