Puberty drives fear learning during adolescence.

Risk for adverse outcomes, including the onset of mental illness, increases during adolescence. This increase may be linked to both new exposures, such as violence at home or in the community, or to physiological changes driven by puberty. There are significant sex differences in adolescent risk, for instance, anxiety disorders are significantly more prevalent in girls than boys. Fear learning is linked to mental health and may develop during adolescence, but the role of puberty in adolescent-specific change has not yet been systematically evaluated. We conducted a longitudinal study of fear learning that tested fear-potentiated startle (FPS) in 78 children (40 girls) aged 8-16 years. Participants completed two to three visits that included a differential fear conditioning task and self-report of both pubertal status and violence exposure. We tested for effects of sex, pubertal status, and violence exposure on FPS over time with latent growth curve models. We also examined the association between FPS and later anxiety symptoms. We found significant changes in FPS to the threat cue, but not the safety cue, across visits. Higher pubertal status was significantly associated with increased FPS to threat cues at each visit, whereas sex and violence exposure were not. FPS to threat during the baseline visit also predicted later anxiety symptoms. These findings suggest that puberty drives increased fear response to threat cues similarly for girls and boys, and that this effect may not be significantly impacted by individual differences in violence exposure during early adolescence.

What's the matter with ACEs? Recommendations for considering early adversity in educational contexts.

BACKGROUND: Currently, some trauma-informed education practices use "ACE scores," a number that represents the sum of endorsed items from a survey derived from the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) study in 1998. We caution that the survey provides limited information within education, and such scores have limited utility for designing and delivering individualized intervention to support students who have experienced adversity. OBJECTIVE: We sought to illustrate why ACEs are not well-suited for use in trauma-informed education, provide definitions for adversity-related terms from which a broader and common understanding of adversity can stem, and provide recommendations for integration of adversity-informed approaches to the educational context. METHODS: We compiled definitions of adversity-related constructs and made recommendations based on review of relevant research from the fields of psychology and education. RESULTS: Rather than tailoring educational practices to specific children based on the "traumatic" events they experience, we recommend educators focus their efforts on building supportive classrooms geared toward supporting students with best practices drawn from the Science of Learning, and with the understanding that early adversity can influence heterogeneous trajectories in student development and behavior. In addition, further research on educational practices, including the use of a shared language for describing and defining adversity-related experiences, are the concrete steps needed to better support a goal of adversity-informed education.