Institutionalization and indiscriminate social behavior: Differential-susceptibility versus diathesis-stress models for the 5-HTTLPR and BDNF genotypes

Abstract

• We use a GXE approach to understand indiscriminate attachment disordered.• We focus on 5-HTTLPR and BDNF in children reared in distinct relational contexts.• We employed a confirmatory model-fitting strategy.• A vulnerability-model for the s/s genotype emerged for institutionalized children. a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o Institutionalization adversely impacts children's emotional functioning, proving related to attachment disorders, perhaps most notably that involving indiscriminate behavior, the subject of this report. In seeking to extend work in this area, this research on gene X environment (GXE) interplay investigated whether the serotonin transporter (5-HTTLPR) and val66met Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) polymorphisms moderated the effect of institutional care on indiscriminate behavior in preschoolers. Eighty-five institutionalized and 135 home-reared Portuguese children were assessed using Disturbances of Attachment Interview (DAI). GXE results indicated that s/s homozygotes of the 5-HTTLPR gene displayed significantly higher levels of indiscriminate behavior than all other children if institutionalized, something not true of such children when family reared. These findings proved consistent with the diathesis-stress rather than differential-susceptibility model of person × environment interaction. BDNF proved unrelated to indiscriminate behavior. Results are discussed in relation to previous work on this subject of indiscriminate behavior, institutionalization and GXE interaction.

Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents With Reactive Attachment Disorder and Disinhibited Social Engagement Disorder

“…As the authors noted, this finding is more clearly diathesis stress than differential susceptibility. 66…”

Insights on Social Behavior From Studying Williams Syndrome

“…However, we would be remiss if we failed to mention that G 9 E findings related to differential susceptibility involving 5-HTTLPR (42) could not be reproduced (43). This G 9 E study may have yielded findings consistent with diathesis-stress rather than differential susceptibility thinking as a result of design differences across studies.…”

“…This G × E study may have yielded findings consistent with diathesis–stress rather than differential susceptibility thinking as a result of design differences across studies. After all, the initial work involved a randomized controlled trial, whereas the follow‐up study was observational. We should also consider the range of environments under investigation, a matter often not addressed in G × E studies.…”

Does 5-HTTLPR moderate the effect of the quality of environmental context on maternal sensitivity? Testing the differential susceptibility hypothesis

“…Nonetheless, these, like many other genotype-phenotype associations, have proven inconsistent across studies (e.g. Taylor et al, 2006;Wilhelm et al, 2006;Mesquita et al, 2015 for combined ss vs. sL/LL genotypes; Caspi et al, 2003;Gunthert et al, 2007;Brummett et al, 2008 for ss vs. sL/LL combined genotypes). This seems to be so also in the case of research on parenting.…”

“…This parametrization has been used in previous research that has investigated 5-HTTLPR moderation of environmental influences (e.g. Taylor et al, 2006;Wilhelm et al, 2006;Hayden et al, 2007;Young et al, 2007;Bakermans-Kranenburg and van IJzendoorn, 2008;Mesquita et al, 2015), and also in meta-analytic work (Crawford et al, 2013). With regard to environmental influences, we considered, in aggregate, nine well-established family risk factors (including teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, economic disadvantage, lack of social support) to create a composite index of quality of environmental context (as detailed in the Methods section).…”