English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Using the differential susceptibility perspective (Belsky &amp; Pluess, 2009) as a guiding frame-work, age 12 neighborhood disadvantage (ND) and family characteristics (parental knowledge) were examined as moderators of the relations between age 12 youth impulsivity and the development (ages 13, 14, and 15) of positive (community activities) and negative (antisocial behavior; ASB) adolescent behavior. An interaction between ND and youth impulsivity (age 12) operated with differential susceptibility, but only for female community activities at age 13: under low levels of ND, impulsive adolescent females engaged in the highest levels of community activities, whereas under high ND, they engaged in the lowest levels. Exploratory analysis showed the association between community activities and ND to be partially related to parents' or adults' engagement in informal social controls (e.g., alerting the police with misbehavior in the neighborhood). Differential susceptibility effects were not identified for: (i) parental knowledge and impulsivity; (ii) ASB (ages 13, 14 or 15); or (iii) community involvement at ages 14 and 15. Findings provide limited evidence for impulsivity as a differential susceptibility phenotype.

Are impulsive adolescents differentially influenced by the good and bad of neighborhood and family?