In the decade since Caspi and colleagues (2002) published their landmark (or notorious, depending on one’s view) article documenting that genetic variation in MAOA interacted with harsh physical discipline to predict antisocial behavior, there has been a proliferation of interest in examining cGxE across variants in a range of purported risk genes and salient environmental factors (e.g., parenting quality, maltreatment, stressful life events) to predict behavioral outcomes. The idea that both genetic and environmental influences contribute to behavioral outcomes is widely accepted and, conceptually, cGxE research is compelling: Certain environments may change the relationship between one’s genotype and the likelihood that that person will express a particular behavior. From the perspective of those of us who are interested in tracing behavioral trajectories across the life span, understanding how genetic predispositions unfold in the context of (changing) environmental influences is critically important and may guide the development of tailored intervention and prevention efforts for those at greatest risk. However, in practice, the study of cGxE is challenging—more challenging than is often appreciated by social scientists, we might argue—and, as a result, has become controversial (Duncan & Keller, 2011).
