Premium
A closer look at the evidence for sex differences in the genetic and environmental influences on gambling in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent health: from disordered to ordered gambling
Author(s) -
Slutske Wendy S.,
RichmondRakerd Leah S.
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
addiction
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.424
H-Index - 193
eISSN - 1360-0443
pISSN - 0965-2140
DOI - 10.1111/add.12345
Subject(s) - normative , psychology , twin study , developmental psychology , structural equation modeling , adolescent health , clinical psychology , demography , heritability , medicine , genetics , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , nursing , epistemology , sociology , biology
Background and aims To reconcile an inconsistency in the disordered gambling literature by revisiting a previous study that claimed to find evidence for large gender differences in the magnitude of genetic and environmental influences. Design Univariate structural equation twin models were fitted to decompose the variation in gambling behavior into additive genetic, shared environmental and unique environmental influences. Setting U nited S tates. Participants Participants were 1196 same‐sex and unlike‐sex twins (18–28 years of age, 49% male, 51% female) from the N ational L ongitudinal S tudy of A dolescent H ealth ( A dd H ealth). Measurements Eight questions about normative and problematic gambling involvement were assessed by in‐person interview. Although disordered gambling symptoms were assessed, the number of individuals who were administered these questions precluded twin analysis, including analysis of potential gender differences. Of the eight questions, only three were deemed usable for twin analysis—these were all questions about normative gambling involvement. Findings Individual differences in (non‐disordered) gambling involvement were explained completely by family [C = 38% (30–46%)] and unique environmental factors [E = 62% (54–70%)]. There was no evidence for genetic factors (A = 0), nor was there evidence for sex differences (Δχ 2 = 1.23, d.f. = 2, P = 0.54). Conclusions There appears to be no evidence for gender differences in the genetic contributions to disordered gambling. Family environment appears to play a significant role in explaining individual differences in (non‐disordered) gambling involvement among emerging adults.