The present research aimed to determine whether self-reports of early adversity predicted individual differences in self-reported and laboratory-measured executive functioning in college-aged samples. Two studies with young adult samples (n = 231 and n = 61) measured endorsement of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), self-reported executive functioning difficulties on the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF), and self-report measures of depression and emotion regulation. The second sample also completed laboratory performance tasks of working memory, inhibitory control, and selective attention while electroencephalogram (EEG) was recorded. In both samples, greater self-reported ACEs predicted greater reports of executive functioning difficulties on the BRIEF (rs = 0.378 and 0.322), relationships of medium effect size that remained significant when controlling for depression and emotion regulation variables. In the second sample, despite robust EEG/event-related potential (ERP) task findings in the group as a whole, neither lab task performance nor EEG/ERP measures were reliably correlated with individual differences in ACEs. We consider multiple alternative explanations for why early adversity predicted self-reported executive functioning difficulties but not lab task performance or neural measures in the same sample. These findings may reflect a propensity for negative self-evaluation among those with early adverse experiences, leading to inflated estimates of their own executive function problems. Alternatively, the findings may indicate that the lab tasks are insufficient in tapping aspects of executive functions that are relevant outside the lab context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
Read full abstract