↓ Skip to main content

Network Approach to Understanding Emotion Dynamics in Relation to Childhood Trauma and Genetic Liability to Psychopathology: Replication of a Prospective Experience Sampling Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
124 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Network Approach to Understanding Emotion Dynamics in Relation to Childhood Trauma and Genetic Liability to Psychopathology: Replication of a Prospective Experience Sampling Analysis
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, November 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01908
Pubmed ID
Authors

Laila Hasmi, Marjan Drukker, Sinan Guloksuz, Claudia Menne-Lothmann, Jeroen Decoster, Ruud van Winkel, Dina Collip, Philippe Delespaul, Marc De Hert, Catherine Derom, Evert Thiery, Nele Jacobs, Bart P. F. Rutten, Marieke Wichers, Jim van Os

Abstract

Background: The network analysis of intensive time series data collected using the Experience Sampling Method (ESM) may provide vital information in gaining insight into the link between emotion regulation and vulnerability to psychopathology. The aim of this study was to apply the network approach to investigate whether genetic liability (GL) to psychopathology and childhood trauma (CT) are associated with the network structure of the emotions "cheerful," "insecure," "relaxed," "anxious," "irritated," and "down"-collected using the ESM method. Methods: Using data from a population-based sample of twin pairs and siblings (704 individuals), we examined whether momentary emotion network structures differed across strata of CT and GL. GL was determined empirically using the level of psychopathology in monozygotic and dizygotic co-twins. Network models were generated using multilevel time-lagged regression analysis and were compared across three strata (low, medium, and high) of CT and GL, respectively. Permutations were utilized to calculate p values and compare regressions coefficients, density, and centrality indices. Regression coefficients were presented as connections, while variables represented the nodes in the network. Results: In comparison to the low GL stratum, the high GL stratum had significantly denser overall (p = 0.018) and negative affect network density (p < 0.001). The medium GL stratum also showed a directionally similar (in-between high and low GL strata) but statistically inconclusive association with network density. In contrast to GL, the results of the CT analysis were less conclusive, with increased positive affect density (p = 0.021) and overall density (p = 0.042) in the high CT stratum compared to the medium CT stratum but not to the low CT stratum. The individual node comparisons across strata of GL and CT yielded only very few significant results, after adjusting for multiple testing. Conclusions: The present findings demonstrate that the network approach may have some value in understanding the relation between established risk factors for mental disorders (particularly GL) and the dynamic interplay between emotions. The present finding partially replicates an earlier analysis, suggesting it may be instructive to model negative emotional dynamics as a function of genetic influence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 124 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 124 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 22 18%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 8%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 18 15%
Unknown 36 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 50 40%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Neuroscience 9 7%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 43 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 October 2018.
All research outputs
#17,918,662
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#20,749
of 30,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,532
of 329,235 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#477
of 607 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,246 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,235 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 607 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.