Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T12:36:37.529Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linking emotional reactivity “for better and for worse” to differential susceptibility to parenting among kindergartners

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2018

Meike Slagt ,
Judith Semon Dubas ,
Bruce J. Ellis ,
Marcel A. G. van Aken  and
Maja Deković
Meike Slagt*
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Judith Semon Dubas
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Bruce J. Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Utah
Marcel A. G. van Aken
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
Maja Deković
Affiliation:
Utrecht University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to Meike Slagt, Department of Clinical Child & Family Studies, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.140, 3508 TC Utrecht, the Netherlands; E-mail: meike.slagt@gmail.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study used a combination of microlevel observation data and longitudinal questionnaire data to study the relationship between differential reactivity and differential susceptibility, guided by three questions: (a) Does a subset of children exist that is both more likely to respond with increasingly negative emotions to increasingly negative emotions of mothers and with increasingly positive emotions to increasingly positive emotions of mothers (“emotional reactivity”)? (b) Is emotional reactivity associated with temperament markers and rearing environment? (c) Are children who show high emotional reactivity “for better and for worse” also more susceptible to parenting predicting child behavior across a year? A total of 144 Dutch children (45.3% girls) aged four to six participated. Latent profile analyses revealed a group of average reactive children (87%) and a group that was emotionally reactive “for better and for worse” (13%). Highly reactive children scored higher on surgency and received lower levels of negative parenting. Finally, associations of negative and positive parenting with externalizing and prosocial behavior were similar (and nonsignificant) for highly reactive children and average reactive children. The findings suggest that children who are emotionally reactive “for better and for worse” within parent-child interactions are not necessarily more susceptible to parenting on a developmental time scale.

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 741 - 758
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Support for this research was provided by the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO grant #406-11-030), the ISSBD–JF Mentored Fellowship Program for Early Career Scholars, a Fulbright scholarship, and an NWO Visitor Travel Grant (NWO grant #040.11.494). We extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to the student assistants who helped collect the data and code the video clips, and to the families that participated in this study.

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. S. (1978). The classification of child psychopathology: A review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1275–1301. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275Google Scholar
Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345–368. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.345Google Scholar
Aron, E. N., Aron, A., & Jagiellowicz, J. (2012). Sensory processing sensitivity: A review in the light of the evolution of biological responsivity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 262–282. doi: 10.1177/1088868311434213Google Scholar
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21, 329–341. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.915181.Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (1997a). Variation in susceptibility to rearing influences: An evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 182–186. doi: 10.1207/s15327965pli0803_3Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (1997b). Theory testing, effect-size evaluation, and differential susceptibility to rearing influence: The case of mothering and attachment. Child Development, 68, 598–600. doi: 10.2307/1132110Google Scholar
Belsky, J. (2005). Differential susceptibility to rearing influences: An evolutionary hypothesis and some evidence. In Ellis, B. & Bjorklund, D. (Eds.), Origins of the social mind: Evolutionary psychology and child development (pp. 139–163). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300–304. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00525.xGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1996). Infant positive and negative emotionality: One dimension or two? Developmental Psychology, 32, 289–298. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.2.289Google Scholar
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis–stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885–908. doi: 10.1037/a0017376Google Scholar
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2013). Beyond risk, resilience, and dysregulation: Phenotypic plasticity and human development. Development and Psychopathology 25, 1243–1261. doi: 10.1017/S095457941300059XGoogle Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300.Google Scholar
Boyce, W. T., Chesney, M., Alkon, A., Tschann, J. M., Adams, S., Chesterman, B., … Wara, D. (1995). Psychobiologic reactivity to stress and childhood respiratory illnesses: Results of two prospective studies. Psychosomatic Medicine, 57, 411–422. doi: 10.1097/00006842-199509000-00001Google Scholar
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: I. An evolutionary- developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271–301. doi: 10.1017/S0954579405050145Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (1998). The ecology of developmental processes. In: Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (5th ed., pp. 563–634). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2004). The positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS): Construct validity, measurement properties, and normative data in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 43, 245–265. doi: 10.1348/0144665031752934Google Scholar
Del Giudice, M., Ellis, B. J., & Shirtcliff, E. A. (2011). The adaptive calibration model of stress responsivity. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1562–1592. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.11.007Google Scholar
Diener, E., & Emmons, R. A. (1985). The independence of positive and negative affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1105–1117. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1105Google Scholar
Duncan, T. E., Duncan, S. C., & Strycker, L. A. (2006). An introduction to latent variable growth curve modelling: Concepts, issues, and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Durbin, C. E.; Hayden, E. P.; Klein, D. N., & Olino, T. M. (2007). Stability of laboratory- assessed temperamental emotionality traits from ages 3 to 7. Emotion, 7, 388–399. doi: 10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.388Google Scholar
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In Damon, W., (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (Vol. 3, pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
El-Sheikh, M. (2001). Parental drinking problems and children's adjustment: Vagal regulation and emotional reactivity as pathways and moderators of risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 499–515. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.110.4.499Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Boyce, W. T., Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2011). Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 23, 7–28. doi: 10.1017/S0954579410000611Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Essex, M. J., & Boyce, W. T. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: II. Empirical explorations of an evolutionary–developmental theory. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 303–328. doi: 10.1017/S0954579405050157Google Scholar
Ellis, B. J., Oldehinkel, A. J., & Nederhof, E. (2016). The Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity: An empirical test in the TRAILS study. Development and Psychopathology, 114, 1001–1021. doi: 10.1017/S0954579416000985Google Scholar
Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 430–457. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_5Google Scholar
Essau, C. A., Sasagawa, S., & Frick, P. J. (2006). Psychometric properties of the Alabama Parenting Questionnaire. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 15, 597–616. doi: 10.1007/s10826-006-9036-yGoogle Scholar
Flaherty, B. P., & Kiff, C. J. (2012). Latent class and latent profile models. In Cooper, H. et al. (Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 3: Data analysis and research publication (pp. 391–404). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
Gerrits, L. A. W., Deković, M., Groenendaal, J. H. A., & Noom, M. J. (1996). Opvoedingsgedrag. In Rispens, J., Hermanns, J. M. A., & Meeus, W. H. J. (Red.), Opvoeden in Nederland (pp. 41–69). Assen: Van Gorcum.Google Scholar
Goldsmith, H. H., Buss, A. H., Plomin, R., Rothbart, M. K., Thomas, A., Chess, S., … McCall, R. B. (1987). Roundtable: What is temperament? Four approaches. Child Development, 58, 505–529. doi: 10.2307/1130527Google Scholar
Goodman, R. (2001). Psychometric properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40, 1337–1345. doi: 10.1097/00004583-200111000-00015Google Scholar
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T. & Rapson, R. L. (1993). Emotional contagion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2(3), 96–99. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10770953Google Scholar
Hernández, M. M., Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. I., Van Schyndel, S. K., Diaz, A., … Piña, A. A. (2015). Observed emotion frequency versus intensity as predictors of socioemotional maladjustment. Emotion, 15, 699–704. doi: 10.1037/emo0000099Google Scholar
Hollenstein, T. (2013). State space grids: Depicting dynamics across development. New York: Springer US.Google Scholar
Klein, A., & Moosbrugger, H. (2000). Maximum likelihood estimation of latent interaction effects with the LMS method. Psychometrika, 65, 457–474. doi: 10.1007/BF02296338Google Scholar
Lamey, A., Hollenstein, T., Lewis, M. D., & Granic, I. (2004). GridWare (version 1.1). [Computer software]. http://www.statespacegrids.org.Google Scholar
Lanza, S. T., Flaherty, B. P., & Collins, L. M. (2003). Latent class and latent transition analysis. In Schinka, J. A., Velicer, W. A. (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 663–685). New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Laursen, B. P., & Hoff, E. (2006). Person-centered and variable-centered approaches to longitudinal data. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 52, 377–389. doi 10.1353/mpq.2006.0029Google Scholar
Lewis, M. D., Lamey, A. V., & Douglas, L. (1999). A new dynamic systems method for the analysis of early socioemotional development. Developmental Science, 2, 457–475. doi: 10.1111/1467-7687.00090Google Scholar
Maccoby, E. E., & Martin, J. A. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent– child interaction. In Mussen, P. H. (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality and social development (pp. 1–101). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Trautwein, U., & Morin, A. J. (2009). Classical latent profile analysis of academic self-concept dimensions: Synergy of person-and variable-centered approaches to theoretical models of self-concept. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 191–225. doi: 10.1080/10705510902751010Google Scholar
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five. Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.204Google Scholar
Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 406–425. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.406Google Scholar
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2012). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Neumann, R., & Strack, F. (2000). ‘Mood contagion’: The automatic transfer of mood between persons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 211–223. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.2.211Google Scholar
Lionetti, F., Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Burns, G. L., Jagiellowicz, J., & Pluess, M. (2018). Dandelions, tulips, and orchids: Evidence for the existence of low-sensitive, medium- sensitive, and high-sensitive individuals. Translational Psychiatry, 8: 24. doi: 10.1038/s41398-017-0090-6Google Scholar
Palma-Gudiel, H., & Fañanás, L. (2017). An integrative review of methylation at the serotonin transporter gene and its dialogue with environmental risk factors, psychopathology and 5-HTTLPR. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 72, 190–209. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.11.011Google Scholar
Peterson, J., Winter, C., Jabson, J., & Dishion, T. J. (2008). Relationship affect coding system. Unpublished instrument. Available from Child and Family Center, 195 E. 12th Ave., Eugene, OR 97401.Google Scholar
Pluess, M. (2015). Individual differences in environmental sensitivity. Child Development Perspectives, 9, 138–143. doi: 10.1111/cdep.12120Google Scholar
Pluess, M., Assary, E., Lionetti, F., Lester, K. J., Krapohl, E., Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (2018). Environmental sensitivity in children: Development of the Highly Sensitive Child scale and identification of sensitivity groups. Developmental Psychology, 54, 51–70. doi: 10.1037/dev0000406Google Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Children's differential susceptibility to effects of parenting. Family Science, 1, 14–25. doi: 10.1080/19424620903388554Google Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Vantage sensitivity: Individual differences in response to positive experiences. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 901–916. doi: 10.1037/a0030196Google Scholar
Pluess, M., & Boniwell, I. (2015). Sensory processing sensitivity predicts treatment response to a school-based depression prevention program: Evidence of vantage sensitivity. Personality and Individual Differences, 82, 40–45. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.03.011Google Scholar
Pluess, M., Velders, F. P., Belsky, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Jaddoe, V. W., … Tiemeier, H. (2011). Serotonin transporter polymorphism moderates effects of prenatal maternal anxiety on infant negative emotionality. Biological Psychiatry, 69, 520–525. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.10.006Google Scholar
Poorthuis, A. M. G., Thomaes, S., Denissen, J. J. A., van Aken, M. A. G., & Orobio de Castro, B. (2014). Personality in action. Can brief behavioral personality tests predict children's academic and social adjustment across the transition to secondary school? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 169–177. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759/a000186Google Scholar
Power, T. G. (1993). Parenting Dimensions Inventory (PDI): A research manual. University of Houston, Houston.Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448. doi: 10.3102/10769986031004437Google Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., MacCallum, R. C., & Nicewander, W. A. (2005). Use of the extreme groups approach: A critical reexamination and new recommendations. Psychological Methods, 10, 178–192. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.10.2.178Google Scholar
Prinzie, P., Onghena, P., & Hellinckx, W. (2007). Re-examining the Parenting Scale. Reliability, factor structure, and concurrent validity of a scale for assessing the discipline practices of mothers and fathers of elementary-school-aged children. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23, 24–31. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.23.1.24Google Scholar
Putnam, S. P., Ellis, L. K., & Rothbart, M. K. (2001). The structure of temperament from infancy through adolescence. In Eliasz, A. & Angleitner, A. (Eds.) Advances in Research on Temperament (pp. 165–182). Germany: Pabst Science.Google Scholar
Putnam, S. P., & Rothbart, M. K. (2006). Development of short and very short forms of the Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 103–113. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_09Google Scholar
Quas, J. A., Bauer, A., & Boyce, W. T. (2004). Physiological reactivity, social support, and memory in early childhood. Child Development, 75, 797–814. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00707.xGoogle Scholar
Raab, K., Kirsch, P., & Mier, D. (2016). Understanding the impact of 5-HTTLPR, antidepressants, and acute tryptophan depletion on brain activation during facial emotion processing: A review of the imaging literature. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 71, 176–197. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.031Google Scholar
Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 389–409. doi: 10.1017/S0954579412000065Google Scholar
Rothbart, M. K., Ahadi, S. A., Hershey, K. L., & Fisher, P. (2001). Investigations of temperament at 3-7 years: The Children's Behavior Questionnaire. Child Development, 72, 1394–1408. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00355Google Scholar
Rothbart, M. K., & Bates, J. E. (2006). Temperament. In Eisenberg, N., Damon, W., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 99–166). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. In Lamb, M. E. and Brown, A. L. (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Sasaki, J. Y., Kim, H. S., Mojaverian, T., Kelley, L. D., Park, I. Y., & Janušonis, S. (2013). Religion priming differentially increases prosocial behavior among variants of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) gene. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 2009–2013. doi: 10.1093/scan/nsr089Google Scholar
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P.M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514. doi: 10.1007/BF02296192Google Scholar
Slagt, M. I., Dubas, J. S., Deković, M., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2016). Differences in sensitivity to parenting depending on child temperament: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1068–1110. doi: 10.1037/bul0000061Google Scholar
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A. G., Ellis, B. J., & Deković, M. (2017a). Children's differential susceptibility to parenting: An experimental test of ‘for better and for worse’. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 154, 78–97. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.10.004.Google Scholar
Slagt, M., Dubas, J. S., van Aken, M. A. G., Ellis, B. J., & Deković, M. (2017b). Sensory processing sensitivity as a marker of differential susceptibility to parenting. Developmental Psychology, 54, 543–558. doi: 0.1037/dev0000431Google Scholar
Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends in Cognitive Neuroscience, 7, 343–348. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6Google Scholar
Snell-Rood, E. C. (2013). An overview of the evolutionary causes and consequences of behavioural plasticity. Animal Behaviour 85, 1004–1011. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.12.031Google Scholar
Stamps, J. A. (2016). Individual differences in behavioural plasticities. Biological Reviews, 91, 534–567. doi: 10.1111/brv.12186.Google Scholar
Strayhorn, J. M., & Weidman, C. S. (1988). A parent practices scale and its relation to parent and child mental health. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27, 613–618. doi: 10.1097/00004583-198809000-00016Google Scholar
Teti, D. M., & Cole, P.M. (2011). Parenting at risk: New perspectives, new approaches. Journal of Family Psychology, 25, 625–634. doi: 10.1037/a0025287Google Scholar
van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance, European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492. doi: 10.1080/17405629.2012.686740Google Scholar
van IJzendoorn, M. H., Belsky, J., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2012). Serotonin transporter genotype 5HTTLPR as a marker of differential susceptibility? A meta-analysis of child and adolescent gene-by-environment studies. Translational Psychiatry, 2, e147. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.73Google Scholar
van Widenfelt, B. M., Goedhart, A.W., Treffers, P. D. A., & Goodman, R. (2003). Dutch version of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ). European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 12, 281–289. doi: 10.1007/s00787-003-0341-3Google Scholar
Widaman, K. F., Ferrer, E., & Conger, R. D. (2010). Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: Measuring the same construct across time. Child Development Perspectives, 4, 10–18. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00110.xGoogle Scholar
Woodward, S. A., Lenzenweger, M. F., Kagan, J., Snidman, N., & Arcus, D. (2000). Taxonic structure of infant reactivity: Evidence from a taxometric perspective. Psychological Science, 11, 296–301. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00259Google Scholar
Zuckerman, M. (1999). Vulnerability to psychopathology: A biosocial model. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10316-000Google Scholar