Early warm‐rewarding parenting moderates the genetic contributions to callous–unemotional traits in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous gene-environment interaction studies of CU traits have relied on the candidate gene approach, which does not account for the entire genetic load of complex phenotypes. Moreover, these studies have not examined the role of positive environmental factors such as warm/rewarding parenting. The aim of the present study was to determine whether early warm/rewarding parenting moderates the genetic contributions (i.e., heritability) to callous-unemotional (CU) traits at school age. METHODS: Data were collected in a population sample of 662 twin pairs (Quebec Newborn Twin Study - QNTS). Mothers reported on their warm/rewarding parenting. Teachers assessed children's CU traits. These reports were subjected to twin modeling. RESULTS: Callous-unemotional traits were highly heritable, with the remaining variance accounted for by nonshared environmental factors. Warm/rewarding parenting significantly moderated the role of genes in CU traits; heritability was lower when children received high warm/rewarding parenting than when they were exposed to low warm/rewarding parenting. CONCLUSIONS: High warm/rewarding parenting may partly impede the genetic expression of CU traits. Developmental models of CU traits need to account for such gene-environment processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".