Parent and youth dopamine D4 receptor genotypes moderate multilevel contextual effects on rural African American youth's risk behavior

Abstract

The present investigation extends research on gene by environment (G × E) interactions and youth risk behavior by linking multilevel contextual factors, such as community disadvantage and protective parenting practices, to both parental and youth dopamine D4 receptor (DRD4) genotypes. We expected community disadvantage to influence youth risk behavior via a series of indirect effects involving protective parenting and youth’s planful future orientation when both parents’ and youth’s DRD4 status was considered. Genetic moderation processes also were tested to determine whether they conformed to a diathesis-stress or a differential susceptibility model. Hypotheses were investigated with data from 361 rural African American youth and their parents assessed 3 times when youth were ages 16 to 19. Community disadvantage interacted with parental DRD4 status to predict low levels of protective parenting. Protective parenting, in turn, interacted with youth DRD4 status to forecast increases in youth’s planful future orientations, a proximal influence on changes in risk behavior. The parental DRD4 × community disadvantage interaction, but not youth DRD4 × protective parenting, conformed to a differential susceptibility model. Indirect effect analyses revealed a significant indirect path linking community disadvantage to youth risk behavior through a series of multilevel G × E interaction processes.

Genetic moderation of transactional relations between parenting practices and child self-regulation.

“…In the case of generally positive environments, sensitivity in parents and children could result in a “basking” effect in which positive behavior forms a feedback loop. In contrast, if parents living in adverse rural communities are susceptible to environmental inputs, parental negativity can rapidly spill over to highly sensitive children (Cho & Kogan, 2016), who in turn reinforce this input. Recent research, however, also suggests that the same susceptibility patterns can operate to increase the effectiveness of preventive interventions (Brody, Yu, & Beach, 2015).…”

“…Numerous G × E studies examined interaction effects of parenting practices and children’s genotypes on the development of self-regulatory behaviors (see Bakermans-Kranenburg & van IJzendoorn, 2011; Belsky & Beaver, 2011; Kochanska et al, 2009; Smith et al, 2012). Although most G × E studies have focused on child genotypes interacting with parenting to influence child developmental outcomes, some studies have examined the potential for genetic variation among parents to interact with environmental input to affect parenting behaviors (Beach et al, 2012; Cho & Kogan, 2016; Van IJzendoorn et al, 2008). Children comprise an environmental influence on parents, and genetic variability within parents can moderate the influence of child self-regulation on their behavior.…”

“…For example, high parental warmth–responsiveness was associated with low levels of externalizing behavior when African American children carried at least one DRD4 long allele (Propper, Willoughby, Halpern, Carbone, & Cox, 2007). Differential susceptibility effects have also been documented for parents carrying a long allele of DRD4 (Beach et al, 2012; Cho & Kogan, 2016). For example, Beach et al (2012) found that parents with DRD4 long alleles, compared to those without them, displayed either more or less negative arousal, a proximal determinant of parenting behaviors, when they were exposed to contextual stress and support.…”

Risk and Protective Processes Predicting Rural African American Young Men's Substance Abuse

“…Informed by social developmental perspectives on social roles and beliefs, work and educational systems support the development of regulated and future‐oriented behavior associated with the diminution of substance abuse (Bachman et al., ). Studies of African American youth link living in disadvantaged communities with few opportunities for developing meaningful careers in emerging adulthood is associated with reductions in future orientation (Barton et al., ; Cho & Kogan, ; Stoddard & Pierce, ). Residence in low resource communities as well as direct experience with unemployment and vocational challenges predicts reductions in future orientation as men become discouraged about their futures.…”

“…Studies suggest that living in challenging communities may increase young adults’ vulnerability to substance abuse (Bolland et al., ; Paschall, Flewelling, & Faulkner, ). Studies using census‐based data link adolescent and young adult substance use with residence in a community characterized by high proportions of households (a) below the poverty level, (b) headed by single parents, (c) receiving public assistance, (d) with unemployed adults, and (e) with low income (Cho & Kogan, ; Roberts, Roberts, & Chan, ). Recent research emphasizes the potential for community disadvantage to amplify other risk factors.…”