I. Genotype-environment interaction in the schizophrenia spectrum: genetic liability and global family ratings in the Finnish Adoption Study

In the Finnish Adoption Study, a national sample of adoptees with high versus low genetic liability for schizophrenia spectrum disorders was indexed by DSM-III-R diagnoses of their biological, adopting-away mothers. The rearing-family environments of the adoptees were independently evaluated from global ratings of directly observed adoptive family relationships. The interaction of high genetic liability and dysfunction of the rearing families predicted highly significantly to schizophrenia spectrum disorder of the adoptees at 21-year follow-up. Either low genetic liability or healthy rearing protected against a spectrum outcomes for the adoptees. Initial adoptive parent diagnosis, as a proxy for rearing family dysfunction, predicted to adoptee outcome only as a trend.     

II. Genotype-environment interaction in the schizophrenia spectrum: qualitative observations

Previous reports from the Finnish Adoptive Family Study of Schizophrenia have documented significant interplay between genetics (G) and family rearing (E), leading to adoptee outcomes of schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Quantitative evidence for this interplay is significantly enhanced when both high genetic liability and severe environmental dysfunction are present. However, when either genetic liability is low or the rearing environment is healthy, the adoptees appear to be resiliently protected against a pathologic outcome. Nevertheless, exceptions to this pattern do occur. Six qualitative vignettes, together with quantitative measures and categorical diagnoses from the same families, illustrate how multiple methods partially confirm one another and also suggest where further exploration of gene-environment interaction is needed.     

Psychometric deviance measured by MMPI in adoptees at high risk for schizophrenia and their adoptive controls

Psychometric deviance in personality traits as assessed by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1982) was compared between adopted-away, high-risk (HR) offspring of schizophrenic biologic mothers and low-risk (LR) controls. A subsample of the Finnish Adoptive Family Study (Tienari et al., 2000) included 60 HR adoptees and 76 LR control adoptees who were tested by the MMPI before the onset of any psychiatric disorder at the mean age of 24 years. The HR group was found to be distinguishable based on deviant scores on the scales HOS and HYP, indicating emotional unresponsiveness, restricted affectivity, and decreased energy. These may also be considered possible premorbid and prodromal signs of future schizophrenia among the HR adoptees.     

Why Do People Engage in Collective Action? Revisiting the Role of Perceived Effectiveness

Research has shown limited support for the notion that perceived effectiveness of collective action is a predictor of intentions to engage in collective action. One reason may be that effectiveness has been in terms of whether the action will influence key decision makers. We argue that the effectiveness of collective action might be judged by other criteria, such as whether it influences third parties, builds an oppositional movement, and expresses values. Two hundred and thirty one attendees at a rally rated the effectiveness of the rally and their intentions to engage in future collective action. For those participants who were not members of an organization, intentions were linked to the perceived effectiveness of the rally in expressing values and influencing the public. For those who were members of an organization, intentions were linked only to the effectiveness of the rally in building an oppositional movement.