Secondo esonero di Individual differences Iin personality and temperament + 2 domande aperte

Summary:

(VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND) Higher shyness → higher externalizing problems

Higher benevolence → lower externalizing problems

Higher effortful control → lower externalizing problems

Higher effortful control → lower internalizing problems

Higher negative effect → higher internalizing problems

As only five out of 22 trait-by-group interactions are significant, temperament and personality effects are largely consistent across the two groups and generally corroborate the patterns of specificity typically reported by research on trait maladjustment covariations in non-clinical groups.

For temperament, higher levels of Emotionality and Negative Affect and lower levels of Effortful Control predict both internalizing and externalizing.

Personality shows a slightly more differentiated pattern and explains more variance than temperament.

In conclusion: This overall similarity in trait-maladjustment covariations suggests that similar processes link traits to psychosocial.

Functioning for individuals with ADHD and for comparison group children and implies that traits are an additional tool to identify ADHD children at risk for developing emotional or behavioral problems higher levels of Shyness go together with more externalizing problems in children with ADHD but not in comparison children.

Limitations:

1. The limited sample size of the ADHD group did not allow for more in-depth, multi-group comparisons depending on structural equation modelling techniques.
2. Relying on the parent as the sole informant might also result in potential bias, because parents of referred children may tend to exaggerate the problems of their own child.
3. The present study is based on clinical judgment for ADHD diagnosis and on only limited information about psychosocial functioning.
4. No data were available on those families contacted by the ADHD centers who did not choose to participate in the study.
5. Childhood traits are only one of the many factors related to transactional.

processesthat contribute to the development of problem behaviorsEggum 2009Predictors of Withdrawal: Possible precursors of avoidant personality disorder (Eggumet al. 2009)HypothesisStably withdrawn children vs. lesswithdrawn children, were expected to beprone to:–fear, anger, and sadness–low impulsivity–attentional control–ego-resiliencyTeacher- and mother-designatedwithdrawn classes were expected to be–Similar regarding○attentional regulation○ impulsivity○ ego resiliency;–Different regarding reports of negative emotionality.Negative Emotionality (T1):-anger/frustration → Child Behavior Questionnaire(CBQ; Rothbart et al., 2001)AngerFrustration Scale-sadness → CBQ Sadness Scale-fearfulness(only parent report) → CBQ Fear ScaleEgo control predictors (T1):-impulsivity→ CBQ Impulsivity Scale-attentional control ̈→ CBQ-ego resiliency→ adapted questionnaire version of Block’s Resiliency Q-Sort (Block &Block,

1. In anger (MI) moderate-increasing → more at risk to develop Avoidant Personality Disorder
2. In fear (MI) moderate-increasing → more at risk to develop Avoidant Personality Disorder
3. In attentional control (MI) moderate-increasing → more at risk to develop Avoidant Personality Disorder
4. In ego resiliency (MI) moderate-increasing → more at risk to develop Avoidant Personality Disorder
5. Higher anger, higher fear, Lower attentional control, Lower ego resiliency predict → High Decreasing Withdrawal classes (mother- or teacher-reports), Moderate Increasing class (Mother reported)
6. Lower attentional control and Lower ego resiliency predict → in teacher-reported Low Increasing class

IMPORTANT! we can’t predict whether children’s withdrawal become worse or better

Higher decreasing / moderate increasing /low increasing patterns of withdrawal could lead to maladaptive patterns such as Higher anger, low attentional control, Lower ego resiliency

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRIBUTING

1. FACTORS TO WITHDRAWAL
• Negative experience with parents
• Peer rejection
• Self-reported parental neglect
• Unsure and disorganized/unresolved attachment
• Childhood abuse (emotional, verbal, physical, sexual)
2. Genetic and Environmental Basis of AvPD
• Heredity (vulnerable temperament)
• Environment (no buffer for children's vulnerability)
3. Cultural effects matter! Ex. AvPD is more common in Norway.
4. TRAJECTORIES OF PARENT-REPORTED WITHDRAWAL
• MODERATE INCREASING vs MODERATE STABLE
• Mother-identified Moderate Increasing was most likely predictive of AvPD.
• Anger > (= risk factor)
• Ego resiliency < (= protective factor)
• MODERATE STABLE vs LOW DECREASING
• Anger >
• Fear >
• Attentional control <
5. Only one significant effect of fear, probably because of:
• CBQ taps childhood fears;
• Association with withdrawn might be stronger when considering other types of fear
6. Profile of high declining (HD) withdrawal class vs. low stable (LS)

withdrawal class: a group of individuals characterized by higher levels of anger and temperamental sadness, lower attentional control, and lower egoresiliency. These factors are predictive of membership in the withdrawal class, with sadness being a weak predictor. Future research should focus on identifying protective factors that can mitigate the effects of withdrawal. Impulsivity does not have a relationship with membership in the withdrawal class. This may be due to its association with low levels of shyness. The trajectory modelling analysis revealed that no stably high withdrawn group emerged. However, some children who were 1 standard deviation above the mean in withdrawn behavior remained high over the 6-year period. These children exhibited low attentional and inhibitory control, low impulsivity, high levels of anger and sadness, and low shyness. There was very little agreement between teachers' and parents' reports of withdrawn behavior, possibly because teachers are less aware of it. There was moderate agreement on the pattern of associations between withdrawal class membership and temperament/personality. Individual differences play a role in prevention, promotion, and intervention efforts. Coie et al. (1993) provide a definition of withdrawal class and its characteristics.science aims to identify and understand these processes in order to develop effective interventions and strategies for promoting mental health and preventing mental disorders. Prevention science utilizes a range of research methods, including longitudinal studies, experimental designs, and community-based interventions. By studying risk and protective factors, researchers can identify individuals and populations at higher risk for mental health problems and develop targeted prevention programs. In addition to individual-level interventions, prevention science also focuses on creating supportive environments and implementing policies that promote mental health and well-being. This includes efforts to reduce stigma, improve access to mental health services, and create social and economic conditions that support mental well-being. Overall, prevention science plays a crucial role in promoting mental health and preventing mental disorders. By understanding the factors that contribute to mental health problems, researchers can develop evidence-based strategies to reduce the burden of mental illness on individuals, families, and communities.interventions aim to counteract risk factors and reinforce protective factors in order to disrupt processes that contribute to human dysfunction. Ideally, there is a complementary interplay of science and practice. Basic research on risk and protective factors should inform the design of preventive interventions. Field trials of these interventions, in turn, should yield insights about the causes of disorder and the developmental processes that contribute to risk or recovery. Observations About Risk and Protective Factors Risk factors have complex relations to clinical disorders. Specific forms of dysfunction are typically associated with many different risk factors, rather than with a single risk factor. By the same token, a particular risk factor is rarely specific to a single disorder because pathogens (causes of illness) tend to spread their effects over several adaptive functions in the course of development. Exposure to risk may occur in diverse ways and in numerous settings. The salience of

risk factors may fluctuate developmentally. Some risk factors predict dysfunction only at specific periods of development, whereas others are stable predictors of disorder across major periods of the life span. Exposure to many risk factors has cumulative effects. At the very least, risk factors appear to have additive effects on vulnerability. The probability of illness may increase as a function of the number, the duration, and the "toxicity" of the risk factors encountered. With respect to some childhood disorders (Rutter, 1980), the risk of dysfunction seems to increase exponentially with the individual's exposure to each new risk factor, until the level of risk becomes extremely high.

The primary objective of prevention science is to trace the links between generic risk factors and specific clinical disorders and to moderate the pervasive effects of risk factors. If generic risks can be identified and altered in a population, this can have a positive influence on a range of

Mental health problems, as well as job productivity, and can reduce the need for many health, social, and correctional services. This strategy has a higher potential payoff for society than does a focused attack on controlling a single major, but rarely occurring, disorder.

Promoting protective factors against dysfunction. The effects of exposure to risk can be mitigated by a variety of individual and social characteristics that serve protective functions. Protective factors may decrease dysfunction directly, interact with the risk factor to buffer its effects, disrupt the mediational chain through which the risk factor operates to cause the dysfunction, or prevent the initial occurrence of the risk factor. Each of these methods can potentially be used to design strategies for intervention. Two general types of protective factors may serve to limit childhood disorders.

1. Individual characteristics, temperament, dispositions, and skills may cushion the effects of adversity or stress. Specific

Behavioral and cognitive skills can be acquired in order to cope with stressful situations and thus reduce psychological symptoms. Other protective factors may be more fixed by genetic and biosocial limitations.

Attributes of the child's environment, such as social support, parental warmth, appropriate discipline, adult monitoring and supervision, and bonding to family or other prosocial models may also function as protective factors.

The goal of some interventions has been to shape child-rearing environments by providing community and family supports (Goodman, 1987). Enhancing protective factors may be the strategy of choice in cases in which risk factors are difficult to identify in advance—such as dysfunctional parenting—or to eliminate altogether.