Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
The diathesis-stress model is a theory that explains behavior as a predispositional vulnerability combined with stresses from life experience. Abnormal behavior can be viewed as a combination of two types of factors, diathesis and stress. Diathesis includes any previous biological and genetic factors that predispose an individual towards developing a disorder (Butcher, J., Mineka, S., Hooley, J., 2004). Grant and Mcmahon suggest that stress can be considered “any environmental circumstances or conditions that threaten, challenge, exceed or harm the psychological or biological capacities of the individual” (2005, p. 3). The terms vulnerability and resilience are associated with the diathesis-stress model, the more vulnerable and less biologically resilient an individual is to a particular psychological disorder, the lower the amount of stress it would require to cause symptoms to be exhibited. On the other hand, if the individual has high resilience and low biological vulnerability, it would require extreme amounts of stress to trigger symptoms of that disorder. The diathesis-stress model can be used to help us understand the environmental, biological and socio-emotional factors that influence the developing brain. We traditionally have used two evolutionary-inspired theoretical arguments to inform our thoughts on biological and environmental impacts on brain development, biologicalsensitivity-to-context thesis and differential-susceptibility hypothesis. The former focused on the role of nature in shaping individual differences in plasticity, without excluding the role of nurture, and the latter has emphasized nurture, without excluding nature (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Dean argued that you can seldom say with certainty that a disorder is “brain-based” or “environmental” in practice, because these descriptors should be seen as the endpoints of an interactive continuum, not as an either–or dichotomy (as cited in Hale, J.B and Fiorello, C.A, 2004). We now prefer to think of the roles of nature and nurture as both being integral and defining in terms of brain development, with no particular favorable influence being more or less important. There are also what psychologists call ‘protective factors”, which modify a person’s response to environmental stressors, making it less likely that the individual will experience the adverse consequences of the stressors. Protective factors can be both positive and negative experiences and both act to promote a sense of self-esteem and therefore a better ability to cope with external stressors (Mineka and Hooley, 2004). An example of a positive protective factor in childhood is having a family environment in which at least one parent is warm and supportive, allowing the development of a good attachment relationship between child and parent (Masten & Coatsworth, 1998). An example of a negative protective factor would be the successful coping of a stressful situation(s) at a young age that allow children to become more resilient to similar stressors later in life. This “steeling” or “inoculation” effect is more likely to occur with moderate stressors than with mild or extreme stressors (Butcher et al., 2004). I want to focus on a particular environmental stressor that is well known in the field of education for having a largely adverse impact on healthy brain development, and is a constant topic in the analysis of diathesis-stress, which is growing up in a low socioeconomic setting. Shoeman (2007) cites numerous studies that have investigated the differences between the performances of high and low socio-economic status (SES) children on various neuropsychological tests, including those assessing cognitive styles and problem- solving skills, phonological sensitivity, classification and recall, and general academic achievement. Results from these studies are consistent in showing that high SES children perform better than low SES children, even when IQ is statistically controlled (Shoeman, 2007). There is also a lot of conflicting research, such as the studies done by Rosellis and Ardila (2003) that suggest that children of parents with low levels of education and low SES cannot be assumed to be somehow deprived of knowledge or skills; it is more accurate to assume that they have just developed different types of learning than people with higher levels of education. I bring up these two points because it is important to understand that there is almost always going to be varying and often opposing evidence when it comes to the importance that environmental factors have on brain development. The ambiguity inherent in assessing environmental stressors and their causal effects is one of the most difficult aspects of applying the diathesis-stress model to our understanding of brain development. The difference between what is deemed a mild, moderate or extreme stressor’s is never going to be invariable, nor will it ever be objective. It is completely dependent on the individual and the countless other biological and environmental variables that factor into whether the stressor will be turned into a protective factor, that could build resilience, or whether the stressor will be enough to trigger diathesis and cause the development of a disorder. This makes for almost zero predictability of stressors as triggers in the diathesis-stress model and makes me question the use of it as a tool in understanding brain development. References Belsky, J., & Pluess. M. (2009) Beyond Diathesis Stress: Differential Susceptibility to Environmental Influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6). 885-908 doi: 10.1037/a0017376 Butcher, J.N., Mineka, S., Hooley, J.M., (2004). Abnormal Psychology (12th ed.) Retrieved from http://www.scribd.com/doc/11482181/005-chapter-3-causalfactors-and-viewpoints0001 Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A., (2004). School Neuropsychology: A Practitioner’s Handbook. (p. 246). New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Grant, K.E & Mcmahon, S.D., (2005). Conceptualizing the Role of Stressors in the Development of Psychopathology. In B.L Hankin and J. R. Z. Abela’s (Eds.), Development of Psychopathology: A Vulnerability-Stress Perspective. Retrieved from http://books.google.ca/books?id=1Fd0LneB724C&lpg=PR7&ots=b90ZsadHn&dq=Development+of+Psychopathology:+A+vulnerability+stress+perspective&l r=&pg=PR7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Development%20of%20Psychopatholo gy%3A%20A%20vulnerability%20stress%20perspective&f=false Shoeman, F., (2007). Neuropsychological Performance of Low Socio-Economic Status South African Children. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://www.psychology.uct.ac.za/postgraduate/Hons2007Projects/Fransien.Schoe man.pdf