4.2 Article

Stable Genetic Influence on Anxiety-Related Behaviours Across Middle Childhood

期刊

JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL CHILD PSYCHOLOGY
卷 40, 期 1, 页码 85-94

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s10802-011-9545-z

关键词

Anxiety; Twins; Genetics; Genetic continuity; Developmental anxiety; Longitudinal-multivariate study; Anxiety-related behaviours; Middle childhood

资金

  1. MRC [G0802681, G0500079, G19/2, G120/635] Funding Source: UKRI
  2. Medical Research Council [G9817803B] Funding Source: researchfish
  3. Medical Research Council [G19/2, G0500079(73692), G0802681, G0500079, G120/635] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We examined the aetiology of anxiety symptoms in an unselected population at ages 7 and 9, a period during which anxiety disorders first begin to develop (mean age at onset is 11 years). Specifically, the aim of the study was to investigate genetic and environmental continuity and change in components of anxiety in middle childhood. Parents of over 3,500 twin pairs completed the Anxiety-Related Behaviours Questionnaire (ARBQ) when twins were 7 and 9 years old. Multivariate-longitudinal analyses were conducted to examine genetic and environmental influences on stability and change in four anxiety scales: Negative Cognition, Negative Affect, Fear and Social Anxiety. We found moderate temporal stability in all four scales from 7 to 9 years (correlations ranging from 0.45 to 0.54) and moderate heritability (average 54%). Both shared and non-shared environmental influences were modest (average 18%-28% respectively). Genetic factors (68%) explained most of the homotypic continuity in anxiety. We show that homotypic continuity of Anxiety-Related Behaviours (i.e. the continuation of one specific type of anxiety over time) was largely driven by genetic factors. In contrast, though more varied, heterotypic continuity between some traits (i.e. the change from one type of anxiety-related behaviour into another over time) was mainly due to shared-environmental factors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据