Article

Social–Emotional Competence for Children with Identified

Developmental Concerns: The Impact of Parenting and
Executive Function
Courtney Boise 1, * and Lisa L. Knoche 2

1 Department of Psychology, University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL 32224, USA

2 Nebraska Center for Research on Children, Youth, Families and Schools, University of Nebraska-Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE 68588, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Social–emotional competence and executive function at preschool are critical for children’s
school readiness. Unfortunately, young children with the dual risk of low-income status and identified
developmental concerns are more likely to have lower social–emotional learning. This study examines
(a) bidirectional associations between dyadic parenting behaviors, executive function, and social–
emotional competence; and (b) executive function as an explanatory mechanism for the predictive
relationship between specific parenting behaviors and children’s social–emotional competence. Data
came from 267 parents and children with identified developmental concerns attending publicly
funded center-based preschools. Children’s executive function was assessed by teacher-report, while
parenting behaviors and children’s social–emotional competence were observationally assessed.
Executive function and children’s social–emotional competence were bidirectionally related across
the first year of preschool. Cross-lagged panel models demonstrated that executive function was
not an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between parenting behaviors and children’s
social–emotional competence. However, higher levels of conflict displayed by parents in the fall of
the first year of preschool predicted more conflict during the spring of the same year. Higher levels
of conflict in the spring then predicted poorer executive function and social–emotional competence
during the spring of the child’s second year of preschool.

Citation: Boise, C.; Knoche, L.L.

Keywords: parenting; parent–child conflict; executive function; social–emotional development;
Social–Emotional Competence for
developmental concern
Children with Identified
Developmental Concerns: The Impact
of Parenting and Executive Function.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232. https://
doi.org/10.3390/bs14121232
1. Introduction
Social–emotional competence and executive functioning are critical components of
Academic Editor: Xiaochun Xie
young children’s school readiness [1,2], making it critical to examine factors related to the
Received: 15 November 2024 promotion of these competencies in early childhood. Social–emotional development at the
Revised: 13 December 2024 end of preschool predicts long-term success in future relationships [3], academic achieve-
Accepted: 18 December 2024 ment [4,5], and the likelihood a child will graduate from high school [6]. Executive function
Published: 21 December 2024 in preschool predicts academic achievement [7], lower likelihood of psychopathology [8],
and bullying [9] in elementary school.
However, preschool-aged children living in families of low income are at increased risk
for delayed development of their executive function [10] and social–emotional skills [11].
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
Children with low social–emotional skills in preschool are at risk of lower academic achieve-
This article is an open access article
ment [12] and social–emotional competence, even into adolescence [13]. Given the im-
distributed under the terms and portance of supporting positive social–emotional competence, it is important to examine
conditions of the Creative Commons factors that can predict growth in social–emotional skills, including parenting behaviors
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// and children’s executive function.
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ Research has shown that parenting is related to executive function [14,15] and social–
4.0/). emotional competence [16,17]. However, we do not know if executive function may

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs14121232 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/behavsci

Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 2 of 16

serve as an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between parenting and social–
emotional skills, that is, if executive function mediates the relationship such that parenting
behaviors predict executive function, which in turn predicts social–emotional development.
Additionally, we do not know if these relationships operate bidirectionally over time.
Understanding these developmental processes will allow for better understanding of
interventions for school readiness, long-term academic achievement, and social–emotional
development for children.

1.1. Parenting and Social–Emotional Development

Social–emotional competencies include the ability to engage in social interactions,
recognize other’s emotions, respond to social cues appropriately, and be aware of one’s
own actions [18,19]. In a longitudinal study of maltreatment, Egeland and colleagues [20]
identified several social–emotional skills for preschool-aged children including high agency,
persistence, compliance, and affection towards a parent, as well as low avoidance of the
parent and negativity. Across the preschool period, children are able to exhibit more
complex social–emotional skills as they develop a defined sense of self, which allows
children to navigate between desires for autonomy and relatedness. For example, children’s
autonomous behaviors may contribute to their ability to be persistent and have high agency
and enthusiasm, while the promotion of relatedness and belonging may cause children to
display social–emotional skills such as compliance and affection [21].
In a study of preschool children with developmental delays, greater agency (i.e., a
child’s ability to take an active interest in making choices when playing with others, invest
enthusiasm, and appreciate successes) was related to more positive social interactions with
peers [22]. Similarly, Van Berkel and colleagues [23] demonstrated a relationship between
compliance (i.e., a child’s ability to listen to and follow parent’s requests) and engaging
in prosocial behavior. Comparatively, greater persistence (i.e., a child’s ability to continue
to engage in problem solving and attempt solutions during interactions with others) was
related to fewer behavior problems during preschool [24]. In contrast, avoidance (i.e., a
child’s attempts to withdraw physically and emotionally from others) was associated with
poorer communication with parents and less prosocial behavior with peers [25].
Studies have found an association between parenting behaviors and their children’s
future social–emotional development, as the parent–child relationship serves as one of the
first sources for socialization and the development of internal working models for future
relationships [26,27]. Parenting is a complex construct encompassing multiple dimensions
including dyadic parenting behaviors such as parental conflict, reciprocity, and cooperation.
Parental conflict behaviors (i.e., the ways in which parents engage in arguing with children)
may disrupt optimal child functioning. In a high-risk sample of preschool-aged children,
greater levels of parental conflict behaviors were related to increases in disruptive child
behavior over time [28]. Weaver and colleagues suggest that an important next step for
research is the examination of parental conflict behaviors observationally with similar
at-risk populations.
On the other hand, reciprocity is related to early social–emotional skills [29]. Reci-
procity predicts children’s positive social–emotional competence from early childhood
to adolescence [30]. In a study of children diagnosed with autism, greater parental reci-
procity predicted less children’s expression of negativity (i.e., the degree to which the child
expresses anger, dislike, or hostility) toward the parent [31].
Parents engaging in less conflict [32] and more cooperative behavior with their
preschool children [33] predicted positive social–emotional development across both the
school and home contexts. Parents who reported higher levels of conflict behaviors with
their children were more likely to have children who displayed lower prosocial behavior
and greater peer and emotion problems [32]. Further, Deater-Deckard and Petrill [33] found
parental cooperative behavior to be associated with better child social–emotional skills.
Further study is needed to better understand explanatory mechanisms for this relationship
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 3 of 16

between parenting behaviors and social–emotional development, especially in the context

of risk factors like low socioeconomic status and identified developmental concerns.

1.2. Parenting and Executive Function

Executive function may serve as one explanatory mechanism linking parenting behav-
iors and social–emotional development. Executive functions are foundational cognitive
skills that allow children to complete goal-directed activities [34]. Jones and colleagues
identified four executive functions for early childhood: (a) inhibition, or the ability to
override a dominant response; (b) flexibility, or the ability to switch between tasks or
decision rules; (c) attentional control, or the ability to maintain focus on a given task; and
(d) working memory, or the ability to monitor, maintain, add, and delete information [35].
Senn and colleagues [36] used path analysis to examine the associations between differ-
entiated executive functions for children ranging in age from 2 years 8 months to 6 years
old. While research with adults [34] suggests that inhibition is an underlying component
of executive function, this was not supported. Instead, both working memory and inhi-
bition made contributions to problem solving. Wiebe and colleagues [37] extended this
exploration of differentiated executive function for preschool children by having 3-year-old
children complete a battery of executive function tasks that assessed inhibition, shifting,
and working memory. A confirmatory factor analysis supported a single latent construct of
executive function for children at this age.
Underlying processes for executive functions begin emerging before children turn one
year old. At this age, children demonstrate the ability to inhibit behavior in specific circum-
stances, such as delayed eating [38]. At one year, children are also able to shift between two
physical objects, but they are not yet able to shift between internal representations and the
physical environment. An underdeveloped anterior attention system may limit children’s
ability to perform these more complex executive functions during the first year of life [39].
The anterior attention system, also referred to as the executive attention network, regulates
processes in the anterior cingulate cortex, lateral and ventral prefrontal cortex, and the
basal ganglia in order to resolve conflicts caused by differing dimensions of target stimuli.
The successful resolution of these conflicts by the anterior attention system is essential for
children’s executive function. Furthermore, measuring the resolution of these conflicts is
the foundation of many direct assessments of children’s executive function [40].
Between age 3 and 4, and then between 4 and 5, children demonstrate significant
growth in executive function [41]. This suggests that the preschool years may be an
especially salient opportunity for studying children’s executive function. Therefore, it
is important to examine factors, like parenting, which may predict executive function
and developmental processes to which executive function may contribute during the
preschool years.
Research conducted with Head Start and other early childcare programs demonstrates
that preschool children’s executive function predicts school readiness [42] and, later, aca-
demic achievement [7]. However, Head Start children exposed to chronic stressors and
from families of low income show delays in executive function [43]. Therefore, it is impor-
tant to examine processes that predict executive function to better promote resilience in
young children.
Researchers have demonstrated that high-quality parenting behaviors promote the
development of executive function, while low-quality parenting is related to increased
problems with executive function [16]. However, parent behaviors do not exclusively
impact children’s behaviors; children’s behaviors also impact their parents. Therefore,
bidirectional models are needed to examine these associations. For example, Blair and
colleagues [15] found that there was a bidirectional relationship between the two variables
as high parenting quality predicted growth in executive function, while problems with
executive function predicted declining parenting quality.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 4 of 16

1.3. Executive Function and Social–Emotional Development

Additionally, focusing on children’s executive function can help ameliorate the impact
of risk on social–emotional skills. Evidence suggests an association between executive
function and children’s social–emotional development in the context of perceived risk. In
a study of at-risk preschool-aged children, executive function was related to resilience in
social–emotional development. At-risk children who had high executive function displayed
similar levels of social–emotional skills compared with typically developing peers [44].
Further research is needed to examine this association using observational assessments of
children’s social–emotional skills, as previous research has often examined social–emotional
development via parent and teacher reports.
This study has three objectives: (1) are parenting behaviors (i.e., reciprocity, conflict,
and cooperation) and executive function bidirectionally related for preschool children with
identified developmental concerns?; (2) are executive function and social–emotional skills
bidirectionally related for preschool children with identified developmental concerns?;
and (3) is executive function an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between
dyadic parenting behaviors and social–emotional growth for children with identified
developmental concerns longitudinally during the preschool years?

Hypothesis 1: we hypothesize that parenting behaviors will predict children’s executive function
at the subsequent time point. Children’s executive function will also be predictive of later dyadic
parenting behaviors.

Hypothesis 2: we hypothesize that children’s executive function will predict their later social–
emotional skills. In turn, children’s social–emotional skills will predict later executive function.

Hypothesis 3: we hypothesize that that executive function will mediate the association between
dyadic parenting behaviors and children’s social–emotional skills.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Sample
Participants were 267 parents (87.2% maternal caregivers) and their children who were
enrolled in Head Start or other publicly funded preschools in a Midwestern state between
2012 and 2016 (See Table 1 for demographic information). Participants were part of a study
examining Getting Ready, a school readiness intervention [45]. Thirteen publicly funded
preschool programs across the Midwestern state participated in the Getting Ready study.
Children at these programs were involved in part-day center-based services in preschool
settings in both urban and rural communities.

Table 1. Family demographic characteristics during the fall of the child’s first year of preschool.

Child Parent
46.02 months 29.6 years
Mean Age (SD = 3.67) (SD = 5.9)
(range = 39–54) (range = 19–49)
Gender
Male 56.1% 12.8%
Female 43.9% 87.2%
Race
White 70.5% 80.3%
Black 4.1% 3.4%
American Indian/Native Alaskan 1.6% 3.4%
Asian 0.4% 0.8%
Two or more races 12.3% 3.4%
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 5 of 16

Table 1. Cont.

Child Parent
Other 11.1% 8.8%
Ethnicity
Latino/Hispanic 30.1% 23.7%
Home Language
Spanish 19.0% 17.6%
English 81.0% 82.4%
Individualized Education Program 29.8%
Marital Status
Single 32.0%
Partnered 68.0%
Highest Level of Education
<High school diploma 23.0%
High school diploma/GED 28.5%
Some training beyond HS/no degree 25.5%
Two-year degree 12.8%
Four-year or more degree 10.2%

Attrition
Participants left the study if they withdrew from the preschool program or if their
assigned educator left their position. There were no statistically significant differences in
key demographic variables or study variables for those participants who remained in the
study compared with those who left the study (p > 0.05).

2.2. Procedures
Upon obtaining consent from the publicly funded preschools and classroom educators,
parents were contacted for permission for their children to complete screeners for eligibility
in the original study. Treatment group status (treatment versus comparison) was assigned
at the teacher level and was controlled for in all analyses for this study, which does not
focus on intervention effects. Consent was collected from all educators and parents for
all waves of data collection. As part of these consent forms, families gave permission
for video-recorded interactions and other data to be used for secondary data analysis by
members of the research team.
Assessments were completed at three time points: (1) fall of the child’s first year of
preschool, (2) spring of the child’s first year of preschool, and (3) spring of the second year
of preschool. Assessments took place at a location convenient to the family including the
home, school, or another community location. Parent–child dyads completed a 15 min play
interaction using the Three Box Task Assessment [46]. Parents were instructed to play with
their child in the same manner that they normally would at home using materials found
in three boxes, which contained items to encourage free play. The first box had stencils,
markers, and paper; the second box had a cash register, pennies, and clothes for dress up;
and the third box had a set of Lego. Parents chose how to divide the 15 min play interaction
across the three boxes.

2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Parenting Behaviors
Parenting behaviors were observationally assessed using the Parent–Child Interaction
System (PARCHISY) [47] via video-recorded parent–child interactions during the Three
Box Task Assessment [46] 15 min play task during fall and spring of the child’s first year
of preschool, and spring of the child’s second year of preschool. One third of the video-
recorded interactions were double coded by separate team members to ensure continued
reliability between coders. Intraclass correlations between coders ranged between 0.80 and
0.95 for all coders across the three parenting behavior codes.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 6 of 16

Parenting behaviors included (a) reciprocity, or the ability of the parent to engage in
turn-taking with the child; (b) conflict, or the degree to which the parent engages in arguing
or mutual negative affect with the child; and (c) cooperation, or the degree to which the
parent engages in explicit agreement, discussion, and mutual decision-making with the
child about how to proceed during play. Each parenting behavior was rated on a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from very low = almost no signs of the behavior to very high = the
behavior is a predominant part of the entire interaction. Parenting behaviors on PARCHISY
have been shown to demonstrate good reliability, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from
0.80 to 0.97 [48].

2.3.2. Child Executive Function

This predictor variable was measured using teacher report on the Behavior Rating for
Inventory of Executive Function-Preschool Version (BRIEF-P) [49]. Following the guidance
of Spiegel and colleagues’ factor analysis of the BRIEF-P [50], this study used a general
executive function factor that captures basic executive functions. Previous research has
demonstrated a Cronbach’s alpha for overall executive function of 0.90, which demonstrates
good reliability [51].

2.3.3. Child Social–Emotional Skills

Social–emotional skills were observationally assessed using the Child Behavior Coding
scale [52] during the Three Box Assessment Task [46] during the fall and spring of the
child’s first year of preschool, and spring of the second year of preschool. Interactions were
observationally coded using the Child Behavior Coding scale, which was developed for
a previous iteration of Getting Ready. One-third of the video-recorded interactions were
double coded by separate team members to ensure continued reliability between coders.
Intraclass correlations between coders ranged between 0.80 and 0.94 for all coders across
the five social–emotional skill codes.
Codes for social–emotional skills during parent–child interactions were adapted using
rating scales created by Egeland and Sroufe [20,53,54]. Five child social–emotional skills
during parent–child interactions were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale. Child behaviors
include (1) agency, (2) compliance, (3) avoidance of the parent, (4) affection towards the
parent, and (5) negativity.

2.3.4. Demographic/Control Variables

Parents completed demographic surveys reporting parent and child race and ethnicity,
as well as child gender. Treatment versus control status was assigned at the teacher level at
the start of the study. Treatment status was controlled for in all analyses.

2.4. Analytic Strategy

All analyses controlled for the treatment group (treatment or comparison). Multiple
and logistic regression models were used to test the hypotheses for Research Questions
1 and 2 of this study using SPSS Version 22. Cross-lagged panel models were used to
test the hypothesis for Research Question 3 using Mplus [55]. All participants with at
least one measurement were included in analyses for Research Question 3 as missing data
were handled using full information likelihood, which allowed for use of the full sample
(FML) [56].

3. Results
3.1. Preliminary Analyses
Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for all variables of interest across the three
time points for the study. Parent education, home language, and child gender were all
considered as potential covariates for the following analyses. However, none of these
variables contributed statistically to the subsequent models and were left out for parsimony.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 7 of 16

Data were examined for outliers before proceeding with analyses. As no outliers were
identified, the full dataset was used in all analyses.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for parenting behaviors, executive function, and social–emotional skills
across two years of preschool.

Time 1 Time 2 Time 3

Fall Year 1 Spring Year 1 Spring Year 2
Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
N a = 230 N a = 202 N a = 109
Parenting Behaviors b
Reciprocity 2.69 (0.70) 2.63 (0.65) 2.72 (0.67)
Conflict 1.17 (0.42) 1.11 (0.33) 1.06 (0.23)
Cooperation 2.52 (0.64) 2.63 (0.63) 2.77 (0.68)
Concerns Regarding Child Executive Function c
Executive Function 58.22 (14.23) 57.49 (12.24) 50.72 (11.75)
Child Social–Emotional Skills d

Agency 4.06 (0.77) 4.22 (0.70) 4.28 (0.64)

Compliance 4.30 (0.81) 4.14 (0.79) 4.01 (0.78)
Affection towards the Parent 2.77 (0.76) 2.61 (0.77) 2.55 (0.76)
Avoidance of the Parent 1.37 (0.72) 1.41 (0.69) 1.35 (0.63)
Negativity 1.66 (0.76) 1.62 (0.78) 1.61 (0.77)
a Sample size of coded parent–child video-taped interactions. b Scores range from 1 to 5. c Scores are converted
to standard scores based on the child’s age; M = 50, SD = 10. Higher scores denote more concerns, or poorer
executive function. d Scores range from 1 to 5.

3.1.1. Research Question 1

Regression analyses were conducted to examine parenting behaviors predicting execu-
tive function across the first year of preschool, controlling for child executive function in the
fall (see Table 3). Parents displaying more conflict behaviors during the fall predicted poorer
children’s executive function during the spring of the first year of preschool. Reciprocity
and cooperation were not related to children’s subsequent executive function.

Table 3. Regression analysis for parenting behaviors in the fall predicting child executive function
during the spring of the first year of preschool.

B SE B β F R2 ES
Executive Function 109.29 *** 0.73 2.70
Reciprocity −0.19 0.80 −0.01
Parent

Conflict 3.07 1.22 0.10 *

Cooperation −0.29 0.29 −0.32
Child Executive Function a 0.59 0.06 0.71 ***
Note. Treatment condition is controlled for in all analyses. a Higher scores indicate greater teacher-rated concern
regarding the child’s executive function. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Regression analyses were conducted to examine executive function predicting parent-

ing behaviors across the first year of preschool, controlling for parenting behaviors in the
fall (see Table 4). More teacher-rated concerns regarding executive function during the fall
predicted parents displaying less reciprocity during parent–child interactions during the
spring of the first year of preschool. There was no relationship between executive function
during the fall and conflict or cooperation displayed by parents during the spring of the
first year of preschool.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 8 of 16

Table 4. Regression analysis for child executive function in the fall predicting parenting behaviors
during the spring of the first year of preschool.

B SE B β F R2 ES
Reciprocity 3.72 ** 0.06 0.06
Child Executive Function a −0.01 0.00 −0.14 *
Reciprocity 0.16 0.06 0.17 *
Conflict 1.45 0.02 0.02
Child Executive Function 0.00 0.00 0.05
Conflict 0.12 0.06 0.14
Cooperation 3.39 ** 0.05 0.05
Child Executive Function −0.01 0.00 −0.14 *
Cooperation 0.17 0.07 0.17
Note. Treatment condition is controlled for in all analyses. a Higher scores indicate greater teacher-rated concern
regarding the child’s executive function. ** For test statistic: p < 0.02, statistically significant with a Bonferroni
correction; * for predictors: p < 0.05.

3.1.2. Research Question 2

Regression analyses were conducted to examine executive function predicting chil-
dren’s social–emotional skills across the first year of preschool, controlling for children’s
social–emotional skills in the fall (see Table 5). Fewer concerns regarding children’s execu-
tive function in the fall predicted children expressing more affection towards their parents
during the spring of the first year of preschool. Executive function in the fall of the first
year of preschool was not related to agency, compliance, avoidance, or negativity during
the spring of the first year of preschool.

Table 5. Regression analysis for executive function during fall predicting child social–emotional skills
during the spring of the first year of preschool.

B SE B β F R2 ES
Agency 2.45 0.04 0.04
Child Executive Function a 0.00 0.00 −0.08
Agency 0.15 0.07 0.17
Compliance 10.15 **** 0.14 0.16
Child Executive Function 0.00 0.00 −0.07
Compliance 0.35 0.07 0.36 ***
Avoidance 7.95 **** 0.11 0.12
Child Executive Function 0.00 0.00 0.06
Avoidance 0.31 0.07 0.32 ***
Affection Towards the Parent 4.89 **** 0.07 0.08
Child Executive Function −0.01 0.00 −0.18 *
Affection 0.21 0.07 0.21 **
Negativity 7.77 **** 0.11 0.12
Child Executive Function 0.00 0.00 −0.01
Negativity 0.35 0.07 0.34 ***
Note. Treatment condition is controlled for in all analyses. a Higher scores indicate greater teacher-rated concern
regarding the child’s executive function. **** For test statistic: p < 0.01, statistically significant with a Bonferroni
correction; * for predictors: p < 0.05; ** for predictors: p < 0.01; *** for predictors: p < 0.001.

Regression analyses were conducted to examine social–emotional skills predicting

executive function across the first year of preschool, controlling for children’s executive
function in the fall (see Table 6). Children displaying less agency and more affection toward
their parent during the fall predicted greater teacher-rated concerns regarding children’s
executive function during the spring of the first year of preschool. Compliance, avoidance,
and negativity during the fall of the first year of preschool were not related to executive
function during the spring of the first year of preschool.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 9 of 16

Table 6. Regression analysis for child social–emotional development during fall predicting child
executive function during the spring of the first year of preschool.

B SE B β F R2 ES
Executive Function a 77.86 *** 0.74 2.85
Agency −1.53 0.78 −0.08 *
Compliance 0.04 0.94 0.00
Avoidance −0.49 0.94 −0.03
Affection 1.20 0.71 0.07 *
Negativity 1.07 0.87 0.06
Child Executive Function 0.82 0.04 0.83 ***
Note. Treatment condition is controlled for in all analyses. a Higher scores indicate greater teacher-rated concern
regarding the child’s executive function. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

3.1.3. Research Question 3
Results from Research Questions 1 and 2 were used to inform analyses conducted
to answer Research Question 3. As only predictive relations were demonstrated between
As parentand
agency conflict behaviors
affection were
towards thethe only parenting
parent variable
and executive that predicted
function, agency andlateraffection
execu-
tive function,
towards cross-lagged
the parent panel
were the onlymodels were only run
social–emotional to examine
outcomes this parenting
examined behav-
in these analyses.
As parent conflict behaviors were the only parenting variable that predicted later executive
ior.
function, cross-lagged
Autoregressive panel models
cross-lagged were
panel only run
models to examine
examined this parenting
executive functionbehavior.
as an ex-
Autoregressive cross-lagged panel models examined executive function
planatory mechanism for parent conflict behaviors predicting agency and affection as an explana-
to-
tory mechanism for parent conflict behaviors predicting agency and affection towards the
wards the parent (see Figure 1).
parent (see Figure 1).

Figure 1. Cross-lagged panel model for Hypothesis 3.

Figure 1. Cross-lagged panel model for Hypothesis 3.
The model examining conflict behaviors, executive function, and child affection to-
wardsThethe
model
parentexamining conflictgood
demonstrated behaviors,
model executive function,
fit(see Figure and childthere
2). However, affection
wereto-
no
significant
wards indirectdemonstrated
the parent effects in this cross-lagged
good model panel
fit(seemodel.
FigureEchoing results there
2). However, from the regres-
were no
sion analyses,
significant executive
indirect effectsfunction predicted affection
in this cross-lagged towardsEchoing
panel model. the parent at the
results subsequent
from the re-
gression analyses, executive function predicted affection towards the parent at the subse-of
time point (fall of the first year to spring of the first year; spring of the first year to spring
the second
quent year).(fall of the first year to spring of the first year; spring of the first year to
time point
The model examining conflict behaviors, executive function, and child agency demon-
spring of the second year).
strated good model fit (see Figure 3). Parents displaying more conflict behaviors during the
fall of the first year of preschool predicted more conflict behaviors and more problems with
child executive function during the spring of the first year of preschool. Parents displaying
more conflict behaviors during the spring of the first year of preschool predicted more
problems with child executive function and less child agency one year later. However,
executive function was not an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between conflict
and child agency.

Figure 2. Cross-lagged panel model for conflict, executive function, and child affection towards the
parent.
 wards the parent demonstrated good model fit(see Figure 2). However, there were no
significant indirect effects in this cross-lagged panel model. Echoing results from the re-
gression analyses, executive function predicted affection towards the parent at the subse-
quent time point (fall of the first year to spring of the first year; spring of the first year to
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 10 of 16
spring of the second year).

Behav. Sci. 2025, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 18

Cross-laggedpanel
Figure2.2.Cross-lagged
Figure panelmodel
modelfor
forconflict,
conflict,executive
executivefunction,
function,and
andchild
childaffection
affectiontowards
towardsthe
the
parent.
parent.

The model examining conflict behaviors, executive function, and child agency
demonstrated good model fit (see Figure 3). Parents displaying more conflict behaviors
during the fall of the first year of preschool predicted more conflict behaviors and more
problems with child executive function during the spring of the first year of preschool.
Parents displaying more conflict behaviors during the spring of the first year of preschool
predicted more problems with child executive function and less child agency one year
later. However, executive function was not an explanatory mechanism for the relationship
between conflict and child agency .

Figure 3. Cross-lagged panel model for conflict, executive function, and child agency.
Figure 3. Cross-lagged panel model for conflict, executive function, and child agency.
4. Discussion
4. Discussion
This study sought to answer three research questions: (1) are parenting behaviors
(i.e.,This
reciprocity, conflict,
study sought toand cooperation)
answer and executive
three research questions:function
(1) arebidirectionally related
parenting behaviors
for preschool children with identified developmental concerns?; (2) are executive
(i.e., reciprocity, conflict, and cooperation) and executive function bidirectionally related function
and social–emotional skills bidirectionally related for preschool children with identified
for preschool children with identified developmental concerns?; (2) are executive function
developmental concerns?; and (3) is executive function an explanatory mechanism for
and social–emotional skills bidirectionally related for preschool children with identified
the relationship between parenting behaviors and social–emotional growth for children
developmental
with identifiedconcerns?; and (3)
developmental is executive
concerns function an
longitudinally explanatory
during mechanism
the preschool years?for the
While
relationship between parenting behaviors and social–emotional growth
some work has demonstrated an association between higher overall positive and lower for children with
identified developmental
negative parenting concerns
behaviors longitudinally
and better during [57,58],
executive function the preschool
this studyyears? Whilein
is unique
its focus
some work onhas
examining the impact
demonstrated of specificbetween
an association dyadic parenting behaviors
higher overall positiveto disentangle
and lower
their differential
negative parentingeffects on children’s
behaviors and better executive
executive function.
function [57,58], this study is unique in
Regarding
its focus Hypothesis
on examining 1, while
the impact of parenting behaviors
specific dyadic and executive
parenting behaviorsfunction were re-
to disentangle
lated over time, there were no bidirectional
their differential effects on children’s executive function.effects for any specific parenting behaviors.
Multiple regression analyses indicated that more conflict behaviors demonstrated by par-
Regarding Hypothesis 1, while parenting behaviors and executive function were re-
ents during the fall predicted more problems with executive functioning for children with
lated over time, concerns
developmental there were no bidirectional
during the spring ofeffects foryear
the first anyofspecific parenting
preschool. Conflictbehaviors.
behaviors
Multiple regression analyses indicated that more conflict behaviors demonstrated
displayed by the parent, such as arguing with the child and engaging in mutual negative by par-
ents during
affect, the fall
comprise thepredicted
negativemore problems
parenting with executive
behaviors examined functioning for children
in this study. with
These conflict
developmental concerns during the spring of the first year of preschool.
behaviors differ from other specific negative parenting behaviors (e.g., intrusiveness and Conflict behav-
detachment)
iors displayedpreviously examined
by the parent, such asinarguing
relationwithto executive
the childfunction. This differential
and engaging in mutual neg-focus
mayaffect,
ative explain why conflict
comprise behaviors
the negative were predictive
parenting of executive
behaviors examined function
in this study.inThese
this study,
con-
while
flict recent studies
behaviors examining
differ from other aspects
other specific of negative
negative parenting parenting
behaviors have found
(e.g., no associa-
intrusiveness
tion between negative parenting behaviors and children’s executive function [59,60]. The
and detachment) previously examined in relation to executive function. This differential
relationship between conflict behaviors and executive function suggests that programs
focus may explain why conflict behaviors were predictive of executive function in this
that focus on the reduction of conflict behaviors displayed by the parent may aid in the
study, while recent studies examining other aspects of negative parenting have found no
association between negative parenting behaviors and children’s executive function
[59,60]. The relationship between conflict behaviors and executive function suggests that
programs that focus on the reduction of conflict behaviors displayed by the parent may
aid in the development of children’s later executive function. This sort of intervention may
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 11 of 16

development of children’s later executive function. This sort of intervention may be espe-
cially important for children who are doubly disadvantaged by income and developmental
concern status, as improving executive function can promote resilience by setting children
up on trajectories for future success [44,61].
Poorer executive function during the fall predicted less reciprocity and cooperation
displayed by the parents during the spring of the first year of preschool. These findings
echo other studies that demonstrate that higher executive function is predictive of greater
positive parenting behaviors [62,63], while also making a unique contribution to our under-
standing of parent’s cooperative and reciprocal behaviors. Interventionists working with
parents should be aware of the potential impact children’s executive function may have on
how parents respond to and behave during interactions with their children. Mindful par-
enting interventions may be especially helpful for children with poorer executive function
as these interventions promote greater self-awareness and regulation [64], which may in
turn promote greater cooperation and reciprocity from the parent.
Regarding Hypothesis 2, findings offer support for directionality and bidirectionality
for children’s specific social–emotional skills during the first year of preschool. Evidence
suggests a bidirectional relationship between executive function and affection towards the
parent for children with identified developmental concerns. Controlling for prior executive
function in a multiple regression, displaying less agency and more affection towards the
parent during the fall predicted more problems with executive function for children with
identified developmental concerns during the spring of the first year of preschool. Children
with less agency may be hesitant to engage with problems, express less confidence and
eagerness towards the task, and be inconsistently involved across the play session [52].
These findings further support research from a previous cross-sectional study of preschool
children’s agency and executive function [65] by offering support for directionality. While
social–emotional skills and executive function were bidirectionally related, without an
experimental design causality cannot be determined. Future research should examine if
improvements in one competency will lead to improvement in both competencies or if
there are additional factors that explain this association.
While the direction for the relationship between more affection towards the parent
predicting greater problems with executive function was not as hypothesized, further
examination of the construct offers a possible explanation. Affection towards the parent,
as observationally measured for this study, was conceptualized as “looking at the parent,
making eye contact and smiling, positive verbal exchanges, and other “approach” behav-
iors” [52] (p. 8). In this sample, affection towards the parent in the fall was rated close to
a 3 on average (M = 2.77). This type of expression of affection is characterized by short,
repeated bursts of affection, which are not sustained for more than a moment of time [52].
There was also no evaluation of the appropriateness of these overtures during the play
interaction. Trouble with regulatory aspects of executive function may partially drive these
brief positive expressions [66]. Children may receive positive reinforcement for this lack of
appropriately inhibited displays by parents’ response to expressed affection. While these
analyses do not allow us to make causal statements, greater affection towards the parent
was related to greater reciprocity and cooperative behaviors by the parent during the fall
(r = 0.68, p < 0.001; r = 0.35, p < 0.001).
In contrast, fewer concerns regarding executive function during the fall of the first year
of preschool was predictive of more affection towards the parent in the spring. These find-
ings build on previous studies that demonstrate a positive association between executive
function and social–emotional skills [67,68] through greater specificity of social–emotional
skills examined, especially in relation to interactions with parents. Future research should
study the bidirectional relationship between affection towards the parent and executive
function for children with developmental concerns in the same model. Future work could
also attempt to untangle appropriately versus inappropriately expressed positive emotion
through a more refined scale for evaluating children’s social–emotional skills.
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 12 of 16

The third research question was to examine executive function as an explanatory mech-
anism for the predictive relationship between parenting behaviors and social–emotional
development for children with identified developmental concerns longitudinally across
two years of preschool. No support was found for Hypothesis 3. However, a cross-lagged
panel model demonstrated that conflict behaviors in the fall of the first year of preschool
have an indirect effect on child outcomes across two years of preschool. More conflict
behaviors in the fall predicted more conflict behaviors in the spring of the first year of
preschool, which in turn predicted less child agency and poorer executive function a year
later. Conflict behaviors in the fall of the first year of preschool also had an indirect ef-
fect on child executive function in the spring of the second year of preschool through
executive function in the intervening spring. More conflict behaviors predicted poorer
executive function.
Conflict behaviors by the parent may be an important predictor of child outcomes
across the preschool years. For children who are already at risk due to low income and
identified developmental concerns, the negative effects of conflict behaviors may be espe-
cially pronounced due to additional strain on children’s emotional and mental reserves [69].
Overall, parents in this study displayed low levels of conflict behaviors, with 84.3% of
parents in the fall and 89.2% of parents in the spring of the first year displaying very low
levels of conflict during the observed play interaction. Families with parents who do engage
in higher levels of conflict may differ from low-conflict parent–child dyads in ways that
may inform the development of children’s executive function and social–emotional skills.
Future research should more closely examine theories of additive risk [69] in relation to
parent–child conflict. Intervention research should focus on factors that may predict higher
parental conflict behaviors and develop programs to reduce these parenting behaviors.
Future research should examine these processes longitudinally beyond preschool to enable
a more comprehensive understanding of how parent conflict behaviors, executive function,
and social–emotional competencies impact children’s long-term success.
In addition, future research should examine the impact of parent conflict behaviors
in the parent–child dyad in the context of stress. As this study did not include parental
stress as a predictor or covariate in the model, parents displaying higher levels of conflict
behaviors may be an indicator of greater stress. In a diverse sample of low-income families
with children attending publicly funded preschools, higher parenting stress was predictive
of greater parent–child conflict [70]. Similarly, parents experiencing higher levels of stress
about their marital relationship [71] and housing insecurity [66] were more likely to exhibit
conflict behaviors when interacting with their children. As higher levels of parenting
stress are predictive of poorer child self-regulation and executive function [72], stress could
have a significant contribution in a reexamination of these models. Parental education
is also negatively associated with parent–child conflict behaviors [73]. Future research
should examine the role of potential intervening variables such as parenting stress, parent
education, and housing insecurity in disrupting the hypothesized relationship between
conflict, executive function, and social–emotional competencies.
This study has several limitations. First, executive function was only measured using
teacher report on the BRIEF-P [49]. Multiple assessments of executive function may better
measure the underlying unitary structure of executive function hypothesized to exist in
preschool [37]. Although we used the unidimensional factor structure suggested by Spiegel
and colleagues [50], multiple more robust measures of executive function would improve
the rigor of this study. Second, parenting is a complex construction comprised of multiple
dimensions including parental sensitivity, discipline, communication, emotional support,
etc. As such, the examination of dyadic parenting behaviors such as parental conflict
behaviors offers a limited perspective on parenting. Third, as previously discussed, a
multidimensional observational measure may have allowed for a more refined examination
of certain social–emotional skills. For example, future work could examine affection
towards the parent using interval coding to closely monitor the duration of behaviors or
an adapted scheme that allows for the assessment of the quality and appropriateness of
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 13 of 16

the behavior. However, future researchers would need to weigh the time needed to learn a
more complicated coding scheme against the ability of the current well-validated coding
system to answer questions of interest. Fourth, Hypothesis 3 was examined using a cross-
lagged panel model that only allows for the examination of change over time compared
with change at the individual level. Fifth, while the current study examines these processes
in low-income families, contextual factors such as educational resources or economic stress
are not explored. Future research should address how these variables interact with dyadic
parenting behaviors and child development.
Despite these limitations, this study is an important contribution to our understanding
of the associations between dyadic parenting behaviors, executive function, and social–
emotional skills. This study examined these processes in a unique and understudied sample
by focusing on children with identified developmental concerns who may be at particular
risk for underdeveloped executive function or social–emotional skills [63]. Further, ob-
servationally assessing specific parenting behaviors and children’s social–emotional skills
allowed this study to tease apart previous relations found between broad constructs of
parenting, executive function, and social–emotional development.

5. Conclusions
This study examines the complexity of change in behaviors over time. For example,
parenting behaviors did not always predict later parenting behaviors across the two years of
preschool. Further, parenting behaviors and children’s executive function in the fall of the
first year of preschool did not directly predict child outcomes two years later. As executive
function was not an explanatory mechanism for the relationship between parenting and
children’s social–emotional skills, these findings point to the importance of identifying other
mechanisms that may disrupt predictive influences on children’s development. Results
also demonstrate the robust impact of conflict displayed by parents during interactions
with their child on children’s development across two years of preschool. Higher levels
of conflict in the fall predicted parents displaying more conflict behaviors in the spring of
the child’s first year of preschool. Higher levels of conflict in the spring then predicted
children having poorer executive function and less agency a year later. This suggests the
importance of intervening to reduce parent–child conflict in early childhood to promote
children’s long-term cognitive and social–emotional functioning, particularly for children
with identified concerns upon entry into publicly funded preschool programs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, C.B.; methodology, C.B. and L.L.K.; software, C.B.; val-
idation, C.B. and L.L.K.; formal analysis, C.B.; investigation, C.B.; resources, C.B. and L.L.K.; data
curation, C.B. and L.L.K.; writing—original draft preparation, C.B.; writing—review and editing,
L.L.K.; visualization, L.L.K.; supervision, L.L.K.; project administration, L.L.K.; funding acquisition,
L.L.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences (Grant #R324A120153) awarded to Susan Sheridan, Lisa Knoche, and
Carolyn Pope Edwards. The opinions expressed herein are those of the investigators and do not
reflect the funding agency.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki, and approved by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (20120512606) on the 12 May 2012.
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: Please contact the corresponding author for inquiries about access to
the data. Data are still being archived.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Curby, T.W.; Brown, C.A.; Bassett, H.H.; Denham, S.A. Associations Between Preschoolers’ Social-Emotional Competence and
Preliteracy Skills. Infant Child Dev. 2015, 24, 549–570. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 14 of 16

2. Sasser, T.R.; Bierman, K.L.; Heinrichs, B. Executive functioning and school adjustment: The mediational role of pre-kindergarten
learning-related behaviors. Early Child. Res. Q. 2015, 30, 70–79. [CrossRef]
3. Jaffari-Bimmel, N.; Juffer, F.; van IJzendoorn, M.H.; Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J.; Mooijaart, A. Social development from infancy
to adolescence: Longitudinal and concurrent factors in an adoption sample. Dev. Psychol. 2006, 42, 1143–1153. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
4. Ansari, A. The persistence of preschool effects from early childhood through adolescence. J. Educ. Psychol. 2018, 110, 952–973.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
5. Arnold, D.H.; Kupersmidt, J.B.; Voegler-Lee, M.E.; Marshall, N.A. The association between preschool children’s social functioning
and their emergent academic skills. Early Child. Res. Q. 2012, 27, 376–386. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Véronneau, M.; Vitaro, F.; Pedersen, S.; Tremblay, R.E. Do peers contribute to the likelihood of secondary school graduation
among disadvantaged boys? J. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 100, 429–442. [CrossRef]
7. De Franchis, V.; Usai, M.C.; Viterbori, P.; Traverso, L. Preschool executive functioning and literacy achievement in grades 1 and 3
of primary school: A longitudinal study. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2017, 54, 184–195. [CrossRef]
8. Kertz, S.J.; Belden, A.C.; Tillman, R.; Luby, J. Cognitive control deficits in shifting and inhibition in preschool age children are
associated with increased depression and anxiety over 7.5 years of development. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2016, 44, 1185–1196.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
9. Verlinden, M.; Veenstra, R.; Ghassabian, A.; Jansen, P.W.; Hofman, A.; Jaddoe, V.W.; Tiemeier, H. Executive functioning and
non-verbal intelligence as predictors of bullying in early elementary school. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2014, 42, 953–966. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
10. Raver, C.C.; Blair, C.; Willoughby, M. Poverty as a predictor of 4-year-olds’ executive function: New perspectives on models of
differential susceptibility. Dev. Psychol. 2013, 49, 292–304. [CrossRef]
11. van Staveren, I.; Webbink, E.; de Haan, A.; Foa, R. The last mile in analyzing wellbeing and poverty: Indices of social development.
Forum Soc. Econ. 2014, 43, 8–26. [CrossRef]
12. Hayiou-Thomas, M.E.; Dale, P.S.; Plomin, R. Language impairment from 4 to 12 years: Prediction and etiology. J. Speech Lang.
Hear. Res. 2014, 57, 850–864. [CrossRef]
13. Holmes, C.J.; Kim-Spoon, J.; Deater-Deckard, K. Linking executive function and peer problems from early childhood through
middle adolescence. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2016, 44, 31–42. [CrossRef]
14. Blair, C.; Raver, C.C.; Berry, D.J. Two approaches to estimating the effect of parenting on the development of executive function in
early childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 554–565. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Towe-Goodman, N.R.; Willoughby, M.; Blair, C.; Gustafsson, H.C.; Mills-Koonce, W.R.; Cox, M.J. Fathers’ sensitive parenting and
the development of early executive functioning. J. Fam. Psychol. 2014, 28, 867–876. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
16. Lewallen, A.; Neece, C. Improved social skills in children with developmental delays after parent participation in MBSR: The role
of parent–child relational factors. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015, 24, 3117–3129. [CrossRef]
17. Martí, M.; Bonillo, A.; Jané, M.C.; Fisher, E.M.; Duch, H. Cumulative risk, the mother–child relationship, and social-emotional
competence in Latino Head Start children. Early Educ. Dev. 2016, 27, 590–622. [CrossRef]
18. Hilppö, J.; Lipponen, L.; Kumpulainen, K.; Rainio, A. Children’s sense of agency in preschool: A sociocultural investigation. Int.
J. Early Years Educ. 2016, 24, 157–171. [CrossRef]
19. Hubbard, J.A.; Coie, J.D. Emotional correlates of social competence in children’s peer relationships. Merrill-Palmer Q. 1994, 40,
1–20.
20. Egeland, B.; Sroufe, L.A.; Erickson, M. The developmental consequence of different patterns of maltreatment. Child Abus. Negl.
1983, 7, 459–469. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
21. Keller, H. Parenting and socioemotional development in infancy and early childhood. Dev. Rev. 2018, 50, 31–41. [CrossRef]
22. Parry, J. Exploring the social connections in preschool settings between children labelled with special educational needs and their
peers. Int. J. Early Years Educ. 2015, 23, 352–364. [CrossRef]
23. van Berkel, S.R.; Groeneveld, M.G.; Mesman, J.; Endendijk, J.J.; Hallers-Haalboom, E.T.; van der Pol, L.D.; Bakermans-Kranenburg,
M.J. Parental sensitivity towards toddlers and infant siblings predicting toddler sharing and compliance. J. Child Fam. Stud. 2015,
24, 2270–2279. [CrossRef]
24. Ştefan, C.A.; Miclea, M. Effects of a multifocused prevention program on preschool children’s competencies and behavior
problems. Psychol. Sch. 2013, 50, 382–402. [CrossRef]
25. Enns, L.N.; Barrieau, L.E.; Stack, D.M.; Serbin, L.A.; Ledingham, J.E.; Schwartzman, A.E. Verbal and nonverbal communication in
at-risk mother-child dyads: Implications for relationship quality and developing positive social behaviours in middle-childhood.
Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 13, 1–19. [CrossRef]
26. Ainsworth, M.S. Infant–mother attachment. Am. Psychol. 1979, 34, 932–937. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
27. Bowlby, J. Attachment and Loss: Attachment; Basic Books: New York, NY, USA, 1969; Volume 1.
28. Weaver, C.M.; Shaw, D.S.; Crossan, J.L.; Dishion, T.J.; Wilson, M.N. Parent–child conflict and early childhood adjustment in
two-parent low-income families: Parallel developmental processes. Child Psychiatry Hum. Dev. 2015, 46, 94–107. [CrossRef]
29. Fadda, R.; Lucarelli, L. Mother–Infant and Extra-Dyadic Interactions with a New Social Partner: Developmental Trajectories of
Early Social Abilities during Play. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 436. [CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 15 of 16

30. Feldman, R.; Bamberger, E.; Kanat-Maymon, Y. Parent-specific reciprocity from infancy to adolescence shapes children’s social
competence and dialogical skills. Attach. Hum. Dev. 2013, 15, 407–423. [CrossRef]
31. MacDonald, M.; Hatfield, B.; Twardzik, E. Child behaviors of young children with autism spectrum disorder across play settings.
Adapt. Phys. Act. Q. 2017, 34, 19–32. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
32. Healy, K.L.; Sanders, M.R.; Iyer, A. Facilitative parenting and children’s social, emotional and behavioral adjustment. J. Child Fam.
Stud. 2015, 24, 1762–1779. [CrossRef]
33. Deater-Deckard, K.; Petrill, S.A. Parent–child dyadic mutuality and child behavior problems: An investigation of gene–
environment processes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2004, 45, 1171–1179. [CrossRef]
34. Miyake, A.; Friedman, N.P.; Emerson, M.J.; Witzki, A.H.; Howerter, A.; Wager, T.D. The unity and diversity of executive functions
and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cogn. Psychol. 2000, 41, 49–100. [CrossRef]
35. Jones, S.M.; Bailey, R.; Barnes, S.P.; Partee, A. Executive Function Mapping Project: Untangling the Terms and Skills Related to Executive
Function and Self-Regulation in Early Childhood (OPRE Report #2016-88); Department of Health and Human Services, Administration
for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
36. Senn, T.E.; Espy, K.A.; Kaufmann, P.M. Using path analysis to understand executive function organization in preschool children.
Dev. Neuropsychol. 2004, 26, 445–464. [CrossRef]
37. Wiebe, S.A.; Sheffield, T.; Nelson, J.M.; Clark, C.A.; Chevalier, N.; Espy, K.A. The structure of executive function in 3-year-olds.
J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2011, 108, 436–452. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
38. Best, J.R.; Miller, P.H. A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Dev. 2010, 81, 1641–1660. [CrossRef]
39. Garon, N.; Bryson, S.E.; Smith, I.M. Executive function in preschoolers: A review using an integrative framework. Psychol. Bull.
2008, 134, 31. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
40. Pozuelos, J.P.; Paz-Alonso, P.M.; Castillo, A.; Fuentes, L.J.; Reuda, M.R. Development of attention networks and their interactions
in childhood. Dev. Psychol. 2014, 50, 2405. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
41. Carlson, S.M. Developmentally sensitive measures of executive function in preschool children. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2005, 28,
595–616. [CrossRef]
42. Sasser, T.R.; Beekman, C.R.; Bierman, K.L. Preschool executive functions, single-parent status, and school quality predict diverging
trajectories of classroom inattention in elementary school. Dev. Psychopathol. 2015, 27, 681–693. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
43. McDermott, J.M.; Westerlund, A.; Zeanah, C.H.; Nelson, C.A.; Fox, N.A. Early adversity and neural correlates of executive
function: Implications for academic adjustment. Dev. Cogn. Neurosci. 2012, 2, S59–S66. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Wolfe, K.R.; Vannatta, K.; Nelin, M.A.; Yeates, K.O. Executive functions, social information processing, and social adjustment in
young children born with very low birth weight. Child Neuropsychol. 2015, 21, 41–54. [CrossRef]
45. Sheridan, S.M.; Knoche, L.L.; Boise, C.E.; Moen, A.L.; Lester, H.; Edwards, C.P.; Schumacher, R.; Cheng, K. Supporting preschool
children with developmental concerns: Effects of the Getting Ready intervention on school-based social competencies and
relationships. Early Childhood Res. Q. 2019, 48, 303–316. [CrossRef]
46. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Childcare and mother-child interaction for the first three years of life. Dev. Psychol.
1999, 35, 1399–1413. [CrossRef]
47. Deater-Deckard, K.; Pylas, M.V.; Petrill, S.A. Parent–Child Interaction System; University of London, Institute of Psychiatry: London,
UK, 1997.
48. Deater-Deckard, K. Parenting and child behavioral adjustment in early childhood: A quantitative genetic approach to studying
family processes. Child Dev. 1998, 71, 468–484. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
49. Gioia, G.A.; Espy, K.A.; Isquith, P.K. BRIEF-P: Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function–Preschool Version: Professional manual;
Psychological Assessment Resources: Odessa, FL, USA, 2003.
50. Spiegel, J.A.; Lonigan, C.J.; Phillips, B.M. Factor structure and utility of the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function—
Preschool Version. Psychol. Assess. 2017, 29, 172. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
51. Isquith, P.K.; Gioia, G.A.; Espy, K.A. Executive function in preschool children: Examination through everyday behavior. Dev.
Neuropsychol. 2004, 26, 403–422. [CrossRef]
52. Clarke, B.; Kwon, K. Child Behavior Coding Scale. In The Getting Ready Project: Child Coding Manual; 2009; unpublished manual.
53. Egeland, B.; Weinfield, N.; Heister, M.; Lawrence, C.; Pierce, S.; Chippendale, K.; Powell, J. Teaching tasks administration and
scoring manual. 1995; unpublished manual.
54. Weinfield, N.S.; Egeland, B.; Hennghausen, K.; Lawrence, C.; Carlson, E.; Meyer, S.; Powel, J. Jobs wave II middle childhood
observational manual and coding scheme for affective and behavioral quality of mother child interaction. 1996; unpublished manual.
55. Muthén, L.K.; Muthén, B.O. Mplus User’s Guide. 1998–2011. Available online: https://www.statmodel.com/ugexcerpts.shtml
(accessed on 1 November 2024).
56. Enders, C.K. The impact of nonnormality on full information maximum-likelihood estimation for structural equation models
with missing data. Psychol. Methods 2001, 6, 352–370. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
57. Blair, C.; Granger, D.A.; Willoughby, M.; Mills-Koonce, R.; Cox, M.; Greenberg, M.T.; Fortunato, C.K. Salivary cortisol mediates
effects of poverty and parenting on executive functions in early childhood. Child Dev. 2011, 82, 1970–1984. [CrossRef]
58. Sulik, M.J.; Blair, C.; Mills-Koonce, R.; Berry, D.; Greenberg, M. Early parenting and the development of externalizing behavior
problems: Longitudinal mediation through children’s executive function. Child Dev. 2015, 86, 1588–1603. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Behav. Sci. 2024, 14, 1232 16 of 16

59. Bater, L.R.; Jordan, S.S. Child routines and self-regulation serially mediate parenting practices and externalizing problems in
preschool children. In Child & Youth Care Forum; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2017; Volume 46, pp. 243–259.
60. Fenesy, M.C.; Lee, S.S. Executive functioning mediates predictions of youth academic and social development from parenting
behavior. Dev. Neuropsychol. 2018, 43, 729–750. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61. Dale, P.S.; McMillan, A.J.; Hayiou-Thomas, M.E.; Plomin, R. Illusory recovery: Are recovered children with early language delay
at continuing elevated risk? Am. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2014, 23, 437–447. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
62. Merz, E.C.; Landry, S.H.; Montroy, J.J.; Williams, J.M. Bidirectional associations between parental responsiveness and executive
function during early childhood. Soc. Dev. 2016, 26, 591–609. [CrossRef]
63. Rochette, É.; Bernier, A. Parenting, family socioeconomic status, and child executive functioning: A longitudinal study. Merrill-
Palmer Q. 2014, 60, 431–460. [CrossRef]
64. Moreira, H.; Gouveia, M.J.; Canavarro, M.C. Is mindful parenting associated with adolescents’ well-being in early and middle/late
adolescence? The mediating role of adolescents’ attachment representations, self-compassion and mindfulness. J. Youth Adolesc.
2018, 47, 1771–1788. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
65. Causey, K.B.; Bjorklund, D.F. Prospective memory in preschool children: Influences of agency, incentive, and underlying cognitive
mechanisms. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 2014, 127, 36–51. [CrossRef]
66. Liebermann, D.; Giesbrecht, G.F.; Müller, U. Cognitive and emotional aspects of self-regulation in preschoolers. Cogn. Dev. 2007,
22, 511–529. [CrossRef]
67. Bunford, N.; Brandt, N.E.; Golden, C.; Dykstra, J.B.; Suhr, J.A.; Owens, J.S. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder symptoms
mediate the association between deficits in executive functioning and social impairment in children. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.
2015, 43, 133–147. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
68. Motamedi, M.; Bierman, K.; Huang-Pollock, C.L. Rejection reactivity, executive function skills, and social adjustment problems of
inattentive and hyperactive kindergarteners. Soc. Dev. 2016, 25, 322–339. [CrossRef]
69. Walsh, F. Family resilience: A developmental systems framework. Eur. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 13, 313–324. [CrossRef]
70. Garcia, A.S.; Ren, L.; Esteraich, J.M.; Raikes, H.H. Influence of child behavioral problems and parenting stress on parent–child
conflict among low-income families: The moderating role of maternal nativity. Merrill-Palmer Q. 2017, 63, 311–339. [CrossRef]
71. Sears, M.S.; Repetti, R.L.; Reynolds, B.M.; Robles, T.F.; Krull, J.L. Spillover in the home: The effects of family conflict on parents’
behavior. J. Marriage Fam. 2016, 78, 127–141. [CrossRef]
72. Warren, E.J.; Font, S.A. Housing insecurity, maternal stress, and child maltreatment: An application of the family stress model.
Soc. Serv. Rev. 2015, 89, 9–39. [CrossRef]
73. Zhang, X. The effects of parental education and family income on mother–child relationships, father–child relationships, and
family environments in the People’s Republic of China. Fam. Process 2012, 51, 483–497. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.