Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Ljzendoorn, M.H. (2007). For Better and For Worse: Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences. Flashcards
What is the article about?
The article suggests that the research on the different outcomes of children in similar rearing conditions has focused disproportionately on vulnerable (as opposed to merely susceptible) child characteristics and evaluates effects of adverse environment on problematic outcomes. Belsky et al. suggest that these differences are caused not by some children being vulnerable to adverse experiences, but to them being susceptible to environmental influences - bad and good.
Why would there be differences in susceptibility to the effects of rearing influences?
Belsky (1997) argues within an evolution framework that it would be beneficial for there to be a variation in how susceptible children are to the rearing conditions. Beneficial because parents could not know for certain what rearing strategies would maximize reproductive fitness.
What evidence is there to support the hypothesis that vulnerability should be thought of as differential susceptibility?
Longitudinal studies have shown that social support predicted infant attachment security but only in the case of highly irritable infants. Experimental studies discovered that it was highly negative infants who benefited most from a multifaceted infant-toddler intervention program.
Belsky refers to genetic studies done that confirm the for better and worse hypothesis. Which?
Van IJzendoorn and Bakermans-Kranenburg (2006) looked at infants with a specific allele of the DRD4 dopamine receptor gene, the 7-repeat allele. Having the gene substantially increased risk for disorganization in children exposed to maternal unresolved loss/trauma, as expected; but when children with that allele were raised by mothers who had no unresolved loss, they displayed significantly less disorganization than agemates without the allele, regardless of mothers’ unresolved-loss status. Similar results emerged when the interplay between DRD4 and observed parental insensitivity in predicting externalizing problems was studied.
Although research suggests the the concept of differential susceptibility has utility, there are still many “unknowns”. Belsky et al. provides us with four:
- Domain general or domain specific?
- Continuous versus discrete plasticity?
- Mechanisms
- Within-family differences in susceptibility.
One “unknown” of the differential susceptibility theory is whether it is domain general or domain specific. What is meant by this?
Is it the case that some children are more susceptible both to a wide variety of rearing influences, or is the case that different children are susceptible to different environmental influences and with respect to different outcomes?
One “unknown” of the differential susceptibility theory is whether plasticity is continuous or discrete. What is meant by this?
Continuous plasticity would entail that all children are plastic to a certain degree, whilst discrete plasticity would mean that they’d be either highly plastic or not at all.
One “unknown” of the differential susceptibility theory is its mechanisms. What is meant by this?
Susceptibility factors are the moderators of the relation between the environment and developmental outcome, but they do not elucidate the mechanism of differential influence.
Although the mechanisms of susceptibility factors are not known, several are hypothesized. Suomi (1997) posits that the timidity of “uptight” infants …
affords them extensive opportunity to learn by watching.
Although the mechanisms of susceptibility factors are not known, several are hypothesized. Kochanska et al. (2007) contend that the ease with which anxiety is induced in fearful children …
makes them highly responsive to parental demands.
Although the mechanisms of susceptibility factors are not known, several are hypothesized. Belsky (2005) speculates that negativity actually reflects …
a highly sensitive nervous system on which experience registers powerfully.
One “unknown” of the susceptibility theory is within-family differences in susceptibility. What is meant by this?
In light of evolutionary thinking about differential susceptibility, it is crucial to investigate within-family variations in susceptibility. We do however not have much research on the matter, therefore it is an important “unknown” for the theory.
