Advanced Developmental

Psychology

PSY 620PApril 2, 2015

Discussion Leader Assignments

Background: Behavioral Inhibition and Social Reticence

Behavioral Inhibition (BI) Temperament assessed in toddler period Characterized by wariness of novelty or uncertainty (i.e., wariness of novel

contexts, objects, unfamiliar adults)

Social Reticence (SR) On looking, unoccupied behavior in presence of unfamiliar peers Do not engage in social or solitary play

BI has been linked to child and adolescent SR and social anxiety)but not all end up experiencing such outcomes Less than 1/3 of sample displayed both behavior patterns at age 2 years Many patterns that do exist do not hold from ages 2-4 years

BI and social reticence are also linked to anxiety disorders in later childhood Authors aim to examine differential trajectories beginning from BI

(temperament) and reaching behavioral consequences (SR and psychopathology)

Method

Participants: longitudinal research participants 315 total in sample (199 complete data) selected for temperamental reactivity to novelty at 4 months, both high and low

reactive, and both positively and negatively reactive Assessment

Behavioral Inhibition (24 & 36 months)- assessed behavior and affect using BI paradigm (stranger, robot, and tunnel

tasks) composite BI measure created for toddlerhood (average score)

Social Reticence (24, 36, 48, & 60 months)- interacted in laboratory with unfamiliar peer (free play, cleanup, and social

problem solving tasks) composite SR measure created based on social wariness from free play,

proportion of time unoccupied on looking from cleanup, and proportion of passive problem-solving techniques used (average score)

Behavioral Outcomes (Psychopathology at 60-months or 5 years)- mothers report behavior problems (symptom measures)- CBCL, HBQ externalizing and internalizing composite scores created from subscales of

measures

Analytic Plan

Used growth mixture modeling (SEM) to examine longitudinal trajectories of social reticence across early childhood:

▪ Latent growth trajectories estimated using SR measures at 4 time points▪ BI then estimated as predictor of probability of membership to latent growth trajectory▪ Symptom-based psychopathology measures estimated within each growth trajectory

and most probable trajectory membership analyzed secondarily using ANOVA

Results: Longitudinal Trajectories of Social Reticence

3 Class Model of Social Reticence Trajectories

• High-Stable (n=43, 16% of sample): High level of social reticence at 2 years, with consistently higher levels and small increase over time

• High-Decreasing (n=112, 43% of sample): High level of SR at 2 years, with significant decrease over time

• Low-Increasing (n=107, 41% of sample): Lower level of SR at 2 years, with significant increase but still consistently low SR over time

Results: BI affects Probability of SR Trajectory

• High-Stable and High-Decreasing SR trajectories > BI than Low-increasing SR trajectory

• BI did not differentiate between High-Stable and High-Decreasing • As BI increases, odds of following High-Stable or High-Decreasing

SR trajectories remain higher, but odds of following Low-Increasing SR trajectory are lower

Results: SR Trajectory Predicts Symptoms of Psychopathology

Trajectories significantly different for internalizing and externalizing problems:

• High-Stable SR trajectory predicted greatest internalizing problems

• Low-Increasing SR trajectory predicted greatest externalizing problems

• High-Decreasing SR trajectory predicted least problems

** But all very much subclinical

Background

Aggression- behavior intended to hurt, harm, or injure another person

Forms: Physical Relational

Functions: Proactive Reactive

Most measures confound function and form

Purpose of Study

Goal 1: Test developed measurement and analysis system in early childhood

Goal 2: Examine stability of aggression subtypes

Goal 3: Examine whether risk factors for aggression predicted subtypes and increases of subtypes over time

Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Measurement and analysis system could be applied to young children and will show four distinct forms and functions Associations between forms and functions would be

higher in early childhood than older samples Hypothesis 2: Forms will be stable but functions will

be unstable over time Hypothesis 3:

Girls Relational; Boys Physical Older Relational and Proactive Social Dominance Physical, Relational, and

Proactive Peer Exclusion Relational and Reactive

Methods

Participants (N=101) 61 Girls 45.09 months (3.75 years) Middle-Class families Longitudinal design

▪ 2 time points▪ 4-5 months apart

Ethnicity Cau-casian

African American

Asian

Indian

Latino

Mul-tiracial/Other

Native American

Measures

OBSERVER RATINGS

Observations of Aggression

Ratings of Aggression Preschool Social

Behavior Scale- Observer Form

Ratings of Form and Function of Aggression Preschool Proactive and

Reactive Aggression- Observer Report

TEACHER REPORT

Report of Exclusion Child Behavior Scale

Report of Social Dominance and Resource Control

Results

Four latent aggression factors found Physical, relational, proactive, and

reactive Proactive and reactive positively

correlated Physical and relational moderately

associated Forms stable but functions unstable

over time Proactive associated with increase in

physical Relational marginally associated with

decrease in physical and increase in proactive

Results cont’d.

Conclusion

Distinct forms and functions of aggression emerged by early childhood

There are child-level risk factors that are associated with aggression

Intervention work may benefit from tailoring programs based on forms and functions of aggression and considering these child-level risk factors

Discussion Questions

Why do you think that functions of aggression were not stable over time?

Do observations based on two time points, 4 months apart, provide enough evidence for these associations?

How do you think these findings would be different in a lower SES or more diverse sample?

Peer Victimization and

Social Alienation: Predicting

Deviant Peer Affiliation in

Middle SchoolRudolph et al. (2014)

Background

• Peer victimization (PV) is often a significant stressor for youth, and adversely affects development (e.g., Card & Hodges, 2008)

• However, little is known about PV’s long-term impact on social relationships• Specifically, authors were interested in

predictors of deviant peer affiliation (DPA; e.g., antisocial behaviors, getting into fights, stealing, cheating)

• Social network theory (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954)• Children enter different peer groups based on either (a)

homophily selection or (b) default selection

• PV experiences may disrupt this natural process and cause youth to associate with “deviant peers”

• However, little is known about social consequences of PV• Youth may be alienated from groups, have a damaged

reputation

• Authors most interested in social alienation (SA), which refers to:• Subjective loneliness • Social dissatisfaction (e.g., feeling excluded) • Social helplessness (e.g., being frustrated, staying away

from peers)

Social Consequences of PV

Specific Aim 1

PV

SA(subjective

and behavioral

)

DPA

Is PV in elementary school associated

with DPA in middle school?

Specific Aim 2

EarlyBehavior

and Internalizing Problems

PV SA DPA

Do early behavioral characteristics cause the PV to DPA cycle to begin?

What other factors do you think might lead to DPA from PV? Do you think one type of PV would predict DPA more than another?

Participants

Study 1

• Participants:• 585 families• 81% white• Diverse SES

(Hollingshead Mean=39.03)

Study 2

• Participants:• 638 children and

teachers• 66.7% white• Diverse SES (?)—

34.7% had subsidized lunch

Procedures

Study 1• Procedure:

• Recruited in Kinder (Cohort 1 in 1987; Cohort 2 in 1988); 3 sites (Knoxville and Nashville, TN Bloomington, IN)

• Annual assessments with parents and children

Study 2

• Procedure:• Families of 2nd

graders recruited at schools in Midwestern towns; some participants added in 3rd grade

• Annual assessments with teachers and children

Measures

Study 1: Results Hypothesis 1 and 2 supported: Early externalizing

behaviorLater PV Loneliness/social dissatisfactionDPA

Study 1: Results Model fit improved when added:

Direct path from externalizing to DPA Direct path from internalizing to loneliness

Study 2: Results Hypotheses 1 and 2 supported: (1) Overt aggression and

internalizing problems in 2nd grade predicted 3rd grade PV and (2) PV predicted 4th grade social helplessness, which predicted 6th grade DPA

Study 2: Results Model fit improved when added path from:

PV DPA; Overt aggression DPA

Conclusions

• Results from both studies support the pathway from PV in elementary school to DPA in middle school• Early externalizing behavior likely sets this

process in motion and eventually leads to DPA

• PV has negative long-term social consequences

• Early behavior problems are a risk factor for experiencing PV and eventually associating with deviant peer groups• Role of internalizing symptoms is less clear

Discussion

• What individual and environmental factors may interact with PV to lead to DPA?

• Now that we know PV may have negative short- and long-term social consequences. Suggestions for where to go from here?

Background

Teenagers engage in more risky behaviors than adults More likely to binge drink, smoke

cigarettes, have casual sex, be involved in a fatal or serious car crash

Adolescents take a substantially greater number of risks when driving when observed by peers

Hypotheses This increase in risk taking is due to the

contribution of two brain systems: The ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens, and

the orbitofrontal cortex: an incentive processing system

The lateral prefrontal cortex: a cognitive control system

During adolescence, changes to the incentive processing system results in heightened sensitivity to rewards while the cognitive control systems are gradually maturing

Peer presence may heighten the activation of reward valuation

Participants

n Female Age

Adolescents 14 8 14-18(M=15.7, SD=1.5)

Young Adults 14 7 19-22(M=20.6, SD=0.9)

Adults 12 6 24-29 (M=25.6, SD=1.9)

Task Design

Questionnaires:• Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, Version 1• Zuckerman Sensation Seeking Scale• Resistance to Peer Influence (RPI)

Scale

Results

fMRI Results

Self-reported resistance to peer influence correlated with neural peer effect

More Results

Discussion

Adolescents, but not adults, took more risks when being observed by peers

Negative skew in peer condition for adults: did not find task rewarding? Or did not find the presence of peers rewarding?

Adults engaged LPFC sites more robustly than did adolescents – more deliberate strategy in decision-making

Questions

Authors posit that these results can help inform strategies for intervening to reduce adolescent risk taking behavior: What are some possible avenues for intervention?

Can you see this affecting your own research?

Peers and Reward Circuitry in Adolescence–(Chein et al., 2011)

Social mediation of adolescent risk-taking behavior

Joint contributions of

Incentive processing system

Cognitive control system

Relative rates of growth? Maturational imbalance