Integrating Biobehavioral and Environmental Components of Developmental Psychopathology via Interpersonal Dynamics: An RDoC-Advancing Model

Abstract

Although the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDoC) framework proposes biological and environmental mechanisms intersect in the etiology of psychopathology, there is no guidance on how to define or measure experiences in the environment within the RDoC matrix. Interpersonal dynamics during caregiver–child interactions involve temporal coordination of interacting partners’ biobehavioral functioning; repeated experiences of signaling to caregivers and responding to caregivers’ signals shape children’s subsequent socioemotional and brain development. We begin with a review of the extant literature on caregiver-child dynamics, which reveals that RDoC’s units of analysis (brain circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-report) are inextricably linked with moment-to-moment changes in the caregiving environment. We then offer a proof-of-concept for integrating biobehavioral RDoC units and environmental components via caregiver-child dynamics. Our approach uses dynamic structural equation models to estimate within-dyad dynamics involving arousal, social, cognitive, and negative or positive affective processes based on second-by-second changes in parasympathetic activity (RSA) during a conflict discussion and a positive event-planning task. Our results illustrate variation in parent–child RSA synchrony, suggesting differences depending on the driver (i.e., child- or parent-led) and on the unique and intersecting domains involved (e.g., positive or negative affect valence systems). We conclude with recommendations for conducting robust, methodologically rigorous studies of interpersonal dynamics that advance the RDoC framework and provide a summary of the clinical implications of this research. Examining caregiver-child dynamics during and across multiple dyadic interaction paradigms that differentially elicit key domains of functioning can deepen understanding of how caregiver- and child-led interpersonal dynamics contribute to child psychopathology risk.

Current perspectives on perinatal mental health and neurobehavioral development: focus on regulation, coregulation and self-regulation

“…The assumption that distinct constellations of symptoms in each (predefined by diagnostic systems) disorder may have specific etiological and genetic underpinnings have not been met. Defining transdiagnostic risk factors (and assessment tools) is seen as an alternative strategy [60] that emphasizes the use of developmentally-sensitive measures [58, [183][184][185][186]. There is heterogeneity in self-report scales and diagnostic instruments used, self-report scales are not necessarily socio-culturally informed [187,188], and cut-offs may differ across studies in ways that are problematic [189] and which lead some authors to argue that we are 'overpathologizing' motherhood [216].…”

“…"Through repeated experiences, caregiver-child dynamics shape the evolving dyadic relationship and the future individual development of both members of the dyad" [185], p. 2.…”

“…Recent review papers, summarizing studies in which parent and child are each measured separately (i.e., not simultaneously in a dyadic approach), have highlighted the importance of parents' own emotional and stress regulation (induced by e.g., anxiety or depression, parental conflict, unsafe environment) when interacting with the child, and describe its impact on parenting and child self-regulation [213][214][215]. However, a dyadic approach to study the transactional parent-child relation -also named 'parent-infant synchrony' or 'caregiver-child interpersonal dynamics' [185] is more relevant than observing parent and child separately.…”

“…Dyadic measures may, for example, reveal atypical patterns of emotion regulation [220]. The influence of parental dysregulation on infant biomarkers -and vice versa -may reveal information for intervention [183,185,213,221,222], such as parent training and neurofeedback procedures [217], and teaching parents to sooth infants and promote their sleep, adapted to parent-infants pairs with different susceptibility. Stress reduction restores parentinfant connectedness and parental competence and self-esteem, which is seen as a first, important step in learning how to coregulate with their infant [37]; this biology embedded aspect is not enough taken into account in more cognitive oriented therapies and may explain why effect sizes are small, e.g., in intervention studies.…”