PSY 620P April 2, 2015

 Aggressive rejection predicts externalizing problems  Anxious/withdrawn rejection predicts internalizing problems  Potential mechanisms?

 Temperament  Difficult temperament  Emotion regulation  Shyness/Inhibition  Parenting  Attachment and internal working models of interpersonal relationships  Specific parenting behaviors ▪ Facilitating opportunities for peer interaction ▪ Socialization processes

 Different meanings assigned to social behaviors in different cultural contexts  Aggression  Shyness

 Conflicted Shyness  These kids want to play, but are too fearful or anxious. (High approach + high avoidance) ▪ Overprotective parenting may be a contributing factor. ▪ Related to later maladjustment ▪ Puts boys at greater risk than girls  Social Disinterest  These kids prefer to play alone; do not desire much peer interaction, but are willing to engage. (Low approach + low avoidance) ▪ Often not distinguished from shyness in previous studies ▪ More participation in solitary activities has been related to internalizing problems later on

 2 samples of preschool-age children (~50 mos.)  Parents reported:  Conflicted Shyness, Social Disinterest (both), questions about child’s temperament (S1), parenting style (S2), and maternal social goals (S2).  Teachers rated preschool adjustment with peers.  Sample 1: Coded observations of free play time  Sample 2: Perceived social competence & play preference (alone, with peer, with teacher)

 Why do some children refrain from interacting with others?  Shyness vs.  Social disinterest  Is solitude necessarily maladaptive?

 Relations of different forms of solitude to:  Parenting – social goal orientation  Child temperament  Child play behaviors  Self-perceived competence  Teacher ratings  Primary IV  Parent reported: ▪ Conflicted shyness ▪ Social disinterest

 Conflicted Shyness

 Social disinterest

 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)

 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

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

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

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

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

 Forms of aggression  Physical =  Relational =  Functions of aggression  Proactive =  Reactive =

 Goals of study  Structure of aggression in early childhood? ▪ What would you expect relative to later childhood/adolescence ▪ Why?  Stability over 1 year?  Predictors ▪ Concurrent ▪ Change over course of year ▪ Differential predictors based on type of aggression

 Measures (T1 & T2)  Observations of aggression ▪ Problem?  Observer ratings of aggression  Teacher reports ▪ Exclusion ▪ Social Dominance

 Time 1 predictors

 Physical aggression  Less related to relational vs. older kids  Decreases with age  Forms – stable but functions – not stable  Lack of gender differences in physical  Fewer age-related changes than expected

 Aggression- behavior intended to hurt, harm, or injure another person  Forms:  Physical  Relational  Functions:  Proactive  Reactive  Most measures confound function and form

 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

 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

 Participants (N=101)  61 Girls  months (3.75 years)  Middle-Class families  Longitudinal design ▪ 2 time points ▪ 4-5 months apart

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

 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

 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

 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 So cial Alienation: Predicting Deviant Peer Affiliation in Middle School Rudolph 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  Is PV in elementary school associated with DPA in middle school?

Specific Aim 2  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 2 nd graders recruited at schools in Midwestern towns; some participants added in 3 rd grade Annual assessments with teachers and children

Measures

Study 1: Results  Hypothesis 1 and 2 supported: Early externalizing behavior  Later PV  Loneliness/social dissatisfaction  DPA

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 2 nd grade predicted 3 rd grade PV and (2) PV predicted 4 th grade social helplessness, which predicted 6 th 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?

 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

 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

nFemaleAge Adolescents (M=15.7, SD=1.5) Young Adults (M=20.6, SD=0.9) Adults (M=25.6, SD=1.9)

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

 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

 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?

 Social mediation of adolescent risk-taking behavior  Joint contributions of  Incentive processing system  Cognitive control system  Relative rates of growth?  Maturational imbalance

 Effects of social context on risky behavior during driving game  Peer vs. alone conditions  Adolescents vs. young adults vs. adults The Stoplight driving game