Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-08T20:43:24.782Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and environmental influences on gambling disorder liability: a replication and combined analysis of two twin studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2018

Christal N. Davis Open the ORCID record for Christal N. Davis [Opens in a new window] ,
Wendy S. Slutske ,
Nicholas G. Martin ,
Arpana Agrawal  and
Michael T. Lynskey
Christal N. Davis
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Wendy S. Slutske*
Affiliation:
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Nicholas G. Martin
Affiliation:
QIMR Berghofer, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Arpana Agrawal
Affiliation:
Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA
Michael T. Lynskey
Affiliation:
King's College London Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, London, UK
*
Author for correspondence: Wendy S. Slutske, E-mail: SlutskeW@missouri.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

Gambling disorder (GD), recognized in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Version 5 (DSM-5) as a behavioral addiction, is associated with a range of adverse outcomes. However, there has been little research on the genetic and environmental influences on the development of this disorder. This study reports results from the largest twin study of GD conducted to date.

Methods

Replication and combined analyses were based on samples of 3292 (mean age 31.8, born 1972–79) and 4764 (mean age 37.7, born 1964–71) male, female, and unlike-sex twin pairs from the Australian Twin Registry. Univariate biometric twin models estimated the proportion of variation in the latent GD liability that could be attributed to genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental factors, and whether these differed quantitatively or qualitatively for men and women.

Results

In the replication study, when using a lower GD threshold, there was evidence for significant genetic (60%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 45–76%) and unique environmental (40%; 95% CI 24–56%), but not shared environmental contributions (0%; 95% CI 0–0%) to GD liability; this did not significantly differ from the original study. In the combined analysis, higher GD thresholds (such as one consistent with DSM-5 GD) and a multiple threshold definitions of GD yielded similar results. There was no evidence for quantitative or qualitative sex differences in the liability for GD.

Conclusions

Twin studies of GD are few in number but they tell a remarkably similar story: substantial genetic and unique environmental influences, with no evidence for shared environmental contributions or sex differences in GD liability.

Keywords

Behavioral geneticsgambling disordersex differencestwins
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 49 , Issue 10 , July 2019 , pp. 1705 - 1712
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association (1987) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-III-R. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (1994) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
American Psychiatric Association (2013) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
Beaver, KM, Hoffman, T, Shields, RT, Vaughn, MG, Delisi, M and Wright, JP (2010) Gender differences in genetic and environmental influences on gambling: results from a sample of twins from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Addiction 105, 536–542.10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02803.xGoogle Scholar
Blanco, C, Myers, J and Kendler, KS (2012) Gambling, disordered gambling and their association with major depression and substance use: a web-based cohort and twin-sibling study. Psychological Medicine 42, 497–508.Google Scholar
Brevers, D, Bechara, A, Cleeremans, A and Noël, X (2013) Iowa Gambling Task (IGT): twenty years after – gambling disorder and IGT. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 665.10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00665Google Scholar
Chabris, CF, Lee, JJ, Cesarini, D, Benjamin, DJ and Laibson, DI (2015) The fourth law of behavior genetics. Current Directions in Psychological Science 24, 304–312.10.1177/0963721415580430Google Scholar
Chen, LS, Zawertailo, L, Piasecki, TM, Kaprio, J, Foreman, M, Elliott, HR, David, SP, Bergen, AW, Baurley, JW, Tyndale, RF, Baker, TB, Bierut, JW, Saccone, NL and Treatment Workgroup of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (2018) Leveraging genomic data in smoking cessation trials in the era of precision medicine: why and how. Nicotine and Tobacco Research 20, 414–424.10.1093/ntr/ntx097Google Scholar
Dodd, ML, Klos, KJ, Bower, JH, Geda, YE, Josephs, KA and Ahlskog, JE (2005) Pathological gambling caused by drugs used to treat parkinson disease. Archives of Neurology 62, 1377–1381.10.1001/archneur.62.9.noc50009Google Scholar
Dowling, NA, Shandley, KA, Oldenhof, E, Affleck, JM, Youssef, GJ, Frydenberg, E, Thomas, SA and Jackson, AC (2017) The intergenerational transmission of at-risk/problem gambling: the moderating role of parenting practices. The American Journal on Addictions 26, 707–712.10.1111/ajad.12599Google Scholar
Eisen, SA, Lin, N, Lyons, MJ, Scherrer, JF, Griffith, K, True, WR, Goldberg, J and Tsuang, MT (1998) Familial influences on gambling behavior: an analysis of 3359 twin pairs. Addiction 93, 1375–1384.Google Scholar
Gerstein, DR, Volberg, RA, Toce, MT, Harwood, H, Johnson, RA, Buie, T, Christiansen, E, Chuchro, L, Cummings, W, Engelman, L and Hill, MA (1999) Gambling Impact and Behavior Study: Report to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.Google Scholar
Kendler, KS (1993) Twin studies of psychiatric illness: current status and future directions. Archives of General Psychiatry 50, 905–915.10.1001/archpsyc.1993.01820230075007Google Scholar
King, SM, Keyes, M, Winters, KC, Mcgue, M and Iacono, WG (2017) Genetic and environmental origins of gambling behaviors from ages 18 to 25: a longitudinal twin family study. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 31, 367–374.Google Scholar
Lang, M, Leménager, T, Streit, F, Fauth-Bühler, M, Frank, J, Juraeva, D, Witt, SH, Degenhardt, F, Hofmann, A, Heilmann-Heimbach, S and Kiefer, F (2016) Genome-wide association study of pathological gambling. European Psychiatry 36, 38–46.10.1016/j.eurpsy.2016.04.001Google Scholar
Lesieur, HR and Blume, SB (1987) The South Oaks Gambling Screen (SOGS): A new instrument for the identification of pathological gamblers. American Journal of Psychiatry 144, 1184–1188.Google Scholar
Lind, PA, Zhu, G, Montgomery, GW, Madden, PAF, Heath, AC, Martin, NG and Slutske, WS (2013) Genome-wide association study of a quantitative disordered gambling trait. Addiction Biology 18, 511–522.10.1111/j.1369-1600.2012.00463.xGoogle Scholar
Lobo, DS, Aleksandrova, L, Knight, J, Casey, DM, El-Guebaly, N, Nobrega, JN and Kennedy, JL (2015) Addiction-related genes in gambling disorders: new insights from parallel human and pre-clinical models. Molecular Psychiatry 20, 1002–1010.10.1038/mp.2014.113Google Scholar
Lynskey, MT, Agrawal, A, Henders, A, Nelson, EC, Madden, PA and Martin, NG (2012) An Australian twin study of cannabis and other illicit drug use and misuse, and other psychopathology. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15, 631–641.10.1017/thg.2012.41Google Scholar
Maier, RM, Visscher, PM, Robinson, MR and Wray, NR (2018) Embracing polygenicity: a review of methods and tools for psychiatric genetics research. Psychological Medicine 48, 1055–1067.10.1017/S0033291717002318Google Scholar
Muthén, LK and Muthén, BO (2017) Mplus user's guide: statistical analysis with latent variables: user's guide. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
Neale, MC and Cardon, LR (1992) Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Neale, MC, Eaves, LJ and Kendler, KS (1994) The power of the classical twin study to resolve variation in threshold traits. Behavior Genetics 24, 239–258.10.1007/BF01067191Google Scholar
Odlaug, BL, Marsh, PJ, Won Kim, S and Grant, JE (2011) Strategic vs nonstrategic gambling: characteristics of pathological gamblers based on gambling preference. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry 23, 105–112.Google Scholar
Petry, NM, Stinson, FS and Grant, BF (2005) Comorbidity of DSM-IV pathological gambling and other psychiatric disorders: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 66, 564–574.10.4088/JCP.v66n0504Google Scholar
Piasecki, TM (2006) Relapse to smoking. Clinical Psychology Review 26, 196–215.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (1999) Gambling, Report No. 150. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.Google Scholar
Productivity Commission (2010) Gambling, Report No. 50. Commonwealth of Australia: Canberra.Google Scholar
Psychiatric GWAS Consortium Steering Committee (2009) A framework for interpreting genome-wide association studies of psychiatric disorders. Molecular Psychiatry, 14, 10–17.10.1038/mp.2008.126Google Scholar
Satorra, A and Bentler, PM (2010) Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika 75, 243–248.Google Scholar
Savage, JE, Slutske, WS and Martin, NG (2014) Personality and gambling involvement: a person-centered approach. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors 28, 1198–1211.Google Scholar
Simons, DJ (2014) The value of direct replication. Perspectives on Psychological Science 9, 76–80.Google Scholar
Slutske, WS and Richmond-Rakerd, LS (2014) 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. Addiction 109, 120–127.Google Scholar
Slutske, WS, Meier, MH, Zhu, G, Statham, DJ, Blaszczynski, A and Martin, NG (2009) The Australian Twin Study of Gambling (OZ-GAM): rationale, sample description, predictors of participation, and a first look at sources of individual differences in gambling involvement. Twin Research and Human Genetics 12, 63–78.Google Scholar
Slutske, WS, Zhu, G, Meier, MH and Martin, NG (2010) Genetic and environmental influences on disordered gambling in men and women. Archives of General Psychiatry 67, 624–630.10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2010.51Google Scholar
Slutske, WS, Ellingson, JM, Richmond-Rakerd, LS, Zhu, G and Martin, NG (2013) Shared genetic vulnerability for disordered gambling and alcohol use disorder in Men and Women: evidence from a National Community-based Australian Twin Study. Twin Research and Human Genetics 16, 525–534.10.1017/thg.2013.11Google Scholar
Slutske, WS, Deutsch, AR, Statham, DJ and Martin, NG (2015) Local area disadvantage and gambling involvement and disorder: evidence for gene-environment correlation and interaction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 124, 606–622.Google Scholar
Strawbridge, RJ, Ward, J, Cullen, B, Tunbridge, EM, Hartz, S, Bierut, L, Horton, A, Bailey, MES, Graham, N, Ferguson, A, Lyall, DM, Mackay, D, Pidgeon, LM, Cavanagh, J, Pell, JP, O'Donovan, M, Escott-Price, V, Harrison, PJ and Smith, DJ (2018) Genome-wide analysis of self-reported risk-taking behaviour and cross-disorder genetic correlations in the UK Biobank cohort. Translational Psychiatry 8, 39.10.1038/s41398-017-0079-1Google Scholar
Sullivan, PF, Agrawal, A, Bulik, CM, Andreassen, OA, Børglum, AD, Breen, G and Matthews, CA (2018) Psychiatric genomics: an update and an agenda. American Journal of Psychiatry 175, 15–27.Google Scholar
Tippmann-Peikert, M, Park, JG, Boeve, BF, Shepard, JW and Silber, MH (2007) Pathologic gambling in patients with restless legs syndrome treated with dopaminergic agonists. Neurology 68, 301–303.Google Scholar
van den Bos, R, Homberg, J and de Visser, L (2013) A critical review of sex differences in decision-making tasks: focus on the Iowa GambliZng Task. Behavioural Brain Research 238, 95–108.10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.002Google Scholar
van Holst, RJ, van den Brink, W, Veltman, DJ and Goudriaan, AE (2010) Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 34, 87–107.10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.07.007Google Scholar
Verhulst, B, Neale, MC and Kendler, KS (2015) The heritability of alcohol use disorders: a meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Medicine 45, 1061–1072.Google Scholar
Verweij, KJH, Zietsch, BP, Lynskey, MT, Medland, SE, Neale, MC, Martin, NG, Boomsma, DI and Vink, JM (2010) Genetic and environmental influences on cannabis use initiation and problematic use: a meta-analysis of twin studies. Addiction 105, 417–430.Google Scholar
Weintraub, D, Koester, J, Potenza, MN, Siderowf, AD, Stacy, M, Voon, V, Whetteckey, J, Wunderlich, GR and Lang, AE (2010) Impulse control disorders in Parkinson disease: a cross-sectional study of 3090 patients. Archives of Neurology 67, 589–595.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Davis et al. supplementary material

Davis et al. supplementary material 1

Download Davis et al. supplementary material(File)
File 15.3 KB