New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Is Baby's Stress Inherited from the Parents?

A gene may affect infant anxiety, but good parenting can overrule it

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Some babies stay calm when something changes in their life or environment, whereas others get fussy and fidget at even the slightest deviation from the norm. Researchers do not fully understand why some children are able to cope better with stress or whether kids’ response to such situations is influenced by parenting or genes. According to a new study, it is shaped by both.

Cathi Propper, a developmental psychologist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and her colleagues studied infants at several periods over their first year of life, inducing stress by separating them from their mothers. Using an electrocardiogram, the researchers determined the babies’ vagal tone, an indicator of how strongly the vagus nerve, which runs from the brain stem to most organs in the body, is suppressing heart rate. During stress, vagal tone decreases, allowing the heart to speed up and the body to handle the stressor. But some of the babies did not show this normal decrease in vagal tone during distressing periods; the researchers found that these infants who lacked an effective response at ages three and six months shared a particular variant of the DRD2 gene, which regulates receptors for the neurotransmitter dopamine. The variant has been associated with a decreased number of dopamine receptors in the brain and linked with risk-taking behavior, such as gambling, in adults. Infants in the study who had different versions of the gene showed a more typical response to stress.

But these genes are not destiny. The researchers also evaluated the parenting styles of the infants’ mothers. “Exposure over time to sensitive parenting seems to counteract the effects” of the higher-risk version of the gene, Propper says. By 12 months of age, infants with this gene variant whose needs were consistently attended to responded to stress just as effectively as did the babies with other versions of the gene.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Baby Stress".

SA Mind Vol 20 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Baby Stress” in SA Mind Vol. 20 No. 1 (), p. 9
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0209-9a

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe