Over the past half century, two theoretical models strongly inf luenced research on the development of human physical aggression: social learning and disease onset. According to these developmental perspectives, children learn to physically aggress from their environment, and the onset of the disease is triggered by the accumulated exposure to aggressive models in the environment such as family violence, neighborhood violence and media violence. Most of the evidence came from studies of school-aged children and adolescents. Recent longitudinal studies tracing developmental trajectories of physical aggression from early childhood onwards suggest an inversed developmental process. Frequency of physical aggression is at its peak during early childhood and, as they age, children learn socially acceptable behaviors from interactions with their environment [1,2]. A ‘disease’ status is eventually given to children who failed to learn socially acceptable behaviors. The mechanisms that lead to deficits in learning to use socially accepted behaviors appear to be strongly intergenerational, based on complex genetic and environmental contributions. Longitudinal studies initiated during the perinatal period suggest that several early life environmental factors are involved in triggering the mechanisms that lead to deficits in learning to use socially acceptable behaviors for solving problems. These include family characteristics (e.g., poverty and marital conflicts), maternal history of behavior problems (e.g., antisocial behavior, school failure, teen pregnancy and depression), maternal lifestyle during pregnancy (e.g., smoking) and maternal parenting practices (e.g., coercive discipline) [2]. These family and maternal characteristics can be used to identify at-risk pregnant women and offer them adequate support [3]. Genetic studies have also identified sequence differences in critical genes such as MOA, the serotonin transporter and others, which may play a role in the development and maintenance of chronic aggression. However, an increasing number of studies are demonstrating that phenotypic variations in behavior cannot be accounted for by just these genetic differences, and that the phenotype would best be accounted for by an interaction of genetic and environmental factors. Experiments with nonhuman primates that measured the impact of maternal deprivation on the behavior of monkeys with different 5-HTT genotypes illustrated how gene–environment interactions might provide a better explanation for certain behavioral phenotypes such as aggression than genetic differences per se [4,5]. These data suggest that social–environmental triggers are extremely important in defining the final phenotype and they can override a phenotype driven by sequence differences present in critical genes. This primate study is consistent with other studies in humans. Association studies in humans have suggested, for example, that violent behavior in humans was more frequent for males who were maltreated during childhood when they had a genotype conferring low MAO-A activity [6]. However, further studies indicate that these gene–environment statistical interactions may depend on age, severity of maltreatment and situational factors, and may apply to many other types of behavior problems [7–9]. A criticism of the approach to mental health that focuses on statistical interactions between one gene variant and one environmental factor is that it ignores the potential diverse statistical and bio–psycho–social interactions between multiple gene variants and varied environmental conditions that lead to a multitude of endophenotypes and phenotypes related to mental
Read full abstract