The publication of several high profile cGxE studies (e.g., MAOA × maltreatment in antisociality; Caspi et al., 2002), as well as the technological advances in genetics that made genotyping accessible and cost-efficient, likely contributed to the dramatic increase in cGxE research. Regardless of the validity and reproducibility of those initial efforts (which continues to be debated; Brown & Harris, 2008; Clarke, Flint, Attwood, & Munafo, 2010; Culverhouse et al., 2013; Karg, Burmeister, Shedden, & Sen, 2011; Munafo, Durrant, Lewis, & Flint, 2009; Risch, Herrell, Lehner, Liang, Eaves, Hoh, Griem, Kovas, et al., 2009), they left their mark on the field by creating widespread recognition of the potential importance of the interplay between genetic and environmental factors in developmental pathways underlying the etiology of behavioral outcomes in ways that the latent GxE work of behavior geneticists had failed to do. In the excitement surrounding the initial cGxE findings, and spurred by funding initiatives that encouraged research in this area, investigators from disparate backgrounds incorporated measured genotypes into their studies. In the wake of historical tension surrounding the relative importance of genetic
