Search

Beginning college involves changes that can increase one's vulnerability to loneliness and associated negative outcomes. Parent and friend relationships are potential protective factors against loneliness given their positive association with adjustment. The present longitudinal study, with data collection at baseline, 1 month, and 2 months later, assessed the comparative effects of self-reported parent and friend relationship quality on loneliness in first-year college students (N = 101; 80 female, Mage = 18.36). At baseline, parent and friend relationship quality were negatively associated with loneliness. Longitudinal data revealed that friend relationship quality interacted with time, such that its effects on loneliness attenuated over the course of 2 months. By contrast, parent relationship quality continued to predict lower loneliness 2 months post-baseline. These results highlight the importance of close relationships and suggest that targeting relationship quality could be effective in helping youth transition to college.

Understanding adolescent decision-making is significant for informing basic models of neurodevelopment as well as for the domains of public health and criminal justice. System-based theories posit that adolescent decision-making is guided by activity amongst reward and control processes. While successful at explaining behavior, system-based theories have received inconsistent support at the neural level, perhaps because of methodological limitations. Here, we used two complementary approaches to overcome said limitations and rigorously evaluate system-based models. Using decision-level modeling of fMRI data from a risk-taking task in a sample of 2000+ decisions across 51 human adolescents (25 females, mean age = 15.00 years), we find support for system-based theories of decision-making. Neural activity in lateral prefrontal cortex and a multivariate pattern of cognitive control both predicted a reduced likelihood of risk-taking, whereas increased activity in the nucleus accumbens predicted a greater likelihood of risk-taking. Interactions between decision-level brain activity and age were not observed. These results garner support for system-based accounts of adolescent decision-making behavior.SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT:Adolescent decision-making behavior is of great import for basic science, and carries equally consequential implications for public health and criminal justice. While dominant psychological theories seeking to explain adolescent decision-making have found empirical support, their neuroscientific implementations have received inconsistent support. This may be partly due to statistical approaches employed by prior neuroimaging studies of system-based theories. We used brain modeling-an approach that predicts behavior from brain activity-of univariate and multivariate neural activity metrics to better understand how neural components of psychological systems guide decision behavior in adolescents. We found broad support for system-based theories such that neural systems involved in cognitive control predicted a reduced likelihood to make risky decisions, whereas value-based systems predicted greater risk-taking propensity.

Early caregiving adversity (ECA) is associated with elevated psychological symptomatology. While neurobehavioral ECA research has focused on socioemotional and cognitive development, ECA may also increase risk for "low-level" sensory processing challenges. However, no prior work has compared how diverse ECA exposures differentially relate to sensory processing, or, critically, how this might influence psychological outcomes. We examined sensory processing challenges in 183 8-17-year-old youth with and without histories of institutional (orphanage) or foster caregiving, with a particular focus on sensory over-responsivity (SOR), a pattern of intensified responses to sensory stimuli that may negatively impact mental health. We further tested whether sensory processing challenges are linked to elevated internalizing and externalizing symptoms common in ECA-exposed youth. Relative to nonadopted comparison youth, both groups of ECA-exposed youth had elevated sensory processing challenges, including SOR, and also had heightened internalizing and externalizing symptoms. Additionally, we found significant indirect effects of ECA on internalizing and externalizing symptoms through both general sensory processing challenges and SOR, covarying for age and sex assigned at birth. These findings suggest multiple forms of ECA confer risk for sensory processing challenges that may contribute to mental health outcomes, and motivate continuing examination of these symptoms, with possible long-term implications for screening and treatment following ECA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Early adversity, including institutional orphanage care, is associated with the development of internalizing disorders. Previous research suggests that institutionalization can disrupt emotion regulation processes, which contribute to internalizing symptoms. However, no prior work has investigated how early orphanage care shapes emotion regulation strategy usage (e.g., cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression) and whether the said strategy usage contributes to internalizing symptoms. This study probed emotion regulation strategy usage and internalizing symptoms in a sample of 36 previously institutionalized and 58 comparison youth. As hypothesized, previously institutionalized youth exhibited higher rates of internalizing symptoms than comparison youth, and more frequent use of suppression partially accounted for the relationship between early institutional care and elevated internalizing symptoms. Contrary to our initial hypotheses, reappraisal use did not buffer previously institutionalized or comparison youth against internalizing symptoms. Our findings highlight the potential utility of targeting emotion regulation strategy usage in adversity‐exposed youth in future intervention work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cognitive systems that track, update, and utilize information about reward (consequences) and risk (uncertainty) are critical for adaptive decision-making as well as everyday functioning and well-being. However, it remains unclear how individual differences in reward and risk sensitivity are independently shaped by environmental influences and give rise to decision-making. Here, we investigated the impact of early life experience--a potent sculptor of development--on behavioral sensitivity to reward and risk. We administered a widely used decision-making paradigm to 55 adolescents and young adults who were exposed to early deprivation in the form of early institutional (orphanage) care (a type of early life adversity) and 81 comparison individuals who were reared by their biological parents and did not experience institutional care. Leveraging random coefficient regression and computational models, we observed that previously institutionalized individuals displayed general reward hyposensitivity, contributing to a decreased propensity to make decisions that stood to earn relatively large rewards relative to comparison individuals. By contrast, group differences in risk sensitivity were selectively observed on loss, but not gain, trials. These results are the first to independently and explicitly link early experiences to reward and risk sensitivity during decision-making. As such, they lay the groundwork for therapeutic efforts to identify and treat adversity-exposed individuals at risk for psychiatric disorders characterized by aberrant decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Typologies serve to organize knowledge and advance theory for many scientific disciplines, including more recently in the social and behavioral sciences. To date, however, no typology exists to categorize an individual's use of emotion regulation strategies. This is surprising given that emotion regulation skills are used daily and that deficits in this area are robustly linked with mental health symptoms. Here, we attempted to identify and validate a working typology of emotion regulation across six samples (collectively comprised of 1,492 participants from multiple populations) by using a combination of computational techniques, psychometric models, and growth curve modeling. We uncovered evidence for three types of regulators: a type that infrequently uses emotion regulation strategies (Lo), a type that uses them frequently but indiscriminately (Hi), and a third type that selectively uses some (cognitive reappraisal and situation selection), but not other (expressive suppression), emotion regulation strategies frequently (Mix). Results showed that membership in the Hi and Mix types is associated with better mental health, with the Mix type being the most adaptive of the three. These differences were stable over time and across different samples. These results carry important implications for both our basic understanding of emotion regulation behavior and for informing future interventions aimed at improving mental health. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Social decision-making is omnipresent in everyday life, carrying the potential for both positive and negative consequences for the decision-maker and those closest to them. While evidence suggests that decision-makers use value-based heuristics to guide choice behavior, very little is known about how decision-makers' representations of other agents influence social choice behavior. We used multivariate pattern expression analyses on fMRI data to understand how value-based processes shape neural representations of those affected by one's social decisions and whether value-based encoding is associated with social decision preferences. We found that stronger value-based encoding of a given close other (e.g. parent) relative to a second close other (e.g. friend) was associated with a greater propensity to favor the former during subsequent social decision-making. These results are the first to our knowledge to explicitly show that value-based processes affect decision behavior via representations of close others., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)