Parental socioeconomic status weakly predicts specific cognitive and academic skills beyond general cognitive ability

Characterizing Chinese undergraduate students' empathizing-systemizing profiles: a person-centered approach

While the empathizing-systemizing (E-S) theory provides a valuable framework for explaining gender differences in STEM majors, previous studies suffer from methodological issues (i.e., the arbitrary cut-off criteria and WEIRD sampling) as well as discrepancies in the behavioral correlates of E-S types. To address the gaps, this study utilized a 3-step latent profile analysis to identify naturally occurring E-S profiles in a Chinese sample and explored the predictors and distal outcomes of the identified profiles. The study recruited 785 (aged 18-25 years, 60% female) Chinese undergraduates. Results revealed five E-S profiles: Disengaged, Empathizers, Navigating systemizers, Technological systemizers, and Self-declared allrounders. Controlling for socioeconomic status, being male predicted a higher likelihood of membership into the Technological systemizers. Besides, membership to the Navigating systemizers and Technological systemizers was associated with better intuitive physics performance. However, no significant variation was observed for social sensitivity performance across E-S profiles. Overall, our results partially conformed to previous findings, highlighting the importance of cultural adaptation and methodological considerations when classifying students' cognitive types.

Cognitive deficits and enhancements in youth from adverse conditions: An integrative assessment using Drift Diffusion Modeling in the ABCD study

Childhood adversity can lead to cognitive deficits or enhancements, depending on many factors. Though progress has been made, two challenges prevent us from integrating and better understanding these patterns. First, studies commonly use and interpret raw performance differences, such as response times, which conflate different stages of cognitive processing. Second, most studies either isolate or aggregate abilities, obscuring the degree to which individual differences reflect task-general (shared) or task-specific (unique) processes. We addressed these challenges using Drift Diffusion Modeling (DDM) and structural equation modeling (SEM). Leveraging a large, representative sample of 9-10 year-olds from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development (ABCD) study, we examined how two forms of adversity-material deprivation and household threat-were associated with performance on tasks measuring processing speed, inhibition, attention shifting, and mental rotation. Using DDM, we decomposed performance on each task into three distinct stages of processing: speed of information uptake, response caution, and stimulus encoding/response execution. Using SEM, we isolated task-general and task-specific variances in each processing stage and estimated their associations with the two forms of adversity. Youth with more exposure to household threat (but not material deprivation) showed slower task-general processing speed, but showed intact task-specific abilities. In addition, youth with more exposure to household threat tended to respond more cautiously in general. These findings suggest that traditional assessments might overestimate the extent to which childhood adversity reduces specific abilities. By combining DDM and SEM approaches, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of how adversity affects different aspects of youth's cognitive performance. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHT: To understand how childhood adversity shapes cognitive abilities, the field needs analytical approaches that can jointly document and explain patterns of lowered and enhanced performance. Using Drift Diffusion Modeling and Structural Equation Modeling, we analyzed associations between adversity and processing speed, inhibition, attention shifting, and mental rotation. Household threat, but not material deprivation, was mostly associated with slower task-general processing speed and more response caution. In contrast, task-specific abilities were largely intact. Researchers might overestimate the impact of childhood adversity on specific abilities and underestimate the impact on general processing speed and response caution using traditional measures.