Executive Functions in Preschool Children with Aggressive Behavior: Impairments in Inhibitory Control

Raaijmakers, Maartje A. J.; Smidts, D.P.; Sergeant, Joseph A.; Maassen, Gerard H.; Posthumus, Jocelyne A.; Engeland, Hermán van; Matthys, Walter

doi:10.1007/s10802-008-9235-7

Cited by 200 publications

(180 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

145

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, they also provide a nuanced picture of the parenting behaviors that are significantly associated with inhibition development in preschoolers as well as of the specific effect of mothers and fathers and their respective contributions. First, our results confirm previous findings about the significant improvement in inhibition during the preschool period (Brooks et al, 2003;Garon et al, 2008) as well as the gender-related difference in favor of girls (Raaijmakers et al, 2008) and the positive relation between verbal IQ and EF (Matte-Gagné & Bernier, 2011). Higher verbal IQ is thought to help children organize their thinking through selfdirected speech, resulting in better control of themselves and more effective planning strategies (e.g., Landry et al, 2002;Zelazo et al, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…In addition, the relation with parenting was assessed after controlling for some key variables known to be related to EF development. Thus, both gender and verbal IQ are treated as covariates; gender-related differences in EF in favor of girls have been reported among young children (Raaijmakers et al, 2008), and theorizing and empirical evidence suggest that children with better verbal IQ are better equipped to develop higher EF (e.g., Hammond et al, 2012;Landry et al, 2002;Matte-Gagné & Bernier, 2011). Verbal abilities provide tools such as self-directed speech for organizing input from the environment to engage in more complex thinking and to achieve goals (Barkley, 1997;Fernyhough, 2009;Zelazo, Müller, Frye, & Marcovitch, 2003).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The development of children’s inhibition: Does parenting matter?

Roskam

Stiévenart

Meunier

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tWhereas a large body of research has investigated the maturation of inhibition in relation to the prefrontal cortex, far less research has been devoted to environmental factors that could contribute to inhibition improvement. The aim of the current study was to test whether and to what extent parenting matters for inhibition development from 2 to 8 years of age. Data were collected from 421 families, with 348 mother-child dyads and 342 father-child dyads participating. Children's inhibition capacities and parenting behaviors were assessed in a three-wave longitudinal data collection. The main analyses examined the impact of parenting on the development of children's inhibition capacities. They were conducted using a multilevel modeling (MLM) framework. The results lead to the conclusion that both mothers and fathers contribute through their child-rearing behavior to their children's executive functioning, even when controlling for age-related improvement (maturation) and important covariates such as gender, verbal IQ, and place of enrollment. More significant relations between children's inhibition development and parenting were displayed for mothers than for fathers. More precisely, parenting behaviors that involve higher monitoring, lower discipline, inconsistency and negative controlling, and a positive parenting style are associated with good development of inhibition capacities in children.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The development of children’s inhibition: Does parenting matter?

Roskam

Stiévenart

Meunier

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Child Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the 10-minute interval that preceded the recognition test, the participants were given nonverbal cognitive tasks such as the abstract self-ordered pointing test (SOPT) assessing the executive ability to generate and monitor a sequence of responses (Cragg & Nation, 2007), a go/no-go test of response inhibition (Raaijmakers et al, 2008), the Dragons' House test of flexibility from the attentional test battery for children (KiTAP; Zimmermann, Gondan, & Fimm, 2005), and the Matrix Reasoning test (Wechsler, 2004(Wechsler, , 2005.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beyond the experience: Detection of metamemorial regularities

Geurten

Willems²,

Meulemans

2015

Consciousness and Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined the mechanisms involved in the development of the easily learned, easily remembered (ELER) heuristic in three groups of young children (4-5 years, 6-7 years, and 8-9 years). A trial-to-acquisition procedure was used to evaluate how much these children's judgment of learning depended on the ELER heuristic. Moreover, a new experimental paradigm, composed of six phases-a pretest, four training phases, and a posttest-was employed to implicitly influence the validity of the ELER association that underlies this metacognitive rule. Results revealed that the ELER heuristic develops early (4-5 years), but its use is reduced after implicit training. Furthermore, executive monitoring was found to account for the smaller changes observed in older children (8-9 years) after training. From a developmental perspective, these findings present a coherent picture of children's learning of metacognitive heuristics, wherein early automatic and implicit learning is later followed by effortful control.Keywords: Implicit learning, heuristics, metamemory, judgment, children Running head: Detection of Metamemorial Regularities 3 IntroductionIt is commonly hypothesized that metamemory knowledge develops throughout childhood on the basis of day-to-day experience (Jacoby, Kelley, & Dywan, 1989;Olds & Westerman, 2012). Over the past decade, several studies have examined the nature of the mechanisms that underlie this experiential development (Grammer, Purtell, Coffman, & Ornstein, 2011;Hodzik & Lemaire, 2011). To date, these studies have mostly focused on explicit metacognitive knowledge-that is, late-onset knowledge that people can verbalize and purposely put into practice when they are confronted with tricky memory situations-and have generally demonstrated that high-level cognitive functions are required to acquire knowledge about memory functioning (Grammer et al., 2011).In reality, however, metamemory is not fully explicit (Lyons & Ghetti, 2013;Paulus, Proust, & Sodian, 2013). Many metacognitive theories merely guide memory decisions at the border of awareness. For example, we use the ease with which memories of positive events come to mind as a cue to determine whether we had a good time (availability heuristic; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973); we judge the familiarity of names on the basis of the fluency with which we process them (fluency heuristic; Johnston, Hawley, & Elliott, 1991); and we are inclined to suppose that easily learned information is more likely to be remembered (memorizing-effort heuristic; Koriat, 2008). These naïve theories and the underlying heuristic rules are rarely, if ever, verbalized or deliberately employed, but their effects on memory performance are equal to those of explicit strategies (Dodson & Schacter, 2001;Ghetti, 2008;Howe, 2008;Meeks, Knight, Brewer, Cook, & Marsh, 2014). However, although researchers studying adult metacognition have long placed a heavy emphasis on the study of these heuristic rules, research on metacognition in children has only recently started to pay greater atten...

show abstract

“…Moreover, researchers highlight, in TD children, that a measurement of EF at preschool age could predict EB one year later [20], two years later [21] or even up to three years later [22]. It seems, however, that inhibition capacities are the EF most strongly associated with EB, with a generally higher error rate in inhibition tasks in EB populations than in community samples [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%