Poster #51 - Markers of Differential Susceptibility to Caregivers and Peers: Sensory Processing Sensitivity Versus Negative Emotionality

• In Event: Poster Session 16

Abstract

Recent theories of Environmental Sensitivity postulate that sensory processing sensitivity (SPS) is a personality trait that renders some children more susceptible to both positive and negative environments (Greven et al., 2019). Although abundant studies have increasingly supported this hypothesis, most studies are based on Western samples and focused on one domain of the environment (e.g., parenting). In this longitudinal multi-informant study, we compared SPS with a more traditional differential susceptibility marker (i.e., negative emotionality; NE). We focused on two domains of both environmental factors (i.e., main caregivers and peers) and child outcomes (e.g., externalizing and prosocial behaviors) and covered both positive and negative aspects of them.

Participating children (N = 574, 41% girls) were Chinese elementary school students (Mage = 9.04; SD = 0.60), followed across 2 waves, spaced one year apart. Caregivers reported at T1 on children’s SPS and T1 and T2 on child conduct problems and prosocial behaviors. Children reported atT1 perceived caregiver warmth and rejection, as well as SPS and NE. Peer nominations were used to measure T1 peer acceptance and rejection, as well as T1 and T2 child aggressive and prosocial behaviors. Based on theory and research on Western children, we would expect SPS to be a stronger marker of differential susceptibility than NE.

We analyzed data in Mplus using multiple regression analyses. We used robust maximum likelihood estimation for handling nonnormality of the predictor and outcome measures, and full-information-maximum-likelihood method for handling missing at random data. We ran separate regression models for each domain of the environmental factor (i.e., caregiver and peer) per child outcome. That is, T1 positive and negative caregiver or peer environmental factors, T1 NE and SPS, and their interactions served as predictors predicting T2 child outcome, controlling for child age, gender, and the corresponding child outcome measured at T1. We probed significant interactions using simple slope tests and regions of significance with respect to the predictor.

Results show that associations between caregiver and peer environmental factors and child behavior did not depend on children’s SPS (Table 1). Negative emotionality, however, interacted with child-reported caregiver rejection and peer-nominated acceptance in predicting caregiver-reported prosocial behavior and conduct problems, respectively. As illustrated in Figure 1, vantage sensitivity was supported: as opposed to children with low levels of NE, children with high levels of NE increased more in prosocial behavior when caregiver rejection is low (i.e., < -0.43), and decreased more in conduct problems when peer acceptance is high (i.e., > 0.33). Taken together, our findings did not support SPS as a more proximal correlate of individual differences in susceptibility compared to NE. A combination of different processes (e.g., genetic, physiological, and phenotypical) may be at play, and research that simultaneously investigates different levels of differential susceptibility makers may be needed to better unravel mechanisms underpinning differential susceptibility to caregivers and peers in Chinese children.

Authors

• Danni Liu, Universiteit Utrecht
  Presenting Author

• Anouk van Dijk, Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)

• Maja Deković, Utrecht University

• Judith Semon Dubas, Utrecht University