The Influence of the Family in the Development of Talent in Sport

The purpose of the present study was to describe patterns in the dynamics of families of talented athletes throughout their development in sport. Four families, including three families of elite rowers and one family of an elite tennis player were examined. The framework provided by Ericsson, Krampe, and Tesch- Römer (1993) to explain expert performance served as the theoretical basis for the study. Ericsson et al. suggested that the acquisition of expert performance involves operating within three types of constraints: motivational, effort, and resource. In-depth interviews were conducted with each athlete, parent, and sibling to explore how they have dealt with these three constraints. A total of 15 individual interviews were conducted. Results permitted the identification of three phases of participation from early childhood to late adolescence: the sampling years, the specializing years, and the investment years. The dynamics of the family in each of these phases of development is discussed

The Benefits of Sampling Sports During Childhood

Sampling may promote prolonged engagement in sport by limiting physical injuries (Fraser-Thomas et al., 2005). Overtraining injuries are a concern for young athletes who specialize in one sport and engage in high volumes of deliberate practice (Hollander, Meyers, & Leunes, 1995; Law, Côté, & Ericsson, 2007). For instance, young gymnasts who practice for over 16 hours a week have been shown to have higher incidences of back injuries (Goldstein, Berger, Windier, & Jackson, 1991). A sampling approach in child-controlled play (e.g. deliberate play) rather than highly adult-controlled practice (e.g. deliberate practice) has been proposed as a strategy to limit overuse and other sport-related injuries (Micheli, Glassman, & Klein, 2000). In summary, sampling may protect against sport attrition by limiting sport related injuries and allowing children to have early experiences in sport that are enjoyable. Psychosocial Benefits of Sampling Only a small percentage of children who participate in school sports ever become elite athletes. Therefore, the psychosocial outcomes of sport participation are particularly important to consider. Recent studies with youth between the ages of 11 to 17 have found that those who are involved in a variety of extracurricular activities (e.g. sports, volunteer, arts) score more favourably on outcome measures such as Grade Point Average (GPA; Fredricks & Eccles, 2006a) and positive peer relationships (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006b) than youth who participate in fewer activities. These patterns are thought to exist due to each extracurricular activity bringing its own distinct pattern of socialization experiences that reinforce certain behaviours and/or teach various skills (Fredricks & Eccles, 2006b; Rose-Krasnor, Bussen, Willoughby, & Chambers, 2006). This contention is corroborated by studies of children and youths' experiences in extracurricular activities indicating that youth have unique experiences in each activity that contribute to their development (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003; Larson, Hansen, & Moneta, 2006). This has led Wilkes and Côté (2007) to propose that children who sample different activities (through their own choice or by virtue of parental direction), have a greater chance of developing the following five developmental outcomes compared to children who specialize in one activity: 1) life skills, 2) prosocial behaviour, 3) healthy identity, 4) diverse peer groups and 5) social capital.

Bridging the link between trauma, brain development and depression: epigenetic mechanisms

Despite its large impact on the individual and society, we currently have only a rudimentary understanding of the biological basis of Major Depressive Disorder, even less so in adolescent populations. This thesis focuses on two research questions. First, how do adolescents with depression differ from adolescents who have never been depressed on (1a) brain morphology and (1b) DNA methylation? We studied differences in the fronto-limbic system (a collection of areas responsible for emotion regulation) and methylation at the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4) and FK506 binding protein gene (FKBP5) genes (two genes strongly linked to stress regulation and depression). Second, how does childhood trauma, which is known to increase risk for depression, affect (2a) brain development and (2b) SLC6A4 and FKBP5 methylation? Further, (2c) how might DNA methylation explain how trauma affects brain development in depression? We studied these questions in 24 adolescent depressed patients and 21 controls. We found that (1a) depressed adolescents had decreased left precuneus volume and greater volume of the left precentral gyrus compared to controls; however, no differences in fronto-limbic morphology were identified. Moreover, (1b) individuals with depression had lower levels of FKBP5 methylation than controls. In line with our second hypothesis (2a) greater levels of trauma were associated with decreased volume of a number of fronto-limbic regions. Further, we found that (2b) greater trauma was associated with decreased SLC6A4, but not FKBP5, methylation. Finally, (2c) greater FKBP5, but not SLC6A4, methylation was associated with decreased volume of a number of fronto-limbic regions. The results of this study suggest an association among trauma, DNA methylation and brain development in youth, but the direction of these relationships appears to be inconsistent. Future studies using a longitudinal design will be necessary to clarify these results and help us understand how the brain and epigenome change over time in depressed youth.