Individual differences in eviormental sensitivity part 3 Flashcards
4 methodological challenges
statistical criteria
measurement of the environment
cultural and racial variation
limitations of observational studies
statistical criteria: according to Belsky, tests of differential susceptibility ideally require a series of five consecutive steps:
Visual inspection: Which
inspection of the shape of the moderator effect
inspection of the shape of the moderator effect: not all moderation effects are indicative of differential susceptibility
No associantion between moderator and enviorment
No addociantion between moderator and outcome
Specificity of effect tested by replacing the suceptibility factor and the outcome
Roisman et al., 2012, Dev & Psychopath
much empirical work thus far does not meet these rigorous statistical criteria yet
in most studies, differential susceptibility is tested by means of visual inspection of graphed (cross-over) interactions between an environmental predictor and a developmental outcome
however, some plots are visually ambigous
“regions-of-significance” approach
grey shaded areas = region of significance approach: they indicate regions where the two lines are significantly different from each other.
measurement of the environment
adequate variance in environmental conditions
person-environment interactions are much more likely to emerge in the range of average expectable environments than at environmental extremes
at environmental extremes, the power of context to shape human development may restrict the range of phenotypic variation
Cultural and ethnic variation
to which extent are environments, plasticity factors and developmental outcomes culturally specific?
Anxiety in adolescence is predicted by different aspects of parenting in different cultural groups
variants of genetic polymorphisms may have different correlates in people from different etnic groups
distribution of genotypes varies substantially among the various parts of the world
limitations of observational
one risk is that what appears to be function of person-environment interaction actually reflects person-environment correlation
one way to come over this, is to make sure that the moderator is unrelated to the environmen
limitations of observational
one risk is that what appears to be function of person-environment interaction actually reflects person-environment correlation
one way to come over this, is to make sure that the moderator is unrelated to the environment
a stronger strategy, however, is to experimentally manipulate the environment
repeated measurements
the differential susceptibility model assumes that sensitive individuals function in opposite manners in contrasting conditions
there is almost no research truly validating this assumption
relevant/promising avenues for the future:
repeated-measurement experiments
experiments in nature
Unknowns and future directions
same individuals, different plasticity markers?
Population variation in plasticity
categorical or dimensional
same individuals, different plasticity markers?
You can investigate individual differences in sensitivity at multiple levels of analyses
Do all these studies identify the same individuals as sensitive? Do the same individuals pop up as highly sensitive?
there are associations between plasticity markers at different levels of analysis
however, there is also evidence suggesting that plasticity markers are not interchangeable
the association between child care quality and social functioning is moderated by genotype (i.e. DRD4)
but
the GxE interaction is not accounted for by a Temperament x Environment interaction
Population variation in plasticity?
do populations differ in the degree to which individuals are plastic?
Across the world only two species of primates live in diverse ecological niches: rhesus macaques and humans and only the only two species in which the serotonin transporter gene that is linked to plasticity is found.
categorical or dimensional?
are individual differences in plasticity best conceptualized in categorical or dimensional terms?
Aron and Aron assume that sensory processing sensitivity is a categorical phenomenon:
high sensitive individuals (20%)
low sensitive individuals (80%)
however, most research on sensory processing sensitivity thus far use dimensional HSP scores