Elucidating the role of negative parenting in the genetic <i>v.</i> environmental influences on adult psychopathic traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Psychopathic traits involve interpersonal manipulation, callous affect, erratic lifestyle, and antisocial behavior. Though adult psychopathic traits emerge from both genetic and environmental risk, no studies have examined etiologic associations between adult psychopathic traits and experiences of parenting in childhood, or the extent to which parenting practices may impact the heritability of adult psychopathic traits using a genetically-informed design. Methods In total, 1842 adult twins from the community reported their current psychopathic traits and experiences of negative parenting during childhood. We fit bivariate genetic models to the data, decomposing the variance within, and the covariance between, psychopathic traits and perceived negative parenting into their genetic and environmental components. We then fit a genotype × environment interaction model to evaluate whether negative parenting moderated the etiology of psychopathic traits. Results Psychopathic traits were moderately heritable with substantial non-shared environmental influences. There were significant associations between perceived negative parenting and three of four psychopathy facets (interpersonal manipulation, erratic lifestyle, antisocial tendencies, but not callous affect). These associations were attributable to a common non-shared environmental pathway and not to overlapping genetic effects. Additionally, we found that primarily shared environmental influences were stronger on psychopathic traits for individuals with a history of greater negative parenting. Conclusions Utilizing a genetically-informed design, we found that both genetic and non-shared environmental factors contribute to the emergence of psychopathic traits. Moreover, perceptions of negative parenting emerged as a clear environmental influence on the development of interpersonal, lifestyle, and antisocial features of psychopathy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".