The Neurobiology and Culture of Adolescent Development
ANTHRO M293S/APPLING M233/EDUC M286/PSYCH M247
Integrative Seminar for the Center for Culture, Brain and Development
Winter, 2011
Thursdays, 12:00 – 2:50
Instructors:
Andrew J. Fuligni
B7-436 Semel Institute Bldg.
794-6033
afuligni@ucla.edu
Mirella Dapretto
Brain Mapping Ctr., Room 215
206-2960
mirella@loni.ucla.edu
Office Hours: By appointment
Course Overview
This seminar is intended for doctoral students who are interested in research into the role
of neurobiology, social experience, and culture in development during the second decade of life.
The course is organized around a selected set of topics that have driven theory and research about
the adolescent period and for which there has been recent efforts to integrate neurological
development, social experience, and cultural factors. This class is primarily a research seminar,
which means that the issues and topics will be discussed from an empirical perspective. Students
should be able to critically evaluate research, as well as formulate original empirical questions.
The seminar is held in conjunction with the weekly CBD speaker series. Each week, an
invited speaker will present a talk that is open for the public. After the talk and a brief break, the
students will meet separately with the speaker to discuss issues relevant to the talk and the
assigned readings.
Requirements
1. Class Participation
This course will be conducted in a seminar format, and students are expected to complete
all readings prior to class and actively contribute to the discussion of the topics each week.
Students are expected to submit two questions or comments for discussion by 9:00 am on the
Wednesday before each class to the discussion leaders for the week (CCing both instructors).
2. Leading Discussion
Each week, two students are expected to organize the submitted discussion questions into
a one-page discussion guide for that week’s class. These students are also expected to lead the
discussion with the guest speaker that week.
PAGE
1
3. Research Proposal
At the end of the course, students will prepare a 7-page, single-spaced research proposal
pertaining to adolescent development. The proposal will be prepared according to the format of
the NIH R21 mechanism for exploratory and developmental research. First drafts of the proposal
are due March 3 and will be given to pre-assigned student reviewers, who will then present their
critiques of the proposal on the last day of class, March 10. Revisions that are responsive to these
critiques will be due March 16 (see below for more detailed instructions).
Course Schedule
January 6
Introduction to the Course
Readings
Spear, L.P. (2010).The Brain, Its Development, and the Neuroscience of Adolescence. The
Behavioral Neuroscience of Adolescence (Ch. 4). New York: Norton
Casey, B.J., Duhoux, S., & Cohen, M.M. (2010). Adolescence: What Do Transmission,
Transition, and Translation Have to Do with It? Neuron, 67, 749-760.
January 13
Imaging the Developing Human Brain
Elizabeth Sowell
University of California, Los Angeles
Readings
Bramen, J.E., Hranilovich, J.A., Dahl, R.E., Forbes, E.E., Chen, J., Toga, A.W., Dinov,
I.D., Worthman, C.M., & Sowell, E.R (In Press). Puberty Influences Medial
Temporal Lobe and Cortical Gray Matter Maturation Differently in Boys Than Girls
Matched for Sexual Maturity. Cerebral Cortex.
Colby, J.B., Van Horn, J.D., & Sowell E.R. (2011). Quantitative In Vivo Evidence for
Broad Regional Gradients in the Timing of White Matter Maturation During
Adolescence. Neuroimage, 54, 25-31.
Giedd, J.N., & Rapaport, J.L. (2010). Structural MRI of Pediatric Brain Development:
What Have We Learned and Where Are We Going? Neuron, 67, 728-734.
Discussion Leaders:
Bahiyyih Hardacre
PAGE
1
January 20
Self-Development: Neural and Cultural Effects
Jennifer Pfeifer
University of Oregon
Readings
Pfeifer, J.H., Mahy, C.E.V., Chen, C., Masten, C.L., Fuligni, A.J., Lieberman, M.D.,
Lessard, J., Dong, Q., & Chen, C. (under review). Exploring an Extended Neural
Network for Self-Appraisals in Chinese Adults.
Pfeifer, J.H., Masten, C.L., Borofsky, L.A., Dapretto, M., Fuligni, A.J., & Lieberman,
M.D. (2009). Neural Correlates of Direct and Reflected Self-Appraisals in
Adolescents and Adults: When Social Perspective-Taking Informs SelfPerception. Child Development, 80, 1016-1038.
Wang, Q. (2006). Culture and the Development of Self-Knowledge. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 15, 182-187.
Discussion Leaders:
January 27
Nicole Garcia
&
Katie Hale
Social Identity and the Motivation and Well Being of Adolescents
Andrew Fuligni
University of California, Los Angeles
Readings
Fuligni, A.J. (2010). Social identity, motivation, and well being among adolescents from
Asian and Latin American backgrounds. In G. Carlo, N. J. Crockett, & Carranza,
M. (Eds.) Health Disparities in Youth and Families: Research and Applications.
Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Vol. 57). New York, NY: Springer.
Fuligni, A. J., Telzer, E. H., Bower, J., Kiang, L., Irwin, M. R., & Cole, S. W. (2009).
Daily family assistance and inflammation among adolescents from Latin
American and European backgrounds. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, 23, 803809.
Telzer, E.H., Masten, C.L., Berkman, E.T., Lieberman, M.D., & Fuligni, A.J. (2010).
Gaining while giving: An fMRI study of the rewards of family assistance. Social
Neuroscience, 5, 508-515.
PAGE
1
Discussion Leaders:
February 3
Seinenu Thein
&
Gail Fox Adams
Neural Correlates of Social Exclusion During Adolescence
Mirella Dapretto
University of California, Los Angeles
Readings
Masten, CL, Eisenberger, NI, Borofsky, L., Pfeifer, J, McNealy, K, Mazziotta, JC, &
Dapretto, M (2009). Neural correlates of social exclusion during adolescence:
Understanding the distress of peer rejection. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci., 4, 143157.
Masten C.L., Eisenberger, N.I., Pfeifer, J.H., & Dapretto, M. (In Press). Witnessing Peer
Rejection during Adolescence: Neural Correlates of Empathy for Experiences of
Social Exclusion. Social Neuroscience.
Nishina, A., & Juvonen, J. (2005). Daily reports of witnessing and experiencing peer
harassment in middle school. Child Development, 76, 435-450.
Discussion Leaders:
Afaf Nash
&
Martin Romero
February 10 Connectedness to Parents in Early Adolescence in the United States and China
Eva Pomerantz
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Readings
Qin, L., Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). Are gains in decision-making autonomy
during early adolescence beneficial for emotional functioning? The case of the
United States and China. Child Development, 80, 1705–1721.
Pomerantz, E. M., & Wang, Q. (2009). The role of parental control in children’s
development in Western and East Asian countries. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 18, 285-289.
Wang, Q., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2009). The motivational landscape of early adolescence
in the United States and China: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development,
80, 1272–1287.
PAGE
1
Discussion Leaders:
Shayna Tasoff
&
Heejung Park
February 17 Brain/Behavior/Social Context Interactions in Adolescence: A Framework for
Understanding Risk, Vulnerabilities, and Opportunities
Ronald Dahl
University of California, Berkeley
Readings
Dahl, R. E. (2008). Biological, developmental, and neurobehavioral factors relevant to
adolescent driving risks. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 35, S278S284.
Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E. (2010). Pubertal development and behavior: Hormonal
activation of social and motivational tendencies. Brain and Cognition, 72, 66-72.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.
Developmental Review, 28, 78-106.
Discussion Leaders:
Jon Gillespie
February 24 Functional Neurodevelopment of Cognitions about Peers
Amanda Guyer
University of California, Davis
Readings
Nelson, E. E., Leibenluft, E., McClure, E., & Pine, D. S. (2005). The social reorientation of adolescence: A neuroscience perspective on the process and its
relation to psychopathology. Psychological Medicine, 35, 163-174.
Guyer, A. E., McClure-Tone, E. B., Shiffrin, N. D., Pine, D. S., & Nelson, E. E. (2009).
Probing the neural correlates of anticipated peer evaluation in adolescence. Child
Development, 80, 1000-1015.
Nelson, E. A., & Guyer, A. E. (under review). The development of the ventral prefrontal
cortex and social flexibility.
Discussion Leaders:
Lauren Sherman
PAGE
1
March 3
Decision Making and Risk Taking during Adolescence
Adriana Galvan
University of California, Los Angeles
Readings
Galvan, A. (in press). Risky Behavior in Adolescents: The Role of the Developing Brain.
Galvan, A., Hare, T.A., Parra, C.E., Penn, J., Voss, H., Glover, G., & Casey, B.J. (2006).
Earlier Development of the Accumbens Relative to Orbitofrontal Cortex Might
Underlie Risk-Taking Behavior. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 6885-6892.
Discussion Leaders:
March 10
Monika Abels
Research Proposal Critiques
PAGE
1
Guidelines for Your Research Proposal (Adapted from NIH Guidelines for R21 grants)
The R21 mechanism is intended to encourage new exploratory and developmental research
projects. It supports investigation of novel scientific ideas, tools, or technologies that have the
potential for significant impact on biomedical or biobehavioral research. For example, such
projects could assess the feasibility of a novel area of investigation or a new experimental
system that has the potential to enhance health-related research. Another example could
include the unique and innovative use of an existing methodology to explore a new scientific
area. These studies may involve considerable risk but may lead to a breakthrough in a
particular area, or to the development of novel techniques, models, or applications that could
have a major impact on a field of biomedical, behavioral, or clinical research.
Specific Aims (1 page)
State concisely the goals of the proposed research and summarize the expected outcome(s),
including the impact that the results of the proposed research will exert on the research field(s)
involved. List succinctly the specific objectives of the research proposed, e.g., to test a stated
hypothesis, create a novel design, solve a specific problem, challenge an existing paradigm or
clinical practice, address a critical barrier to progress in the field, or develop new technology.
Research Strategy (6 pages)
Organize the Research Strategy in the specified order and using the instructions provided
below. Start each section with the appropriate section heading – Significance, Innovation,
Approach. Cite published experimental details in the Research Strategy section and provide the
full reference in the References Cited section (this section is not included in the 6 pp limit)
(a) Significance
• Explain the importance of the problem or critical barrier to progress in the field that the
proposed project addresses.
• Explain how the proposed project will improve scientific knowledge, technical capability, and/or
clinical practice in one or more broad fields.
• Describe how the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field will be changed if the proposed aims are achieved.
(b) Innovation
• Explain how the application challenges and seeks to shift current research or clinical practice
paradigms.
• Describe any novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies, instrumentation or
interventions to be developed or used, and any advantage over existing methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions.
• Explain any refinements, improvements, or new applications of theoretical concepts,
approaches or methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions.
(c) Approach
• Describe the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses to be used to accomplish the
specific aims of the project. Include how the data will be collected, analyzed, and interpreted.
• Discuss potential problems, alternative strategies, and benchmarks for success anticipated to
achieve the aims.
• If the project is in the early stages of development, describe any strategy to establish
feasibility, and address the management of any high risk aspects of the proposed work.
• Include information on Preliminary Studies, if available (for R21 Grants preliminary data are
PAGE
1
not required).
Guidelines about Reviewing a Research Proposal (Adapted from Current NIH Guidelines)
Evaluation Criteria:
An R21 grant application need not have extensive background material or preliminary data.
Accordingly, reviewers should focus their evaluation on the conceptual framework, the level of
innovation, and the potential to significantly advance our knowledge or understanding.
Appropriate justification for the proposed work can be provided through literature citations, data
from other sources, or, when available, from investigator-generated data. Preliminary data are
not required for R21 applications; however, they may be included if available.
Overall Impact. Provide an overall impact/priority score to reflect your assessment of the
likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s)
involved, in consideration of the following 5 core review criteria and additional review criteria (as
applicable).
Core Review Criteria. Consider each of the 5 review criteria below in the determination of
scientific and technical merit, and give a separate score for each. An application does not need
to be strong in all categories to be judged likely to have major scientific impact. For example, a
project that by its nature is not innovative may be essential to advance a field.
1. Significance: Does the project address an important problem or a critical barrier to progress
in the field? If the aims of the project are achieved, how will scientific knowledge, technical
capability, and/or clinical practice be improved? How will successful completion of the aims
change the concepts, methods, technologies, treatments, services, or preventative
interventions that drive this field?
2. Innovation: Does the application challenge and seek to shift current research or clinical
practice paradigms by utilizing novel theoretical concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions? Are the concepts, approaches or methodologies,
instrumentation, or interventions novel to one field of research or novel in a broad sense? Is a
refinement, improvement, or new application of theoretical concepts, approaches or
methodologies, instrumentation, or interventions proposed?
3. Approach: Are the overall strategy, methodology, and analyses well-reasoned and
appropriate to accomplish the specific aims of the project? Are potential problems, alternative
strategies, and benchmarks for success presented? If the project is in the early stages of
development, will the strategy establish feasibility and will particularly risky aspects be
managed? If the project involves clinical research, are the plans for 1) protection of human
subjects from research risks, and 2) inclusion of minorities and members of both
sexes/genders, as well as the inclusion of children, justified in terms of the scientific goals and
research strategy proposed?
PAGE
1