Joumal of Family Psychology 2013 American Psychological Association

2013. Vol. 27. No. 1. 1-2 0893-3200/13/$ 12.00 DOI: IO.IO37/aOO3l484

INTRODUCTION

Genetics and Epigenetics in Family Context:

Introduction to the Special Section

Steven R. H. Beach Mark A. Whisman

University of Georgia University of Colorado Boulder

We introduce the special section on "Genetics and Epigenetics in Family Context." It is noted that family
researchers are incorporating genetic factors in their research with increasing frequency. The current
special section includes contributions from behavioral genetic, molecular genetic, and epigenetic per-
spectives, reflecting the diversity of methodologies that are currently being applied to the study of genetic
contributions to family processes and outcomes. The special section is both an acknowledgment of the
increasing prominence of genetic factors in family models as well as an effort to highlight different
approaches and foster greater cross-pollination between approaches.

Keywords: genetic, epigenetic, family, parenting, maternal, stress, conflict

In keeping with the goal of the Joumal of Family Psychologyto
promote exploration of new scholarly discoveries related to family
interaction, family development, and family intervention from a
systemic perspectivewe are excited to present this special sec-
tion focusing on the emerging area of family transactions with
genetics and epigenetic processes entitled "Genetics and Epigenet-
ics in Family Context." This special section attempts to provide a
range of conceptual tools and to broaden the domain of family
models. Our expectation is that a new generation of family models
will increase understanding of the transmission of family stress
across subsystems, and move the field toward the development of
fully integrated, family psycho-social-biological accounts of key
outcomes and processes of interest to family psychologists.
Research incorporating genetic parameters has appeared with
increasing frequency in the Joumal of Family Psychology prior to
the current special section. In just the past 3 years, for example, a
number of papers have appeared on these topics, including exam-
ination of genetic moderation of intervention effects (Beach et al.,
2009), and examination ofthe development of problems or conflict
in family context (e.g., Beach et al., 2010) among other topics
examined. One recently published article, Sturge-Apple, Chichetti,
Davies, and Suor (2012), was meant to be part of the current
special section and so is elaborated further below and treated as
part of this special section. Accordingly, the current special section
can be viewed as both a response to increasing attention to genetics
Steven R. H. Beach, Department of Psychology, University of Georgia,
and Mark A. Whisman, Department of Psychology and Neuroscience,
University of Colorado Boulder.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven
R. H. Beach, Director, Owens Institute for Behavioral Research, 510 Boyd,
GSRC, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602. E-mail: srhbeach
uga.edu
and epigenetics among family researchers, and as contributing
substantially to the development of this body of work. This special
section also brings together research from a range of laboratories,
and so hopefully conveys the growth in the number of family
researchers and research laboratories examining the role of genetic
factors in family models and theorizing.
In this special section, we were particularly interested in high-
lighting empirical work using diverse research strategies and il-
lustrating the many issues for which genetic considerations may be
pertinent. Accordingly, we are delighted to present a collection of
studies that utilize behavioral genetic, molecular genetic, and
epigenetic approaches, and that provide a range of examples of the
methodologies and conceptual strategies being used by family
researchers to incorporate genetic factors into their conceptual
models. Convergence of findings across different types of genet-
ically informed designs provides compelling evidence of the need
to consider genetic factors in some form in family research. Con-
versely, contrasting divergent conclusions across different genetic
approaches has considerable potential to sharpen conclusions
within each tradition and create opportunities for dialogue (Dodge
&Rutter, 2011).
As is highlighted in all behavioral genetic research, family
members are often genetically related to each other and this may
influence our conclusions about the nature and direction of family
effects. The contributions to this special section" that fall in this
tradition highlight the role of passive gene-environment correla-
tions (passive rGEs) in understanding the development of chil-
dren's externalizing disorders (Harold, et al., this issue, pp. 12-
21), the effect of marital relationships on evocative gene-
environment correlations (evocative rGEs) and their role in
understanding the emergence of problematic parenting behavior
(Ulbricht, et al. this issue, pp. 42-52), and the causal impact of
marriage on externalizing symptoms (Hom, Xu, Beam, Turkheimer,
& Emery, this issue, pp. 30-41). In each case, the authors focus on
 BEACH AND WHISMAN
showing the value of a genetically informed design for qualifying
and extending insights about the impact and development of fam-
ily interaction patterns. Therefore, the articles in the current sec-
tion contribute to a long tradition (see Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hether-
ington, & Plomin, 2000) in which behavioral genetic approaches
have provided cautionary notes, such as highlighting the possibil-
ity that genetic variation may influence exposure to life circum-
stances, as well as pointing to new directions for theorizing, such
as suggesting that family environment may mediate some genetic
effects, making them important targets for family intervention.
The current section also introduces molecular genetic ap-
proaches applied to systemic family research. The special section
provides an examination of the moderating effects of specific
candidate genes (Brody et al., this issue, pp. 22-29; Sturge-Apple
et al., 2012) that may amplify family and contextual effects. The
article by Sturge-Apple and colleagues focuses on the potential for
individual differences in the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR) to
influence maternal behavior in the context of the interparental
relationship as well as implicating the serotonin transporter gene
(5//7T) in the models of spillover from interparental conflict to
parenting. The article by Brody and colleagues focuses on family
environment X sensitivity gene interactions (i.e., 5HTT and
DRD4) that forecast individual difference in the degree of biolog-
ical embedding of stress, highlighting the role of supportive family
environments in interaction with sensitivity aleles. They also
report that exposure to less supportive family environments can
exert a long-term effect for youths who carry sensitivity aleles,
rendering them more responsive to relevant environmental varia-
tion. Candidate gene approaches to studying gene-by-environment
interactions have been controversial (for a review critical of GxE
research in psychiatry, see Duncan & Keller, 2011) but also
conceptually rich and generative (e.g., Belsky & Pluess, 2009) and
provide particularly fertile ground for systemic family theorizing.
Finally, the current special section introduces molecular epige-
netic research applied to systemic thinking. The article in this
special section by Beach et al. (this issue, pp. 3-11) provides an
introduction to this approach, presenting epigenetic change as a
way of examining environmental moderation of additive genetic
effects. These authors combine the strengths of a genetically
informed adoption design with molecular level data on gene meth-
ylation. They report that child sex abuse (CSA), an environmental
Stressor not predicted by genetic load, predicts methylation, which
in turn, is associated with some, but not all, problematic adult
outcomes examined. The results indicate that some long-term
effects of CSA are attributable to environmental reprogramming of
genetic machinery and that there is considerable specificity in the
pathways from CSA to different forms of adult psychopathology.
Taken together we hope the contributions to the special section
will stimulate and engage a broad array of family theorists and
researchers who may have been considering including genetic
factors in their future research and theorizing. The range of po-
tential approaches available to family researchers is expanding and
the potential theoretical contributions are substantial (Dodge &
Rutter, 2011). In addition, there is increasing potential impact on
intervention and prevention research as well (see Brody et al., m
press; Howe, Brody, Beach, 2010).
References
Beach, S. R. H., Brody, G. H., Gunter, T. D., Packer, H., Wemett, P., &
Philibert, R. A. (2010). Child maltreatment moderates the association of
MAOA with symptoms of depression and antisocial personality disorder.
Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 12-20. doi:10.1037/aa018074
Beach, S. R. H., Brody, G. H., Kogan, S. M., Philibert, R. A., Chen, Y., &
Lei, M. (2009). Change in caregiver depression in response to parent
training: Genetic moderation of intervention effects. Journal of Family
Psychology, 23, 112-117. doi:10.l037/a0013562
Beach, S. R. H., Brody, G. H., Lei, M. K., Gibbons, F. X., Gerrard, M.,
Simons, R. L., . . . Philibert, R. A. (2013). Impact of child sex abuse on
adult psychopathology: A genetically and epigeneiicaily informed in-
vestigation. Journal of Family Psychology, 27. 3-11.
Belsky, J., & Pluess. M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential
susceptibility to environmental influences. Psychological Bulletin, 35.
885-908. doi:10.l037/a0017376
Brody, G. H., Beach, S. R. H., Hili, K. G., Howe, G. W., Prado, G., &
Fullerton, S. M. (in press). Using genetically informed, randomized
prevention trials to test etiological hypotheses about child and adolescent
drug use and psychopathology. American Journal of Public Health.
Brody, G. H., Yu, T., Chen, Y. F., Kogan, S. M., Evans, G. W., Windle,
M., . . . Philibert, R. A. (2013). Supportive family environments, genes
that confer sensitivity, and allostatic load among rural African American
emerging adults: A prospective analysis. Journal of Family Psychology,
27, 22-29.
Dodge, K. A., & Rutter, M. (2011). Gene-environment interactions in
developmental psychopaihology. New York, NY: Guilford.
Duncan. L. E.. & Keller, M. C. (2011). A critical review of the first 10
years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychi-
atry./American yowma/o/Pj^c/iia/ry. ^6S, 1041-1049. doi:10.1176/appi
.ajp.2011.11020191
Harold, G. T., Leve, L. D., Elam, K. K., Thapar. A.. Neiderhiser, J. M.,
Natsuaki, M. N., . . . ReJss, D. (2013). The nature of nurture: Disentan-
gling passive genotype-environment correlation from family relationship
influences on children's externalizing problems. Journal of Family Psy-
chology, 27, 12-2!.
Horn, E. E., Xu, Y., Beam, C. R., Turkheimer, E.. & Emery, R. E. (2013).
Accounting for the physical and mental health benefits of entry into
marriage: A genetically-informed study of selection and causation. Jour-
nal of Family Psychology, 27, 30-41.
Howe, G., Brody, G., & Beach, S. R. H. (2010). Microtrial methods for
translating gene-environment interaction into preventive interventions.
Prevention Science, I, 343-354. doi:!0.I007/sl 1121-010-0177-2
Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J., Hetherington, E. M., & Plomin. R. (2000). The
relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social patterns in adolescent
development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sturge-Apple, M. L.. Cicchetti, D.. Davies, P. T., & Suor, J. H. (2012).
Differential susceptibility in spillover between interparental conflict and
maternal parenting practices: Evidence for OXTR and 5-HTT genes.
Journal of Family Psychology. 26. 431-442. doi:l0.1037/a0028302
Ulbricht, J. A., Ganiban. J. M., Button, T. M. M., Feinberg, M., Reiss, D.,
& Neiderhiser, J. M. (2013). Marital adjustment as a moderator for
genetic and environmental influences on parenting. Journal of Family
Psychology, 27. 42-52.
Received December 10, 2012
Accepted December 10, 2012
Copyright of Journal of Family Psychology is the property of American Psychological Association and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.