Dopaminergic genotype x parenting interaction for executive function in 3-year-olds: Support for the diathesis-stress model

• In Event: Poster Session 05
  In Poster Session: PS 05 Topic - Attention, Learning, Memory

Abstract

Parenting is linked to individual differences in children’s executive function (EF), a set of cognitive abilities enabling goal-directed behavior. However, children are not equally impacted by parenting. Child genotype is an important biologically-based individual difference conferring differential sensitivity to the effects of parenting on EF. Individual dopaminergic genes (e.g., COMT and DRD4) interact with parenting to predict children’s self-control (SC), assessed in motivationally or affectively charged contexts. Interactions on children’s working memory/inhibitory control (WMIC), assessed in motivationally or affectively neutral contexts, have yet to be examined. Further, the form of the interaction remains to be seen. This study adopted a polygenic perspective to test two competing models of the form of dopaminergic genotype × parenting interactions on children’s EF: diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility. The diathesis-stress model proposes that certain genotypes confer vulnerability to the negative effects of negative environmental factors. The differential susceptibility model proposes that particular genotypes confer increased sensitivity to both positive and negative environmental factors.

Participants were 135 3-year-old children and their mothers, drawn from a prospective cohort followed longitudinally from pregnancy. Mothers were originally recruited to participate in a study examining the effects of smoking during pregnancy on infant and child development. Children were genotyped for the Val(108/158)Met polymorphism of COMT, the 3'UTR VNTR polymorphism of DAT1, the Taq1A polymorphism of DRD2, and the exon 3 VNTR polymorphism of DRD4; and a polygenic score was created based on the number of alleles associated with reduced dopamine availability they carried. Mother-child dyads completed free play, structured play, and waiting tasks, which were videotaped and coded for problematic discipline and responsiveness using the Parent-Child Observational Coding Scheme. Children completed a battery of tasks assessing EF. Analyses were conducted using structural equation modelling in MPlus. Path analysis was used to examine whether dopaminergic genotype and parenting interacted to predict EF. Child ethnicity, sex, prenatal tobacco exposure status, maternal psychological distress, and parental education were included as covariates in all analyses.

The final model is presented in Figure 1. The interaction between dopaminergic genotype and problematic discipline was significant for SC and marginal for WMIC. The form of the interaction for SC is presented in Figure 2. Results were consistent with the diathesis-stress model: Higher problematic discipline was associated with poorer SC for children with higher dopaminergic polygenic scores. The interaction between dopaminergic genotype and responsiveness was not associated with EF.

This study examined interactions between dopaminergic genotype and parenting on children’s EF in early childhood. Problematic discipline predicted SC but only for children with higher numbers of alleles associated with reduced dopamine availability. This result is consistent with the diathesis-stress model suggesting that negative parental behaviors may be an important risk factor for the development of poorer SC in at-risk children. Problematic discipline may increase the risk for developing behavior problems in children at higher dopaminergic genetic risk via an association with poorer SC.

Authors

• Daphne Vrantsidis, University of Calgary (U of C)
  Presenting Author

• Auriele Volk, University of Alberta
  Non-Presenting Author

• Carrie Clark, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
  Non-Presenting Author

• Lauren S. Wakschlag, Northwestern University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Kimberly Andrews Espy, University of Texas at San Antonio
  Non-Presenting Author

• Sandra Anne Wiebe, University of Alberta
  Non-Presenting Author