Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T14:33:50.373Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The quality of the interparental relationship does not moderate the etiology of child conduct problems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2014

S. A. Burt ,
M. N. Wildey  and
K. L. Klump
S. A. Burt*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
M. N. Wildey
Affiliation:
Pine Rest Christian Mental Health Services, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
K. L. Klump
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: S. A. Burt, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 107D Psychology Building, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA. (Email: burts@msu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Although there is a clear phenotypic relationship between the quality of the interparental or marital relationship and child conduct problems (CP), the etiology of this association is as yet unclear. One possibility is that this association takes the form of a genotype–environment interaction (G × E), whereby the quality of the interparental relationship acts to moderate the etiology of child CP. The current study sought to evaluate this possibility.

Method

We examined multiple measures and informant reports of the quality of the interparental relationship in a sample of more than 700 child twin families from the Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR). Analyses consisted of a series of latent G × E models.

Results

The ‘no moderation’ model provided the best fit to the data in nearly all cases, findings that collectively provide strong evidence against the possibility that the etiology of CP is moderated by the quality of the interparental relationship.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that, contrary to implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumptions in the field, it is not the case that every environmental risk (or protective) factor exacerbates (or suppresses) genetic influences on CP. Future research should seek to delineate the specific environmental experiences that do serve as etiologic moderators of CP, and to clarify how this G × E interplay might change over the course of development.

Keywords

Antisocial behaviorconduct problemsG × Emarital relationship
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 45 , Issue 2 , January 2015 , pp. 319 - 332
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achenbach, TM, McConaughy, SH, Howell, CT (1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin 101, 213–232.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Achenbach, TM, Rescorla, LA (2001). Manual for ASEBA School-Age Forms and Profiles. Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
Akaike, H (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52, 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amato, PR, Booth, A (1996). A prospective study of divorce and parent-child relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family 58, 356–365.Google Scholar
Baker, LA, Barton, M, Raine, A (2002). The Southern California Twin Register at the University of Southern California. Twin Research 5, 456–459.Google Scholar
Bergen, SE, Gardner, CO, Kendler, KS (2007). Age-related changes in heritability of behavioral phenotypes over adolescence and young adulthood: a meta-analysis. Twin Research and Human Genetics 10, 423–433.Google Scholar
Booth, A, Amato, PR (2001). Parental predivorce relations and offspring postdivorce well-being. Journal of Marriage and Family 63, 197–212.Google Scholar
Burt, SA (2011). Some key issues in the study of gene-environment interplay: activation, deactivation, and the role of development. Research in Human Development 8, 192–210.Google Scholar
Burt, SA (2012). How do we optimally conceptualize the heterogeneity within antisocial behavior? An argument for aggressive versus non-aggressive behavioral dimensions. Clinical Psychology Review 32, 263–279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, SA, Klahr, AM, Neale, MC, Klump, KL (2013). Maternal warmth and directiveness jointly moderate the etiology of childhood conduct problems. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 54, 1030–1037.Google Scholar
Burt, SA, Klump, KL (2013 a). Delinquent peer affiliation as an etiological moderator of childhood delinquency. Psychological Medicine 43, 1269–1278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, SA, Klump, KL (2013 b). The Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR): an update. Twin Research and Human Genetics 16, 344–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Burt, SA, Klump, KL (2014 a). Parent-child conflict as an etiological moderator of childhood conduct problems: an example of a ‘bioecological’ G×E. Psychological Medicine 44, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, SA, Klump, KL (2014 b). Prosocial peer affiliation suppresses genetic influences on non-aggressive antisocial behaviors during childhood. Psychological Medicine 44, 821–830.Google Scholar
Cummings, EM, Davies, PT (1994). Children and Marital Conflict: The Impact of Family Dispute and Resolution. Guildford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Cummings, EM, Davies, PT (2002). Effects of marital conflict on children: recent advances and emerging themes in process-oriented research. Journal of Psychology and Psychiatry 43, 31–63.Google Scholar
Davies, PT, Harold, GT, Goeke-Morey, MC, Cummings, EM (2002). Child emotional security and interparental conflict. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 67, vii–viii.Google Scholar
Feinberg, ME, Button, TMM, Neiderhiser, JM, Hetherington, EM, Reiss, D (2007). Parenting and adolescent antisocial behavior and depression: evidence for genotype by parenting interaction. Archives of General Psychiatry 64, 457–465.Google Scholar
Grych, JH, Harold, GT, Miles, CJ (2003). A prospective investigation of appraisals as mediators of the link between interparental conflict and child adjustment. Child Development 74, 1176–1193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grych, JH, Seid, M, Fincham, FD (1992). Assessing marital conflict from the child's perspective: the Children's Perception of Interparental Conflict Scale. Child Development 63, 558–572.Google Scholar
Harden, KP, Turkheimer, E, Emery, RE, D'Onofrio, BM, Slutske, WS, Heath, AC, Martin, NG (2007). Marital conflict and conduct problems in children of twins. Child Development 78, 1–18.Google Scholar
Harold, GT, Conger, RD (1997). Marital conflict and adolescent distress: the role of adolescent awareness. Child Development 68, 333–350.Google Scholar
Hay, DA, McStephen, M, Levy, F, Pearsall-Jones, J (2002). Recruitment and attrition in twin register studies of childhood behavior: the example of the Australian Twin ADHD Project. Twin Research 5, 324–328.Google Scholar
Hicks, BM, South, SC, DiRago, AC, Iacono, WG, McGue, M (2009). Environmental adversity and increasing genetic risk for externalizing disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry 66, 640–648.Google Scholar
Humbad, MN, Donnellan, MB, Klump, KL, Burt, SA (2011). Development of the Brief Romantic Relationship Interaction Coding Scheme (BRRICS). Journal of Family Psychology 25, 759–769.Google Scholar
Kim-Cohen, J, Caspi, A, Taylor, A, Williams, B, Newcombe, R, Craig, IW, Moffitt, TE (2006). MAOA, maltreatment, and gene-environment interaction predicting children's mental health: new evidence and a meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry 11, 903–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klump, KL, Burt, SA (2006). The Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR): genetic, environmental, and neurobiological influences on behavior across development. Twin Research and Human Genetics 9, 971–977.Google Scholar
Lyons, MJ, True, WR, Eisne, SA, Goldberg, J, Meyer, JM, Faraone, SV, Eaves, L, Tsuang, MT (1995). Differential heritability of adult and juvenile antisocial traits. Archives of General Psychiatry 52, 906–915.Google Scholar
McConaughy, SH, Achenbach, TM (2001). Manual for the Semistructured Interview for Children and Adolescents. Research Center for Children, Youth, and Families, University of Vermont: Burlington, VT.Google Scholar
McGue, M, Bouchard, TJJ (1984). Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behavior Genetics 14, 325–343.Google Scholar
Miles, DR, Carey, G (1997). Genetic and environmental architecture of human aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72, 207–217.Google Scholar
Morrison, DR, Coiro, MJ (1999). Parental conflict and marital disruption: do children benefit when high-conflict marriages are dissolved? Journal of Marriage and Family 61, 626–637.Google Scholar
Neale, MC, Boker, SM, Xie, G, Maes, HH (2003). Mx: Statistical Modeling, 6th edn. Department of Psychiatry, VCU Box 900126: Richmond, VA 23298.Google Scholar
Neale, MC, Cardon, LR (1992). Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Boston, MA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nigg, JT, Nikolas, M, Miller, T, Burt, SA, Klump, KL, von Eye, A (2009). Factor structure of the Child Perception of Martial Conflict Scale for studies of youth with externalizing behavior problems. Psychological Assessment 21, 450–456.Google Scholar
Nikolas, M, Friderici, K, Jernigan, K, Waldman, I, Nigg, JT (2010). Investigation of gene × environment interactions for ADHD: synergistic effects of 5HTTLPR genotype and youth appraisals of marital conflict. Behavioral and Brain Functions 6, 23.Google Scholar
Nikolas, M, Klump, KL, Burt, SA (2013). Etiological contributions to the covariation between children's perception of interparental conflict and child behavioral problems. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 41, 239–251.Google Scholar
Peeters, H, Van Gestel, S, Vlietinck, R, Derom, C, Derom, R (1998). Validation of a telephone zygosity questionnaire in twins of known zygosity. Behavior Genetics 28, 159–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pennington, BF, McGrath, LM, Rosenberg, J, Barnard, H, Smith, SD, Willcutt, EG, Friend, A, DeFries, JC, Olson, RK (2009). Gene × environment interactions in reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Psychology 45, 77–89.Google Scholar
Plomin, R, DeFries, JC, Loehlin, JC (1977). Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin 84, 309–322.Google Scholar
Purcell, S (2002). Variance components model for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Research 5, 554–571.Google Scholar
Raftery, AE (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology 25, 111–163.Google Scholar
Rhoades, KA, Leve, LD, Harold, GT, Neiderhiser, JM, Shaw, DS, Reiss, D (2011). Longitudinal pathways from marital hostility to child anger during toddlerhood: genetic susceptibility and indirect effects via harsh parenting. Journal of Family Psychology 25, 282–291.Google Scholar
Rutter, M, Moffitt, TE, Caspi, A (2006). Gene-environment interplay and psychopathology: multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47, 226–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schulz, MS, Cowan, CP, Cowan, PA (2006). Promoting healthy beginnings: a randomized controlled trial of a preventive intervention to preserve marital quality during the transition to parenthood. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 74, 20–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sclove, LS (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika 53, 333–343.Google Scholar
Spanier, GB (1976). Measuring dyadic adjustment: new scales for assessing the quality of marriage and similar dyads. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38, 15–28.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BP, Van Der Linde, A (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B 64, 583–639.Google Scholar
Tremblay, RE (2010). Developmental origins of disruptive behaviour problems: the ‘original sin’ hypothesis, epigenetics and their consequences for prevention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 51, 341–367.Google Scholar
van Beijsterveldt, CEM, Bartels, M, Hudziak, JJ, Boomsma, DI (2003). Causes of stability of aggression from early childhood to adolescence: a longitudinal genetic analysis in Dutch twins. Behavioral Genetics 33, 591–605.Google Scholar
van der Sluis, S, Posthuma, D, Dolan, CV (2012). A note on false positives and power in G×E modeling of twin data. Behavior Genetics 42, 170–186.Google Scholar