About this paper symposium

---

Panel information
Panel 6. Developmental Psychopathology

Paper #1
The promise and pitfalls of a strength-based approach to child poverty and neurocognitive development
Author information	Role
Meriah DeJoseph, Stanford University, United States	Presenting author
Monica Ellwood-Lowe, University of Pennsylvania, United States	Non-presenting author
Dana Miller-Cotto, University of California, Berkeley, United States	Non-presenting author
David Silverman, Northwestern University, United States	Non-presenting author
Katherine Adams Shannon, Stanford University, United States	Non-presenting author
Gabriel Reyes, Stanford University, United States	Non-presenting author
Divyangana Rakesh, King's College London, United Kingdom	Non-presenting author
Willem Frankenhuis, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands	Non-presenting author
Abstract
There has been significant progress in understanding the effects of childhood poverty on neurocognitive development. This progress has captured the attention of educators and policymakers alike, promoting progressive policy reform. However, the prevailing emphasis on the harms associated with childhood poverty may have inadvertently perpetuated a deficit-based narrative, focused on the presumed shortcomings of children and families in poverty. This focus can have unintended consequences for science (e.g., incomplete understanding of the unique abilities that develop in response to poverty), policy (e.g., overlooking strengths that can be leveraged), as well as public discourse (e.g., focusing on individual rather than systemic factors). Joined by scientists across disciplines, the current paper presents the argument for a more well-rounded, “strength-based” approach, which considers the full spectrum of possible developmental adaptations and disadvantages children experience in the context of poverty. The first half of this talk will demonstrate the value of this approach in understanding child poverty and neurocognitive development, offering three guiding principles (Figure 1) with empirical examples to ground this work. Specifically, we will discuss the importance of acknowledging: (1) the experience of poverty is heterogenous, and may include various forms of cultural wealth; (2) neurocognitive differences between children below and above poverty can be evidence of strengths and successful adaptation among children below poverty; and (3) an accurate understanding of children’s skills across the socioeconomic spectrum requires a careful consideration of bias in our testing materials. The second half of this talk will discuss pitfalls and ethical considerations, and offer practical solutions (Table 1) to conducting strength-based research responsibly. The core arguments laid out in this paper re-ignites old and recent calls for a strength-based paradigm shift, with a focus on its application to developmental cognitive neuroscience. We also offer a unique perspective from a new generation of early-career researchers engaged in this work, several of whom themselves have grown up in conditions of poverty. Ultimately, we argue that a balanced strength-based scientific approach will be essential to producing a rigorous body of research aimed at contributing to the greater good.

Paper #2
Academics and Mental Health: The Paradox of Frontoparietal-Default Mode Network Coupling among Children Facing Poverty
Author information	Role
Monica E. Ellwood-Lowe, University of Pennsylvania, United States	Presenting author
Selina Pacheco, University of California, Berkeley, United States	Non-presenting author
Silvia Bunge, University of California, Berkeley, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Growing up in poverty puts children at risk for mental health issues and poor long-term outcomes. For these children, performing well in school is sometimes touted as the path toward opportunity—the way to beat the odds and achieve upward mobility. But other research has suggested that resilience can come with long-term consequences, exerting a toll on physiological stress. Here, we probe potential early sequalae of this paradoxical link, examining relations between academic achievement, mental health, and brain functional coupling in children above and below poverty in the ABCD sample. We test both concurrent and longitudinal associations across early adolescence, highlighting potential early markers of issues that may appear later. Previously, we found that neural correlates of high achievement were different among children in poverty. For those children in poverty who beat the odds and succeeded academically, they were more likely to have higher temporal coupling between the Lateral Frontoparietal Network (LFPN) and Default Mode Network (DMN) than lower-performing children in poverty. The opposite was true for children above poverty: higher LFPN-DMN coupling was associated with lower achievement. This suggests that, in line with a strengths-based framework, children in poverty may rely on other forms of thoughts and behaviors to succeed in the face of structural barriers. Importantly, however, higher LFPN-DMN connectivity has also been linked to more internalizing symptoms among children above poverty; thus, an open question is whether higher LFPN-DMN coupling also has maladaptive long-term consequences for mental health for children in poverty. Methods. In this pre-registered study, we analyzed data from 10,829 children (1,931 in poverty) in the ABCD study across four time points (ages 9-13). We performed separate linear mixed effects models to examine concurrent relations between children’s internalizing symptoms and their grades in school and LFPN-DMN connectivity, respectively, with an interaction of poverty status. Next, longitudinal models tested whether LFPN-DMN connectivity and/or grades at age 9-10 predicted internalizing symptoms one year later, above and beyond current internalizing symptoms. Results. Across the group and across timepoints, higher grades correlated with fewer internalizing symptoms (p<.001); this association was more pronounced for children below poverty (interaction: p=.007, Fig1A). Grades did not uniquely predict later internalizing symptoms. LFPN-DMN connectivity correlated positively with internalizing symptoms across groups (main effect of LFPN-DMN connectivity: p=.001; interaction: p=.451, Fig1B). For children in poverty only, higher LFPN-DMN connectivity predicted more internalizing symptoms one year later, above and beyond current internalizing symptoms (p=.035). Discussion. We found that for all children, performing better in school was linked to better mental health concurrently. However, our results suggest that the neural correlates of success for children in poverty may also be risk factors for the longer-term development of internalizing symptoms; LFPN-DMN connectivity, but not grades, predicted later internalizing symptoms for children in poverty. While higher LFPN-DMN coupling may be adaptive for coping in academic contexts among children in poverty, it may also predispose them to longer-term mental health issues. These findings highlight the complex nature of academic resilience in the context of structural inequity.

Paper #3
Community perspectives on strengths-based developmental research: A qualitative inquiry
Author information	Role
Dr. Arianna Gard, Ph.D., University of Maryland, College Park, United States	Presenting author
Deena Shariq, University of Maryland, College Park, United States	Non-presenting author
Sophia S. Shaw, University of Maryland, College Park, United States	Non-presenting author
Abstract
Scientific research on the impacts of childhood adversity on brain, cognitive, and behavioral development has garnered the attention of researchers, policymakers, and the public. This research has been used to shine a light on the potentially enduring effects of childhood adversity (e.g., poverty, violence exposure) on the health, wealth, and wellbeing of young people. At the same time, deficit-based inquiries often overlook heterogeneity in developmental outcomes and risk perpetuating stereotypes about marginalized youth. Strengths-based approaches attempt to understand the psychosocial factors that promote better-than-expected or positive outcomes from adversity. Although a variety of terms are used to describe “resilience”, including “strengths”, “skills”, “adaptations”, “plasticity”, and “resistance” (Richter-Levin, 2021; Khanlou & Wray, 2014; Silverman et al., 2023), few studies have gathered community perspectives (both adult and youth) on these concepts and terminology. The current study leverages data from the CARE project, a community-driven study of environmental effects on health and wellbeing in Wards 4 and 5 of Washington, DC. Qualitative data from two semi-structured focus groups with adults (n = 8) and adolescents (n = 8) were used to understand community perspectives on developmental studies of childhood adversity. The interview guide solicited participant definitions and reactions to common research terminology and presented participants with fictional study results interpreted differently by two different researchers. Participants in the adult focus group (all female) ranged from 32 – 81 years, were majority Black or African American (89%), and reported varying education levels. Adolescent participants (75% female) ranged from 14 – 17 years, and identified as Black or African American, Latinx, or Native American. Qualitative data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Results indicated similarities and differences between how adults and adolescents interpreted strengths-based research. All participants’ definitions of the word “resilience” were similar, connoting a person’s ability to be strong or survive in the face of adversity. However, participant’s reactions to the concept of resilience were markedly different. All adults expressed irritation at having to be “resilient”, calling it a buzzword, a term that others used to shirk responsibility, and exhausting (see Table 1 for key quotes). A small subgroup of adults a mix of positive and negative reactions; participants labeled resilience as “bittersweet”. Adolescents, by contrast, uniformly expressed fewer negative (but not necessarily positive) attitudes towards the concept of resilience; they saw it as a part of everyday life and a reflection of growing up (Table 1). When asked to reflect on orientations in adversity research, most participants believed that deficit-focused frameworks were a product of biases stemming from the researcher’s own experiences. Group conversations highlighted community priorities for researchers to work towards solutions rather than merely trying to explain a phenomenon (Table 1). Lastly, there was near uniform rejection of the idea that adaptations to adversity could be conceptualized as “hidden” and/or “talents”. Participants uniformly supported the strengths-based as opposed to deficit-oriented approaches, and urged developmental scientists to go beyond basic science goals by using attempting to use research results to effect change in the everyday lives of children and families.

⇦ Back to session