Gene–environment interactions
Here, we look at two studies relating to gene-environment interactions. First, Nikstat, Beam & Riemann (2023) published “Gene–Environment Interplay in Internalizing Problem Behavior” in Developmental Psychology. Here are the edited abstract and impact statements:
Behavior genetic methods are useful for examining mechanisms underlying the interaction between genetic and family environmental factors of internalizing problem behavior (INT). Previous twin studies, however, have shown little consistency in interaction patterns, depending on type and operationalization of measured environments. The aim of the current study was to explore different gene-by-environment interaction patterns among different family-level environmental risk factors and resources known to correlate with INT. Using an empirical-based approach, we combined various indicators of the family environment to derive four dimensions: positive parenting, negative parenting, lack of parental resources, and socioeconomic status. We then used a genetically informed design of twins raised in the same family to test whether interaction patterns followed a diathesis stress or vantage sensitivity model formulation. The sample consisted of 2,089 twin pairs and their families from two twin birth cohorts (ages 11 and 17) participating in Wave 1 of the German TwinLife study of social inequalities. In line with a vantage sensitivity pattern of interaction and with the bioecological model of development (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994), evidence for a general mechanism of gene–environment interaction with increasing nonshared environmental variance for more adverse and less propitious family conditions was found. In preadolescence, parenting behavior had a greater moderating influence on INT compared to general family conditions like socioeconomic status. Interventions for INT that directly involve parents, thus, may be more important in preadolescent populations whereas individual interventions for adolescents may be more successful if they are adapted to different levels of socioeconomic status.
The present study suggests that environmental influences outside the family may have a greater impact on internalizing problem behavior under less advantageous family conditions. In preadolescence, interventions for internalizing problem behavior should involve parents directly whereas in adolescence, interventions may be tailored individually that take into account adolescents’ socioeconomic status.
I found this study helpful in its large sample size and clever methodology. It seems helpful to recognize the differential role of parenting in preadolescent and adolescent children. I also like the emphasis on the role that socioeconomic status may play in internalizing problem behavior. The next study is more theoreticalElam, Lemery-Chalfant & Chassin (2022) published “A Gene-Environment Cascade Theoretical Framework of Developmental Psychopathology” in Journal of Psychopathology and Clinical Science. The edited abstract and impact statements are as follows:
Previous theories have emphasized genetic effects “inside the skin” via endophenotypes within the broader developmental psychopathology theory. Expanding on the mechanisms of gene-environment correlation, we propose a new integrative framework emphasizing how genetic effects “outside the skin” (Reiss & Leve, 2007) accumulate due to individual variation in social information processing in negative environments and sociocultural contexts as part of developmental cascades to psychopathology. In this gene-environment cascade theoretical framework, genetic predisposition for psychopathology, as well as stable traits and behaviors, can lead to negative environments via gene-environment correlations that can be exacerbated or buffered by an individual’s social information processing. Moreover, these “environments” range from dyadic social relationships to broader sociocultural contexts. Over time, these processes exacerbate one another as part of developmental cascades, resulting in accumulating risk for psychopathology. By focusing on gene-environment correlations and integrating disparate social-emotional, cognitive, and sociocultural research domains, this framework delineates key processes by which early genetic predisposition can contribute to developmentally distinct and accumulating risk for psychopathology over the life course. Implications for intervention and methodological advances that facilitate testing models are presented. This new framework moves the field further away from genetic determinism by informing targets of early psychosocial prevention.
Our gene-environment cascade theoretical framework describes one novel pathway to psychopathology. In this theory, the interplay among genetic predisposition, exposure to negative sociocultural environments, and individual variation in social information processing can exacerbate risk for psychopathology. Over time, these cascading processes can result in accumulating risk for psychopathology.
I thought this study combined nicely with Nikstat et al.’s. The three factors in their interplay make sense to me and, like the previous study’s findings regarding socioeconomic status, the focus here on negative sociocultural environments is important. Each study is also optimistic about the power of early intervention.