The Role of Autonomic System Coordination in Relations Between Peer Factors and Aggressive Behavior in Early Childhood.

• In Event: Multisystem Stress Activity and Subtypes of Aggression in Three Developmental Periods.

Abstract

Biological sensitivity to context (BSC) theory hypothesizes that children who are sensitive to the environment are sensitive to both positive and negative aspects of the environment. The current study tested whether prospective associations between peer treatment (physical and relational victimization; prosocial behavior) and relational and physical aggression were moderated by autonomic nervous systems (ANS) coordination. ANS coordination was operationalized as interactions between Skin Conductance Level-Reactivity (SCL-R) and Respiratory Sinus Arrythmia-Reactivity (RSA-R) to a bullying stressor. Previous research has found that a reciprocal sympathetic profile (i.e., increase in SCL-R and RSA withdrawal to a bullying stressor) may be indicative of a physiological sensitivity profile and therefore, it was hypothesized that there would be a stronger positive relation between the peer victimization and subsequent aggressive behavior and a stronger negative relation between received prosocial behavior and subsequent aggressive behavior for children displaying a reciprocal sympathetic profile.

SCL-R and RSA-R to a peer stressor were collected for participants (N = 86; M age = 45.99 months old; 70.2% White) in the summer (Time 1). Children’s experiences of negative (i.e., physical victimization and relational victimization) and positive (i.e., received prosocial behavior) peer treatment were examined in the fall (T2) and relational and physical aggression were measured at T2 and in the spring (T3) using teacher report. Two and three-way interactions were tested in regression analyses in Mplus 8.7. Aggression, gender, and age at T2 were controlled.

Model fit was acceptable for all models. Interactions emerged between relational victimization, RSA-R, and SCL-R in the prediction of T3 relational aggression (b = 1.26, SE = .58, p = .03; see Figure 1) and between received prosocial behavior, RSA-R, and SCL-R in the prediction of T3 relational (b = 1.69, SE = .61, p = .006; see Figure 2a) and physical aggression (b = 0.80, SE = .36, p = .03; see Figure 2b), respectively. Effect sizes were small to medium. There was a positive relation between T2 relational victimization and T3 relational aggression for children who demonstrated a coactivation profile (i.e., increased RSA and SCL activity) but no relation for any other physiological profile. Conversely, there was a negative relation between T2 received prosocial behavior and both forms of aggression at T3 for children who demonstrated a reciprocal profile (i.e., increased RSA and decreased SCL activity or decreased RSA and increased SCL activity) but no protective benefit of received prosocial behavior on subsequent aggression for children with a coactivation profile. For children with a coinhibition profile (i.e., decreased RSA and SCL activity), received prosocial behavior was negatively related to subsequent physical but not relational aggression.

Overall, these findings support the conceptualization of a coactivation profile as a vulnerability factor and reciprocal profiles as a protective factor, with mixed findings for a coinhibition profile, consistent with prior conceptualizations. Additionally, this study underscores the importance of evaluating both risk and protective factors when testing BSC theory and the power of the peer context in early childhood.

Authors

• Kristin Perry, Pennsylvania State University, University Park
  Presenting Author

• Jamie M. Ostrov, State University of New York at Buffalo (SUNY Buffalo)

• Dianna Murray-Close, University of Vermont