Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and subclinical symptoms of hyperactivity-impulsivity and inattentiveness coincide with an increased risk of peer victimization. What remains unclear are the developmental dynamics of these associations. In a sample drawn from two Norwegian birth cohorts (n = 872; 49.94 % girls), assessed biennially from age 6 to age 14, reciprocal relations between ADHD symptoms and victimization were examined while controlling for symptoms of anxiety and depression. ADHD symptoms were assessed through clinical interviews with parents, whereas victimization was reported by teachers using questionnaires. Random-intercept cross-lagged panel modeling revealed a consistent reciprocal within-person effect of increased ADHD symptoms on victimization, and vice versa. Analyses of subdimensions of ADHD projected a consistent cross-lagged bidirectional relationship between victimization and inattentiveness symptoms only, whereas no such reciprocity was found for hyperactivity-impulsivity symptoms. Results did not differ by gender. Findings suggest that the social context may constitute a vulnerability factor in the etiology of the inattentive subtype of ADHD, and at the same time, that inattentiveness symptoms pose a risk for becoming victimized.

Two perspectives on the nature of nurture are reviewed, one Mendelian and the other Darwinian, in an effort to draw links between the two and, thereby, integrate them in a developmental modern synthesis, mirroring the one that took place in biology early in the last century. Thus, the heritability of environmental measures and gene-X-environment interaction are discussed with respect to Mendelian nature before turning attention to Darwinian nature and thus the development of reproductive strategies and differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Conclusions are drawn with respect to both frameworks indicating that it is time to abandon the biology-is-destiny resistance to both approaches to studying and thinking about development, especially when it comes to the nature of nurture. Implications for the future development of the field of developmental psychopathology are highlighted.

The aim of this study was to use longitudinal population-based data to examine the associations between childhood sexual abuse (CSA) and risk for adverse outcomes in multiple life domains across adulthood. In 937 individuals followed from birth to age 45y, we assessed associations between CSA (retrospectively reported at age 26y) and the experience of 22 adverse outcomes in seven domains (physical, mental, sexual, interpersonal, economic, antisocial, multi-domain) from young adulthood to midlife (26 to 45y). Analyses controlled for sex, socioeconomic status, prospectively reported child harm and household dysfunction adverse childhood experiences, and adult sexual assault, and considered different definitions of CSA. After adjusting for confounders, CSA survivors were more likely than their peers to experience internalizing, externalizing, and thought disorders, suicide attempts, health risk behaviors, systemic inflammation, poor oral health, sexually transmitted diseases, high-conflict relationships, benefit use, financial difficulties, antisocial behavior, and cumulative problems across multiple domains in adulthood. In sum, CSA was associated with multiple persistent problems across adulthood, even after adjusting for confounding life stressors, and the risk for particular problems incremented with CSA severity. The higher risk for most specific problems was small to moderate, but the cumulative long-term effects across multiple domains reflect considerable individual and societal burden.

Drawing on data from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth Cohort (n = 10,700), we evaluate indirect effects − via parent negative psychology and harsh-inconsistent parenting − of income harshness, unpredictability, and their interaction on kindergarteners’ socioemotional development. Income harshness is operationalized as the typical level of family income-to-needs across four repeated measurements from 9 months to kindergarten and unpredictability as random variation across the same repeated measurements. Results indicate that the effects of greater income harshness and the harshness-X-unpredictability interaction (reflecting more predictable income harshness) on more “problematic” child behavior operated via both parent negative psychology (i.e., greater psychological stress) and harsh-inconsistent parenting. Results underscore the utility of simultaneously investigating effects of income harshness and unpredictability, as well as their interaction and mechanisms of influence.

Two extant frameworks – the harshness-unpredictability model and the threat-deprivation model – attempt to explain which dimensions of adversity have distinct influences on development. These models address, respectively, why, based on a history of natural selection, development operates the way it does across a range of environmental contexts, and how the neural mechanisms that underlie plasticity and learning in response to environmental experiences influence brain development. Building on these frameworks, we advance an integrated model of dimensions of environmental experience, focusing on threat-based forms of harshness, deprivation-based forms of harshness, and environmental unpredictability. This integrated model makes clear that the why and the how of development are inextricable and, together, essential to understanding which dimensions of the environment matter. Core integrative concepts include the directedness of learning, multiple levels of developmental adaptation to the environment, and tradeoffs between adaptive and maladaptive developmental responses to adversity. The integrated model proposes that proximal and distal cues to threat-based and deprivation-based forms of harshness, as well as unpredictability in those cues, calibrate development to both immediate rearing environments and broader ecological contexts, current and future. We highlight actionable directions for research needed to investigate the integrated model and advance understanding of dimensions of environmental experience.

Recent dimensional models of adversity informed by a neurobiological deficit framework highlights threat and deprivation as core dimensions, whereas models informed by an evolutionary, adaptational and functional framework calls attention to harshness and unpredictability. This report seeks to evaluate an integrative model of threat, deprivation, and unpredictability, drawing on the Fragile Families Study. Confirmatory factor analysis of presumed multiple indicators of each construct reveals an adequate three-factor structure of adversity. Theory-based targeted predictions of the developmental sequelae of each dimension also received empirical support, with deprivation linked to health problems and cognitive ability; threat linked to aggression; and unpredictability to substance use and sexual risk-taking. These findings lend credibility to utility of the three-dimensional integrative framework of adversity. It could thus inform development of dimensional measures of risk assessment and exploration of multidimensional adversity profiles, sensitive to individual differences in lived experiences, supporting patient-centered, strength-based approaches to services.

This study focused on generality versus specificity of susceptibility of effects of eight family and child-care exposures measured between 3 and 54 months of age (e.g., sensitive parenting, child-care quality) on five child development outcomes assessed at age 4.5 years (e.g. behavior problems, preacademic skill), using data from The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (n = 1,364, boys = 705; White = 1,097, Black = 176, other = 91), while applying a novel influence-statistics method. Results indicated that susceptibility across the environment-predictor:child-outcome associations is normally rather than bimodally (i.e., orchid–dandelion) distributed. Analysis of susceptibility documents both domain generality and specificity of developmental plasticity, with effect sizes proving small in the former case. As predicted, children who as infants had difficult temperaments or who scored higher on a polygenic-plasticity score (serotonin-transporter-linked promoter region [5-HTTLPR], dopamine receptor D4 [DRD4], brain-derived neurotrophic factor [BDNF]) proved somewhat more susceptible to some of the environmental effects investigated. Results lead to the recommendation that two-types-of-individuals vis-a-vis susceptibility to environmental influences be questioned and general-trait conceptions of susceptibility be further investigated.

Differential susceptibility theory stipulates that individuals vary in their susceptibility to environmental effects, often implying that the same individuals differ in the same way in their susceptibility to different environmental exposures. The latter point is addressed herein by evaluating the extent to which early-life harshness and unpredictability affect mother's psychological well-being and parenting, as well as their adolescent's life-history strategy, as reflected in number of sexual partners by age 15 years, drawing on data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Results indicated that mothers whose well-being and parenting proved more susceptible to harshness also proved somewhat more susceptible to environmental unpredictability, with the same being true of adolescent sexual behavior. Nevertheless, findings caution against overgeneralizing sample-level findings to all individuals.

Differential susceptibility theory stipulates that some children are more susceptible than others to both supportive and adverse developmental experiences/exposures. What remains unclear is whether the same individuals are most affected by different exposures (i.e., domain general vs. specific). We address this issue empirically for the first time using, for illustrative and proof-of-principle purposes, a novel influence-statistics’ method with data from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care. Results indicated that previously documented effects of greater quality of care on enhanced pre-academic skills and greater quantity of care on more behavior problems apply mostly to different children. Analyses validating the new method indicated, as predicted, that (a) the quantity-of-care effect applied principally to children from more socioeconomically advantaged families and that (b) being highly susceptible to both, one or neither childcare effect varied as a function of a three-gene, polygenic-plasticity score (serotonin transporter linked polymorphic region [5-HTTLPR], dopamine receptor D4 [DRD4], brain-derived neurotrophic factor [BDNF]) in a dose–response manner (i.e., 2>1>0). While domain-specific findings involving child-care effects cannot be generalized to other environmental influences, the influence-statistics’ approach appears well suited for investigating the generality–specificity of environment effects, that is, of “differential, differential susceptibility.”

Here we evaluate whether infant difficult temperament (6 months) functions as a vulnerability or more general plasticity factor when investigating effects of early-childhood parenting (8–42 months) on both positive and negative early-adolescent socioemotional development (age 8–11 years). Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N = 14,541) and a re-parameterized model-testing approach to distinguish alternative person × environment conceptual models, results indicated that temperament × parenting interacted in predicting externalizing (i.e., hyperactivity, conduct problems), but not other behavior (i.e., emotional symptoms, peer problems), in a (weak) differential susceptibility manner. While more and less supportive parenting predicted, respectively, fewer and more behavior problems, it did so more strongly for children who were more difficult as infants.

Some Gene × Environment interaction (G×E) research has focused upon single candidate genes, whereas other related work has targeted multiple genes (e.g., polygenic scores). Each approach has informed efforts to identify individuals who are either especially vulnerable to the negative effects of contextual adversity (diathesis stress) or especially susceptible to both positive and negative contextual conditions (differential susceptibility). A critical step in all such molecular G×E research is the selection of genetic variants thought to moderate environmental influences, a subject that has not received a great deal of attention in critiques of G×E research (beyond the observation of small effects of individual genes). Here we conceptually distinguish three phases of G×E work based on the selection of genes presumed to moderate environmental effects and the theoretical basis of such decisions: (a) single candidate genes, (b) composited (multiple) candidate genes, and (c) GWAS-derived polygenic scores. This illustrative, not exhaustive, review makes it clear that implicit or explicit theoretical assumptions inform gene selection in ways that have not been clearly articulated or fully appreciated.

Gangestad & Simpson's central premise regarding individual differences is applied to their facultative-argument based on mating- strategy, for individual differences in susceptibility to contextual effects. Some individuals may be relatively fixed strategists who are rather unresponsive to context when it comes to mating, whereas others, perhaps most, may be, as G&S propose, flexible strategists.

Currently, two main approaches exist to distinguish differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress and vantage sensitivity in Genotype × Environment interaction (G × E) research: regions of significance (RoS) and competitive-confirmatory approaches. Each is limited by its single-gene/single-environment foci given that most phenotypes are the product of multiple interacting genetic and environmental factors. We thus addressed these two concerns in a recently developed R package (LEGIT) for constructing G × E interaction models with latent genetic and environmental scores using alternating optimization. Herein we test, by means of computer simulation, diverse G × E models in the context of both single and multiple genes and environments. Results indicate that the RoS and competitive-confirmatory approaches were highly accurate when the sample size was large, whereas the latter performed better in small samples and for small effect sizes. The competitive-confirmatory approach generally had good accuracy (a) when effect size was moderate and N ≥ 500 and (b) when effect size was large and N ≥ 250, whereas RoS performed poorly. Computational tools to determine the type of G × E of multiple genes and environments are provided as extensions in our LEGIT R package.

A recent article in this journal reported a number of gene × environment interactions involving a serotonin transporter–gene network polygenic score and a composite index of prenatal adversity predicting several problem behavior outcomes at 48 months (e.g., anxious/depressed, pervasive developmental problems) and at 60 months (e.g., withdrawal, internalizing problems), yet did not illuminate the nature or form these genetic × environment interactions took. Here we report results of six additional analyses to evaluate whether these interactions reflected diathesis–stress or differential–susceptibility related processes. Analyses of the regions of significance and proportion of interaction index are consistent with the diathesis–stress model, seemingly because of the truncated nature of the adversity score (which did not extend to supportive/positive prenatal experiences/exposures); in contrast, the proportion (of cases) affected index favors the differential–susceptibility model. These results suggest the need for future studies to extend measurement of the prenatal environment to highly supportive experiences and exposures.

Two sets of evidence reviewed herein, one indicating that prenatal stress is associated with elevated behavioral and physiological dysregulation and the other that such phenotypic functioning is itself associated with heightened susceptibility to positive and negative environmental influences postnatally, raises the intriguing hypothesis first advanced by Pluess and Belsky (2011) that prenatal stress fosters, promotes, or “programs” postnatal developmental plasticity. Here we review further evidence consistent with this proposition, including new experimental research systematically manipulating both prenatal stress and postnatal rearing. Collectively this work would seem to explain why prenatal stress has so consistently been linked to problematic development: stresses encountered prenatally are likely to continue postnatally, thereby adversely affecting the development of children programmed (by prenatal stress) to be especially susceptible to environmental effects. Less investigated are the potential benefits prenatal stress may promote, due to increased plasticity, when the postnatal environment proves to be favorable. Future directions of research pertaining to potential mechanisms instantiating postnatal plasticity and moderators of such prenatal-programming effects are outlined.

To illuminate which features of an unpredictable environment early in life best forecast adolescent and adult functioning, data from two longitudinal studies were examined. After decomposing a composite unpredictability construct found to predict later development, results of both studies revealed that paternal transitions predicted outcomes more consistently and strongly than did residential or occupational changes across the first 5 years of a child's life. These results derive from analyses of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, which included diverse families from 10 different sites in the United States, and from the Minnesota Longitudinal Study of Risk and Adaptation, whose participants came from one site, were disproportionately economically disadvantaged, and were enrolled 15 years earlier than the NICHD Study sample. The finding that results from both studies are consistent with evolutionary, life history thinking regarding the importance of males in children's lives makes this general, cross-study replication noteworthy.

A wealth of evidence documents associations between various aspects of the rearing environment and later development. Two evolutionary-inspired models advance explanations for why and how such early experiences shape later functioning: (a) the external-prediction model, which highlights the role of the early environment (e.g., parenting) in regulating children's development, and (b) the internal-prediction model, which emphasizes internal state (i.e., health) as the critical regulator. Thus, by using data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, the current project draws from both models by investigating whether the effect of the early environment on later adolescent functioning is subject to an indirect effect by internal-health variables. Results showed a significant indirect effect of internal health on the relation between the early environment and adolescent behavior. Specifically, early environmental adversity during the first 5 years of life predicted lower quality health during childhood, which then led to problematic adolescent functioning and earlier age of menarche for girls. In addition, for girls, early adversity predicted lower quality health that forecasted earlier age of menarche leading to increased adolescent risk taking. The discussion highlights the importance of integrating both internal and external models to further understand the developmental processes that effect adolescent behavior.

Two independent lines of inquiry suggest that growing up under conditions of contextual adversity (e.g., poverty and household chaos) accelerates aging and undermines long-term health. Whereas work addressing the developmental origins of health and disease highlights accelerated-aging effects of contextual adversity on telomere erosion, that informed by an evolutionary analysis of reproductive strategies highlights such effects with regard to pubertal development (in females). That both shorter telomeres early in life and earlier age of menarche are associated with poor health later in life raises the prospect, consistent with evolutionary life-history theory, that these two bodies of theory and research are tapping into the same evolutionary–developmental process whereby longer term health costs are traded off for increased probability of reproducing before dying via a process of accelerated aging. Here we make the case for such a claim, while highlighting biological processes responsible for these effects, as well as unknowns in the epigenetic equation that might instantiate these contextually regulated developmental processes.