Individual Differences in the Relationship between ... - ScienceDirect

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 1455 – 1461

7th International Conference on Intercultural Education “Education, Health and ICT for a Transcultural World”, EDUHEM 2016, 15-17 June 2016, Almeria, Spain

Individual differences in the relationship between temperament and planning ability in adolescents Victoria Ismatullina* & I. Voronin a

Psychological Institute of Russian Academy of Education, 9, 4, Mokhovaya str., Moscow 125009, Russia

Abstract Identification of genetic and environmental factors of the relationship between temperament and the planning ability is essential for future interventions aimed at self-regulation in adolescents. Participants included 612 twin pairs aged 10 to 14 years. All participants filled out Rothbart's Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire and were tested with the “Stocking of Cambridge” test. A univariate model showed that the scales of Rothbart’s questionnaire are largely affected by genetic factors (А=10-51%). The planning ability is affected by both genetic (А=17%) and shared environmental factors (С=21%). A multivariate model was used to estimate the impact of genes and environment in the phenotypic correlation between the measure of planning ability and temperamental characteristics. The results suggest that individual differences in relationship between temperament and planning ability mostly explained by environment factors. © 2016The TheAuthors. Authors.Published Published Elsevier © 2017 byby Elsevier Ltd.Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016. Keywords: temperament; planning abilities; genetic factors; environmental factors; CANTAB; ETQ-R.

1. Introduction The range of individual differences in how we react and feel in everyday social situations is huge. The concept of temperament refers to the biological bases of individual differences in thoughts, feelings, and behavior. The temperamental traits manifest in early childhood and have long lasting consequences for child’s development. M. Rothbart discriminate three basic dimensions of temperament: Extraversion/Surgency, Negative Affectivity, and

* Corresponding author. Tel.: 8 (495) 695-88-76 E-mail address: [email protected]

1877-0428 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the organizing committee of EDUHEM 2016. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2017.02.230

1456

Victoria Ismatullina and I. Voronin / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 237 (2017) 1455 – 1461

Effortful Control (Rothbart, 2011; Rothbart & Derryberry, 1981). Extraversion/Surgency refers to positive emotionality, level of activity, impulsivity, and risk taking. Negative Affectivity is related to fear, sadness, anger, and discomfort. Effortful Control is the ability to perform a voluntary action by inhibiting or activating behaviour. The Effortful Control is important for both learning and social adaptation. The deficit of Effortful Control manifests in internalizing and externalizing behaviours (Eisenberg et al., 2009; Murray & Kochanska, 2002; Oldehinkel, Hartman, Ferdinand, Verhulst, & Ormel, 2007). The planning ability is another important component of behavioral regulation and cognitive functioning (R. Morris & Ward, 2004). It is a higher order cognitive ability involved in stepwise problem solving. The planning comprises working memory, attention, inhibition, and task switching and usually considered as an executive function which develops in adolescence (Hughes & Graham, 2002). Planning ability is tightly associated with the functioning of the frontal lobes: the frontal lobe pathology, such as depression, schizophrenia, and lesions, is often followed by the deficit of planning (Arnett, Higginson, & Randolph, 2001; Badcock, Michie, & Rock, 2005; R. G. Morris, Ahmed, Syed, & Toone, 1993). At the same time the transcranial stimulation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex improves the performance in planning tasks (Dockery, Hueckel-Weng, Birbaumer, & Plewnia, 2009). There is a conceptual link between temperament and planning ability. The process of planning requires executive control to for making and performing the plan (Garavan, Ross, Murphy, Roche, & Stein, 2002). Negative and positive emotionality may also affect the planning performance through attentional control (Coombes, Higgins, Gamble, Cauraugh, & Janelle, 2009). Planning ability and temperament have also similar structure of individual differences: both are largely affected by person-specific environment and to some extent by genetic effects (Kremen et al., 2008; Rothbart, 2011). It is becoming increasingly important to consider self-regulation in the context of personality and cognitive abilities in order to reduce the risk of behavioural problems in adolescents. In our study we aimed to study if there is a relationship between temperament and planning ability in adolescence. For the first time we addressed the question whether there are genetic or environmental factors which are responsible for such relationship. 2. Method 2.1. Participants Participants included 612 twin pairs aged 10 to 14 years (242 MZ and 370 DZ pairs, mean age=12.31, SD=1.46). 2.2. Procedure The study comprised two waves of data collection. First, the participants filled in Rothbart's Early Adolescent Temperament Questionnaire (EATQ-R). The EATQ-R assesses the following dimensions of temperament (conceptualized as scales): Temperament Scales (Activation Control; Activity Level, Affiliation; Attention; Fear; Frustration; Surgency, High Intensity Pleasure; Inhibitory Control; Perceptual Sensitivity; Pleasure Sensitivity; Shyness), and Behavioral Scales (Aggression; Depressive Mood) The second wave of data collection implied assessment of the planning ability with the test “Stockings of Cambridge” (SOC) from the computerized battery of neuropsychological tests (CANTAB). All participants were tested individually on a personal computer. The tests of CANTAB are mostly non-verbal that makes it independent of language and culture. CANTAB has been reported to have high applicability in the evaluation of children. Testretest reliability of CANTAB's test is over 0.60 (Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTABeclipse) manual, 2006). In the “Stockings of Cambridge” (SOC) test the task requires participant to move an arrangement of coloured balls hanging in "pockets" or "socks" to match a goal arrangement presented at the top of the screen. Participant must move the balls in the lower display to copy the pattern shown in the upper display. The balls may be moved one at a time by touching the required ball, then touching the position to which it should be moved. The time taken to complete the pattern and the number of moves are taken as measures of the participant’s planning ability. Task difficulty increases with the total number of the moves needed (from 2 to 5). The participants’ planning ability was characterized by the time spent for planning before the first move (initial thinking time) and time spent


1457

in the process of movements. Planning's efficiency was measured as the mean number of moves and the number of tasks solved with the minimum moves. It is important to note that for SOC we only used the tasks including 4 or 5 steps as they are the most difficult tasks and, according to the authors, have the highest discrimination capacity. Thus, we also composed a new variable, "Thinking Time", that was comprised of the mean initial thinking time for 4 and 5 moves. The distribution of the scores for SOC differed from the normal distribution, therefore, we used a log transformation of the data. Due to the two-wave data collection the number of the participants differed for these measures. 2.3. Analysis First, we performed a factor analysis of EATQ-R. We obtained the factors Activation Control, Depressive Mood, Extraversion and Affiliation, which were calculated as the main factor explaining 58%, 57%, 37% and 40% of the variance of the corresponding scales respectively. Twin method. We used twin study method to determine genetic and environmental factors in the covariance between the planning ability and temperament. The method is based on the fact that monozygotic twins (MZ) share the same genetic material, while dizygotic twins (DZ), like siblings, on average share 50% of genes. The comparison of MZ and DZ twins similarity on a trait allows to assess to what extent the genetic variance determines the phenotypic variance of the trait. We assessed the following components of phenotypic variance: A – additive genetic factors, C – common environmental, nongenetic factors that increase the similarity between the sibs, E – unique environment, nongenetic factors that reduce the similarity. The last component also includes the measurement error. For every variable we estimated fit for 4 univariate models: ACE - full model (includes genetic, common and unique environment factors), AE – simple genetic model (genetic factors and unique environment), CE – environmental model (common and unique environment), E – random effects model (unique environment and the measurement error). Quantitative genetic methods. To assess the role of genetic and environmental factors in the development of planning and temperament we used structural equation modelling (Loehlin, 2004). The analysis was performed by means of R Environment for Statistical Computing and OpenMx package for R (Neale et al., 2015; R Core Team, 2016). 3. Results and discussion 3.1. Relationship between planning abilities and temperamental features Before the main study we conducted a pilot study which involved 50 adolescents aged 10 to 14 years (mean age 12.3 years, standard deviation 1.2 years), 15 boys and 35 girls. We found a negative correlation between the mean initial thinking time for 5 moves and Negative affect (r = -.307; p = .04). Also a significant correlation between the mean initial thinking time for 4 moves and Extraversion was found (r = .297; p = .05). The facets of effortful control correlated with planning efficiency. The overall level of motor activity, including the pace and intensity of the movement, was negatively associated with the average time of initial planning time for 5 moves(r = -.337; p = .02). The level of Inhibitory Control, including the ability to plan and to suppress inappropriate responses, is also associated with time planning as solving tasks (r = .313; p = .04). This includes the inhibition of irrelevant elements for selecting and building the optimal solution. The level of attention associated with the ability to focus and shift attention as needed, was related both to the mean initial thinking time (r = .298; p = .04), and the subsequent thinking time (r = .302; p = .05). In general, the results show that the emotional state of adolescents plays an important role in planning of their activities. These results are consistent with those of Davis et al. (2002) suggesting that negative emotion play role in a deactivation of the frontal areas of the brain associated with higher order cognitive functioning, such as planning. The results provide the base for multivariate genetic analysis to explore the etiology of the relationship between planning ability and temperament.

1458


3.2. Genetic and environmental factors of the relationship between temperament and planning ability The main study aimed to identify the role of genetic and environmental factors in the covariance of temperament and the planning ability. The descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Age and gender did not have a significant impact on the parameters. Table 1. Descriptive statistics for SOC and EATQ-R

Thinking Time Negative Affect Surgency Effortful Control Act control Attention Inhibitory control

N

Mean

SD

238 330 328 325 329 331 328

0.01 -0.01 -0.04 0.01 3.42 3.04 3.25

1.02 1.01 1.06 1.04 0.65 0.56 0.47

We calculated the cross-twin correlations for Stocking of Cambridge test and Rothbart's EATQ-R test (see Table2) Table 2. Cross-twin correlations for SOC and EATQ-R MZ [95%CI]

DZ [95%CI]

Thinking Time

0.40 [ 0.23, 0.55]

0.30 [ 0.16, 0.42]

Negative Affect

0.47 [ 0.33, 0.59]

0.18 [ 0.04, 0.32]

Surgency

0.44 [ 0.29, 0.56]

0.34 [ 0.20, 0.46]

Effortful Control

0.55 [ 0.42, 0.65]

0.19 [ 0.04, 0.33]

Act control

0.48 [ 0.34, 0.60]

0.22 [ 0.07, 0.35]

Attention

0.39 [ 0.24, 0.52]

0.22 [ 0.08, 0.36]

Inhibitory control

0.44 [ 0.30, 0.57]

0.12 [-0.03, 0.26]

Dizygotic same-sex and dizygotic opposite-sex twin pairs was combined because of correlation equality. MZ cotwin correlations were higher than DZ co-twin correlations for most variables. All variables were tested for assumption of ACE estimation (Fig.1). Inhibitory control

39

Attention

61

37

Act control

3

60

45

EffortfulControl

55

51

Surgency

11

Negative Affect

49

27

62

45

Thinking Time

17 0%

10%

55 21

20%

62

30%

40% A

C

50% E

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Fig.1 Estimates of additive heredity (A), common environment (C), and unique environment (E) parameters of SOC and EATQ-R with structural equation modeling

A univariate model showed that the scales of Rothbart’s questionnaire are largely affected by genetic factors (А=11-51%). These results are consistent with the early studies of temperament suggesting major genetic influences (Rowe & Plomin, 1977). The planning ability is affected by both genetic (А=17%) and shared environmental factors (С=21%). A multivariate model was used to estimate the genetic and environmental phenotypic correlation. The association between temperament and planning ability is explained by shared environment (C=17-40%) and non-shared environment (Е=60-86%). The results suggest that there are no genes shared by temperament and planning ability (Table 3). Table 3 Multivariate model for SOC and EATQ-R A

C

E

Total

A(%)

C(%)

E(%)

NegativeAffectThinkingTime

-

1.000

0.305

0.211

-

17

83

SurgencyThinkingTime

-

-

0.197

0.121

-

-

100

EffortfulControlThinkingTime

-

1.000

0.248

0.166

-

19

81

Act_controlThinkingTime

-

0.011

0.249

0.144

-

-

100

AttentionThinkingTime

-

1.000

0.181

0.182

-

40

60

Inhib_controlThinkingTime

-

0.021

0.179

0.109

-

-

100

There are two possible explanations for the absence of genetic effects on the relationship between temperament and planning ability. First, the abilities to plan, to maintain information “online,” to solve complex cognitive tasks, and to exhibit self-regulation and inhibitory control typically develop in two periods: from 10 to 14 years and after 15 years (Luna, Garver, Urban, Lazar, & Sweeney, 2004). Emotional and cognitive development is parallel to the developmental changes in corresponding brain structures (Windle et al., 2008). However, some authors claim that planning ability follows a protracted developmental course, so the planning performance improves later in adolescence (Best, Miller, & Jones, 2009). The estimates of heritability can depend on the level of gene expression at certain developmental stage, as indicated by Giedd (2008). For example, Lenroot et al. (2009) showed that the heritability of cortical thickness in frontal, parietal, and temporal lobes increases with age. The low heritablity of planning ability in our study can be attributed to the later maturation of the cerebral cortex which was not captured by our age group. Second, the strategic planning is a complex cognitive function which develops through adolescence until early adulthood (Kopp, 1982). Although the temperamental styles, inhibition, and goal-directed behaviour are well developed by the beginning of adolescence (Friedman & Scholnick, 2014), the highest productivity of the planning ability is reached at 15 (Huizinga, Dolan, & van der Molen, 2006). Also, in our previous study the planning performance showed the increase by the age of 15-17 (Ismatullina, Belova, Voronin, & Malykh, 2014). The age from 10 to 14 years when the development of strategic planning is ongoing can be considered as a sensitive period when the environmental context of development is particularly important. 4. Conclusion The aim of our study was to investigate genetic and environmental sources of the relationship between temperament and planning ability in adolescence. The results suggest that although genes have substantial effect on temperament and some effect on planning ability, but the large part of the individual differences in these characteristics is attributed to person-specific environment. The association between planning ability and temperament is explained completely by environmental effects. Our study - along with the massive of previous research - shows that the emotional state and the predispositions towards positive or negative emotionality can largely affect the performance in complex cognitive tasks. Although

1459

1460


both temperamental predispositions and cognitive functions are biologically based, their development at certain stages depends on the environmental context of development. Further study is needed to investigate the role of individual, cultural, social, and family factors in the development of planning. This knowledge will allow to modify educational programs for better development of planning ability. Acknowledgements This research was supported by the Grant of the President of the Russian Federation for the state support of young Russian scientists - Ph.D., 2015, MK-4149.2015.6 References Arnett, P. A., Higginson, C. I., & Randolph, J. J. (2001). Depression in multiple sclerosis: Relationship to planning ability. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 7(6), 665–674. Badcock, J. C., Michie, P. T., & Rock, D. (2005). Spatial Working Memoryand Planning Ability: Contrasts between Schizophreniaand Bipolar i Disorder. Cortex, 41(6), 753–763. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70294-6 Best, J. R., Miller, P. H., & Jones, L. L. (2009). Executive functions after age 5: Changes and correlates. Developmental Review, 29(3), 180–200. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.05.002 Coombes, S. A., Higgins, T., Gamble, K. M., Cauraugh, J. H., & Janelle, C. M. (2009). Attentional control theory: Anxiety, emotion, and motor planning. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 23(8), 1072–1079. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2009.07.009 Davis, E. P., Bruce, J., & Gunnar, M. R. (2002). The anterior attention network: Associations with temperament and neuroendocrine activity in 6year-old children. Developmental Psychobiology, 40(1), 43–56. http://doi.org/10.1002/dev.10012 Dockery, C. A., Hueckel-Weng, R., Birbaumer, N., & Plewnia, C. (2009). Enhancement of Planning Ability by Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29(22), 7271–7277. http://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0065-09.2009 Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., Spinrad, T. L., Cumberland, A., Liew, J., Reiser, M., … Losoya, S. H. (2009). Longitudinal Relations of Children’s Effortful Control, Impulsivity, and Negative Emotionality to Their Externalizing, Internalizing, and Co-Occurring Behavior Problems. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 988–1008. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0016213 Friedman, S. L., & Scholnick, E. K. (2014). The Developmental Psychology of Planning: Why, How, and When Do We Plan? Psychology Press. Garavan, H., Ross, T. J., Murphy, K., Roche, R. A. P., & Stein, E. A. (2002). Dissociable Executive Functions in the Dynamic Control of Behavior: Inhibition, Error Detection, and Correction. NeuroImage, 17(4), 1820–1829. http://doi.org/10.1006/nimg.2002.1326 Giedd, J. N. (2008). The Teen Brain: Insights from Neuroimaging. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42(4), 335–343. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.01.007 Hughes, C., & Graham, A. (2002). Measuring Executive Functions in Childhood: Problems and Solutions? Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 7(3), 131–142. http://doi.org/10.1111/1475-3588.00024 Huizinga, M., Dolan, C. V., & van der Molen, M. W. (2006). Age-related change in executive function: Developmental trends and a latent variable analysis. Neuropsychologia, 44(11), 2017–2036. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.01.010 Ismatullina, V., Belova, A., Voronin, I., & Malykh, S. (2014). The role of genetic and environmental factors in planning ability in adolescents (in Russian). Theoretical and Experimental Psychology, 7(4), 6–16. Kopp, C. B. (1982). Antecedents of self-regulation: A developmental perspective. Developmental Psychology, 18(2), 199–214. http://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.18.2.199 Kremen, W. S., Jacobson, K. C., Panizzon, M. S., Xian, H., Eaves, L. J., Eisen, S. A., … Lyons, M. J. (2008). Factor Structure of Planning and Problem-solving: A Behavioral Genetic Analysis of the Tower of London Task in Middle-aged Twins. Behavior Genetics, 39(2), 133–144. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-008-9242-z Lenroot, R. K., Schmitt, J. E., Ordaz, S. J., Wallace, G. L., Neale, M. C., Lerch, J. P., … Giedd, J. N. (2009). Differences in genetic and environmental influences on the human cerebral cortex associated with development during childhood and adolescence. Human Brain Mapping, 30(1), 163–174. http://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20494 Loehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent Variable Models: An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. Psychology Press. Luna, B., Garver, K. E., Urban, T. A., Lazar, N. A., & Sweeney, J. A. (2004). Maturation of Cognitive Processes From Late Childhood to Adulthood. Child Development, 75(5), 1357–1372. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00745.x Morris, R. G., Ahmed, S., Syed, G. M., & Toone, B. K. (1993). Neural correlates of planning ability: Frontal lobe activation during the tower of London test. Neuropsychologia, 31(12), 1367–1378. http://doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(93)90104-8 Morris, R., & Ward, G. (2004). The Cognitive Psychology of Planning. Psychology Press. Murray, K. T., & Kochanska, G. (2002). Effortful Control: Factor Structure and Relation to Externalizing and Internalizing Behaviors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30(5), 503–514. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019821031523 Neale, M. C., Hunter, M. D., Pritikin, J. N., Zahery, M., Brick, T. R., Kirkpatrick, R. M., … Boker, S. M. (2015). OpenMx 2.0: Extended Structural Equation and Statistical Modeling. Psychometrika, 81(2), 535–549. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9435-8 Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTABeclipse) manual. (2006). Cambridge: Cambridge Cognition Limited. Oldehinkel, A. J., Hartman, C. A., Ferdinand, R. F., Verhulst, F. C., & Ormel, J. (2007). Effortful control as modifier of the association between


1461

negative emotionality and adolescents’ mental health problems. Development and Psychopathology, 19(2), 523–539. http://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579407070253 R Core Team. (2016). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/ Rothbart, M. K. (2011). Becoming Who We Are: Temperament and Personality in Development. Guilford Press. Rothbart, M. K., & Derryberry, D. (1981). Development of individual differences in temperament. Advances in Developmental Psychology. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201302064297 Rowe, D. C., & Plomin, R. (1977). Temperament in Early Childhood. Journal of Personality Assessment, 41(2), 150–156. http://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4102_5 Windle, M., Spear, L. P., Fuligni, A. J., Angold, A., Brown, J. D., Pine, D., … Dahl, R. E. (2008). Transitions Into Underage and Problem Drinking: Developmental Processes and Mechanisms Between 10 and 15 Years of Age. Pediatrics, 121(Supplement 4), S273–S289. http://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2007-2243C