The cultural construction of “executive function”

In cognitive science, the term "executive function" (EF) refers to universal features of the mind. Yet, almost all results described as measuring EF may actually reflect culturally specific cognitive capacities. After all, typical EF measures require forms of decontextualized/arbitrary processing which decades of cross-cultural work indicate develop primarily in "schooled worlds"-industrialized societies with universal schooling. Here, we report comparisons of performance on typical EF tasks by children inside, and wholly outside schooled worlds. Namely, children ages 5 to 18 from a postindustrial context with universal schooling (UK) and their peers in a rural, nonindustrialized context with no exposure to schooling (Kunene region, Namibia/Angola), as well as two samples with intermediate exposure to schooled worlds. In line with extensive previous work on decontextualized/arbitrary processing across such groups, we find skills measured by typical EF tasks do not develop universally: Children from rural groups with limited or no formal schooling show profound, sometimes qualitative, differences in performance compared to their schooled peers and, especially, compared to a "typical" schooled-world sample. In sum, some form of latent cognitive control capacities are obviously crucial in <i>all</i> cultural contexts. However, typical EF tasks almost certainly reflect culturally specific forms of cognitive development. This suggests we must decide between using the term EF to describe 1) universal capacities <i>or</i> 2) the culturally specific skill set reflected in performance on typical tasks. Either option warrants revisiting how we understand what has been measured as EF to date, and what we wish to measure going forward.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2025-06-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2407955122
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Child and Animal Learning Development
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
24.11
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

The cultural construction of “executive function”

Emily Burdett, Joseph Henrich, Ivan Kroupin, Helen Davis et al.
7 citations
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Child and Animal Learning Development
24.11
article

The cultural construction of “executive function”

Emily Burdett, Joseph Henrich, Ivan Kroupin, Helen Davis, Agustina Bani Cuata, Vahumburuka Hartley
article en
7 citations

Abstract

In cognitive science, the term "executive function" (EF) refers to universal features of the mind. Yet, almost all results described as measuring EF may actually reflect culturally specific cognitive capacities. After all, typical EF measures require forms of decontextualized/arbitrary processing which decades of cross-cultural work indicate develop primarily in "schooled worlds"-industrialized societies with universal schooling. Here, we report comparisons of performance on typical EF tasks by children inside, and wholly outside schooled worlds. Namely, children ages 5 to 18 from a postindustrial context with universal schooling (UK) and their peers in a rural, nonindustrialized context with no exposure to schooling (Kunene region, Namibia/Angola), as well as two samples with intermediate exposure to schooled worlds. In line with extensive previous work on decontextualized/arbitrary processing across such groups, we find skills measured by typical EF tasks do not develop universally: Children from rural groups with limited or no formal schooling show profound, sometimes qualitative, differences in performance compared to their schooled peers and, especially, compared to a "typical" schooled-world sample. In sum, some form of latent cognitive control capacities are obviously crucial in <i>all</i> cultural contexts. However, typical EF tasks almost certainly reflect culturally specific forms of cognitive development. This suggests we must decide between using the term EF to describe 1) universal capacities <i>or</i> 2) the culturally specific skill set reflected in performance on typical tasks. Either option warrants revisiting how we understand what has been measured as EF to date, and what we wish to measure going forward.

Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 122(27)
Harvard University (US), University of Nottingham (GB), Arizona State University (US), London School of Economics and Political Science (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Child and Animal Learning Development
24.11
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.