Applying new RDoC dimensions to the development of emotion regulation: Examining the influence of maternal emotion regulation on within-individual change in child emotion regulation

2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 1821-1836
Author(s):  
Amy L. Byrd ◽  
Angela H. Lee ◽  
Olivia A. Frigoletto ◽  
Maureen Zalewski ◽  
Stephanie D. Stepp

AbstractWhile the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) acknowledges that environmental and developmental influences represent important elements of the RDoC framework, there is little specificity regarding how and when to systematically examine the impact of these dimensions on domains of function. The primary aims of this paper are to demonstrate the ways in which the RDoC can be expanded to include an explicit emphasis on (a) assessing within-individual change in developmental processes over time and (b) evaluating the extent to which selective and measurable environmental influences drive meaningful change during key developmental periods. We provide data from an ongoing randomized control trial as a proof of concept to highlight how repeated assessments within an experimental intervention design affords the unique opportunity to test the impact of environmental influences on within-individual change. Using preliminary data from 77 mother–child dyads repeatedly assessed across 12 months during the sensitive preschool period, we demonstrate the impact of change in maternal emotion regulation (ER) on within-individual growth in child ER and link that growth to fewer teacher-reported externalizing problems. In line with this Special Issue, findings are discussed within the context of expanding and clarifying the existing RDoC framework to explicitly incorporate environmental and developmental dimensions.

Author(s):  
Michael Sun ◽  
Meghan Vinograd ◽  
Gregory A. Miller ◽  
Michelle G. Craske

Chapter 5 describes the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) framework as it pertains to emotion regulation, an in-progress research framework mapping psychological constructs onto discrete units of analysis (genes, molecules, cells, brain circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-report). It accommodates contemporary and developing emotion frameworks such as the Bradley-Lang Model and Gross-Ochsner Extended Process Model (EPM), while supplementing the clinically valuable, categorical account of psychological disorders featured in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). The RDoC has three objectives: Describing how psychological constructs are implemented mechanistically (biologically), increasing the explanatory ability as to why a biological system or neurobiological structure works, and increasing the predictive validity of pathological phenomena. This multi-componential research framework involves interdisciplinary collaboration to uncover new avenues for exploring the etiology, maintenance, and intervention to address one of the field’s greatest challenges: the effective treatment of emotion dysregulation.


2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina B. Lonsdorf ◽  
Jan Richter

Abstract. As the criticism of the definition of the phenotype (i.e., clinical diagnosis) represents the major focus of the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) initiative, it is somewhat surprising that discussions have not yet focused more on specific conceptual and procedural considerations of the suggested RDoC constructs, sub-constructs, and associated paradigms. We argue that we need more precise thinking as well as a conceptual and methodological discussion of RDoC domains and constructs, their interrelationships as well as their experimental operationalization and nomenclature. The present work is intended to start such a debate using fear conditioning as an example. Thereby, we aim to provide thought-provoking impulses on the role of fear conditioning in the age of RDoC as well as conceptual and methodological considerations and suggestions to guide RDoC-based fear conditioning research in the future.


2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter J. Lang ◽  
Lisa M. McTeague ◽  
Margaret M. Bradley

Abstract. Several decades of research are reviewed, assessing patterns of psychophysiological reactivity in anxiety patients responding to a fear/threat imagery challenge. Findings show substantive differences in these measures within principal diagnostic categories, questioning the reliability and categorical specificity of current diagnostic systems. Following a new research framework (US National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], Research Domain Criteria [RDoC]; Cuthbert & Insel, 2013 ), dimensional patterns of physiological reactivity are explored in a large sample of anxiety and mood disorder patients. Patients’ responses (e.g., startle reflex, heart rate) during fear/threat imagery varied significantly with higher questionnaire measured “negative affect,” stress history, and overall life dysfunction – bio-marking disorder groups, independent of Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals (DSM). The review concludes with a description of new research, currently underway, exploring brain function indices (structure activation, circuit connectivity) as potential biological classifiers (collectively with the reflex physiology) of anxiety and mood pathology.


2016 ◽  
Vol Ano 6 ◽  
pp. 38-42
Author(s):  
Andrea Feijó Mello ◽  
Euthymia B. Almeida Prado

O presente artigo discorre sobre a comorbidade entre transtorno bipolar (TB) e transtorno de estresse póstraumático (TEPT) e questiona sobre certos casos serem melhor avaliados à luz das novas teorias do Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), principalmente aqueles quadros de TEPT com sintomas disfóricos que podem ser classificados como TB, apesar de não preencherem critérios para tal. Nesse caso, questiona-se a comorbidade e propõe-se um aprofundamento da fisiopatologia dessa sintomatologia que está sobreposta. Clinicamente, esse olhar poderá facilitar o manejo farmacológico de pacientes graves com histórico de trauma.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document