Maternal Essentialism and Preschoolers’ Executive Functioning: Indirect Effects Through Parenting Stress and Behavior

Abstract

Intensive mothering is a widespread cultural ideology positioning mothers as uniquely responsible for their children’s optimal development through emotionally and cognitively intensive caregiving. A key belief within this framework is maternal essentialism, which asserts that mothers are biologically and morally best suited for parenting young children. Guided by the Family Stress–Proximal Process (FSPP) model, this study examined whether maternal essentialist beliefs act as distal sociocultural stressors influencing children’s executive functioning indirectly through parenting stress and positive parenting behaviors. Data were collected via self-report from 255 U.S. mothers of 3- to 5-year-old children. Path analyses showed that stronger maternal essentialism was associated with increased parenting stress, which predicted lower engagement in positive parenting and greater reported difficulties in children’s executive functioning. The indirect effect of maternal essentialism on children’s executive functioning was statistically significant. These findings suggest that internalized cultural ideologies, often viewed as aspirational, may inadvertently increase parenting stress and reduce caregiving quality, which is associated with diminished child cognitive outcomes. This study extends prior research by linking maternal essentialist beliefs to child developmental outcomes through specified psychological and relational processes, supporting the usefulness of the FSPP framework in understanding how sociocultural pressures influence family dynamics and child development.

1. Introduction

Early caregiving plays a critical role in shaping children’s cognitive development, particularly executive functioning. Executive functioning (EF) involves a set of self-regulatory skills essential for academic success, social competence, and long-term well-being (Diamond, 2013; Hughes, 2011). While much research has focused on how parenting behaviors influence EF, parenting is best understood within broader contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Taraban & Shaw, 2018). Parenting behaviors may be associated with children’s EF, but these behaviors emerge within—and are often constrained by—cultural ideologies that define “good” parenting (Hays, 1996; Wall, 2010).

One such ideology is maternal essentialism—the belief that mothers are inherently best suited for raising children and therefore should bear primary responsibility for caregiving. It is embedded within the dominant ideology of intensive mothering (Hays, 1996), which is pervasive in contemporary U.S. culture (Ishizuka, 2019) and sustained by persistent gender inequality in both domestic labor and childcare. These norms place disproportionate and often unrealistic expectations on mothers, increasing mental health problems (Rizzo et al., 2013) which may strain caregiving quality, and potentially undermine children’s developmental outcomes. At the same time, it is important to note that maternal essentialist beliefs may be motivated by positive intentions, such as strengthening maternal–child bonds or supporting children’s optimal development (Hays, 1996). Nevertheless, the present study focuses on the potential negative consequences of these beliefs, particularly their capacity to heighten maternal stress and compromise caregiving quality.

In light of the persistence of maternal essentialist beliefs and their potentially harmful effects on mothers’ well-being (McGregor & Shannon, 2025; Rizzo et al., 2013), we sought to examine how this ideology might influence both parenting factors and cognitive-related child outcomes. Using intensive mothering theory and its related literature as a conceptual guide, we focused on mothers’ reports of their preschool-aged children’s EF to explore a holistic model of how maternal essentialism may shape family processes and theoretically relevant child outcomes. Guided by the Family Stress–Proximal Process (FSPP) model, we conceptualized maternal essentialism as a distal cultural stressor that may indirectly influence children’s EF development through its effects on parenting stress and behavior. The current study represents a preliminary and exploratory test of this model.

1.1. Conceptual Framework

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory emphasizes the dynamic interplay between proximal processes—reciprocal interactions between the child and their immediate environment—and more distal influences, such as macrosystem-level parenting ideologies (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 1998; Mercon-Vargas et al., 2020). Proximal processes serve as the “engines of development,” shaped both by individual characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., parenting quality, sociocultural norms). Crucially, distal forces shape the conditions under which proximal processes unfold.

The FSPP model (Arditti, 2016) builds upon ecological theory by specifying how distal sociocultural stressors indirectly influence child development by impacting caregivers’ psychological functioning and parenting behaviors (Arditti, 2016; Conger et al., 2010). Originally developed to explain the cascading effects of parental incarceration on family processes, the model offers a useful conceptual tool for examining how institutionalized, ideologically rooted stressors can disrupt caregiving quality and compromise child outcomes. The FSPP model lends itself well to understanding the psychological and relational mechanisms through which maternal essentialism, an institutionalized gendered belief system, may shape parenting processes and child development. We applied the FSPP to examine how sociocultural pressures specifying mothers as preeminent might influence maternal reports of parenting stress, positive parenting behaviors, and children’s EF.

Consistent with the FSPP framework we conceptualize maternal essentialism as a culturally situated, gendered ideology that could function as a distal stressor for mothers. Maternal essentialist beliefs cast mothers as biologically or morally superior caregivers and as primarily responsible for enacting intensive parenting ideals (Hays, 1996). While often framed as aspirational or normative, these beliefs are psychologically consequential: they can elevate mothers’ emotional burden (Forbes et al., 2019; Rizzo et al., 2013), increase stress (McGregor & Shannon, 2025), and may undermine the warmth and consistency of parenting interactions (Bernier et al., 2010; K. A. Crnic, 2024).

Guided by the FSPP model, we propose that maternal essentialism contributes to elevated parenting stress (a proximal psychological process), which in turn diminishes mothers’ capacity to engage in positive parenting practices (a proximal relational process), ultimately explaining variation in children’s EF. This framework underscores the need to examine not only parenting behaviors but also the broader cultural ideologies that shape how mothers experience and respond to caregiving demands.

1.2. Background and Significance

1.2.1. Maternal Essentialism as a Distal Ideological Stressor

Maternal essentialism operates within a broader parenting ideology known as intensive mothering (IM)—a cultural model that emphasizes child-centeredness, expert-informed decision-making, and high levels of parental involvement, often at the expense of parental well-being. Although initially identified within U.S. families (Hays, 1996), IM ideals have been documented across diverse global contexts suggesting a widespread cultural shift toward demanding parental roles (e.g., Gauthier et al., 2021; Lubiewska et al., 2025). Unlike broader intensive parenting attitudes that emphasize high involvement and expertise in child development, maternal essentialism adds a uniquely gendered and moralized component, reinforcing the notion that mothers are innately responsible for child development. This ideology casts mothers as biologically and morally best suited to meet children’s emotional and cognitive needs, particularly during early childhood (Renegar & Cole, 2023; Wall, 2010). As a result, mothers are expected to serve as the primary source of stimulation and structure in their children’s lives, potentially placing a disproportionate psychological burden on mothers (Budds et al., 2017; Johnston & Swanson, 2006; McGregor & Shannon, 2025).

Despite shared ideals around IM among both mothers and fathers, national survey data show that mothers are still disproportionately expected to fulfill these intensive obligations to support children’s cognitive and emotional needs (Ishizuka, 2019). These asymmetries may reinforce maternal essentialist beliefs and intensify maternal stress. Indeed, empirical research documents the psychological costs of internalizing such ideologies. For example, Rizzo et al. (2013) found that mothers who strongly endorsed maternal essentialist attitudes reported lower life satisfaction while other intensive parenting attitudes, such as the idea that parenting is inherently challenging, were related to depression and stress. Building on this evidence, McGregor and Shannon (2025) examined maternal essentialist attitudes as a unique and highly inequitable parenting ideology. Using a mixed-methods approach, they found that maternal essentialism significantly and positively predicted maternal reports of parental distress, an indicator of parenting stress. In qualitative interviews, mothers described feeling intense pressure from societal messaging and socialization to be “intensive” parents, often highlighting the gendered and inequitable expectations between mothers and fathers.

In the current study we build on the findings from McGregor and Shannon (2025) regarding the burden women experience based on maternal essentialist beliefs. Within the FSPP model, maternal essentialism functions as a distal ideological stressor that may heighten parenting stress by imposing unattainable caregiving ideals. This framing allows us to move beyond viewing maternal essentialist beliefs as abstract ideology and instead understand them as culturally rooted and gendered forces that shape caregiver mental health and day-to-day parenting. Based on theory and existing literature, we conceptualize parenting stress as a proximal process that is proceeded by maternal essentialism. Moreover, parenting stress is a known antecedent to other parenting behaviors and has been found to be negatively associated with positive parenting practices (K. A. Crnic & Coburn, 2019). In turn, children may be more vulnerable to negative developmental outcomes when their parents experience heightened stress and struggle to maintain intensive and inequitable parenting ideals.

1.2.2. Parenting Stress and Positive Parenting as Proximal Processes

Parenting stress refers to the psychological strain that arises when parenting demands exceed available emotional, psychological, or material resources (Abidin, 2012; Deater-Deckard, 1998). While some stress is normative, especially during early childhood, certain contexts can intensify it. Mothers, for instance, tend to report higher stress levels than fathers, particularly when they shoulder disproportionate caregiving responsibilities (Musick et al., 2016). Within the FSPP model, parenting stress operates as a proximal psychological mechanism through which distal sociocultural forces affect caregiving quality and child development. Notably, parenting stress frequently precedes declines in positive parenting behaviors such as warmth, responsiveness, and scaffolding—practices that are foundational for early cognitive development (Bernier et al., 2010; K. Crnic & Low, 2002).

Some empirical models support the mediating role of parenting behaviors in the relationship between stress and child outcomes (e.g., Cherry et al., 2019; Daundasekara et al., 2021), yet the majority of previous literature focuses on children’s social-emotional development (Anthony et al., 2005; K. A. Crnic, 2024). For example, Flannery and colleagues (2021) found that maternal parenting stress at age three predicted higher levels of child externalizing problems at age nine. Externalizing behavior problems are mediated by EF, which helps children direct behaviors. Specifically, positive parenting practices have been found to significantly predict children’s externalizing behavior problems through the mediating role of children’s EF over time (Sulik et al., 2015). Taken together, parenting stress could impact positive parenting, which in turn has implications for children’s EF and subsequent behavioral manifestations of self-regulation skills—a logic that aligns with the FSPP model.

In another study, Zha et al. (2024) showed how maternal adverse childhood experiences can negatively affect children’s EF, primarily through increased parenting stress and heightened risk of maltreatment. In fact, these proximal caregiving processes accounted for a substantial portion of the association between maternal adversity and child EF, pointing to a chain mediation pathway rooted in relational and psychological mechanisms (Zha et al., 2024). These findings underscore the need to examine not only parenting stress itself, but also the specific parenting behaviors it may disrupt—particularly those foundational to children’s EF.

1.2.3. Positive Parenting and Child Executive Functioning

Given the central role of caregiving in early development, one key domain sensitive to variations in parenting is EF—a set of higher-order cognitive abilities including working memory, inhibitory control, and cognitive flexibility—that allow children to regulate behavior, plan, and solve problems (Diamond, 2013). These interrelated skills help children direct attention, adapt to novel or complex situations, and pursue goal-directed behavior (Hughes, 2011). EF develops rapidly in early childhood and is shaped by interactions with caregivers, who play a central role in providing regulation, stimulation, and structure (Fay-Stammbach et al., 2014). EF is widely recognized as a core achievement of early development and a predictor of academic success, social-emotional competence, and long-term resilience (Blair & Raver, 2015; Carlson et al., 2013). In addition, the belief that children’s cognitive development is dependent upon intensive parental intervention and stimulation is of central importance within the intensive parenting paradigm (Budds et al., 2017; Hays, 1996; Wall, 2010). Thus, we have established EF as a primary outcome to be examined within the context of maternal essentialism and parenting processes.

Because EF is highly sensitive to early environmental input, caregiving behaviors during early childhood play a critical role in its development. A well-developed body of research links positive parenting practices (e.g., scaffolding, cognitive stimulation, and warmth) with stronger EF outcomes in children (McEachern et al., 2012; Valcan et al., 2018). On the contrary, intrusive, controlling, or disengaged parenting is associated with lower EF (Bernier et al., 2010; Bindman et al., 2015; Blair et al., 2011; Cuevas et al., 2014; Meuwissen & Carlson, 2015). Supporting these findings, a meta-analysis confirmed that positive, negative, and cognitively supportive parenting behaviors each have modest but significant associations with EF development (Valcan et al., 2018).

Although the established relationship between caregiving behaviors and children’s developmental outcomes remains undisputed, various antecedents of parenting behaviors are still being examined from multiple perspectives and disciplines. One such pathway that is of particular importance is the relation between parenting stress and parent behaviors given the influence that caregiving has on children’s developmental outcomes (K. A. Crnic, 2024).

While some evidence points to a direct relation between parenting stress and variation in child EF outcomes (Wagner et al., 2016), other studies have proposed that this association may be indirect, operating through its effects on caregiving behavior. Although K. A. Crnic (2024) notes that empirical support for parenting stress as a mediator is mixed, and often limited by methodological and measurement challenges, there is consistent evidence linking parenting stress to reductions in warmth, responsiveness, and consistency, all of which are foundational to EF development (K. A. Crnic & Coburn, 2019). Thus, despite inconsistent findings across mediation studies, the theoretical premise remains compelling: parenting stress may disrupt emotionally supportive caregiving, thereby reducing opportunities for children to develop optimal EF skills. This logic aligns with cascading developmental models, which emphasize how distal sociocultural pressures contribute to parenting stress, compromise caregiving quality, and ultimately shape child outcomes (Arditti, 2016; K. A. Crnic, 2024).

1.2.4. Current Study

Informed by the FSPP model, the current study explores whether maternal essentialist beliefs influence children’s EF through elevated parenting stress and reduced positive parenting behaviors. We extend prior research by linking cultural ideologies to developmental outcomes through clearly specified psychological and relational mechanisms. Specifically, we sought to expand the recent work of McGregor and Shannon (2025) who found that maternal essentialist attitudes were significantly associated with maternal reports of parenting stress. Through the application of the FSPP, we specify that maternal essentialism, as a dominant and highly gendered parenting paradigm, may confer developmental implications for children through proximal parenting processes.

Our proposed indirect effects model positions maternal essentialism as a distal sociocultural stressor that contributes to elevated parenting stress—a proximal psychological process—which in turn undermines positive parenting behaviors—a proximal relational process—ultimately impacting children’s EF development. This preliminary exploratory model underscores the importance of attending not only to parenting behaviors but also to the broader cultural forces and internalized beliefs that shape how mothers experience caregiving demands.

We hypothesized that:

• H1: Higher levels of essentialist beliefs would be associated with higher reports of maternal parenting stress.
• H2: Elevated parenting stress would be associated with lower levels of maternal reports of positive parenting behaviors.
• H3: Lower levels of reported positive parenting behaviors would be associated with greater challenges in children’s EF skills.
• H4: Parenting stress and positive parenting would sequentially explain the association between maternal essentialism and children’s EF skills.

By connecting distal ideologies to measurable child outcomes, we aim to provide preliminary theoretical and empirical insight into how parenting ideologies shape family systems and developmental trajectories. Hypothesized associations are summarized in Figure 1.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedure

Mothers of children between the ages of 3 and 5, and who also lived with the target child, were eligible to participate in the present study. Mothers were recruited through distribution of the study flier on social media platforms, social service agencies, and early learning centers across the U.S from June through September of 2021. A small percentage of participants were also recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk (Mturk; N = 24; 9.4%). Mothers who indicated interest in participation were provided with a link to access the online survey where they could read more about the study and decide if they would like to participate. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. These procedures were approved by the first author’s institutional review board. All participant responses, regardless of recruitment modality (i.e., Mturk or online sources) were screened extensively for quality and consistency to reduce potential bot responses. All data in this study were collected through maternal self-report, which provides valuable insight into mothers’ beliefs and perceptions but also carries the potential for social desirability bias or reporting inaccuracies.

2.2. Participants

Data were collected from 255 mothers of children aged 3 to 5 (M = 3.87 years, SD = 0.76). Of these children, 45.9% (n = 117) were girls, and 54.1% (n = 138) were boys. Mothers reported an average of 2.09 children per household (SD = 1.02). The age range of mothers was 21 to 48 years (M = 33.96, SD = 5.05). Most mothers identified as White (83.5%), followed by Hispanic or Latinx (5.9%), Black or African American (5.7%), Asian (3.5%), and other/multi-racial (0.4%). The sample was economically diverse, with 60% reporting middle-class incomes, 22.2% lower or working class, and 11.8% upper class. Additionally, 14.2% of families fell below the national poverty threshold, and 21.2% reported using assistance programs such as food stamps, HUD, or WIC. Half of the mothers worked full-time (50.6%), while 28.6% were unemployed, 12.5% worked part-time, and 8.2% were self-employed. As for education, 2.4% of mothers did not complete high school, 8.2% completed high school but did not go on to additional schooling, 1.2% attended a vocational school, 15.3% had some college experience, 36.9% completed a 4-year college degree, and 36.1% had a graduate degree. Results from an independent t-test demonstrated no statistically significant differences between the Mturk and traditional, online recruited sample on key demographic variables nor variables central to the proposed conceptual model. The demographic composition of our sample is less diverse than the U.S. general population. For example, 83.5% of participants identified as White, compared with approximately 57–62% nationally (U.S. Census Bureau, 2021), and over 70% of mothers held a bachelor’s degree or higher, relative to ~38% of U.S. adults in 2021 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2022a). The reported poverty rate in our sample (14.2%) was modestly higher than the national rate (~11.6%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2022b). These deviations suggest that findings should be interpreted with caution with respect to broader generalizability, particularly regarding variables linked to socioeconomic and racial/ethnic diversity. See

Table 1. Participant Demographics.

	n	Percentage
Age of mother
21–29	50	19.5
30–39	166	65.1
40–48	39	15.3
Race
White	213	83.5
Black/African American	17	6.7
Hispanic or Latinx	15	5.9
Asian	9	3.5
Other	1	0.4
Child Age
3	92	36.1
4	103	40.4
5	60	23.5
Child Gender
Girl	117	45.9
Boy	138	54.1
Education Level
Some high school	6	2.4
High school diploma/GED	21	8.2
Vocational school	3	1.2
Some college	39	15.3
4-year degree	94	36.9
Graduate degree	92	36.1
Marital Status
Single	13	5.1
Married	207	81.2
Cohabitating	17	6.7
Separated or divorced	13	5.1
Other	5	2.0
Employment
Full time	129	50.6
Part time	32	12.5
Unemployed	73	28.6
Other	21	8.2
Income Level
Lower income	61	23.9
Middle income	155	60.8
Upper income	39	15.3

for participant demographics.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Maternal Essentialist Attitudes

The Essentialism subscale of the Intensive Parenting Attitudes Questionnaire (IPAQ; Liss et al., 2013) was used to assess maternal essentialist beliefs. This subscale originally included eight items. However, research by Long et al. (2021) evaluated the scale’s measurement invariance and found that the full IPAQ did not perform consistently across racially diverse and gender-diverse parent populations. As a result, they recommended removing several items with poor model fit from the measure, including two items from the Essentialism subscale. In line with these recommendations, two items (Items 1 and 16) were omitted in the current study, resulting in a six-item version of the subscale. Example statements include: “Men are unable to care for children unless they are given specific instructions about what to do,” “Although fathers may mean well, they generally are not as good at parenting as mothers,” “Men do not naturally know what to do with children” and “Ultimately, it is the mother who is responsible for how her child turns out.” Respondents rated their agreement with each statement on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). Internal consistency of the revised Essentialism subscale in this sample was good (Cronbach’s α = 0.89). Although several items in this subscale reference fathers’ caregiving competence (e.g., “Men are unable to care for children unless they are given specific instructions about what to do”), these items are theoretically understood to index maternal essentialism—that is, the belief that mothers are inherently, biologically, or morally best suited for caregiving (Liss et al., 2013). In this framework, perceptions of fathers as less competent serve as the inverse expression of an ideology that elevates mothers’ caregiving role as natural and indispensable. This interpretive approach aligns with prior research employing the Essentialism subscale of the IPAQ to capture maternal essentialist beliefs (Liss et al., 2013; Schiffrin et al., 2015; Rizzo et al., 2013; McGregor & Shannon, 2025) and is consistent with conceptual definitions of maternal essentialism as a gendered belief system positioning mothers as uniquely responsible for children’s development.

2.3.2. Parenting Stress

Maternal reports of parenting-related stress were assessed using the Parental Distress subscale from the Parenting Stress Index–Short Form, Fourth Edition (PSI-SF; Abidin, 2012). This subscale captures feelings of emotional strain, role restriction, and challenges related to the parenting role. Participants rated their agreement with each statement on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). Sample items include: “I feel trapped by my responsibilities as a parent,” “Since having a child, I feel that I am almost never able to do things that I like to do,” and “I find myself giving up more of my life to meet my children’s needs than I ever expected.” In the current sample, internal consistency for the Parental Distress subscale was high (α = 0.88).

2.3.3. Positive Parenting Behaviors

Mothers’ reports of their day-to-day parenting behaviors were measured through the Parenting Young Children questionnaire (PARYC; McEachern et al., 2012). The PARYC is a self-report survey that assesses three well established domains of positive parenting strategies that are supported in the research given their association with healthy child outcomes: supporting children’s positive behavior (i.e., parent warmth), setting limits on children’s behaviors (i.e., setting boundaries) and proactive parenting (i.e., anticipating obstacles for the child and proactively helping them) (McEachern et al., 2012). The PARYC consists of 21 items which ask parents to indicate how often they were able to perform certain parenting behaviors within the past month on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = most of the time). Examples of behaviors include, “play with your child in a way that was fun for both of you” (i.e., warmth), “stick to your rules and not change your mind” (i.e., boundaries), and “avoid struggles with your child by giving clear choices” (i.e., proactive parenting). The PARYC includes three subscales: (1) Supporting Positive Behavior (α = 0.71), (2) Setting Limits (α = 0.78), and (3) Proactive Parenting (α = 0.78). A composite variable was created for analysis (α = 0.88), based on prior literature and theory framing these constructs as components of “positive parenting.”

2.3.4. Children’s Executive Functioning (EF)

The Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Functioning- Preschool (BRIEF-P; Sherman & Brooks, 2010) is a parent-report measure of behavioral manifestations of EF. The BRIEF-P includes 63 items that measures each executive function: (1) Inhibition (e.g., “child has trouble putting the brakes on”), (2) shift (“takes longtime to adapt in new situations”), (3) emotional control (“easy outbursts”), (4) working memory (“trouble with tasks of more than one step”), and (5) plan/organize (“trouble following routines”). The clinical scales form three broad indexes (inhibitory self-control, flexibility, and emergent metacognition) and one composite score (global executive composite). Only the composite score was used in the present study analyses. The global executive composite captures overall EF; higher scores indicate more problems with children’s EF. Therefore, the term “lower EF” or “challenges in EF” were used for clarity to describe the outcome variable. It is important to note, however, that these scores reflect relative differences, not clinical impairment. Normed t-scores for the global executive composite were used in statistical analyses to capture children’s overall challenges in EF. Cronbach’s alphas for all scales were good or excellent (α = 0.84–0.90).

2.4. Analyses

All statistical analyses were performed with SPSS (Version 29.0) and Mplus 8.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017). Skewness, kurtosis values, and normality test results (e.g., Shapiro–Wilk test) were examined to confirmed that all values fell within acceptable ranges to infer normality. Less than 3% of the data were missing and were determined to be missing completely at random based upon Little’s Missing Completely at Random (MCAR) test (α = 0.54); we used full information maximum likelihood estimation to account for the small amount of missing data. To test the hypothesized model, we used structural equation modeling (SEM) with observed variables (Figure 1). Given the aforementioned considerations around mother’s education and mother’s age, we controlled for these variables. In addition, we controlled for total family resources, as measured by the Family Resources Scale (Dunst & Leet, 1987) given evidence that families with fewer resources tend to report higher levels of parenting stress (e.g., Gleeson et al., 2016). Higher reports of the Family Resources Scale indicate more resources. The controls were set to predict essentialism and, in turn, predicted parenting stress and positive parenting. Hayes’s (2009) suggestions of 5000 bootstrapped samples was used to test for significant indirect effects. Model fit was determined by evaluating the chi-square (nonsignificant suggests that the model does not significantly deviate from a perfect fitting model), the comparative fit index (CFI; ≥0.95 is considered a good fit) and Tucker–Lewis fit index (TLI; ≥0.90 is considered a good fit), and the standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR < 0.08 is considered a good fit). Finally, a bootstrapped 95% confidence interval that did not contain zero indicated a significant indirect effect (Hayes, 2009).

3. Results

3.1. Preliminary Analyses

Preliminary analyses included measures of central tendency, tests of group differences, and correlations. One-way ANOVA results indicated significant variations in essentialism attitudes based on maternal education level, such that mothers with high-school diplomas or GEDs reported higher essentialism than mothers with higher educational degrees. Further, correlation analyses revealed that maternal age was significantly associated with lower scores in essentialism and higher reports of positive parenting behaviors. Family resources were significantly associated with less distress, fewer essentialist attitudes, more positive parenting behaviors, and fewer challenges in EF. Thus, maternal education, maternal age, and family resources were included as controlled covariates. Associations among study variables resulted in the expected directions; correlations and means of study variables can be seen in

Table 2. Correlations and mean score for study variables.

Variables	V1	V2	V3	V4	V5	V6	V7
Mother’s age	1.00	0.35 **	−0.17	−0.05 *	0.15 *	−0.11	0.10
Education	0.35 **	1.00	−0.28 **	−0.03	−0.002	−0.12	0.24 **
Essentialism	−0.17 **	−0.28 **	1.00	0.37 **	−0.21 **	0.21 **	−0.39 **
Parenting Stress	−0.05	−0.03	0.37 **	1.00	−0.34 **	0.36 **	−0.35 **
Positive parenting	0.15 *	−0.002	−0.21 **	−0.34 **	1.00	−0.32 **	0.21 **
Challenges in EF	−0.11	−0.12	0.21 **	0.36 **	−0.32 **	1.00	−0.20 **
Total resources	0.10	0.24 **	−0.39 **	−0.35 **	0.21 **	−0.20 **	1.00
Means (SD)	33.96 (5.05)	5.84 (1.29)	2.86 (1.23)	30.61 (9.00)	5.73 (0.69)	53.75 (12.35)	132.11 (14.16)

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

.

3.2. Model Testing

The hypothesized model fit the data well (χ2(9) = 15.93; p = 0.07; CFI = 0.97; TLI = 0.93; SRMR = 0.04) and explained 13% variance in parental distress, 12% variance in positive parenting, and 18% variance in EF. Regarding the proposed hypotheses, all hypothesized paths resulted in significant effects: Essentialism positively predicted parenting stress (H1: 0.30, p < 0.05). Parenting stress negatively predicted positive parenting behaviors (H2; −0.30, p < 0.05). Positive parenting behaviors negatively predicted challenges in child executive functioning (H3; −0.22, p < 0.05). The proposed indirect effects were significant as well, such that parenting stress and positive parenting mediated the associations between essentialism and EF (H4; 0.020 (SE = 0.01); 95% CI: 0.007, 0.041). Finally, study results indicated an additional indirect effect, such that parenting stress mediated the association between essentialism and EF (.08 (SE = 0.03); 95% CI: 0.037, 0.133). While we report indirect effects in line with our hypothesized model, these associations should be interpreted as correlational patterns consistent with—but not definitive evidence of—the proposed causal sequence. Standardized path estimates for the final model can be seen in Figure 2.

4. Discussion

The current study aimed to provide a preliminary examination of the implications of maternal essentialism, an institutionalized gender ideology positioning mothers as uniquely responsible for caregiving, for mothers and their young children. Grounded in the Family Stress Proximal Process model (FSPP; Arditti, 2016), maternal essentialism was conceptualized as a distal parenting ideology that influenced child outcomes indirectly through its impact on the proximal parenting processes of parenting stress and positive parenting behaviors. Specifically, we examined whether maternal essentialist attitudes were associated with challenges in children’s EF through these proximal processes.

We hypothesized a mediated pathway in which maternal essentialist attitudes would be associated with higher reported levels of maternal parenting stress, which would, in turn, be associated with mothers’ reports of lower engagement in positive parenting behaviors, and ultimately, reports of greater challenges in child EF. Our findings provided initial support for this model. Maternal essentialist attitudes were significantly associated with parenting stress directly (H1). Parenting stress was negatively associated with positive parenting behaviors (H2), and positive parenting behaviors were negatively associated with challenges in children’s EF (H3). As predicted (H4), the indirect path from maternal essentialism to challenges in child EF through parenting stress and reduced positive parenting was significant. Additionally, we identified an alternative indirect pathway in which parenting stress alone indirectly explained the association between maternal essentialist attitudes and challenges in children’s EF.

4.1. Maternal Essentialism and Parenting Stress

These findings offer important insight into how maternal essentialism, the belief that mothers are inherently the primary and best caregivers, may function as a significant source of psychological strain for mothers. Maternal essentialism creates cultural expectations that place disproportionate caregiving demands on mothers, contributing to elevated parenting stress and shaping the quality and quantity of caregiving behaviors. While maternal essentialism can be understood within broader societal frameworks that promote intensive parenting ideals (Forbes et al., 2019; Hays, 1996), it specifically underscores the gendered assumption that mothers, rather than fathers, are naturally suited for this primary caregiving role. This expectation aligns with Arlie Russell Hochschild’s concept of the second shift (Hochschild, 1989), in which women shoulder a dual burden of paid work and disproportionate unpaid caregiving labor, often resulting in emotional overload and stress. More recent evidence suggests that the second shift is still a relevant phenomenon despite noteworthy shifts in public discourse and policies related to the division of childcare (Blair-Loy et al., 2015; Musick et al., 2016).

Our findings reinforce the importance of maternal essentialism in relation to parenting stress and child outcomes. Mothers endorsing stronger essentialist beliefs reported higher parenting stress, which was in turn linked to greater challenges in their children’s executive functioning. This pathway extends prior research that has associated maternal essentialism with poorer maternal well-being (McGregor & Shannon, 2025; Rizzo et al., 2013). By anchoring these findings within the FSPP framework, we emphasize how maternal essentialism operates as a distal ideological influence that may exacerbate maternal psychological strain, with cascading effects on parenting behaviors and children’s development.

4.2. Maternal Essentialism, Parenting Stress, and Parenting Behaviors

Although we found initial support for the role of parenting stress in shaping child outcomes, our hypothesis that parenting stress would compromise positive parenting behaviors, thereby leading to more challenges in children’s EF, was only partially supported. The full indirect pathway—from maternal essentialism to challenges in EF via parenting stress and reduced positive parenting—was significant, yet the direct link between maternal essentialism and positive parenting behaviors was not robust. This pattern is consistent with earlier work by K. A. Crnic et al. (2005), who similarly found that parenting stress had more direct associations with child outcomes than with changes in parenting behavior.

Our results nonetheless reinforce the well-established link between parenting stress and reduced engagement in positive parenting practices—such as warmth, scaffolding, and consistent boundary-setting—that are known to support young children’s EF development (McEachern et al., 2012). These findings suggest that even if maternal essentialist attitudes do not directly shape day-to-day parenting behaviors, they may contribute to elevated parenting stress, which in turn indirectly undermines the quality of parenting. This interpretation aligns with the FSPP model’s emphasis on the influence of parents’ mental states on moment-to-moment interactions with children.

The weaker-than-expected direct association between maternal essentialism and positive parenting may reflect several possibilities. First, essentialist beliefs may not uniformly translate into observable differences in caregiving, particularly among mothers who are already highly engaged with their children (Musick et al., 2016). In some cases, strong endorsement of maternal essentialism could initially motivate greater parental involvement, even as it simultaneously elevates stress levels. Second, contextual resources—such as supportive partners, extended family involvement, or workplace flexibility—may buffer the negative behavioral impacts of stress associated with essentialist beliefs. Future research should test these possibilities by examining potential moderators such as coping strategies, father involvement, and access to social support networks.

4.3. Gender and Maternal Essentialism

Our findings also contribute to a growing body of literature that situates maternal essentialist beliefs within the context of parenting expectations. In our sample of 255 mothers of preschool-aged children, maternal essentialist beliefs were indirectly linked to poorer outcomes for both mothers and children. A feminist lens helps to further unpack this relationship. Scholars have long noted that IM is a deeply gendered ideology that stems from Eurocentric, patriarchal assumptions about motherhood and caregiving (Allen, 2023; Elliott et al., 2015; O’Brien Hallstein, 2006). Within this framework, women are positioned as naturally responsible for children’s development, resulting in hyper-parenting expectations that can produce stress, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy when the impossible standards of IM are not met (Elliott et al., 2015; Budds et al., 2017; Johnston & Swanson, 2006; McGregor & Shannon, 2025; Romagnoli & Wall, 2012).

Mothers themselves often internalize these expectations. In Johnston and Swanson’s (2006) study, mothers of children under five equated “good mothering” with total self-sacrifice, constant presence, and unwavering attentiveness—behaviors viewed as vital not only for their children’s well-being but also for preserving their own identity as “good mothers.” Given that dominant parenting culture, shaped by maternal essentialism, positions childcare as a central and defining aspect of motherhood, it is unsurprising that adherence to these intensive beliefs is associated with elevated stress and anxiety. Our findings suggest that these internalized beliefs can contribute to a cascade of effects—from maternal parenting stress to parenting behaviors to child outcomes.

4.4. Implications

The present preliminary findings carry meaningful implications for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. By conceptualizing maternal essentialism as a distal cultural ideology that may fuel parenting stress and undermine key parenting processes, we highlight the importance of addressing cultural narratives surrounding motherhood. Practitioners who support families, such as family life educators, therapists, and pediatric professionals, may benefit from recognizing the emotional burden that current parenting paradigms, including maternal essentialism, places on mothers. Interventions aimed at reducing parenting stress should consider the role of internalized cultural expectations, and parenting programs may be strengthened by normalizing a broader range of parenting approaches. Additionally, feminist and family scholars might continue to interrogate how public discourses about “good parenting” intersect with gendered labor divisions and shape maternal mental health and identity.

4.5. Study Limitations and Future Directions

While our findings offer promising insights, they should be interpreted with caution. Although our analyses identified statistically significant indirect associations between maternal essentialist attitudes, parenting stress, positive parenting, and children’s EF, the cross-sectional design prohibits causal inference. The ordering of variables in our model reflects theoretical assumptions grounded in the FSPP framework rather than demonstrated temporal precedence. It is possible that the observed associations reflect bidirectional or reverse pathways. For example, children with stronger EF skills may elicit more positive parenting behaviors, which could reinforce maternal beliefs about child development, whereas children with EF challenges may increase parental stress, potentially strengthening essentialist beliefs. Longitudinal research with repeated assessments across key developmental periods (e.g., toddlerhood through preschool) and cross-lagged panel designs could help clarify the directionality of these associations.

Second, our reliance on maternal self-report introduces potential bias. Mothers may consciously or unconsciously present themselves in socially desirable ways, particularly when responding to items about parenting beliefs and practices. Future studies should incorporate multiple informants (e.g., fathers, teachers), observational methods, or physiological indicators to provide a more comprehensive and objective account of parenting and child functioning. Relatedly, a further limitation concerns the face validity of the maternal essentialism measure. Although the Essentialism subscale of the IPAQ has demonstrated reliability and prior validation (Long et al., 2021), several items specifically reference perceptions of fathers’ caregiving competence rather than directly articulating beliefs about mothers’ innate suitability for childcare. As such, the scale may partially reflect broader traditional gender role attitudes, which could confound associations observed in the present model. Future research should aim to refine or expand this measure to include items that more explicitly capture essentialist beliefs about women’s caregiving roles and to examine how adherence to conventional gender ideologies may interact with or amplify maternal essentialist attitudes.

Finally, our sample was largely composed of White, middle-class, heterosexual mothers, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Although maternal essentialism and intensive mothering beliefs are often assumed to be dominant in Western parenting cultures, the ways mothers engage with, resist, or reinterpret these beliefs are shaped by intersecting identities and social locations, including race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, and immigration status. Experiences of maternal essentialism, intensive parenting, and related parenting stress may differ substantially across cultural, racial, and socioeconomic contexts. For instance, mothers from collectivist cultures or under-resourced communities may face unique pressures, supports, or constraints that shape how beliefs translate into parenting behaviors and child outcomes. Structural inequalities can influence both the accessibility and consequences of intensive parenting norms. Indeed, Elliott et al. (2015) found that low-income, Black single mothers embrace intensive mothering beliefs despite limited social supports, highlighting how these norms can function as both a coping strategy and a source of stress in marginalized communities. The present study does not capture how diverse family structures navigate dominant parenting discourses amid intersecting structural challenges. Future research should prioritize the inclusion of diverse family structures and cultural contexts to better understand how maternal essentialism and related parenting ideologies operate across a range of lived experiences, thereby enhancing both the conceptual and practical relevance of this work.

5. Conclusions

This study explored the indirect effects of maternal essentialism attitudes on mothers’ reports of parenting stress, positive parenting behaviors, and young children’s executive functioning (EF). Guided by the FSSP model, we considered maternal essentialism as a contextual, distal factor that could indirectly influence children’s EF through parenting stress and parenting behaviors. Our findings revealed that maternal essentialist attitudes were associated with heightened parenting stress, which in turn predicted reports of greater challenges in children’s EF. Although we did not observe a direct effect of maternal essentialist attitudes on parenting behaviors, we found that parenting stress may be associated with less engagement in positive parenting. Collectively, these findings contribute to a growing body of research that highlights the problematic nature of idealized, gendered parenting norms and underscores the need to support mothers as they navigate the social and psychological demands of modern parenthood.