How does reactivity to frustrative non-reward increase risk for externalizing symptoms?

Abstract

Frustration is a normative affective response with adaptive value in motivating behavior. However, excessive anger in response to frustration characterizes multiple forms of externalizing psychopathology. How a given trait subserves both normative and pathological behavioral profiles is not entirely clear. One hypothesis is that the magnitude of response to frustration differentiates normative versus maladaptive reactivity. Disproportionate increases in arousal in response to frustration may exceed normal regulatory capacity, thus precipitating aggressive or antisocial responses. Alternatively, pathology may arise when reactivity to frustration interferes with other cognitive systems, impairing the individual’s ability to respond to frustration adaptively. In this paper we examine these two hypotheses in a sample of kindergarten children. First we examine whether children with conduct problems (CP; n = 105) are differentiated from comparison children (n = 135) with regard to magnitude of autonomic reactivity (cardiac and electrodermal) across a task that includes a frustrative non-reward block flanked by two reward blocks. Second we examine whether cognitive processing, as reflected by magnitude of the P3b brain response, is disrupted in the context of frustrative non-reward. Results indicate no differences in skin conductance, but a greater increase in heart rate during the frustration block among children in the CP group. Additionally, the CP group was characterized by a pronounced decrement in P3b amplitude during the frustration condition compared with both reward conditions. No interaction between cardiac and P3b measures was observed, suggesting that each system independently reflects a greater sensitivity to frustration in association with externalizing symptom severity.

Disruptive Mood Dysregulation Disorder (DMDD): An RDoC perspective

“…Of note, children with BD exhibited frustration-induced arousal similar to the SMD group suggesting that this response may not be specific to chronic irritability. This is further supported by physiological studies showing that children with conduct (Gatzke-Kopp, Willner et al, 2015; Wang, Guo, You, & Gao, 2007) and other externalizing (Woltering et al, 2016) problems exhibit increased heart rate during frustration, as compared to healthy controls. Thus, children with clinically significant irritability may be particularly vulnerable to feelings of frustration; given the frequency with which frustration is encountered in our daily lives, this would likely lead to increased temper outbursts and significant functional impairment.…”

“…When a child anticipates a reward and the reward is omitted, a negative affective state ensues (i.e. “frustration”) and typically manifests in the form of aggression (Gatzke-Kopp, Willner, Jetha, Abenavoli, DePuis, & Segalowitz, 2015). The aggressive reaction, such as a temper tantrum, encompasses changes in affective arousal, cognitive control, physiology, and dopaminergic processes (Hubbard et al, 2002; Schoemaker, Mulder, Dekovic, & Matthys, 2013; Deveney et al, 2013; Kreibig, 2010).…”

The anger incentive delay task: A novel method for studying anger in neuroscience research

“…Some other recent studies have reported that P3b amplitudes are larger following unanticipated nonreward feedback than following anticipated reward feedback (Gatzke‐Kopp et al, ; Rich et al, ). The present research extended these findings, showing that increases in P3b amplitude occur for inconsistent outcomes that are frustrating and nonfrustrating (but instead pleasantly surprising).…”

“…In each study, anger was produced by including blocks of trials that yielded an increased proportion of nonreward or loss feedback relative to preceding blocks. Participants reported greater frustration on these blocks of trials (Rich et al, 2007) and had larger P3b amplitudes for frustrating outcomes than for nonfrustrating outcomes (Gatzke-Kopp et al, 2015;Rich et al, 2007Rich et al, , 2005. Despite these promising results, these methods have limitations and interpretive caveats.…”

Psychophysiological science and the research domain criteria: A commentary

“…It should be noted that RDoC-informed research may use between-groups analyses, but the groupings should be based on the presence of naturally-occurring discontinuities or ‘tipping points’ that are discovered by studying the full range of variation in the construct of interest. Gatzke-Kopp and colleagues (2015 - this issue) provide an example of hierarchical analyses examining relationships among differing behavioral and physiological measures, leading to integrative conclusions regarding the autonomic and cognitive responses to frustration associated with conduct problems in children. Shankman and Gorka (2015 - this issue) highlight a distinct analytic and interpretive complication inherent to developmental hypotheses, namely: Are RDoC constructs predictors of change in symptoms over time, or static markers of current pathology?…”