Paula G Williams1, Yana Suchy, Holly K Rau. 1. Department of Psychology, University of Utah, 380 S. 1530 E., Room 502, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USA. paula.williams@psych.utah.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF) refers to the set of neurocognitive processes that facilitate novel problem solving, modification of behavior in response to environmental changes, planning and generating strategies for complex actions, and ability to override pre-potent behavioral and emotional responses to engage in goal-directed behavior. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of research on individual differences in EF and examine the extent to which these individual differences confer risk and resilience for poor stress regulation. RESULTS: Review of the literature suggests that individual differences in EF are evident at multiple levels of analysis including genotype, endophenotype (e.g., performance on cognitive tasks), and phenotype (e.g., temperament and personality). These individual differences are associated with differential stress exposure, reactivity, recovery, and restorative processes. CONCLUSIONS: A theoretical framework that includes individual differences in EF will inform behavioral medicine research on stress risk and resilience.
BACKGROUND: Executive functioning (EF) refers to the set of neurocognitive processes that facilitate novel problem solving, modification of behavior in response to environmental changes, planning and generating strategies for complex actions, and ability to override pre-potent behavioral and emotional responses to engage in goal-directed behavior. PURPOSE: To provide an overview of research on individual differences in EF and examine the extent to which these individual differences confer risk and resilience for poor stress regulation. RESULTS: Review of the literature suggests that individual differences in EF are evident at multiple levels of analysis including genotype, endophenotype (e.g., performance on cognitive tasks), and phenotype (e.g., temperament and personality). These individual differences are associated with differential stress exposure, reactivity, recovery, and restorative processes. CONCLUSIONS: A theoretical framework that includes individual differences in EF will inform behavioral medicine research on stress risk and resilience.
Authors: V Donadio; R Liguori; M Elam; T Karlsson; M P Giannoccaro; G Pegenius; F Giambattistelli; B G Wallin Journal: J Physiol Date: 2012-04-23 Impact factor: 5.182
Authors: Ian H Harding; Nadia Solowij; Ben J Harrison; Michael Takagi; Valentina Lorenzetti; Dan I Lubman; Marc L Seal; Christos Pantelis; Murat Yücel Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Abdalla Bowirrat; Thomas J H Chen; Marlene Oscar-Berman; Margaret Madigan; Amanda Lh Chen; John A Bailey; Eric R Braverman; Mallory Kerner; John Giordano; Siobhan Morse; B William Downs; Roger L Waite; Frank Fornari; Zaher Armaly; Kenneth Blum Journal: Mol Neurobiol Date: 2012-02-28 Impact factor: 5.590
Authors: Robert S Stawski; David M Almeida; Margie E Lachman; Patricia A Tun; Christopher B Rosnick; Teresa Seeman Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 4.077
Authors: Shenghao Zhang; Alyssa A Gamaldo; Shevaun D Neupert; Jason C Allaire Journal: J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci Date: 2020-04-16 Impact factor: 4.077