Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2012


Glenn I. Roisman
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Daniel A. Newman
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
R. Chris Fraley
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
John D. Haltigan
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Ashley M. Groh
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Katherine C. Haydon
Affiliation:
University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This report describes the state of the art in distinguishing data generated by differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress models. We discuss several limitations of existing practices for probing interaction effects and offer solutions that are designed to better differentiate differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress models and quantify their corresponding implications. In addition, we demonstrate the utility of these methods by revisiting published evidence suggesting that temperamental difficulty serves as a marker of enhanced susceptibility to early maternal caregiving across a range of outcome domains in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. We find that, with the exception of mother reports of psychopathology, there is consistent evidence in the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development that the predictive significance of early sensitivity is moderated by difficult temperament over time. However, differential susceptibility effects emerged primarily for teacher reports of academic skills, social competence, and symptomatology. In contrast, effects more consistent with the diathesis–stress model were obtained for mother reports of social skills and objective tests of academic skills. We conclude by discussing the value of the application of this work to the next wave of Gene × Environment studies focused on early caregiving experiences.


Type
Special Section Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Child Behavior Checklist/4–18 and 1991 profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
Achenbach, T. M., & Edelbrock, C. (1986). Manual for the Teacher's Report Form and Teacher Version of the Child Behavior Profile. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Department of Psychiatry.Google Scholar
Achenbach, T. M., Edelbrock, C., & Howell, C. (1987). Empirically-based assessment of the behavioral/emotional problems of 2–3 year old children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 15, 629650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aguinis, H., Beaty, J. C., Boik, R. J., & Pierce, C. A. (2005). Effect size and power in assessing moderating effects of categorical variables using multiple regression: A 30-year review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 94107.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aguinis, H., & Gottfredson, R. K. (2010). Best-practice recommendations for estimating interaction effects using moderated multiple regression. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 776786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Baltes, P. B., Reese, H. W., & Nesselroade, J. R. (1977). Lifespan developmental psychology: Introduction to research methods. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The mediator–moderator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 11731182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J. (1997). Variation in susceptibility to environmental influences: An evolutionary argument. Psychological Inquiry, 8, 182186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). For better and for worse: Differential susceptibility to environmental influence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 300304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., Hsieh, K., & Crnic, K. (1998). Mothering, fathering, and infant negativity as antecedents of boys' externalizing problems and inhibition at age 3: Differential susceptibility to rearing influence? Development and Psychopathology, 10, 301319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 885908.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2011). Beyond adversity, vulnerability, and resilience: Individual differences in developmental plasticity. In Cicchetti, D. & Roisman, G. I. (Eds.), The origins and organization of adaptation and maladaptation: Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 379422). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (in press). Differential susceptibility to long-term effects of quality of child care on externalizing behavior in adolescence. International Journal of Behavioral Development.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 57, 289300.Google Scholar
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001). The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Annals of Statistics, 29, 11651188.Google Scholar
Boyce, W. T., & Ellis, B. J. (2005). Biological sensitivity to context: A. An evolutionary–developmental theory of the origins and functions of stress reactivity. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 271301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2008). Infant temperament, parenting, and externalizing behavior in first grade: A test of the differential susceptibility hypothesis. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 124131.Google ScholarPubMed
Carey, W. B., & McDevitt, S. C. (1978). Revision of the Infant Temperament Questionnaire. Pediatrics, 61, 735739.Google ScholarPubMed
Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., et al. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: Moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301, 386389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cortina, J. M. (1993). Interaction, nonlinearity, and multicollinearity: Implications for multiple regression. Journal of Management, 19, 915922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Contemporary approaches and classic advice for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 71, 88104.Google Scholar
Dick, D. M., Meyers, J. L., Latendresse, S. J., Creemers, H. E., Lansford, J. E., Pettit, G. S., et al. (2011). CHRM2, parental monitoring, and adolescent externalizing behavior: Evidence for gene–environment interaction. Psychological Science, 22, 481489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dopkins-Stright, A., Cranley Gallagher, K., & Kelley, K. (2008). Infant temperament moderates relations between maternal parenting in early childhood and children's adjustment in first grade. Child Development, 79, 186200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, O. J. (1961). Multiple comparison among means. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 5264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., & Marks, J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its implications for personality research. In Robins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., & Krueger, R. F. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149169). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., Roisman, G. I., & Haltigan, J. D. (in press). The legacy of early experiences in development: Formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Developmental Psychology.Google Scholar
Garmezy, N., Masten, A. S., & Tellegen, A. (1984). The study of stress and competence in children: A building block for developmental psychopathology. Child Development, 55, 97111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. W. (2003). Adding missing-data-relevant variables to FIML-based structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 10, 80100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. W. (2009). Missing data analysis: Making it in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549576.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). The social skills rating system. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Haltigan, J. D., Roisman, G. I., & Fraley, R. C. (in press). The predictive significance of early caregiving experiences for symptoms of psychopathology through midadolescence: Enduring or transient effects? Development and Psychopathology.Google Scholar
Heim, C., & Nemeroff, C. B. (1999). The impact of early adverse experiences on brain systems involved in the pathophysiology of anxiety and affective disorders. Biological Psychiatry, 46, 15091522.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kochanska, G., Kim, S., Barry, R. A., & Philibert, R. A. (2011). Children's genotypes interact with maternal responsive care in predicting children's competence: Diathesis–stress or differential susceptibility? Development and Psychopathology, 23, 605616.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luthar, S. S., Cicchetti, D., & Becker, B. (2000). The construct of resilience: A critical evaluation and guidelines for future work. Child Development, 71, 543562.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S. (2001). Ordinary magic: Resilience processes in development. American Psychologist, 56, 227238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Masten, A. S. (in press). Risk and resilience in development. In Zelazo, P. D. (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Munafò, M. R., Durrant, C., Lewis, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Gene × Environment interactions at the serotonin transporter locus. Biological Psychiatry, 65, 211219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Newman, D. A. (2003). Longitudinal modeling with randomly and systematically missing data: A simulation of ad hoc, maximum likelihood, and multiple imputation techniques. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 328362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2001). Child-care and family predictors of preschool attachment and stability from infancy. Developmental Psychology, 37, 847862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Child care and child development. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Pedhazur, E. J. (1982). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and predication (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.Google Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2009). Differential susceptibility to rearing experience: The case of child-care. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 50, 396404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pluess, M., & Belsky, J. (2010). Differential susceptibility to parenting and quality child care. Developmental Psychology, 45, 379390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Risch, N., Herrell, R., Lehner, T., Liang, K.-Y., Eaves, L., Hoh, J., et al. (2009). Interaction between the serotonin transporter gene (5-HTTLPR), stressful life events, and risk of depression: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301, 24622471.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Booth-LaForce, C., Cauffman, E., Spieker, S., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2009). The developmental significance of adolescent romantic relationships: Parent and peer predictors of quality and engagement at age 15. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 12941303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Monahan, K. C., Campbell, S. B., Steinberg, L., Cauffman, E., & the NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2010). Is adolescence-onset antisocial behavior developmentally normative? Development and Psychopathology, 22, 295311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roisman, G. I., Susman, E., Barnett-Walker, K., Booth-LaForce, C., Owen, M. T., Belsky, J., et al. (2009). Early family and child-care antecedents of awakening cortisol levels in adolescence. Child Development, 80, 907920.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, J. L. (1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. London: Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147177.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sidak, Z. (1967). Rectangular confidence region for the means of multivariate normal distributions. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 62, 626633.Google Scholar
Simes, R. J. (1986). An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika, 73, 751754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R. W. (1990). Theoretical foundations of the WJ-R measures of cognitive ability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 231258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1989). Woodcock–Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery—Revised. Allen, TX: DLM.Google Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 19
Total number of PDF views: 1150 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 2nd December 2020. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Hostname: page-component-79f79cbf67-xsjvs Total loading time: 1.335 Render date: 2020-12-02T16:36:27.281Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Wed Dec 02 2020 16:06:44 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": true, "relatedCommentaries": true, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": true }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *