# Integrating Biobehavioral and Environmental Components of Developmental Psychopathology via Interpersonal Dynamics: An RDoC-Advancing Model

## TL;DR

This paper proposes a model that integrates biological and environmental factors in child development through caregiver-child interactions, advancing the RDoC framework.

## Contribution

A novel approach to integrating biobehavioral and environmental components via dynamic structural equation models in caregiver-child interactions.

## Key findings

- Parent–child RSA synchrony varies depending on who leads the interaction and the affective domains involved.
- Dynamic structural equation models can capture second-by-second changes in biobehavioral processes during dyadic interactions.
- Caregiver–child dynamics elicit key domains of functioning, influencing child psychopathology risk.

## Abstract

Although the Research Diagnostic Criteria (RDoC) framework proposes biological and environmental mechanisms intersect in the etiology of psychopathology, there is no guidance on how to define or measure experiences in the environment within the RDoC matrix. Interpersonal dynamics during caregiver–child interactions involve temporal coordination of interacting partners’ biobehavioral functioning; repeated experiences of signaling to caregivers and responding to caregivers’ signals shape children’s subsequent socioemotional and brain development. We begin with a review of the extant literature on caregiver-child dynamics, which reveals that RDoC’s units of analysis (brain circuits, physiology, behavior, and self-report) are inextricably linked with moment-to-moment changes in the caregiving environment. We then offer a proof-of-concept for integrating biobehavioral RDoC units and environmental components via caregiver-child dynamics. Our approach uses dynamic structural equation models to estimate within-dyad dynamics involving arousal, social, cognitive, and negative or positive affective processes based on second-by-second changes in parasympathetic activity (RSA) during a conflict discussion and a positive event-planning task. Our results illustrate variation in parent–child RSA synchrony, suggesting differences depending on the driver (i.e., child- or parent-led) and on the unique and intersecting domains involved (e.g., positive or negative affect valence systems). We conclude with recommendations for conducting robust, methodologically rigorous studies of interpersonal dynamics that advance the RDoC framework and provide a summary of the clinical implications of this research. Examining caregiver-child dynamics during and across multiple dyadic interaction paradigms that differentially elicit key domains of functioning can deepen understanding of how caregiver- and child-led interpersonal dynamics contribute to child psychopathology risk.

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10802-023-01110-8.