Confirmatory and competitive evaluation of alternative gene-environment interaction hypotheses.

BACKGROUND Most gene-environment interaction (GXE) research, though based on clear, vulnerability-oriented hypotheses, is carried out using exploratory rather than hypothesis-informed statistical tests, limiting power and making formal evaluation of competing GXE propositions difficult. METHOD We present and illustrate a new regression technique which affords direct testing of theory-derived predictions, as well as competitive evaluation of alternative diathesis-stress and differential-susceptibility propositions, using data on the moderating effect of DRD4 with regard to the effect of childcare quality on children's social functioning. RESULTS Results show that (a) the new approach detects interactions that the traditional one does not; (b) the discerned GXE fit the differential-susceptibility model better than the diathesis-stress one; and (c) a strong rather than weak version of differential susceptibility is empirically supported. CONCLUSION The new method better fits the theoretical 'glove' to the empirical 'hand,' raising the prospect that some failures to replicate GXE results may derive from standard statistical approaches being less than ideal.

[1]  C. Judd,et al.  Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[2]  Deborah Lowe Vandell,et al.  Early Child Care and Children’s Development in the Primary Grades: Follow-Up Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care , 2005 .

[3]  Jeffrey Ditterline.  Social Skills Rating System , 2008 .

[4]  Daniel J. Bauer,et al.  Computational Tools for Probing Interactions in Multiple Linear Regression, Multilevel Modeling, and Latent Curve Analysis , 2006 .

[5]  Andy C. Belden.  Child Care and Child Development: Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development , 2007 .

[6]  Geoffrey L. Brown,et al.  Father involvement, paternal sensitivity, and father-child attachment security in the first 3 years. , 2012, Journal of family psychology : JFP : journal of the Division of Family Psychology of the American Psychological Association.

[7]  Daniel A. Newman,et al.  Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects , 2012, Development and Psychopathology.

[8]  J. Belsky,et al.  Distinguishing ordinal and disordinal interactions. , 2012, Psychological methods.

[9]  M. McInnis,et al.  Psychiatric genetics: progress amid controversy , 2008, Nature Reviews Genetics.

[10]  Jay Belsky,et al.  For Better and For Worse , 2007 .

[11]  J. Belsky,et al.  Beyond risk, resilience, and dysregulation: Phenotypic plasticity and human development , 2013, Development and Psychopathology.

[12]  Jay Belsky,et al.  Differential susceptibility to the environment: An evolutionary–neurodevelopmental theory , 2011, Development and Psychopathology.

[13]  G. Kochanska,et al.  Children's genotypes interact with maternal responsive care in predicting children's competence: Diathesis–stress or differential susceptibility? , 2011, Development and Psychopathology.

[14]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Research Review: genetic vulnerability or differential susceptibility in child development: the case of attachment. , 2007, Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines.

[15]  M. Burchinal,et al.  Maternal employment and child cognitive outcomes: the importance of analytic approach. , 2007, Developmental psychology.

[16]  G. A. Hale,et al.  On Use of ANOVA in Developmental Research , 1977 .

[17]  J. Belsky,et al.  Are there long-term effects of early child care? , 2007, Child development.

[18]  J. Belsky,et al.  Vulnerability genes or plasticity genes? , 2009, Molecular Psychiatry.

[19]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Experimental Evidence for Differential Susceptibility: Dopamine D4 Receptor Polymorphism (drd4 Vntr) Moderates Intervention Effects on Toddlers' Externalizing Behavior in a Randomized Controlled Trial Differential Susceptibility and Genetic Vulnerability , 2022 .

[20]  N. Risch,et al.  Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression: a meta-analysis. , 2009, JAMA.

[21]  Celia A. Brownell,et al.  Nonmaternal Care and Family Factors in Early Development: An Overview of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care , 2001 .

[22]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Gene-environment interaction of the dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) and observed maternal insensitivity predicting externalizing behavior in preschoolers. , 2006, Developmental psychobiology.

[23]  T. Achenbach.  Manual for the child behavior checklist/4-18 and 1991 profile , 1991 .

[24]  J. Zubin,et al.  Vulnerability--a new view of schizophrenia. , 1977, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[25]  P. McGuffin,et al.  The moderation by the serotonin transporter gene of environmental adversity in the etiology of depression: 2009 update , 2010, Molecular Psychiatry.

[26]  M. Bakermans-Kranenburg,et al.  Differential susceptibility to rearing environment depending on dopamine-related genes: New evidence and a meta-analysis , 2011, Development and Psychopathology.

[27]  Jay Belsky,et al.  Beyond diathesis stress: differential susceptibility to environmental influences. , 2009, Psychological bulletin.

[28]  Catherine A. Snyder.  Book Review: Taking Part: Introducing Social Skills to Children , 1993 .

[29]  R. Rosenthal,et al.  Statistical Procedures and the Justification of Knowledge in Psychological Science , 1989 .

[30]  J. Sinacore.  Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions , 1993 .

[31]  Jay Belsky,et al.  Vantage sensitivity: individual differences in response to positive experiences. , 2013, Psychological bulletin.