Role of Stress, Stress Regulation, and Executive Function on Behavior: Similarities and Differences Between Middle Schoolers with and without Significant Behavior Problems

Introduction

Despite mandated school-based services, students with significant emotional and behavioral problems have poor lifelong outcomes, which may largely be linked to neurocognitive differences and stress related issues. Researchers have discovered that individuals with behavior problems tend to exhibit deficits in the neurocognitive mechanisms known as executive functions (EFs) and have limited ability to navigate stressful situations, resulting in worsening conduct and increasing resistance to intervention. Yet, few researchers have investigated the EF of students who receive school-based services for behavior problems and none have examined the relationships among EF, school stressors, stress regulation, and behavioral outcomes during middle school – a period marked by high stress, active EF maturation, and high risk for the onset of mental health problems and delinquency. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to better understand the variables that contribute to behavioral problems, and ultimately to inform school-based prevention of behavior problems, by investigating the relationships among perceived school-based stressors, stress regulation, and EF in 79 middle schoolers.

Methods

Participants included 44 middle school students receiving school-based services for emotional and behavioral problems and 35 typical matched (gender, race, grade) peers. We used exact matching to weight groups to be equal, and we assessed perceived stress, stress-regulation, and behavior using multiple self- and teacher-report measures. Performance-based EF was measured with the NIH Toolbox. We analyzed data using ANOVAs, sequential regressions, and bootstrapping mediation with SPSS and R Mediation package.

Results

Results indicate that compared to typical peers, students with behavior problems had significantly lower EF abilities, F(1, 77) = 23.59, p < .001, higher peer stress, H(1) = 3.91, p = .05, lower engagement coping, F(1, 77) = 5.25, p = .025, and higher internalizing, F(1, 77) = 7.34, p = .008, and externalizing behaviors, F(1, 77) = 19.94, p < .001. Effect sizes ranged from 0.52 to 1.11. For all students, perceived school stress predicted behavioral problems and stress regulation abilities, with group moderating effects. Both engagement coping and involuntary responses to school stress served as significant mediators between perceived stress and behavior problems.

Conclusions

Stress, stress regulation, and EF may not only play key roles in middle school students’ behavioral outcomes, but also may serve as important prevention and intervention areas within middle school settings. We will address implications for prevention practices and policies at the school and district levels.