2019
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00446
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Executive Function and Resilience as Mediators of Adolescents’ Perceived Stressful Life Events and School Adjustment

Abstract: This study investigated psychological mechanisms underlying the relationship between stressful life events and school adjustment in Chinese adolescents. The Adolescent Self-rating Life Events Checklist, the Adolescent Executive Function Scale, the Chinese version of the Resilience Scale, and the School-adjustment Scale were administered to 1101 Chinese adolescents (465 males, 636 females), aged 11–19 years, from three secondary schools. Results from serial mediation analysis revealed that perceived stressful l… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

6
19
0
1

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 33 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 79 publications
6
19
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Accordingly, SES effects appeared only in some individual blocks, reached small effect sizes and were inconsistent, suggesting that our test battery was adequately adapted to minimize these effects. This occurred despite SES being known to be associated with negative impacts in brain development (Brody et al, 2017;Foulkes and Blakemore, 2018) and executive functioning (Haft and Hoeft, 2017;Zhang et al, 2019). It is unlikely that this could have resulted from low sensitivity of the SES score used here (ABEP) to cognitive abilities, because it has been found to be positively related to cognitive measures, including executive functions at various ages (e.g., Moraes et al, 2010;Piccolo et al, 2016), attesting its adequacy as a general measure of SES.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Accordingly, SES effects appeared only in some individual blocks, reached small effect sizes and were inconsistent, suggesting that our test battery was adequately adapted to minimize these effects. This occurred despite SES being known to be associated with negative impacts in brain development (Brody et al, 2017;Foulkes and Blakemore, 2018) and executive functioning (Haft and Hoeft, 2017;Zhang et al, 2019). It is unlikely that this could have resulted from low sensitivity of the SES score used here (ABEP) to cognitive abilities, because it has been found to be positively related to cognitive measures, including executive functions at various ages (e.g., Moraes et al, 2010;Piccolo et al, 2016), attesting its adequacy as a general measure of SES.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Cultural differences may, in part, reflect differences across or within countries in terms of SES. Low SES and the stressful everyday life events with which it is associated (Zhang et al, 2019) directly impact brain development, including alterations in areas such as the prefrontal cortex (Johnson et al, 2016;Foulkes and Blakemore, 2018) and, therefore, executive functioning, through various still unclear biological mechanisms (Johnson et al, 2016;Haft and Hoeft, 2017). Together, these factors result in lower SES individuals tending to score worse on executive measures, within and between countries, but not necessarily both (see Howard et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The self-efficacy based model of resilience suggests that executive function provides much of the capacity for resilience in individuals, with executive function enhancing self-efficacy to enable successful adjustment ( 53 , 54 ). Additionally, executive function yields a greater propensity for resilience in children ( 55 , 56 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similarly, SES effects appeared only in some individual blocks, reached small effect sizes and were inconsistent, suggesting that our test battery was adequately adapted in this respect. This occurred despite SES being known to be associated with negative impacts in brain development (Brody et al, 2017;Foulkes and Blakemore, 2018) and executive functioning (Haft and Hoeft, 2017;Zhang et al, 2019). It is unlikely that this could have resulted from low sensitivity of the SES score used here (ABEP) to cognitive abilities, bacause it has been found to be positively related to cognitive measures, including executive functions, at various ages (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 86%
“…Cultural differences may, in part, reflect differences across or within countries in terms of SES. Low SES and the stressful everyday life events with which it is associated (Zhang et al, 2019) directly impact brain development, including alterations in areas such as the prefrontal cortex (Johnson et al, 2016;Foulkes and Blakemore, 2018) and, therefore, executive functioning, through various still unclear biological mechanisms (Johnson et al, 2016;Haft and Hoelf, 2017). Together, these factors result in lower SES individuals tending to score worse on executive measures, within and between countries, but not necessarily both (see Howard et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%