The DOI matches its Crossref record; 62 of the 62 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects
Abstract
This report describes the state of the art in distinguishing data generated by differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress models. We discuss several limitations of existing practices for probing interaction effects and offer solutions that are designed to better differentiate differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress models and quantify their corresponding implications. In addition, we demonstrate the utility of these methods by revisiting published evidence suggesting that temperamental difficulty serves as a marker of enhanced susceptibility to early maternal caregiving across a range of outcome domains in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. We find that, with the exception of mother reports of psychopathology, there is consistent evidence in the Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development that the predictive significance of early sensitivity is moderated by difficult temperament over time. However, differential susceptibility effects emerged primarily for teacher reports of academic skills, social competence, and symptomatology. In contrast, effects more consistent with the diathesis–stress model were obtained for mother reports of social skills and objective tests of academic skills. We conclude by discussing the value of the application of this work to the next wave of Gene × Environment studies focused on early caregiving experiences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology · doi:10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x · Cited by 109,482
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.1080/00401706.1989.10488618 · Cited by 99,167
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · Cited by 91,532
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(1990) · Computers, Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,269
Multiple regression: testing and interpreting interactions
(1992) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.29-3352 · Cited by 36,654
Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys
Rubin, D. B. (1987) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/9780470316696 · Cited by 20,701
Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.
Longford, N. T., Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075823 · Cited by 18,724
Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods
Davidian, M. (2003) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1198/jasa.2003.s288 · Cited by 13,723
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.7.2.147 · Cited by 11,638
The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency
Benjamini, Y., & Yekutieli, D. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013699998 · Cited by 10,490
Cited by
A meta-analysis of the trait resilience and mental health
Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2015) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2014.11.039 · Cited by 1,131
Developmental Adaptation to Stress: An Evolutionary Perspective
Ellis, B. J., & Del Giudice, M. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011732 · Cited by 429
Pluess, M., Assary, E., Lionetti, F., Lester, K. J., Krapohl, E., Aron, E. N., & Aron, A. (2018) · Developmental Psychology · doi:10.1037/dev0000406 · Cited by 344
Luthar, S. S., Crossman, E. J., & Small, P. J. (2015) · Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science · doi:10.1002/9781118963418.childpsy307 · Cited by 256
Adolescent neurobiological susceptibility to social context
Schriber, R. A., & Guyer, A. E. (2016) · Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.dcn.2015.12.009 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C.
- Venue
- Development and Psychopathology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2012-04-17
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 389-409
- ISSN
- 0954-5794 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2198
- OpenAlex
- W2097689840
- Cited by
- 548
- References
- 62
- FWCI
- 35.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0954579412000065
- The paper
- Roisman, G. I., Newman, D. A., Fraley, R. C., Haltigan, J. D., Groh, A. M., & Haydon, K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis–stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579412000065
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.