Article

Atypical EEG Power Correlates With Indiscriminately Friendly Behavior in Internationally Adopted Children

Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
Developmental Psychology (Impact Factor: 3.21). 03/2011; 47(2):417-31. DOI: 10.1037/a0021363
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT While effects of institutional care on behavioral development have been studied extensively, effects on neural systems underlying these socioemotional and attention deficits are only beginning to be examined. The current study assessed electroencephalogram (EEG) power in 18-month-old internationally adopted, postinstitutionalized children (n = 37) and comparison groups of nonadopted children (n = 47) and children internationally adopted from foster care (n = 39). For their age, postinstitutionalized children had an atypical EEG power distribution, with relative power concentrated in lower frequency bands compared with nonadopted children. Both internationally adopted groups had lower absolute alpha power than nonadopted children. EEG power was not related to growth at adoption or to global cognitive ability. Atypical EEG power distribution at 18 months predicted indiscriminate friendliness and poorer inhibitory control at 36 months. Both postinstitutionalized and foster care children were more likely than nonadopted children to exhibit indiscriminate friendliness. Results are consistent with a cortical hypoactivation model of the effects of early deprivation on neural development and provide initial evidence associating this atypical EEG pattern with indiscriminate friendliness. Outcomes observed in the foster care children raise questions about the specificity of institutional rearing as a risk factor and emphasize the need for broader consideration of the effects of early deprivation and disruptions in care.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Amanda R Tarullo, Aug 21, 2014
0 Followers
 · 
140 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Though noted in the clinical literature for more than 50 years, attachment disorders have been studied systematically only recently. In part because of the ubiquity of attachments in humans, determining when aberrant behavior is best explained as an attachment disorder as opposed to insecure attachment has led to some confusion. In this selective review, we consider the literature on reactive attachment disorder and disinhibited social engagement disorder and describe an emerging consensus about a number of issues, while also noting some areas of controversy and others where we lack clear answers. We include a brief history of the classification of the disorders, as well as measurement issues. We describe their clinical presentation, causes and vulnerability factors, and clinical correlates, including the relation of disorders to secure and insecure attachment classifications. We also review what little is known and what more we need to learn about interventions.Methods We conducted a literature search using PubMed, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases, using search terms ‘reactive attachment disorder,’ ‘attachment disorder,’ ‘indiscriminate behavior,’ ‘indiscriminate friendliness,’ ‘indiscriminate socially disinhibited reactive attachment disorder,’ ‘disinhibited social engagement disorder,’ and ‘disinhibited social behavior.’ We also contacted investigators who have published on these topics.FindingsA growing literature has assessed behaviors in children who have experienced various types of adverse caregiving environments reflecting signs of putative attachment disorders, though fewer studies have investigated categorically defined attachment disorders. The evidence for two separate disorders is considerable, with reactive attachment disorder indicating children who lack attachments despite the developmental capacity to form them, and disinhibited social engagement disorder indicating children who lack developmentally appropriate reticence with unfamiliar adults and who violate socially sanctioned boundaries.Conclusions Although many questions remain to be answered, especially regarding appropriate interventions, we know considerably more about attachment disorders than we did only a decade ago.
    Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 10/2014; 56(3). DOI:10.1111/jcpp.12347 · 5.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Prevention science, Edited by Zili Sloboda & Hanno Petras, 01/2014: chapter Benchmarks, developmental challenges, and risks during the prenatal and infancy period: pages 27-58; Springer., ISBN: 978-1-4899-7423-5 und -7424-2 (e-book)
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Children adopted from institutions (e.g., orphanages) overseas are at increased risk of disturbances in social relationships and social understanding. Not all postinstitutionalized children exhibit these problems, although factors like the severity of deprivation and duration of deprivation increase their risk. To date, few studies have examined whether postadoption parenting might moderate the impact of early adverse care. Three groups were studied: postinstitutionalized and foster care children both adopted internationally and nonadopted children reared in their families of origin. The Emotional Availability (EA) Scales were assessed at 18 months in parent-child dyads. Parent emotional availability was found to predict two aspects of social functioning shown in previous studies to be impaired in postinstitutionalized children. Specifically, EA positively correlated with emotion understanding at 36 months; in interaction with initiation of joint attention at 18 months and group, it predicted indiscriminate friendliness as scored from a parent attachment interview at 30 months. Among the postinstitutionalized children but not among the children in other groups, higher EA scores reduced the negative association between initiation of joint attention and indiscriminate friendliness, thus suggesting that parenting quality may moderate the effects of early institutional deprivation.
    Development and Psychopathology 02/2012; 24(1):35-48. DOI:10.1017/S0954579411000642 · 4.89 Impact Factor