Biological sensitivity to context moderates the effects of the early teacher–child relationship on the development of mental health by adolescence

Abstract

The moderating effects of biological sensitivity to context (physiological and behavioral stress reactivity) on the association between the early teacher-child relationship and the development of adolescent mental health problems were examined in a community sample of 96 children. Grade 1 measures of biological sensitivity to context included physiological (i.e., slope of mean arterial pressure across a 20-30 min stress protocol) and behavioral (i.e., temperamental inhibition/ disinhibition) markers. Grade 1 measures of the teacher-child relationship included positive (i.e., closeness) and negative (i.e., conflict) qualities. Mental health symptoms were assessed at Grades 1 and 7. Results of a multiple regression analysis indicated substantial association of the teacherchild relationship with the development of adolescent mental health symptoms, especially for more reactive children. In addition to teacher-child relationship main effects, all four reactivity × teacher-child relationship interaction terms were statistically significant when controlling for Grade 1 symptom severity, suggesting that both physiological and behavioral reactivity moderate the association of both adverse and supportive aspects of the teacher-child relationship with Grade 7 symptom severity over and above Grade 1 severity. There were important differences depending on which stress reactivity measure was considered. The importance of these findings for recent theoretical arguments regarding biological sensitivity to context and differential susceptibility is discussed.

The Stress Response and Adolescents’ Adjustment: The Impact of Child Maltreatment

“…When youth show heightened stress responses in the context of a non-supportive, maltreating environment, the consequences on emotion regulation may be negative with youth being less able to control emotion. This explanation is consistent with Ellis’s and Boyce’s theory, as well as empirical work that finds heightened reactivity to be only be a risk factor for maladjustment in adverse environments (Essex et al 2011; Obradovic et al 2010). Our findings were suggestive of this pattern but, contrary to expectations, significant associations only emerged for the relationship between heightened reactivity and anger regulation.…”

Allostasis model facilitates understanding race differences in the diurnal cortisol rhythm

“…Individuals with a high BSC with very little stressor exposure are theorized to have better than average mental health (i.e., for better and for worse, Ellis, Boyce, Belsky, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van Ijzendoorn, 2011; Knafo, Israel, & Ebstein, 2011). There is some empirical support that high cortisol can culminate in better outcomes than expected (Essex, Armstrong, Burk, Goldsmith, & Boyce, 2011; Cicchetti & Rogosch, 2007; Gunnar, Tout, de Haan, Pierce, & Stansbury, 1997; Obradovic et al, 2011; Sethre-Hofstad, Stansbury, & Rice, 2002). These protective benefits may deteriorate quickly toward more typical levels as individuals become more hardy.…”

The Adaptive Calibration Model of stress responsivity

“…Under conditions of adversity, such children sustain higher rates of disease, behavioral problems, and injuries than their more normatively reactive peers. By contrast, such highly responsive children in low-stress, protective social environments experience substantially lower rates of physical and mental health problems than their less reactive counterparts (Boyce, 1996; Boyce et al, 1995b; Bubier et al, 2009; Ellis et al, 2011b; Essex et al, 2011; Obradović et al, 2010, 2011; Quas et al, 2004). BSC theory therefore posits that individual differences in the magnitude of biological stress responses function to regulate openness or susceptibility to environmental influences, ranging from harmful to protective.…”