The importance of interactions between child temperament and parenting has been accepted ever since Thomas and Chess (1977) proposed their “goodness-of-fit” construct, but over the last three decades, pertinent research has grown exponentially. Researchers examining child characteristics that can moderate the effects of socialization have tested increasingly complex, nuanced, and sophisticated models, largely inspired by the highly influential frameworks of child plasticity or differential susceptibility (Belsky & Pluess, 2009). Yet, multiple questions remain unsettled. We addressed four such questions as applied to predicting children’s observed disregard for rules at age 4.5 in a study of 200 community families from the US Midwest. (a) We examined children’s observed negative emotionality at 16 months, most commonly seen as a plasticity “trait,” but separating anger and fear proneness, which may differently moderate effects of socialization. (b) We examined two separate aspects of observed parental socialization at age 3, mutually responsive orientation and power assertion. (c) We distinguished analytically diathesis-stress from differential susceptibility. (d) We examined all effects in mother– and father–child relationships. We supported both diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility, depending on the facet of negative emotionality, the aspect of socialization considered, and parental gender, highlighting the nuanced nature of the processes involved.

The family stress model has, for decades, guided empirical work linking poverty with increased risk of child social-emotional dysfunction. The present study extends this line of work by examining whether child negative emotionality moderates associations between family income, family stress (maternal distress, parental locus of control, and relationship dissatisfaction), and later externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. In a longitudinal population-based sample (n ~ 80,000) of Norwegian children followed from birth through age five (The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study; MoBa), we examined whether high (vs. moderate or low) negative emotionality families would display: (a) compounding stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between low family income and family stress), (b) diathesis-stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between family stress and behavior problems), or (c) double jeopardy (i.e., both compounding stress and diathesis-stress moderating effects). Negative emotionality significantly moderated the association between family income and behavior problems in a manner most consistent with double jeopardy. As a result, compared with children with moderate/low negative emotionality, the family income-behavior problems association was two to three times larger for those with higher negative emotionality. These findings underscore the active role children may play in family processes that link low family income with behavior problems.

Here we evaluate whether infant difficult temperament (6 months) functions as a vulnerability or more general plasticity factor when investigating effects of early-childhood parenting (8–42 months) on both positive and negative early-adolescent socioemotional development (age 8–11 years). Using data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC, N = 14,541) and a re-parameterized model-testing approach to distinguish alternative person × environment conceptual models, results indicated that temperament × parenting interacted in predicting externalizing (i.e., hyperactivity, conduct problems), but not other behavior (i.e., emotional symptoms, peer problems), in a (weak) differential susceptibility manner. While more and less supportive parenting predicted, respectively, fewer and more behavior problems, it did so more strongly for children who were more difficult as infants.

It is unclear how individual differences in parenting and brain development interact to influence adolescent mental health outcomes. This study examined interactions between structural brain development and observed maternal parenting behavior in the prediction of adolescent depressive symptoms and psychological well-being. Whether findings supported diathesis-stress or differential susceptibility frameworks was tested. Participants completed observed interactions with their mothers during early adolescence (age 13), and the frequency of positive and aggressive maternal behavior were coded. Adolescents also completed structural magnetic resonance imaging scans at three time points: mean ages 13, 17, and 19. Regression models analyzed interactions between maternal behavior and longitudinal brain development in the prediction of late adolescent (age 19) outcomes. Indices designed to distinguish between diathesis-stress and differential susceptibility effects were employed. Results supported differential susceptibility: less thinning of frontal regions was associated with higher well-being in the context of low levels of aggressive maternal behavior, and lower well-being in the context of high levels of aggressive maternal behavior. Findings suggest that reduced frontal cortical thinning during adolescence may underlie increased sensitivity to maternal aggressive behavior for better and worse and highlight the importance of investigating biological vulnerability versus susceptibility.

Currently, two main approaches exist to distinguish differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress and vantage sensitivity in Genotype × Environment interaction (G × E) research: regions of significance (RoS) and competitive-confirmatory approaches. Each is limited by its single-gene/single-environment foci given that most phenotypes are the product of multiple interacting genetic and environmental factors. We thus addressed these two concerns in a recently developed R package (LEGIT) for constructing G × E interaction models with latent genetic and environmental scores using alternating optimization. Herein we test, by means of computer simulation, diverse G × E models in the context of both single and multiple genes and environments. Results indicate that the RoS and competitive-confirmatory approaches were highly accurate when the sample size was large, whereas the latter performed better in small samples and for small effect sizes. The competitive-confirmatory approach generally had good accuracy (a) when effect size was moderate and N ≥ 500 and (b) when effect size was large and N ≥ 250, whereas RoS performed poorly. Computational tools to determine the type of G × E of multiple genes and environments are provided as extensions in our LEGIT R package.