Paulo Guirro Laurence1*
Kae Leopoldo2,3- 1Center of Mathematics, Computing and Cognition, Federal University of ABC, Santo André, Brazil
- 2Psychology Institute, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- 3Department of Psychiatry, Universidade de São Paulo Faculdade de Medicina, São Paulo, Brazil
Introduction
The publication of Doebel's (2020) paper marked a turning point in executive function (EF) research by challenging the traditional view of EFs as universal, decontextualized cognitive skills. Instead, she argued that EFs should be understood as goal-directed processes shaped by context, social meaning, and cultural practices. This reconceptualization has been described as a “second wave” of EF research (Doebel and Müller, 2023), emphasizing that EF cannot be divorced from the environments and practices in which it is embedded. Rather than focusing narrowly on inhibitory control, working memory, and cognitive flexibility as fixed capacities, the field is increasingly attentive to how children learn to regulate thoughts and actions in ways that are adaptive to their particular social and cultural worlds. Building on this shift, some scholars have gone further to argue that EF itself is culturally constructed—that the very idea of “executive function” reflects particular Western assumptions about autonomy, control, and cognition (Kroupin et al., 2025). While this position highlights the role of cultural framing, it is debated whether it risks overstating the case by neglecting common cognitive mechanisms that transcend cultural boundaries.
Within this new wave, several contributions have expanded how EF development is conceptualized (see Munakata and Michaelson, 2021). Gaskins and Alcalá (2023) demonstrated how standard EF measures often fail to capture children's skills in communities such as the Yucatec Maya, where cultural practices of autonomy and responsibility demand sophisticated regulation of attention and behavior that traditional tasks overlook. Miller-Cotto et al. (2022) highlighted the limitations of deficit-based narratives in EF research, showing how assumptions about minoritized children often obscure the cultural responsiveness of their regulatory skills. Similarly, Yanaoka et al. (2022, 2024) provided evidence that habits shaped by sociocultural practices—such as waiting before eating in Japan or delaying gift opening in the United States—play a critical role in children's ability to delay gratification, reframing inhibitory control as not only effortful but also supported by culturally ingrained habits. Together, these studies illustrate how the second wave has broadened the theoretical and methodological landscape of EF research.
Despite these advances, many fundamental questions remain unanswered. To what extent do habits and cultural practices substitute for or scaffold effortful control processes? How can we reconcile evidence for the context-specificity of EF with the possibility of underlying common mechanisms? To address these and other open questions, insights from substance abuse research—particularly among adolescents (Tapert and Eberson-Shumate, 2022)—offer a valuable perspective. Addiction studies provide ecologically rich contexts in which EFs are central to behavior, decision-making, and long-term outcomes. By examining how executive processes operate in the dynamics of substance use and recovery, we can generate fresh insights to advance the second wave of EF research.
At the same time, it is important to acknowledge that addiction research has historically framed substance use disorders as the result of a deficient self-control trait or module, a view prominent in influential biomedical accounts that characterize addiction as a disorder of impaired inhibitory regulation (e.g., Leshner, 1997; Volkow et al., 2016). However, more recent frameworks—most notably the biased-choice account by Wiers (2024) and by Le Pelley et al. (2024)—challenge the idea that addiction reflects a simple failure of a central control system. Instead, they emphasize how learned attentional biases, habits, goal competition, and socio-cultural reinforcement histories shape behavior, bringing addiction theory closer to the second-wave EF perspective that treats regulation as contextually embedded rather than purely trait-like. This conceptual shift mirrors the same movement occurring within developmental EF research, offering a productive bridge between the two fields.
Insight 1—Context is everything, but this is not new
One of the central lessons of the second wave of executive function research is that context fundamentally shapes how regulatory processes unfold. Doebel (2020) emphasized that EF is not a fixed set of decontextualized skills but rather a flexible, goal-directed coordination of cognition that depends heavily on situational demands and sociocultural meaning. This reconceptualization has been reinforced by developmental work showing that children's EF varies across tasks depending on social framing, cultural practices, and the salience of goals (Gaskins and Alcalá, 2023; Miller-Cotto et al., 2022; Yanaoka et al., 2022). Yet, from the standpoint of addiction research, the observation that context can modulate EF is far from novel (for example, see Carbia et al., 2018). Decades of work on substance use disorders have demonstrated that changing environments—whether through removing cues that trigger craving, altering peer networks, or placing individuals in structured treatment settings—plays a decisive role in relapse prevention and other recovery outcomes. These findings underscore that EF processes are not just individual traits but dynamically expressed capacities, contingent upon the contexts in which people live and make decisions (Kim-Spoon et al., 2017).
Substance use research also provides concrete evidence for how contextual changes modulate cognitive control. For example, binge drinking in particular has been linked to persistent deficits in EF, impairments that are exacerbated in high-risk contexts where social reinforcement of heavy drinking is common (Carbia et al., 2018; López-Caneda et al., 2014). At the same time, longitudinal and intervention studies show that altering environments—such as reducing exposure to alcohol-related cues or introducing supportive peer contexts—can mitigate these deficits and strengthen executive functioning (Carbia et al., 2018; Griffin and Botvin, 2010). Thus, addiction research highlights with remarkable clarity not only that context matters, but also the mechanisms through which environmental restructuring can either degrade or improve executive functioning (Carbia et al., 2018). This long-standing body of evidence enriches and grounds the “contextual turn” in EF research by showing how deeply regulatory capacities are intertwined with real-world environments. This evidence from substance abuse research reinforces the second wave's emphasis on context, but also shows that such insights have long-standing support in clinical research.
Insight 2—Inhibitory control: context-dependent but with a common substrate
Yanaoka et al. (2022) provided important evidence that children's ability to delay gratification varies depending on the type of reward. In their study, Japanese and American children performed differently when the task involved food vs when it involved gifts, suggesting that inhibitory control is not uniform across contexts but tied to the nature of the desired outcome. This finding challenges traditional views of delay of gratification as a unitary capacity. In a later paper, (Yanaoka et al. 2024) proposed that such variability may be explained by the role of habits, since everyday practices around food or gift-giving shape children's expectations and abilities to wait. Their work reframes inhibitory control as a process not only dependent on effortful self-regulation but also supported—or constrained—by culturally and socially ingrained routines. Yet this perspective also raises a central theoretical question for EF research: is inhibitory control entirely fragmented by context, or does it rest on an underlying mechanism that manifests differently depending on situational demands?
Addiction research offers a valuable lens to approach this question. One of the most robust findings in the field is that comorbidity across substances is the norm rather than the exception—individuals with alcohol use disorders, for example, are at elevated risk of developing problems with nicotine, cannabis, or other drugs (Carbia et al., 2018). If inhibitory control were wholly context-specific, such cross-substance vulnerabilities would be far less frequent, given that the context and motivations for drug use are not completely overlapping and, sometimes, the use of a specific drug occurs in detriment of the use of another (sometimes called concurrent use; Gunn et al., 2022). Instead, the prevalence of polysubstance abuse indicates the existence of a common inhibitory substrate that contributes to difficulties in regulating diverse forms of reward-seeking behavior (Carbia et al., 2018; López-Caneda et al., 2014; Tapert and Eberson-Shumate, 2022). At the same time, patterns of use and relapse are clearly shaped by habits and contexts—availability of substances, reinforcement histories, and social environments strongly determine how inhibitory failures play out in everyday life (Carbia et al., 2018; López-Caneda et al., 2014). In this sense, substance abuse research complements Yanaoka et al.'s habit-based interpretation: inhibitory control is both context-dependent in its expression and grounded in a shared underlying mechanism. This comparative perspective helps reconcile the apparent tension in EF research between domain-specificity and generality, showing how both can coexist within a single, integrated framework. A similar reconciliation has recently been articulated, arguing from a developmental-systems perspective that EF should be understood as both context-dependent in its expression and grounded in domain-general processes (Zelazo and Carlson, 2023). This account frames variability across tasks and situations as the product of dynamic interactions between a core control system and the specific goals, histories, and affordances present in each context. Such a view parallels evidence from both developmental and addiction research: a shared inhibitory substrate that becomes shaped, enabled, or constrained by habits, social routines, and cultural practices. This perspective therefore offers an additional theoretical anchor for interpreting inhibitory control as simultaneously general in its architecture and deeply embedded in the environmental and sociocultural conditions under which it is deployed.
A complementary line of evidence comes from long-term developmental research. In a 30-year longitudinal study, Moffitt et al. (2011) showed that childhood self-control predicted a range of hazardous adolescent behaviors, including early tobacco use, school dropout, and substance dependence, even after accounting for intelligence and socioeconomic status. This work demonstrates that inhibitory control has predictive power that generalizes across contexts and developmental periods, aligning with the notion of a shared regulatory substrate. At the same time, substantial unexplained variability in these outcomes points to the influence of environmental and social factors, echoing the second-wave emphasis on context shaping the expression of regulatory mechanisms.
Importantly, Yanaoka et al. (2024) do not argue against the existence of a general inhibitory mechanism. Rather, their findings underscore that the expression of this mechanism is intertwined with habits and cultural practices that shape when and how inhibitory control is deployed. In this sense, their work aligns with the evidence from addiction studies: inhibitory processes may be general in their neural and cognitive underpinnings, but they acquire specificity through the contexts and routines that give them practical meaning.
Taken together, findings from developmental EF research and addiction studies point to striking parallels in how context, habits, and shared mechanisms shape regulatory processes. To make these connections more explicit, Table 1 summarizes the main points of convergence and their implications for understanding executive function in the second wave.
Table 1. Comparative insights from second-wave executive function research and substance abuse studies, highlighting convergences on context and inhibitory control.
Discussion
The second wave of executive function research has emphasized that EFs are not fixed skills but adaptive, goal-directed processes shaped by context, culture, and social practices (Doebel, 2020; Munakata and Michaelson, 2021). Developmental studies illustrate how children's self-regulation is scaffolded by habits and routines, showing that EF must be understood within everyday activities rather than as abstract, decontextualized abilities. Yet important questions remain about how to reconcile this contextual variability with evidence for shared, underlying mechanisms of control.
Addiction research offers a powerful perspective to advance this agenda. Decades of work have shown that environmental changes—reducing exposure to triggers, restructuring social networks, or providing supportive settings—can transform outcomes for individuals with substance use disorders, demonstrating with remarkable clarity that context is central to EF. At the same time, the strong comorbidity across substances points to a common inhibitory substrate, suggesting that EF is neither fully fragmented nor entirely general, but a combination of both (Carbia et al., 2018; López-Caneda et al., 2014).
Beyond these considerations, recent theorizing in addiction research has converged strikingly with the second-wave view of EF by emphasizing how habits, learned attentional biases, and socio-cultural contexts shape regulation. The biased choice framework proposed by Wiers (2024) and Le Pelley et al. (2024) argues that addiction reflects not a loss of control but a competition among potential behavioral goals, in which drug-related cues gain attentional priority through learning and incentive salience, thereby biasing choice toward drug use even when intentions conflict. This perspective aligns closely with contemporary EF accounts that highlight how prior experiences, habits, social practices, and cultural routines scaffold or constrain the deployment of control. In both fields, regulation is understood as emerging from interactions between top-down goals and history-driven biases, offering a shared conceptual lens that bridges developmental EF research with addiction science.
Crucially, substance abuse represents one of the most ecologically valid and consequential domains in which EF is expressed. Decisions about resisting urges, regulating habits, and maintaining long-term goals under pressure exemplify how executive processes operate in real-world, high-stakes contexts (Tapert and Eberson-Shumate, 2022). This makes addiction research a natural laboratory for testing and refining context-based theories of EF, bridging the gap between experimental paradigms and lived experience.
Taken together, the convergence between EF and addiction research highlights that understanding executive processes requires holding together two perspectives: their context-sensitivity and their shared mechanisms. Addiction research demonstrates how these processes play out in the most consequential real-world settings, where failures of regulation carry immediate costs and successes support long-term adaptation. Recognizing this duality can guide EF research toward models that are both theoretically rigorous and practically relevant, bridging laboratory findings with the realities of everyday self-regulation.
Author contributions
PL: Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. KL: Writing – original draft, Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.
Acknowledgments
We are grateful to Yuko Munakata for bringing our attention to Wiers's A New Approach to Addiction and Choice: Akrasia and the Nature of Free Will (2024), which significantly informed the development of our argument.
Conflict of interest
The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declared that generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. Generative AI (ChatGPT 5) was used to assist with improving the clarity, fluidity, and readability of the manuscript text. The author(s) take full responsibility for the final content and interpretations presented in this manuscript.
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Carbia, C., López-Caneda, E., Corral, M., and Cadaveira, F. (2018). A systematic review of neuropsychological studies involving young binge drinkers. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 90, 332–349. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.04.013
Doebel, S. (2020). Rethinking executive function and its development. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 15, 942–956. doi: 10.1177/1745691620904771
Doebel, S., and Müller, U. (2023). The future of research on executive function and its development: an introduction to the special issue. J. Cogn. Dev. 24, 161–171. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2023.2188946
Gaskins, S., and Alcalá, L. (2023). Studying executive function in culturally meaningful ways. J. Cogn. Dev. 24, 260–279. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2022.2160722
Griffin, K. W., and Botvin, G. J. (2010). Evidence-based interventions for preventing substance use disorders in adolescents. Child Adolesc. Psychiatr. Clin. North America 19, 505–526. doi: 10.1016/j.chc.2010.03.005
Gunn, R. L., Aston, E. R., and Metrik, J. (2022). Patterns of cannabis and alcohol co-use: substitution vs complementary effects. Alcohol Res. 42:04. doi: 10.35946/arcr.v42.1.04
Kim-Spoon, J., Kahn, R. E., Lauharatanahirun, N., Deater-Deckard, K., Bickel, W. K., Chiu, P. H., et al. (2017). Executive functioning and substance use in adolescence: neurobiological and behavioral perspectives. Neuropsychologia 100, 79–92. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.04.020
Kroupin, I., Davis, H. E., Burdett, E., Cuata, A. B., Hartley, V., and Henrich, J. (2025). The cultural construction of “executive function”. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 122:e2407955122. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2407955122
Le Pelley, M. E., Watson, P., and Wiers, R. W. (2024). Biased choice and incentive salience: implications for addiction. Behav. Neurosci. 138, 235–243. doi: 10.1037/bne0000583
Leshner, A. I. (1997). Addiction is a brain disease, and it matters. Science 278, 45–47. doi: 10.1126/science.278.5335.45
López-Caneda, E., Rodríguez Holguín, S., Cadaveira, F., Corral, M., and Doallo, S. (2014). Impact of alcohol use on inhibitory control (and vice versa) during adolescence and young adulthood: a review. Alcohol Alcohol. 49, 173–181. doi: 10.1093/alcalc/agt168
Miller-Cotto, D., Smith, L. V., Wang, A. H., and Ribner, A. D. (2022). Changing the conversation: a culturally responsive perspective on executive functions, minoritized children and their families. Infant Child Dev. 31.1–12. doi: 10.1002/icd.2286
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al. (2011). A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 108, 2693–2698. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1010076108
Munakata, Y., and Michaelson, L. E. (2021). Executive functions in social context: implications for conceptualizing, measuring, and supporting developmental trajectories. Ann. Rev. Dev. Psychol. 3, 139–163. doi: 10.1146/annurev-devpsych-121318-085005
Tapert, S. F., and Eberson-Shumate, S. (2022). Alcohol and the adolescent brain: what we've learned and where the data are taking us. Alcohol Res. 42:07. doi: 10.35946/arcr.v42.1.07
Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., and McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 363–371. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1511480
Wiers, R. W. (2024). A New Approach to Addiction and Choice: Akrasia and the Nature of Free Will. London: Routledge. doi: 10.4324/9781032634548
Yanaoka, K., Foster, R., Michaelson, L. E., Saito, S., and Munakata, Y. (2024). The power of cultural habits: the role of effortless control in delaying gratification. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 60:101903. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101903
Yanaoka, K., Michaelson, L. E., Guild, R. M., Dostart, G., Yonehiro, J., Saito, S., et al. (2022). Cultures crossing: the power of habit in delaying gratification. Psychol. Sci. 33, 1172–1181. doi: 10.1177/09567976221074650
Keywords: adolescence, delay of gratification, executive function, habits, inhibitory control, substance abuse
Citation: Laurence PG and Leopoldo K (2026) Substance abuse as a window into executive functioning: real-world insights for the second wave of executive function research. Front. Dev. Psychol. 3:1741209. doi: 10.3389/fdpys.2025.1741209
Received: 07 November 2025; Revised: 01 December 2025;
Accepted: 03 December 2025; Published: 05 January 2026.
Edited by:
Stephanie M. Carlson, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, MN, United StatesReviewed by:
Andrea Berger, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, IsraelCopyright © 2026 Laurence and Leopoldo. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Paulo Guirro Laurence, cC5sYXVyZW5jZUB1ZmFiYy5lZHUuYnI=