Caregiving adversity during infancy and preschool cognitive function: adaptations to context?

Abstract

From a conditional adaptation vantage point, early life caregiving adversity likely enhances aspects of cognition needed to manage interpersonal threats. Yet, research examining early life care and offspring cognition predominantly relies upon experiments including affectively neutral stimuli, with findings generally interpreted as “early-life caregiving adversity is, de facto, ‘bad’ for cognitive performance.” Here, in a Southeast Asian sample, we examined observed maternal sensitivity in infancy and cognitive performance 3 years later as preschoolers took part in three tasks, each involving both a socioemotional (SE) and non-socioemotional (NSE) version: relational memory (n = 236), cognitive flexibility (n = 203), and inhibitory control (n = 255). Results indicate the relation between early life caregiving adversity and memory performance significantly differs (Wald test = 7.67, (1), P = 0.006) depending on the SE versus NSE context, with maternal sensitivity in infancy highly predictive of worse memory for SE stimuli, and amongst girls, also predictive of better memory when NSE stimuli are used. Results concerning inhibitory control, as well as cognitive flexibility in girls, also tentatively suggest the importance of considering the SE nature of stimuli when assessing relations between the caregiving environment and cognitive performance. As not all approaches to missing data yielded similar results, implications for statistical approaches are elaborated. We conclude by considering how an adaptation-to-context framework approach may aid in designing pedagogical strategies and well-being interventions that harness pre-existing cognitive strengths.

Hidden talents in context: Cognitive performance with abstract versus ecological stimuli among adversity‐exposed youth

“…There were no associations between violence exposures and reasoning performance. Overall, this study suggests that ecologically relevant testing materials may, in some conditions, “level the playing field” for adversity‐exposed youth (Ellis et al, 2020; Frankenhuis, Young, et al, 2020; Rifkin‐Graboi et al, 2021; VanTassel‐Baska, 2018).…”

What is the expected human childhood? Insights from evolutionary anthropology

“…This point has been repeatedly made in psychology journals (e.g., Keller et al, 2018;Rogoff et al, 2017;Sternberg, 2014), and has been the focus of work by evolutionary developmental psychologists (e.g., Barrett, 2020;Bjorklund & Ellis, 2014;Geary & Berch, 2016;House et al, 2013;Legare, 2019). Reaching out from the other side of the bridge, clinical psychologists have connected their work with that of biological anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists (e.g., Callaghan & Tottenham, 2016;Ganz, 2018;Richardson et al, 2019;Rifkin-Graboi et al, 2021;Tooley et al, 2021). Particularly relevant is a recent paper by Humphreys and Salo (2020), which argues that developmental and clinical psychologists need to empirically update their notions of the expected human childhood in a way that better aligns with the high and variable levels of adversity documented in the historical and cross-cultural record.…”

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) associated with reduced cognitive flexibility in both college and community samples

“…This finding is consistent with the observation that not all aspects of cognitive flexibility are negatively impacted by exposure to ELA. Some researchers have suggested that experiencing ELA may provide individuals with some cognitive benefits [ 68 , 71 ], including improved detection of dangers. Considering the limited amount of research on this topic, future research should consider examining associations between ACEs and cognitive benefits.…”