by Gabriela Memba, M.A., University at Buffalo
Over the past few decades, the field of clinical psychology has incorporated physiology-based theory and methodology into its research (Cacioppo et al., 2007). This growing field of study is known as psychophysiology, which is defined as the scientific study of social, psychological, and behavioral phenomena and their relation to physiological principles and events (Cacioppo et al., 2007). In its early use, psychophysiology relied on rudimentary operationalizations of reactivity, such as measures of heart rate and blood pressure (Edgar et al., 2007). Recently, there have been major advancements in the study of psychophysiology, which has allowed for a more precise and nuanced measurement of physiological responses. For instance, skin conductance electrodes may be used to explore reactivity patterns of the sympathetic nervous system (Bach & Friston, 2013), and collection of the salivary amylase enzyme allows for a better understanding of the body’s stress response (Yamaguchi et al., 2004).
A psychophysiological framework is especially worthwhile when studying young children, given the limited information they can self-report and the theoretical link between early physiological functioning and future adjustment (Obradović & Boyce, 2012). Given the many psychophysiological measures that may be used in children (Obradović & Boyce, 2012), researchers should be aware of the collection protocol and the purpose behind different psychophysiological measures. It is important for the next generation of clinical psychophysiologists to be aware of these developmental considerations in order to allow for further advancements in the field. As such, this article will provide recommendations based on my personal experience and opinion and will highlight for students the Do’s and Don’t of physiological data collection in early childhood samples.
Most important is to first discuss effective psychophysiological data collection strategies:
- Ensure data collection sessions are time-limited. When working with 3- to 5-year-olds, it is often a race against the clock to maintain the child’s attention and cooperation. This is especially the case for measures that require the child to be “hooked up,” such as attaching electrodes to measure skin conductance level. In these instances, there is a fine balance between maximizing the amount of data you hope to collect and minimizing the burden put on the child. It is important to take into account children’s limited self-regulation skills at this age and ensure that sessions are no longer than 15 to 20 minutes (and even that can feel like ages to a 4-year-old!).
- Use age-appropriate language. To an unsuspecting 3-year-old, walking into a lab can feel a lot like walking into a doctor’s office. This is only made worse when using jargon-heavy language. As such, it is important to use familiar and playful language when describing the collection materials (e.g., “sticker” instead of “electrode”).
- Balance being playful and ensuring standardized procedures. It is crucial for the child to be engaged during the data collection, which can be accomplished by being enthusiastic and playful. That said, you should also remember your role as a researcher and ensure you are not overly “off script” when interacting with the child. Beyond compromising standardization across participants, this may also have unintended consequences on the data itself. For instance, the child may become overly excited, thus influencing their physiological responses (e.g., increased heart rate relative to baseline).
Just as there are a host of important strategies to enact, it is also important to know what should be avoided during psychophysiological data collection with young children.
- Do not only rely on parental consent. While gaining informed consent from the parent is mandatory to proceed with any data collection procedures, this should not be taken at the expense of the child’s own assent. Regardless of their young age, you should always respect the wishes of the child as well. Thus, the researcher (or parent) should never pressure the child to participate.
- Do not expect perfect data. Oftentimes, physiological data collection requires participants to be quiet and still for an extended period of time. As such, a child fidgeting in their seat may lead to anomalies in the data. Behaviors such as this are often the rule rather than exception when working with an early childhood sample. Thankfully, certain physiological data procedures allow you to “clean” the data if needed. Thus, it is important to be familiar with these software and to take note of the child’s behavior throughout the data collection as this may explain certain anomalies.
- Do not prioritize the data over the family’s happiness. It may be that the parent and child assent to the data collection, but as the session goes on, the child becomes restless, or the parent becomes uncomfortable. Though it is tempting to urge the child to continue, if it appears that they are truly in distress, you should halt the session and still praise the child for their efforts. Ultimately, the child and parent’s happiness and comfort should take priority over collecting data.
These are just a few of the developmental considerations that aspiring psychophysiological researchers should be aware of. It is crucial that these skills are first learned at the graduate level to ensure the validity of psychophysiological data in early childhood in future work. Early childhood is an especially important developmental period to examine physiological functioning, as atypical functioning is often a precursor for future maladjustment. As such, further advancements in psychophysiology measurement will be important as the field continues to disentangle complex factors related to healthy child development.
________________________________________________________________
References
Bach, D. R., & Friston, K. J. (2013). Model-based analysis of skin conductance responses: Towards causal models in psychophysiology. Psychophysiology, 50(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8986.2012.01483.x
Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (2007). Psychophysiological Science: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Classic Questions About the Mind. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 1–16). essay, Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9780511546396.001
Edgar, J. C., Keller, J., Heller, W., & Miller, G. A. (2007). Psychophysiology in Research on Psychopathology. In Cacioppo, J. T., Tassinary, L. G., & Berntson, G. G. (Eds.), Handbook of psychophysiology (pp. 665–786). Cambridge University Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1017/CBO9780511546396.028
Obradović, J., & Boyce, W. T. (2012). Developmental psychophysiology of emotion processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 77(2), 120-128. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5834.2011.00670.x
Yamaguchi, M., Kanemori, T., Kanemaru, M., Takai, N., Mizuno, Y., & Yoshida, H. (2004). Performance evaluation of salivary amylase activity monitor. Biosensors and Bioelectronics, 20(3), 491-497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2004.02.012
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).