Poster #12 - Maternal Control and Child Cognitive Flexibility: Untangling Genetic and Environmental Contributions

• In Event: 1-115 - Poster Session 03
  In Poster Session: PS 03 Section - Attention, Learning, Memory

Integrative Statement

Background. Executive functions (EF) are higher-order cognitive processes that support children’s ability to regulate their own behavior and, in turn, develop greater social, emotional, and cognitive competences (Griffin et al., 2016). Accumulating empirical evidence shows that individual differences in EF are related to parenting behaviors, but less is known about the mechanisms underlying these associations. Most studies of the link between parenting and child EF assume environmental pathways, but because children share genes with their parents, genetic influences might also be at play in this relation. Because monozygotic (MZ) twins are genetically identical and dizygotic (DZ) twins share half their genes, examining their respective within-pair phenotypic similarities allows us to untangle genetic contributions from environmental contributions. The purpose of this twin study is to quantify the environmental and genetic contributions underlying the association between child cognitive flexibility and maternal control.

Method. The 934 twins (400 MZ and 534 DZ) were part of an ongoing study, The Quebec Newborn Twin Study (Boivin et al, 2012). A computerized version of the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS; Zelazo, 2006) was administered at 60 months to measure EF. The DCCS is a well-validated task tackling cognitive flexibility. Maternal control was also assessed at the 60-month lab visit using a self-reported questionnaire, the Parental Cognitions and Conduct Toward the Infant Scale (PACOTIS; Boivin et al., 2005).

Results. Using structural equation modeling, univariate genetic models and bivariate correlated factors models were fitted to the data. Table 1 presents the results of the univariate models investigating genetic (A), common (C) and unique (E) environmental contributions to individual differences in child cognitive flexibility and maternal control. For cognitive flexibility, the best-fitting model was the CE model in which there was no genetic variance, but shared environmental variance accounting for 18% of the variance and non-shared environmental variance accounting for 82% of the variance. The best-fitting model for maternal control was the ACE model with a small proportion (21%) of genetic variance, a moderate (56%) shared environmental variance and little (23%) non-shared environment variance. Table 2 presents the bivariate genetic analyses of the association between maternal control and cognitive flexibility. The results showed a significant non-shared environment correlation (Re = -0.13, p < .05), but no significant genetic or shared environment influences.

Discussion. The present study provides support for non-shared environmental influences (that make siblings dissimilar) underlying the relation between child cognitive flexibility and maternal control. These findings suggest that controlling parenting behaviors toward different children in the same family may account for individual differences in child cognitive flexibility. This study constitutes a first step toward the identification of the mechanisms underlying the association between child EF and parenting behaviors.

Authors

• Samuel Dallaire, laval university
  Presenting Author

• Célia Matte-Gagné, Laval University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Ginette Dionne, Laval University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Mara Brendgen, University of Quebec at Montreal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Frank Vitaro, University of Montreal
  Non-Presenting Author

• Michel Boivin, Laval University
  Non-Presenting Author