Family Functioning and Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability Interactively Predict Children’s Externalizing Problems

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2126737/v1

Download PDF

Research Article

Family Functioning and Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability Interactively Predict Children’s Externalizing Problems

https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2126737/v1

This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License

Journal Publication

published 07 Apr, 2023

Read the published version in Child Psychiatry & Human Development →

You are reading this latest preprint version

Intraindividual reaction time variability (IIV), which serves as an index of attentional control, was related to externalizing problems. However, it remains unknown whether children’s IIV interacts with family functioning, including family adaptability and cohesion, to predict their externalizing problems. The present study examined this concern. Participants included 168 (M = 7.35 years, SD = .48; 48% boys) and 155 (M = 8.32 years, SD = .45; 49% boys) children at the first (T1) and second (after one year, T2) measurements, respectively. At T1, a flanker task was used to assess children’s IIV. Mothers reported the Chinese version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales and the Chinese version of the Child Behavior Checklist. At T2, mothers reported children’s externalizing problems again. Results indicated that family functioning negatively and IIV positively correlated with children’s externalizing problems. Furthermore, family functioning interacted with children’s IIV to predict their externalizing problems concurrently and longitudinally. Specifically, low family functioning combined with greater IIV predicted prospective externalizing problems. Findings suggested that better attentional control (indexed by low IIV) may buffer the negative effect of poor family functioning.

intraindividual reaction time variability

family functioning

externalizing problems

elementary school children

Externalizing problems include aggression, rule-breaking, and attentional problems during childhood (Achenbach & Edelbrock, 1978; Achenbach, 2001). Externalizing problems predict later maladaptive outcomes such as psychiatric disorders, academic underachievement and peer relationship difficulties (e.g., Campbell et al., 2010; Orpinas et al., 2015; Shaw, Hyde, & Brennan, 2012). Both family risk factors and individual vulnerabilities have been found to contribute to children’s externalizing problems. Previous studies have suggested that family risk factors such as family functioning is closely related to children’s externalizing problems (Coe, Davies, & Sturgeapple, 2018; Meyer et al., 2000; Richmond &Stocker, 2006). Individual vulnerabilities such as inefficient executive function and attention control are associated with children’s externalizing problems (Barkley, 1997; Belsky, Fearon, & Bell, 2010; Eisenberg et al., 2000, 2015; Liu et al., 2018; Schoemaker et al., 2013). Recently, trial-to-trial intraindividual reaction time variability (IIV), which not only characterizes the consistency of attentional control but also represents a prefrontal function (Kelly et al., 2008; MacDonald, Nyberg, & Bäckman, 2006; Tamm et al., 2012), was demonstrated to be related to children’s externalizing problems (Brunnekreef et al., 2007; Oosterlaan & Sergeant, 1996). Moreover, according to the person-environment interaction model (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2002; Lerner, 2002), an individual’s characteristics might interact with family environmental factors to contribute to children’s maladaptive functioning. However, it is unknown whether IIV would interact with family functioning to predict children’s externalizing problems. The present study thus explored this issue by using a two-wave longitudinal study design.

Family Functioning and Externalizing Problems

Numerous studies have examined the relationship between family processes (e.g., parental marital conflict, harsh parenting) and children’s adaptive or maladaptive outcomes (Erath et al., 2010; Gershoff, 2002; Zemp, Johnson, & Bodenmann, 2018). Besides the family process, family systems theories emphasize that it is crucial to consider the role of family functioning to understand children’s maladjustment fully (Cox & Paley, 1997; Richmond & Stocker, 2006). Family functioning refers to a family’s ability to perform the required functions and includes two key dimensions: family adaptability and family cohesion (Olson, Portner, & Bell, 1982; Shek, 2016). Family adaptability reflects a family’s ability to generate new solutions and change roles and responsibilities under situational or developmental stress (Olson et al., 1982). Family cohesion refers to family members’ emotional bonds share with one another (Olson et al., 1982). Low family adaptability and cohesion has been found to increase the risk of children’s externalizing problems (Baker, Seltzer, & Greenberg , 2011; Richmond & Stocker, 2006).

IIV and Externalizing Problems

Attentional control refers to the ability to engage attention on a specific goal in the presence of distractors (Engle & Kane, 2004). Attentional control plays a crucial role in childhood externalizing problems (Barkley, 1997; Belsky, Fearon, & Bell, 2010; Eisenberg et al., 2000, 2015; Kim & Deater-Deckard, 2011; Rothbart & Posner, 2015; Zhou et al., 2007). Empirical studies have found that poor attentional control was associated with externalizing problems among children (Barkley, 1997; Belsky et al., 2011; Kim & Deater-Deckard, 2011; Rothbart & Posner, 2015). Recently, IIV, which provides unique predictive information regarding attentional control, has attracted much attention.

IIV is defined as a short-term trial-to-trial intraindividual variation in reaction time during a cognitive assessment (Isbell et al., 2018; Unsworth, 2015; Williams, Thayer, & Koenigl, 2016) and has been regarded as a trait-like characteristic of an individual (Hultsch, et al., 2000). IIV has been thought to index attentional control fluctuations. In cognitive tasks, lower IIV reflects an efficient or consistent attentional control, while greater IIV reflects an inefficient or inconsistent attentional control (Johnson et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2009; Williams et al., 2016). Moreover, IIV has been regarded as an indicator representing prefrontal function, primarily relating to attentional and cognitive control (Bellgrove, Hester, & Garavan, 2004; Bielak & Anstey, 2019; Fassbender et al., 2015; Fassbender et al., 2014).

Greater IIV has been considered a potential indicator of psychological disorders, including externalizing problems among children (Kofler et al., 2013; MacDonald et al., 2009). For example, Brunnekreef and colleagues (2007) found that children with externalizing problems exhibited the greatest IIRTV during the sustained attention task. Zhang et al. (2021) found that children who exhibited greater IIRTV during the flanker task showed more externalizing problems than others. Peng and Wang (2021) have also found that greater IIRTV predicts the development of children’s externalizing problems. As previous studies suggested (e.g., Peng & Wang, 2021; Zhang et al., 2021), greater IIRTV might be the core feature of externalizing problems among children.

IIV, Family Functioning, and Externalizing Problems

The diathesis-stress model (Monroe & Simons, 1991), one of the person-environment interaction theories, proposes that children with vulnerabilities exhibit maladjustment in risk environments. In contrast, children with resilient or protective factors tend to develop well regardless of adverse environments. According to the diathesis-stress model, numerous studies have examined how individual characteristics and family environmental factors interact to predict externalizing problems among children and adolescents (Hinnant, Erath, & El-Sheikh, 2015; Lengua, 2008; Reuben et al., 2016). For example, previous studies have found that children’s effortful control interacted with family factors to predict their externalizing problems (Lengua, 2008; Reuben et al., 2016). Children’s poor parasympathetic nervous system function interacted with harsh parenting to predict their externalizing problems (Hinnant et al., 2015). In particular, a recent study found that parental marital quality predicted longitudinal externalizing problems only among children with greater IIRTV in a flanker task. In contrast, lower IIV buffered against the negative effect of poor parental marital quality (Peng & Wang, 2021).

As mentioned earlier, family functioning (Richmond & Stocker, 2006; Shek, 2016) and IIV during cognitive task performance are closely related to children’s externalizing problems (Brunnekreef et al., 2007; Oosterlaan & Sergeant, 1996). Thus, based on the diathesis-stress model and existing studies evidence, we speculated that family functioning and IIV might interact to predict externalizing problems among children. Lower IIV, which reflects a superior attentional control or attentional control-related brain region function, might be a crucial internal resource to promote self-regulate (Eisenberg et al., 2015; Kim & Deater-Deckard, 2011; Wang et al., 2012). Therefore, lower IIV might ameliorate the negative impact of poor family functioning on children’s adaptability. While children with greater IIV might be vulnerable to the effects of poor family functioning and exhibit increased externalizing problems.

The Present Study

Previous studies have reported that the transition to an elementary school is challenging for children, thus stimulating externalizing problems (Johnson, Cowan, & Cowan, 1999). Thus, the present study used a longitudinal design with two waves of data collection on a sample of elementary school children to examine whether IIV during flanker task performance interacts with family functioning to predict children’s externalizing problems. We hypothesized that IIV would interact with family functioning to predict children’s externalizing problems. Greater IIV is expected to combine with poor family functioning to predict more externalizing problems. In contrast, lower IIV is expected to attenuate the negative impact of poor family functioning on externalizing problems.

Participants

Children were recruited from an elementary school in a city in north-west China. During the first assessment (T1), 168 first grade elementary school students (80 boys, M = 7.35 years, SD = .48) and their mothers (M = 35.26 years, SD = 3.45) participated in the present study. The majority of parents and children were of Han ethnicity (98%). The average duration of cohabitation in the sample was 10 years (SD = 3.65). No separations or divorces were reported between T1 and T2. During the second assessment (T2), 155 mothers (M = 36.34 years, SD = 3.12) completed the children’s externalizing problems questionnaires (77 boys, M= 8.32 years, SD = .45). Children whose parents did not return for the second visit were not significantly different from the retained sample regarding sex, age, or any T1 measures (all ts < .85, ps > .40). At T1, the parents of participants were asked to report their monthly income using a 4-point scale (1 = less than ¥3000, 2 = ¥3000–¥7000, 3 = ¥7000–¥10000, and 4 = more than ¥10000) and their education level on a 7-point scale (1 = lower than elementary school, 2 = elementary school, 3 = junior high school, 4 = high school, 5 = college or university, 6 = master’s degree, 7 = doctoral degree). An index of participants’ socioeconomic status (SES) was created by summarizing the standard scores (M = 0, SD = 1) of the following three variables in accordance with previous studies (Cohen, Doyle, & Baum, 2006; Schulting, Malone, & Dodge, 2005): (a) the father’s education level (M = 4.77, SD = 0.77), (b) the mother’s education level (M = 4.70, SD = 0.75), and (c) household income (M = 3.60, SD = 0.97). 79% of fathers and 75% of mothers had obtained a bachelor’s degree or above, and 54% of families had a household income of more than ¥10000 per month.

Procedure

T1 This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of XXX University. The elementary school assisted in communications with the children and their parents. Through the school, we distributed informed consent forms to parents of all 7- to 8-year-old children and invited them to participate in the research. Informed consent for participation was obtained from parents and children at each study wave. Children and their parents visited the research laboratory at the scheduled time. The parents completed questionnaires regarding family functioning and children’s externalizing problems, whereas the children engaged in the flanker task in a different room. The parents and children received ¥50 (approximately US$8) and a gift, respectively, for their participation.

T2 The children’s parents were invited to the research laboratory one year after their first visit. They again completed the children’s externalizing problems questionnaires. Parents received ¥50 for their participation.

Measures

Externalizing problems (measured at both T1 and T2)

The parents completed an externalizing problem subscale of the Chinese version of the Child Behavior Checklist (Achenbach, 2001) to assess their children’s externalizing problems. Externalizing problems over the past six months were rated on a 3-point Likert scale (0 = not true, 1 = somewhat or sometimes true, and 2 = very true or often true). The 33-item externalizing problem subscale comprises 20 and 13 items on the children’s aggressive (e.g., “Doesn’t seem to feel guilty after misbehaving” ) and rule-breaking behaviors (e.g., “Destroys things belonging to his/her family or others”). The item scores were summed to form a complete score for children’s externalizing problem behavior. The alpha coefficient (α) of the externalizing problem subscale in this sample was .84 at T1 and .82 at T2. T-scores were calculated for externalizing problems. Five children had missing externalizing data at T1 (3.0%). Among the remaining children, 135 (80%) were in the normative range (T-score < 60), and 28 (17%) were in the borderline to clinical (T-score ≥ 60) range for externalizing problems. Three children had missing externalizing data at T2 (2 %). Among the remaining children, 129 (83%) were in the normative range (T-score < 60), and 23 (15%) were in the borderline to clinical (T-score ≥ 60) range for externalizing problems at T2.

Family functioning (measured at T1)

The parents reported on family functioning through the Chinese version of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scales (Olson et al., 1982) with two subscales: family adaptability and family cohesion. The scale contains 15 items measuring family adaptability (e.g., “Rules change in our family”) and 15 items measuring family cohesion (e.g., Family members feel very close to each other). Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Olson (2000) and empirical studies (e.g., Cumsille & Epstein, 1994) have suggested that using adaptability and cohesion as linear indexes of family functioning is appropriate for nonclinical families. Thus, in this study, adaptability and cohesion scores were used as continuous variables. The α of the adaptability subscale and cohesion subscale in this sample was .80 and .81.

Cognitive task (measured at T1)

The children’s flanker task (adapted from Reuda et al., 2004) was used to assess children’s IIV. This task involved pressing a key based on the orientation of a central target fish surrounded by four distracting flanker fishes. The flanker task included a practice block consisting of 12 trials with accuracy feedback and 2 test blocks consisting of 108 trials. Each trial began with a fixation cross (+) displayed for 1000 ms in the center of the screen. The participants were required to respond as quickly and accurately as possible to indicate the orientation of the central fish. All target and flanker fish were of the same size. The Flanker tasks included congruent and incongruent trials. In congruent trials, the flanker fish pointed in the same direction as the central fish, while in incongruent trials, the flanker fish pointed opposite to the central fish. The participants were asked to press the Z key when the central fish pointed left and the M key when the central fish pointed right. The participants could take 30 s breaks between test blocks. The formal phase presented congruency and directionality randomly with equal probabilities. The flanker task was programmed via E-Prime 2.0 (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., USA), and the experimental stimuli were presented on a 14-inch computer screen placed approximately 60 cm away from the participants. A diagram describing the task is shown in Figure. 1.

In the children’s flanker task, the standard deviations (SDs) of reaction times on correct trials were divided as congruent IIV, incongruent IIV and combined IIV based on congruent, incongruent and combined trials (Williams et al., 2016). Greater IIV indicates larger fluctuation in reaction times among different trials, and vice versa. All the participants were included because they responded accurately for more than 10 trials within the specific condition (10 trial cutoff criterion for young children) and had mean reaction times of 150–2000 ms for each correct trial.

Plan of Analysis

Outliers (+/−3 SD) from the mean were identified for variables. At T1, two children had very low congruent and incongruent IIV, and one child had very high congruent and incongruent IIV. All outlier data points were replaced with the subsequent value in the data (Wilcox, 2012), and the primary findings remained unchanged with this approach.

The children with missing data were not different from the remainder of the sample in terms of any research variable (ts < 1.06, ps > .22). We used multiple imputation (MI; Schafer & Graham, 2002) procedures in SPSS version 25.0 to address the missing data, and five imputed datasets were created to approximate the true measurement error. After MI procedures, each missing value was replaced by a mean of the five imputed values for that participant. Finally, datasets from all the participants were used for statistical analyses.

All the statistical tests were conducted using SPSS version 25. (IBM, USA). First, Pearson correlations were computed to examine the associations among study variables. Second, hierarchical regression analyses were used to examine the main effects, and the interaction effects, respectively. All the predictors were mean-centered to reduce multicollinearity (Aiken & West, 1991). The SES and sex of the children were included as covariates. Significant interactions were further investigated using the simple slopes technique proposed by Aiken and West (1991) by comparing the predicted outcome variable for levels of the independent variable (ranging from −1 SD to +1 SD) at both high and low levels of the moderator (ranging from −1 SD to +1 SD).

Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 presents the variables’ means (and SDs) and the correlations between the variables. Table 1 reveals that family adaptability was negatively related to children’s externalizing problems (rs = −.26 and −.24) and family cohesion was negatively related to children’s externalizing problems (rs = −.21 and −.19). In contrast, combined IIV was positively related to children’s externalizing problems (rs = .25 and .27) at T1 and T2. The SES and sex of the children were not related to children’s externalizing problems at T1 and T2.

Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1 Sex	1
2 SES	−0.04	1
3 Family Adaptability	0.07	0.22*	1
4 Family Cohesion	0.04	0.19*	0.73***	1
5 Congruent_IIV	0.13	−0.03	−0.08	−0.09	1
6 Incongruent_IIV	0.15	0.06	−0.09	−0.08	0.69**	1
7 Combined_IIV	0.14	0.05	−0.08	−0.09	0.90**	0.94**	1
8 T1 Externalizing Problem	0.12	−0.14	−0.26**	−0.21*	0.26**	0.22**	0.25**	1
9 T2 Externalizing Problem	0.09	−0.08	−0.24*	−0.19*	0.30**	0.23**	0.27**	0.60**	1
M	−	−	125.08	74.36	173.51	193.63	177.59	49.86	49.77
SD	−	−	13.10	7.86	61.19	64.50	54.01	8.29	8.32

Note: Congruent = under congruent condition of the flanker task; Incongruent = under incongruent condition of the flanker task, Combined_ IIV= congruent_ IIV and incongruent_ IIV were averaged together to give an overall indication of SD reaction times, *p<.05，**p<.01，*** p<.001

Predictions from Family Adaptability and IIV

The hierarchical regression analyses showed that, family adaptability and combined IIV[1] were associated with externalizing problems at T1 (β = −.26, 95% CI [−4.01,−1.04], p = .001; β =.26, 95% CI [1.05, 3.95], p = .002), and were also associated with externalizing problems at T2 (β = −.26, 95% CI [−4.01, −1.07], p = .001; β =.29, 95% CI [1.36, 4.23], p < .001). The interaction effect between family adaptability and combined IIV significantly predicted externalizing problems at T1 (β = −.23, 95% CI [−3.48, −.76], p = .006; see Figure.2a). Specifically, analysis of simple slope revealed that for children with greater combined IIV, family adaptability was negatively associated with externalizing problems at T1 (simple slope = −2.82, SE = 0.10, t(167) = 4.45, p = .002). However, for children with lower combined IIV, the association between family adaptability and externalizing problems at T1 was not significant (simple slope = −.27, SE = 0.10, t(167) = −.43, p > .05). The interaction effect between family adaptability and combined IIV also significantly predicted externalizing problems at T2 (β = −.28, 95% CI [−3.97, −1.28], p < .001; see Figure.2b), even after controlling for externalizing problems at T1. Specifically, analysis of simple slope revealed that for children with greater combined IIV, family adaptability was negatively associated with externalizing problems at T2 (simple slope = −1.32, SE = 0.05, t(154) = 2.85, p = .005). However, for children lower combined IIV, the association between family adaptability and externalizing problems at T2 was not significant (simple slope = .06, SE = 0.06, t(154) = .14, p > .05).

Table 2 Main effect and interactive effect of family adaptability and IIV

	T1 Externalizing problem					T2 Externalizing problem
Predictors	B	SE	β	t	△R²	B	SE	β	t	△R²
Step1					.05					.04
Sex	2.35	1.48	.11	1.59		1.52	1.46	.08	1.04
SES	−1.89	1.05	−.14	−1.81		−1.66	1.03	−.12	−1.61
Step2					.12					.13
Family Adaptability	−2.53	.69	−.26	−3.36**		−2.54	.74	−.26	−3.42**
Combined_IIV	2.50	.74	.26	3.40**		2.80	.72	.29	3.85***
Step3					.06					.08
Family Adaptability × Combined_IIV	−2.12	.67	−.23	−3.08**		−2.62	.68	−.28	−3.86***
Total R²= .22, F(5, 162) = 8.16***						Total R²= .24, F(5, 149) = 9.29***

Note: *p<.05，**p<.01，*** p<.001

Predictions from Family Cohesion and IIV

The hierarchical regression analyses showed that, family cohesion and combined IIV[2] were associated with externalizing problems at T1 (β = −.21, 95% CI [-3.55, −.56], p = .007; β = .25, 95% CI [0.95, 3.89], p =.001), and were also associated with externalizing problems at T2 (β = −.19, 95% CI [−3.34, −.38], p = .01; β =.28, 95% CI [1.27, 4.18], p < .001). The interaction effect between family cohesion and combined IIV significantly predicted externalizing problems at T1 (β = −.25, 95% CI [−3.74, −.97], p =.001; see Figure. 3a). Specifically, analysis of simple slope revealed that for children with greater combined IIV, family cohesion was negatively associated with externalizing problems at T1 (simple slope = −2.41, SE = 0.07, t(167) = 3.73, p < .001). However, for children with lower combined IIV, the association between family cohesion and externalizing problems at T1 was not significant (simple slope = −0.03, SE = 0.08, t(167) =.05, p > .05). The interaction effect between family cohesion and combined IIV also significantly predicted externalizing problems at T2 (β = -.31, 95% CI [-4.23, -1.49], p < .001; see Figure. 3b), even after controlling for externalizing problems at T1. Specifically, analysis of simple slope revealed that for children with greater combined IIV, family cohesion was negatively associated with externalizing problems at T2 (simple slope = −1.04, SE = 0.05, t(154) = 2.26, p = .02). However, for children with lower combined IIV, the association between family cohesion and externalizing problems at T2 was not significant (simple slope = 0.29, SE = 0.06, t(154) = .71, p > .05).

Table 3 Main effect and interactive effect of family cohesion and IIV

	T1 Externalizing problem					T2 Externalizing problem
Predictors	B	SE	β	t	△R²	B	SE	β	t	△R²
Step1					.05					.04
Sex	2.50	1.47	.13	1.68		1.72	1.48	.09	1.17
SES	−2.05	1.05	−.15	−1.96		−1.85	1.04	−.13	−1.79
Step2					.09					.10
Family Cohesion	−2.05	.74	−.21	−2.71**		−1.86	.74	−.19	−2.48*
Combined_IIV	2.42	.74	.25	3.25**		2.73	.73	.28	3.69***
Step3					.06					.09
Family Cohesion × Combined_IIV	−2.35	.70	−.25	−3.37**		−2.86	.69	−.31	−4.12***
Total R²= .20, F(5, 162) = 7.39***						Total R²= .22, F(5, 149) = 8.20***

Note: *p<.05，**p<.01，*** p<.001

The present study found that family functioning negatively predicted children’s externalizing problems, and IIV during flanker task performance positively predicted children’s externalizing problems. Furthermore, IIV during flanker task performance moderated the concurrent and longitudinal association between family functioning and children’s externalizing problems.

The present study found that family adaptability and cohesion were negatively related to children’s externalizing problems concurrently and longitudinal. Consistent with previous studies (Baker et al., 2011; Richmond & Stocker, 2006), the present study suggested that families with more adaptability and cohesion showed protective effects on children. In adaptability and cohesion families, children would receive support from their family members and learn relationship rules and approaches to solve problems, thus exhibiting adaptive behaviors. By contrast, a family lacking adaptability and cohesion might increase the risk of children’s externalizing problems.

The present study found that IIV during the flanker task was positively related to children’s externalizing problems concurrently and longitudinally. Previous cross-sectional studies have suggested that children with externalizing problems exhibited greater IIV during cognitive task performance (Brunnekreef et al., 2007; Oosterlaan & Sergeant, 1996). This finding extended prior studies by revealing the longitudinal association between greater IIV and increased externalizing problems in children. The finding further suggested that IIV could be a robust and independent indicator of externalizing problems.

Furthermore, the present study found that IIV interacted with family functioning to predict externalizing problems. Poor family functioning and greater IIV combined to predict concurrent and prospective externalizing problems. That is, children with inconsistent or inefficient attentional control may be more vulnerable to the adverse effects of poor family functioning characterized as rigidity and disengaged. For example, children with inefficient attentional control may have difficult in shift attention from distressing environmental stimuli and be ineffective in shifting attention to reduce arousal or modulate emotion and behavior impulsivity (Eisenberg et al., 2015). Moreover, their dysfunctional family could not provide sufficient support and effective strategy to direct or help them, thus increasing the risk of externalizing problems. By contrast, consistent or efficient attentional control could facilitate control cognition and responses flexibly and adjust behavior in social interactions (Rueda, Checa, & Rothbart, 2010). Therefore, attentional control indexed by IIV could serve as a protective factor that buffers against the negative impact of poor family functioning on children’s externalizing problems. In the face of low family adaptability and cohesion, consistent attention control supports children to flexibly choose what to focus on in the external family environment and internal thought process and has more effect on managing internal thought and emotion-related states (Wang et al., 2012). Thus, the negative effect of poor family functioning on children’s externalizing problems could be ameliorated.

Limitations and Future Research

The limitations of the present study must be considered. First, the present study used the flanker task to assess IIV. The future study could use different cognitive tasks (e.g., Go/No-go task and Stroop task) to assess IIV. Second, although two key dimensions were used to assess family functioning, future studies must consider whether other family functioning variables, such as family style, interact with IIV to predict children’s externalizing problems. Finally, family functioning and externalizing problems were assessed by parents’ reported scales. Future studies can use multiple assessment methods to assess family functioning and externalizing problems and examine the validity of the present study findings.

Implications for Practice

The present study’s findings can be applied to prevention and intervention programs for elementary school children exhibiting externalizing problems. Prevention programs should be guided by the person-environment interaction model (Cummings, Davies, & Campbell, 2002; Lerner, 2002). On the one hand, these programs should aim to improve family adaptability and cohesion to alleviate children’s externalizing problems. Children adjustments remain undermined once the negative impact of poor family functioning exceeds the protective roles of children’s internal resources, such as better attentional control. Therefore, children can benefit from the improvement of family functioning.

On the other hand, these programs should aim to enhance or train children’s attentional control or executive brain function in a face to challenging environments. Improvement in focus and shift attention, modulating attention, emotion and behavior would facilitate coping with stress. Children with difficulties in attentional control and who experience low family functioning may benefit most from future prevention programs.

In conclusion, the present study provided preliminary evidence on the association between family functioning, IIV, and children’s externalizing problems among elementary school children. The present study found that poorer family functioning such as lower family adaptability and lower family cohesion and greater IIV predicted more children’s externalizing problems, respectively. Importantly, the present study found that IIV interacted with family adaptability and family cohesion to predict the longitudinal externalizing problems. The present study suggested that the better attentional control or attentional control-related brain region function indexed by lower IIV attenuated the negative effects of poor family functioning on children’s externalizing problems.

Funding: This research was supported by MOE (Ministry of Education in China) Project of Humanities and Social Sciences (22XJC190002), the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in Shaanxi Province of China (2022JQ-193) and Xi’an Social Science Planning Fund (2021ZDZT16).

Conflict of Interest：Authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author Contributions: Xiaoxiao Wang and Yanli Hao carried out data collection, and critical revision of the article. Yuan Peng carried out conception and design of the study, data analysis and interpretation, drafting of the article, and critical revision of the article. All authors have approved the final article.

Achenbach TM, Edelbrock CS (1978) The classification of child psychopathology: a review and analysis of empirical efforts. Psychol Bull 85(6):1275–1301. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.85.6.1275
Achenbach TM (2001) Rescorla LA. Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms and profiles Burlington VTUniversity of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry
Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions Thousand Oaks CASage Publications Inc
Baker JK, Seltzer MM, Greenberg JS (2011) Longitudinal effects of adaptability on behavior problems and maternal depression in families of adolescents with autism. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 601– 609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024409
Barkley RA (1997) Behavioral inhibition, sustained attention, and executive functions: constructing a unifying theory of ADHD. Psychol Bull 121:65–94. http://dx.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.65
Bellgrove MA, Hester R, Garavan H (2004) The functional neuroanatomical correlates of response variability: Evidence from a response inhibition task. Neuropsychologia 42:1910–1916. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2004.05.007
Belsky J, Fearon RMP, Bell B (2010) Parenting, attention and externalizing problems: testing mediation longitudinally, repeatedly and reciprocally. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Diplines 48(12):1233–1242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01807.x
Bielak AAM, Anstey KJ (2019) Covariation of intraindividual variability in cognitive speed and cognitive performance across young, middle, and older adulthood. Dev Psychol 55(5):994–1004. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/dev0000688
Brunnekreef JA, Sonneville LMJD, Althaus M, Minderaa RB Oldehinkel, A. J., & Verhulst FC et al (2007) Information processing profiles of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems :evidence from a population-based sample of preadolescents.Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(2),185–193 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01695.x
Campbell SB, Spieker S, Vandergrift N, Belsky J, Burchinal M, &NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2010) Predictors and sequelae of trajectories of physical aggression in school age boys and girls. Dev Psychopathol 22(1):133–150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409990319
Cohen S, Doyle WJ, Baum A(2006) Socioeconomic status is associated with stress hormones.Psychosomatic Medicine, 68(3),414–420 http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000221236.37158.b9
Coe D, Sturge-Apple (2018) Family Cohesion and Enmeshment Moderate Associations Between Maternal Relationship Instability and Children’s Externalizing Problems. J Fam Psychol 32(3):289–298. https://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000346
Cox MJ, Paley B (1997) Families as systems. Ann Rev Psychol 48:243–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.48.1.243
Cummings EM, Davies PT, Campbell SB(2002) Developmental psychopathology and family process: Theory, research, and clinical implications. New York, NY:The Guilford 135
Cumsille PE, Epstein N(1994) Family cohesion, family adaptability, social support, and adolescent depressive symptoms in outpatient clinic families. Journal of Family Psychology (2), 202–214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.8.2.202
Eisenberg N, Guthrie IK, Fabes RA, Shepard S, Losoya S, Murphy B et al (2000) Prediction of elementary school children's externalizing problem behaviors from attentional and behavioral regulation and negative emotionality. Child Dev 71(5):1367–1382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00233
Eisenberg N, Taylor ZE, Widaman KF, Spinrad TL (2015) Externalizing symptoms, effortful control, and intrusive parenting: a test of bidirectional longitudinal relations during early childhood. Dev Psychopathol 27(4pt1):953–968. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0954579415000620
Engle RW, Kane MJ (2004) Executive attention, working memory capacity, and a two-factor theory of cognitive control. Psychol Learn Motivation 44:145–199
Erath SA, Elsheikh M, Cummings EM(2010) Harsh parenting and child externalizing behavior : skin conductance level reactivity as a moderator.Child Development, 80(2),578–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01280.x
Fassbender C, Lesh TA, Ursu S, Salo R (2015) Reaction time variability and related brain activity in methamphetamine psychosis. Biol Psychiatry 77(5):465–474. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.07.028
Fassbender C, Scangos K, Lesh TA, Carter CS (2014) RT distributional analysis of cognitive-control-related brain activity in first-episode schizophrenia. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 14(1):175–188. https://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13415-014-0252-4
Gershoff ET(2002) Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences : A meta-analytic and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin, 128,539–579 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539
Hinnant JB, Erath SA, El-Sheikh M(2015) Harsh parenting, parasympathetic activity, and development of delinquency and substance use.Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124(1),137–151. http://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000026
Hultsch DF, MacDonald SW, Hunter MA, Levy-Bencheton J, Strauss E (2000) Intraindividual variability in cognitive performance in older adults: Comparison of adults with mild dementia, adults with arthritis, and healthy adults. Neuropsychology 14:588–598. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0894-4105.14.4.588
Isbell E, Calkins SD, Swingler MM, Leerke EM (2018) Attentional fluctuations in preschoolers: Direct and indirect relations with task accuracy, academic readiness, and school performance. J Exp Child Psychol 167:388–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2017.11.013
Johnson VK, Cowan PA, Cowan CP(1999) Children's classroom behavior: the unique contribution of family organization.Journal of Family Psychology, 13(3),355–371 https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.13.3.355
Johnson BP, Pinar A, Fornito A, Nandam LS, Hester R, Bellgrove(2015) M. A. Left anterior cingulate activity predicts intra-individual reaction time variability in healthy adults Neuropsychologia, 72(3),22–26. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia. 2015.03.015
Kelly AMC, Uddin LQ, Biswal BB, Castellanos FX, Milham MP (2008) Competition between functional brain networks mediates behavioral variability. NeuroImage 39:527–537. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2007.08.008
Kim J, Deater-Deckard K (2011) Dynamic changes in anger, externalizing and internalizing problems: attention and regulation. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 52(2):156–166. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02301.x
Kofler MJ, Rapport MD, Sarver DE, Raiker JS, Orban SA, & Friedman, LM, … Kolomeyer(2013) E.G. Reaction time variability in ADHD: a meta-analytic review of 319 studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(6), 795–811. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr. 2013. 06.001
Lengua LJ (2008) Anxiousness, frustration. and effortful control as moderators of the relation between parenting and adjustment in middle-childhood. Social Development, 17(3), 555–577 http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2007.00438.x
Lerner RM(2002) Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.) Mahwah, NJ Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Liu S, Zhou N, Wang Z, Liang X, Shi J(2018) Maternal life stress and subsequent Chinese children’ social adjustment :The moderating role of inhibitory control. Journal of family and child studies, 27(2), 412–420. http://doi.org/1007/s10826-017-0887-1
MacDonald SW, Nyberg L, Bäckman L (2006) Intra-individual variability in behavior: links to brain structure, neurotransmission and neuronal activity. Trends in Neuroscience 29:474–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2006.06.011
Macdonald SW, Li SC, Bäckman L(2009) Neural underpinnings of within-person variability in cognitive functioning.Psychology and Aging, 24(4),792–808 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0017798
Meyer JM, Rutter M, Silberg JL, Maes HH, Simonoff E, Shillady LL et al (2000) Familial aggregation for conduct disorder symptomatology: the role of genes, marital discord and family adaptability. Psychol Med 30(4):759–774. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0033291799002408
Monroe SM, Simons AD(1991) Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research : Implication for the depressive disorders.Psychological Bulletin, 110(3),406–425 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.406
Olson DH, Portner J, Bell R(1982) Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. In Olson DH, McCubbin HI, Barnes HL, Larsen A, Muxen M, & M. Wilson, Family inventories (pp. 5–24). St. Paul: University of Minnesota, Department of Family Social Science
Olson DH(2000) Circumplex model of marital and family sytems.Journal of Family Therapy (2), 144–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00144
Oosterlaan J, Sergeant JA (1996) Inhibition in ADHD. a, aggressive, and anxious children biologically based model of child psychopathology.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology (1), 19–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01448371
Orpinas P, Raczynski K, Peters JW, Colman L, Bandalos D (2014) Latent profile analysis of sixth graders based on teacher ratings: association with school dropout. School Psychol Q 30(4):577–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000107
Peng Y, Zhang RZ, Wang ZH(2021) Intraindividual reaction time variability as an index of attentional control acts as a moderator of the longitudinal relationships between marital quality and children’s externalizing problems.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,202
Richmond MK, Stocker CM(2006) Associations between family cohesion and adolescent siblings' externalizing behavior.Journal of Family Psychology, 20(4),663–669 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.20.4.663
Reuben JD, Shaw DS, Neiderhiser JM, Natsuaki MN, Reiss D(2016) & Leve, L. D. Warm parenting and effortful control in toddlerhood: independent and interactive predictors of school-age externalizing behavior.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44(6),1083–1096. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-015-0096-6
Rothbart MK, Posner MI (2015) Temperament, attention, and developmental psychopathology. Dev Psychopathol 465–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470939390.ch11
Rueda MR, Posner MI, Rothbart MK, Davis-Stober CP(2004) Development of the time course for processing conflict: an event-related potentials study with 4 year olds and adults.BMC Neuroscience, 5(1),39–52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-5-39
Rueda MR, Checa P, Rothbart MK (2010) Contributions of attentional control to socioemotional and academic development. Early Educ Dev 21(5):744–764. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2010.510055
Schafer JL, Graham JW(2002) Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7,147–177. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.2.147
Schoemaker K, Mulder H, Deković M, Matthys W(2013) Executive functions in preschool children with externalizing behavior problems : A meta-analysis.Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 41 (3),457–471. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9684-xv
Schulting AB, Malone PS, Dodge KA(2005) The effect of school-based kindergarten transition policies and practices on child academic outcomes.Developmental Psychology (6), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.860
Shaw DS, Hyde LW, Brennan LW (2012) Early predictors of boys’ antisocial trajectories. Dev Psychopathol 24:871–888 https://doi.org/1017/S0954579412000429
Shek DTL(2016) The Role of Positive Youth Development and Family Functioning in Chinese Adolescent Well-Being: Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Evidence. A Life Devoted to Quality of Life. (pp. 43–58). http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-20568-7_3
Tamm T, Narad ME, Antonini TN, O’Brien KM, Hawk JLW, Epstein JN (2012) Reaction time variability in ADHD: a review. Neurotherapeutics 9:500–508. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13311-012-0138-5
Unsworth N (2015) Consistency of attentional control as an important cognitive trait. Intelligence 49:110–128. 10.1016/j.intell.2015.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.01.005
Wang Z, Deater-Deckard K, Petrill SA, Thompson LA (2012) Externalizing problems, attention regulation, and household chaos: a longitudinal behavioral genetic study. Dev Psychopathol 24(3):755–769. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579412000351
Wilcox RR(2012) Introduction to robust estimation and hypothesis testing (3rd ed.) Cambridge MA:Academic Press
Williams DP, Thayer JF, Koenig J(2016) Resting cardiac vagal tone predicts intraindividual reaction time variability during an attention task in a sample of young and healthy adults.Psychophysiology, 53(12),1843–1851. http://doi.org/10.1111/psyp.12739
Zemp M, Johnson MD, Bodenmann G(2018) Within-family processes:interparental and coparenting conflict and child adjustment.Journal of Family Psychology, 32 (3),299–309 http://doi.org/10.1037/fam0000368
Zhang RZ, Yang XH, Liu DN, Lü W, Wang ZH (2020) Intraindividual reaction time variability, respiratory sinus arrhythmia, and children's externalizing problems. Int J Psychophysiol 157:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.22040
Zhou Q, Hofer C, Eisenberg N, Reiser M, Spinrad TL, Fabes RA (2007) The developmental trajectories of attention focusing, attentional and behavioral persistence, and externalizing problems during school-age years. Dev Psychol 43(2):369–385. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.369

No competing interests reported.

Download PDF

Journal Publication

published 07 Apr, 2023

Read the published version in Child Psychiatry & Human Development →

Editorial decision: Major revision
09 Oct, 2022
Editor assigned by journal
09 Oct, 2022
Submission checks completed at journal
07 Oct, 2022
First submitted to journal
02 Oct, 2022

You are reading this latest preprint version

Family Functioning and Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability Interactively Predict Children’s Externalizing Problems

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1

Abstract

Figures

Introduction

Method

Results

Discussion

Declarations

References

Additional Declarations

Status:

Journal Publication

Version 1