Introduction
In a recent editorial (Halperin, 2016) Jeffrey Halperin calls for a firmer grasp of
the executive function construct and its boundaries. His goal is to advance knowledge
of the neurocognitive underpinnings of developmental psychopathology. In this commentary
I propose that the development of the emotion regulation construct in relation to
executive functioning is an ideal pursuit of this aim.
Prior writings (Rice and Hoffman, 2014; Rice, 2016a,b,c) develop the conceptualization
of implicit emotion regulation through analogies with defense mechanisms. Observed
similarities between “hot” executive functions, implicit emotion regulation, and a
contemporary understanding of defense mechanisms (Rice, 2016b) facilitates a more
textured understanding of executive functions. Articulation and analysis of the differences
between these three conceptualizations of different fields and frameworks performed
in tandem with reflection upon their similarities yields an opportunity to develop
our understanding of all three concepts in the pursuit of a more nuanced understanding
of developmental psychopathology.
Emotion regulation and executive function deficits
The role of emotion regulation deficits have become more apparent in a wide range
of childhood psychopathology, most notably attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(Graziano and Garcia, 2016), and oppositional defiant disorder (Cavanagh et al., 2017).
The creation of disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (Baweja et al., 2016) and ongoing
controversies regarding childhood bipolar disorder (Towbin et al., 2013) both suggest
a benefit to a more developed understanding of emotion regulation processes in children.
The broad construct of emotion regulation (Gross, 2013) has been significantly developed
through the introduction of a differentiation between explicit and implicit emotion
regulation deficits (Gyurak et al., 2011). Explicit emotion regulation refers to those
that demand conscious, effortful application, while implicit refers to those that
proceed automatically and unconsciously. These two branches have been shown to have
distinct neural correlates (Etkin et al., 2015), with implicit emotion regulation
exhibiting a greater reliance upon ventromedial regions of the prefrontal cortex.
These regions include the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), ventromedial PFC (vmPFC), and
ventral anterior cingulate cortex (vACC). Explicit emotion regulation is more reliant
upon dorsolateral areas including the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) and
the dorsolateral PFC (dPFC; Etkin et al., 2015).
The identification of implicit emotion regulation as a differentiated branch enables
comparison with the “hot” executive function construct. “Hot” denotes automaticity
and rapidity and neuroanatomically includes ventral prefrontally-mediated automatic
and effortless modulation of limbic and visceromotor areas (Zelazo and Carlson, 2012).
In addition to conceptual similarity, these neural correlates show high similarity
with those of implicit emotion regulation (Etkin et al., 2015). Reflection upon the
similarities and differences permits a more nuanced understanding of both.
Defense analysis
Similarly, reflection upon the psychoanalytic construct of defense mechanisms in relation
to these two constructs is fruitful. Contemporary child psychoanalytic psychotherapy
involves the interpretation of children's observable defenses against unwelcome affects
(Bornstein, 1945, 1949; Becker, 1974; Hoffman, 2007). In place of reliance upon the
metapsychology of drive theory, contemporary clinicians understand defense mechanisms
as unconscious, automatically-implemented processes to regulate negative emotions.
There is thus conceptual similarity between implicit emotion regulation and defense
mechanisms (Rice and Hoffman, 2014). This commentary clarifies for the first time
in the literature the added similarity between defense mechanisms and the executive
functions through the “hot” executive function construct.
This neurophysiologically-baesd comparison yields a contemporary, brain-based foundation
to earlier conceptualization of the ego and executive functions (Dyrud, 1969). There
is benefit to reflection upon the specific ego function of defense mechanisms and
the “hot” subset of executive functions. This advances Dr. Halperin's goal while not
failing to appreciate the differences between these constructions and submitting to
reductionism.
For instance, imagine a clinical scenario in which a school-aged child in foster care
is playing catch with a clinician. When the clinician comments that the session is
soon to end the child begins wildly throwing the ball into the tiled dropped ceiling
with force, creating loud banging noises. The child's violence places the clinician
at unease.
The clinician's commenting to the child that the dysregulated play was preceded by
the comment that the session was soon to end helps the child to see the self-protective
purpose of the dysregulated play: the child places the unease onto the clinician and
so turns a passive stance into the active. Also conveyed is the failure of these underdeveloped
implicit emotion regulation and “hot” executive function strategies to regulate disavowed
and painful affects. The feelings of grief, loss, and longing that are so sensitive
to the foster child are recalled by the impending end to the session. The child shows
the maxim that it is easier to go on the offense than to be on the defense. Instead
the clinician feels the unsettledness while the child enjoys the destructiveness of
aggression.
After commentating on the link between the event and the behavior and thereby creating
a causal connection through unconscious processes, the clinician may comment further
on any of these mechanisms through simple, experience-near language, like, “It's easier
to make loud banging noises than to feel powerless to your wild and crashing feelings.”
Through iterative intervention the child learns to reflect upon patterns and to create
a space to develop alternate means of emotion regulation, including recognition and
verbalization of appropriate affects and to engage in a direct confrontation with
their salience and personal importance.
Conclusion
Making the similarities between implicit emotion regulation, “hot” executive functions,
and defense mechanisms while preserving respect for their differences offers a unique
opportunity. Dr. Halperin's call to explore the character and boundaries of the executive
function construct is followed when subsets of executive functions are considered
in relation to alternative models of neuroscience as well as common clinical care.
The realization that unity exists alongside differences creates a more nuanced understanding
of executive functions as well as of the affective neurosciences and psychoanalytically-informed
clinical care.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.
Conflict of interest statement
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial
or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.