More threads by David Baxter PhD

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
Harsh family environment may adversely affect brain's response to threatening information
Monday, March 13, 2006
University of California Los Angeles

A harsh early childhood environment may adversely affect how threatening information is processed in the brain, UCLA researchers will report in the journal Biological Psychiatry.

Shelley Taylor, a UCLA social neuroscientist and lead author on the study, has found the first evidence that the regions in the human brain involved in detecting threatening emotional information and regulating our emotional responses to these threats function differently in people from "risky families."

Although scientists have long known that extreme abuse can alter patterns of brain activity, these effects were observed in children raised in "everyday working families," Taylor said.

"These are not children from families where there is physical or sexual abuse, but families in which people don't have a lot of time for one another or opportunities to be caring," emphasized Taylor, a UCLA Distinguished Professor of Psychology, and an expert in the field of stress and health.

Matthew D. Lieberman, assistant professor of psychology at UCLA and co-author of the study, has previously shown in a series of studies that threatening information activates a region or the brain called the amygdala, which serves as an "alarm" to protect the body in times of danger; however, verbally labeling the threat activates a second region of the brain, called the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, which generally reduces the amygdala response. In other words, putting negative feelings into words may help to regulate and alleviate those bad feelings by activating the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, which in turn, reduces the activity in the amygdala, Lieberman said.

The current study shows that for people from "risky families," the relationship between these two brain regions may not function properly.

The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to examine brain activity, a technique that uses magnetic fields to spot active brain areas by telltale increases in blood oxygen. Lieberman's laboratory conducted this fMRI study at UCLA's Ahmanson Lovelace Brain Mapping Center.

Most of the time, the two brain regions work like this: Suppose you hear a fire alarm, which sends you frantically running to the door. In that moment, the amygdala, the almond shaped structure that responds to fear, is activated, Taylor said. A couple of seconds later, you sigh in relief and realize a fire drill was scheduled for today. That, she said, is the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex in action. Located behind the forehead and eyes, it regulates fear by helping people understand, cope with or control their responses to potentially threatening experiences.

In the study, participants were first shown pictures of angry and fearful faces. Usually, this procedure activates the amygdala, and children from nurturing families showed this pattern of activation. However, the children from "risky" families - that is, a family environment marked by conflict, a cold interaction style or neglect - showed almost no response to these threatening faces.

"This pattern suggests children from risky families may have been tuning out these all too familiar faces, Taylor said.

When asked to label the angry and fearful faces, a quite different pattern emerged, Taylor said: Young adults who reported being raised in nurturing families showed lower amygdala activation (fear response) as the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (emotion regulation) became more active. For those raised in risky families, however, the two brain regions did not work well together. Instead, both the amygdala and ventrolateral prefrontal cortex were simultaneously activated.

"Children from these risky families may be deficient in the ability to regulate their emotional responses," Taylor explained. "They show evidence to suggest that they tune out threatening stimuli that other people react to, but given an opportunity to cope with threatening stimuli, in this case by labeling them, their emotion regulation skills appear to fail them."

This is a cause for concern, she added, because overreacting to stressful situations can compromise health over the long term.

Lieberman said that just as you want your alarm clock turned off once you wake up and get out of bed, you also want your body's alarm - the amygdala - shut off when you get the threat message.

"We think the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex may be the region of the brain that shuts off the amygdala's alarm system," Lieberman said, "although perhaps not in people from risky families."

Taylor and Lieberman said it is important for the findings to be replicated by other researchers.

This research was supported by funding from the National Institute of Mental Health and UCLA's Center for Psychoneuroimmunology.

The research team included UCLA investigators Naomi I. Eisenberger, Darby Saxbe and Barbara J. Lehman (now at Western Washington University).

In previous research, Taylor and UCLA colleagues, including psychology professor Rena Repetti, reported strong evidence that children who grow up in risky families often suffer lifelong health problems, including cancer, heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, obesity, depression and anxiety disorders, as well as early death (Psychological Bulletin, March 2002, Vol. 128, No. 2, pp. 330-366).

In that study, Repetti, Taylor and UCLA colleague Teresa Seeman reported that some of these diseases do not show up until decades later, while others are evident by adolescence. They described risky families as those in which children grow up in homes marked by conflict, anger and aggression, that are emotionally cold, unsupportive and where children's needs are neglected. The UCLA researchers analyzed more than 500 psychological, medical and biological research studies, and integrated the findings of psychologists, pediatricians, biologists, neuroscientists, social workers and other scientists.

The research studies show that in risky families, a child's genetic predispositions may be exacerbated by the family environment, and this combination can lead to the faster development of health problems, which may be more debilitating than they would be in a more nurturing family.

Children who grow up in risky families are also more likely as teenagers and adults to engage in drug and alcohol abuse, smoking, risky sexual behavior, and aggressive, antisocial behavior, the UCLA analysis showed.


it's scary to think that research like this, really intended to help people maintain and treat their health, will be used to justify criminal behavior.--poohbear

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
Perhaps they could be used to explain certain types of criminal behavior but not to justify it, any more than the "cycle of violence theory" and be used to justify domestic violence.

I think the impact of studies like this that identify early risk factors is twofold: (1) it helps us to better understand the problem behaviors or issues or disorders; and (2) it identifies areas of early intervention.

I thin this article is primarily about anxiety and hypervigilance but to use the example of criminal behavior, studies like this one that identified early risk factors and protective factors fostered the development of early family intervention programs for high-risk children to prevent them from drifting toward juvenile delinquency and habitual criminality.


i just feel that all these "theories" in criminal behavior (socialist, rational, choice theories, environmentalists, etc...) are moot. once the criminal act is done, it's done-- you can't reverse it. it seems all these studies (well, maybe not all) were initiated to find out "why". "why" is an afterthought, in most cases. and, yes, i do believe that in a few years, were this type of research to be funded and more driven, it COULD likely be in my criminal evidence or criminal theory book, somewhere down the road. and when it finds its way there, it will invariably find its way into a lawyer's hand, defending a (likely guilty) perpetrator, who is trying to explain "why" this criminal act is "non-punishable"-- hence the "justification" angle. i found my readings in criminal theories to be very redundant. it's very subjective. i find hard core statistics and scientific evidence to be of more use-- i truly don't put much stock in defining "why" people do things, unless there is a measurable physiological (or other) reason-- such as a tumor in the frontal lobe affecting behavior. even if a person were to grow up in a hugely dysfunctional family and to have several majorly traumatic events take place in his/her life, it is largely possible to lead a law-abiding life, and not break any laws that are likely to get you imprisoned. just my own opinion-- i kind of go for the "free will" type thinking. (ha ha) i think studies such as these are useful in the realm of treating and preventing disease states or the risk thereof (as you mentioned), however, it's a double-edged sword. that's the only opinion i was trying to state. --poohbear

David Baxter PhD

Late Founder
No, that's my point. That may be true of certain branches of criminology and sociology but the main thrust of most longitudinal criminal psychology research these days is aimed at prevention.

There are a series of excellent longitudinal studies done by Patterson and associates in Eugene, Oregon, in the 1970s to 1980s and since the 90s that research has been translated into early interventions with families - either high risk families or families with high risk children or both - where they are going into the homes and schools and instituting preventative measures. And these programs are working.


And these programs are working.
just thought i'd add my "twopence worth" on this.

over here... (ireland) these early intervention programmes have been running for a few yrs now.. (in some areas) and have been proven to help youngsters steer away from crime and delinquent behaviour. Some young men and young women, having taken part in these type of programmes now go back to help other youngsters...relaying various details of how they were behaving before they took part in these programmes... how the programme helped them etc etc..

without the studies and theories.. these programmes wouldn't have materialised.

lots more still needs to be done i think.. but i leave that to the pro's.. *s*
Replying is not possible. This forum is only available as an archive.