Abstract
Objective Parental criticism is associated with internalising symptoms in adolescent offspring. It is unclear whether these behaviours cause one another, and/or whether they are influenced by shared genes in related parent-offspring pairs. We use an Extended Children of Twins design to assess whether parent-reported criticism and offspring internalising symptoms remain associated after controlling for shared genes. To aid interpretation of our results and those of previous Children of Twins studies, we examine statistical power for the detection of genetic effects and explore the direction of psychosocial influences between generations.
Method Data were drawn from two Swedish twin samples, comprising 876 adult twin pairs with adolescent offspring and 1030 adolescent twin pairs with parents. Parents reported on criticism towards their offspring, concurrently with parent and offspring reports of adolescent internalising symptoms. Extended Children of Twins structural equation models were used to examine intergenerational social and genetic mechanisms.
Results Parental criticism was associated with adolescent internalising symptoms after controlling for genetic relatedness. No significant role was found for shared genes influencing phenotypes in both generations. Power analyses confirmed that any undetected genetic effects were small. Models could not distinguish the causal direction of possible psychosocial effects between generations.
Conclusion The association between parent-reported criticism and adolescent internalising symptoms is not attributable to genetic confounding in this sample. As such, parental criticism may be involved in psychosocial family processes in the context of adolescent internalising. Future studies should seek to identify these processes and provide clarity on the direction of potential causal effects.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a Leverhulme Trust grant awarded to TCE (RPG-210). TCE is part funded by a program grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MR/M021475/1). This study presents independent research part-funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. TAM and YA are supported by a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship awarded to TAM, jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (107706/Z/15/Z). The TOSS was supported by grant R01MH54610 from NIMH (Cohort 1 PI: DR.; Cohort 2 PI: JN). The TCHAD study was funded by the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (project 2004- 0383) and the Swedish Research Council (2004-1415). The authors would like to thank the participants of both the TOSS and TCHAD studies for contributing their data for this work.
Author Declarations
All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript.
Yes
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Ethical approval Prior to the initiation of this study, the TOSS and TCHAD projects received ethical approval from the Institutional Review Boards at of the home institutions concerned: The Pennsylvania State University, USA, and Karolinska Institutet, Sweden.
Data Availability
Study data are not publicly available due to privacy/ethical restrictions. Data access is available to researchers on request, subject to data sharing agreements.