Executive function
Do childhood self-control and brain responses predict preteen behaviour?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Children's performance on attention-control tasks at age 8 predicted the same tasks four years later, and brain responses to losses in a gambling game predicted less thrill seeking and better school ratings at 12.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Cohort — Longitudinal follow-up: lab Flanker, card-sort and child gambling task with EEG at age 8; online NIH Toolbox Flanker and card-sort plus child, parent and teacher questionnaires at age 12
- N
- N=78 · 78 children seen at both ages (of 84 tested at age 8); 67 completed the age-12 EF games and 66 returned teacher questionnaires, so analyses vary in N
- Population
- Typically developing, mostly white, middle-class children from Seattle followed from about age 8 to age 12
- Outcome
- Stability of Flanker and DCCS performance; teacher-rated academic competence, self- and teacher-rated social skills, self-reported thrill and adventure seeking at age 12
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
Each task predicted itself four years later, but flanker and card-sort performance did not correlate with each other, suggesting these control skills become more separate with age. Better flanker accuracy at 8 predicted higher teacher-rated academic competence at 12, even controlling for vocabulary. A bigger P300 to losses than rewards at 8 predicted less thrill and adventure seeking at 12, and a bigger anticipatory brain response before likely losses predicted better academic competence; how well children actually played the gambling game predicted nothing.
Methodology
Seventy-eight children did a flanker task (ignoring distracting arrows or fish), a card-sorting task that required switching rules, and a child gambling game while EEG was recorded at age 8. At age 12 they completed online versions of the flanker and card-sort tasks, and children and teachers filled in questionnaires on social skills, academic competence and thrill seeking. The researchers correlated age-8 measures, including two brain responses to losses (the P300 after feedback and the stimulus-preceding negativity before it), with age-12 outcomes.
Limitations
The sample was modest, mostly white and middle class, and low in risk behaviour, so the findings may not generalise, and the authors note that correcting for the many correlations tested would have removed some effects. Different versions of the tasks were used at 8 and 12 (lab versus online, with a combined speed-accuracy score at 12), which complicates the stability estimates. Several predicted links did not appear and one was in the unexpected direction (better card-sorting at 12 went with lower teacher-rated academics). As a correlational study it cannot show that early brain sensitivity to loss causes later cautious behaviour, and the interpretation of the anticipatory component in children is speculative.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- Are stopping an action and ignoring distraction the same skill?
- Do 'hot' and 'cool' self-control develop differently in teens?
- Do children struggle with memory demands or physical self-control?
- Does screen time at age two predict toddlers' executive function?
- Do flanker and Simon tasks really measure self-control?