A Scoping Review of the Use of Mindfulness-Based Interventions to Improve Preschoolers’ Executive Function

Taking into account that mindfulness-based interventions focused on improving EF with preschoolers is an emerging and rapidly growing area of research, the present study employed a scoping review to explore the current literature and identify research gaps. The methodology aligns with established frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley (2005) and Peters et al. (2015), which suggest there are five steps necessary for a scoping review: (a) identifying the question; (b) gathering relevant studies; (c) selecting the studies; (d) representing the data; and (e) summarizing and reporting the results (with a potential 6th step of consultation of experts). In line with Peters et al. (2015), we also clearly identify our objectives, research question, inclusion criteria, concepts examined (e.g., outcomes, study designs considered), context (e.g., study settings, location factors), search approach, and charting of results. We also acknowledge that the scoping review is an iterative process (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Peters et al., 2015; Westphaln et al., 2021) and note where we made any updates or changes as we learned from the existing literature during our search (e.g., we excluded yoga interventions that did not directly report aspects of mindfulness and removed dependent variables that were not explicitly EF from the search query).

First, we focused on better understanding the current state and breadth of literature by broadly examining mindfulness interventions and EF (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018). Second, we aimed to identify current gaps in the existing literature to inform future research. Finally, in line with the recommended updates from Westphaln et al. (2021) to Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, we took a team-based approach to the scoping review incorporating feedback from both experts within developmental psychology and education. For our data charting, we extracted many of the fields suggested by several articles during the extraction phase (e.g., author, country, purpose, study population, intervention type, concepts, duration, outcome measured; see Peters et al., 2015). Finally, our analytical strategy was in line with several frameworks, as we sought more to assess the current state of the literature and gaps in the literature, rather than aggregating findings, evaluating study quality, or discussing evidence for particular interventions (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005; Munn et al., 2018; Peters et al., 2015). Our analytic strategy focused on providing a narrative account of the findings across key factors (e.g., with basic numerical analysis like number or percentage of studies related to location, type of EF assessment, type of intervention) based on the data we extracted and charted from our review to meet our study objectives (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005).

A comprehensive search of the following six databases was performed: PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed, Psychology & Behavioral Sciences Collection, Academic Search Complete, and ERIC. Databases were chosen by examining search strategies of existing systematic and scoping reviews in mindfulness and EF literature. The research team identified key terms and associated synonyms based on our research question examining whether the use of mindfulness-based interventions improved preschoolers’ EF (Table 1) to develop an initial search query. All individual terms per column were combined using the “OR” Boolean operator into a single group. Each key term group was then combined using the “AND” function to produce a final list of citations. Terms were truncated where appropriate. No other restrictions were entered into the database search (e.g., date of publication). The initial database search and duplicate screening were conducted in February 2021. Two subsequent updates were performed: one in July 2023, covering publications from February 2021 to July 2023; and another in November 2024, capturing articles published from July 2023 to November 2024. Following each search, a final list of citations was saved in the citation manager, Zotero, and screened for duplicates. Records of all searches in each database were maintained. In addition to the database search, a call for unpublished data relevant to this review was submitted to cognitive development and education listservs.

The review aimed to identify and synthesize literature examining the effect of mindfulness interventions on EF in preschool-aged children; therefore, inclusion criteria were designed to include studies that were RCTs, interventions with a focus on mindfulness, and participants between the ages of 3.00 and 5.00 years old. The significant developmental growth in EF and the novelty of mindfulness-based interventions during preschool make it important to use RCTs to minimize biases and allow for rigorous control comparisons, ensuring a clearer understanding of causal relationships. Given that yoga can be administered without definitive mindfulness practices, any yoga intervention that did not explicitly reference mindfulness techniques that encouraged awareness of the present moment without judgment was excluded. Articles met the age criterion if the term preschool was used or if an age range containing 3-, 4-, or 5-year-olds was directly stated. In addition, the studies were required to report having an outcome measure explicitly mentioning EF or an EF component. Included studies were peer-reviewed empirical articles and ProQuest dissertations published in the English language. Our call for unpublished data did not yield any studies that met these inclusion criteria.

After the initial search of the databases and removal of duplicates, all articles underwent a two-stage screening process based on the inclusion criteria, which are shown in Fig. 1. In Stage 1, the first and second authors independently evaluated the full search yield for inclusion criteria based on title and abstract only. Citations were moved on to the next stage if they met all inclusion criteria or if inclusion criteria could not be determined by the title or abstract alone. Results from Stage 1 were nearly identical across reviewers, but in cases where they did not align the article in question was moved on to Stage 2. Articles that progressed to the full-text review in Stage 2 were then reviewed individually by the core review team (i.e., the first and second authors) based on the set inclusion criteria. Articles moved to the final stage if there was consensus among the two reviewers. Articles rarely failed to reach consensus, but when they did the core research team and last author reviewed the studies and reached consensus through discussion and consultation of the original text and/or supporting materials (e.g., consultation or cited methodological articles).

Given that our literature review revealed variability in both the types of mindfulness interventions assessed and the methods used for EF assessments (see description of studies), we utilized a descriptive approach. Specifically, we calculated and compared p-values and effect sizes using Hedge’s g by analyzing post-intervention means between the control and mindfulness intervention groups (Table 3). This descriptive approach allowed us to examine intervention effects across multiple factors—such as participant characteristics, intervention features, and outcome measures—despite the limited number of studies included.

A total of 1707 articles were identified from six databases (Fig. 1). Removal of duplicates and an initial review of title and abstract based on the criteria noted in the inclusion criteria section resulted in the elimination of 1632 articles. A total of 61 full-text articles were retrieved for detailed consideration, of which 29 met inclusion criteria based on the process listed in the inclusion criteria and review and screening process sections. The final reviewed articles included 28 peer-reviewed articles and one dissertation (acquired through psycINFO database search; Beattie, 2014). At the start of the final analysis, six articles (Cohen et al., 2018; Jarraya et al., 2019; Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2018; Li-Grining et al., 2021; Rashedi et al., 2021; Thierry et al., 2018) were removed from the review. Thierry et al. (2018) was removed because of inadequate randomization, thus not meeting the criteria for a RCT. Lemberger-Truelove et al. (2018) was removed because the outcome measure (C-OMM) examined inhibition and shifting, specifically in the context of mindfulness, and defined as an outcome “developed to identify preschool-aged children’s spontaneous behaviors that more closely reflect mindfulness” (Lemberger-Truelove et al., 2018, p. 1408). Similarly, Li-Grining et al. (2021) examined self-regulation through child well-being. Thus, these studies did not meet the inclusion criteria of a measure of EF. Finally, three articles (Cohen et al., 2018; Jarraya et al., 2019; Rashedi et al., 2021) implemented yoga interventions that did not clearly describe aspects of mindfulness. Therefore, 17 articles met the inclusion criteria and were examined for potential influence of mindfulness intervention as shown in Fig. 1.

Extracted data and calculated intervention effect size for the final review of articles are shown in Table 3. However, effect sizes and p-values could not be calculated for three individual EF measures reported in Beattie (2014, two EF measures: Continuous Performance Task, Spatial Working Memory Task) and Jackman et al., (2019, 1 EF measure: Go/No Go Inhibit) due to lack of information provided in the original articles. The calculated effect sizes indicate that 12 of the 17 (70.6%) studies found at least one significant effect of mindfulness on EF, of which all had medium to large effect sizes. The remaining five studies (29.4%) did not find significant intervention effects (Flook et al., 2015; Lim & Qu, 2017; Razza et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018) based on our effect size analysis (Table 3).

The 17 studies provided data for 59 outcome variables of EF, of which 21 (35.6%) were significant, providing equivocal support for mindfulness interventions improving EF. Large effect sizes (1.02–4.40) were identified in ten (47.6%) of the significant outcome variables. Medium effect sizes were identified for the remaining 52.4% significant outcome measures (0.26–0.8). However, the results of this analysis should be taken cautiously given that some of the outcome variables are not independent observations. The behavioral measures of EF that demonstrated consistent intervention effects varied (e.g., HTKS, Go/No-Go, PegTap, Hearts and Flowers, Dimensional Change Card Sort task (DCCS)). Only two teacher-report measures of EF were significant (BRIEF-P; Jackman et al., 2019; Haines et al., 2023; and MU.EF-101; Lertladaluck et al., 2021). The majority of the significant EF tasks were not computerized (HTKS, Jackman et al., 2019; Viglas & Perlman, 2018, Zelazo et al., 2018; and PegTap, Zelazo et al., 2018). Computerized tasks consisted of Go/No-Go (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016), Hearts and Flowers (Li et al., 2019), CHEXI (Sexton et al., 2022), Flanker Task (Haines et al., 2023), and DCCS (Haines et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019). The HTKS task was the most used measure of EF (8 of the 17 studies; 47.1%); however, only three studies using EF favored the mindfulness treatment with this measure (Brann et al., 2022; Jackman et al., 2019; Viglas & Perlman, 2018).

Characteristics of the reviewed studies are listed in Table 2 and significant effects can be found in Table 3. Most of the studies (76.5%) involved children up to 5.00 years (Beattie, 2014; Brann et al., 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Sexton et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018). Of the studies including children up to 5.00 years, over half (64.7%) reported at least one significant effect of the mindfulness intervention. Five studies included older participants in their preschool-aged sample, and they remained in the review because the mean age fell between 3.00 and 5.50 years. Four studies included children up to 6.00 years (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Lim & Qu, 2017; Shlomov et al., 2023; Viglas & Perlman, 2018), and one study included children up to 7.00 years (Leyland et al., 2018). In these cases, the sample was considered as a whole because age groups could not be separated, and the majority of participants fell within the range of interest. Four (80.0%) of the studies that included older samples also found at least one significant effect on the mindfulness group. All studies were assumed to have recruited typically developing children, though one study identified a focus on preschoolers with the lowest scoring EF (Lertladaluck et al., 2021).

In terms of study location, approximately half (n = 8) of the reviewed studies took place outside the United States (Italy, Berti & Cigala, 2020; Thailand, Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Northern UK, Leyland et al., 2018; China, Li et al., 2019; Singapore, Lim & Qu, 2017; Australia, Sexton et al., 2022; Israel, Shlomov et al., 2023; Canada, Viglas & Perlman, 2018). Seven (87.5%) of these studies were identified as having at least one significant intervention effect (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Leyland et al., 2018; Li et al., 2019; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023; Viglas & Perlman, 2018). Of the studies that were conducted within the United States (U.S.), 55.6% found at least one significant effect for mindfulness and 55.6% indicated that children were from lower-income families (Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Zelazo et al., 2018). One study conducted outside the U.S. described the sample as having higher external challenges than other children (e.g., parents’ education and income, poverty, and proportion of lone-parent families; Viglas & Perlman, 2018). Four of the six studies reporting a sample from lower-income families demonstrated at least one significant effect of mindfulness.

Twelve (70.6%) of the reviewed articles used a definition of mindfulness provided by Kabat-Zinn (2003) which defines mindfulness as “the awareness that emerges through paying attention on purpose, in the present moment, and nonjudgmentally” (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019; Lim & Qu, 2017; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Wood et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018). Additionally, one study explicitly stated awareness of the present moment and non-judgmental curiosity toward awareness as two primary components of mindfulness (Leyland et al., 2018). Further, all reviewed studies expressed that mindfulness and mindful yoga interventions involved internal attention by focusing on thoughts, breath, movements, or sensory information (e.g., meditation).

Many of the studies (81.3%) explicitly described the mindfulness intervention as involving movement (e.g., yoga poses or postures; Beattie, 2014; Brann et al., 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019; Lim & Qu, 2017; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023; Wood et al., 2018). More than half (69.2%) of these studies demonstrated at least one significant effect of mindfulness interventions. The interventions were delivered in a variety of ways and differed in duration including single-session mindfulness inductions (Leyland et al., 2018; Lim & Qu, 2017), 6-week sessions (Beattie, 2014; Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Li et al., 2019; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Wood et al. 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018), 8-week sessions (Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Razza et al., 2020; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023), and 12-week sessions (Flook et al., 2015; Haines et al., 2023; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016). Fifty percent of the single session mindfulness inductions found at least one significant effect on EF outcomes. For the studies that implemented 6-week sessions, 71.4% resulted in at least one significant effect. Three of the four studies that provided an 8-week mindfulness session reported at least one significant effect. Of the two studies that implemented 12-week sessions of mindfulness, two had at least one significant effect on EF. The intervention duration was not clearly stated in one study (Jackman et al., 2019). In addition, intervention exposure varied greatly across studies, ranging from 3.00 to 1280.00 min (Table 2).

Although not all studies reported how the interventions were delivered, a majority followed a protocol or curriculum (81.8% reported a significant effect of the curriculum). Many articles (64.7%) referenced an established mindfulness or mindful yoga curriculum (Table 2; Beattie, 2014; Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023; Viglas & Perlman 2018; Wood et al., 2018). Intervention instructors consisted of experienced mindfulness or mindful yoga instructors (Beattie, 2014; Brann et al., 2022; Flook et al., 2015; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Shlomov et al., 2023), teachers trained on the intervention (Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Sexton et al., 2022; Zelazo et al., 2018), or other individuals trained in the intervention procedure (e.g., primary researcher, research students, counselor; Leyland et al., 2018; Lim and Qu, 2017; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Wood et al., 2018). All but one study (Li et al., 2019) directly stated the status or expertise of the intervention instructor.

Of the studies that had teachers trained on the mindfulness curriculum, 80.0% found at least one significant effect (Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Sexton et al., 2022), while 62.5% of the studies that delivered the intervention with the help of an external trained instructor specific to the curriculum or mindful yoga practice found at least one significant effect (Beattie, 2014; Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Leyland et al., 2018; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Shlomov et al., 2023; Viglas & Perlman 2018). Of the studies that failed to find an effect of mindfulness training on EF, those who delivered the intervention were also trained in the curriculum or mindful yoga practice (e.g., trained instructors or teachers; Flook et al., 2015; Lim & Qu, 2017; Razza et al., 2020; Wood et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018).

Fifteen of the reviewed studies (88.2%) examined behavioral measures of EF, with the most common form being the HTKS (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Jackman et al., 2019; Leyland et al., 2018; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018). Of the studies that measured EF through HTKS performance, 37.5% reported a significant effect of the mindful group. This task has been established as a global measure of self-regulation by targeting inhibition (inhibiting the motor response to reach toward a particular body part), WM (remembering and manipulating a set of instructions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between corresponding and opposite instructions; Ponitz et al., 2008).

The Go/No-Go (GNG) task was also a common measure of EF in the reviewed studies (21.4%; Berti & Cigala, 2020; Jackman et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016). Of the studies using the GNG, 66.7% demonstrated a significant effect of mindfulness. This task is frequently used as a measure of inhibition in preschool-aged children (Wiebe et al., 2012; Yong-Liang et al., 2000). The GNG requires children to respond to a “go” trial and withhold response to a “no-go” trial to measure inhibitory control.

The Dimensional Change Card Sort task (DCCS) was also used in four of the reviewed studies (Flook et al., 2015; Haines et al., 2023; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019) as an EF measure. One (25%) of these studies reported a significant effect of mindfulness. The DCCS is another valid measure of preschool EF that involves sorting cards based on one dimension (e.g., color) and then again by another dimension (e.g., shape) during a switch trial (Zelazo, 2006). Although the DCCS can be considered a global measure of EF, targeting inhibition (inhibiting a learned sorting response), WM (remembering and manipulating a set of instructions), and cognitive flexibility (switching between two sets of instructions), the studies reviewed in this paper recognized the DCCS as a cognitive flexibility task that primarily targets shifting between two sets of instructions.

Additional established behavioral measures of EF included Peg Tapping (Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Zelazo et al., 2018), Minnesota Executive Function Scale (Zelazo et al., 2018), Hearts and Flowers Task, WPPSI-IV (Li et al., 2019), Bear and Lion task (Lertladaluck et al., 2021), delay of gratification task, Flanker task (Beattie, 2014; Flook et al., 2015), Sky Search task, Walk Don’t Walk, and Animals and Colors (Shlomov et al., 2023), and Flanker Task (Haines et al., 2023).

Some (31.3%) of the measures included in the reviewed studies were parent/teacher questionnaires or researcher observation (Brann et al., 2022; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Sexton et al., 2022; Wood et al., 2018). In addition to behavioral measures, three studies (Brann et al., 2022; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019) assessed children’s EF through a valid parent and teacher scale known as the Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function (BRIEF-P; Gioia et al., 2002). Lertladaluck et al. (2021) also included an established parent and teacher EF development behavioral checklist in combination with behavioral measures (MU.EF-101; Chutabhakdikul et al., 2017). Sexton et al. (2022) utilized the Childhood Executive Functioning Inventory (CHEXI). Wood et al. (2018) developed a teacher report for the assessment of children’s WM, inhibition, and shifting skills. Of these six studies that utilized report measures of EF, four reported at least one significant effect of the mindfulness intervention.

Ultimately, the findings of the descriptive results provide ambiguous evidence as to whether mindfulness interventions improve EF during preschool. This conclusion aligns closely with the existing literature examining the role of mindfulness interventions in improving EF across childhood and adolescence (Maynard, 2017; Mak et al., 2018; Diamond & Ling, 2019; Dunning et al., 2019; 2022), which provides mixed findings in the efficacy of mindfulness on preschoolers’ cognitive functioning. The equivocal findings may be due to several factors that vary across research designs.

The reviewed studies differed regarding how EF was measured and conceptualized. Roughly half of the outcome measures in the reviewed articles aligned most with the global EF measure typically using a single task like the HTKS or DCCS tasks to capture all components of EF. For example, the HTKS task involves inhibition (resisting the dominant response of pointing toward the corresponding body part), WM (a child must remember the rules of the task), and cognitive flexibility (shifting from pointing to the corresponding body to pointing to the opposite body part; Ponitz et al., 2008). Of the studies that utilized a single global measure of EF, about one-third indicated significant effects of mindfulness on those outcome measures (Beattie, 2014; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Jackman et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Brann et al., 2022). Although it is difficult to draw any strong conclusions from this group of studies, part of the ambiguity in these results may be explained by limitations of the singular measure of EF. For instance, we know there is no pure task of EF (Friedman & Miyake, 2017; Miyake et al., 2000); thus, inconclusive results could be due to the inherent noise when using a single measure of EF assessment (e.g., although performances on the HTKS and DCCS are related, correlations are usually moderate; McClelland et al., 2014).

Of the outcome measures that broke EF down into components, about half of the studies showed significant effects for inhibition and cognitive flexibility measures, while only a quarter found significant effects for WM measures. Consideration of mindfulness effects on EF from a componential lens reveals a potentially interesting differential effect with effectiveness greater for inhibitory and shifting as compared to WM. This finding may align with componential and developmental perspectives suggesting that measures of WM may focus on holding, updating, and manipulating information in mind, while inhibition and shifting require more skill in resolving conflict between dominant and subdominant responses (Garon et al., 2008). Although these results suggest mindfulness may be particularly helpful to EF involving the control of behavior over proponent responses, it is important to consider these conclusions regarding the current research in early EF development. Many have suggested these componential processes have not fully emerged early in development (McKenna et al., 2017; Wiebe et al., 2008) and work examining EF from a latent factor approach may be able to better capture mindfulness contributions to individual components of EF if they exist.

Another important theoretical consideration is the distinction between cool and hot EF (Lensing & Elsner, 2018; Moriguchi, 2021; Montroy et al., 2019; Zelazo & Carlson, 2012; Garon, 2016). Although the authors from the present review may not have explicitly considered the motivation and affect involved within their EF tasks given (i.e., hot-cool systems of EF), there is work suggesting that motivationally significant contexts may demand different top-down processes (Zelazo & Carlson, 2012). Perhaps the most commonly administered EF tasks considered to involve hotter EF are delay tasks (e.g., Kochanska et al., 2001), requiring children to wait and inhibit a prepotent response (e.g., peeking at a present, eating a snack right away) to get a reward. In the present review, only two of the 37 measures provided data for what could be considered hot EF tasks (i.e., delay tasks; Flook et al., 2015; Leyland et al., 2018), and 50.0% demonstrated a significant effect for mindfulness. Although there is no sufficient data to make any conclusions regarding this conceptualization of EF, it may be a promising avenue to pursue. Given that mindfulness often involves the awareness of feelings and one’s current state in the present moment without judgment (Kabat-Zinn, 2003; Zelazo et al., 2018), it may be a promising way for young children to identify their feelings and emotions (e.g., anticipation, excitement, frustration) and how they may influence their behavior (Zelazo & Lyons, 2011).

Another difference in the methods used to examine EF includes whether EF assessments were behavioral or reported measures. Behavioral measures of EF often carry concerns regarding ecological validity, as these tasks typically assess children’s abilities related to higher order problem solving and goal-directed behavior in decontextualized contexts (e.g., sorting cards by rules, refraining from pressing a specific stimulus on a screen). Comparisons between behavioral measures of EF behavior and parent/teacher reports of EF behavior in everyday settings may help in understanding EF within more ecologically valid contexts. Results from the present review do not suggest a large discrepancy in the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions on different methods of EF assessment, though rates of effectiveness were higher for behaviorally based measures. However, it is important to note that most of the studies reviewed employed behavioral measures of EF, and more information on survey-based measures would be useful. More specifically, survey-based measures and behaviorally based measures likely tell us something different about the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions on EF based on their individual strengths and weaknesses (Miranda et al., 2015; Toplak et al., 2009). For instance, there is some criticism in the EF literature regarding the ecological validity of behavioral measures (e.g., a poor match between what the child is asked to do in the structured tasks and the demands in real-life situations; Duckworth & Yeager, 2015; Isquith et al., 2004; McClelland & Cameron, 2012). Conducting more studies examining the effects of mindfulness with survey measures may address these concerns by asking parents and teachers about real-world situations. These measures are also commonly used in clinical diagnoses such as ADHD (Cohen et al., 2018) and may thus be useful for more fully extending our understanding of mindfulness interventions to clinical populations.

Finally, one striking finding from the scoping review is the sheer number of different EF measures that were used across studies to examine the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions for preschoolers. Thus, it is important to note that variations across tasks as well as task administration may also contribute to mixed findings across studies. The conceptualization and measurement of EF have been largely debated, especially across the early childhood years during which significant development is occurring (Doebel, 2020; Garon et al., 2008; Wiebe et al., 2008). One method that has been suggested to mitigate biases inherent in measuring EF with a single or limited measures is a latent factor approach that may allow researchers to consider emerging structures of EF (e.g., unitary, componential, hot/cool) when measured across a number of EF tasks. Although examination of EF via a battery of tasks may not be feasible in large intervention studies, this scoping review may suggest that a study integrating developmental considerations of EF measurement may be useful in targeting how mindfulness may impact EF in the younger preschool years.

The implementation of mindfulness intervention varied across studies (Table 2). For example, the reviewed studies differed in who delivered the intervention. Given that results indicated no differences in effectiveness depending on the mindfulness instructor, it may be suggested that data from the present review does not provide evidence that who provided the intervention influenced the outcome on EF measures. It is important to note that all instructors were trained in the curriculum or mindful yoga practice, with training ranging from a brief training on how to integrate mindfulness into a behavioral task within one session (Leyland et al., 2018; Lim & Qu, 2017) to attending workshops or training (Berti & Cigala, 2020; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Viglas & Perlman, 2018; Wood et al., 2018; Zelazo et al., 2018) and practicing yoga and mindfulness themselves (Beattie, 2014; Flook et al., 2015; Razza et al., 2020). Thus, it may be more important that whoever implements the program should be well trained in the practice. However, the significant variability in how mindfulness is delivered across studies suggests that difference in delivery (e.g., instructor, duration, and frequency) is also an important factor in mindfulness-based interventions that has not yet been systematically explored with regard to the potential influence of EF in preschool. In a recent systematic review examining more broadly any type of yoga or mindfulness intervention and social-emotional learning, Sun et al. (2021) suggested that longer interventions across at least 6 weeks may have more favorable results for social emotional outcomes, though no conclusion could be made regarding the frequency of the intervention. Work systematically examining differential outcomes of interventions based on length, frequency, and delivery may be beneficial as work moves forward to better understand the best methods for delivery. This may be especially beneficial to consider as delivery may begin to expand to other methods including online and video-based instruction (e.g., Liu et al., 2024).

Given that the effects of instructor training did not produce differences in the effectiveness of mindfulness training on EF, this leaves open the possibility that the type of intervention or curriculum utilized may play a larger role in the differences we observed across studies. Of the studies that directly reported the use of a motor component within their mindfulness training, close to 70% found a significant effect for the mindfulness intervention (Beattie, 2014; Brann et al., 2022; Haines et al., 2023; Jackman et al., 2019; Lertladaluck et al., 2021; Li et al., 2019; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Sexton et al., 2022; Shlomov et al., 2023). Therefore, despite the conclusions drawn by Diamond and Ling’s (2019) review, which found all mindfulness interventions that involved movement were significant, the results of this review remain promising. This difference in effectiveness for preschoolers may be due to how movement was utilized in the interventions. The studies from the present review did not typically provide information regarding how or what type of movement was used in the intervention. For example, all studies that utilized movement described the motor component briefly and related it broadly to yoga or a mind–body connection. Thus, the differences in the implementation of movement within and between interventions were often unclear. It is possible that differences in how movement was integrated into mindfulness interventions could have contributed to mixed results. For instance, although yoga can be considered a physical form of mindfulness (Diamond & Ling, 2019), modern approaches to its practice focus heavily on the physical postures, despite the traditional goal of yogic movements pertaining to understanding how the mind interprets and represents the sensation the body experiences while in the poses (Sullivan et al., 2018). It is possible that the studies that found a significant effect utilized movement in a more thoughtful manner (e.g., incorporating forms of conscious reflection onto the body while moving through postures, guiding fundamental movement skills). Thus, more details within mindfulness interventions on how movement was incorporated into mindfulness training and future research specifically focused on mindful movement are needed to better understand the role of movement in mindfulness practices for preschoolers.

Since not all the studies that resulted in an improvement to EF involved movement, there may be something additional to mindful movement that can aid EF at this age. However, at this point, it is difficult to fully understand how multiple elements of mindfulness training (and those specifically related to movement) could contribute to EF development. Part of this ambiguity could result from a lack of detail and theoretically driven descriptions of mindfulness interventions in the preschool literature. For example, it is possible that more studies involved movement within the intervention but did not directly state a movement component, as the mindfulness programs are often described broadly or refer to a multifaceted program with the potential of many factors that contribute to EF development (Leary & Tate, 2007). This may be due to how mindfulness practices have emerged as a broadly useful intervention within early education across several outcomes such as academic competence and socio-emotional development (Creswell, 2017). Although it is reasonable to conclude that mindfulness interventions could be useful to self-regulatory processes exhibited in EF, it may be beneficial for future work to focus narrowly on why and what specific aspects of mindfulness training could be useful to EF development based on current theories of EF development. For instance, in Papaleontiou-Louca and Thoma’s (2014) review of children’s metacognitive ability of introspection, they highlight the debate regarding preschoolers’ metacognitive abilities and suggest that while some theorists suggest great limitations at this age, there is also a great deal of evidence that children are developing introspective abilities and it is important to encourage this thinking disposition early to build a strong foundation in reflection. It is also important to note that a developmental perspective necessitates consideration of what practices are age-appropriate for preschoolers (e.g., sitting meditation may be inappropriate for younger children due to limited attention span and developing metacognition, Greenberg & Harris, 2012). Thus, a more detailed examination of the specific practices, whether they are age appropriate in practice (e.g., involving familiar tasks like sensory awareness and simple movement) and theory (e.g., align with current attentional and metacognitive abilities), may be useful to understanding the mixed results in the mindfulness and EF literature.

Finally, another important factor that could influence the impact of mindfulness interventions on EF is the amount of time dedicated to the intervention. The mindfulness interventions of the reviewed studies ranged from single sessions (Leyland et al., 2018; Lim & Qu, 2017) to 12-week programs (Haines et al., 2023; Poehlmann-Tynan et al., 2016; Razza et al., 2020). Generally, the results did not seem to indicate that differences in mindfulness intervention effectiveness are due to the time dedicated to the intervention, as the effectiveness ranges from 50 to 67% effective except for the 8-week session that only had one data point. This may align with the call for theoretically driven mindfulness interventions with EF work, as it is not necessarily the amount of time that is dedicated to the intervention but what is done in the intervention that likely influences results.

Lastly, it is important to consider how potential differences in the sample may relate to the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions on EF within our review. Overall, results do not suggest that there is a particular group that benefits from mindfulness interventions targeting EF. For example, the studies that found a significant effect of mindfulness did so with preschoolers from a variety of backgrounds (e.g., lower SES). This finding provides additional support for existing research suggesting children from lower SES may especially benefit from EF interventions, possibly because children from lower SES experience changes in neural pathways associated with EF due to heightened exposure to stress hormones early in life (Masten et al., 2012; Mezzacappa, 2004; Noble et al., 2005). Due to the dual ability to reduce stress and improve EF, mindfulness may be particularly beneficial for individuals from lower SES samples (Blair & Raver, 2015; Zelazo & Lyons, 2011). In addition, the significant effects of mindfulness interventions were not confined to samples with lower SES, as studies that did not specify SES as an inclusion criterion also found effects of mindfulness interventions on EF (Beattie, 2014; Berti & Cigala, 2020; Brann et al., 2022; Haines et al., 2023; Li et al., 2019). Finally, there is evidence that mindfulness training could be a potential tool for improving EF across contexts, as the present review revealed significant mindfulness effects on EF across the four continents present in the current review. Thus, these findings provide promising evidence for an EF intervention that benefits young children across contexts.

In sum, the results from the present study indicate that the efficacy of mindfulness training in preschool is equivocal; thus, more work is needed given the ambiguous results. One potential theoretical approach that may prove useful for clarifying results are representational approaches of EF that focus on the development of representational abilities during the ages of 3 to 5.00 years (Homer & Hayward, 2008). For example, several representational perspectives (Cunningham & Zelazo, 2007; Marcovitch & Zelazo, 2009; Zelazo, 2004, 2015) would suggest that the key to stronger EF and more regulated behaviors lies in the ability to create, maintain, and reflect on task-relevant representations to guide behavior (Zelazo, 2004). Research supports this approach, as stronger linguistic representational abilities and the encouragement of linguistic representation within EF tasks typically result in better performance (Doebel et al., 2018; Jacques & Zelazo, 2005; Kirkham et al., 2003; Miller & Marcovitch, 2015; Vygotsky, 1986). Furthermore, encouraging reflection also contributes to stronger EF (e.g., providing a period of reflection or pause before responding to a task; Ling et al., 2016).

Recently, proponents of representational accounts have proposed mindfulness interventions as particularly useful for improving self-regulation and EF. From a representational framework focused on social cognitive neuroscience (Zelazo & Lyons, 2011), the ability to regulate behavior is shaped by the more commonly studied top-down cognitive processes involved in control (e.g., shifting, inhibiting, and holding information in mind; Miyake et al., 2000) and less frequently acknowledged bottom-up arousal-based functions (e.g., stress, anxiety; Zelazo & Lyons, 2012). Zelazo and Lyons (2011) suggest that mindfulness practices, which emphasize the practice of focusing and reflecting on attention at the moment without judgment, can benefit both of these types of processing. For top-down processes, the very definition of mindfulness involves encouraging representation and reflection. Errors typically occur when individuals act on “autopilot,” failing to override more habitual or prepotent thoughts and actions that conflict with a current goal. Practicing mindfulness in these situations should encourage individuals to switch out of autopilot, identify their focus at the time, and reflect on that attention within the current context. Mindfulness interventions, which incorporate yoga, may be particularly helpful, as mindful yoga provides practice with an additional modality (i.e., movement) for individuals to practice representation and reflection. As this perspective also encourages the identification and reflection on experiences more broadly, consideration of more bottom-up processes in affect (e.g., negative emotions, desire, or stress that may move one’s attention to the immediate snack) would be encouraged as well (Zelazo & Lyons, 2011). Thus, these more universal effects of mindfulness across participants and study characteristics seem to align with broader representational frameworks suggesting that EF is a universal cognitive development that may be strengthened by guiding children to consider, focus, and reflect on the relevant information at hand.

Future research informed by representational frameworks and developmental EF theory may be useful in better understanding the complex interaction between mindfulness and EF and the potential for mixed results. For example, most works examining mindfulness interventions on EF focus on large intervention programs with EF measures taken before and at the end of the intervention. Although informative, a structured single-study experimental work may be useful in targeting what elements of mindfulness training benefit EF and when. Studies informed by a representational EF framework could focus on many different elements. For one, it may be useful to focus on measures of reaction time in addition to accuracy to see if mindfulness interventions successfully encourage reflection that may be indicated by a slowing down of response time in addition to accurate responses. Additional measures of language or related representational abilities could help inform general development in underlying representational mechanisms expected to guide EF. Representational frameworks would also suggest an emphasis on narrowing in on what elements of mindfulness training may be useful to EF and how this may shift by context. For instance, several theories break down mindfulness into two interrelated components related to focus or self-regulation of attention (e.g., voluntary focusing and sustained attention) and open monitoring or orientation to experience (e.g., nonreactive awareness of current experience; Bishop et al., 2004; Holas & Jankowski, 2013). From a developmental and representational standpoint, it would be useful to examine or separate the different elements of mindfulness training that focus on these components (e.g., some elements of training may teach children strategies for how to focus and sustain attention, whereas others may teach children how to monitor and be aware of their experiences without judgment). It is possible that the ability to perform some of these skills develop later (e.g., orientation to experience or open monitoring may require more metacognition and emotional control; Jankowski & Holas, 2014, which may be difficult for preschool-age children). In addition, these skills may be differentially beneficial for different EF tasks (e.g., mindfulness skills in self-regulation of attention may be particularly useful in tasks requiring sustained attention and cognitive flexibility, whereas mindfulness skills in orientation to experience and open monitoring may be useful to delay tasks requiring motivation and affect). More work examining mindfulness intervention effects from developmental and representational models of EF may be informative to better understand these mixed findings in the current literature.

In conclusion, the results of this scoping review indicate that roughly half of the reviewed studies provide evidence for mindfulness as a promising avenue for EF intervention. However, the knowledge drawn from the present review is limited given the mixed findings and potential publication biases related to the reliance on published studies. Furthermore, it is important to note that the descriptive approach is limited by its inability to consider the sample size when interpreting effects across studies, lack of exploration of the risk of bias across studies, and limited descriptions of interventions in the original articles (e.g., who delivered, stated intervention, time dedicated). Future work evaluating variability in intervention quality and risk of bias within studies will be important to study as research on the impact of mindfulness in EF in preschoolers grows. However, this scoping review also suggests it may be premature to synthesize the data across studies at this time due to the use of multiple outcome measures and limited number of studies (Higgins et al., 2019; Mak et al., 2018; Saldanha et al., 2020). Although mindfulness-based work is currently being conducted with diverse samples across the globe, more work is also needed to systematically examine whether other factors like SES or culture moderate the effect of mindfulness on preschoolers’ EF.

This scoping review may also uncover knowledge gaps that can inform future studies and enhance our knowledge of the effect of mindfulness on preschoolers’ EF. Although all studies reviewed conducted a form of RCT, studies using similar designs and larger sample sizes could also be beneficial. While RCTs emphasize efficacy under controlled conditions, they may not fully capture effectiveness in naturalistic settings. A focus on RCT may fail to capture valuable insights from quasi-experimental designs or ecologically valid methodologies, which could provide additional information and a more comprehensive understanding of mindfulness interventions in diverse contexts. In addition, it may be beneficial for future studies to examine mindfulness intervention in more detail with multiple measures of EF incorporating various conceptualizations and methodological considerations. Moreover, future studies should include more detail regarding experimental design, including detailed descriptions of mindfulness-based interventions, participant sampling, and outcomes assessed.