Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Nov 24.
Published in final edited form as: Child Care Health Dev. 2025 Nov;51(6):e70162. doi: 10.1111/cch.70162

Harsh Parenting, Maternal Depression, and Executive Function in Early Childhood

Julia O Davis 1, W Benjamin Goodman 2, Yu Bai 2, Kenneth A Dodge 1,2
PMCID: PMC12640558  NIHMSID: NIHMS2116034  PMID: 41045075

Abstract

Background

Executive function (EF), a multimodal construct that captures one’s control over cognition and behaviour, is associated with academic achievement and social–emotional competence. Prior research suggests that early childhood experiences and the family context shape EF development. Harsh parenting practices—defined through verbal and psychological aggression—and maternal depression are identified as factors that may inhibit early EF development. We examined the relation between these two parenting factors at child age 30 months and two fundamental EF skills, attention and inhibitory control (IC), measured at 42 months.

Methods

We used a combination of parent self-report (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression, Childhood Behaviour Questionnaire) and independent observational data (Home Observational Measurement of the Environment) from a random, representative sample of 549 births in Durham County, North Carolina. Linear regression models estimated the effects of harsh parenting and maternal depression on later child EF outcomes, while accounting for child and family characteristics.

Results

Harsh parenting behaviours at 30 months predicted lower child IC skills (b = −0.46, p = 0.041) and lower attention skills (b = −0.64, p = 0.007) at 42 months. Greater maternal depression symptoms at 30 months predicted lower IC skills (b = −0.14, p = 0.017) and lower attention skills (b = −0.21, p = 0.001) at 42 months.

Conclusions

Results highlight the importance of parenting behaviours and parental mental health in shaping early EF. Although correlational in design, this work may inform future early childhood interventions aimed at altering parental behaviour and mental health to promote childhood EF.

Summary

  • Maternal depression and harsh parenting at 30 months are significantly associated with and child executive function (attention, inhibitory control) 1 year later

  • Supporting parents—by promoting healthy mental health and responsive parenting behaviours—is important for fostering the development of executive function and self-regulatory skills in early childhood

  • Future early childhood research and interventions should focus on these two aspects of the early childhood environment to best promote child development

1. Introduction

Parenting behaviours and parent–child interactions shape early neurodevelopment as children engage with their environment and develop higher-order mental processes, such as goal-directed attention and self-regulation. A critical component of early childhood development and future success is executive function (EF). EF’s neurobiological and social elements are reported to develop throughout infancy and preschool, setting the stage for academic achievement and social and emotional stability (Blair 2016). The stimulation children receive (e.g., learning materials, activities, social opportunities) plays a key role in the development of EF (Wu et al. 2019; Rosen et al. 2020). Deficits in aspects of EF—such as inhibitory control (IC) and attention—are associated with developmental disorders, as well as poorer school performance and lower high school graduation rates (Rabiner et al. 2016).

In a longitudinal study following 700 children from infancy through first grade, the NICHD Early Childcare Research Network concluded that the family environment was the strongest predictor of EF outcomes when compared to child care and school (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005). This finding was even observed for children in child care settings for a significant portion of each day, highlighting the critical role of parents as co-regulators for their young children.

Two important aspects of the family context that shape EF are harsh parenting behaviours and maternal depression. Harsh parenting encompasses verbal, physical and psychological aggression, including repeated criticism of and consistent annoyance towards the child (Bradley and Caldwell 1984). Harsh parenting in early life is associated with child behaviour problems, lower verbal skills and poorer EF (Moilanen et al. 2010; Berthelon et al. 2020). Lucassen and colleagues report that a father’s harsh parenting behaviours are associated with poorer IC in four-year-olds (Lucassen et al. 2015). Treat and colleagues observed a similar pattern in children ages 17–40 months (Treat et al. 2019). Despite these adverse effects, 90% of parents endorse engaging in at least one form of psychological aggression with their 2-year-old in the last 12 months; within the first 5 years of life, this increases to 98% (Straus and Field 2003). Because of its harmful effects on child EF, harsh parenting must be considered when developing future early childhood interventions (Halse et al. 2019).

Maternal depression is another common aspect of the early environment that may impact EF development (Underwood et al. 2016). As many as 20% of women experience postpartum depression, and 10% of all children have a mother who is depressed in their early childhood or adolescence (Carlson et al. 2024). Maternal depression is associated with child EF delays, behaviour problems and poor school outcomes (Hughes et al. 2013). A comprehensive literature review of 152 studies suggested that maternal depression predicts lower rates of joint attention between the parent and child, as well as a decreased focus on child-specific needs, potentially undermining the child’s development of self-regulatory skills (Dix and Meunier 2009). Given the harmful effects on the child, the mother and the mother–child relationship, the American Academy of Paediatrics and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have increasingly recognized maternal depression as a public health crisis, urging consistent depression screening during the first year of the child’s life (Trussell et al. 2018).

The current study extends prior research by exploring the longitudinal relation between harsh parenting and maternal depression at child age 30 months and child IC and attention at 42 months in a diverse, population-representative sample. Except for the Family Life Project (Blair et al. 2014; Gueron-Sela et al. 2018), most of the research cited was conducted in predominantly White and high-resourced populations (Halse et al. 2019; Priel et al. 2020; Putnam et al. 2006). The current study explores how the previously discussed findings on parenting and EF compare to those in a more racially (39.3% Black, 11.3% Hispanic) and economically (65.1% on Medicaid/uninsured) diverse sample. Moreover, this sample is unique in that it is representative of the entire birth population in Durham County, NC, between 1 July 2009 and 31 December 2010.

Although many aspects of the early childhood environment influence EF, the current study focuses on harsh parenting and depression for three reasons. First, these constructs allow us to capture both parent mental health and parenting behaviours without overwhelming our models with many predictors. Second, both constructs are common in early childhood, as described above (Straus and Field 2003; Carlson et al. 2024). Third, the constructs reflect methodological diversity, with one predictor that was observed (harsh parenting) and one that was self-reported (depression). We hypothesize that greater rates of harsh parenting and maternal depression will be associated with lower attention and IC one year later. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to add to the early neurodevelopmental literature by investigating the relation between specific dimensions of the parent experience and EF in a diverse sample and (2) to lay the groundwork for future early childhood interventions that promote child EF.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Design and Procedure

The data analyzed in the current study were collected to evaluate the Family Connects (FC) intervention. FC includes nurse home visits after a child’s birth to assess family strengths and needs, as well as to provide brief intervention and connect families to resources relevant to them and their child’s development. From a birth cohort of 4777 children in Durham County, 549 families, who were representative of the larger population, were randomized to either a control condition (n = 280) or to receive the FC intervention (n = 269). The two groups did not differ in pretreatment characteristics (Dodge et al. 2014). Families were contacted to complete an in-home evaluation or telephone interview. The current study used a combination of parent-report and observational data from the 30- and 42-month time points to evaluate parent experience and child EF.

2.2. Sample

Only families with complete parenting and child EF outcome data were included in this study: n = 315 for the harsh parenting models and n = 436 for the maternal depression models. The discrepancy in sample size is because the harsh parenting measure required a home visit with the parent and child, whereas maternal depression was assessed through self-report. Additional reasons for sample attrition between birth and 30–42 months include families who moved out of county or families for whom updated contact information was missing. We compared all three samples across the seven covariates and found no significant differences (Table 1).

Table 1.

Sample characteristics for the RCT sample and two subsamples for this analysis.

Characteristic
% (n)		 (1)
Original Dataset
(n=549)		 (2)
Harsh Parenting Dataset
(n=315)		 (3)
Depression Dataset
(n=436)		 (4)
P value for (1) vs. (2)		 (5)
P value for (1) vs. (3)
% at risk at birth 8.8 (47) 9.5 (30) 9.6 (42) 0.83 0.75
% Medicaid, no insurance 65.1 (321) 66.3 (209) 64.7 (282) 0.78 0.95
Race / Ethnicity
 % Black 39.3 (216) 43.5 (137) 39.9 (174) 0.26 0.91
 % Hispanic 11.3 (62) 10.5 (33) 10.1 (44) 0.80 0.62
 % White 27.1 (149) 27.0 (85) 29.1 (127) 1.0 0.54
 % Other 22.2 (122) 19.0 (60) 20.9 (91) 0.31 0.66
Maternal Education
 % Less than HS 22.5 (111) 23.5 (74) 22.2 (97) 0.81 0.99
 % HS to College 41.6 (205) 44.8 (141) 41.1 (179) 0.41 0.92
 % College & above 35.9 (177) 31.7 (100) 36.7 (160) 0.26 0.85
Maternal Age (mean) 31 31 31 1.0 0.96
% Female 52.6 (289) 56.2 (177) 54.8 (239) 0.35 0.54
% Treatment Group 49.0 (269) 48.3 (152) 47.7 (208) 0.89 0.73
Open in a new tab
*

A chi-squared test was employed for the distribution of a categorical variable between two samples, whereas a two-sample t-test was employed for the distribution of a continuous variable between two samples.

The sample analyzed in the current study includes both intervention and control families, as it was determined that intervention status had no main effect on the variables of interest (Tables 2–5). Additionally, one correlation matrix with only control families (S1a) and one with only intervention families (S1b) confirm similar relations between the primary variables of interest across our sample (Supplemental Figure S1).

Table 2.

Linear Regression Model of Inhibitory Control (30 Months)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Predictors Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p
Infant Medical Risk −0.36 −0.70 – −0.01 0.044 −0.31 −0.65 – 0.04 0.079 −0.36 −0.75 – 0.04 0.077 −0.37 −0.76 – 0.02 0.063 −0.35 −0.74–0.04 0.082
Female 0.27 0.07 – 0.48 0.009 0.27 0.06 – 0.47 0.010 0.27 0.03 – 0.50 0.026 0.27 0.04 – 0.50 0.024 0.26 0.03–0.50 0.025
Minority −0.36 −0.66 – −0.06 0.020 −0.33 −0.63 – −0.04 0.027 −0.30 −0.68 – 0.09 0.131 −0.31 −0.69 – 0.07 0.114 −0.31 −0.69–0.07 0.108
Respondent Age 0.00 0.00 – 0.01 0.483 0.00 −0.01 – 0.01 0.699 0.00 −0.01 – 0.01 0.722 0.00 −0.01 – 0.01 0.893 0.00 −0.01–0.01 0.873
Medicaid/Uninsured −0.27 −0.56 – 0.03 0.075 −0.16 −0.46 – 0.13 0.272 −0.08 −0.45 – 0.30 0.682 0.03 −0.35 – 0.40 0.887 0.01 −0.37–0.38 0.979
Less than HS Education −0.09 −0.36 – 0.18 0.523 −0.05 −0.31 – 0.22 0.729 −0.04 −0.34 – 0.26 0.782 −0.01 −0.30 – 0.29 0.972 0.01 −0.29–0.31 0.954
Intervention Group 0.07 −0.13 – 0.28 0.482 0.07 −0.13 – 0.27 0.481 0.12 −0.11 – 0.35 0.315 0.12 −0.11 – 0.35 0.307 0.12 −0.11–0.34 0.316
Maternal Depression −0.53 −0.79 – −0.28 0.0001 −0.47 −0.76 – −0.19 0.001 −0.22 −0.81–0.36 0.455
Harsh Parenting −1.92 −2.88 – −0.95 0.0001 −1.72 −2.68 – −0.76 0.0005 −1.23 −2.61–0.15 0.080
Interaction Term −0.97 −2.95–1.00 0.333
Observations 437 436 315 314 314
R2/R2 adjusted 0.095 / 0.080 0.128 / 0.111 0.150 / 0.128 0.177 / 0.153 0.180 / 0.153
Open in a new tab

Linear regression models with harsh parenting and maternal depression as predictors of inhibitory control at 30 months.

Table 5.

Linear Regression Model of Attention (42 Months)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Predictors Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p
Infant Medical Risk −0.11 −0.28 – 0.06 0.205 −0.09 −0.25 – 0.08 0.294 −0.14 −0.34 – 0.05 0.154 −0.15 −0.34 – 0.05 0.134 −0.16 −0.36 – 0.03 0.103
Female 0.13 0.03 – 0.23 0.011 0.13 0.03 – 0.23 0.008 0.11 −0.01 – 0.22 0.067 0.11 0.00 – 0.23 0.051 0.11 0.00 – 0.23 0.051
Minority −0.03 −0.17 – 0.12 0.707 −0.02 −0.16 – 0.13 0.800 −0.03 −0.22 – 0.16 0.729 −0.04 −0.22 – 0.15 0.714 −0.03 −0.22 – 0.16 0.736
Respondent Age 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.891 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.946 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.990 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.889 0.00 0.00 – 0.00 0.854
Medicaid/Uninsured −0.24 −0.38 – −0.10 0.001 −0.19 −0.34 – −0.05 0.007 −0.17 −0.36 – 0.01 0.066 −0.12 −0.31 – 0.06 0.197 −0.11 −0.30 – 0.08 0.241
Less than HS Education −0.09 −0.22 – 0.03 0.150 −0.09 −0.22 – 0.04 0.175 −0.07 −0.21 – 0.08 0.377 −0.06 −0.21 – 0.08 0.402 −0.07 −0.22 – 0.07 0.334
Intervention Group 0.02 −0.08 – 0.12 0.689 0.02 −0.07 – 0.12 0.616 0.03 −0.08 – 0.14 0.608 0.04 −0.08 – 0.15 0.505 0.04 −0.08 – 0.15 0.525
Maternal Depression −0.21 −0.33 – −0.09 0.001 −0.20 −0.34 – −0.06 0.006 −0.34 −0.64 – −0.05 0.023
Harsh Parenting −0.64 −1.11 – −0.18 0.007 −0.61 −1.07 – −0.14 0.010 −0.89 −1.58 – −0.21 0.011
Interaction Term 0.61 −0.47 – 1.70 0.267
Observations 432 431 314 313 313
R2/R2 adjusted 0.095 / 0.080 0.118 / 0.101 0.123 / 0.100 0.143 / 0.118 0.146 / 0.118
Open in a new tab

Linear regression models with harsh parenting and maternal depression as predictors of attention at 42 months.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Covariates

A demographic questionnaire was completed by the primary caregiver at each time point, and birth records were matched to each child in the study (Alonso-Marsden et al. 2013). The sample included 39% Black, 11% Hispanic, 27% Non-Hispanic White, 3% Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.2% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 1% biracial or multiracial, and 18% identifying as ‘other;’ 9% of infants had medical risk at birth (low birthweight (LBW), preterm birth); 65% were on Medicaid or uninsured; 23% had not graduated from high school; the mean maternal age was 31; 53% of children were born female; and 49% were randomly assigned to the intervention group.

2.3.2. Harsh Parenting

To measure harsh parenting at 30 months, a trained interviewer observed interactions between the caregiver and child during a 90-min home visit, and completed the Home Observational Measurement of the Environment (HOME) Inventory (Bradley and Caldwell 1984). The current study used the acceptance subscale of the HOME based on 8 behaviours scored as either 0 (not observed) or 1 (observed) (Bradley and Caldwell 1984). Given that these items included ‘caregiver expresses overt annoyance with or hostility towards the child’ and ‘caregiver slaps or spanks child during visit,’ we reverse-coded this subscale to serve as a measure of harsh parenting. The mean score ranged from 0 to 1, with an internal consistency of α = 0.51 and an interrater reliability of = 0.76. A higher score indicated greater harsh parenting.

2.3.3. Maternal Depression

To measure depression at 30 months, mothers completed the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (Radloff 1977). Participants indicated the extent to which each of the 20 statements disturbed them in the past week on a 4-point scale from ‘rarely or none of the time’ to ‘most or all of the time.’ A mean score from 0 to 3 was calculated, with (α = 0.86). A higher score indicated greater depression.

2.3.4. Attention

Attention was assessed at 30 and 42 months using the validated attention subscale of the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire (ECBQ) and the Child Behavior Questionnaire (CBQ), respectively (Putnam et al. 2006; Rothbart et al. 2001). The 30-month attention subscale included 10 items (e.g., ‘when engaged in play with his/her favourite toy, how often did TC play for five minutes or less’) (Putnam et al. 2006). The 42-month attention subscale included six items (e.g., ‘when practicing an activity, has a hard time keeping his/her mind on it’) (Rothbart et al. 2001). The 30-month score ranged from 1 to 7, with α = 0.73. The 42-month score ranged from 1 to 5, with α = 0.61. A higher score indicated greater attention.

2.3.5. Inhibitory Control

IC was assessed at 30 and 42 months using the validated IC subscale of the ECBQ and CBQ. The 30-month IC subscale included nine items (e.g., ‘When asked to wait for a desirable item (such as ice cream), how often did TC go after it anyway?’) (Putnam et al. 2006). The 42-month subscale included six items (e.g., ‘Prepares for trips and outings by planning things s/he will need.’) (Rothbart et al. 2001). The 30-month IC score ranged from 1 to 7, with α = 0.84. The 42-month IC score ranged from 1 to 5, with α = 0.57. A higher score indicated greater IC. Although some measures had an internal consistency below 0.7, all are well-established scales in the literature (Bradley and Caldwell 1984; Rothbart et al. 2001). Given that EF is a multidimensional construct, the subscales were designed to capture a range of behaviours related to attention and IC as they are emerging in development. Thus, some variability in item content is expected, potentially contributing to a lower internal consistency.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

We hypothesized that harsh parenting and maternal depression would correlate with lower IC and attention. We estimated a binary relation between the predictors and outcome variables using a Pearson correlation coefficient (Figure 1). We built linear regression models to estimate the effects of parenting predictors on child EF outcomes, with seven covariates as controls (medical risk [1 = LBW/preterm birth, 0 = otherwise]; infant sex [1 = female, 0 = male]; minority status [1 = minority, 0 = White]; mother education [1 = below high school, 0 = high school or above]; insurance status [1 = Medicaid/uninsured, 0 = private insurance]; maternal age [years]; treatment group [1 = intervention, 0 = control]) (Blair et al. 2014). Minority status was included to capture the environmental and social impact of racism on individuals.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Correlation Matrix of Predictor and Outcome Variables

A correlation matrix of predictor and outcome variables at 30 and 42 months.

Model 1 tested the relation between the continuous variable outcomes and seven covariates. Model 2 included maternal depression as a predictor, and Model 3 included harsh parenting as a predictor. Model 4 included both predictors (maternal depression and harsh parenting) to investigate additive effects. Model 5 included an interaction term (maternal depression × harsh parenting) to explore interaction effects.

3. Results

3.1. Correlation Matrix

We computed a correlation matrix to investigate the relation between the two predictors (30 months) and the four outcome variables (30 and 42 months; Figure 1). We observed a negative relation between each of the two predictor variables and each of the four outcome variables, consistent with previous literature and our hypotheses. We document correlations between the two outcome variables (attention and IC) at the same time point: at 30 months, we observed a correlation of 0.37; at 42 months, we observed a correlation of 0.56. We expected performance across these two variables to be related, given that they are both components of the larger EF construct.

3.2. Regression Models (30 Months)

Harsh parenting and maternal depression were significantly associated with IC and attention contemporaneously at 30 months, even after controlling for the seven covariates described above (Tables 2, 3). Both predictors independently contributed to IC; however, they did not independently contribute to attention. Adding both predictors into one model (model 4, Table 3) reduced the predictive power of harsh parenting on attention at 30 months (p = 0.057). We reported no significant interaction effects of the two predictors on IC (p = 0.333) and attention (p = 0.220).

Table 3.

Linear Regression Model of Attention (30 Months)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Predictors Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p
Infant Medical Risk −0.28 −0.56 – −0.01 0.046 −0.25 −0.52 – 0.03 0.080 −0.38 −0.69 – −0.08 0.013 −0.39 −0.69 – −0.10 0.010 −0.42 −0.72 – −0.11 0.007
Female 0.19 0.03 – 0.36 0.021 0.19 0.03 – 0.35 0.024 0.22 0.04 – 0.40 0.018 0.22 0.04 – 0.39 0.017 0.22 0.04 – 0.39 0.017
Minority 0.01 −0.23 – 0.25 0.957 0.03 −0.21 – 0.26 0.832 0.17 −0.13 – 0.47 0.257 0.16 −0.13 – 0.46 0.269 0.17 −0.12 – 0.46 0.253
Respondent Age 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.637 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.434 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.549 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.403 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.385
Medicaid/Uninsured −0.22 −0.45 – 0.02 0.073 −0.14 −0.37 – 0.10 0.256 −0.30 −0.59 – −0.01 0.040 −0.22 −0.51 – 0.07 0.140 −0.20 −0.49 – 0.10 0.187
Less than HS Education −0.08 −0.30 – 0.13 0.462 −0.05 −0.26 – 0.16 0.647 −0.08 −0.31 – 0.15 0.480 −0.05 −0.28 – 0.17 0.646 −0.07 −0.29 – 0.16 0.565
Intervention Group 0.06 −0.10 – 0.23 0.464 0.06 −0.10 – 0.22 0.459 0.14 −0.04 – 0.32 0.122 0.14 −0.03 – 0.32 0.112 0.14 −0.03 – 0.32 0.107
Maternal Depression −0.41 −0.61 – −0.20 0.0001 −0.38 −0.60 – −0.16 0.001 −0.63 −1.08 – −0.18 0.006
Harsh Parenting −0.88 −1.62 – −0.13 0.021 −0.71 −1.45 – 0.02 0.057 −1.19 −2.25 – −0.13 0.028
Interaction Term 0.95 −0.57 – 2.47 0.220
Observations 437 436 315 314 314
R2/R2 adjusted 0.041 / 0.026 0.073 / 0.056 0.100 / 0.077 0.133 / 0.107 0.137 / 0.109
Open in a new tab

Linear regression models with harsh parenting and maternal depression as predictors of attention at 30 months.

3.3. Regression Models (42 Months)

3.3.1. Inhibitory Control

Several covariates were significantly associated with IC at age 42 months. Compared to boys, girls had greater IC (p < 0.01, p < 0.05). Children of parents with less than a high school degree also had lower IC (p < 0.01).

Harsh parenting and maternal depression were significantly associated with IC one year later (Table 4). Harsh parenting behaviours at 30 months were associated with lower IC at 42 months (b = −0.46, 95% CI = [−0.91, −0.02], p = 0.041). A greater maternal depression score at 30 months was associated with lower IC at 42 months (b = −0.14, 95% CI = [−0.26, −0.03], p = 0.017). Harsh parenting and maternal depression were not independently associated with IC at 42 months (model 4), and we found no significant interaction effects between the two predictors (p = 0.931).

Table 4.

Linear Regression Model of Inhibitory Control (42 Months)

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5
Predictors Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p Estimate CI p
Infant Medical Risk −0.05 −0.20 – 0.11 0.562 −0.03 −0.19 – 0.12 0.666 −0.07 −0.26 – 0.12 0.467 −0.07 −0.26 – 0.11 0.441 −0.07 −0.26 – 0.11 0.439
Female 0.16 0.07 – 0.25 0.001 0.16 0.07 – 0.25 0.001 0.14 0.03 – 0.25 0.014 0.14 0.03 – 0.25 0.012 0.14 0.03 – 0.25 0.012
Minority −0.05 −0.18 – 0.09 0.502 −0.04 −0.18 – 0.09 0.538 −0.07 −0.25 – 0.11 0.438 −0.08 −0.26 – 0.11 0.417 −0.07 −0.26 – 0.11 0.419
Respondent Age 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.637 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.434 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.549 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.403 0.00 −0.01 – 0.00 0.060
Medicaid/Uninsured −0.15 −0.28 – −0.01 0.029 −0.12 −0.25 – 0.02 0.084 −0.01 −0.18 – 0.17 0.940 0.01 −0.17 – 0.20 0.874 0.02 −0.17 – 0.20 0.868
Less than HS Education −0.17 −0.29 – −0.05 0.005 −0.17 −0.29 – −0.05 0.006 −0.20 −0.34 – −0.06 0.006 −0.20 −0.34 – −0.06 0.006 −0.20 −0.34 – −0.06 0.006
Intervention Group −0.01 −0.10 – 0.08 0.776 −0.01 −0.10 – 0.08 0.803 −0.05 −0.16 – 0.06 0.407 −0.04 −0.15 – 0.07 0.424 −0.04 −0.16 – 0.07 0.424
Maternal Depression −0.14 −0.26 – −0.03 0.017 −0.09 −0.22 – 0.05 0.219 −0.10 −0.38 – 0.19 0.509
Harsh Parenting −0.46 −0.91 – −0.02 0.041 −0.46 −0.90 – −0.01 0.046 −0.48 −1.14 – 0.19 0.159
Interaction Term 0.05 −1.00 – 1.10 0.931
Observations 432 431 314 313
R2/R2 adjusted 0.102 / 0.087 0.115 / 0.098 0.101 / 0.077 0.107 / 0.080
Open in a new tab

Linear regression models with harsh parenting and maternal depression as predictors of inhibitory control at 42 months.

3.3.2. Attention

Several covariates were associated with attention at 42 months. In models 1 and 2, girls had greater attention skills (p < 0.05). Children who were uninsured or on Medicaid also had lower attention skills (p < 0.05).

Both harsh parenting and maternal depression were significantly associated with attention at 42 months (Table 5). Harsh parenting behaviours at 30 months were associated with lower attention at 42 months (b = −0.64, 95% CI = [−1.11, −0.18], p = 0.007). A greater maternal depression score at 30 months was associated with lower attention at 42 months (b = −0.21, 95% CI = [−0.33, −0.09], p = 0.001). Harsh parenting and maternal depression were independently associated with attention at 42 months (p = 0.006 for maternal depression; p = 0.01 for harsh parenting, Table 5). We found no significant interaction effects between the two predictors (p = 0.267).

4. Discussion

Harsh parenting and maternal depression at 30 months are associated with child IC and attention 1 year later. These results are consistent with the growing body of literature suggesting that parental experience and family context are important in shaping early neurodevelopment. Our results expand upon current literature by employing a racially and socioeconomically diverse, population-representative sample (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2005).

At 42 months, the two predictors independently predicted attention but not IC. Maternal depression no longer significantly predicted IC (p = 0.219) when both predictors were included in the model. This finding may be consistent with prior work illustrating that parenting behaviours mediate the negative relationship between maternal depression and EF (Baker and Kuhn 2018). However, regression analysis of the maternal depression predictor on the smaller sample (n = 313) revealed that maternal depression did not significantly predict IC (p = 0.18). We propose that the 117 families removed in the combined model (model 4) may impact the relation between maternal depression and IC. Additionally, the two predictors independently predicted IC at 30 months (p < 0.001).

Separately, we hypothesized that there may be important interactions between the two predictors (i.e., if a parent is depressed and engaging in harsh parenting, that may be more harmful than a parent who is depressed but not engaging in harsh parenting). We found no significant effects of the interaction term on either EF outcome (Tables 2–5, Model 5). Finally, we found that Medicaid status and educational attainment were significantly associated with the 42 child EF outcomes. Consistent with previous literature, socioeconomic factors are thought to impact child EF through multiple pathways, including reduced access to high-quality resources and education, as well as greater exposure to chronic stressors (Hackman et al. 2015; Cuartas et al. 2022). Because EF has been proposed as a mediator of the relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement, additional research should further examine these associations to identify important targets for early childhood interventions (Lawson et al. 2018).

The literature points to multiple mechanisms that might account for the observed relationships. Halse and colleagues proposed that lower levels of self-efficacy and preoccupation with fear in children exposed to harsh parenting may impede the development of EF (Halse et al. 2019). Relatedly, harsh parenting is reported to be negatively correlated with sensitive parenting, potentially creating an environment where children have a harder time developing self-regulatory skills (Lucassen et al. 2015). Some research has even suggested that harsh parenting is associated with less grey and cerebral white matter, which could impact early neurodevelopment and EF (Cortes Hidalgo et al. 2022). The relationship between harsh parenting and verbal and behavioural problems is proposed to be greatest for children 5 years old and younger, reinforcing the relevance of our question in 30 and 42-month-olds (Berthelon et al. 2020). Finally, it is important to consider the impact of shared genetic variance as a potential explanatory factor. Although EF is reported to have low-to-moderate heritability, recent research found that the influence of harsh parenting on EF is distinct from genetic confounds (Tomlinson et al. 2022).

With regard to maternal depression and EF, it has been proposed that depressed parents engage in lower rates of joint attention with their children and cannot effectively support their children’s social and emotional needs through co-regulation (Dix and Meunier 2009; Gueron-Sela et al. 2018; Priel et al. 2020). Depressed parents may (1) provide less cognitive stimulation (Wu et al. 2019) and (2) consistently expose children to maladaptive coping behaviours and negative affect (Goodman and Gotlib 1999). This proposed deficiency in regulatory caregiving and stimulation for parents with mental health challenges could impair the child’s development of self-regulatory skills and higher-order processes of thinking (Gueron-Sela et al. 2018; Priel et al. 2020).

The current study builds upon the previous literature with a more racially and economically diverse sample representative of births in Durham, NC (Lucassen et al. 2015). A second strength is the use of birth records to create a covariate that indicates if the child was born prematurely or at a LBW, as these infants often experience developmental and EF delays, persisting years after birth (van Houdt et al. 2019). This novel consideration of birth medical risk adds an important covariate often omitted from previous research. Lastly, the present study’s consideration of harsh parenting and maternal depression captures two important aspects of the early childhood environment. Future research should consider (1) additional factors of the early childhood environment that impact the development of EF and (2) a more detailed examination of how significant covariates—such as Medicaid status—affect both the predictors and outcomes studied.

The first limitation of this study is that the correlational analysis of the relation between parenting behaviours, parent mental health and child outcomes does not allow for causal inference. Second, our sample only included mothers. Third, the parent–child relationship is bidirectional: children with behavioural challenges provoke greater harsh parenting tendencies in their primary caregiver, creating a cycle of ‘mutual reinforcement’ that intensifies child behaviour problems and harsh parenting tendencies (Klein et al. 2018; Scaramella and Leve 2004). Given that we did not measure the predictors at 42 months, we cannot fully investigate these bidirectional influences. Finally, although the ECBQ and CBQ are well-validated measures, they are based on mother report, potentially introducing bias.

These results encourage the design of early childhood interventions that support responsive caregiving and joint attention between the parent and child. Promoting healthy parent–child interactions and maternal mental health could foster child IC and attention, as well as promote success for children across social, psychological, emotional and academic domains.

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Figure 1

Acknowledgements

The design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis and interpretation of the data; preparation, review and approval of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication are the sole responsibility of the authors with no influence from any funder. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of funders. The first author had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the accuracy of the data analysis. Communication should be directed to Julia O. Davis at julia.o.davis@gmail.com.

Footnotes

Ethics Statement

The Family Connects intervention, which the current analysis is based on, was approved by the Duke University Health Institutional Review Board on the following two protocols:

Pro00020974—Prospective Evaluation of Infant Development (PI: Kenneth Dodge).

Pro00027652—PSID 18 Month–10 Year Surveys (PI: Kenneth Dodge).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alonso-Marsden S, Dodge KA, O’Donnell KJ, Murphy RA, Sato JM, and Christopoulos C. 2013. “Family Risk as a Predictor of Initial Engagement and Follow-Through in a Universal Nurse Home Visiting Program to Prevent Child Maltreatment.” Child Abuse & Neglect 37, no.8: 555–565. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.03.012. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker C, and Kuhn L. 2018. “Mediated Pathways From Maternal Depression and Early Parenting to Children’s Executive Function and Externalizing Behaviour Problems.” Infant and Child Development 27, no. 1: e2052. 10.1002/icd.2052. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Berthelon M, Contreras D, Kruger D, and Palma MI. 2020. “Harsh Parenting During Early Childhood and Child Development.” Economics and Human Biology 36: 100831. 10.1016/j.ehb.2019.100831 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Blair C 2016. “Developmental Science and Executive Function.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 25, no. 1: 3–7. 10.1177/0963721415622634. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Blair C, Raver CC, Berry DJ, and Family Life Project Investigators. 2014. “Two Approaches to Estimating the Effect of Parenting on the Development of Executive Function in Early Childhood.” Developmental Psychology 50, no. 2: 554–565. 10.1037/a0033647. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bradley RH, and Caldwell BM. 1984. “The HOME Inventory and Family Demographics.” Developmental Psychology 20, no. 2: 315–320. 10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.315. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carlson K, Mughal S, Azhar Y, Siddiqui W, and May K. 2024. Accessed October 20, 2024. “Postpartum Depression (Nursing).” In StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK568673/. [Google Scholar]
  8. Cortes Hidalgo AP, Thijssen S, Delaney SW, et al. 2022. “Harsh Parenting and Child Brain Morphology: A Population-Based Study.” Child Maltreatment 27, no. 2: 163–173. 10.1177/1077559520986856. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cuartas J, Hanno E, Lesaux NK, and Jones SM. 2022. “Executive Function, Self-Regulation Skills, Behaviors, and Socioeconomic Status in Early Childhood.” PLoS ONE 17, no. 11: e0277013. 10.1371/journal.pone.0277013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Dix T, and Meunier LN. 2009. “Depressive Symptoms and Parenting Competence: An Analysis of 13 Regulatory Processes.” Developmental Review 29, no. 1: 45–68. 10.1016/j.dr.2008.11.002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Dodge KA, Goodman WB, Murphy RA, O’Donnell K, Sato J, and Guptill S. 2014. “Implementation and Randomized Controlled Trial Evaluation of Universal Postnatal Nurse Home Visiting.” American Journal of Public Health 104, no. S1: S136–S143. 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301361. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Goodman SH, and Gotlib IH. 1999. “Risk for Psychopathology in the Children of Depressed Mothers: A Developmental Model for Understanding Mechanisms of Transmission.” Psychological Review 106, no. 3: 458–490. 10.1037/0033-295x.106.3.458. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gueron-Sela N, Camerota M, Willoughby MT, Vernon-Feagans L, Cox MJ, and The Family Life Project key Investigators. 2018. “Maternal Depressive Symptoms, Mother-Child Interactions, and Children’s Executive Function.” Developmental Psychology 54, no. 1: 71–82. 10.1037/dev0000389. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Hackman DA, Gallop R, Evans GW, and Farah MJ. 2015. “Socioeconomic Status and Executive Function: Developmental Trajectories and Mediation.” Developmental Science 18, no. 5: 686–702. 10.1111/desc.12246. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Halse M, Steinsbekk S, Hammar Å, Belsky J, and Wichstrøm L. 2019. “Parental Predictors of Children’s Executive Functioning From Ages 6 to 10.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 37, no. 3: 410–426. 10.1111/bjdp.12282. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Hughes C, Roman G, Hart MJ, and Ensor R. 2013. “Does Maternal Depression Predict Young Children’s Executive Function? – A 4-Year Longitudinal Study.” Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54, no. 2: 169–177. 10.1111/jcpp.12014. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Klein MR, Lengua LJ, Thompson SF, et al. 2018. “Bidirectional Relations Between Temperament and Parenting Predicting Preschool-Age Children’s Adjustment.” Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology 47, no. sup1: S113–S126. 10.1080/15374416.2016.1169537. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Lawson GM, Hook CJ, and Farah MJ. 2018. “A Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Socioeconomic Status and Executive Function Performance Among Children.” Developmental Science 21, no. 2: e12529. 10.1111/desc.12529. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Lucassen N, Kok R, Bakermans-Kranenburg MJ, et al. 2015. “Executive Functions in Early Childhood: The Role of Maternal and Paternal Parenting Practices.” British J of dev Psycho. 33, no. 4: 489–505. 10.1111/bjdp.12112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Moilanen KL, Shaw DS, Dishion TJ, Gardner F, and Wilson M. 2010. “Predictors of Longitudinal Growth in Inhibitory Control in Early Childhood.” Social Development 19, no. 2: 326–347. 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00536.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. 2005. “Predicting Individual Differences in Attention, Memory, and Planning in First Graders From Experiences at Home, Child Care, and School.” Developmental Psychology 41, no. 1: 99–114. 10.1037/00121649.41.1.99. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Priel A, Zeev-Wolf M, Djalovski A, and Feldman R. 2020. “Maternal Depression Impairs Child Emotion Understanding and Executive Functions: The Role of Dysregulated Maternal Care Across the First Decade of Life.” Emotion 20, no. 6: 1042–1058. 10.1037/emo0000614. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Putnam SP, Gartstein MA, and Rothbart MK. 2006. “Measurement of Fine-Grained Aspects of Toddler Temperament: The Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire.” Infant Behavior & Development 29, no. 3: 386–401. 10.1016/j.infbeh.2006.01.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Rabiner DL, Godwin J, and Dodge KA. 2016. “Predicting Academic Achievement and Attainment: The Contribution of Early Academic Skills, Attention Difficulties, and Social Competence. Sullivan A, ed.” School Psychology Review 45, no. 2: 250–267. 10.17105/SPR45-2.250-267. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  25. Radloff LS 1977. “The CES-D Scale: A Self-Report Depression Scale for Research in the General Population.” Applied Psychological Measurement 1, no. 3: 385–401. 10.1177/014662167700100306. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Rosen ML, Hagen MP, Lurie LA, et al. 2020. “Cognitive Stimulation as a Mechanism Linking Socioeconomic Status With Executive Function: A Longitudinal Investigation.” Child Development 91, no. 4: e762–e779. 10.1111/cdev.13315. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Rothbart MK, Ahadi SA, Hershey KL, and Fisher P. 2001. “Investigations of Temperament at Three to Seven Years: The Children’s Behavior Questionnaire.” Child Development 72, no. 5: 1394–1408. 10.1111/1467-8624.00355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Scaramella LV, and Leve LD. 2004. “Clarifying Parent–Child Reciprocities During Early Childhood: The Early Childhood Coercion Model.” Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review 7, no. 2: 89–107. 10.1023/B:CCFP.0000030287.13160.a3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Straus MA, and Field CJ. 2003. “Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 65, no. 4: 795–808. 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00795.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Tomlinson RC, Hyde LW, Weigard AS, Klump KL, and Burt SA. 2022. “The Role of Parenting in the Intergenerational Transmission of Executive Functioning: A Genetically Informed Approach.” Development and Psychopathology 34, no. 5: 1731–1743. 10.1017/S0954579422000645. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Treat AE, Sheffield Morris A, Williamson AC, Hays-Grudo J, and Laurin D. 2019. “Adverse Childhood Experiences, Parenting, and Child Executive Function.” Early Child Development and Care 189, no. 6: 926–937. 10.1080/03004430.2017.1353978. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Trussell TM, Ward WL, and Conners Edge NA. 2018. “The Impact of Maternal Depression on Children: A Call for Maternal Depression Screening.” Clinical Pediatrics (Phila) 57, no. 10: 1137–1147. 10.1177/0009922818769450. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Underwood L, Waldie K, D’Souza S, Peterson ER, and Morton S. 2016. “A Review of Longitudinal Studies on Antenatal and Postnatal Depression.” Archives of Women’s Mental Health 19, no. 5: 711–720. 10.1007/s00737-016-0629-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. van Houdt CA, Oosterlaan J, van Wassenaer-Leemhuis AG, van Kaam AH, and Aarnoudse-Moens CSH. 2019. “Executive Function Deficits in Children Born Preterm or at low Birthweight: A Meta-Analysis.” Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 61, no. 9: 1015–1024. 10.1111/dmcn.14213. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Wu V, East P, Delker E, et al. 2019. “Associations Among Mothers’ Depression, Emotional and Learning-Material Support to Their Child, and Children’s Cognitive Functioning: A 16-Year Longitudinal Study.” Child Development 90, no. 6: 1952–1968. 10.1111/cdev.13071. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Figure 1
NIHMS2116034-supplement-Supplementary_Figure_1.docx (86.3KB, docx)

RESOURCES