Intro

In light of recent studies and indings, the extent of genetic inheritance on our behavior was
a much-debated topic.
genes that hold segments of our encoded DNA, determine many unique aspects of each
individual, environment also plays a signi icant role in shaping who we are.
While No single gene determines common, complex behaviors, some genes pplay more of role
than others.

Role of genes and environment , both must be considered and analysed. Three recent
studies have attempted to determine the role of speci ic genes in certain behaviors: Depression
and antisocial behavior.
Antisocial behavior: Antisocial behaviors are disruptive acts characterized by covert and
hostility and intentional aggression toward others and includes breaking rules

Depression: disorder which is characterized by a number of symptoms such as negative

affect and feelings of being powerless. People who suffer from depression are often in a
mental state of despair and hopelessness.



This essay analyzes these three studies in particular: David M. Fergusson et al’s study on
antisocial behavior, Caspi et al’s study on Depression and Surtees PG et al’s study on depression.
It is through these studies it is argued that the interaction between genes and environment
result in the outcomes of these behaviors. Although to what extent is still explored

First study MAOA and antisocial behavior

In 2011, David M. Fergusson et al published a longitudinal study aimed to replicate the
indings of the Caspi et. al. (2002) study in which the MAOA genotype was associated with
individuals’ responses to abuse exposure
The MAOA gene is a gene that encodes for Monoamine oxidase. It can come in two
variations, a short allele and a long allele
A allele is a variant form of a gene. Thus there are two main variations of MAOA
genen
Procedure: The participants were 398 males from the Christchurch Health and
Development Study, an ongoing study in which 1265 children have been studied for over 35
years in Christchurch, New Zealand.
the 398 individuals had complete data on: MAOA genotype, anti social behavior to age 30
and exposure to physical abuse or maltreatment.
Data on antisocial behavior observed from age 16 to 30 and the individual’s exposure to
abuse were analysed, and compared to each male’s genotype of the MAOA gene. Confounding
factors including the participant’s social life, family functioning and other individual’s factors
were added into the analysis simultaneously as well.
f

 Findings: Interestingly the analysis revealed there was interaction between the MAOA gene
and environment, as those with the short allele of the MAOA gene and, had experienced abuse
in their childhood, were likely to exhibit extreme antisocial behavior such as violent offending.
This inding strengthened the Caspi et al (2002) study, suggesting genetic inheritance of the
short allele of the MAOA gene in luences antisocial behavior

Evaluation:
Overall David M. Fergusson et al’s study has given irm evidence of the gene to environment
interaction towards certain behaviors.
One of the strengths of this study is that it is longitudinal, allowing researchers to closely
observe variables for patterns and changes over time, and therefore come up with more
detailed evidence.
Additionally, a large sample of subjects were taken to be studied. This allows the data
collected to be in depth and, a better representation of the population (male in this case) thus,
reducing the margin of error.
It is also important to note the confounding variables were factored into the analysis.
Despite this study’s indings suggest environment and genetics are a signi icant in luence on
antisocial behavior, we cannot assume this to be a cause and effect relation as other variables
(confounding variables) in luence behavior to some extent as well. By adding in the variables:
participant’s social life, family functioning and other individual’s factors, in the analysis, the
resulting evidence has more ecological validity

However, on the reverse side the confounding factors added into the analysis could also be
seen as a limitation. This is as each factor added into the analysis was assumed to have the
same magnitude or worth of in luence on antisocial behavior. But in luence of confounding
factors towards behavior could vary by individual, perhaps even playing a role in how genes are
expressed.
Another limitation was the selection of the sample study group itself. A very de ined group
consisting of only males in New Zealand with, data on antisocial behavior between a certain age
range was selected. This group does not represent the general population and therefore the
indings may not apply to the entire population.
However, despite these limitations, this study holds strong evidence that demonstrate
genetic inheritance plays a signi icant role in in luencing behaviors. The fact that it has
successfully replicated Caspi et al (2002) only enforces this even more.

Second Study: 5-HTT and Depression

Another aspect of human behavior that holds evidence of being in luenced by genetics is,
depression and its relation to the 5-HTT serotonin transporter gene.
f
f

f
f

f
f
f

f
f

f
f
f
 The 5-HTT gene is a gene associated with the neurotransmitter Serotonin ( which is known
ot in luence mood). There are also two variations of this gene, a short (s) and long allele (l)
Procedure:
Caspi et al published a longitudinal study in 2003 in order to analyse the possible role of
this gene in depression. Aim
It studied 847 male and female individuals of age twenty-six, from the Dunedin study.
The Dunedin study is an ongoing forty-year study in Dunedin New Zealand, in which 1037
individuals were studied since their birth in 1972-1973.
According to their 5-HTT genotype determined from the Dunedin study, all 847 participants
were divided into three subgroups.
Subgroup one individuals had two short alleles of this gene, the s/s genotype;
subgroup two consisted of those who had the short allele and the long allele, the s/l
genotype of the 5-Htt gene and,
subgroup three’s participants had two long alleles, the l/l genotype.
Each individual gave a self report of stressful events from age 21 to their current age
(twenty-six), while levels of depression were determined by a interview session.
Found: The study concluded that those who had the s/s genotype were the most proneto
the effects of depression after adversity, while in contrast, those with the l/l genotype were
protected from the effects of depression, after a stressful event.
Therefore, this study proved a gene and environment interaction determined those who
were more prone to depression than others after stressful life events. Genetics inheritance also
in luences this aspect of behavior to a signi icant extent, although by how much precisely is
unknown
Evaluation:
Despite the irm evidence laid out, it would be incorrect to assume a cause and effect
relation between the two variables, alleles of the 5-HTT gene and environment, with
depression. Rather this study is a correlation as other confounding variables could also
contribute to an individual’s behavior.
signi icant confounding variables could have between variables leading to depression.
Also signi icant variable that could have affected the results is the honesty and imagery of
the participant’s self report of stressful events. The description that each individual gives of
their stressful events affects how the collected data and evidence factors in the event’s
signi icance to each participant.
Not only this could affect the data collected, but it could affect an individual’s tendency to
depression. Those who recall stressful events more vividly would be more prone to depression.
To what extent this factor was taken to account was not speci ied and the data collected on this
could vary between individual.
However there are strengths too that added much merit to the study:
f
f
f
f
f

 discussed in the previous study, a major strength of this study was the fact that it was
longitudinal. The detailed and varied data collected because of this study allows a more in-
depth analysis with possible outliers factored in.
Another value that contributed to the detailed and consistent evidence found, was that
throughout the study, variables were thoughtfully controlled thus isolating other factors (crane,
2017). This is seen when the large group of participant’s ages were controlled/selected, so that
they were all twenty-six years of age. Thus, this isolated the number of stressful events that
occurred within a speci ic time range.
As well, all participants were divided into three subgroups, each group per allele type. These
controlled variables allowed researchers to compare stressful events that had occurred within
the same time range for all participants to their subgroup. As a result, they were able to ind
evidence of speci ic genotypes in luence on behavior.

Third Study: Still Depression

In contrast to Caspi et al’s indings that 5-HTTP genes and environment together
determined depression, another study found this was not the case.
Aim: In 2005, Surtees PG et al published this study. It’s aim was to replicate Caspi et al’s
longitudinal study and it’s result on 5-HTT gene relation to depression. Many other studies had
successfully replicated Caspi et al’s study before.
Procedure:
Participants consisted of 4,175 adult men and women, ages 41-80 years, from the
European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition in Norfolk study.
Similar to Caspi et al’s study, stressful life events were self reported. However, these
stressful events’ occurrences ranged from childhood into adulthood. A much broader range as
compared to Caspi et al’s study.
The level of depression was assessed through questionnaires and the 5-HTT genes were
genotyped from the data on the participants.

Findings:
However, adversity (environment) was strongly associated with depression.
while in contrast, the relation was found in younger participants.
Rather it was found that The analysis of the genotype and adversity in adulthood and
childhood, found that genes did not in luence depression and interact with the envirement,
with older participants
Interestingly This concluded that Surtees PG et al’s study had much different indings
from Caspi et al’s study, despite it has been done several times already.
Evaluation:
Surtees PG et al’s contradicting results with Caspi et al’s could be due to several factors.

f
f

f
f

f
 Primarily, the controlled variables were much broader in range. Participants selected
were of a much broader and older range of age.
As well, participants had to report stressful life events from childhood to adulthood.
This greater range in stressful events would have resulted in the older participants unable
recall childhood events in great detail.
And as the participants were not divided into subgroups by alleles of 5-HTT gene (like
Caspi et al’s study) it would have been harder to isolate any correlations relating to
genotype, in the surplus of data.
Another important factor that could be considered, is that the correlation between the
5-HTT genotype and adversities was already assumed. Lead to demand characteristics. Surtees
PG and researchers were trying to replicate the results of Caspi et al’s study thus, these
variables were mainly focused upon throughout the study.
However other variables or confounding factors could have had an in luence on
behavior of individuals as well.
Nonetheless, with it’s contrasting evidence it has opened doors to more questions as to
why no relation was found between 5-HTT genotype and depression amongst the older groups
of participants while in contrast, the relation was found in younger participants.

Strength’s: However, while it is arguable that this study was unable to replicate Caspi’s
indings in gene to environment interaction do to limitations/factors, perhaps this study
suggests a stronger role of environment on behavior.
This study was longitudinal, which as discussed before adds to the value of a study as
the in-depth data allows researchers to ind patterns and variances over time, such as increase
of depression after stressful life events.
This relation also raises questions as to why was this environment to depression
relation found in older participants while in contrast, not found in younger participants.
Conclusion
Overall, through the studies discussed in this essay, different views and evidence
suggest different view points on the in luence of genetic inheritance on behavior.
David M. Fergusson et al’s study on antisocial behavior and Caspi et al’s study on
Depression both hold irm evidence suggesting different genotypes of a gene result in different
levels of behavior.
Therefore, genetics have a strong in luence on behavior. However, this evidence has also
shown that genetics goes hand in hand with environment, in luencing behavior. Thus,
environment is a signi icant variable as well, and both these studies show that there is no cause
and effect relation between behavior and genes, but rather correlation.
In contrast, Surtees PG et al’s study that had attempted to replicate Caspi et al’s study on
depression, had not found a relation between behavior and genes, but rather an interaction
between environment and behavior.
f

f
f

f
f

 This is either do to limitations in the study that prevented it from replicating Caspi et
al’s study properly or, that environment was a greater in luential factor amongst the group of
particpants used. Rather than giving more evidence, this study has simply raised curiosity as,
Caspi et al’ study on depression had been replicated several times successfully before.
Therefore, it is safe to conclude that while we are not precisely aware of the extent of
in luence by genetic inheritance, we are aware that it, alone, does not de ine our behaviors.
Environment must be considered as well. In conclusion, we are aware that genetic inheritance
to some extent, does have a signi icant in luence on behaviors, such as antisocialism and
depression.
f

f
f
f
f