Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
169 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
What is expertise |
Elite performance Eminence Mark boundaries of the brain's plasticity and it's development Skill as a continuum 10 year rule |
|
|
|
Key Characteristics Expertise |
Rests on specific, acquired mechanisms Circumvent processing limitations of normal performance Maximal adaptation to task and performance specific constraints Life long task Domain specific |
|
|
|
Circumvention of WM limitations by skilled memory mechanisms (Chase, Ericsson) |
Normal: 7+-2 Circumvention by skilled memory Chunking and hierarchical retrieval structures Dependent on task and individual knowledge |
|
|
|
Typical Chess Recall Experiment (De Groot, 1946) |
Show position 2-15s Reconstruct Remember in chunks Grandmasters: 💯 Experts: 70% Amateurs: 40% |
|
|
|
Chunking Theory (Chase & Simon, 1973) |
Information stored in LTM in chunks Chunk = familiar pattern = unit Takes 8s to create |
|
|
|
Chunks in memory |
Stored in limited STM Master's memory: 50,000 chunks Linked to suggestions for plans, moves,... Implements a simple production system Storage side-effect of playing chess |
|
|
|
Maximum adaptation in expert typing (Donald Gentner) |
Doubles, within-hand, between-hand Novices: doubles>within>between Experts: between>within>doubles Expert internals movement Novices better at drawing keyboard Experts optimize cognitive functions Biomechanical factors contain performance |
|
|
|
Deliberate Practice |
Identify motivational and external constraints Prolonged efforts to improve Activities to optimize improvement Not pure repetition Think about weakness and how to overcome them Individual differences closely related to accumulated amounts of deliberate practice, not talent or genetics! Teachers important Conditions: motivation, effort, resources, feedback Practice improves accuracy and speed of performance on cognitive, perceptual, motor tasks |
|
|
|
Skill acquisition/learning |
Fast at first Then stagnant Longer you learn something, the more effort you have to put in to still make progress Power law of learning T=1.40P-.24 |
|
|
|
Learning Process Morse Operators (Bryan & Harter) |
Longer practice, less progress Grow fast, then stagnates Have to restructure skill May fall behind initial progress when relearning Phases where don't improve until find new strategy With new incentive (external rewards) can dramatically increase performance |
|
|
|
Expertise constraints |
Motivation Effort Resources |
|
|
|
Motivation constraint |
Not inherently rewarding/enjoyable Activities guided by goal to improve or maintain abilities Look at mistakes and strategies With new motivation can suddenly become better Not practice itself motivating, but producing performance that satisfies individual |
|
|
|
Effort constraint |
Intensity Limited duration Optimal time of the day Search for new approaches Overcome weaknesses Exhausting, effortful Slow, regular increases in amounts of practice that allow for adaptation to increased demands |
|
|
|
Resource Constraint |
Mental and physical energy Health Time Teachers Grants Access to material, facilities Found one person that supports individual through entire childhood and believes it is special |
|
|
|
Three phases of expertise acquisition |
Phase 1: starts with introduction in domain Phase 1-2: deliberate practice starts Phase 2: extended period of preperation Phase 2-3: full-time commitment - other people have to like what you're doing, pay you Phase 3: make living, full time commitment Phase 4: eminence, innovative contribution All three phases require external support: parents, teachers, institutions |
|
|
|
Violin study |
Best vs good vs future teachers Relevant: practice, performance, sleep Effortful: practice, performance Pleasurable: leisure, playing for fun Effort vs pleasure Limited time Recuperation Best/Good students not big difference Most in morning, peak in afternoon (best students nap) Difference in practice in childhood - practice more beginning age 8, adds up to 2000h difference by 20 All at least 10y practice Best students greater involvement in music and organize time better, especially leisure time |
|
|
|
Pianist Study |
Large differences in deliberate practice history Experts practice more than amateurs (over 14y) Experts faster than amateurs, especially bimanual movements Average amount of practice in experts increased, amateurs didn't No differences in weekly restful activities |
|
|
|
Teachers |
Eminent musicians have less Found influential teacher early in life Instill idea of talent or destiny |
|
|
|
Long distance race |
Cumulative effects of inquiring skill Cohort advantages 10 year rule Different groups, different distribution Soccer players "natural" experiment Change u21 soccer year: jan-dez to aug-jul, switch in month distribution Effects on life planning, educational implications 2 week difference turns into a 2y difference over 20y Also correlates ice hockey, academic success, Nobel prize... |
|
|
|
Expertise and genetics |
Genetics and talent incorrectly viewed as deterministic If genetics were determinant then practice would have no impact Genetic factors little direct impact on adult performance Search for genes unsuccessful Plausible: show inclination, then practice earlier, and accumulate |
|
|
|
Elite performance |
Product of decade or more of maximal efforts to improve performance in a domain through an optimal distribution of deliberate practice |
|
|
|
Not anyone can easily attain high levels of performance - overcome constraints |
Early Access to instruction Maintained high levels of deliberate practice through development Received continued parental and environmental support Avoided disease and injury Motivation to engage in deliberate practice every day for years and decades |
|
|
|
Alternative concepts to expertise |
Talent / genetics Ellen Winner: musical talent Only exceptional humans possess capacity to make music |
|
|
|
Neural correlates of expertise |
Neural representation and processing depend on duration in expertise domain Violin study: left hand represented bigger in somatosensory cortex Brain adapted Hand specific |
|
|
Role of goals in middle adulthood |
Influence of goals on practice intensity Less practice when leave academy, because get job 2nd change when chamber music Tenure - practice goes down Practice depends on goals |
|
|
|
Ageing populations |
Population getting older Impose large implicit tax on society In general, productive people stay productive after 65 Field dependent Teaching effectiveness goes down Vision, cognitive skills, WM go down with age Weight and income increase |
|
|
|
Four accounts of high levels of performance in later adulthood |
Preserved differentiation (a priority differences) Expertise driven general abilities account (far transfer) Differential preservation (selective maintenance) Compensation |
|
|
|
Preserved differentiation |
A priori differences Superior abilities exist prior to skill acquisition E.g. spatial skills - follow skill - become architect or designer Superior skills compared to general population, even when skill goes down with age, still above population |
|
|
|
Expertise driven general abilities account |
Far transfer Experts excel in domain general mechanisms By practicing also train general mechanisms Experts better at everything Universal expertise But: learning theory and deliberate practice: the more specific the skill, the less transfer |
|
|
|
Differential preservation |
Selective maintenance Same mechanisms in older and younger experts Role of maintenance practice Can maintain brain functions by practice Only domain specific But: maintaining takes as much practice as learning new things Practice very important |
|
|
|
Compensation |
Different mechanisms in older and younger experts Older: normal functions go down Develop specific mechanisms to stay at high level functioning Do things differently than novices Compensate for skills going down |
|
|
|
Good news age development |
Comparisons of young and older professionals Age and professional expertise uncorrelated Selection problem Selective attrition, promotion to less challenging positions, selective survival Older = above 40 If don't function properly, poor gets fired, rich promoted to positions where they can't do any harm |
|
|
|
Age x expertise paradox |
Basically everything goes down with age 1.6-2x longer for tasks and more mistakes Brains change as dramatically as faces Anterior posterior gradient General age-related slowing Alternative: Experts acquire domain-specific mechanisms These can be selectively maintained and decoupled from general functions |
|
|
|
Search and speed in chess (charness) |
Older experts search slower and less deep Come up with moves of equal quality Older experts compensate for age related decline in speed Refined move selection strategies Age, IQ not factors Digit-symbol task, deliberate practice and chess books owned important Correlation IQ and income - resource for playing instrument |
|
|
|
Amateur And concert pianists (Krampe, Ericsson, 1996) 2x2 |
2x2 old, young, amateur, experts Experts practice more than amateurs all life Young experts at 25 practiced more than 2x as much as older amateurs Expressive variation: Experts no variation in playing piece 3x (no age differences) Mental speed: young better than old, no expertise difference within older group Bimanual coordination: both groups experts faster than amateurs, but within expertise age differences Old experts same time with music related activities Older: other constraints, more health and body care, less leisure |
|
|
|
Neural substrates of expertise in later adulthood (krampe, 2005) |
2x2 age x expertise Rhythmic timing: Novices slower, no age effects Domain general: younger faster than older, no expertise effects Higher activation PFC in novices for more difficult task Experts don't show that, more activation in sensory-motor region Experts maintain selective functions that belong to skill Maintain through deliberate practice Physical deterioration limits it |
|
|
|
Maintenance Expertise summary |
Experts normal with respect to age-related changes in mental speed and intelligence Specific skills are decoupled from general abilities Experts acquire and maintain their skills through deliberate practice Maintenance is remarkably successful |
|
|
|
2 theories to acquire skill |
Concept of intelligence: domain general abilities, stable, individual differences Expertise theory: specific mechanisms, circumvent processing limitations, different cognitive processing, gradual decoupling of domain-specific expert mechanisms, deliberate practice and constraints determine individual differences, aging changes how constraints exert their influences |
|
|
|
Aging in deliberate practice model |
Expert mechanisms acquired through deliberate practice and external constraints Older experts maintain specific mechanisms through active deliberate practice Expertise in later adulthood not only outcome of younger achievements but adapting to age constraints |
|
|
|
Empirical evidence: Aging in deliberate practice model |
Older experts show reduced if any age related declines when preform skill-related tasks Normal age-graded declines overall Expertise relies on more specific than general cognitive mechanisms Acquire specific mechanisms to adapt maximally to constraints of their domains Cross-sectional evidence cannot rule out that brain adaptions existed prior (but most likely due to practice) |
|
|
|
Open questions - Aging in deliberate practice model |
Impossible to determine whether older experts shifted to certain activities bc related skills were easier to maintain or whether professional contexts demanded it Discrepancy between stronger age related decline in lab tasks compared to job tasks may be due to differences between usual and Max performance Impossible to distinguish whether group differences in general abilities reflect expertise driven mitigation or preserved differences which existed before Reciprocal effects of meta cognition, life management, learning to learn, time budgeting, pay off of practice... |
|
|
|
Longitudinal research |
Time-intensiv, expensive, high dropout rate Advantages > disadvantages See developmental trajectories Directionality of effect Implications for prevention and intervention |
|
|
|
Identity |
Key conflict or task in adolescence But lifelong task Taking on role that express who you are and provide a sense of uniqueness/continuity Contextual element: societal roles Definition, not mere description of who you are |
|
|
|
Self-concept |
Descriptive Cognitive scheme to describe self |
|
|
|
Self-esteem |
Evaluative component attached to self-concept |
|
|
|
Erikson Identity theory |
Lifespan theory Continuous task, but emphasis on certain stages Fixed pattern 13-21y: identity vs role confusion Universal model, but cultural differences Epigenetic process Occurs in context Social expectations Identity: context, psyche, body |
|
|
|
Identity synthesis vs confusion (Eriksson) |
Synthesis: temporal-spatial continuity
Confusion: subject to circumstances, adrift, no frame of reference to explore or commit
Individuals shift between synthesis and confusion |
|
|
|
Identity as dual task |
Differentiation/individuation Vs Integration/social anchoring
Need to go hand in hand in supportive climate Difficult process Parents should be attentive, supporting, not judgemental Need moratorium |
|
|
|
Moratorium Ericsson |
Adolescence need time and space to develop identity Institutional moratorium: college Need time to experiment with different roles Social environment functions as a mirror Labeling dangerous |
|
|
|
Pros and cons Ericsson model |
+emphasis on unique, individual life history +Process oriented view +Inspired much research -little attention to research methods -many ideas difficult to examine |
|
|
|
Marcia Identity Dimensions |
Commitment: adhering to a certain choice Exploration: exploring different alternative options |
|
|
|
Marcia Model |
|
|
|
|
Achievement |
Commitment after exploring Identity synthesis Deliberate Open for new ideas/experiences Inner standard Flexible strength Positive personal functioning Self-esteem, well-being Little anxiety or drug use Extravert and mature in intimate relationships critical, open attitude towards norms/rules Internal locus of control Good balance between assimilation and accomodation |
|
|
|
Diffusion |
Not interested in forming identity Confusion Drift through life Uninvolved No close connections/disconnected Little profound/own ideas Lack of structure Lack of exploration Low self-esteem Anxiety, drug use Delinquency Lack of goal Egocentric attitude Low on conscientiousness Impulsive |
|
|
|
Foreclosure |
Commitment without exploration Narrow-minded Self-satisfied Value family ties Follow authority, leaders Believe in law and order Suspicious of others opinions Like glass Formal relationships, superficial Rigid and closed attitude towards norms/rules Obedient |
|
|
|
Moratorium |
Exploring, no commitment Struggling Identity search Have own ideas, don't realize them Lower self-esteem Anxiety and drug use Positive social functioning Critical, open attitude towards norms and rules Analytical, autonomous, self-determined |
|
|
|
Domain vs global identity statuses |
Can have different identity statuses Global Ideological: professional, religious, political Interpersonal: friendship, intimacy, peers Partial incongruence between global and domain-specific |
|
|
|
Measurement identity Marcia |
Clinical interviews Long, rich Direct measures Four scores for each individual, status assigned based on extreme scores But can have double or no group Indirect measures Median split procedure Median for both dimension -> high or low -> group Imposed group |
|
|
|
Identity statuses: developmental continuum |
Progressive status change Strict: diffusion - foreclosure - moratorium - achievement Foreclosure vs moratorium - which one is more progressive? Hierarchical - linear character: strict succession Unidirectional: only one direction, achievement is normative endpoint Nuanced interpretation No compulsory sequence Different trajectories (tho mostly progressive) Achievement not normative endpoint |
|
|
|
Empirical evidence on identity continuum |
Need for nuanced interpretation No strict linear succession On average progressive changes But individual variability with regression and stability Achievement noch normative endpoint Even in adulthood still foreclosure and diffusion Identity as a continuous process with re-evaluations |
|
|
|
Criticism Marcia Identity Model |
Too much emphasis on achieved identity Identity formation is a progress! Too little attention to social context But: Marcia never stated that captures Erikson's theory fully And later work has lifespan and process perspective on identity |
|
|
|
Process oriented model (Luyckx) |
Process doesn't stop when commitment is made Extended each process by a dimension Exploration: in breadth and depth Commitment: making and identification with Identity process is life long Commitment evaluated, reconsidered, abandoned... Identity is not only making a commitment but also revaluating it
|
|
|
|
Exploration in breadth |
Gathering information about different choice alternatives
I try to figure out regurlarly which lifestyle would suit me |
|
|
|
Commitment making |
Making actual choices about important life issues
I know what I want to do with my future |
|
|
|
Exploration in depth |
Evaluating the degree to which the identity choices correspond with personal internal standards
I talk regurlarly with other people about the plans for the future I have made |
|
|
|
Identification with commitment |
The person may or may not identify with/feel certain about the commitments
My plans for the future match with my true interests and values |
|
|
|
Formation of commitments |
Work by Marcia Dimensions: Exploration in breadth and commitment making |
|
|
|
Evaluation of commitments |
Harold Grotevant Dimensions: Exploration in depth and identification with commitment |
|
|
|
Harold Grotevant model |
Theoretical model Integrated both trends Personality motivates exploration, ideas, wishes, goals Cognitive outcomes: what it means to me Affective outcomes: how do I feel about this Based on idea that consolidating identity is commitment making Difference to Marcia: evaluation of identity, circular model |
|
|
|
Emerging adulthood |
Arnett New development phase between adolescence and adulthood Focus on identity formation, exploration, re-evaluation Identity commitments postponed to late 20s 18-25(30)y Feel like adults in some respects, not in all "in-between" phase Time of exploration, experimentation, self-focus Period of possibility, choice Phase of instability (binge drinking, residential change) Too many options - can paralyze, get stuck, especially when lack of strong internal frame of reference, or lack of external support |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - mean level stability and change |
Gradual, not sudden changes Initial levels quite high Commitment evaluation processes the highest Slight increases, but fluctuations mainly in identification with commitment College: evaluating commitment rather than making new ones |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - link parenting and identity |
Empathetic and supportive parenting facilitates identity formation Intensive and inconsistent parenting hinders identity formation Individuals lose touch with own wishes, goals, needs No secure base for exploring Link: intrusive parenting dimension through which parental needs and wishes are imposed subtly onto the child Parental control predicts decreases on commitment over time Difficulties in making and identifying with commitments Reciprocal influences -Psychological control leads to decrease commitment dimensions -exploration in depth leads to increase parental control Vicious circle! Correlated change -changes in psychological control lead to changes in commitment dimensions |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - link personality and identity |
Reciprocal influences -conscientiousness <-> commitment making (+) -openness <-> exploration in depth Correlated change (+) -changes in neuroticism and changes in commitment making (-) |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - link identity and adjustment |
Reciprocal influences -identification with commitment <-> self-esteem (+) -exploration in breadth -> depressive symptoms (+) Correlated change -self-esteem and commitment dimensions (+) |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - antecedents and consequences of identity |
|
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - development trajectories |
Clustering of growth trajectories into 2 subgroups 4 different classes Searchers (moratorium) Guardians (foreclosure) Pathmakers (achievement) Consolidators (new group) No diffusion class: would have dropped out |
|
|
|
Leuven-Trajectories of identity development study - developmental trajectories and adjustment |
Adjustment: depression and self-esteem No sudden changes Overlap trajectories and class |
|
|
|
Ruminative exploration |
Unfunctional exploration Maladaptive perfectionism Determined by inner vulnerability, micro context (parenting) and macro context (paradox of choice) |
|
|
|
Age trends in identity processes |
Commitment -gradual increases with age Exploration -curvilinear pattern -peak 22-24y -theory of emerging adulthood -ruminative exploration lower levels, but more stable |
|
|
|
Functionality of identity processes |
Commitment: Becomes more central towards Psychological functioning and self-Definition with increasing age Protects stronger against depressive symptoms in age more than adolescence Exploration in breadth: Loses functionality in late twenties Rumination: Strong association with depression on all ages Gets stronger |
|
|
|
Cluster analysis identity statuses |
Marcia's classical statuses emerged from clustering But refined and expanded New status: carefree diffusion Not distressed diffusion Also new status: 30% undifferentiated |
|
|
|
Adjustment and functioning - identity achievement |
High scores on all but rumination + With Self-esteem, academic functioning, study and work engagement, self-actualization |
|
|
|
Adjustment and functioning - identity moratorium |
Low on commitment, high on exploration + With Depressive symptoms, anxiety, alcohol and drug use In crisis nature |
|
|
|
Adjustment and functioning - identity diffusion |
Troubled diffusion Low on commitment, exploration, high on rumination Try but don't succeed Internalized symptoms, anxiety and depression Carefree diffusion Low on all dimensions Hedonistic Elevated risk behaviors Big part of group disappears after college, adulthood forces commitment |
|
|
|
Summary process oriented identity model Luyckx |
Dynamic perspective 5 dimensions Proactive and maladaptive exploration Extending and refining Marcia's statuses Longitudinal research identifies key developmental and reciprocal processes |
|
|
|
NSSI |
Non suicidal self injury Socially unaccepted Differs between cultures Deliberate and direct injury to one's own body Without suicidal intent Cutting, scratching, hair pulling, bruising, burning, head banging Most common in adolescence and emerging adulthood Lifetime prevalence: 18% 6-7% report current NSSI |
|
|
|
Functional perspective on NSSI |
Communication: NSSI as a symptom of psychosocial problems Coping: NSSI as a way of dealing with psychological problem |
|
|
|
NSSI and identity |
Compensate for lack of identity goals/commitment Identity plays an important role in NSSI emergence and maintenance NSSI symptomatic of identity confusion or lack of synthesis could provide a pseudo-identity NSSI related to more identity confusion and lack of synthesis |
|
|
|
Associations NSSI and Identity Study (Luyckx) |
Past NSSI: More than expected in moratorium, less in achievement Current NSSI: More in troubled diffusion Ruminative exploration, anxiety and depression all related to NSSI Negative relationship to identity commitment and NSSI Link NSSI-identity gone when control for anxiety and depression Not identity process itself that is driving association, but accompanying feelings of anxiety and depression Vicious cycle: NSSI - lack of commitment - identity confusion - NSSI therapy: focus on underlying identity, or shift if symptoms |
|
|
|
Identity and eating disorder |
High comorbidity ED and NSSI ED as mechanism to avoid dealing with identity issues Make sure to address identity I'm therapy |
|
|
|
Identity processes in Eating Disorders |
Patients and control big difference Especially rumination ED: scored significantly lower on CM, IC, EB |
|
|
|
Identity processes in Eating Disorders |
Not clear whether carefree or troubled New disorder status Overrepresented in moratorium, diffusion, disorder Patients searcher for identity, are in crisis |
|
|
|
Relationship identity and eating disorder |
|
|
|
|
Body as target |
Complex interplay identity and ED/NSSI body as a way of communicating and dealing with identity issues Close bi-directional association body dissatisfaction and identity confusion/synthesis Therapeutic focus on alternative ways of communication/expression Adolescence with identity confusion are especially vulnerable to maladaptive search of self-Definition |
|
|
|
Post-Traumatic growth |
Benefit finding Enrichment To grow as a person Upward trajectory after chronic illness |
|
|
|
Chronic illness and identity |
Chronic illness as important non-normative stressor Clear link between them 30% confronted with illness in identity formation years Two kinds of identity Personal identity Illness identity |
|
|
|
Glycemic control trajectories |
Diversification from adolescence into adulthood Own treatment trajectory |
|
|
|
Diabetes care study (Luyckx, 2009) |
Identity important for treatment adherence and glycemic control Internal resource Related to coping, self-esteem, competence Rumination negative link to synthesis Synthesis negative link to maladaptive coping, diabetes problems and depressive symptoms |
|
|
|
Illness identity trajectories |
Rejection Engulfment Acceptance Enrichment |
|
|
|
Engulfment illness identity |
Loss of self, illness intrusiveness Chronic illness central to identity Dominates person and life Influences all domains of life I am a diabetic |
|
|
|
Rejection illness identity |
Chronic illness rejected as part of identity Clear border Not part of self Doesn't define |
|
|
|
Acceptance illness identity |
Chronic illness as part of identity without being overwhelmed Peripheral role in identity Next to other self-assets Does not pervade all domains of life |
|
|
|
Enrichment illness identity |
Benefit finding, stress related growth, post traumatic growth Positive changes as a result of CI Benefits one's sense of self Enables one to grow as a person Enriches and gives meaning to illness Also related to rumination and impact -> overcome obstacles -> bigger rumination and impact of chronic illness leads to growth |
|
|
|
Diabetes care study (Oris et al, 2016) |
Boys higher on acceptance Girls higher on engulfment No association with illness duration Enrichment: high concern and impact, deal with negative emotions, look for positive impact |
|
|
|
Link chronic illness identity - depression, life satisfaction, treatment adherence, diabetes problems |
Acceptance: negative relationship to depression, positive to life satisfaction No association rejection and depression and life satisfaction, but only negative predictor for treatment adherence Engulfment: + depression, - life satisfaction Enrichment: + life satisfaction |
|
|
|
Two types of responses to new and or threatening situations |
Some individuals are bold, aggressive, impulsive Quickly form a routine and are not influenced by environmental changes Other individuals are cautious and fearful They avoid forming a routine and remain attentive to environment changes E.g. Study pumpkinseed sunfish Wire traps-> differences These individual differences observed across species Described in terms of temperamental differences in humans |
|
|
|
Kagan: inhibited vs uninhibited |
Inhibited Reacts to unfamiliar with avoidance, distress, restraint Longer time to relax More fears and phobias Timid and cautious Uninhibited Reacts to unfamiliar with spontaneity and joy Shorter time to relax in new situations Fewer fears Not restrained in new situations |
|
|
|
Diathesis Stress Framework |
Diathesis= predisposition/vulnerability Vulnerable vs resilient Differ in reaction to negative environment Disproportionately /exclusively likely to succumb to negative effects of contextual stressors Resilient keep functioning adaptively |
|
|
|
Variables in environmental sensitivity studies |
Environmental characteristic Individual difference Developmental outcome |
|
|
|
Study showing diathesis stress |
Ramos et Al., 2005 E: Family conflict I: Temperament D: Behavior problems child Easy temperament: no association family conflict and behavioral problems Difficult temperament: high association -> more sensitive to effects of negative environment on developmental functioning |
|
|
|
Differential susceptibility model |
Predicts individual differences in response to both negative and positive environmental influences For better and for worse =Diathesis stress + vantage sensitivity |
|
|
|
Vantage sensitivity |
General proclivity of an individual to benefit from positive and presumptively well-being and competence promoting features of the environment For better When positive context/influence More advantages than individual with high resilience |
|
|
|
Vantage resistance |
The failure to benefit from positive influences |
|
|
|
Markers of environmental sensitivity |
Genotypic Endophenotypic Phenotypic |
|
|
|
Neurobiological susceptibility |
Shaped by genetic factors as well as early environments and the interaction between both
If high: developmental outcome is very dependent on social context, negative leads to negative, positive to positive If low: developmental outcome unrelated to social context, neutral throughout context
Individual differences in susceptibility to environmental influences can be understood as differences in the magnitude of such biological stress responses |
|
|
|
Phenotypic Markers |
Moderating role of child temperament in the association between early experiences and behavioral outcomes
Difficult temperament Negative emotionality Fearfulness Sensory-processing sensitivity |
|
|
|
Study phenotypic marker of environmental sensitivity |
Kochanska et al., 2007 E: father's power assertion I: fear child D: child rule compatible conduct Low fear: no association High fear: more power assertion, less rule compatible behavior Fearfulness as moderator of parenting in early Sozialisation |
|
|
|
Sensory processing sensitivity |
An individual difference characteristic Those who high Sensitive to subtle stimuli Easily overstimulated Pause to check in new situations Prefer to reflect and revise their cognitive maps after an experience Aron & Aron 1997 Best phenotypic marker of environmental sensitivity Categorical About 20% of population Genetic basis Relatively stable |
|
|
|
Study sensory-processing sensitivity |
Pluess et al., 2015 E: treatment time Prevention program I: SPS D: depression symptoms
Positive treatment effects only in high SPS SPS valuable in treatment response prediction
|
|
|
|
Endophenotypical markers |
Blood pressure Heart rate Skin conductance reactivity Vagal regulation Cortisol reactivity |
|
|
|
Study endophenotypical marker |
El-Sheikh et al., 2001 E: verbal marital conflict I: vagal tone D: anxiety High tone, no association Low tone, more conflict means more anxiety Low tone, more conflict means more anxiety |
|
|
|
Genetic markers |
Potential plasticity markers 5-HTTLPR -s/s vulnerable DRD4 -7+ vulnerable MOAO More than one ploymorphism GxGxE interactions Composite scores |
|
|
|
Study genotypic marker |
Caspi et al., 2003 E: stressful life events I: 5-HTT Gene D: depression Interaction Association stressful life events - depression: l/l < s/l <s/s
|
|
|
|
Neurobehavioral foundation on environmental reactivity |
Neurobehavioral foundation of environmental sensitivity
Threshold at which an individual responds to the environment is defined by the interaction between two components Trait magnitude of neural reactivity (individual) Magnitude of eliciting stimuli (environment)
Trait magnitude of neural reactivity depends on the function of a large number of neurotransmitter systems Possible that different sensitivity patterns have different neurobehavioral foundations |
|
|
|
Study Gene x Environment interaction |
Cicchetti et al., 2012 E: maltreatment I: differences in multiple genes D: resilience
Gene environment interactions
Resilient gene: less difference in resilience between maltreatment conditions Vulnerable gene: nonmaltreated more resilient than resilient gene, maltreated, less resilient functioning
on resilience 0: differentiating genes: no effect of environment on resilience1-4: the more, the more treated affects resilient functioning score 1-4: the more, the more treated affects resilient functioning score |
|
|
|
Study vantage sensitivity |
Hankin et al., 2011 E: reported parenting I: 5-HTTLPR D: positive affect Interaction S/s more positive parenting, more positive affect L/s l/l no association |
|
|
|
Genetic origins of environmental sensitivity |
Genetic make-up should be considered as predictor/origin of environmental sensitivity rather than as marker
10 polymorphisms in 7 different genes found to contribute to sensory processing sensitivity Account for 15% of the variability |
|
|
|
Environmental origins of environmental sensitivity |
Association between early adversity and reactivity is being thought of as curvilinear Both highly protective and stressful environments can lead to reactivity Stressful: reactivity increases adaptive competence by augmenting vigilance to threats and danger Protective: reactivity increases adaptive competence by augmenting susceptibility to social resources and ambient support Exposure to non extreme childhoods downregulates biological sensitivity |
|
|
|
Interaction Gene and environments environmental sensitivity |
Environmental sensitivity is assumed to be a function of genetic factors and characteristics of the early environment as well as their interaction |
|
|
|
Epigenetic mechanisms in environmental susceptibility |
Epigenetic mechanisms potentially mediate the association between characteristics of early environment and later susceptibility
Not only childhood experiences predict DNA methylation Also adolescence, independent of childhood stressful life events |
|
|
|
HSP scale |
Measures sensory processing sensitivity Three dimensions Ease of excitation: mentally overwhelmed by internal/external stimuli Low sensory threshold: unpleasant arousal in the face of external stimuli Aesthetic sensitivity: awareness of aesthetic stimuli |
|
|
|
Mary Rothbart |
Individual differences in reactivity and self-regulation Positive reactivity Negative reactivity Effortful control Affiliation Orienting sensitivity |
|
|
|
Hans Eysenck |
2 categories Introversion-Extraversion Emotionally Stable-unstable |
|
|
|
Costa & McCrae |
Neuroticism Extraversion Conscientiousness Agreeableness Openness |
|
|
|
Jeffrey Gray |
Behavioral inhibition system Behavioral activation system |
|
|
|
5 comparable Dimensions of temperament/personality models |
|
|
|
|
Association sensory processing sensitivity and other temperament/personality models |
Theoretical: SPS related to but not same as social Introversion, emotionality
Empirical: Associations HSP and personality/temperament differ according to dimension/facet Positive association with neuroticism/NA: ease of excitation and low sensory threshold Positive association with openness/orienting sensitivity: aesthetic sensitivity Differential pattern of associations for extraversion and conscientiousness Sensory processing sensitivity as blend of personality facets across different personality domains Specific blend may vary depending on the strengths of the specific aspects of SPS To identity blend more sophisticated methodological approaches necessary |
|
|
|
Expert consensus approach |
Experts asked to fill in FFM questionnaires thinking of a prototypical individual scoring high on the target trait Personality facets that are related as prototypically high or low by most experts are selected Compound score is derived Used to assess the extent to which any individual filling in the questionnaire fits the personality profile Not yet applied in environmental sensitivity |
|
|
|
Methodological challenges in environmental sensitivity |
Statistical criteria Measurement of the environment Cultural and Racial variation Limitations of observational studies Need for repeated measurements |
|
|
|
Statistical criteria environmental sensitivity |
Belsky: 5 steps Application of conventional statistical criteria for the evaluation of moderation
Inspection of the shape of the moderator effect: not all moderation effects are indicative of differential susceptibility Crossover interaction most conclusive Slope high sensitive group has to be significantly different from 0 and steeper than low sensitivite group Both slopes significantly different from 0 but in opposite directions: contrastive effects, not ds
There must be no association between the moderator and the environment
There must be no association between the moderator and the outcome
Ideally the specificity of the effect is tested by replacing the susceptibility factor and the outcome
Also: gray area regions of significant effect Roisman: more demanding, add proportion of interaction on for worse and better side |
|
|
|
Measurement of the environment environmental sensitivity |
Person environment interactions are much more likely to emerge in the range of average expectable environments than at environmental extremes Power of contexts restricts phenotypic variation |
|
|
|
Cultural and Racial variation |
Meaning and context of specific environmental factors and the relationship with developmental outcomes may vary between cultural groups E.g. Scott &O'Connor, abuse and antisocial environment
Neurobiological susceptibility May differ across race/ethnicity Ethically homogeneous samples preferred in GxE research |
|
|
|
Limitations of observational studies in environmental sensitivity |
Risk: function actually reflects person-environment correlation
Make sure moderator unrelated to the environment Or experimentally manipulate the environment Due to Ethical reasons: limited to positive side e.g. treatment efficacy
Biggest difference susceptibility for macrotrials (speaks for environment) |
|
|
|
Need for repeated measurement in environmental sensitivity |
Test for better and for worse Ethically difficult Can't manipulate for worse But test naturally occurring difficult vs less difficult situations E.g. exam vs control day S/s more negative on exam day, less negative on control, steeper slope |
|
|
|
Unknowns and future directions for environmental sensitivity |
Same individuals, different plasticity markers? Are associations between plasticity markers at different levels of analysis There is also evidence suggesting that plasticity markers are not interchangeable Categorical or dimensional? Aron &aron: categorical But test dimensionally Pluess etc Al. Found 3 groups dandelion, tulip, orchid Domain specific or general? Gender differences? Timing of susceptibility? ... |
|
|
|
Age differences in IQ test performance |
Raw scores of general cognitive domain functions drop dramatically Speed performance decreases from early 30s on, steep decrease Verbal abilities are much more stable, peak at around 50, decreases to level of skill at twenties But real life: complexity of problem and quality of answers count, not speeddual |
|
|
|
Dual process model of intelligence |
Mechanics Basis information processing Content poor Speed, memory, reasoning, retrieve, compare Fluid intelligence
Pragmatics Knowledge, factual and procedural Content rich Culture dependent Experience based Verbal fluency Cristalized intelligence
Mechanics peak at early 20s, then decrease Pragmatics peak later, around 30s, less steep decline Cognitive skills differ in how they change with age Gain cognitive functions related to social skills or wisdom until after 60s Impossible to acquire pragmatics without mechanics |
|
|
|
Age related changes in cognitive functions |
Difficulty with Episodic memory Slower processing speed (1.6-2x) More susceptible to interference Older adults and children more distractible Need wm, if contents less stable or more limited, more vulnerable to interference Forget what they were planning to do Cognitive control goes down Executive functions WM, attention, task switching Some aspects of cognition are maintained with age: Semantic memory, emotion regulation |
|
|
|
Prefrontal theory of aging |
Cognitive control = executive functions Most affected Prefrontal regions show the earliest and fastest decline WM, task switching, inhibition Similar for progression of dementia All cognitive control functions involve networks which involve pre-frontal cortex, when PFC declines, so does cognitive control Core of behavior flexibility |
|
|
|
Cognitive control |
Allows us to use our perception, knowledge, and goals to bias the selection of actions and thoughts from a multitude of possibilities Process that allows information processing and behavior to vary adaptively depending on current goals Flexible behavior Actions that are consistent with our goals Appropriate for our environment |
|
|
|
Cognitive control: component processes |
Formulate plans of actions which -draw on past experiences -are tailored to current environment -are flexible and adaptive Monitor success of ongoing actions Switch between actions and action plans Provide top-down control by -dynamic filtering of information -inhibiting or facilitation of processing -inhibiting thoughts -channeling resources -directing attention -prioritizing certain subgoals |
|
|
|
Two cognitive control systems |
Goal oriented behavior Monitoring and guiding behavior |
|
|
|
System 1: Goal oriented behavior |
LPFC and frontal pole With more posterior cortical regions (relevant regions) WM system Selects task relevant information Planning, simulating, initiating, inhibiting, shifting Top-down control
|
|
|
|
System 2: monitoring and guiding behavior |
Medial frontal cortex In tandem with other pre-frontal cortex areas Modulates degree of cognitive control Detect errors and adjust performance Learn from failures |
|
|
|
Development of working memory capacity |
Steep incline from age 5-16 Go from 1-2 items to average of 6 Stays stable until 35 Then declines until 55, average of 4 items Verbal and visual memory development same WM important for encoding and manipulating information |
|
|
|
Changes in inhibitory control |
Stop signal paradigm Response inhibition not different in younger and older adults Response execution decreases in later age dramatically Age related differences less pronounced for response inhibition than for response execution (2 different underlying processes)
General and specific switch costs General: Mixed-Single Maintenance and task selection Decreases from 7-27, then steep incline in RT in older adulthood Especially sensitive to cognitive changes Speed in maintenance declines throughout adult lifespan switch-stay Cognitive flexibility
Specific: switch-stay Cognitive flexibility relatively stable throughout life Age related differences less pronounced for specific than for general switch costs relatively stable throughout life
|
|
|
|
Driving and adult age |
Moving violations decrease with age Number of accident per age - U function Decreases to 50s, then increases Older driver's follow rules but cause high amount of accidents Due to cognitive control |
|
|
|
Structural changes at the brain level with age |
Many changes linear, become non-linear in 60s, accelerate Increase in CSF Decrease in gray matter volume White matter volume relatively constant Reductions in neurotransmitter binding potential and receptor density Anterior posterior gradient Some brain activity reduced in older adults, sometimes increases |
|
|
|
Volumetric changes across the Lifespan |
White matter volume Max at 30-50, before and after decreases Density decreases, microstructure changes
Gray matter volume Linear decrease, stabilizes around 60s Up to 25%
CSF volume Linear increase Fills up caves |
|
|
|
Gray matter density changes in two regions across life |
Superior frontal sulcus Density decreases rapidly until 40(linear) Then stabilizes around 50
Superior temporal sulcus Density stable until 40 Then slow decrease over rest of life |
|
|
|
Age related changes in volume of the pre-frontal cortex |
Young: more volume, less CSF Older: decrease, increase CSF |
|
|
|
White matter integrity and connectivity lifespan changes |
Structural white matter changes accelerated in dementia Older adults with integrity show higher connectivity Lifestyle factors (bilingualism, playing musical instruments) and the hen-egg problem |
|
|
|
Adult related changes: default network |
DN active during resting state High activity during tasks with self-reference Deactivation for externally driven tasks Older adults show reduction of task-related deactivation in WM tasks and weaker connectivity during rest Less focus, everything activated |
|
|
|
White matter integrity, functional connectivity, lifestyle |
White matter tracts in mono- and bilingual older adults Functional connectivity between PFC and posterior parts of DN Higher connectivity in bilinguals Better cognitive controls Same in musicians Coordinate two languages, hand movements, brain in better shape But: cannot account for variables like education, SES, genetics...
|
|
|
|
Dedifferentiation |
Lack of efficiency in the use of neural resources or a reduction in the selectivity of responses
Might be reason for increase in brain activation with age Bilateral pre-frontal activity associated with abilities that typically have lateralized activity in younger adults More diffuse patterns Less selective activity in task relevant regions across variety of tasks |
|
|
|
Compensation in older brain |
Engage some areas, like frontal lobes, more than younger adults Compensate for reduced activity in other areas Can, sometimes lead to increase in performance, sometimes not Association between activity in brain region and performance in older adults is task specific, response specific, or both |
|
|
|
CRUNCH |
Compensation related utilization of neural circuits hypothesis More neural resources are recruited by older adults at low levels of cognitive load (when task easy) than by younger adults (don't need them) Higher load levels: compensatory mechanism no longer effective, equivalent or less activation in older adults compared to younger |
|
|
|
Evidence for additional activation in older adults |
Increased PFC activity increases performance for Inhibition Face recognition Attention Decreases performance for Memory Reaction time tasks |
|
|
|
Potential explanations for compensatory activity |
1: older adults shift from proactive control to more reactive strategies 2: CRUNCH |
|
