Skip to main content


Front. Psychol., 20 June 2023
Sec. Pediatric Psychology
This article is part of the Research Topic Risk and Protective Factors, Family Environment and (A)Typical Neurodevelopmental Outcomes View all 7 articles

Editorial: Risk and protective factors, family environment and (a)typical neurodevelopmental outcomes

  • 1Department of Brain and Behavioral Sciences, University of Pavia, Pavia, Italy
  • 2Developmental Psychobiology Lab, IRCCS Mondino Foundation, Pavia, Italy
  • 3Development and Neurodiversity Lab, Developmental Psychology Division, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden
  • 4Child Psychopathology Unit, Scientific Institute IRCCS E. Medea, Lecco, Italy

Child development is a non-linear, chaotic process that can be observed across different levels of analysis, each one being only partially predictable and as a whole concerning an open, interacting system that cannot be reduced to simplistic observations of isolated processes concerning the individual child alone (Sander, 2000; Smith and Thelen, 2003). Rather, child development arises from the continuous interaction between genetic predispositions and environmental conditions, and as part of a broader ecological system that spans from immediate family environment, to larger communities, society and culture, each one influencing a child's daily life experience and development more in general (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006).

As humans, brain maturation begins in the pre-natal stage and continues after birth, when in the early postnatal life—especially during the first thousand days after conception—we assist to an incredible sprout of neuroplasticity which interacts with environmental exposures to shape the emerging behavior or function (Berretta et al., 2021; Scher, 2022). Developmental research on early infancy has shown how the optimal environmental conditions for positive and adaptive growth and development include the presence of a sensitive and responsive caregiving context in which the infant finds contingent responses to their needs and appropriate care (Linnér and Almgren, 2020; Wilder and Semendeferi, 2022). At the same time, from a developmental neuro-constructivist perspective, it is widely accepted that even tiny asynchronies or mismatches between genetic predispositions and environmental features that might occur early in life can have relevant cascading consequences for the emergent phenotypic outcomes in typical and atypical development (Karmiloff-Smith, 1998, 2006).

Early environmental influences appear then fundamental to carve out the developmental landscape established by genetic predispositions and shape a child's developmental trajectory. These interacting influences are dynamic in nature and lead to a large variability among individual infants and across development. In this context, small individual differences early in development can be compensated for by alternative, adaptive pathways leading to a normative developmental outcome, or amplified over developmental cascades leading to more neurodivergent phenotypes, like autism or ADHD (D'Souza and Karmiloff-Smith, 2016). Consistently, the environment in which child development is encapsulated is capable of affecting the programming of fetal and postnatal growth processes and it does so mainly through epigenetic mechanisms that are especially sensitive to variations in the quality of caregiving exposures (Provenzi et al., 2020; Unternaehrer et al., 2021). Notably, the consequences for cognitive, behavioral and emotional child development are relevant whether variations in the quality of the environment include traumatic or stressful conditions (Devlin et al., 2010; Barker et al., 2020) or nurturing and sensitive parenting (Murgatroyd et al., 2015; Unternaehrer et al., 2015). In sum, the emerging behavioral epigenetic field provides the neuro-constructivist paradigm with specific biochemical mechanisms that further support the notion by which it is at the interface between genes and environment that developmental trajectories are shaped.

Consistent with this view of human development, we have launched the present Research Topic in 2022 to collect evidence of the role of the care environment in defining elements of risk and protection for children with typical development and for children who show neurodivergent conditions. The Research Topic is now published and includes six different papers written by colleagues/samples from Europe (Poland, Spain and Italy), America (Guatemala), Africa (Egypt), and Asia (Saudi Arabia and China). Here, we summarize their contributions highlighting the implications for the advancement of our understanding of the role of the family and caregiving environment in shaping typical and atypical developmental trajectories in children.

The role of family environment in the autistic condition, with all its complexity and different components, is analyzed by two contributions of this Research Topic. Dong et al. addressed the role of environmental predictors in a sample of autistic children. In a large cohort study, sociodemographic, individual, and social factors were linked with developmental quotient in autistic children. They found that among the investigated factors, lower Vitamin D concentration, the severity of autistic traits, and a poor parent-child interaction played a significant role on cognitive development. On the other hand, maternal and paternal educational level, household income, and screen time exposure did not affect cognitive skills. In their contribution, Sipowicz et al. focused on loneliness and depression traits in adult siblings of autistic individuals, compared to siblings of neurotypical individuals and individuals without siblings. The authors found significant group differences, and having an autistic sibling increased depression and loneliness levels. In addition, women showed higher levels of loneliness and depression traits compared to men. The authors highlight the importance and need of screening for depression within families of autistic individuals.

Two additional studies investigated environmental influences on child development in relation to two known areas of relevant concern: screen use and diet. Zoromba et al. reported on the link between behavioral problems among preschool children and media exposure in Egypt. Capitalizing from a large cohort of children, the authors documented a daily media exposure above recommended time for this age group (100 min), with longer durations of exposure being significantly correlated with specific behavioral problems—including hyperactivity, conduct problem, and anxiety. While this linear association should not suggest a simplistic and causal interpretation, this study contributes to the existent literature on negative correlates of screen use in childhood and the need to concurrently engage children into alternative social activities by reporting data from underrepresented populations, a critical element for further cross-cultural comparisons and investigations. Company-Cordoba et al. conducted a study on how food insecurity and household food consumption might impact the cognitive performance of children at risk of social exclusion. The study was conducted in Guatemala where children diet is further challenged by specific hazards related to the socioeconomic difficulties. The authors showed that despite rural and urban groups did not differ in terms of food insecurity, when considering rural areas only, differences were found between groups with food security and insecurity in attention and executive function tasks. More specifically, protein food consumption (e.g., meat and fish) was a relevant factor in executive performance. These findings should inform policy-makers on the implementation of initiatives to ensure food security in families at risk of social exclusion and therefore supporting a more sustainable and balanced diet across the population.

Two studies focused on the role of caregiving environment in samples of children with visual disabilities. Gui et al. conducted an observational study focusing on the quality of parent-child interaction in two different groups of children: one with total blindness (TB) and one with partial blindness (PB). They found that parents of TB children had higher parenting stress and lower perceived social support scores than parents of PB children. While there was no difference in the time TB and PB children spent displaying joint engagement behaviors during parent-child interaction, TB children directed their gaze and face less often toward their parents than PB children. A trend for an association between this behavior and maternal stress was also highlighted, suggesting the opportunity to invest in early interventions that support parental caregiving for this specific population. Notably, Provenzi et al. reported on a single case study of a parent-child intervention conducted with a child with severe visual impairment and his blind father. The study reports on the session-by-session improvements that were noted in this dyad not only in terms of an increase and appropriateness of child communicative signals, but also in terms of a general change of the interactive pattern shown by the dyad. By using an observational grid to code the videotaped sessions, the authors were able to provide a view of therapeutic change inspired by the dynamic system theory and it was possible to describe a movement of the dyad as a whole toward a more reciprocally satisfactory interaction.

In sum, this Research Topic provides evidence on the influence of the family and caregiving environment on child development, highlighting its relevant role in the presence of specific environmental or genetic risk factors, and further highlighting how improving the quality of the early care environment might be crucial in supporting the health and development of children with neurodevelopmental conditions. By accumulating such evidence, our hope is that a virtuous connection among researchers, clinicians and policy-makers might increase our possibility to protect and promote child development by investing in sensitive caregiving and parental support.

Author contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Barker, V., Walker, R. M., Evans, K. L., and Lawrie, S. M. (2020). Methylation of glucocorticoid receptor (NR3C1), BDNF and oxytocin receptor genes in association with childhood maltreatment in schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder. Schizophr. Res. 216, 529–531. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2019.11.050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Berretta, E., Guida, E., Forni, D., and Provenzi, L. (2021). Glucocorticoid receptor gene (NR3C1) methylation during the first thousand days: environmental exposures and developmental outcomes. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 125, 493–502. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2021.03.003

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Bronfenbrenner, U., and Morris, P. (2006). The Bioecoloigical Model of Human Development. New York, NY: Wiley. doi: 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Devlin, A. M., Brain, U., Austin, J., and Oberlander, T. F. (2010). Prenatal exposure to maternal depressed mood and the MTHFR C677T variant affect SLC6A4 methylation in infants at birth. PLoS ONE 5, e12201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012201

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

D'Souza, D., and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2016). Why a developmental perspective is critical for understanding human cognition. Behav. Brain Sci. 39, e122. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X15001569

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1998). Development itself is the key to understanding developmental disorders. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2, 389–398. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01230-3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2006). The tortuous route from genes to behavior: a neuroconstructivist approach. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 6, 9–17. doi: 10.3758/CABN.6.1.9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Linnér, A., and Almgren, M. (2020). Epigenetic programming-the important first 1000 days. Acta Paediatr. 109, 443–452. doi: 10.1111/apa.15050

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Murgatroyd, C., Quinn, J. P., Sharp, H. M., Pickles, A., and Hill, J. (2015). Effects of prenatal and postnatal depression, and maternal stroking, at the glucocorticoid receptor gene. Transl. Psychiatry 5, e560–e560. doi: 10.1038/tp.2014.140

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Provenzi, L., Brambilla, M., Scotto di Minico, G., Montirosso, R., and Borgatti, R. (2020). Maternal caregiving and DNA methylation in human infants and children: systematic review. Genes Brain Behav. 19, e12616. doi: 10.1111/gbb.12616

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Sander, L. W. (2000). Where are we going in the field of infant mental health? Infant Mental Health J. 21, 5–20. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0355(200001/04)21:1/2<5::AID-IMHJ2>3.0.CO;2-S

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Scher, M. S. (2022). “Gene-environment interactions during the first thousand days influence childhood neurological diagnosis,” in Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 42, 100970. doi: 10.1016/j.spen.2022.100970

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Smith, L. B., and Thelen, E. (2003). Development as a dynamic system. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 343–348. doi: 10.1016/S1364-6613(03)00156-6

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Unternaehrer, E., Meier, M., Bouvette-Turcot, A. A., and Dass, S. A. H. (2021). “Long-term epigenetic effects of parental caregiving,” in Developmental Human Behavioral Epigenetics, eds L. Provenzi and R. Montirosso. (Elsevier; Academic Press), 105–117. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-819262-7.00006-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Unternaehrer, E., Meyer, A. H., Burkhardt, S. C., Dempster, E., Staehli, S., Theill, N., et al. (2015). Childhood maternal care is associated with DNA methylation of the genes for brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and oxytocin receptor (OXTR) in peripheral blood cells in adult men and women. Stress 18, 451–461. doi: 10.3109/10253890.2015.1038992

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Wilder, L., and Semendeferi, K. (2022). Infant brain development and plasticity from an evolutionary perspective. Evol. Perspect. Infancy 39–57. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-76000-7_3

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: neurodevelopment, autism, ADHD, epigenetics, parenting, siblings

Citation: Provenzi L, Bussu G and Riva V (2023) Editorial: Risk and protective factors, family environment and (a)typical neurodevelopmental outcomes. Front. Psychol. 14:1221338. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1221338

Received: 12 May 2023; Accepted: 12 June 2023;
Published: 20 June 2023.

Edited and reviewed by: Leonardo De Pascalis, University of Liverpool, United Kingdom

Copyright © 2023 Provenzi, Bussu and Riva. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Livio Provenzi,

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.