See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47789205

Family Socioeconomic Status and Child

Executive Functions: The Roles of Language,
Home Environment, and Single Parenthood

Article in Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society · November 2010

Impact Factor: 2.96 · DOI: 10.1017/S1355617710001335 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

79 102

6 authors, including:

Khaled Sarsour Douglas P Jutte

Genentech University of California, Berkeley
23 PUBLICATIONS 364 CITATIONS 14 PUBLICATIONS 333 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Stephen Hinshaw
University of California, Berkeley
288 PUBLICATIONS 17,857 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, Available from: Douglas P Jutte
letting you access and read them immediately. Retrieved on: 11 May 2016
Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society (2011), 17, 120–132.
Copyright E INS. Published by Cambridge University Press, 2010.
doi:10.1017/S1355617710001335

Family Socioeconomic Status and Child Executive

Functions: The Roles of Language, Home Environment,
and Single Parenthood

Khaled Sarsour,1 Margaret Sheridan,2 Douglas Jutte,3 Amani Nuru-Jeter,3 Stephen Hinshaw,4 AND
W. Thomas Boyce5
1Epidemiology and Health Services Research, Global Health Outcomes, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana
2Health and Society Scholars Program, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts
3School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, California
4Department of Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California
5College for Interdisciplinary Studies and Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada

(RECEIVED June 13, 2010; FINAL REVISION September 27, 2010; ACCEPTED October 29, 2010)

Abstract
The association between family socioeconomic status (SES) and child executive functions is well-documented. However,
few studies have examined the role of potential mediators and moderators. We studied the independent and interactive
associations between family SES and single parenthood to predict child executive functions of inhibitory control,
cognitive flexibility, and working memory and examined child expressive language abilities and family home
environment as potential mediators of these associations. Sixty families from diverse SES backgrounds with a school-age
target child (mean [SD] age 5 9.9 [0.96] years) were evaluated. Child executive functioning was measured using a brief
battery. The quality of the home environment was evaluated using the Home Observation for the Measurement of the
Environment inventory. Family SES predicted the three child executive functions under study. Single parent and family
SES were interactively associated with children’s inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility; such that children from low
SES families who were living with one parent performed less well on executive function tests than children from similarly
low SES who were living with two parents. Parental responsivity, enrichment activities and family companionship
mediated the association between family SES and child inhibitory control and working memory. This study demonstrates
that family SES inequalities are associated with inequalities in home environments and with inequalities in child executive
functions. The impact of these disparities as they unfold in the lives of typically developing children merits further
investigation and understanding. (JINS, 2011, 17, 120–132)
Keywords: Executive functions, Family socioeconomic status, Home environment, Single parenthood, Middle childhood,
Parenting, Developmental health

BACKGROUND functions have increasingly been recognized as relevant to

self-regulation. Theoretical and empirical frameworks have
Executive functions consist of the following core compe- emerged linking the two (Barkley, 2001; Karoly, 1993;
tencies: (1) working memory, the ability to hold and manip-
McCabe, Cunnington, & Brooks-Gunn, 2004; Rueda, Posner,
ulate complex information in the mind (Baddeley, 1998;
& Rothbart, 2005; Sarsour, 2007). Insufficient acquisition of
Smith & Jonides, 1997); (2) inhibition (or inhibitory control),
executive functioning capacity during early childhood has been
the ability to delay a well-learned prepotent response for the
associated with developmental psychopathology (Pennington
purposes of a more appropriate response (Barkley, 2001); and
& Ozonoff, 1996), physical aggression (Seguin & Zelazo,
(3) cognitive flexibility, the capacity to adapt behavior
2005), cortisol reactivity (Blair, Granger, & Peters Razza,
quickly and flexibly to changing situations (Davidson, Amso,
2005), and lack of school readiness and success (Blair, 2002;
Anderson, & Diamond, 2006; Diamond, 2006). Executive Diamond, 2007). At the neurobiological level, the prefrontal
cortex (PFC) and its extensive connections with other brain
Correspondence and reprint requests to: Khaled Sarsour, Lilly Corporate regions are considered to be the neural substrate of executive
Center, DC 1833, Indianapolis, IN 46285. E-mail: sarsour_khaled@lilly.com functions (Fuster, 1997) through which the PFC integrates and
120
Family SES and child executive functions 121

processes environmental stimuli (Shimamura, 2000). The PFC Until recently, many studies documenting associations
has a prolonged period of postnatal development and matura- between family SES and child cognitive functions have focused
tion, as indexed by synaptogenesis, pruning, and myelination principally on child IQ (Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, & Duncan,
(Davidson et al., 2006; Diamond, 2002, 2006), rendering the 1996; Harden, Turkheimer, & Loehlin, 2006; McLoyd, 1998;
PFC especially sensitive to environmental input. Executive Mercy & Steelman, 1982; Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron,
functions are thought to develop as a result of a dynamic D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003). The study of IQ, however, is
interaction between the child’s PFC and the external environ- limited by its global nature, its principal focus on the memory of
ment (Calkins & Fox, 2002; Diamond, 2009; Diamond, previously learned facts, and its inability to differentiate the
Barnett, Thomas, & Munro, 2007; McCabe et al., 2004). Much contributions of distinctive neurocognitive systems. Recent
of the development of the PFC is believed to occur during the advances in neuroscience have broadened the scope of studies
transition from childhood to adolescence, known as middle examining SES and cognitive function to include executive
childhood and generally defined as ages 6–12 (Andersen, functions—for a review from the point of view of cognitive
2003). Middle childhood also is the period that witnesses the neuroscience, see Hackman & Farah (2009) and Hackman,
development of increased independence, peer relationships and Farah, & Meaney (2010). Mezzacappa found an association
intellectual challenges, making this developmental period between family SES and children’s alerting, orienting, and
especially interesting for the study of environmental influences executive attention scores on Posner’s Attention Network Test
on the development of executive skills. Environmental influ- (2004). In another sample of children from Colombia and
ences may be conceptualized at multiple levels of analysis Mexico, Ardila, Rosselli, Matute, and Guajardo found that years
including the microenvironments (i.e., the family setting, non- of parental education were associated with child executive
parental care settings, peer group); and the macro-environments functions, with the strongest relation found for semantic verbal
(i.e., neighborhoods, culture and social policy) (Baumeister & fluency (2005). In a series of papers, Noble, Farah, and collea-
Vohs, 2004; Forgas, Baumeister, & Tice, 2009; Hertzman & gues conducted a more in-depth study of family SES and child
Boyce, 2010). neurocognitive executive functions (Farah et al., 2006; Noble,
Farah, & McCandliss, 2006; Noble, McCandliss, & Farah,
2007; Noble, Norman, & Farah, 2005; Noble, Wolmetz, Ochs,
FAMILY SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND
Farah, & McCandliss, 2006) demonstrating that (a) these asso-
CHILD HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT
ciations exist for specific neurocognitive systems, with the
Associations between socioeconomic status (SES) and health strongest being found for the language and prefrontal executive
are so pervasive that some have designated SES as a funda- systems; (b) within the prefrontal system, family SES is asso-
mental cause of health and illness (Link & Phelan, 1995, ciated with children’s working memory and cognitive control,
1996; Rose, 1985). A fundamental cause is defined as a distal defined as the ability to inhibit a prepotent response; (c) child
cause that determines access to important resources, which language skills may mediate the association between family
in turn influence the extent to which people are able to avoid SES and child executive functions; and (d) these associations
risk and develop competence (Link & Phelan, 1995). resemble a dose-response gradient that exists across kinder-
Associations between family SES and child outcomes have gartners, first graders, and 10–13 year olds. More recently,
been documented in multiple disciplines and research tradi- studies have begun to elucidate the neural mechanisms of SES-
tions. Chen and colleagues concluded that family SES is mediated disparities. For example, prefrontal-dependent elec-
associated with multiple physical health outcomes, as well as trophysiological measures of attention were found to be reduced
risk factors for adult morbidities (Chen, Matthews, & Boyce, in children from low SES backgrounds compared with children
2002). Brooks-Gunn and Duncan (1997) found that child- from high SES backgrounds (Kishiyama, Boyce, Jimenez,
hood poverty influence s a broad diversity of child outcomes, Perry, & Knight, 2008; Stevens, Lauinger, & Neville, 2009).
classified into physical health, cognitive, school achieve-
ment, emotional, and behavioral domains. Other studies
Single Parenthood
have similarly found that lower SES is associated with poor
school achievement (Currie, 2005; Malecki & Demaray, Growing up in a single-parent household has also been asso-
2006; Marks, 2006; Toutkoushian & Curtis, 2005; Walker, ciated with adverse child outcomes (East, Jackson, & O’Brien,
Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994) and more specifically with 2006; McLanahan & Sandefur, 1994), albeit inconsistently
poor math (Case, Griffin, & Kelly, 1999) and language skills across investigations. In fact, family SES and single parenthood
(Hoff, 2003; Raviv, Kessenich, & Morrison, 2004), as well as often covary, complicating efforts to disentangle the correlates
increased child psychopathology and mental illness (Boyce, of poverty versus single parenting. For example, in a nationally
2004; Essex et al., 2006; Tuvblad, Grann, & Lichtenstein, representative sample, Allison and Furstenburg found growing
2006), and poor physical health (Boyce et al., 2002; Chen et up in a single-parent household to be associated with problem
al., 2002). Recent findings have further demonstrated that behaviors, psychological distress, and poor academic perfor-
childhood socioeconomic conditions affect distal adult health mance (1989). On the contrary, in the National Longitudinal
endpoints, such as physical and cognitive functions (Evans & Study of Youth (NLSY), Ricciuti and colleagues found that
Schamberg, 2009; Guralnik, Butterworth, Wadsworth, & there was little evidence of negative effects on children
Kuh, 2006; Kaplan et al., 2001). from being reared in a single-parent home (Ricciuti, 2004).
122 K. Sarsour et al.

Other studies have found that the adverse effects of growing McAdoo, & Coll, 2001). The present work examined whether
up with one parent may be exacerbated by the presence of specific domains of the home environment mediated an asso-
further adversity such as financial constraints and low SES ciation between SES and executive functions.
(Barber & Eccles, 1992). Studies of family SES associations
with child executive functions, on the other hand, have not
considered the role of single parenthood, a problematic Hypotheses
oversight given the need to disentangle socioeconomic and Our aim was to investigate the independent and interactive
parenting contributions to the development of executive contributions of family SES and single-parent status to
functions. children’s level of executive functioning. Specifically, we
examined the constructs of inhibitory control, cognitive
The Role of Language flexibility, and working memory, as measured by standard
age-appropriate neuropsychological tests. We hypothesized
Developmental theories suggest that the effects of social that family SES would independently contribute to child
interactions on cognitive and behavioral development may be performance on neurocognitive tests, such that higher family
mediated by language and symbols. It is purported that SES would be associated with improved performance on tests
executive functioning is developed through language inter- of children’s executive functions. We further hypothesized
nalization (Vygotsky & Kozulin, 1986; Zivin, 1979) and that that single-parent status would contribute to diminished
internal language is the active vehicle for thinking, reflection, performance on the child neurocognitive tests over and above
analysis, and learning from experience (Barkley, 2001; the independent influence of low SES. We also sought to
Winsler, Diaz, Atencio, McCarthy, & Chabay, 2000). Child replicate the finding that child language abilities mediate the
language skills may thus mediate the linkage between family association between family SES and children’s neurocogni-
SES and child executive function (Noble et al., 2005, 2007). tive abilities using a measure of language derived from
Past studies examining the possible mediating role of children’s spontaneous speech within a natural family con-
language skills have largely used standard psychometric tests text. Finally, we assessed whether the quality of the home
that do not distinguish between expressive and receptive environment mediates the association between family SES
language abilities. No studies have yet examined the possible and child neurocognitive abilities.
role of expressive language skills, ascertained through the
coding of spontaneous speech, in mediating the family
SES—child executive functions association. The present
METHOD
investigation begins to address this gap in existing literature.
Sample and Method
The Home Environment as a Mediator
A community sample of 60 families (from a wide spectrum of
Home environments of developing children comprise both socioeconomic backgrounds) was recruited from the San
material and psychosocial dimensions. SES may affect the Francisco Bay Area through advertisements at local parent-
extent to which parents use family resources to enrich ing organizations, elementary schools, health clinics, and
developmental experiences with hobbies, recreation, muse- community centers. The research protocol for this study was
ums, libraries, travel, etc. Moreover, family SES may affect approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human
parenting dimensions including the emotional and verbal Subjects of the University of California, Berkeley. Families
responsiveness of the parents, such as offering reinforcement participating in the study were offered a small monetary
for desired behavior and providing scaffolding to encourage compensation for their time and effort.
the development of executive skills—for a full review, see Families were eligible for the study if they had a child who
Bradley and Corwyn (2002). The family environments of was 8–12 years old and spoke English in the home more than
children from low SES backgrounds are often characterized 50% of the time. Families were excluded from study when
by organizational chaos, lack of structure and routine, expo- the target child had a serious handicap or chronic neurologi-
sure to multiple stressors (Evans & English, 2002), and cal disorder (e.g., epilepsy, cerebral palsy, or mental retar-
excess background noise and crowding (Evans, 2006; Evans, dation), if the child had a psychiatric disorder (such as ADHD
Gonnella, Marcynyszyn, Gentile, & Salpekar, 2005). Long- or depression), or if the child regularly took a psychotropic
itudinal data from the NLSY, demonstrated that the home medication (such as stimulants or SSRIs). Data were col-
environment of poor children was of significantly lower lected through two home visits and a set of questionnaires
quality as measured by parenting variables (e.g., responsiv- completed by the primary caregiver (95% of the time, the
ity, emotional climate) and material resources (physical mother). Neuropsychological evaluations of the child were
environment, learning materials, enrichment) (Bradley, conducted in a quiet room during the home visit. Children
Corwyn, McAdoo, & Coll, 2001). The same investigation within the study sample were 43% African American, 32%
also demonstrated that the association between poverty and White, and 25% other race/ethnicity (18% two or more racial
child development was mediated by the home environment backgrounds, 5% Hispanic, and 2% Asian). One-third of
(Bornstein & Bradley, 2003; Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal, families were living under or near the poverty line, while 28%
Family SES and child executive functions 123

reported an annual family income greater than $100,000. Our hypothesis was that lower SES would be associated with
Twenty seven percent of the sample’s primary caregivers worse performance on the second task in each set (the one
reported having some postgraduate education, and 15% repor- requiring higher order executive skills) even after you adjust
ted having a high school education or less. away any SES associations with lower order cognitive skills.
By ‘‘adjusting away’’ the basic skills involved in the tasks,
we were able to explicitly test the SES associations with the
Measures executive function sub-components alone. Details of the
Sociodemographic variables three tests are presented below.

The MacArthur Research Network on SES and Health

Working memory
Questionnaire was used to ascertain family SES (2000). Self-
reported family income was converted to a family-income-to- The Digit span subtest from the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
needs ratio per established formulas (Dearing, McCartney, & Children (Wechsler, 1994) was used as a test of working
Taylor, 2001). Occupational prestige of parent(s) was memory. The child was verbally presented with progressively
assigned based on categories of the Hollingshead Index of longer strings of numbers and was asked to repeat the sequence,
Occupation Status (Hollingshead, 1975) matched as closely in identical order for the Digits Forward (DF) test and in reverse
as possible to modern occupations. Family wealth was order for Digits Backward (DB). Both tests require verbal
measured by asking: ‘‘Suppose you needed money quickly, information to be held in memory across a delay interval. DF is
and you cashed in all of your (and your spouse’s) checking not considered a measure of executive function per se, but rather
and savings accounts, and any stocks and bonds. If you added of auditory attention or span (Anderson et al., 2001). DB is
up what you would get, about how much would this amount considered a measure of working memory (Baron, 2004) as it
to?’’ A family SES composite index was created by standar- requires information to be cognitively manipulated during the
dizing and averaging the income-to-needs ratio, family delay period. The child was given a point for each trial com-
wealth, the Hollingshead occupational status rank, and the pleted correctly, and the test was terminated when the child
maternal education level. failed to recall two consecutive strings of numbers. The final
score was the sum of points earned.
Home environment
Cognitive flexibility
The Middle Childhood Home Observation for the Measurement
of the Environment inventory (HOME) was used as a measure The Trail Making Test (Trails A and B) is a timed, paper-
of the quality of the home environment. The HOME is designed and-pencil test consisting of two parts (Kortte, Horner, &
to measure the quality and quantity of stimulation and support Windham, 2002). Trail A requires the child to connect
available to a child in the home environment. It contains 59 numbered circles in sequence scattered across the page, much
binary items clustered into 8 domains: physical environment, like classic connect-the-dots games. Trail B requires the child
enrichment activities, parental responsivity, encouragement of to draw a line between points, alternating between numbers
maturity, emotional climate/acceptance, learning materials and and letters in sequence (e.g., 1, A, 2, B, 3y). The Trails tests
opportunities, family companionship, and family integration were administered following a six-item practice session for
(Bradley & Caldwell, 1977; Caldwell & Bradley, 2005). The each part to ensure that the child understood the instructions.
HOME was administered via a semistructured interview at the If an error was made, the line was crossed out by the
family home by trained research assistants. experimenter to indicate the error. Trail A measured the
construct of visual-spatial attention (a nonexecutive cognitive
Child neurocognitive abilities skill), while Trail B measured the constructs of set shifting
and cognitive flexibility, given that it requires a cognitive
Based on the taxonomy presented earlier, we divided shift between two sets of information while avoiding their
executive self-regulatory functions into three constructs— mutual interference. The time in seconds taken to complete
working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility— the task correctly was used in analyses.
and selected appropriate tasks to assess them: Digit Span for
working memory, the Stroop test for inhibitory control, and
Inhibitory control
the Trail Making Test for cognitive flexibility (Alvarez &
Emory, 2006; Anderson, Anderson, Northam, Jacobs, & The Stroop Test was used as a measure of children’s inhibitory
Catroppa, 2001; Brocki & Bohlin, 2004; Davidson et al., control (Golden, 1978; MacLeod, 1991). This test requires the
2006; Diamond et al., 2007; Lamm, Zelazo, & Lewis, 2006). inhibition of a prepotent verbal response. The child is presented
Each of the three tasks consisted of two subtests (Digits with colored words (red, green, blue) printed with a mis-
Forward and Digits Backward, Stroop rapid color naming test matching color and is asked to inhibit the well-learned reading
and Stroop color word interference test, and Trails A and response and to produce instead a color-naming response. The
Trails B). In each case, the first of the two subtests is a test of test consists of three sets of items. The first two are tests of
lower order cognitive skills (basic nonexecutive function), nonexecutive cognitive skills, while the third is the executive
while the second is a more complex executive function task. test of interest. The child is asked to read color words printed in
124 K. Sarsour et al.

black ink, to do color naming in a randomized three-color Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of sample
sequence (blue, green, red), and finally name colors when the
words are printed in nonmatching ink (e.g., the word green Total
Study variables N (%)
printed in red). Scoring consisted of the number of items suc-
cessfully completed during 45 s. COVARIATES
Child race
Black 26 (43)
Child expressive language abilities White 19 (32)
Using the naturalistic setting of a family dinner time con- Other 15 (25)
Gender
versation, child-spoken words were video recorded and
Boys 19 (32)
transcribed. We used the variable of child’s mean length of
Girls 41 (68)
utterance in morphemes (MLUm) (Dethorne, Johnson, & Age (mean, SD) 9.9 (.96)
Loeb, 2005; Parker, 2005) as a measure of expressive lan- Single parent household
guage complexity in a naturalistic setting. A morpheme is Yes 22 (37)
defined as the smallest unit of language that carries meaning No 38 (63)
and has a grammatical function (e.g., books has two mor- SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS
phemes one signifying the meaning of the word and the other Income to need ratio (mean, SD) 2.98 (1.79)
designating plurality). MLUm was calculated by dividing the Income
total number of child morphemes in the first 30 min of family r200% Federal Poverty Line 21 (35)
dinner by the total number of child utterances in the same .200% Federal Poverty Line 39 (65)
Primary caregiver high school diploma
time period. An utterance is defined as a complete unit of
Yes 38 (63)
speech such as a statement or a question.
No 22 (37)
Primary caregiver highest educational attainment
Analysis High School or less 22 (37)
Some college 9 (15)
Frequency distributions, skewness, and normality were exam- College degree 12 (20)
ined for each independent and outcome variable. Regression Graduate degree 17 (28)
diagnostics were used to ensure that standard assumptions were Primary caregiver years of education (mean, SD) 15.2 (2.8)
met. Nonparametric robust standard errors were used to calculate
p values. Whenever there was evidence of heteroskedasticity,
standard errors obtained through the robust bias correction sug-
gested by Long and Ervin (2000) were compared with default executive functions was mediated through child language abil-
robust standard errors to ensure consistency. Multicollinearity ities or by the individual disaggregated domains of the HOME
diagnostics were conducted as outlined by Cohen and Cohen inventory. All data analyses were conducted using STATA 9.1
(2003). All executive function task scores were converted to (StataCorp, College Station, Texas 2007).
standardized z-scores before regression analysis in order for task
performance to be represented on a common scale. All inde-
pendent variables were centered at their means, and regression
RESULTS
equations were computed to assess the independent and inter-
active contributions of family SES and single-parent status to the
Descriptive Statistics and Univariate Associations
three measures of executive functioning. Mediation analyses
were conducted controlling for children’s age and nonexecutive Complete descriptive characteristics of the sample are pre-
cognitive skills. Using the approaches of Baron and Kenny sented in Table 1. Means and standard deviations for each
(1986) and Kraemer, Stice, Kazdin, Offord, and Kupfer (2001), of the executive function tasks are presented in Table 2.
we tested whether the association between family SES and child Task means for this study sample were comparable to published

Table 2. Mean and standard deviations of study cognitive tasks

Construct Task N Mean SD

Inhibitory Control Stroop color word test (EF) 59 26.2 9.0
Stroop rapid color naming (non-EF) 60 50.6 10.5
Stroop word reading (non-EF) 60 73.1 14.2
Cognitive flexibility Trails B (EF) 60 53.8 38.6
Trails A (non-EF) 60 23.3 7.8
Working memory Digit Backward (EF) 60 4.7 1.9
Digit Forward (non-EF) 60 8.9 2.4

EF 5 Executive Function.
Family SES and child executive functions 125

0.50**
norms of typically developing children of similar age (Baron,

XV
2004; Strauss, Sherman, Spreen, & Spreen, 2006; Vakil,
Blachstein, Sheinman, & Greenstein, 2009). Of all the neuro-

0.12ns
0.13ns
XIV
cognitive tasks, only one individual score fell more than three
standard deviations below the mean. Excluding this outlier from
the analysis did not significantly alter the results and thus all the

0.36**
0.65**
0.63**
XIII
analyses presented here include this one outlier.
Univariate Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 3)
among the three dependent variables ranged from 0.49

0.57**
0.47**
0.44**
0.37*
XII
(inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility) to 0.52 (inhibi-
tory control and working memory). Family SES was asso-
ciated with all three dependent measures. Child word reading

0.50**

0.66**
0.19ns
0.40*

0.45*
XI
abilities were associated with age (r 5 0.443; p , .001) but
not with family SES (r 5 0.124; p 5 ns). Family SES was

0.73ns
0.04ns
0.00ns
0.14ns
0.16ns
independent of the sex and age of the study child. The target

0.0ns
X
child’s age was associated with inhibitory control but not
cognitive flexibility or working memory. Single parenthood

0.22ns
0.32*
0.37*
0.47*
0.45*
0.27*
0.51*
IX
was associated with inhibitory control but not with cognitive
flexibility or working memory. Additionally, single parent-
hood was associated with the home environment (r 5 0.59;

0.65**

0.65**
0.68**
0.84**
0.44**
0.76**
0.73**
0.31*
VIII
p , .005). Expressive language skills of the target child were
significantly associated with family SES (r 5 0.34, p , .05)

0.08ns

0.04ns
and home environment (r 5 0.29; p , .05) and with inhibi-

0.29*
0.48*

0.27*
0.68*
0.38*
0.28*

0.40*
tory control and working memory. The total score of the VII
HOME inventory was significantly associated with the three

0.01ns
0.18ns

0.22ns
0.21ns
0.30*
0.34*
0.25*

0.27*
0.48*
0.36*
VI

dependent variables of child’s inhibition, working memory,

and cognitive flexibility. All eight domains of the HOME
inventory were associated with family SES except for

0.52**
0.12ns

0.07ns
0.02ns
0.15ns
0.25ns

0.11ns
0.22ns
0.28*

0.37*

0.26*
V

encouragement of maturity. The HOME domain of ‘enrichment’

was associated with all three dependent variables, ‘encourage-
0.49**
0.52**

0.49**
ment of maturity’ and ‘emotional climate’ were not associated

0.17ns
0.24ns
0.20ns
0.18*
0.45*

0.41*
0.33*
0.35*
0.27*
IV

with any of the three dependent variables, and the remaining

five domains were associated with at least one of the three
0.59**

0.81**
dependent variables. Complete univariate correlations are
0.06ns
0.16ns
0.13ns

0.30ns

0.15ns
0.26*

0.29*
0.44*
0.29*
0.44*

0.35*
III

presented in Table 3.
0.40**
0.08ns

0.07ns
0.22ns
0.06ns
0.01ns
0.11ns
0.11ns
0.04ns
0.10ns
0.06ns
0.08ns
0.14ns
0.11ns
II

Multivariate Associations
At the multivariate level, we began by investigating whether
0.50**

0.74**

0.50**

0.73**

0.66**
0.68**
0.08ns

0.15ns
0.40*
0.41*
0.30*
0.34*

0.43*

0.49*

0.22*

family SES was independently associated with the three

I

dependent variables after controlling for their respective lower-

Table 3. Univariate associations correlations matrix

order nonexecutive cognitive skills (e.g., Trails A, Stroop color

XII. HOME: Learning Materials and Opportunities

and word naming, and DF tests; model 1, Table 4). The asso-
ciations of SES with cognitive flexibility and inhibition per-
XI. HOME: Emotional Climate/ Acceptance

sisted after controlling for nonexecutive cognitive skills. After

X. HOME: Encouragement of Maturity

controlling for the nonexecutive cognitive skills measured by

XIV. HOME: Family Companionship

*P , 0.05, **P , 0.005, nsNot Significant.

XVI. HOME: Physical Environment

color naming and word reading tests, family SES explained an

VII. Expressive Language Skills

XV. HOME: Family Integration

additional 7% of the variance in the EF construct of inhibitory

control (SES b 5 0.28, p , .05). Similarly, after controlling for
XIII. HOME: Enrichment
IX. HOME: Responsivity

the nonexecutive skills measured by Trail A, family SES

VIII. HOME Total Score
V. Cognitive Flexibility
IV. Inhibitory Control

VI. Working Memory

explained an additional 5% of the variance in cognitive flex-

ibility (SES b 5 20.25, p , .05). We did not conduct the single
III. Single Parent

parent by SES interaction analysis while controlling for Trails A

I. Family SES

and Stroop color naming due to increased multicolinearity

(variance inflation factor .15.0).
II. Age

In model 2 (Table 4), we controlled for single-parent sta-

tus. Controlling for child age and single-parent status, there
126 K. Sarsour et al.

Table 4. Multivariate results

Dependent Variable

Inhibitory Control1 Cognitive Flexibility2 Working Memory3

Model b (SE) t b (SE) t b (SE) t

Independent Variables
Iy Family SES 0.28 (0.12) 2.3* 20.34 (0.12) 22.69* 0.18 (0.16) 1.1ns
Stroop Color Naming 1.2 (0.48) 2.5* — — — —
Stroop Word reading 1.2 (0.45) 2.7* — — — —
Trails A — — 1.6 (0.34) 4.61* — —
Digit Forward — — — — 0.42 (0.14) 3.1*
II Family SES 0.39 (0.13) 3.1* 20.67 (0.17) 23.8* 0.41 (0.16) 2.5*
Child Age 0.43 (0.11) 4.1* 20.16 (0.12) 21.4ns 0.24 (0.13) 1.9ns
Single Parent 0.29 (0.24) 1.2ns 0.39 (0.31) 1.3ns 20.01 (0.27) 20.1ns
III Family SES 1.1 (0.37) 2.9* 21.2 (0.39) 23.0* 0.57 (0.52) 1.1ns
Child Age 0.47 (0.10) 4.5* 0.14 (0.13) 21.1ns 0.27 (0.13) 2.1*
Single Parent 20.35 (0.28) 21.2ns 0.88 (0.40) 2.2* 20.29 (0.40) 20.71ns
Family SES 3 Single Parent 21.1 (0.39) 22.9* 0.89 (0.45) 2.0* 20.40 (0.51) 20.78ns
y
Model Adjusts for child’s age; All models adjust for Child’s race; *P , 0.05; 1Stroop Color Word Interference Test, 2Trails B, 3Digit Backward.

were modest associations between family SES and the three socioeconomic status who came from single parent families
dependent variables of cognitive flexibility, inhibition, and scored lowest on tests of inhibitory control and cognitive
working memory. After controlling for age and single-parent flexibility skills (Figure 1).
status, family SES explained 24% of the variance in cognitive
flexibility, 9% of unique variance in working memory, and
Potential Mediators: Child Language and Family
8% of variance in inhibition skills. An increase by one stan-
Home Environment
dard deviation in family SES was associated with an average
decrease of 23 seconds (95% confidence interval [CI] [9, Four conditions must be met to demonstrate mediation
37 s]) in the time a child took to complete Trails B. Similarly, (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Eaker & Walters, 2002; Holmbeck,
a one standard deviation increase in family SES was asso- 1997; Kraemer et al., 2001): (a) The independent variable
ciated with an average increase of three color words on the (family SES) must be significantly associated with the cri-
Stroop (95% CI [1.4, 5.0 words]). Adjusted for SES and age, terion measures of interest (i.e., inhibition, cognitive flex-
single parenthood was not associated with cognitive flex- ibility and working memory), (b) the hypothesized mediator
ibility, inhibitory control, or working memory. must be significantly associated with the criterion of interest,
(c) the independent variable must be significantly associated
with the hypothesized mediator, and (d) the association
Single-Parent Status as Potential Moderator
between independent variable and outcome must be reduced
In model 3 (Table 4), we explored whether single-parent once the hypothesized mediator is controlled.
status moderated the relation of family SES and executive In light of the above criteria, HOME total scores partially
functions. That is, we tested whether associations between mediated association between SES and inhibitory control
SES and executive functions systematically differed between but not cognitive flexibility or working memory (model II,
single-parent and two-parent families by including a single- Table 5). There was no evidence for our measure of child
parent status 3 SES interaction term. Single-parent status expressive language mediating the association between
modified the association between SES and inhibitory control family SES and the three dependent variables (model III,
and cognitive flexibility but not working memory for children Table 5). In the models testing mediation by individual
living with single parents. A sensitivity analysis was con- domains of the HOME, responsivity (model IV, Table 5) and
ducted to test whether the apparent interaction effect was family companionship (model VIII) partially mediated asso-
spurious due to the association, in this sample, between SES ciation between SES and inhibitory control, enrichment
and single parent (r 5 0.52, p , .0001). The interaction ana- (model VII) and family companionship (model VIII) mediated
lysis was repeated after excluding families from upper middle the association between SES and working memory. None of the
to high SES (n 5 19) thus statistically removing the associa- HOME domains mediated the association between SES and
tion between SES and single parent (r 5 0.19, p 5 .22). The cognitive flexibility. Complete mediation results are presented
interaction results remained highly significant (single par- in Table 5. In a post hoc analysis we also tested if the HOME
ent 3 SES b 5 0.58, p , .05 and single parent 3 SES domains mediated the SES 3 single parent interaction. There
b 5 20.44, p , .05 for cognitive flexibility and inhibitory was no evidence that the observed interaction is mediated by
control, respectively) confirming that children from low any of the HOME domains (data not shown).
Family SES and child executive functions 127

Family SES & Inhibitory Control by Single Parenthood Family SES & Cognitive Flexibility by Single Parenthood
2 -2

Cognitive Flexibility
1
Inhibitory Control

-1

0
-1

-2 1

-2 -1 0 1 2 -2 -1 0 1 2
Family SES Family SES

Single Parent Families Two Parent Families Single Parent Families Two Parent Families
Single Parent Families Two Parent Families Single Parent Families Two Parent Families

Fig. 1. Single parent status interacts with family socioeconomic status (SES) in the association with inhibitory control and
cognitive flexibility. Children from single parent families performed worse at lower strata of SES compared with single
parent children from higher SES.

DISCUSSION study to report a statistical interaction between single parenthood

and low family SES in the prediction of children’s inhibitory
This study adds to a growing literature seeking to understand control and cognitive flexibility, such that children from
the link between family SES and child neurocognitive single parent families performed less well on these cognitive
development. We found clear evidence of an association tests compared with children from two-parent families of
between SES and three important neurocognitive criterion similar low socioeconomic backgrounds. Importantly, using
measures. Additionally, to our knowledge, this is the first a well-validated measure, we found that specific domains of

Table 5. Mediation results

Dependent Variables

Inhibitory Control Cognitive Flexibility Working Memory

Model b (SE) t b (SE) t b (SE) t

Independent Variables
I Family SES 0.47 (0.12) 3.7* 20.56 (0.14) 24.0* 0.41 (0.14) 2.8*
II Family SES 0.096 (0.055) 0.56ns 20.44 (0.19) 22.3* 0.22 (0.20) 0.9ns
HOME Total Score 0.046 (0.01) 2.7* 20.03 (0.03) 21.0ns 0.03 (0.022) 1.2ns
III Family SES 0.44 (0.14) 3.1* 20.39 (0.15) 23.1* 0.31 (0.16) 1.97ns
Expressive Language 0.18 (0.15) 1.2ns 20.21 (0.13) 0.23ns 0.00 (0.00) 1.74ns
IV Family SES 0.32 (0.14) 2.4* 20.51 (0.15) 3.34* 0.41 (0.16) 2.6*
Responsivity 0.22 (0.078) 2.8* 0.071 (0.086) 0.83ns 0.032 (0.088) 0.37ns
V Family SES 0.45 (0.16) 2.87* 20.55 (0.17) 3.2* 0.39 (0.18) 2.2*
Emotional climate 0.001 (0.11) 0.01ns 0.015 (0.12) 0.12ns 0.026 (0.13) 0.20ns
VI Family SES 0.48 (0.15) 3.18* 20.43 (0.16) 2.8* 0.38 (0.17) 2.3*
Learning materials and opportunities 0.024 (0.093) 0.26ns 0.16 (0.095) 1.7ns 0.025 (0.10) 0.25ns
VII Family SES 0.30 (0.19) 1.57ns 20.35 (0.19) 1.85ns 0.041 (0.20) 0.20ns
Enrichment 0.10 (0.086) 1.2ns 20.13 (0.092) 1.4ns 0.22 (0.091) 2.4*
VIII Family SES 0.41 (0.13) 3.12* 20.54 (0.14) 3.8* 0.35 (0.14) 2.5*
Family companionship 0.28 (0.11) 2.42* 0.12 (0.12) 0.99ns 0.25 (0.12) 2.0*
IX Family SES 0.37 (0.18) 2.05* 20.68 (0.19) 3.64* 0.40 (0.20) 2.0*
Family integration 0.088 (0.096) 0.92ns 0.10 (0.10) 1.0ns 0.00 (0.10) 0.04ns
X Family SES 0.42 (0.16) 2.6* 20.44 (0.17) 2.6* 0.41 (0.18) 2.3*
Physical Environment 0.061 (0.11) 0.55ns 20.13 (0.11) 1.1ns 0.00 (0.12) 0.01ns

yAll models adjust for child’s age; *P , 0.05, nsP not significant.
128 K. Sarsour et al.

the home environment partially mediated the association that mediate socially partitioned disparities in the development
between family SES and child inhibitory control and working of child executive skills. Moreover, future studies should
memory but not cognitive flexibility. Our findings regarding explore the interplay between single-parenthood, family envir-
mediation by child’s expressive language ability were onment, and family SES. It is conceivable that the children of
inconclusive. poor, single parents are at double jeopardy because single-par-
This study also found that SES disparities in neurocognitive ent families from low SES backgrounds are not capable of
development represented disparities in higher order executive providing the material resources necessary for enriching devel-
functions rather than simply reflecting differences in less- opmental experiences, and they are also not capable of devoting
complex, basic reading abilities and attentional skills which the time to provide verbal and emotional responsivity to their
were accounted for in the analysis. These higher order executive children.
functions, including the ability to block irrelevant or distracting We did not find that child expressive language mediated
information while simultaneously focusing on the relevant fea- family SES associations with the three executive function
tures of the environment (inhibitory control) and the ability to tasks. This finding differs from that reported by Noble and
adapt cognitive processing to new and unexpected conditions in colleagues (Noble et al., 2005, 2007), who produced evi-
the environment (cognitive flexibility), are capacities important dence for language mediation of cognitive control (a con-
for everyday functioning in school, at home, in employment, struct related to inhibitory control). This discrepancy may be
and in other critical social settings. due to the different ways that children’s language skills were
Why did children in poor, single-parent families perform ascertained across studies. Further investigation is required to
less well on executive cognitive tasks compared with similarly assess the validity of using spontaneous child utterances
poor children who live with two parents? The answer is mul- during family meals as a measure of child expressive language
tifactorial and is likely due to processes operating at many skills. Clarifying the possible linkage between language expo-
levels. These levels could include the family environment—for sure and development of executive skills remains an important
example, parenting, material resources (Kroenke, 2008), larger focus of future research, especially given that low family SES
scale social contexts—for example, social policies impacting is adversely associated with child home language exposure
low SES and single parent families, (Navarro, 2007) and (Hart & Risley, 1995) and language skills (Hoff, 2003).
physiological—for example, individual variability in pro- The findings of this study should be interpreted in light
cessing and embedding biologically stressful environments of several limitations. First, each of the three executive
via the stress response system (Blair et al., 2005; Evans & constructs was measured using a single task. Future studies
Schamberg, 2009; Hertzman & Boyce, 2010). This study, should consider using multiple tasks that appear superficially
however, was not able to ascertain conclusively whether different to the target child yet tap the same executive
children from single-parent, high SES families are less construct to minimize measurement error introduced through
adversely affected by single-parent status because very few the particular mode of administration. Second, executive
high SES families in this sample were also single-parent neuropsychological measures are indirect assessments of the
families. Future studies should examine this question within activity of the prefrontal cortex. Studies that seek to under-
a representative sample including a higher proportion of stand how low SES affects the developing prefrontal cortex
high SES, single-parent families. Furthermore, future studies should consider using new technologies such as functional
should consider the links between variables of multiple MRI. Using novel investigative methodologies will allow for
levels that influence the interplay between family SES, single generating and testing nuanced hypotheses about the neural
parenthood and the development of executive functions. specificity of SES associations with executive functions
Specific domains of the child’s home environment—namely (Kane & Engle, 2002; Miller & Cohen, 2001). Third, the
responsivity—a measure of parental emotional and verbal sen- cross-sectional nature of the study prevented ascertainment
sitivity to the child; enrichment, a measure of the extent to which of the temporal ordering of variables. Future studies should
parents use family and community resources to enrich the consider the longitudinal link between family SES in early
development of the child; and family companionship, a measure childhood and executive functions in middle childhood.
of parental involvement in child activities providing compa- Fourth, although children with neurological and psychiatric
nionship and mutual enjoyment—mediated the association disease were excluded, participants were not screened based
between family SES and inhibitory control and working on learning disabilities or language disorders. As a result, a
memory. These domains comprised both parenting variables bias may be present because these issues are likely over-
(i.e., responsivity and family companionship) and material represented among children from lower SES. Finally, the
resources variables (i.e., enrichment). These findings highlight current design of the study does not rule out confounding by
the significance of psychosocial/parenting variables and mate- genetic factors. That is, this study is not capable of ascer-
rial resource dimensions to the mechanism linking SES and taining the extent (if any) of underlying genetic commonal-
executive functions. That the HOME domains of learning ities that may contribute to parental SES and child executive
materials and physical environment were not significant med- function. Suggesting a role of genes does not necessarily
iators in this sample may be attributable to lack of adequate suggest genetic destiny (Rutter, 2006). For example, evidence
variability in these two measures. Future research should con- from animal models reveals that the environment affects
tinue to elucidate the specific domains of the home environment and often regulates gene expression (Francis, Champagne,
Family SES and child executive functions 129

Liu, & Meaney, 1999). Additionally, Turkheimer demonstrated Baron, I.S. (2004). Neuropsychological evaluation of the child.
that family SES modifies how much genetics play a role in the Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
heritability of child IQ: Family SES accounted for 60% of Baron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator
the variance in child IQ at low SES strata but nearly none of the variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual,
variance at high SES (Turkheimer et al., 2003). Future studies strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
should examine the complex interplay among genetics, biol-
Baumeister, R.F., & Vohs, K.D. (2004). Handbook of self-regulation:
ogy, and adverse social environments and how such interac-
Research, theory, and applications. New York: Guilford Press.
tions affect the rise and reproduction of child health disparities. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness. Integrating cognition and
Despite these limitations, this study demonstrated that emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children’s
family SES inequalities are associated with inequalities in functioning at school entry. The American Psychologist, 57(2),
home environments and with inequalities in the development 111–127.
of executive functions in typically developing children. The Blair, C., Granger, D., & Peters Razza, R. (2005). Cortisol reactivity
unfolding of this socioeconomic disparity as a cumulative, is positively related to executive function in preschool children
longitudinal narrative in children’s lives may constitute a attending head start. Child Development, 76(3), 554–567.
significant psychobiological process by which SES differ- Bornstein, M.H., & Bradley, R.H. (Eds.). (2003). Socioeconomic
ences in developmental health and achievement arise across status, parenting, and child development. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
the life-course.
Boyce, W.T. (2004). Social stratification, health, and violence in the
very young. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1036,
47–68.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT Boyce, W.T., Essex, M.J., Woodward, H.R., Measelle, J.R., Ablow,
Support for this work was provided by NIH R21MH70950-01 and J.C., & Kupfer, D.J. (2002). The confluence of mental, physical,
the Berkeley Consortium on Population Health and Human Devel- social, and academic difficulties in middle childhood. I: Exploring
opment. This work was conducted in partial fulfillment of the the ‘‘head waters’’ of early life morbidities. Journal of the American
requirements for a doctoral dissertation in the graduate program in Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 41(5), 580–587.
Epidemiology in the School of Public Health at the University of Bradley, R.H., & Caldwell, B.M. (1977). Home observation for
California, Berkeley. Special thanks to Christina Wells, Hana measurement of the environment: A validation study of screening
Nielsen-Kneisler, Annabelle Morrison, and Irena Stijacic for leading efficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81(5),
the data collection effort; and to all the families enrolled in the 417–420.
Wellness in Kids project who made this study possible. Bradley, R.H., & Corwyn, R.F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and
child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.
Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo, H.P., & Coll,
C.G. (2001). The home environments of children in the United
REFERENCES
States. II: Relations with behavioral development through age
Allison, P.D., & Furstenberg, F.F. (1989). How marital dissolution thirteen. Child Development, 72(6), 1868–1886.
affects children - variations by age and sex. Developmental Bradley, R.H., Corwyn, R.F., McAdoo, H.P., & Coll, C.G. (2001).
Psychology, 25(4), 540–549. The home environments of children in the United States. I:
Alvarez, J.A., & Emory, E. (2006). Executive function and the Variations by age, ethnicity, and poverty status. Child Develop-
frontal lobes: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology Review, ment, 72(6), 1844–1867.
16(1), 17–42. Brocki, K.C., & Bohlin, G. (2004). Executive functions in children
Andersen, S.L. (2003). Trajectories of brain development: Point of aged 6 to 13: A dimensional and developmental study.
vulnerability or window of opportunity? Neuroscience and Developmental Neuropsychology, 26(2), 571–593.
Biobehavioral Reviews, 27(1–2), 3–18. Brooks-Gunn, J., & Duncan, G.J. (1997). The effects of poverty on
Anderson, V.A., Anderson, P., Northam, E., Jacobs, R., & children. The Future of Children, 7(2), 55–71.
Catroppa, C. (2001). Development of executive functions through Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P.K., & Duncan, G.J. (1996). Ethnic
late childhood and adolescence in an Australian sample. differences in children’s intelligence test scores: Role of
Developmental Neuropsychology, 20(1), 385–406. economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal char-
Ardila, A., Rosselli, M., Matute, E., & Guajardo, S. (2005). The acteristics. Child Development, 67(2), 396–408.
influence of the parents’ educational level on the development of Caldwell, B., & Bradley, R.H. (2005). HOME inventory adminis-
executive functions. Developmental Neuropsychology, 28(1), tration manual, standard edition (Training Manual). Little Rock:
539–560. University of Arkansas.
Baddeley, A. (1998). Working memory. Comptes rendus de Calkins, S.D., & Fox, N.A. (2002). Self-regulatory processes in
l’Académie des sciences. Série III, Sciences de la vie, 321(2–3), early personality development: A multilevel approach to the study
167–173. of childhood social withdrawal and aggression. Developmental
Barber, B.L., & Eccles, J.S. (1992). Long-term influence of divorce Psychopathology, 14(3), 477–498.
and single parenting on adolescent family- and work-related Case, R., Griffin, S., & Kelly, W.M. (1999). Socioeconomic gra-
values, behaviors, and aspirations. Psychology Bulletin, 111(1), dients in mathematical ability and their responsiveness to inter-
108–126. vention during early childhood. In D.P. Keating, & C. Hertzman
Barkley, R.A. (2001). The executive functions and self-regulation: (Eds.), Developmental health and the wealth of nations: social,
An evolutionary neuropsychological perspective. Neuropsychology biological and educational dynamics (pp. 125–149). New York:
Review, 11(1), 1–29. The Guilford Press.
130 K. Sarsour et al.

Chen, E., Matthews, K.A., & Boyce, W.T. (2002). Socioeconomic Forgas, J.P., Baumeister, R.F., & Tice, D.M. (2009). Psychology of
differences in children’s health: How and why do these relation- self-regulation: Cognitive, affective, and motivational processes.
ships change with age? Psychology Bulletin, 128(2), 295–329. New York: Routledge.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, J. (2003). Applied multiple regression/ Francis, D.D., Champagne, F.A., Liu, D., & Meaney, M.J. (1999).
correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Maternal care, gene expression, and the development of
Erlbaum Associates. individual differences in stress reactivity. Annals of the New York
Currie, J. (2005). Health disparities and gaps in school readiness. Academy of Sciences, 896, 66–84.
The Future of Children, 15(1), 117–138. Fuster, J.M. (1997). The prefrontal cortex: Anatomy, physiology,
Davidson, M.C., Amso, D., Anderson, L.C., & Diamond, A. (2006). and neuropsychology of the frontal lobe. Philadelphia: Lippincott-
Development of cognitive control and executive functions from 4 Raven.
to 13 years: Evidence from manipulations of memory, inhibition, Golden, C.J. (1978). Stroop Color and Word Test: A manual for
and task switching. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2037–2078. clinical and experimental uses. Chicago: Stoelting Co.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K., & Taylor, B.A. (2001). Change Guralnik, J.M., Butterworth, S., Wadsworth, M.E., & Kuh, D. (2006).
in family income-to-needs matters more for children with less. Childhood socioeconomic status predicts physical functioning a half
Child Development, 72(6), 1779–1793. century later. The Journals of Gerontology. Series A, Biological
Dethorne, L.S., Johnson, B.W., & Loeb, J.W. (2005). A closer look Sciences and Medical Sciences, 61(7), 694–701.
at MLU: What does it really measure? Clinical Linguistics & Hackman, D.A., & Farah, M.J. (2009). Socioeconomic status and
Phonetics, 19(8), 635–648. the developing brain. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 65–73.
Diamond, A. (2002). Normal development of prefrontal cortex from Hackman, D.A., Farah, M.J., & Meaney, M.J. (2010). Socio-
birth to young adulthood: Cognitive functions, anatomy, and economic status and the brain: Mechanistic insights from human
biochemistry. In D.T. Stuss & R.T. Knight (Eds.), Principles of and animal research. Nature Reviews. Neuroscience, 11(9),
frontal lobe function (pp. 466–503). New York, NY: Oxford 651–659.
University Press. Harden, K.P., Turkheimer, E., & Loehlin, J.C. (2006). Genotype by
Diamond, A. (2006). The early development of executive functions. environment interaction in adolescents’ cognitive aptitude.
In E. Bialystok & F.I.M. Craik (Eds.), Lifespan cognition: Behavior Genetics, 37, 273–283.
Mechanisms of change (pp. 70–95). New York, NY: Oxford Hart, T., & Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
University Press. everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore,
Diamond, A. (2007). Consequences of variations in genes that affect MD: Paul H. Brookes.
dopamine in prefrontal cortex. Cerebral Cortex, 17(Suppl 1), Hertzman, C., & Boyce, T. (2010). How experience gets under the
i161–i170. skin to create gradients in developmental health. Annual Review
Diamond, A. (2009). The interplay of biology and the environment of Public Health, 31, 329–347, 3p following 347.
broadly defined. Developmental Psychology, 45(1), 1–8. Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence:
Diamond, A., Barnett, W.S., Thomas, J., & Munro, S. (2007). Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via
Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, maternal speech. Child Development, 74(5), 1368–1378.
318(5855), 1387–1388. Hollingshead, A. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New
Eaker, D.G., & Walters, L.H. (2002). Adolescent satisfaction in Haven, CN: Department of Sociology, Yale University.
family rituals and psychosocial development: A developmental Holmbeck, G.N. (1997). Toward terminological, conceptual, and
systems theory perspective. Journal of Family Psychology, 16(4), statistical clarity in the study of mediators and moderators:
406–414. Examples from the child-clinical and pediatric psychology
East, L., Jackson, D., & O’Brien, L. (2006). Father absence and literatures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
adolescent development: A review of the literature. Journal Child 65(4), 599–610.
Health Care, 10(4), 283–295. Kane, M.J., & Engle, R.W. (2002). The role of prefrontal cortex in
Essex, M.J., Kraemer, H.C., Armstrong, J.M., Boyce, T., Gold- working-memory capacity, executive attention, and general fluid
smith, H.H., Klein, M.H., y Kupfer, D.J. (2006). Exploring risk intelligence: An individual-differences perspective. Psychonomic
factors for the emergence of children’s mental health problems. Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 637–671.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 63(11), 1246–1256. Kaplan, G.A., Turrell, G., Lynch, J.W., Everson, S.A., Helkala,
Evans, G.W. (2006). Child development and the physical environ- E.L., & Salonen, J.T. (2001). Childhood socioeconomic position
ment. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 423–451. and cognitive function in adulthood. International Journal of
Evans, G.W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of poverty: Epidemiology, 30(2), 256–263.
Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socio- Karoly, P. (1993). Mechanisms of self-regulation - A systems view.
emotional adjustment. Child Development, 73(4), 1238–1248. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 23–52.
Evans, G.W., Gonnella, C., Marcynyszyn, L.A., Gentile, L., & Kishiyama, M.M., Boyce, W.T., Jimenez, A.M., Perry, L.M., &
Salpekar, N. (2005). The role of chaos in poverty and children’s Knight, R.T. (2008). Socioeconomic disparities affect prefrontal
socioemotional adjustment. Psychological Science, 16(7), 560–565. function in children. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(6),
Evans, G.W., & Schamberg, M.A. (2009). Childhood poverty, 1106–1115.
chronic stress, and adult working memory. Proceedings of the Kortte, K.B., Horner, M.D., & Windham, W.K. (2002). The trail
National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, making test, part B: Cognitive flexibility or ability to maintain
106(16), 6545–6549. set? Applied Neuropsychology, 9(2), 106–109.
Farah, M.J., Shera, D.M., Savage, J.H., Betancourt, L., Giannetta, Kraemer, H.C., Stice, E., Kazdin, A., Offord, D., & Kupfer, D.
J.M., Brodsky, N.L., y Hurt, H. (2006). Childhood poverty: (2001). How do risk factors work together? Mediators, mod-
Specific associations with neurocognitive development. Brain erators, and independent, overlapping, and proxy risk factors.
Research, 1110(1), 166–174. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(6), 848–856.
Family SES and child executive functions 131

Kroenke, C. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health: Youth Noble, K.G., Wolmetz, M.E., Ochs, L.G., Farah, M.J., &
development and neomaterialist and psychosocial mechanisms. McCandliss, B.D. (2006). Brain-behavior relationships in reading
Social Science & Medicine, 66(1), 31–42. acquisition are modulated by socioeconomic factors. Develop-
Lamm, C., Zelazo, P.D., & Lewis, M.D. (2006). Neural correlates of mental Science, 9(6), 642–654.
cognitive control in childhood and adolescence: Disentangling Parker, M.D. (2005). A comparative study between mean length of
the contributions of age and executive function. Neuropsycholo- utterance in morphemes (MLUm) and mean length of utterance in
gia, 44(11), 2139–2148. words (MLUw). First Language, 25(3), 365–376.
Link, B.G., & Phelan, J. (1995). Social conditions as fundamental Pennington, B.F., & Ozonoff, S. (1996). Executive functions
causes of disease. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Spec and developmental psychopathology. Journal of Child
No, 80–94. Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 37(1),
Link, B.G., & Phelan, J.C. (1996). Understanding sociodemo- 51–87.
graphic differences in health–the role of fundamental social Raviv, T., Kessenich, M., & Morrison, F.J. (2004). A mediational
causes. American Journal of Public Health, 86(4), 471–473. model of the association between socioeconomic status and three-
Long, J.S., & Ervin, L.H. (2000). Using heteroscedasticity year-old language abilities: The role of parenting factors. Early
consistent standard errors in the linear regression model. Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 528–547.
American Statistician, 54(3), 217–224. Ricciuti, H.N. (2004). Single parenthood, achievement, and problem
MacArthur Research Network on Socioeconomic Status and Health. behavior in White, Black, and Hispanic children. The Journal of
(2000). John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Research Network Educational Research, 97(4), 196–206.
on Socioeconomic Status and Health Sociodemographic Ques- Rose, G. (1985). Sick individuals and sick populations. Bulletin of
tionnaire. Retrieved from http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/ the World Health Organization, 79(10), 990–996.
SocialEnvironment/notebook/measure.html Rueda, M.R., Posner, M.I., & Rothbart, M.K. (2005). The
MacLeod, C.M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop development of executive attention: Contributions to the
effect: An integrative review. Psychology Bulletin, 109(2), emergence of self-regulation. Developmental Neuropsychology,
163–203. 28(2), 573–594.
Malecki, C.K., & Demaray, M.K. (2006). Social support as a buffer Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay
in the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic explained. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.
performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 21(4), 375–395. Sarsour, K. (2007). Family socioeconomic status and child
Marks, G.N. (2006). Are between- and within-school differences in neurocognitive functions in population health perspective.
student performance largely due to socio-economic background? Social inequalities in early neurodevelopment: Mediation and
Evidence from 30 countries. Educational Research, 48(1), 21–40. effect modification in population health perspective (pp. 36–63)
McCabe, L.A., Cunnington, M., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2004). The (Doctoral Dissertation). University of California, Berkeley,
development of self-regulation in young children: Individual Berkeley.
Characteristics and environmental contexts. In R.F. Baumeister & Seguin, J.R., & Zelazo, P.D. (2005). Executive function in early
K.D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 340–357). physical aggression. In R.E. Tremblay, W.W. Hartup & J. Archer
New York: The Guilford Press. (Eds.), Developmental origins of aggression (pp. 307–329). New
McLanahan, S., & Sandefur, G.D. (1994). Growing up with a single York, NY: Guilford Press.
parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Shimamura, A.P. (2000). The role of the prefrontal cortex in
University Press. dynamic filtering. Psychobiology, 28(2), 207–218.
McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child Smith, E.E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: A view from
development. The American Psychologist, 53(2), 185–204. neuroimaging. Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 5–42.
Mercy, J.A., & Steelman, L.C. (1982). Familial influence on the Stevens, C., Lauinger, B., & Neville, H. (2009). Differences in the
intellectual attainment of children. American Sociological neural mechanisms of selective attention in children from
Review, 47(4), 532–542. different socioeconomic backgrounds: An event-related brain
Mezzacappa, E. (2004). Alerting, orienting, and executive attention: potential study. Developmental Science, 12(4), 634–646.
Developmental properties and sociodemographic correlates in an Strauss, E., Sherman, E.M.S., & Spreen, O. (2006). A compendium
epidemiological sample of young, urban children. Child Devel- of neuropsychological tests: Administration, norms, and com-
opment, 75(5), 1373–1386. mentary (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Miller, E.K., & Cohen, J.D. (2001). An integrative theory of Toutkoushian, R.K., & Curtis, T. (2005). Effects of socioeconomic
prefrontal cortex function. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 24, factors on public high school outcomes and rankings. Journal of
167–202. Educational Research, 98(5), 259–271.
Navarro, V. (2007). Neoliberalism, globalization, and inequalities: Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D’Onofrio, B., &
Consequences for health and quality of life. Amityville, NY: Gottesman, I.I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritabil-
Baywood Publishers. ity of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14(6),
Noble, K.G., Farah, M.J., & McCandliss, B.D. (2006). Socio- 623–628.
economic background modulates cognition-achievement rela- Tuvblad, C., Grann, M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). Heritability for
tionships in reading. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 349–368. adolescent antisocial behavior differs with socioeconomic status:
Noble, K.G., McCandliss, B.D., & Farah, M.J. (2007). Socio- Gene-environment interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and
economic gradients predict individual differences in neurocogni- Psychiatry, 47(7), 734–743.
tive abilities. Developmental Science, 10(4), 464–480. Vakil, E., Blachstein, H., Sheinman, M., & Greenstein, Y. (2009).
Noble, K.G., Norman, M.F., & Farah, M.J. (2005). Neurocognitive Developmental changes in attention tests norms: Implications
correlates of socioeconomic status in kindergarten children. for the structure of attention. Child Neuropsychology, 15(1),
Developmental Science, 8(1), 74–87. 21–39.
132 K. Sarsour et al.

Vygotsky, L.S., & Kozulin, A. (1986). Thought and language Winsler, A., Diaz, R.M., Atencio, D.J., McCarthy, E.M., & Chabay,
(Translation newly rev. and edited / ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. L.A. (2000). Verbal self-regulation over time in preschool
Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of children at risk for attention and behavior problems. Journal of
school outcomes based on early language production and socio- Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 41(7),
economic factors. Child Development, 65(2 Spec No), 606–621. 875–886.
Wechsler, D. (1994). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Zivin, G. (1979). The development of self-regulation through
(3rd ed.). London: Psychological Corporation. private speech. New York: Wiley.