57
Advanced Developmental Psychology PSY 620P March 17, 2015

PSY 620P March 17, 2015. Parent-child relationships Peer relationships School and community influences

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Advanced Developmental

Psychology

PSY 620PMarch 17, 2015

Page 2: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Discussion Leader Assignments

Page 3: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Socialization Processes

Parent-child relationships Peer relationships School and community influences

Page 4: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

2013

Page 5: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Background: Institutional Rearing and Development

Children raised in institutions: More likely to have deficits in cognitive function Deficits in language production and comprehension Elevated rates of ADHD Difficulties with social functioning

Explanation: Deprived environment does not provide adequate

experience for proper brain development So expect to see structural and functional neural

abnormalities Institutionalization has been associated with variety of

differences in neural structure, differs between studies

Page 6: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Method

General: 79 participants (subsample of BEIP study)– (136 total in sample) Ages 8-11 years Bucharest Early Intervention Project (Bucharest, Romania) MRI and EEG on longitudinal study participants

Conditions (3): Only RCT of foster care for institutionalized children Typically developing children in Romania (NIG) n=20 Children exposed to institutionalized rearing (CAUG) n=29 Children previously exposed to institutional rearing but then randomized

to high-quality foster care intervention (FCG) n=25

Analyses Regression analyses used to examine differences in structural and

functional neural correlates of institutionalization during development Mediation analysis used to further delineate proposed relationships

Page 7: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Previous Findings - BEIP

EEG Studies (BEIP) EEG at

▪ Study entry, M= 22 mo▪ 30 mo▪ 42 mo ▪ 8 years

Through typical development, relative increase in α-frequencies ▪ Seen globally (indicates structural changes)▪ At study entry, those exposed to institution had reduced α-power▪ At age 8, children placed in foster care younger “caught up” more in

α-power

Page 8: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results: Total Cortical Grey Matter

• Relative reduction in grey matter volume in children exposed to institution compared to unexposed children

• No significant difference between those placed in foster care and those kept in institution

Page 9: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results: Total Cortical White Matter

• Suggests neuroplasticity of white matter following environmental deprivation

• Similar pattern for Posterior Corpus Callosum (CC)

• BUT no significant difference between those placed in foster care and those kept in institution

Page 10: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results: Mediation Model

CAUG group membership(Environmentally deprived

condition)

Total Cortical White Matter

Volume(Effect on

brain structure)

Power in α-frequency

Band(Effect on brain

function)

Page 11: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Discussion Questions

What do these results say about the effect of institutionalization on development?

What kinds of programs might help these kids and when?

What other types of assessments and at what time points might add to these results?

Page 12: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Which is better?

Messinger

Page 13: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Ordinary Variations in Maternal Caregiving Influence Human Infants’ Stress Reactivity

(Hane & Fox, 2006)

Rubenstein

Page 14: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Background

Previous research suggests that early human caregiving may affect the development of the systems that underlie stress reactivity.

Rubenstein

Page 15: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Goal

Compare infants based on the quality of Maternal Caregiving Behavior (MCB; low vs. high)

Hypothesis: Infants who experienced low-quality MCB would exhibit a pattern of right frontal EEG asymmetry, higher fearfulness, and less sociability than infants who experienced high-quality MCB.

Rubenstein

Page 16: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Method

4 months [lab, N = 779]• Reactions to novelty • Creation of temperament groups

9 months [lab, N = 185]• EEG data collected• Infant fearful response• Infant positive joint attention

9 months + 2 weeks [home, N = 185]• Videotaped mother-infant interactions

• Quality of MCB• Quality of infant affect during mother-infant interactions

Rubenstein

Page 17: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results

Infant measures obtained at 9 months (lab & home)

Temperament group

Maternal-caregiving-behavior groupLow quality High quality

Control 17 8

Positively reactive 10 10

Negatively reactive 7 7

No sig sex differences

Creation of Caregiving Groups (Low and High Quality)

Rubenstein

Page 18: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results

• Low-quality MCB group sig more likely to exhibit a pattern of right frontal EEG asymmetry and fearfulness

• Low-quality MCB group sig less likely to manifest positive joint attention

MCB and stress reactivity (frontal EEG asymmetry, fearfulness, and sociability)

Differences in stress reactivity a function of temperament groups? Computed series of one-way univariate ANOVAs and temperament group had no sig main effects on these results.

Rubenstein

Page 19: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results

• Low-quality MCB group expressed sig more negative affect while in care of mothers

• Degree of positive affect did not differ between the groups

MCB and infant affect during interaction

Differences in infant affect during caregiving a function of temperament? No.

Rubenstein

Page 20: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Conclusions

Results suggest that ordinary variations in MCB may influence the expression of neural systems involved in stress reactivity in human infants.

1. Infants receiving low-quality MCB showed more fearfulness, less positive joint attention, and greater right frontal EEG asymmetry than infants receiving high-quality MCB.

2. Group differences in stress reactivity were not a result of measured infant temperament.

3. Infants receiving low-quality MCB experienced more negative affect during caregiving activities than did infants receiving high-quality MCB.

Rubenstein

Page 21: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Discussion Questions

• The study divided infants into two extreme groups: low quality and high quality MCB groups. Could this division affect the results?

• The infants in this sample represent a middle-class, low-risk demographic group, and the measure of MCB captures ordinary variations in MCB (not extreme instances of deprivation, abuse, or neglect). Would these ordinary variations in MCB have the same effect in high-risk populations?

• Quality of infant affect was rated as either positive or negative. Are there any issues with this coding strategy?

Rubenstein

Page 22: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 28

Introduction to Attachment

PSY344

Page 23: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 29

Attachment’s Function/Goal:Keeping Caregivers Close

Page 24: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 30

Environment of evolutionary adaptiveness

Protection from predators and . . . conspecifics

Page 25: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 31

Attachment system

Inherent motivation Organization of different behaviors

Doesn’t matter how you get to caregiver With single function In a goal-corrected manner

Attachment as an organizational construct

Page 26: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 32

Multiple attachments

Infants form attachments to many caregivers

A hierarchy is assumed In which infant turns first to primary

caregiver

Role of fathers

Page 27: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

What forms the basis for attachment relationships?

How do we know that attachment represents an “emotional” bond?

Primary Drive Reduction Theory Preference based simply by having

primary needs (i.e., hunger) met?

Page 28: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

What forms the basis for attachment relationships? (cont)

Harlow’s studies and the rejection of “drive reduction” explanations Spitz (1946) noticed that infants in

orphanages (who were adequately nourished but had no loving attention) did very poorly

Harlow’s surrogate mother studies examined relative influence of feeding vs. contact/comfort on attachment

Page 29: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Harlow’s Surrogate Mother Studies

Bale-wire meshvs.Terry cloth

Each could be equipped with feedingnipple

Test preference duringtimes of stress

Page 30: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Harlow’s Surrogate Mother Studies (cont)

From Blum (2003)

Page 31: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 38

Time is spent on cloth mothers

Both wire and cloth fed spend most of their time on cloth surrogate mother Regardless of

which “mother” fed you

Page 32: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Measuring Attachment

Ainsworth’s (1978) Strange Situation Seven episodes increasing amount of stress (e.g.,

unfamiliar environment, unfamiliar adult, brief separation from parent)

Of interest is how attachment behaviors are organized around parent

Attachment classification based primarily on reunion behaviors

See example at:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTsewNrHUHU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH1m_ZMO7GU

Page 33: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Attachment Classifications Secure Attachment (Type B; 65% in NA)

Ambivalent/Insecure-Resistant (Type C, 15% in NA)

Insecure/Avoidant (Type A, 20% in NA)

Disorganized (Type D, very rare)

Page 34: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Basis for Individual Differences?

Sensitive/responsive caregiving Nurturant Attentive Nonrestrictive Synchronous Predictable

Page 35: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Predictive Validity of Attachment Styles in Infancy

Secure attachment in infancy associated with a variety of positive developmental outcomes including:

Why? What are potential mechanisms?

Page 36: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 44

Page 37: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Background

What is infant attachment measuring? Caregiver responsiveness vs. child temperament Infant emotional reactivity vs. regulation

One possible theory:

Insecure Avoidant

Insecure Resistant

SecureB1, B2 vs B3,

B4

Distress Reactivity

Low High

Page 38: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

5HTTLPR(Serotonin-transporter-linked polymorphic region)

Molecular genetics = objective measure of distress reactivity and attachment

Common genetic variant Short (S) allele – Negative affect,

Emotional Disorders, Reduced Serotonin, Increased Amygdala Activity

Long allele variant (LG)— same as S allele

Long allele noncarriers (LA)

Page 39: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Goals

Determine unique contributions of caregiver quality and genetic variation (5HTTPLR) on infant attachment at 12 and 18 months

Caregiver quality will predict secure vs insecure More responsive mothers lead to secure babies

5HTTPLR variation will predict reactivity across security S and LG alleles will be more reactive than LA

155 infants and their mothers Maternal Responsiveness at 6m

▪ Home-interactions Attachment Classification at 12m and 18m

▪ Strange Situation Genetics at 32 years

Page 40: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Predicting Security and Distress Reactivity

Page 41: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Questions

If attachment and temperament are stable constructs, then why aren’t the results the same at 12 and 18 months?

At the beginning of the article, they laid out the debate that attachment is either based on maternal responsivity or infant temperament. Which do you think is more important?

Page 42: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Messinger 57

Sensitivity Studies Only

Perceive signals accurately and respond promptly and appropriately 22% (r = .22), 7,223 infants in 123

comparisons Original Ainsworth subscale

24% (r = .24), 837 infants in subset of 16 studies

Socioeconomic class is a moderator▪ Middle (r = .27); lower (r = .15)

Page 43: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

What is the role of 5HTTLPR in G X E interactions? Should the 5HTTLPR genotype be considered a marker of vulnerability of susceptibility?

Page 44: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Background

Diathesis-stress model

Page 45: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Background

Differential-susceptibility model

Page 46: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Method

Meta-analysis o Searched for “serotonin” or “5HTT” and “human”o Studies with behavioral, psychiatric, or developmental outcomes in

children under 18

Extracted 77 effect sizes on 9361 subjects from 30 reportso 41 concerned vulnerability (e.g., bullying and emotional problems)o 36 focused on the “bright side” (e.g., high-quality family functioning

and alcohol)

Examined 5 moderatorso Ageo Ethnicityo Single-necleotide polymorphism (SNP)o Method of assessing environmento Method of assessing outcomes

Page 47: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results

ss/sl carriers are more vulnerable to environmental adversity than ll carriers

ss/sl carriers did not benefit significantly more from positive environments than ll carriers

Age, SNP, and methods were not significant moderators

However, ethnicity was a significant moderator of the association between positive environment and positive outcomes for ll carriers

Page 48: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Results

Page 49: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Discussion Questions

Page 50: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Belsky & Pluess (2009)

Differential Sensitivity Model

How different from traditional diathesis-stress model?

How do study designs differ based on these models? Range of environments? Range of psychological and behavioral

outcomes?

Page 51: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Temperament & Parenting

Kochanska et al., 2007

Bradley & Corwyn, 2008

Page 52: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Temperament & Out of home Care

Pluess & Belsky, 2010

Page 53: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Genetics & Early Adversity

Taylor et al., 2006

Page 54: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Gene-Endoenvironment Interaction

DRD4 - Long Allele Novelty/Sensation Seeking Attention Problems/Aggression Susceptibility to Parenting

EEG Asymmetry Left Frontal – “Easy”

Temperament Right Frontal – “Negative

Reactive” Temperament Schmidt, Fox, Perez-Edgar &

Hamer (2009)

Mattson

"Long" versions of polymorphisms are the alleles with 6 to 10 repeats. 7R appears to react less strongly to

dopamine molecules.[8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dopamine_receptor_D4

Page 55: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Group Differences

Mattson

DRD4 by Asymmetry Susceptibility to

Asymmetry▪ Soothability▪ Attention Difficulties

▪ Asymmetry unrelated to DRD4

▪ Complex Gene-Gene Interaction?

Page 56: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Genes influence relation between parenting and temperament• 18-21 month olds• DRD4 48 (7-repeat

allele) “long”• Allele increased

sensitivity to environmental factors such as parenting.

• Lower quality parenting higher sensation seeking.

• Higher quality lower sensation seeking

Parenting quality interacts with genetic variation in dopamine receptor D4 to influence temperament in early childhood  Sheese BE, et al. Dev Psychopathol 2007 19(4):1039-46

Messinger & Henderson 83

Page 57: PSY 620P March 17, 2015.  Parent-child relationships  Peer relationships  School and community influences

Belsky & Pluess (2009)

Future Directions Importance of assessing

▪ Environmental adversity AND environmental support▪ Negative outcomes AND adaptive/positive outcomes

Consideration of mediating mechanisms▪ Physiological reactivity and thresholds to respond▪ Attention biases related to reactivity

Plasticity as ▪ Gradient?▪ Domain specific?