Bridging cultures and contexts: the role of executive functioning

In the previous paragraphs, evidence linking self-construals, acculturation orientations, discriminatory experiences, and parenting each with socio-emotional adjustment in immigrant early adolescents was provided. Scholars agree that all these factors play a considerable role in immigrant early adolescents’ socio-emotional adaptation. However, less is known about the potential risk and protective factors which may intervene to moderate these links. How can we build a bridge between cultural, contextual and personal variables in links with socio-emotional adjustment? EFs represent a potential answer to this question.

Indeed, executive functioning has been theorized as a possible factor explaining variation in socio-emotional outcomes. Executive functions (EFs) are adaptive, goal-directed behaviors that enable individuals to override more automatic or established thoughts and responses (Mesulam, 2002). EFs comprise a constellation of processes mainly supported by the prefrontal region of the brain. Researchers have proposed several different theoretical models to describe executive functioning, which has been conceptualized as a unitary construct, as multiple components or as a unitary construct with dissociable components (Hofmann, Schmeichel, & Baddeley, 2012). One of the

most relevant theoretical models in developmental research postulates the co-exixtence of “cold” and “hot” components of EFs (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012).

The “cold” components of EFs include working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility (Hofmann et al., 2012; Miyake, Friedman, Emerson, Witzki, Howerter, & Wager, 2000), whereas the “hot” components concern regulation of one's impulses and emotion-based decision-making (Bechara, Damasio, Damasio, &

Anderson, 1994; Zelazo & Mueller, 2002). Working memory represents the capacity to hold information in memory and either manipulate that information or update it on the basis of ongoing inputs. Inhibitory control refers to the capacity to withhold a predisposed response, often in favour of a non-predisposed one. As regards cognitive flexibility, it deals with the capacity to alternate between sets of stimulus-response rules. Each task can be measured by means of questionnaires and performance tasks.

Different experimental tasks assess each of the three basic EFs. Operation span and n-back tasks provide measures of working memory; Stroop tasks or stop-signal tasks are commonly used to assess inhibitory control; tasks such as the Dimensional Change Card Sort task (DCCS) allow to measure the ability to mentally switch between two or more simple task sets (Hofmann et al., 2012).

The cold components of EFs are generally measured by means of behavioural and/or computer based tasks which rely on “cold” abstract and decontextualized problems. Conversely, hot EFs involve all three subcomponents, but in relation to problem-solving situations mirroring common everyday experiences, and directly involving regulation of emotions (e.g., tasks which involve rewards or losses).

However, the distinction between hot and cold components of EFs is not so straightforward. Since hot and cool EFs are simultaneously involved in most-problem-solving situations, scholars suggest they can be seen as two ends of a continuum in a

single coordinated system, rather than two different systems (Zhou, Chen, & Main, 2012; Zelazo & Cunningham, 2007).

EFs have been assessed mostly in young children and toddlers, but mounting evidence suggests that they keep developing through adolescence, making this phase particularly interesting and innovative for research (King, Lengua, & Monahan, 2013;

Prencipe, Kesek, Cohen, Lamm, Lewis, & Zelazo, 2011; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). As children become adolescents, they enter the formal operational stage of cognitive development and start to develop new neurocognitive competences that allow them to assume different perspectives on the social environment (Piaget, 1970). Notably, early adolescence is a time of changes in brain development and of renewed brain plasticity, characterized by high risk propensity and reward responsiveness (Crone & Dahl, 2012;

Dishion, 2016).

Overall, as reported in recent research on the topic, EFs overlap with the concept of self-regulation (Zhou, Chen et al., 2012) and contribute to self-regulatory outcomes in theoretically meaningful ways (i.e., as predictor, process moderator, and as process mediator). Better EF capacities have been widely related to better academic achievement and fewer externalizing difficulties in children, but there is also preliminary evidence showing how executive functioning is also associated with social and emotional self-regulation (Hofmann et al., 2012), which, in turn, is linked to social competence, empathy, and prosocial behavior; in contrast, less effective emotion regulation strategies are associated with more internalizing problems (Eisenberg, Spinrad, & Eggum, 2010).

EFs have been recently theorized as possible moderating variables in links between contextual aspects and personal variables (Chen et al., 2015; Hoffman et al., 2012; King et al., 2013; Zhou, Chen et al., 2012). Consistent with a risk and resilience

perspective, there is preliminary evidence suggesting that EFs can interact with situational and contextual aspects, such as environmental and social stressors or interracial interaction or negative parenting (Chen et al., 2015; Hofmann et al., 2012).

For example, one could think that the negative effect of environmental stressors on psychological adjustment may be reduced for individuals with a good level of executive functioning. Conversely, low levels of executive functioning may further compromise the negative impact of contextual stressors on socio-emotional adjustment (moderating effects).

Furthermore, differences in everyday experiences and in how EFs are socialized across youths from different ethnic and migration backgrounds may impact on the effects of specific individual cognitive aspects on psychological functioning (Fuligni &

Tsai, 2015; Ward & Geeraert, 2016). There is evidence linking better executive functioning to bilingualism (Bialystok, 2016). However, findings are inconclusive, and mostly focused on American children from middle-class families, thus failing to address how ethnicity or immigrant status may affect EFs (Rosselli, Ardila, Lalwani, & Vélez-Uribe, 2016). Most likely, ethnic background may influence the strength of the association between EFs and contextual variables in predicting socio-emotional outcomes, rather than the direction of the relationship (Zhou, Tao et al., 2012). Yet, the potential moderating role of EFs in the relationship between cultural and contextual factors and socio-emotional adjustment among immigrant and national early adolescents remains virtually unexplored.