The stakes of the question are hard to overstate. Executive function skills develop rapidly during childhood, and performance on executive function assessments in early life predicts academic achievement, social competence and behavioral adjustment years later. Meta-analyses cited by the authors link early executive function to reading and science outcomes, to long-term academic attainment and even to reduced risk of psychopathology. Because these skills correlate with so many positive life outcomes, they have become one of the most attractive targets for intervention in developmental science, education policy and public health. Programs ranging from preschool curricula to computerized brain training have been launched on the premise that executive function is highly malleable. Yet the review notes that the experimental evidence for far transfer, meaning improvements that carry over from trained tasks to real-world outcomes, remains weak, and meta-analytic work on cognitive training generally concludes that gains rarely generalize beyond the trained tasks themselves.

The authors begin by examining how executive function is defined and measured, and they identify this as a foundational problem. In the classic latent-variable framework, executive function decomposes into inhibition, working memory updating and shifting, with a common underlying factor. But in young children, tasks designed to tap these components often fail to show the clean separations seen in adults, and performance depends heavily on how familiar children are with task demands, labels and materials. Studies showing that familiar labels help children engage proactive control, or that multidimensional reasoning boosts performance on the dimensional change card sort task, suggest that what looks like a general executive capacity is often knowledge and context bound. The review argues that executive function is best understood as a set of skills that are shaped by experience and deployed in specific situations, rather than as a fixed, domain-general cognitive muscle that any training program can strengthen.

Measurement is where this conceptual ambiguity becomes a practical crisis. The most common assessments, including conflict tasks such as the flanker and day-night paradigms, card sorting tasks and delayed gratification measures, were largely developed in Western, educated, industrialized, rich and democratic populations. Cross-cultural work reveals striking variability: cognitive flexibility patterns differ across cultural settings, and studies in Jordan, Kenya, Brazil, South Africa and The Gambia show that task performance and its environmental predictors do not map neatly onto the models built in North American and European samples. Parent and teacher rating scales, such as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function, capture yet another construct, one that correlates imperfectly with laboratory performance measures. The authors highlight emerging alternatives, including group-based classroom assessments and observational measures that embed executive function demands in real-world activities, which may better capture how regulation skills operate where children actually live and learn.

Turning to socioeconomic status, the review acknowledges one of the most consistent findings in the literature: children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tend to score lower on executive function assessments, an association confirmed by meta-analysis. But the authors are emphatic that this correlation is causally ambiguous and often context-dependent. Socioeconomic status is a composite construct encompassing income, education, occupation and neighborhood resources, and critics cited in the review argue that treating it as a unitary variable obscures the specific mechanisms at work. Longitudinal studies point to candidate mediators, including cognitive stimulation, language development and environmental predictability, with neuroimaging work suggesting that cognitive stimulation is linked to neural function supporting working memory. Genetic confounding also looms large, as studies of maternal education and prenatal smoking show that inherited factors account for a substantial share of the apparent environmental effects. The review warns against deficit framing, urging researchers to consider how children’s skills may represent adaptations to the specific environments they inhabit.

The home environment and parenting emerge as a second major experiential domain, and one where the evidence is similarly suggestive but rarely decisive. Household chaos, characterized by noise, crowding and unpredictable routines, is associated with poorer executive function, an effect documented in meta-analysis and partially buffered by high-quality childcare. Home literacy environments, parental scaffolding, autonomy support and attachment security all show positive associations with children’s self-regulation in numerous studies spanning the United States, China, Chile, Korea and Côte d’Ivoire. Experimental work adds encouraging signal: an experimental study found that autonomy-supportive interactions improved preschoolers’ self-regulation, and a randomized clinical trial showed that an early parenting intervention accelerated inhibitory control development among children involved with child protective services. Still, the review stresses that most of this evidence is correlational, that effect sizes are typically modest, and that gene-environment correlation means children both shape and are shaped by their families in ways that standard designs cannot untangle.

Schooling, the third focal domain, offers some of the strongest quasi-experimental evidence that experience shapes executive function. School cutoff designs, which compare children born just before and just after enrollment deadlines, indicate that a year of schooling improves cognitive control and even alters associated patterns of brain activation. Differential growth in working memory across school-year and summer months suggests that classrooms actively promote executive function development rather than merely tracking maturation. The quality of teacher-child interactions matters as well, with meta-analytic evidence linking classroom interaction quality to children’s executive function gains. Curricular interventions tell a more complicated story. Programs such as Tools of the Mind generated early enthusiasm, but large rigorous evaluations have produced mixed results, while games-based approaches such as Red Light, Purple Light have shown benefits for school readiness in some low-income samples, including trials in Kenya. The Chicago School Readiness Project stands out for demonstrating longer-term impacts on behavioral regulation that persisted into late adolescence.

Why, then, has the intervention literature so often fallen short of its promise? The review offers a synthesis: interventions have typically treated executive function as a generic capacity to be exercised like a muscle, rather than asking what specific experiences, in specific contexts, help specific children regulate their behavior toward specific goals. The authors draw on a growing contextual perspective in developmental science, one that recognizes culture as constitutive rather than incidental. Culturally organized practices such as autonomy and helping, Indigenous frameworks of connectedness and culturally meaningful forms of self-regulation all suggest that the skills valued and cultivated in one community may differ from those assumed by standardized assessments and imported curricula. Ethical concerns raised by anthropologists about parenting interventions exported to low- and middle-income countries reinforce the point that interventions must be grounded in local meanings, values and strengths rather than framed around supposed deficits.

The review closes by outlining four key directions for future work. First, researchers need better conceptualizations of environmental quality and experience, moving beyond coarse socioeconomic categories to measure the specific features of environments, such as cognitive stimulation, predictability and stress, that plausibly shape developing regulation skills. Second, the field must improve the measurement of executive function itself, developing contextually grounded assessments that are validated across cultural and linguistic groups and that capture regulation as it unfolds in classrooms, homes and everyday activities. Third, studies must be designed to support stronger causal inference, leveraging natural experiments, randomized designs and genetically informed methods while remaining ecologically valid. Fourth, the authors call for greater attention to diversity and equity in who is studied, how findings are interpreted and who benefits from the resulting interventions, including genuine partnerships with communities in majority-world settings.

For a field with such high public stakes, the message of this review is both sobering and generative. Executive function skills matter enormously, they are demonstrably linked to experience, and yet the science of exactly how experience builds them remains incomplete in ways that have limited the success of interventions designed to improve children’s life chances. By demanding sharper concepts, better measures and culturally informed designs, the authors are not dismissing decades of work but redirecting it toward the questions that matter most. If the next generation of research can specify how experiences get under the skin to strengthen children’s regulation of thought and action, the promise of executive function science, from closing achievement gaps to designing smarter educational policies, may finally be kept.

Subject of Research: How experience such as socioeconomic status, parenting and schooling shapes the development of childhood executive function skills

Article Title: Understanding how experience supports the development of executive function skills

Article References: Doebel, S., Chevalier, N., Lipina, S. J., Rabii, V., & Ahmed, S. F. (2026). Understanding how experience supports the development of executive function skills. Nature Reviews Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-026-00614-6

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s44159-026-00614-6

Keywords: executive function, child development, socioeconomic status, parenting, home environment, schooling, cognitive control, self-regulation, working memory, inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, intervention