Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T05:00:10.287Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

It really does take a village: The role of neighbors in the etiology of nonaggressive rule-breaking behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 July 2018

S. Alexandra Burt ,
Amber L. Pearson ,
Amanda Rzotkiewicz ,
Kelly L. Klump  and
Jenae M. Neiderhiser
S. Alexandra Burt*
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Amber L. Pearson
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Amanda Rzotkiewicz
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Kelly L. Klump
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Jenae M. Neiderhiser
Affiliation:
The Pennsylvania State University
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: S. Alexandra Burt, Department of Psychology, Michigan State University, 316 Physics Road, Lansing, MI 48824; E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although there is growing recognition that disadvantaged contexts attenuate genetic influences on youth misbehavior, it is not yet clear how this dampening occurs. The current study made use of a “geographic contagion” model to isolate specific contexts contributing to this effect, with a focus on nonaggressive rule-breaking behaviors (RB) in the families’ neighbors. Our sample included 847 families residing in or near modestly-to-severely disadvantaged neighborhoods who participated in the Michigan State University Twin Registry. Neighborhood sampling techniques were used to recruit neighbors residing within 5km of a given family (the mean number of neighbors assessed per family was 13.09; range, 1–47). Analyses revealed clear evidence of genotype–environment interactions by neighbor RB, such that sibling-level shared environmental influences on child RB increased with increasing neighbor self-reports of their own RB, whereas genetic influences decreased. Moreover, this moderation appeared to be driven by geographic proximity to neighbors. Sensitivity analyses further indicated that this effect was specifically accounted for by higher levels of neighbor joblessness, rather than elements of neighbor RB that would contribute to neighborhood blight or crime. Such findings provocatively suggest that future genotype–environment interactions studies should integrate the dynamic networks of social contagion theory.

Type
Regular Articles
Information
Development and Psychopathology , Volume 31 , Issue 2 , May 2019 , pp. 713 - 725
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

This project was supported by R01-MH081813 from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) and R01-HD066040 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the NIMH, NICHD, or the National Institutes of Health. The primary author had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. The ideas and analyses presented in this manuscript were not disseminated prior to publication. The authors thank all participating twins and their families for making this work possible. None of the authors report any conflicts of interest.

References

Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for ASEBA school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of Vermont, Research Center for Children, Youth, & Families.Google Scholar
Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52, 317–332.Google Scholar
Baker, L. A., Barton, M., & Raine, A. (2002). The Southern California Twin Register at the University of Southern California. Twin Research, 5, 456–459.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994). Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model. Psychological Review, 101, 568–586.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A. (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, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2009). Development and validation of the Sub-Types of Antisocial Behavior Questionnaire (STAB). Aggressive Behavior, 35, 376–398.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). Evidence that the Sub-Types of Antisocial Behavior questionnaire (STAB) predicts momentary reports of acting-out behaviors. Personality and Individual Differences, 48, 917–920.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., Donnellan, M. B., Slawinski, B. L., & Klump, K. L. (2015). The phenomenology of non-aggressive antisocial behavior during childhood. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 44, 1–11.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., & Klump, K. L. (2012). Etiological distinctions between aggressive and non-aggressive antisocial behavior: Results from a Nuclear Twin Family Model. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 40, 1059–1071.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., & Klump, K. L. (2013). The Michigan State University Twin Registry (MSUTR): An update. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16, 344–350.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., Klump, K. L., Gorman-Smith, D., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Neighborhood disadvantage alters the origins of children's non-aggressive conduct problems. Clinical Psychological Science, 4: 511–526.Google Scholar
Burt, S. A., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2009). Aggressive versus non-aggressive antisocial behavior: Distinctive etiological moderation by age. Developmental Psychology, 45, 1164–1176.Google Scholar
Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine, 32, 556–577.Google Scholar
Cleveland, H. H. (2003). Disadvantaged neighborhoods and adolescent aggression: Behavioral genetic evidence of contextual effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 13, 211–238.Google Scholar
Coviello, L., Sohn, Y., Kramer, A. D., Marlow, C., Franceschetti, M., Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2014). Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e90315.Google Scholar
Hay, D. A., 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
Heath, A. C., Kender, K. S., Eaves, L. J., & Markell, D. (1985). The resolution of cultural and biological inheritance: Informativeness of different relationships. Behavior Genetics, 15, 439–465.Google Scholar
Henry, D. B., Gorman-Smith, D., Schoeny, M. E., & Tolan, P. H. (2014). “Neighborhood matters:” Assessment of neighborhood social processes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54, 187–204.Google Scholar
Jencks, C., & Mayer, E. (1990). The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood. In Lynn, L. & McGeary, M. (Eds.), Inner-city poverty in the United States (pp. 111–186). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, W. (2007). Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: Capturing all the interplay. Psychological Review, 11, 423–440.Google Scholar
Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (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
Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.Google Scholar
Lewontin, R. (1995). Human diversity. New York: Scientific American Library.Google Scholar
McGue, M., & Bouchard, T. J. J. (1984). Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behavior Genetics, 14, 325–343.Google Scholar
Moffitt, T. E., Caspi, A., & Rutter, M. (2006). Measured gene-environment interactions in psychopathology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 5–27.Google Scholar
Neale, M. C., Boker, S. M., Xie, G., & Maes, H. H. (2003). Mx: Statistical modeling. Department of Psychiatry, 6th Edition. Available from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282013537_Mx_Statistical_Modeling_6th_Edition_2004.Google Scholar
Neiderhiser, J. M., Reiss, D., Pedersen, N., Lichtenstein, P., Spotts, E. L., Hansson, K., … Ellhammer, O. (2004). Genetic and environmental influences on mothering of adolescents: A comparison of two samples. Developmental Psychology, 40, 335–351.Google Scholar
Odgers, C. L., Moffitt, T. E., Tach, L. M., Sampson, R. J., Taylor, A., Matthews, C. L., & Caspi, A. (2009). The protective effects of neighborhood collective efficacy on British children growing up in deprivation: A developmental analysis. Developmental Psychology, 45, 942.Google Scholar
Papachristos, A. V., Wildeman, C., & Roberto, E. (2015). Tragic, but not random: The social contagion of nonfatal gunshot injuries. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 139–150.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.Google Scholar
Pennington, B. F., McGrath, L. M., Rosenberg, J., Barnard, H., Smith, S. D., Willcutt, E. G., … Olson, R. K. (2009). Gene X environment interactions in reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Developmental Psychology, 45, 77–89.Google Scholar
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., & Loehlin, J. C. (1977). Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 309–322.Google Scholar
Powell, K., Wilcox, J., Clonan, A., Bissell, P., Preston, L., Peacock, M., & Holdsworth, M. (2015). The role of social networks in the development of overweight and obesity among adults: A scoping review. BMC public health, 15, 996.Google Scholar
Purcell, S. (2002). Variance components model for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Research, 5, 554–571.Google Scholar
Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.Google Scholar
Raine, A. (2002). Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behavior in children and adolescents: A review. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 311–326.Google Scholar
Raudenbush, S. W., & Sampson, R. J. (1999). Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological methodology, 29(1), 1–41.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Moffitt, T. E., & Caspi, A. (2006). Gene-environment interplay and psychopathology: Multiple varieties but real effects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 226–261.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Silberg, J., O'Connor, T. J., & Simonoff, E. (1999a). Genetics and child psychiatry: I Advances in quantitative and molecular genetics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 3–18.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., Silberg, J., O'Connor, T. J., & Simonoff, E. (1999b). Genetics and child psychiatry: II Empirical research findings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 19–55.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 633–660.Google Scholar
Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Developmental and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1–19.Google Scholar
Sclove, L. S. (1987). Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika, 53, 333–343.Google Scholar
Spiegelhalter, D. J., Best, N. G., Carlin, B. P., & 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, R. E. (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
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003). Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science, 14, 623–628.Google Scholar
Tuvblad, C., Grann, M., & Lichtenstein, P. (2006). Heritability for adolescent antisocial behavior differs with socioeconomic status: Gene-environment interaction. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 734–743.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Burt et al. supplementary material

Tables S1 and S2

Download Burt et al. supplementary material(File)
File 32.5 KB