Results across the different outcomes are also consistent in pattern. That is, an examination of the slopes found in Figs. 3–5 shows that outcomes are generally worse at low and moderate levels of parental monitoring but better at high levels of monitoring. Furthermore, high parental monitoring appears to have more of an effect as the severity of the outcome increases (i.e., from drinks consumed to binge drinking to alcohol-related problems); lifetime AUD diagnosis also trended in this direction, but a non-significant interaction term precluded more definitive interpretation. These results can be interpreted in the context of the differential susceptibility model put forth by Belsky and Pluess (2009). Contrary to a diathesis-stress model—in which some individuals are vulnerable only to the negative influence of adversity—differential susceptibility posits that some individuals are susceptible both to the positive influence of nurturing environments as well as the negative influence of adverse environments. In this way, it is possible that genetic variants reflect plasticity factors rather than vulnerability factors. Under this view, parental monitoring interacts with the combined genetic/physiological endophenotype (i.e., S allele and low
