| Literature DB >> 34731353 |
Su Yeong Kim1, Jiaxiu Song2, Wen Wen2, Shanting Chen2, Minyu Zhang2, Jinjin Yan2, Belem G Lopez3, Maria M Arredondo2, Ka I Ip4.
Abstract
The intergenerational transmission of executive function may be enhanced or interrupted by culturally salient environmental stressors that shape the practice of executive function in the family. Building upon past research, the current study tests whether culturally relevant stressors such as economic stress and foreigner stress have a direct effect on adolescent executive function, as well as whether they modify the intergenerational transmission of mother-child executive function (i.e., working memory, inhibitory control, and shifting) in low-income Mexican immigrant families. The sample consists of 179 Mexican American adolescents (Mage = 17.03 years; SDage = 0.83; 58% females) and their Mexico-born mothers (Mage = 43.25 years; SDage = 5.90). Results show that mothers' perceived economic stress is associated with poor inhibitory control in adolescents. Low levels of mothers' perceived foreigner stress related to a stronger association between mothers' and adolescents' working memory, while high levels of mothers' perceived foreigner stress related to enhanced intergenerational transmission of poor shifting ability. Study findings demonstrate the prominence of perceived foreigner stress as a contextually relevant factor moderating the intergenerational transmission of mother-child executive function in low-income Mexican immigrant families.Entities:
Keywords: Economic stress; Executive functioning; Foreigner stress; Intergenerational transmission; Mexican immigrant family
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34731353 PMCID: PMC8566615 DOI: 10.1186/s41235-021-00333-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Cogn Res Princ Implic ISSN: 2365-7464
Fig. 1Conceptual model of the moderated intergenerational transmission of executive function. A path indicates the intergenerational transmission of executive function. B paths indicate the main effects of maternal stressors. C paths indicate the moderating effect of maternal stressors. Each executive function component (i.e., working memory, inhibitory control, and shifting) was tested in a separate model
Correlation and descriptive statistics of study variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Mother DS | 1 | ||||||||||||||
| 2. Adolescent DS | .20* | 1 | |||||||||||||
| 3. Mother RT of Simon | .02 | .01 | 1 | ||||||||||||
| 4. Adolescent RT of Simon | − .10 | − .03 | − .05 | 1 | |||||||||||
| 5. Mother RT in SC | .02 | − .07 | − .07 | − .04 | 1 | ||||||||||
| 6. Adolescent RT in SC | .01 | − .10 | .11 | − .03 | .07 | 1 | |||||||||
| 7. Mother foreigner stress | .05 | − .04 | − .05 | − .10 | .03 | − .11 | 1 | ||||||||
| 8. Mother Economic stress | .09 | .15 | − .06 | .20** | .07 | .01 | .04 | 1 | |||||||
| 9. Annual family income | .11 | .14 | − .01 | .07 | − .05 | − .04 | − .08 | .21** | 1 | ||||||
| 10. Mother highest educ. level | .26** | .10 | − .09 | − .06 | .06 | − .18* | .09 | .31*** | .26** | 1 | |||||
| 11. Adolescent age | − .12 | − .20* | − .07 | .11 | .03 | .07 | − .20** | − .06 | − .02 | − .02 | 1 | ||||
| 12. Adolescent gendera | .06 | .10 | .09 | − .01 | − .01 | .03 | .09 | − .02 | − .05 | .01 | − .06 | 1 | |||
| 13. Adolescent nativityb | − .06 | − .01 | − .09 | .04 | .08 | − .06 | − .02 | − .09 | .01 | .04 | .15 | − .01 | 1 | ||
| 14. Adolescent Spanish prof.c | − .04 | .139 | .01 | .02 | .07 | − .05 | .20** | − .09 | .07 | .06 | .05 | .17* | .32*** | 1 | |
| 15. Adolescent English prof.c | .13 | .056 | .06 | − .10 | − .05 | .05 | .12 | .09 | .05 | .08 | .03 | .09 | .10 | .20** | 1 |
| 133 | 168 | 179 | 179 | 177 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 165 | 179 | 179 | 179 | 179 | 179 | 179 | |
| (26%) | (6%) | (0%) | (0%) | (1%) | (1%) | (1%) | (0%) | (8%) | (0%) | (0%) | (0%) | (0%) | (0%) | (0%) | |
| 4.58 | 5.13 | 81.98 | 37.89 | 52.44 | 119.49 | 3.31 | 1.82 | 3.54 | 5.51 | 17.03 | 58% female | 26% Mexican | 3.60 | 4.32 | |
| 1.11 | 1.03 | 52.29 | 42.53 | 207.35 | 176.72 | 0.85 | 0.20 | 2.16 | 2.40 | 0.83 | 42% male | 74% US | 0.70 | 0.56 | |
| 0.59 | 0.35 | 0.16 | 0.77 | 0.54 | 0.14 | − 0.48 | − 1.23 | 1.38 | 0.25 | 0.18 | – | – | − 0.39 | − 0.47 | |
| 0.11 | 0.61 | − 0.04 | 3.51 | 3.22 | 1.65 | − 0.06 | 1.12 | 2.42 | − 0.70 | − 0.98 | – | – | − 0.16 | 0.02 |
DS, digit span; RT, reaction time; Simon, Simon effect; SC, switch cost; Educ., education; Prof., proficiency. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
aAdolescent gender is coded as female = 1 and male = 0
bAdolescent nativity is coded as Mexican = 1 and US = 0
cSpanish and English proficiency were measured using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 = not well to 5 = extremely well
Unstandardized coefficients of baseline models, main effect models, and moderation models
| Model 1: Baseline model | Model 2: Main effect model | Model 3: Moderation model | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE | SE | SE | |||||||
| Mother digit span | |||||||||
| Mother foreigner stress | – | – | – | − 0.159 | 0.10 | .10 | − 0.16 | 0.09 | .09 |
| Mother economic stress | – | – | – | 0.70 | 0.41 | .09 | − 0.51 | 0.39 | .19 |
| Mother digit span × FS | – | – | – | – | – | – | − | ||
| Mother digit span × ES | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.65 | 0.46 | .15 |
| 0.06 | 0.03 | .06 | |||||||
| Chi-square test | – | ||||||||
| CFI | – | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| RMSEA [90% CI] | - | .00 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.00] | .00 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.07] | ||||||
| Mother RT in switch cost | 0.08 | 0.06 | .16 | 0.08 | 0.06 | .17 | 0.05 | 0.06 | .44 |
| Mother foreigner stress | – | – | – | − 18.58 | 15.56 | .23 | − 21.41 | 15.64 | .17 |
| Mother economic stress | – | – | – | − 27.44 | 74.20 | .71 | − 30.96 | 71.90 | .67 |
| Mother RT in switch cost × FS | – | – | – | – | – | – | |||
| Mother RT in switch cost × ES | – | – | – | – | – | – | 32.85 | 28.07 | .24 |
| 0.06 | 0.03 | .09 | 0.06 | 0.03 | .06 | ||||
| Chi-square test | – | ||||||||
| CFI | – | 1.000 | 0.96 | ||||||
| RMSEA [90% CI] | – | .00 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.08] | .03 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.09] | ||||||
| Mother RT in Simon effect | − 0.03 | 0.06 | .65 | − 0.04 | 0.06 | .51 | − 0.04 | 0.06 | .56 |
| Mother foreigner stress | – | – | – | − 4.12 | 3.33 | .22 | − 4.48 | 3.40 | .19 |
| Mother economic stress | – | – | – | ||||||
| Mother RT in Simon effect × FS | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.10 | 0.07 | .18 |
| Mother RT in Simon effect × ES | – | – | – | – | – | – | 0.12 | 0.33 | .73 |
| 0.03 | 0.03 | .25 | 0.07 | 0.04 | .10 | 0.08 | 0.05 | .09 | |
| Chi-square test | – | ||||||||
| CFI | – | 1.00 | 1.00 | ||||||
| RMSEA [90% CI] | – | .00 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.10] | .00 [90% CI: 0.00, 0.04] | ||||||
All models controlled for six covariates, including mothers’ highest education level, adolescents’ age, gender, nativity, Spanish proficiency, and English proficiency. All significant results are bolded. FS, foreigner stress; ES, Economic stress
Fig. 2A Mothers’ working memory relating to adolescents’ working memory (as indexed by backward digit span, where a larger digit span represents better working memory) at low (− 1 SD), mean, and high (+ 1 SD) levels of maternal foreigner stress. B Mothers’ shifting ability (as indexed by the reaction time of switching cost in the Color-Shape task in milliseconds, where a shorter reaction time for shifting cost represents better shifting ability) relating to adolescents’ shifting ability at varying levels of maternal foreigner stress. The numbers in parentheses indicate unstandardized simple slopes and their p-value