The Interaction Between Neighborhood Disadvantage and Genetic Factors in the Prediction of Antisocial Outcomes

• Author: Matt DeLisi,Chris L. Gibson,John Paul Wright,Michael G. Vaughn,Kevin M. Beaver
• DOI: 10.1177/1541204011422085
• Published date: 01 January 2012
• Date: 01 January 2012
• Subject Matter: Articles

The Interaction Between

Neighborhood Disadvantage and

Genetic Factors in the Prediction

of Antisocial Outcomes

Kevin M. Beaver

1

, Chris L. Gibson

2

, Matt DeLisi

3

,

Michael G. Vaughn

4

and John Paul Wright

5

Abstract

Objective. There is growing recognition that antisocial behaviors are produced by a combination of

environmental and genetic factors. Research has revealed that environmental and genetic factors

work interactively and often moderate the effects of the other. Method. We test for gene–

environment interactions in the current study by examining whether neighborhood disadvantage

interacts with two dopamine receptor genes (DRD2 and DRD4) to predict three different

antisocial measures: adolescent victimization, contact with delinquent peers, and involvement in

violent delinquency. Results. Analysis of male respondents drawn from the National Longitudinal

Study of Adolescent Health revealed that the association between the two dopamine genes and

the measures of antisocial outcomes tended to be stronger in disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Conclusions. Antisocial outcomes appear to be affected by gene–environment interactions

between dopaminergic genes and neighborhood disadvantage.

Keywords

genetic, neighborhoods, crime, delinquency

Genetics and the Social Sciences

During the pastseveral decades, a rapidly growing number ofstudies have shown that genesmatter in

shapingindividual differences in behaviorand personalitytraits (Moffitt, 2005;Rutter, 2006).Indeed, an

overwhelmingamount of empirical research points to the very real possibility that virtually every trait

1

College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA

2

Department of Criminology, Sociology & Law University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA

3

Department of Sociology, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, USA

4

School of Social Work, Division of Epidemiology, School of Public Health Department of Public Policy Studies; Saint Louis

University, Saint Louis, MO, USA

5

Division of Criminal Justice University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Kevin M. Beaver, College of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, 634 West Call Street, Tallahassee, FL

32306, USA.

Email: kbeaver@fsu.edu

Youth Violence and JuvenileJustice

10(1) 25-40

ªThe Author(s) 2012

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1541204011422085

http://yvj.sagepub.com

andbehavior are undersome level of geneticinfluence (Plomin,DeFries, McClearn,& McGuffin,2008).

Findings thathave led researchers tothis conclusion are generatedfrom thousands of scientific investi-

gations from various countries and samples. These studies have used diverse research methodologies,

rangingfrom heritabilitystudies of twins, siblings,and family membersto genotype studiesthat involve

specificgenetic polymorphisms (Beaver,2009). In short,the resultsflowing from thisline of research are

robust, consistent, and unlikelyto be explained away as a methodologicalor statistical artifact.

Historically, social science research has had a tendency to either ignore or reject the evidence that

genes matter in understanding human phenotypes, especially antisocial behaviors and traits (Beaver,

2009). This approach has often resulted in a partition between environmental and genetic risk factors

that has restricted our understanding of how social contexts influence biological processes that

contribute to human differences. Fortunately, social scientists are becoming increasingly more inter-

ested in the various ways that genes and environments interlock to produce human variation (Bear-

man, 2008). Nowhere is this more evident than in the research testing for gene–environment

interactions. Gene–environment interactions are grounded in the logic that environmental factors

moderate the effects of genes and that genetic factors moderate the effects of the environment. In

this way, gene–environment interactions break down the separation of nature competing against nur-

ture and instead highlight their interdependence in the etiology of behaviors and personality traits,

including antisocial phenotypes.

To date, a number of genes related to neurotransmission have been associated with antisocial beha-

viors, antisocial traits, and psychological conditions, but the environments that may moderate the

effects of these genes are still largely unknown (Moffitt, Caspi, & Rutter, 2006). While we agree with

Shanahan and Hofer (2005) that no single theory of context is applicable to all gene–environment

interactions, the neighborhood context in which children and adolescents live may be one particularly

important context for gene–environment research (Hart & Marmorstein, 2009). Criminological the-

ories of how structural and social aspects of neighborhoods influence criminal behavior (Edwards,

2005; Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Wikstro¨m & Sampson, 2003) are consistent with two

social–contextual typologies (i.e., contextual triggering and social context as a social control) used

to explain how genes are expressed (Shanahan & Hofer, 2005). As will be discussed, these typologies

are consistent with research on how neighborhood conditions can affect human development.

One difficulty in examining gene–environment interactions, however, is determining which spe-

cific genes may interact with which specific environments. For two main reasons, we examine

whether alleles (i.e., alternative copies of genes) of two genetic polymorphisms of the dopaminer-

genic system (i.e., DRD2 and DRD4) are moderated by neighborhood context in the prediction of

antisocial outcomes. First, prior research has revealed that certain dopaminergic genes are associated

with a number of antisocial behaviors, including delinquency (Guo, Roettger, & Shih, 2007a; Guo,

Wilhelmsen, & Hamilton, 2007b). Second, there is some research indicating that dopaminergic

genes are moderated by environmental factors found within the family and within the school (Guo,

Roettger, & Cai, 2008). Against this backdrop, it seems likely that the effects dopaminergic genes

have on antisocial outcomes will be partially due to the presence of certain environments. Still,

research has yet to examine whether neighborhood social conditions trigger the effects of dopami-

nergic genes on antisocial behaviors. Realizing that gene–environment investigations are a relatively

new domain of inquiry in the social sciences, we begin by explaining a number of concepts and pro-

cesses related to gene–environment research. We then explain some possible theoretical mechan-

isms that link neighborhoods to the moderation of genetic effects on antisocial outcomes.

A Primer on Genetic Expression and Gene–Environment Interactions

Briefly, a gene is a sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) that works together to code for the

production of proteins. According to Champagne and Mashoodh (2009), DNA can be thought of

26 Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 10(1)