Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

2 results

  • 3 - Home Is Where the Heart Is

  • from Part I - Interdependence, Situations, and Context
  • Edited by Laura V. Machia, Syracuse University, New York, Christopher R. Agnew, Purdue University, Indiana, Ximena B. Arriaga, Purdue University, Indiana
  • Book:
    Interdependence, Interaction, and Close Relationships
    Published online:
    19 June 2020
    Print publication:
    18 June 2020, pp 50-73

  • Summary

    People often use relationships to characterize and describe places. Some places are described as warm, friendly, and welcoming. Others as cold, harsh, and unwelcoming. Is there any truth to these colloquialisms? How influential is the broader geographic context in affecting our close relationships? Where do people have the happiest relationships and why? In this chapter, I review recent research on geographic variation in relationship-related constructs and outcomes. The review will also feature some empirical examples and methodological considerations for studying geographic variation in close relationships and how they are expressed. A large portion of the chapter will be a discussion on the mechanisms that give rise to geographic variation in relationship-related constructs and behavior that unfold over different time scales. Step-by-step modules and supplementary information for asking geographic questions at different levels of analysis will be provided. Finally, I will conclude with unanswered conceptual and methodological questions related to the study of geographic variation in close relationship behavior.

  • The role of genetic liability in the association of urbanicity at birth and during upbringing with schizophrenia in Denmark

  • D. Paksarian, B. B. Trabjerg, K. R. Merikangas, O. Mors, A. D. Børglum, D. M. Hougaard, J. J. McGrath, C. B. Pedersen, P. B. Mortensen, E. Agerbo
  • Journal:
    Psychological Medicine / Volume 48 / Issue 2 / January 2018
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    29 June 2017, pp. 305-314
  • Background

    Studies have indicated that the association of urbanicity at birth and during upbringing with schizophrenia may be driven by familial factors such as genetic liability. We used a population-based nested case–control study to assess whether polygenic risk score (PRS) for schizophrenia was associated with urbanicity at birth and at age 15, and to assess whether PRS and parental history of mental disorder together explained the association between urbanicity and schizophrenia.

    Methods

    Data were drawn from Danish population registries. Cases born since 1981 and diagnosed with schizophrenia between 1994 and 2009 were matched to controls with the same sex and birthdate (1549 pairs). Genome-wide data were obtained from the Danish Neonatal Screening Biobank and PRSs were calculated based on results of a separate, large meta-analysis.

    Results

    Those with higher PRS were more likely reside in the capital compared with rural areas at age 15 [odds ratio (OR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01–1.40], but not at birth (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.95–1.26). Adjustment for PRS produced almost no change in relative risks of schizophrenia associated with urbanicity at birth, but slightly attenuated those for urban residence at age 15. Additional adjustment for parental history led to slight attenuation of relative risks for urbanicity at birth [incidence rate ratio (IRR) for birth in capital = 1.54, 95% CI 1.18–2.02; overall p = 0.016] and further attenuation of relative risks for urbanicity at age 15 (IRR for residence in capital = 1.32, 95% CI 0.97–1.78; overall p = 0.148).

    Conclusions

    While results regarding urbanicity during upbringing were somewhat equivocal, genetic liability as measured here does not appear to explain the association between urbanicity at birth and schizophrenia.