Abstract
Previous research has shown that self-reports of the amount of social support are heritable. Using the Kessler perceived social support (KPSS) measure, we explored sex differences in the genetic and environmental contributions to individual differences. We did this separately for subscales that captured the perceived support from different members of the network (spouse, twin, children, parents, relatives, friends and confidant). Our sample comprised 7059 male, female and opposite-sex twin pairs aged 18-95 years from the Australian Twin Registry. We found tentative support for different genetic mechanisms in males and females for support from friends and the average KPSS score of all subscales, but otherwise, there are no sex differences. For each subscale alone, the additive genetic (A) and unique environment (E) effects were significant. By contrast, the covariation among the subscales was explained - in roughly equal parts - by A, E and the common environment, with effects of different support constellations plausibly accounting for the latter. A single genetic and common environment factor accounted for between half and three-quarters of the variance across the subscales in both males and females, suggesting little heterogeneity in the genetic and environmental etiology of the different support sources.
Highlights
Human beings evolved in groups and are, by nature, social animals (Caporael, 1997)
We partition the variance into additive genes (A), the common environment (C; effects shared by twins) and the unique environment (E; those unique to each twin)
We could not equate the male and female MZs and male and female DZs for the twin subscale (Δχ22 = 6.38, p =.041) suggesting the magnitude of genetic or environmental effects may differ by sex, and we could not equate the DZ male, female and opposite sex pairs for the friend subscale (Δχ21 = 6.89, p = .009) and Kessler perceived social support (KPSS) (Δχ21 = 4.01, p = .045), suggesting genes may differ by sex
Summary
Human beings evolved in groups and are, by nature, social animals (Caporael, 1997). Having social support leads to reduced mortality risk and better health according to recent meta-analyses (Chu et al, 2010; Jane-Llopis et al, 2003; Ozer et al, 2003; Prati & Pietrantoni, 2009; Robertson et al, 2004; Shor et al, 2013; Yarcheski et al, 2004) and reviews (Kessler & McLeod, 1985; Seeman, 1996; Uchino, 2006; Vaux, 1988). Cobb (1976, p. 300) defined social support as ‘information leading the subject to believe that he is cared for and loved : : : esteemed and valued : : : and belongs to a network of communication and mutual obligations’. Finfgeld-Connett (2005) identified an array of processes such as comforting gestures, body language, attentive listening, sharing experiences, humor and knowing someone was available. For measures of perceived support, E is generally higher than for received support, given reports of perceived support are more subjective (Bergeman et al, 2001; Bergeman et al, 1990; Ji et al, 2008; Kendler, 1997) If both twins in the pair share the source of support (i.e., their parents or relatives), E is lower than. For social support, Agrawal et al (2002) only observed differences on two of their six subscales (see Table 1), higher heredity in females for relatives and the reverse for confidants
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
