Another study provided evidence for an interaction between family SES and the serotonin transporter (SLC6A4) gene in relation to juvenile delinquency: a long (more‐active) form of the gene (L‐allele) showed the highest plasticity in boys because of the curvilinear associations between family SES and delinquency. The same pattern was found among girls with a short (less‐active) form of the gene (S‐allele), who also showed curvilinear associations between family SES and delinquency (Åslund et al., 2013). This suggests that the association between SES and delinquency may partly depend on individual genetic differences in sensitivity to environmental influence. Therefore, identification of this type of G×Es would be useful in identifying children with adverse experiences who could also benefit the most from interventions. According to the theoretical framework of vantage sensitivity, people differ significantly in their response to psychological intervention, with some benefitting more from treatment than others, due to individual differences (that are at least partly under genetic influences) in environmental sensitivity, the inherent ability to register, and process external stimuli (de Villiers et al., 2018).
Moreover, it has been shown that specific genetic factors can “suit” some environments better than others (Borinskaya et al., 2009; Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010). For example, it has been found that S‐allele of the serotonin transporter gene is more likely to increase the risk for depression in individualistic rather than in collectivistic cultures (Chiao & Blizinsky, 2010). This and other findings suggest that cultural values may co‐act with genetic factors during evolution. Therefore, children from different populations or cultures can differ in their risk of sociobehavioral problems, and may benefit from different, population‐specific, intervention, and prevention strategies.
To date, only a few genes have been reliably implicated in the modulation of environmental effects on psychopathology. More recently, polygenic scores (as discussed earlier in the chapter) have been studied for their interactions with multiple adverse experiences, in order to gain a better understanding of the role of G×E interaction in risk and resilience pathways. For example, it was found that adolescent parental monitoring and peer substance use moderated polygenic scores for externalizing disorders; genetic effects were more pronounced at low levels of parental monitoring and high levels of peer substance use (Salvatore, Aliev et al., 2015).
Another line of G×E research – epigenomics – has started to uncover molecular mechanisms of co‐action between genetic and environmental influences. An increasing number of studies has demonstrated that various environmental factors (e.g., stress, parenting) can affect gene expression (Meaney, 2010) and, subsequently, child social development (Waltes et al., 2016).
To summarize, genetic variation underlies individual differences in response to various environmental exposures. These differences are stable over time and can help to identify individuals who are at particular risk for developing psychopathology and/or can benefit more from interventions.
Possible Implications of Behavioral Genetic Research
Behavioral genetic studies provide theoretical and practical knowledge for parents, teachers, psychologists, and other professionals working with children. Sociobehavioral problems, such as impulsivity, aggression, and delinquency, are common in children and adolescents (Green et al., 2005). These problems can be serious and, if left unattended, can become persistent and lead to other problems and psychosocial difficulties, such as poor academic performance, impaired social relationships, and socioeconomic difficulties (Fergusson et al., 2005). Therefore, research aimed at increasing our understanding of risk and protective factors, pathways and mechanisms of social development is crucial in aiding the development of effective prevention and intervention strategies for sociobehavioral problems. This knowledge obtained in behavioral genetic research can guide the development of evidence‐based, more focused (e.g., family‐ or person‐oriented) prevention and intervention programs for decreasing the risks of sociobehavioral problems on the basis of individual genetic (or gene–environment) screening (Leve et al., 2010). Because the unique DNA sequence of an individual does not change under the influence of development, behavior, or experience, the information about a child’s genomic profile, including risk and protective genetic factors, could be used for early diagnostics of sociobehavioral problems in order to help with finding the most suitable individualized educational and parenting strategies for all children.
References
1 Asbury, K., Dunn, J. F., Pike, A., & Plomin, R. (2003). Nonshared environmental influences on individual differences in early behavioral development: A monozygotic twin differences study. Child Development, 74(3), 933–943.
2 Åslund, C., Comasco, E., Nordquist, N., Leppert, J., Oreland, L., & Nilsson, K. W. (2013). Self‐reported family socioeconomic status, the 5‐HTTLPR genotype, and delinquent behavior in a community‐based adolescent population. Aggressive Behavior, 39(1), 52–63.
3 Ball, H. A., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2008). Genetic and environmental influences on victims, bullies and bully‐victims in childhood. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(1), 104–112.
4 Barr, P. B., Salvatore, J. E., Wetherill, L., Anokhin, A., Chan, G., Edenberg, H. J., Kuperman, S., Meyers, J., Nurnberger, J., Porjes, B., Schuckit., M., & Dick, D. M. (2020). A family‐based genome wide association study of externalizing behaviors. Behavior Genetics, 50(3), 175–183.
5 Bartels, M., van den Oord, E. J., Hudziak, J. J., Rietveld, M. J., van Beijsterveldt, C. E., & Boomsma, D. I. (2004). Genetic and environmental mechanisms underlying stability and change in problem behaviors at ages 3, 7, 10, and 12. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 852–867.
6 Beaver, K. M. (2008). Nonshared environmental influences on adolescent delinquent involvement and adult criminal behavior. Criminology, 46(2), 341–369.
7 Beitchman, J. H., Davidge, K. M., Kennedy, J. L., Atkinson, L., Lee, V., Shapiro, S., & Douglas, L. (2003). The serotonin transporter gene in aggressive children with and without ADHD and nonaggressive matched controls. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1008(1), 248–251.
8 Bellivier, F., Szoke, A., Henry, C., Lacoste, J., Bottos, C., Nosten‐Bertrand, M., Hardy, P., Rouillon, F., Launay, J‐M., Laplanche, J‐L., & Leboyer, M. (2000). Possible association between serotonin transporter gene polymorphism and violent suicidal behavior in mood disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 48(4), 319–322.
9 Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885.
10 Borinskaya, S., Kal'ina, N., Morozova, I.,Yankovsky, N., Rogaev, E., Marusin, A., Stepanov, V., Puzyrev, V., Faskhutdinova, G., Kutuev, I., Khusnutdinova, E., & Koshechkin, V. (2009). Distribution of the alcohol dehydrogenase ADH1B* 47His allele in Eurasia. American Journal of Human Genetics, 84(1), 89–92.
11 Burt, S. A., McGue, M., Carter, L. A., & Iacono, W. G. (2007). The different origins of stability and change in antisocial personality disorder symptoms. Psychological Medicine, 37(1), 27–38.
12 Burt, S. A., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2009). Nonshared environmental mediation of the association between deviant peer affiliation and adolescent externalizing behaviors over time: results from a cross‐lagged monozygotic twin differences design. Developmental Psychology, 45(6), 1752–1760.
13 Burt, S. A., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2009). Aggressive versus nonaggressive antisocial behavior: Distinctive etiological moderation by age. Developmental Psychology, 45(4), 1164–1176.
14 Byrd, A. L., & Manuck, S. B. (2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior: Meta‐analysis of a gene‐environment interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 9–17.
15 Cadoret, R. J., Yates, W. R., Woodworth, G., & Stewart, M. A. (1995).