Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-v2ckm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-14T05:05:18.674Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Working memory moderates the association between early institutional care and separation anxiety symptoms in late childhood and adolescence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 April 2019

Laura Alicia Alba ,
Jessica Flannery ,
Mor Shapiro  and
Nim Tottenham
Laura Alicia Alba
Affiliation:
Department of School Psychology, University of California, Riverside, Riverside, CA, USA
Jessica Flannery
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, USA
Mor Shapiro
Affiliation:
Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA, USA
Nim Tottenham*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Nim Tottenham, Department of Psychology, Columbia University, 1190 Amsterdam Avenue MC5501, New York, NY 10027; E-mail: nlt7@columbia.edu.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Adverse caregiving, for example, previous institutionalization (PI), is often associated with emotion dysregulation that increases anxiety risk. However, the concept of developmental multifinality predicts heterogeneity in anxiety outcomes. Despite this well-known heterogeneity, more work is needed to identify sources of this heterogeneity and how these sources interact with environmental risk to influence mental health. Here, working memory (WM) was examined during late childhood/adolescence as an intra-individual factor to mitigate the risk for separation anxiety, which is particularly susceptible to caregiving adversities. A modified “object-in-place” task was administered to 110 youths (10–17 years old), with or without a history of PI. The PI youths had elevated separation anxiety scores, which were anticorrelated with morning cortisol levels, yet there were no group differences in WM. PI youths showed significant heterogeneity in separation anxiety symptoms and morning cortisol levels, and WM moderated the link between caregiving and separation anxiety and mediated the association between separation anxiety and morning cortisol in PI youth. Findings suggest that (a) institutional care exerts divergent developmental consequences on separation anxiety versus WM, (b) WM interacts with adversity-related emotion dysregulation, and (c) WM may be a therapeutic target for separation anxiety following early caregiving adversity.

Keywords

cortisolearly caregiving adversityemotion dysregulationseparation anxietyworking memory
Type
Special Issue Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 31 , Special Issue 3: Emotion Dysregulation and Emerging Psychopathology , August 2019 , pp. 989 - 997
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Institutional caregiving (e.g., “orphanage rearing”) is an extreme example of caregiving neglect, broadly characterized by an absence of parenting (Ellis, Fisher, & Zaharie, Reference Ellis, Fisher and Zaharie2004; Gunnar & Quevedo, Reference Gunnar and Quevedo2007; Rutter, Reference Rutter1998). Even in the best of circumstances, this type of rearing is a potent stressor for the human infant. As a consequence of this early exposure, institutional caregiving, even when followed by adoption into families, is commonly associated with emotion dysregulation (both behavioral and physiological) difficulties (Ellis et al., Reference Ellis, Fisher and Zaharie2004; Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Humphreys et al., Reference Humphreys, Gabard-Durnam, Goff, Telzer, Flannery, Gee and Tottenhamin press; Koss, Hostinar, Donzella, & Gunnar, Reference Koss, Hostinar, Donzella and Gunnar2014; McLaughlin et al., Reference McLaughlin, Sheridan, Tibu, Fox, Zeanah and Nelson2015).

As described elsewhere (Gunnar, Bruce, & Grotevant, Reference Gunnar, Bruce and Grotevant2000; Merz & McCall, Reference Merz and McCall2010; Rutter et al., Reference Rutter, Beckett, Castle, Colvert, Kreppner, Mehta and Sonuga-Barke2007; Smyke et al., Reference Smyke, Koga, Johnson, Fox, Marshall, Nelson and Zeanah2007), caregiving provided by institutions can include a range of privations, from inadequate nutrition, hygiene, and medical care, to inadequate cognitive stimulation, to unstable caregiving. These conditions exceed any normative range of expected caregiving (McLaughlin, Sheridan, & Nelson, Reference McLaughlin, Sheridan and Nelson2017; Tottenham, Reference Tottenham2012a), and therefore, act as a potent stressor on infant brain development (e.g., Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Gunnar, Frenn, Wewerka, & Van Ryzin, Reference Gunnar, Frenn, Wewerka and Van Ryzin2009; McLaughlin et al., Reference McLaughlin, Sheridan, Tibu, Fox, Zeanah and Nelson2015). Biological systems like the amygdala and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis (HPA) are particularly sensitive to such stressors due in part to their early development (Gilmore et al., Reference Gilmore, Shi, Woolson, Knickmeyer, Short, Lin and Shen2012; Humphrey, Reference Humphrey1968; Payne, Machado, Bliwise, & Bachevalier, Reference Payne, Machado, Bliwise and Bachevalier2010; Ulfig, Setzer, & Bohl, Reference Ulfig, Setzer and Bohl2003) and to an abundance of stress hormone receptors, which animal models have shown are already present in early postnatal life (Avishai-Eliner, Yi, & Baram, Reference Avishai-Eliner, Yi and Baram1996; Fenoglio, Brunson, Avishai-Eliner, Chen, & Baram, Reference Fenoglio, Brunson, Avishai-Eliner, Chen and Baram2004). Moreover, administration of stress hormones has been causally linked to amygdala hyperactivity in the developing rodent (Baram, Hirsch, Snead, & Schultz, Reference Baram, Hirsch, Snead and Schultz1992). Consistent with the hypothesis that institutional caregiving in infancy is a stressor that can modify amygdala structure and function, alterations to amygdala development have been observed in youth adopted internationally from institutional care (Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Hanson et al., Reference Hanson, Nacewicz, Sutterer, Cayo, Schaefer, Rudolph and Davidson2015; Maheu et al., Reference Maheu, Dozier, Guyer, Mandell, Peloso, Poeth and Ernst2010; Mehta et al., Reference Mehta, Golembo, Nosarti, Colvert, Mota, Williams and Sonuga-Barke2009; Tottenham et al., Reference Tottenham, Hare, Millner, Gilhooly, Zevin and Casey2011). Amygdala phenotypes following institutional care have been associated with a constellation of behaviors that contribute to emotion dysregulation, including atypical responding to environmental cues of potential threat (e.g., avoidance of eye contact; Tottenham et al., Reference Tottenham, Hare, Millner, Gilhooly, Zevin and Casey2011), enhanced visual attention for threat-related cues (Silvers et al., Reference Silvers, Goff, Gabard-Durnam, Gee, Fareri, Caldera and Tottenham2017), difficulty inhibiting behavior in the context of threat cues (Tottenham et al., Reference Tottenham, Hare, Quinn, McCarry, Nurse, Gilhooly and Casey2010), and increased behavioral problems (Hanson et al., Reference Hanson, Nacewicz, Sutterer, Cayo, Schaefer, Rudolph and Davidson2015).

Contemporary models of developmental psychopathology (e.g., Beauchaine & Zisner, Reference Beauchaine and Zisner2017) posit that these latent indicators of subcortical vulnerabilities contribute to the transdiagnostic risk for mental health difficulties involving emotion dysregulation, including elevated anxiety symptoms (discussed in Beauchaine, Reference Beauchaine2015; Cole, Hall, & Hajal, Reference Cole, Hall, Hajal, Beauchaine and Hinshaw2013). Accordingly, increased trait anxiety symptoms have been observed following institutional care, which have correlated with alterations in subcortical structures including the amygdala (e.g., Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Green et al., Reference Green, Goff, Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Telzer and Tottenham2016; Silvers et al., Reference Silvers, Lumian, Gabard-Durnam, Gee, Goff, Fareri and Tottenham2016). Of particular note is separation anxiety, a common outcome of caregiving instability and early stress exposure (Pine & Cohen, Reference Pine and Cohen2002; Rapee & Szollos, Reference Rapee and Szollos2002), which although observed in childhood, can persist into adolescence (Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Green et al., Reference Green, Goff, Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Telzer and Tottenham2016; Humphreys et al., Reference Humphreys, Gleason, Drury, Miron, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2015).

Despite this elevated risk for separation anxiety symptoms, there is notable heterogeneity in outcomes following institutional care (Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Green et al., Reference Green, Goff, Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Telzer and Tottenham2016; Humphreys et al., Reference Humphreys, Gleason, Drury, Miron, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2015; Tottenham, Reference Tottenham2012b). Consistent with the concept of developmental multifinality, adverse caregiving experiences are followed by large individual differences in mental health outcomes (Doom & Cicchetti, Reference Doom, Cicchetti, Harkness and Hayden2018). For instance, two adolescents with early institutional care experiences may exhibit very different developmental trajectories, and these differences have been linked to age of adoption (e.g., Castle et al., Reference Castle, Groothues, Bredenkamp, Beckett, O'Connor and Rutter1999; Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson, & Zeanah, Reference Fox, Almas, Degnan, Nelson and Zeanah2011; Green et al., Reference Green, Goff, Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Telzer and Tottenham2016; Loman, Wiik, Frenn, Pollak, & Gunnar, Reference Loman, Wiik, Frenn, Pollak and Gunnar2009), to genetic differences (Drury et al., Reference Drury, Gleason, Theall, Smyke, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2012), and to postadoption factors (e.g., Vantieghem et al., Reference Vantieghem, Gabard-Durnam, Goff, Flannery, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2017). Individual differences have been noted across several types of caregiving adversities in the resilience literature (including maltreatment, parent psychopathology/substance abuse, and other wide-ranging early adversities; Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch1997; Martel et al., Reference Martel, Nigg, Wong, Fitzgerald, Jester, Puttler and Zucker2007; Masten, Best, & Garmezy, Reference Masten, Best and Garmezy1990; Masten & Tellegen, Reference Masten and Tellegen2012), and this literature often highlights factors extrinsic to the child that promote resilience (e.g., presence of a supportive adult). However, mechanisms within the individual (i.e., intraindividual factors) have also been noted, and identifying these mechanisms remains an area of active research (e.g., Blair & Raver, Reference Blair and Raver2016; Curtis & Cicchetti, Reference Curtis and Cicchetti2007; Masten & Barnes, Reference Masten and Barnes2018; Raver, McCoy, Lowenstein, & Pess, Reference Raver, McCoy, Lowenstein and Pess2013; Vantieghem et al., Reference Vantieghem, Gabard-Durnam, Goff, Flannery, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2017).

Continuing this line of inquiry, the present study examined whether working memory (WM) acts as an intraindividual resilience factor to mitigate the link between early institutional caregiving and separation anxiety during late childhood and adolescence. Previous work has shown that WM mediates the link between early institutional care and attention-deficit/hyperactivity symptoms in 12-year-olds (Tibu et al., Reference Tibu, Sheridan, McLaughlin, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2016). This effect of WM on cognitive functions is perhaps intuitive given its function to “temporarily store […] information as part of the performance of complex tasks” (Baddeley, Reference Baddeley1992). However, perhaps less intuitively, WM and other closely related functions (e.g., inhibitory control and attention control), have also been associated with affective symptoms and emotion regulation (Beauchaine & Thayer, Reference Beauchaine and Thayer2015; Etkin & Schatzberg, Reference Etkin and Schatzberg2011; Schmeichel & Demaree, Reference Schmeichel and Demaree2010; Schmeichel, Volokhov, & Demaree, Reference Schmeichel, Volokhov and Demaree2008), and have been causally linked with reducing anxiety symptoms (Hadwin & Richards, Reference Hadwin and Richards2016; Sari, Koster, Pourtois, & Derakshan, Reference Sari, Koster, Pourtois and Derakshan2016). Mechanistically, it has been argued that better WM translates into being more “adept at juggling multiple streams of information,” which then facilitates better management of emotional responding (Schmeichel & Demaree, Reference Schmeichel and Demaree2010, p. 742). In the current study, we investigated whether WM moderated the association between early institutional caregiving and separation anxiety symptoms during late childhood and adolescence. We used a modified version of an “object-in-place” task that requires memory of novel locations of four objects over an 8-s delay and subsequently reporting the location of a cued item. This type of task has been shown to rely on the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex in animal models of WM (Bachevalier & Nemanic, Reference Bachevalier and Nemanic2008; Barker & Warburton, Reference Barker and Warburton2015; Kim, Delcasso, & Lee, Reference Kim, Delcasso and Lee2011). Of note, these regions have previously been associated with resilience against anxiety symptoms in previously institutionalized (PI) samples (e.g., Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Silvers et al., Reference Silvers, Lumian, Gabard-Durnam, Gee, Goff, Fareri and Tottenham2016).

WM skills have also routinely been associated with individual differences in diurnal cortisol production; in particular, better WM skills have been associated with higher morning cortisol levels in adults and children (Erickson, Drevets, & Schulkin, Reference Erickson, Drevets and Schulkin2003; Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Fernandez, Trianes, Wesnes, Petrini, Zangara and Ambrosetti2008). This association may be the result of the intimate neurohormonal relationship between cortisol and corticohippocampal circuits underlying WM skills (see Eichenbaum, Reference Eichenbaum2000; Jay et al., Reference Jay, Rocher, Hotte, Naudon, Gurden and Spedding2004), which are rich with cortisol receptors and interact with the HPA axis (Buchanan, Tranel, & Adolphs, Reference Buchanan, Tranel and Adolphs2006; Jay et al., Reference Jay, Rocher, Hotte, Naudon, Gurden and Spedding2004; Lupien & Lepage, Reference Lupien and Lepage2001; Oei, Everaerd, Elzinga, van Well, & Bermond, Reference Oei, Everaerd, Elzinga, van Well and Bermond2006; Roozendaal, Reference Roozendaal2002). Morning cortisol levels have also been linked with anxiety symptoms, although the direction of effects has been mixed (O'Donovan et al., Reference O'Donovan, Hughes, Slavich, Lynch, Cronin, O'Farrelly and Malone2010; Vreeburg et al., Reference Vreeburg, Zitman, van Pelt, Derijk, Verhagen, van Dyck and Penninx2010). Of note, diurnal cortisol production often exhibits atypical patterns (i.e., blunted morning cortisol) following institutional care when measured in young children (Gunnar & Quevedo, Reference Gunnar and Quevedo2007). However, at older ages this pattern appears to alleviate for some PI youth in the transition to adolescence (Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017; Quevedo, Johnson, Loman, Lafavor, & Gunnar, Reference Quevedo, Johnson, Loman, Lafavor and Gunnar2012). If there is an association between morning cortisol and WM, then individual differences in morning cortisol measured in late childhood and adolescence might be associated with better WM performance and lower separation anxiety.

The goal of the present study was to investigate individual differences in separation anxiety following early institutional care by examining whether WM skills moderated the link between early care and separation anxiety. In addition, we examined the associations between morning WM, separation anxiety, and cortisol during the late childhood/adolescent period, given the earlier findings that cortisol is linked with WM and may become more typical in adolescence for those who experienced early institutional caregiving.

Method

Participants

One hundred and ten youth (M age = 12.9 years old, SD = 2.2; range = 10–17); 70 female/40 male) were drawn from a larger community-based study examining behavioral and neurobiological outcomes following early institutional care. Forty-two participants with a history of institutional caregiving (PI) who were later adopted into families and 68 participants with no history of institutional caregiving who had always lived with their parent(s) (comparison group) participated in the current study. Youth in the PI group were recruited via local international adoption agencies and family networks. Youth in the comparison group were recruited via flyer advertisements within the surrounding community or from state birth records. Youth in the comparison group were only included if parents indicated that they had no psychiatric, neurological, or learning disorder diagnosis. Estimated IQ was assessed with the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (Wechsler, Reference Wechsler1999; two subtest form), and there were no significant group differences in estimated IQ, F (1, 109) = 0.004, p = .95, partial η2 = 10−5, PI M = 105.79, SD = 14.45; comparison M = 104.53, SD = 13.28. The mean age of placement in institutional care for PI participants was 9.49 months (median = 0.2; SD = 24.18; range = 0–126) and the mean age of adoption was 32.86 months (median = 15; SD = 37.45; range = 2–168). PI youth were internationally adopted from East Asia (55%), Eastern Europe (38%), Central America (5%), and India (2%). The protocol was approved by the university institutional review board. Parents provided informed consent for youth participation, and youth provided written assent.

Materials and procedure

WM

WM was assessed behaviorally using a modified “object-in-place” task. Participants were tested individually in a private room in the laboratory on a single visit. Participants were instructed to memorize the locations of four white schematic objects (apple, backpack, envelope, and hat) on a black screen within a 2 × 2 grid for 6000 ms (Figure 1). All four schematic images were presented simultaneously, and their locations changed for each new trial. These presentations were followed by a delay period of 3000 ms (central fixation on screen). After this delay period, there was an additional delay period for 2000 ms during which the question, “Where was the [object],?” together with an object (e.g., apple) were presented, followed by an additional delay period of 3000 ms (i.e., total delay = 8000 ms). Participants were then presented with a blank 2 × 2 grid, where they indicated (via keyboard press) the location of the specific object (e.g., apple) to the best of their ability. This response period was followed by an intertrial interval of 3000 ms. There was a total of 10 trials in the task. Accuracy was computed as the percentage of correct trials.

Figure 1. (a) Illustration of working memory task. (b) Group means on the working memory task. Circles are individual participants. PI, previous institutional care.

Separation anxiety

Separation anxiety was assessed via parent report (Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders—Parent Report; Birmaher et al., Reference Birmaher, Brent, Chiappetta, Bridge, Monga and Baugher1999). This is a 41-item questionnaire designed for ages 8–18 years old, which has shown good internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach's α for separation anxiety = 0.81) and test–retest validity (e.g., interclass correlations range: .70–.90; Birmaher, Reference Birmaher1997; Wren et al., Reference Wren, Berg, Heiden, Kinnamon, Ohlson, Bridge and Bernal2007). In the current sample, similar good internal consistency was observed for the separation anxiety subscale (Cronbach's α = 0.83). We focused on the continuous scores from the separation anxiety subscale as previous research suggests a robust association between early institutional care and elevated separation anxiety scores (e.g., Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013).

Morning cortisol

Although the current analyses focused on morning levels only, diurnal salivary cortisol was measured across 2 consecutive (or close to consecutive) days (for analyses of the full diurnal cycle, see Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017). Parents were asked to collect saliva across four different times of the day (at wake-up, 45 min after wake-up, at 5 p.m., and at 8 p.m.) for 2 days. Parents were provided with saliva collection kits with four tubes, cotton sticks, and a daily saliva diary. Participants were asked to chew on a piece of Trident® sugarless gum and then place a sorbette in their mouth to absorb saliva (Dabbs, Reference Dabbs1991; Salimetrics, State College, PA). Saliva samples were either mailed back in or brought in by families. Attempts were made to obtain home saliva samples as close to in-lab testing as possible (time difference M = 47.5, SD = 123.74 days; median = 13 days). Samples were stored in a locked freezer at –20 °C until they were mailed over dried ice to Technical University Dresden to be processed by Dr. Clemens Kirschbaum's Biological Psychology Laboratory. Salivary cortisol concentrations were measured in singlet using commercially available chemiluminescence-immunoassays with high sensitivity. The interassay coefficient for cortisol was below 8% (Kirschbaum & Hellhammer, Reference Kirschbaum and Hellhammer2000). Because several studies have shown that PI samples are likely to differ most in morning values of cortisol (e.g., Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017; Koss, Mliner, Donzella, & Gunnar, Reference Koss, Mliner, Donzella and Gunnar2016), the current study focused on morning values; this was computed by taking the natural log of the mean of the morning collections (wake-up and wake-up+45 min) across the 2 days. No extreme observe values were found within this sample; therefore, all data points were included.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses were performed in SPSS (version 24; SPSS Inc., USA), including the PROCESS macro (Hayes, Reference Hayes2018), and JASP (https://jasps-stats.org). All analyses included the covariates of age and sex of participants. No data points were excluded in analyses; any missing data points are missing because the data were not able to be obtained. If data were missing for any variable, analyses including that variable dropped listwise.

Results

Descriptive data

WM scores were collected from 110 youth, and accuracy scores ranged from 30% to 100%. There were no group differences in WM accuracy scores, F (1, 110) = 0.03, p = .87, partial η2 = .00; PI M = 82%, SD = 17% and comparison M = 84%, SD = 17% (see Figure 1). We followed this analysis with a Bayesian analysis of covariance model in JASP to compute whether the data were more likely under the null versus the alternative hypothesis. The Bayes factor indicated that the data were 4.26 times more likely to be observed under the null hypothesis than they were under the alternative hypothesis. In other words, this analysis is consistent with there being no significant difference between groups in these WM scores. There was a main effect of age, F (1, 110) = 7.72, p < .01, partial η2 = .07, such that WM scores correlated positively with age. There were no other main effects of interactions for WM scores. Separation anxiety scores were obtained from 101 of these 110 youth. As anticipated based on the recruitment strategy of the comparison group, there were group differences in separation anxiety scores, F (1, 101) = 6.42, p < .015, partial η2 = .06, such that PI adolescents (M = 4.03, SD = 3.83) had higher values than the comparison group (M = 2.02, SD = 2.73). Sixty-four percent of the youth in the PI group were above the cutoff for clinical concern on the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Disorders—Parent Report. There was also a main effect of age, F (1, 101) = 11.00, p < .001, partial η2 = .10, such that younger participants had higher separation anxiety scores. There were no other main effects or interactions for separation anxiety scores. Morning levels of salivary cortisol were obtained from 80 of these 110 youth. There was a nonsignificant trend for group, F (1,80) = 3.15, p = .08, partial η2 = .04, in the direction of the PI group having lower morning cortisol levels (PI M = 2.76 nmol/L natural logged, SD = 0.40; comparison M = 2.89 nmol/L natural logged, SD = 0.54). There was a main effect of sex, F (1, 80) = 6.81, p < .015, partial η2 = .08 (female M = 2.96 nmol/L, SD = 0.45; male M = 2.68 nmol/L, SD = 0.51). There were no other main effects or interactions.

Table 1 shows the bivariate correlations between WM scores, separation anxiety scores, and morning cortisol levels for each group. As shown, these three variables were significantly correlated within the PI group, but not in the comparison group.

Table 1. Within-group Pearson correlation matrices for study variables

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Moderation analysis: WM

To test whether WM moderated the association between caregiving group and separation anxiety scores, a PROCESS model (#1) in SPSS was used. Group (PI vs. comparison) was entered as the independent variable, with WM as the moderator, and separation anxiety symptoms as the dependent variable, controlling for age and sex. The overall model was significant, F (5, 95) = 7.82, p < 10−4, R 2 = .29). In addition, the Group × WM interaction accounted for a significant proportion of the variance in separation anxiety scores, ΔR 2 = .05, ΔF (1, 95) = 6.39, p < .015, β = –8.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) [–15.48, –1.86]. As illustrated in Figure 2, post hoc linear regressions showed that higher WM scores were associated with lower separation anxiety scores in the PI group, β = –0.41, t (39) = –2.89, p < .01, ΔR 2 = .15, but not in the comparison group, β = –0.12, t (62) = –0.92, p = .36, ΔR 2 = .01. This analysis controlled for sex and age; sex did not account for any significant variance in separation anxiety, β = 0.54, t (101) = 0.87, p = .38, and as expected and described earlier, age was associated with separation anxiety scores, β = –0.03, t (101) = –2.81, p < .01.

Figure 2. Interaction between group and working memory scores on separation anxiety scores. Residual scores are plotted, controlling for age and sex. PI, previous institutional care.

Because WM could be associated with IQ, an additional analysis accounting for estimated IQ retested this moderation. A general linear model confirmed that WM and estimated IQ were highly associated with each other, F (1, 109) = 25.72, p < 10−5, partial η2 = .20. Therefore, the PROCESS moderation was repeated, but this time including estimated IQ as a covariate. Even when controlling for estimated IQ, the Group × WM interaction remained significant, ΔR 2 = .05, ΔF (1, 93) = 6.09, p < .015, β = –8.52, 95% CI [–15.37, –1.66].

Associations with morning cortisol

As WM scores, separation anxiety scores, and morning cortisol levels were all correlated with each other in the PI group (see Table 1), but not in the comparison group, we tested a moderated mediation (PROCESS model #59) with morning cortisol as the independent variable, separation anxiety scores as the dependent variable, and WM scores as the mediator, controlling for age and sex. Caregiving group was treated as the moderator of the entire mediation. As shown in Figure 3, this analysis showed that there was a significant moderated mediation (index = –1.48, SE [boot] = 1.08), and the 95% CI [–4.91, –0.15] did not include 0. This analysis indicated that the association between morning cortisol and separation anxiety scores was statistically mediated by WM in the PI youth.

Figure 3. Moderated mediation. For PI youth, the association between morning cortisol and separation anxiety scores was mediated by working memory scores. PI, previous institutional care.

Supplemental analyses of WM and separation anxiety scores

Although our hypothesis predicted that WM would moderate the association between early caregiving and separation anxiety, the measures in this study were collected at (roughly) the same visit, making it difficult to conclude directionality of effects; therefore, we also tested alternative models. We found that neither (a) the reverse moderation (i.e., separation anxiety moderating the association between group and WM, via PROCESS model #1 in SPSS), F (1, 95) = 1.19, p = .28, ΔR 2 = .01, nor (b) the mediation model (i.e., WM as mediator of the association between group and separation anxiety, via PROCESS model #4 in SPSS), point estimate = 0.09 [0.19], 95% CI [–0.17, 0.72], were significant. However, we did find evidence that separation anxiety scores indirectly mediated the association between group and WM scores, F (4, 96) = 4.52, p < .005 (via PROCESS model #4 in SPSS), accounting for 16% of additional variance (controlling for age and sex). The 95% CI for the indirect effect of separation anxiety was near, but did not contain, zero, point estimate = –0.02 [0.02], 95% CI [–.07, –.001]. This finding could mean that although there was no group difference in WM scores (and thus no direct path between group and WM scores), separation anxiety symptoms partially accounted for some of the differences in WM scores in the PI youth.

Correlations with caregiving timing variables

We used separate linear regressions to test for associations between the primary variables in this study (i.e., WM, morning cortisol, and separation anxiety scores) and institutional care timing variables (age placed in institutional care, age adopted, time in institutional care, and time with family), controlling for current age and sex. There were only statistical trends for time in institutional care to be associated with WM (β = –0.31, t = –2.03, p = .051, ΔR 2 = .09) and separation anxiety scores (β = 0.05, t = 1.78, p = .08, ΔR 2 = .07), such that longer stays in institutional care were associated with lower WM scores and higher separation anxiety scores, but these associations did not reach statistical significance. When WM and time in institutional care were entered into the same regression with separation anxiety as the dependent variable, only WM was significantly associated with separation anxiety (β = –8.06, t = –2.41, p < .025), whereas time in institutional care was not (β = 0.026, t = 0.94, p = .35). There were no other significant associations with caregiving timing variables (smallest p > .3).

Discussion

The neglect inherent to institutional caregiving is a potent stressor for the developing infant that significantly increases the risk for later mental health problems. However, the concept of multifinality predicts large individual differences in outcome. The first aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that during late childhood/adolescence, WM would moderate the association between early adverse caregiving (i.e., institutional care) and separation anxiety scores. Support was found for this hypothesis, such that PI youth with higher WM scores had lower separation anxiety scores than other PI youth. That is, although the average separation anxiety score was high for youth with a history of early institutional care, there were significant individual differences (i.e., multifinality), and these individual differences in separation anxiety scores were explained by WM. The current findings raise the possibility that WM is an intraindividual resilience factor that protects against separation anxiety following caregiving adversity.

Contemporary models of developmental psychopathology have argued that cortically mediated processes, including WM, are part of the latent structure that contribute to individual differences in emotion regulation (e.g., Beauchaine & Zisner, Reference Beauchaine and Zisner2017). These processes are described as exerting “top-down” regulatory influences on affect-related subcortical systems. There is much empirical support for this model from neuroimaging studies in humans as well as nonhuman animal studies (e.g., Etkin, Prater, Hoeft, Menon, & Schatzberg, Reference Etkin, Prater, Hoeft, Menon and Schatzberg2010; Lieberman et al., Reference Lieberman, Eisenberger, Crockett, Tom, Pfeifer and Way2007; Mitchell et al., Reference Mitchell, Nakic, Fridberg, Kamel, Pine and Blair2007; Ochsner, Bunge, Grosss, & Gabrieli, Reference Ochsner, Bunge, Gross and Gabrieli2002; Quirk & Beer, Reference Quirk and Beer2006). Although neuroimaging was not collected during the WM task in the current paper, previous work has shown that prefrontal-amygdala and prefrontal-hippocampal functional connectivity are associated with reduced separation anxiety in PI youth (Gee et al., Reference Gee, Gabard-Durnam, Flannery, Goff, Humphreys, Telzer and Tottenham2013; Silvers et al., Reference Silvers, Lumian, Gabard-Durnam, Gee, Goff, Fareri and Tottenham2016). Taken together with these past findings, the behavioral findings of the current study are consistent with models of emotion regulation that emphasize interactions between multiple levels (e.g., cortical and subcortical) of brain development (e.g., Beauchaine & Zisner, Reference Beauchaine and Zisner2017).

We also examined WM and separation anxiety associations with morning cortisol as WM and mental health have both independently been associated with higher morning cortisol in previous studies (Cicchetti & Rogosch, Reference Cicchetti and Rogosch2007; Maldonado et al., Reference Maldonado, Fernandez, Trianes, Wesnes, Petrini, Zangara and Ambrosetti2008). In the present study, morning cortisol levels, separation anxiety scores, and WM were correlated with each other only in the PI sample. A test of moderated mediation showed that for youth with a history of institutional care, higher morning cortisol levels were associated with higher WM scores, and both were associated with lower separation anxiety scores. The sample size in this study is small for testing complex interactions, and therefore, this full model should be considered with caution. However, the correlations between cortisol, WM scores, and separation anxiety that only existed in the PI group motivated our testing the full model. Although blunted morning cortisol levels have been repeatedly observed in young children with a PI history, adolescents with a history of PI have exhibited more normative morning cortisol levels (Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017; Gunnar & Quevedo, Reference Gunnar and Quevedo2007), which were associated with more time living with adoptive families (Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017). These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that the developing HPA axis is amenable to the ameliorative effects of subsequent stable family environments (Flannery et al., Reference Flannery, Gabard-Durnam, Shapiro, Goff, Caldera, Louie and Tottenham2017; O'Connor, Rutter, Beckett, Keaveney, & Kreppner, Reference O'Connor, Rutter, Beckett, Keaveney and Kreppner2000).

In the current study, we did not observe any obvious deficits in WM associated with PI history, as both comparison and PI youth performed with high accuracy (~83%). On the surface, this finding deviates from previous work identifying poor WM following institutional care (Bick, Zeanah, Fox, & Nelson, Reference Bick, Zeanah, Fox and Nelson2018; Hostinar, Stellern, Schaefer, Carlson, & Gunnar, Reference Hostinar, Stellern, Schaefer, Carlson and Gunnar2012; Tibu et al., Reference Tibu, Sheridan, McLaughlin, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2016). There are several possible reasons for this difference. The task used in the current study may require less WM than those used in previous studies, which would obfuscate any potential group differences. However, even though potentially an easier task, individual differences in performance nonetheless did show associations with individual differences in separation anxiety scores in the PI group. Another important difference may be related to participant characteristics. The estimated IQ in the current sample of youth with a history of institutional care was higher than those in previous reports. This difference is important as previous work has shown that controlling for IQ removes group differences (PI vs. comparison) in adolescent WM (Bick et al., Reference Bick, Zeanah, Fox and Nelson2018). In the current sample, estimated IQ was correlated with WM scores. However, WM continued to moderate the link between early caregiving group and separation anxiety even when controlling for IQ, indicating that the WM measured in the current study made a unique contribution to separation anxiety over and above IQ. Moreover, a previous study that controlled for IQ nonetheless identified differences following institutional care in an executive function battery, which included a WM task (Hostinar et al., Reference Hostinar, Stellern, Schaefer, Carlson and Gunnar2012). However, this assessment occurred during the preschool period only 1 year following adoption into families. Therefore, it is possible that alterations in WM due to institutional care might exhibit recovery over time as children grow up with their adoptive families. In addition, it is unlikely that WM was simply an index of general proxy for better mental health because we did not find group differences, and the test of reverse moderation (i.e., separation anxiety moderating the link between institutional care and WM) was not significant. In the context of the current findings, it is possible that stable postadoption family environments might also benefit WM and separation anxiety performance (e.g., Humphreys, et al., Reference Humphreys, Gleason, Drury, Miron, Nelson, Fox and Zeanah2015; Merz, McCall, Wright, & Luna, Reference Merz, McCal, Wright and Luna2013), perhaps through improving HPA axis activity. This subsequent exposure to stable caregiving may have particular benefits for the relatively late developing neurobiology that underlies WM skills (Kwon, Reiss, & Menon, Reference Kwon, Reiss and Menon2002; von Allmen, Wurmitzer, & Klaver, Reference von Allmen, Wurmitzer and Klaver2014).

WM mediated the link between morning cortisol and separation anxiety, but this entire path was moderated by caregiving group. In other words, the associations between WM, cortisol, and separation anxiety only existed for the PI youth. One explanation for this observed moderation might be that the comparison group had levels of separation anxiety that were too low, and therefore lacked enough variance to reveal any within-group associations, whereas the PI group had separation anxiety scores that were more likely to be in the clinical concern range. Another possibility is that these processes are supported by different neurobiological mechanisms in the PI versus comparison youth (i.e., a “behavioral phenocopy”; Church, Petersen, & Schlaggar, Reference Church, Petersen and Schlaggar2010). There is precedent for this idea; it has been shown that despite similar behavioral performance, youth with a history of institutional care (vs. those without this PI history) can engage different neurobiology (Silvers et al., Reference Silvers, Lumian, Gabard-Durnam, Gee, Goff, Fareri and Tottenham2016). Of note, these neurobiological regions identified in the Silvers et al. study included the hippocampus and medial prefrontal cortex, which have been shown to be involved in the “object-in-place” type of WM task used in this study (Bachevalier & Nemanic, Reference Bachevalier and Nemanic2008; Barker & Warburton, Reference Barker and Warburton2015).

The present results should be considered within the context of its limitations. There is little information about preadoption experiences of the participants. While this is a common challenge in samples that include individuals with a PI history, it should be considered in balance with the scientific advantage of being able to examine development following a highly significant and temporally bound form of early caregiving adversity. In addition, there was a trend for WM scores to be negatively associated with time in institutional care, consistent with findings that institutional care is causally associated with WM (Bick et al., Reference Bick, Zeanah, Fox and Nelson2018). Youth in the comparison group were enrolled if their parent indicated no history of psychiatric or neurologic illness. This comparison group (not a “control” group) was selected to provide information about WM behavior in the absence of illness, but this enrollment strategy also limits our ability to generalize findings from this “very healthy” comparison group and can exaggerate group differences (although the PI youths’ scores were still very high relative to expected norms). Therefore, future tests of replication should include a comparison sample that is more representative of the general population (i.e., including samples with psychopathology). Finally, the data presented in this paper were obtained at a single time point, which tempers any conclusions about directionality of effects. Our analyses showed that an alternative model also was significant, whereby separation anxiety mediated the association between early caregiving group and WM. If this mediation were replicated in a longitudinal design, the findings would be consistent with the hypothesis that early alterations to affective processes can produce cascading effects on later developing cortical regions (see Tottenham & Gabard-Durnam, Reference Tottenham and Gabard-Durnam2017).

Results from this study demonstrate that PI youth with better WM had decreased levels of separation anxiety and higher morning cortisol levels, suggesting a potential therapeutic target for youth struggling with adversity-related mental health challenges. Although this conclusion requires additional confirmation, these findings highlight individual differences that contribute to multifinal outcomes following early adverse caregiving. Overall these results provide additional evidence of intraindividual factors during late childhood/adolescence that can mitigate the link between early caregiving adversity and mental health outcomes.

Financial support

This research was supported by in part by Grant R01MH091864 from the National Institute of Mental Health. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of funding agencies.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. Lila Davachi for task consultation and Dr. Willem Frankenhuis for statistical advice.

References

Avishai-Eliner, S., Yi, S. J., & Baram, T. Z. (1996). Developmental profile of messenger RNA for the corticotropin-releasing hormone receptor in the rat limbic system. Developmental Brain Research, 91, 159–163. doi:0165380695001581Google Scholar
Bachevalier, J., & Nemanic, S. (2008). Memory for spatial location and object-place associations are differently processed by the hippocampal formation, parahippocampal areas TH/TF and perirhinal cortex. Hippocampus, 18, 64–80. doi:10.1002/hipo.20369Google Scholar
Baddeley, A. (1992). Working memory. Science, 255, 556–559.Google Scholar
Baram, T. Z., Hirsch, E., Snead, O. C. III, & Schultz, L. (1992). Corticotropin-releasing hormone-induced seizures in infant rats originate in the amygdala. Annals of Neurology, 31, 488–494. doi:10.1002/ana.410310505Google Scholar
Barker, G. R., & Warburton, E. C. (2015). Object-in-place associative recognition memory depends on glutamate receptor neurotransmission within two defined hippocampal-cortical circuits: A critical role for AMPA and NMDA receptors in the hippocampus, perirhinal, and prefrontal cortices. Cerebral Cortex, 25, 472–481. doi:10.1093/cercor/bht245Google Scholar
Beauchaine, T. P. (2015). Future directions in emotion dysregulation and youth psychopathology. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 44, 875–896. doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1038827Google Scholar
Beauchaine, T. P., & Thayer, J. F. (2015). Heart rate variability as a transdiagnostic biomarker of psychopathology. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 98(2, Pt. 2), 338–350. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2015.08.004Google Scholar
Beauchaine, T. P., & Zisner, A. (2017). Motivation, emotion regulation, and the latent structure of psychopathology: An integrative and convergent historical perspective. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 119, 108–118. doi:10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.12.014Google Scholar
Bick, J., Zeanah, C. H., Fox, N. A., & Nelson, C. A. (2018). Memory and executive functioning in 12-year-old children with a history of institutional rearing. Child Development, 89, 495–508. doi:10.1111/cdev.12952Google Scholar
Birmaher, B. (1997). The Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): Scale construction and psychometric characteristics. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 36, 545.Google Scholar
Birmaher, B., Brent, D. A., Chiappetta, L., Bridge, J., Monga, S., & Baugher, M. (1999). Psychometric properties of the Screen for Child Anxiety Related Emotional Disorders (SCARED): A replication study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 38, 1230–1236.Google Scholar
Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2016). Poverty, stress, and brain development: New directions for prevention and intervention. Academic Pediatrics, 16(3, Suppl.), S30–S36. doi:10.1016/j.acap.2016.01.010Google Scholar
Buchanan, T. W., Tranel, D., & Adolphs, R. (2006). Impaired memory retrieval correlates with individual differences in cortisol response but not autonomic response. Learning and Memory, 13, 382–387. doi:10.1101/lm.206306Google Scholar
Castle, J., Groothues, C., Bredenkamp, D., Beckett, C., O'Connor, T., & Rutter, M. (1999). Effects of qualities of early institutional care on cognitive attainment. E.R.A. Study Team. English and Romanian Adoptees. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 69, 424–437.Google Scholar
Church, J. A., Petersen, S. E., & Schlaggar, B. L. (2010). The “Task B problem” and other considerations in developmental functional neuroimaging. Human Brain Mapping, 31, 852–862 doi:10.1002/hbm.21036Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (1997). The role of self-organization in the promotion of resilience in maltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 9, 797–815.Google Scholar
Cicchetti, D., & Rogosch, F. A. (2007). Personality, adrenal steroid hormones, and resilience in maltreated children: A multilevel perspective. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 787–809. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000399Google Scholar
Cole, P. M., Hall, S. E., & Hajal, N. J. (2013). Emotion dysregulation as a risk factor for psychopathology. In Beauchaine, T. P. & Hinshaw, S. P. (Eds.), Child and adolescent psychopathology (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Curtis, W. J., & Cicchetti, D. (2007). Emotion and resilience: A multilevel investigation of hemispheric electroencephalogram asymmetry and emotion regulation in maltreated and nonmaltreated children. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 811–840. doi:10.1017/S0954579407000405Google Scholar
Dabbs, J. M. Jr. (1991). Salivary testosterone measurements: Collecting, storing, and mailing saliva samples. Physiology and Behavior, 49, 815–817.Google Scholar
Doom, J. R., & Cicchetti, D. (2018). The developmental psychopathology of stress exposure in childhood. In Harkness, K. & Hayden, E. P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of stress and mental health. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Drury, S. S., Gleason, M. M., Theall, K. P., Smyke, A. T., Nelson, C. A., Fox, N. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2012). Genetic sensitivity to the caregiving context: The influence of 5httlpr and BDNF val66met on indiscriminate social behavior. Physiology and Behavior, 106, 728–735. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.11.014Google Scholar
Eichenbaum, H. (2000). A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 1, 41–50. doi:10.1038/35036213Google Scholar
Ellis, B. H., Fisher, P. A., & Zaharie, S. (2004). Predictors of disruptive behavior, developmental delays, anxiety, and affective symptomatology among institutionally reared Romanian children. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 43, 1283–1292. doi:10.1097/01.chi.0000136562.24085.160Google Scholar
Erickson, K., Drevets, W., & Schulkin, J. (2003). Glucocorticoid regulation of diverse cognitive functions in normal and pathological emotional states. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27, 233–246.Google Scholar
Etkin, A., Prater, K. E., Hoeft, F., Menon, V., & Schatzberg, A. F. (2010). Failure of anterior cingulate activation and connectivity with the amygdala during implicit regulation of emotional processing in generalized anxiety disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 545–554. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09070931Google Scholar
Etkin, A., & Schatzberg, A. F. (2011). Common abnormalities and disorder-specific compensation during implicit regulation of emotional processing in generalized anxiety and major depressive disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 168, 968–978. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.10091290Google Scholar
Fenoglio, K. A., Brunson, K. L., Avishai-Eliner, S., Chen, Y., & Baram, T. Z. (2004). Region-specific onset of handling-induced changes in corticotropin-releasing factor and glucocorticoid receptor expression. Endocrinology, 145, 2702–2706. doi:10.1210/en.2004-0111Google Scholar
Flannery, J. E., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Shapiro, M., Goff, B., Caldera, C., Louie, J., … Tottenham, N. (2017). Diurnal cortisol after early institutional care—Age matters. Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience. Advance online publication. doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2017.03.006Google Scholar
Fox, N. A., Almas, A. N., Degnan, K. A., Nelson, C. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2011). The effects of severe psychosocial deprivation and foster care intervention on cognitive development at 8 years of age: Findings from the Bucharest Early Intervention Project. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52, 919–928. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02355.xGoogle Scholar
Gee, D. G., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Flannery, J., Goff, B., Humphreys, K. L., Telzer, E. H., … Tottenham, N. (2013). Early developmental emergence of human amygdala-prefrontal connectivity after maternal deprivation. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 110, 15638–15643. doi:10.1073/pnas.1307893110Google Scholar
Gilmore, J. H., Shi, F., Woolson, S. L., Knickmeyer, R. C., Short, S. J., Lin, W., … Shen, D. (2012). Longitudinal development of cortical and subcortical gray matter from birth to 2 years. Cerebral Cortex, 22, 2478–2485. doi:10.1093/cercor/bhr327Google Scholar
Green, S. A., Goff, B., Gee, D. G., Gabard-Durnam, L., Flannery, J., Telzer, E. H., … Tottenham, N. (2016). Discrimination of amygdala response predicts future separation anxiety in youth with early deprivation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 57, 1135–1144. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12578Google Scholar
Gunnar, M. R., Bruce, J., & Grotevant, H. D. (2000). International adoption of institutionally reared children: Research and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 677–693.Google Scholar
Gunnar, M. R., Frenn, K., Wewerka, S. S., & Van Ryzin, M. J. (2009). Moderate versus severe early life stress: Associations with stress reactivity and regulation in 10-12-year-old children. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 34, 62–75. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.08.013Google Scholar
Gunnar, M. R., & Quevedo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 58, 145–173. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085605Google Scholar
Hadwin, J. A., & Richards, H. J. (2016). Working memory training and CBT reduces anxiety symptoms and attentional biases to threat: A preliminary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 47. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00047Google Scholar
Hanson, J. L., Nacewicz, B. M., Sutterer, M. J., Cayo, A. A., Schaefer, S. M., Rudolph, K. D., … Davidson, R. J. (2015). Behavioral problems after early life stress: Contributions of the hippocampus and amygdala. Biological Psychiatry, 77, 314–323. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.04.020Google Scholar
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hostinar, C. E., Stellern, S. A., Schaefer, C., Carlson, S. M., & Gunnar, M. R. (2012). Associations between early life adversity and executive function in children adopted internationally from orphanages. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 109, 17208–17212. doi:1121246109Google Scholar
Humphrey, T. (1968). The development of the human amygdala during early embryonic life. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 132, 135–165.Google Scholar
Humphreys, K. L., Gabard-Durnam, L., Goff, B., Telzer, E. H., Flannery, J., Gee, D. G., … Tottenham, N. (in press). Friendship and social functioning following early institutional rearing: The role of ADHD symptoms. Development and Psychopathology. doi:10.1017/S0954579418001050Google Scholar
Humphreys, K. L., Gleason, M. M., Drury, S. S., Miron, D., Nelson, C. A. III, Fox, N. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2015). Effects of institutional rearing and foster care on psychopathology at age 12 years in Romania: Follow-up of an open, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Psychiatry, 2, 625–634. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00095-4Google Scholar
Jay, T. M., Rocher, C., Hotte, M., Naudon, L., Gurden, H., & Spedding, M. (2004). Plasticity at hippocampal to prefrontal cortex synapses is impaired by loss of dopamine and stress: Importance for psychiatric diseases. Neurotoxicity Research, 6, 233–244.Google Scholar
Kim, J., Delcasso, S., & Lee, I. (2011). Neural correlates of object-in-place learning in hippocampus and prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 16991–17006. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2859-11.2011Google Scholar
Kirschbaum, C., & Hellhammer, D. H. (2000). Salivary cortisol. Encyclopedia of Stress, 3, 379–383.Google Scholar
Koss, K. J., Hostinar, C. E., Donzella, B., & Gunnar, M. R. (2014). Social deprivation and the HPA axis in early development. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 50, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2014.07.028Google Scholar
Koss, K. J., Mliner, S. B., Donzella, B., & Gunnar, M. R. (2016). Early adversity, hypocortisolism, and behavior problems at school entry: A study of internationally adopted children. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 66, 31–38. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2015.12.018Google Scholar
Kwon, H., Reiss, A. L., & Menon, V. (2002). Neural basis of protracted developmental changes in visuo-spatial working memory. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 99, 13336–13341. doi:10.1073/pnas.162486399Google Scholar
Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M. (2007). Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18, 421–428. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01916.xGoogle Scholar
Loman, M. M., Wiik, K. L., Frenn, K. A., Pollak, S. D., & Gunnar, M. R. (2009). Postinstitutionalized children's development: Growth, cognitive, and language outcomes. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 30, 426–434. doi:10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181b1fd08Google Scholar
Lupien, S. J., & Lepage, M. (2001). Stress, memory, and the hippocampus: Can't live with it, can't live without it. Behavioral Brain Research, 127, 137–158.Google Scholar
Maheu, F. S., Dozier, M., Guyer, A. E., Mandell, D., Peloso, E., Poeth, K., … Ernst, M. (2010). A preliminary study of medial temporal lobe function in youths with a history of caregiver deprivation and emotional neglect. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 10, 34–49. doi:10.3758/CABN.10.1.34Google Scholar
Maldonado, E. F., Fernandez, F. J., Trianes, M. V., Wesnes, K., Petrini, O., Zangara, A., … Ambrosetti, L. (2008). Cognitive performance and morning levels of salivary cortisol and alpha-amylase in children reporting high vs. low daily stress perception. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 11, 3–15.Google Scholar
Martel, M. M., Nigg, J. T., Wong, M. M., Fitzgerald, H. E., Jester, J. M., Puttler, L. I., … Zucker, R. A. (2007). Childhood and adolescent resiliency, regulation, and executive functioning in relation to adolescent problems and competence in a high-risk sample. Development and Psychopathology, 19, 541–563. doi:10.1017/S0954579407070265Google Scholar
Masten, A. S., & Barnes, A. J. (2018). Resilience in children: Developmental perspectives. Children, 5, 98. doi:10.3390/children5070098Google Scholar
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2, 425–444.Google Scholar
Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (2012). Resilience in developmental psychopathology: Contributions of the Project Competence Longitudinal Study. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 345–361. doi:10.1017/S095457941200003XGoogle Scholar
McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M. A., & Nelson, C. A. (2017). Neglect as a violation of species-expectant experience: Neurodevelopmental consequences. Biological Psychiatry, 82, 462–471. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2017.02.1096Google Scholar
McLaughlin, K. A., Sheridan, M. A., Tibu, F., Fox, N. A., Zeanah, C. H., & Nelson, C. A. III. (2015). Causal effects of the early caregiving environment on development of stress response systems in children. Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 112, 5637–5642. doi:10.1073/pnas.1423363112Google Scholar
Mehta, M. A., Golembo, N. I., Nosarti, C., Colvert, E., Mota, A., Williams, S. C., … Sonuga-Barke, E. J. (2009). Amygdala, hippocampal and corpus callosum size following severe early institutional deprivation: The English and Romanian Adoptees study pilot. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 50, 943–951. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02084.xGoogle Scholar
Merz, E. C., & McCall, R. B. (2010). Behavior problems in children adopted from psychosocially depriving institutions. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 459–470. doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9383-4Google Scholar
Merz, E. C., McCal, R. B., Wright, A. J., & Luna, B. (2013). Inhibitory control and working memory in post-institutionalized children. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 41(6), 879–890.Google Scholar
Mitchell, D. G. V., Nakic, M., Fridberg, D., Kamel, N., Pine, D. S., & Blair, R. J. R. (2007). The impact of processing load on emotion. NeuroImage, 34, 1299–1309. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.10.012Google Scholar
Ochsner, K. N., Bunge, S. A., Gross, J. J., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (2002). Rethinking feelings: An FMRI study of the cognitive regulation of emotion. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 1215–1229. doi:10.1162/089892902760807212Google Scholar
O'Connor, T. G., Rutter, M., Beckett, C., Keaveney, L., & Kreppner, J. M. (2000). The effects of global severe privation on cognitive competence: Extension and longitudinal follow-up. English and Romanian Adoptees Study Team. Child Development, 71, 376–390.Google Scholar
O'Donovan, A., Hughes, B. M., Slavich, G. M., Lynch, L., Cronin, M. T., O'Farrelly, C., & Malone, K. M. (2010). Clinical anxiety, cortisol and interleukin-6: Evidence for specificity in emotion-biology relationships. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 24, 1074–1077. doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2010.03.003Google Scholar
Oei, N. Y., Everaerd, W. T., Elzinga, B. M., van Well, S., & Bermond, B. (2006). Psychosocial stress impairs working memory at high loads: An association with cortisol levels and memory retrieval. Stress, 9, 133–141. doi:10.1080/10253890600965773Google Scholar
Payne, C., Machado, C. J., Bliwise, N. G., & Bachevalier, J. (2010). Maturation of the hippocampal formation and amygdala in Macaca mulatta: A volumetric magnetic resonance imaging study. Hippocampus, 20, 922–935. doi:10.1002/hipo.20688Google Scholar
Pine, D. S., & Cohen, J. A. (2002). Trauma in children and adolescents: Risk and treatment of psychiatric sequelae. Biological Psychiatry, 51, 519–531.Google Scholar
Quevedo, K., Johnson, A., Loman, M., Lafavor, T., & Gunnar, M. (2012). The confluence of adverse early experience and puberty on the cortisol awakening response. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 36, 19–28. doi:10.1177/0165025411406860Google Scholar
Quirk, G. J., & Beer, J. S. (2006). Prefrontal involvement in the regulation of emotion: Convergence of rat and human studies. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 16, 723–727. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2006.07.004Google Scholar
Rapee, R. M., & Szollos, A. A. (2002). Developmental antecedents of clinical anxiety in childhood. Behavior Change, 19, 146–157.Google Scholar
Raver, C., McCoy, D. C., Lowenstein, A. E., & Pess, R. (2013). Predicting individual differences in low-income children's executive control from early to middle childhood. Developmental Science, 16, 394–408. doi:10.1111/desc.12027Google Scholar
Roozendaal, B. (2002). Stress and memory: Opposing effects of glucocorticoids on memory consolidation and memory retrieval. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 78, 578–595.Google Scholar
Rutter, M. (1998). Developmental catch-up, and deficit, following adoption after severe global early privation. English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study Team. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 465–476.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Beckett, C., Castle, J., Colvert, E., Kreppner, J., Mehta, M., … Sonuga-Barke, E. (2007). Effects of profound early institutional deprivation: An overview of findings from a UK longitudinal study of Romanian adoptees. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 4, 332–350.Google Scholar
Sari, B. A., Koster, E. H., Pourtois, G., & Derakshan, N. (2016). Training working memory to improve attentional control in anxiety: A proof-of-principle study using behavioral and electrophysiological measures. Biological Psychology, 121(Pt. B), 203–212. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2015.09.008Google Scholar
Schmeichel, B. J., & Demaree, H. A. (2010). Working memory capacity and spontaneous emotion regulation: High capacity predicts self-enhancement in response to negative feedback. Emotion, 10, 739–744. doi:10.1037/a0019355Google Scholar
Schmeichel, B. J., Volokhov, R. N., & Demaree, H. A. (2008). Working memory capacity and the self-regulation of emotional expression and experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1526–1540. doi:10.1037/a0013345Google Scholar
Silvers, J. A., Goff, B., Gabard-Durnam, L. J., Gee, D. G., Fareri, D. S., Caldera, C., & Tottenham, N. (2017). Vigilance, the amygdala, and anxiety in youths with a history of institutional care. Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging, 2, 493–501. doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.03.016Google Scholar
Silvers, J. A., Lumian, D. S., Gabard-Durnam, L., Gee, D. G., Goff, B., Fareri, D. S., … Tottenham, N. (2016). Previous institutionalization is followed by broader amygdala-hippocampal-PFC network connectivity during aversive learning in human development. Journal of Neuroscience, 36, 6420–6430. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0038-16.2016Google Scholar
Smyke, A. T., Koga, S. F., Johnson, D. E., Fox, N. A., Marshall, P. J., Nelson, C. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2007). The caregiving context in institution-reared and family-reared infants and toddlers in Romania. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48, 210–218. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01694.xGoogle Scholar
Tibu, F., Sheridan, M. A., McLaughlin, K. A., Nelson, C. A., Fox, N. A., & Zeanah, C. H. (2016). Disruptions of working memory and inhibition mediate the association between exposure to institutionalization and symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Psychological Medicine, 46, 529–541. doi:10.1017/S0033291715002020Google Scholar
Tottenham, N. (2012a). Human amygdala development in the absence of species-expected caregiving. Developmental Psychobiology, 54, 598–611. doi:10.1002/dev.20531Google Scholar
Tottenham, N. (2012b). Risk and developmental heterogeneity in previously institutionalized children. Journal of Adolescent Health, 51(2, Suppl.), S29–S33. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2012.04.004Google Scholar
Tottenham, N., & Gabard-Durnam, L. J. (2017). The developing amygdala: A student of the world and a teacher of the cortex. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 55–60. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.012Google Scholar
Tottenham, N., Hare, T. A., Millner, A., Gilhooly, T., Zevin, J. D., & Casey, B. J. (2011). Elevated amygdala response to faces following early deprivation. Developmental Science, 14, 190–204.Google Scholar
Tottenham, N., Hare, T. A., Quinn, B. T., McCarry, T., Nurse, M., Gilhooly, T., … Casey, B. J. (2010). Prolonged institutional rearing is associated with atypically large amygdala volume and emotion regulation difficulties. Developmental Science, 13, 46–61.Google Scholar
Ulfig, N., Setzer, M., & Bohl, J. (2003). Ontogeny of the human amygdala. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 985, 22–33.Google Scholar
Vantieghem, M. R., Gabard-Durnam, L., Goff, B., Flannery, J., Humphreys, K. L., Telzer, E. H., … Tottenham, N. (2017). Positive valence bias and parent-child relationship security moderate the association between early institutional caregiving and internalizing symptoms. Development and Psychopathology, 29, 519–533. doi:10.1017/S0954579417000153Google Scholar
von Allmen, D. Y., Wurmitzer, K., & Klaver, P. (2014). Hippocampal and posterior parietal contributions to developmental increases in visual short-term memory capacity. Cortex, 59, 95–102. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2014.07.010Google Scholar
Vreeburg, S. A., Zitman, F. G., van Pelt, J., Derijk, R. H., Verhagen, J. C., van Dyck, R., … Penninx, B. W. (2010). Salivary cortisol levels in persons with and without different anxiety disorders. Psychosomatic Medicine, 72, 340–347. doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181d2f0c8Google Scholar
Wechsler, D. (1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Wren, F. J., Berg, E. A., Heiden, L. A., Kinnamon, C. J., Ohlson, L. A., Bridge, J. A., … Bernal, M. P. (2007). Childhood anxiety in a diverse primary care population: Parent-child reports, ethnicity and SCARED factor structure. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 46, 332–340. doi:10.1097/chi.0b013e31802f1267Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. (a) Illustration of working memory task. (b) Group means on the working memory task. Circles are individual participants. PI, previous institutional care.

Figure 1

Table 1. Within-group Pearson correlation matrices for study variables

Figure 2

Figure 2. Interaction between group and working memory scores on separation anxiety scores. Residual scores are plotted, controlling for age and sex. PI, previous institutional care.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Moderated mediation. For PI youth, the association between morning cortisol and separation anxiety scores was mediated by working memory scores. PI, previous institutional care.