Gender Differences in the Interaction between Polygenic Scores and Parental Overprotection on Creativity: A Genome-Wide Association Analysis

Si Si; Zhang Shun; Su Yan; Zhang Jinghuan

doi:10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260110

PDF(1813 KB)

Journal of Psychological Science ›› 2026, Vol. 49 ›› Issue (1) : 92-104. DOI: 10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260110

Gender Differences in the Interaction between Polygenic Scores and Parental Overprotection on Creativity: A Genome-Wide Association Analysis

Si Si, Zhang Shun, Su Yan, Zhang Jinghuan

Author information +

History +

Abstract

The debate about gender differences in creativity has never ceased, but conclusive evidence in favor of either gender has remained elusive. Nevertheless, in recent years, researchers have maintained a strong interest in revealing potential gender differences in creativity, and have attempted to find out the research for gender differences in creativity from the perspectives of “nature” and “nurture”, respectively. Currently, the use of molecular genetic techniques to identify genes associated with creativity and investigate their interactions with the environment (nurture) is a popular approach in creativity reserach. However, it is not known whether there is a gender-specific G×E effect (i.e., G×E×E effect) in the field of creativity. Parental overprotection is an important environmental factor affecting creativity, and its relationship with creativity may be influenced by plasticity genes. Studies have shown that this plasticity is not only affected by a single gene locus, but rather by multiple related genes acting together. Individual cumulative genetic plasticity may be the underlying cause of gender differences in mental development. Therefore, to investigate gender differences in creativity and to reveal the causes of gender differences in creativity, the present study is intended to adopt a genome-wide research strategy to investigate the mechanisms by which multiple genes (polygenic score, PGS) and parental overprotection (father and mother overprotection) interact to influence gender differences in creativity, from the perspective of the combined effects of “nature” and “nurture”.
The participants in this study were drawn from two samples. Sample 1 included 1,324 undergraduate students (Mage=18.56 years, 37.69% male) while sample 2 included 375 undergraduate students (Mage=18.80 years, 45.87% male). Both samples were of Han Chinese descent only and were free from reported neurological or psychiatric disorders. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of our university, and all participants provided informed consent to participate. Before genotyping, participants were required to undergo psychological testing. Subsequently, samples of their peripheral venous blood were collected for genotyping purposes. Participants' creativity and parental overprotection were assessed using the Runco Creativity Assessment Battery (rCAB) and the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI). Genotyping was conducted using the custom Illumina Infinium® Asian Screening Array (ASA-CHIA) and the Affymetrix Axiom® Genome-Wide CHB 1 and 2 arrays, respectively. Polygenic score (PGS) analysis was used to elucidate the effect of PGS on creativity. Then, multiple linear regression was conducted to test the three-way interaction among PGS, parental overprotection, and gender. To test the reliability of our results, approximately half of the samples were randomly selected and replicated 1,000 times using Bootstrap to conduct regression analyses for internal validation. Finally, the regions of significance (RoS) test was applied to explore whether gender-specific gene-environment interaction conformed to the differential susceptibility model.
The results revealed that the PGS constructed using the estimate derived from sample 1 significantly predicted verbal and figural creativity in sample 2. Besides, the three-way interaction between PGS, maternal overprotection, and gender on verbal creativity was significant. PGS was associated with verbal creativity when maternal overprotection of males was low, but PGS was not associated with verbal creativity when maternal overprotection of males was high. Finally, further examination of the gene-environment interaction model revealed that the PGS × maternal overprotection effect aligned with the differential susceptibility model. Specifically, males with a high PGS score were more susceptible to maternal overprotection. When maternal overprotection was low, these males tended to perform better; however, when it was high, their performance suffered. Accordingly, differences in cumulative genetic plasticity may be the main cause of gender differences in creativity.
Overall, these results provided a more precise explanation for the gender differences in creativity, not only emphasizing the need to examine the combined effects of genes associated with creativity but also highlighting the significance and value of integrating the use of multiple genes as well as important environmental indicators to reveal the mechanisms underlying the occurrence of creativity in individuals of different genders. In particular, given that the different “genetic plasticity” of individuals, personalized creativity intervention programs should be developed.

Key words

creativity / gender differences / genome-wide study / parental overprotection / polygenic score (PGS)-environment interaction

Cite this article

EndNote

Ris (Procite)

Bibtex

Download Citations

Si Si, Zhang Shun, Su Yan, Zhang Jinghuan. Gender Differences in the Interaction between Polygenic Scores and Parental Overprotection on Creativity: A Genome-Wide Association Analysis[J]. Journal of Psychological Science. 2026, 49(1): 92-104 https://doi.org/10.16719/j.cnki.1671-6981.20260110

References

[1] 侯珂, 张云运, 骆方, 任萍. (2017). 邻里环境、父母监控和不良同伴交往对青少年问题行为的影响.心理发展与教育, 33(1), 85-94.
[2] 单梦肖, 高岩, 李文福, 徐芳芳, 李功迎. (2019). 父母教养方式对创造性思维的影响: 性别的调节作用. 中国健康心理学杂志, 27(9), 1430-1435.
[3] 孙浩, 司思, 廖真真, 张景焕. (2022). TPH2基因rs4570625多态性和母亲权威教养对创造力的交互作用. 心理科学, 45(5), 1136-1143.
[4] 吴旻, 谢燕, 李妍. (2024). 母亲温暖和父亲温暖教养的一致性与农村儿童亲社会行为: 心理资本的中介作用. 心理与行为研究, 22(2), 251-257.
[5] 张景焕, 付萌萌, 辛于雯, 陈佩佩, 沙莎. (2020). 小学高年级学生创造力的发展: 性别差异及学校支持的作用. 心理学报, 52(9), 1057-1070.
[6] Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review, 76(5), 76-186.
[7] Belsky, J., & Beaver, K. M. (2011). Cumulative-genetic plasticity, parenting and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(5), 619-626.
[8] Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). Beyond diathesis-stress: Differential susceptibility to environmental influence. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 885-908.
[9] Benyamin B., Pourcain B., Davis O. S., Davies G., Hansell N. K., Brion M. J., & Haworth, C. M. A. (2014). Childhood intelligence is heritable, highly polygenic and associated with FNBP1L. Molecular Psychiatry, 19(2), 253-258.
[10] Choi S. W., Mak T. S. H., & O' Reilly, P. F. (2020). Tutorial: A guide to performing polygenic risk score analyses. Nature Protocols, 15(9), 2759-2772.
[11] Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
[12] Cowan P. A., Cowan C. P., & Kerig P. K. (2014). Mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters: Gender differences in family formation and parenting style. In P. A. Cowan, D. Field, D. A. Hansen, A. skolnick, & G. E. Swanson (Eds.), Family, Self, and Society (pp. 165-195). Routledge.
[13] Defo J., Awany D., & Ramesar R. (2023). From SNP to pathway-based GWAS meta-analysis: Do current meta-analysis approaches resolve power and replication in genetic association studies? Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24(1), bbac600.
[14] Delaneau O., Zagury J. F., Marchini J. (2013). Improved whole chromosome phasing for disease and population genetic studies. Nature Methods, 10(1), 5-6.
[15] de Zeeuw E. L., van Beijsterveldt C. E., Glasner T. J., Bartels M., Ehli E. A., Davies G. E., & Boomsma D. I. (2014). Polygenic scores associated with educational attainment in adults predict educational achievement and ADHD symptoms in children. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 165(6), 510-520.
[16] Disner S. G., McGeary J. E., Wells T. T., Ellis A. J., & Beevers C. G. (2014). 5-HTTLPR, HTR1A, and HTR2A cumulative genetic score interacts with mood reactivity to predict mood-congruent gaze bias. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 14(4), 1259-1270.
[17] Erdfelder E., Faul F., & Buchner A. (1996). GPOWER: A general power analysis program. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28(1), 1-11.
[18] Fichnova, K. (2002). Creative abilities of preschool-age boys and girls. Psychologia a Patopsychologia Dietata, 37(4), 306-314.
[19] Fusi G., Ferrari E., Zanetti M., Crepaldi M., Bersanini C., Paladino A., Colautti L., & Rusconi M. L. (2020). A comparison of divergent thinking abilities between healthy elderly subjects and MCI patients: Preliminary findings and implications. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 738.
[20] Gu, C. (2012). The effect of parenting styles and personality on primary school children' s social creativity and social preferences. Chinese Journal of Special Education, 149(11), 78-83.
[21] Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (2010). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 61(1), 569-598.
[22] Hoeve M., Dubas J. S., Eichelsheim V. I., Van der Laan, P. H., Smeenk W., & Gerris J. R. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749-775.
[23] Howie B. N., Donnelly P., Marchini J. (2009). A flexible and accurate genotype imputation method for the next generation of genome-wide association studies. PLoS Genetics. 5(6), e1000529.
[24] Jiang W., Shang S., & Su Y. (2015). Genetic influences on insight problem solving: The role of catechol-O-methyltransferase (COMT) gene polymorphisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1569.
[25] Kappel, T. A., & Rubenstein, A. H. (1999). Creativity in design: The contribution of information technology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(2), 132-143.
[26] Keltikangas-Järvinen L., Pulkki-Råback L., Elovainio M., Raitakari O. T., Viikari J., & Lehtimäki T. (2009). DRD2 c32806t modifies the effect of child-rearing environment on adulthood novelty seeking. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B: Neuropsychiatric Genetics, 150B(3), 389-394.
[27] Kim H., Ahn Y., Yoon J., Jung K., Kim S., Shim I., & Won H. H. (2024). Genome-wide association analyses using machine learning-based phenotyping reveal genetic architecture of occupational creativity and overlap with psychiatric disorders. Psychiatry Research, 333, 115753.
[28] Laible, D. J., & Carlo, G. (2004). The differential relations of maternal and paternal support and control to adolescent social competence, self-worth, and sympathy. Journal of Adolescent Research, 19(6), 759-782.
[29] Leclair J., Janusonis S., Kim H. S. (2014). Gene-culture interactions: A multi-gene approach. Culture and Brain, 2, 122-140.
[30] Li H., Hou X., Liang Y., Xu F., Zhang X., Cui P., Xing G. B., Wang X. J., & Jiang W. (2021). Gene-based tests of a genome-wide association study dataset highlight novel multiple sclerosis risk genes. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 15, 614528.
[31] Li H., Zhang C., Cai X., Wang L., Luo F., Ma Y., Li, M. & Xiao, X. (2020). Genome-wide association study of creativity reveals genetic overlap with psychiatric disorders, risk tolerance, and risky behaviors. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 46(5), 1317-1326.
[32] Liu C., Zhang H., & Zhang L. (2013). The influence of parental rearing style on students' creativity tendency and self-efficacy. China Journal of Health Psychology, 21(4), 589-591.
[33] Liu Z., Zhang J., Xie X., Rolls E. T., Sun J., Zhang K., Jiao Z. Y., Chen Q. L., & Feng J. (2018). Neural and genetic determinants of creativity. NeuroImage, 174, 164-176.
[34] Matud M. P., Rodríguez C., & Grande J. (2007). Gender differences in creative thinking. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 1137-1147.
[35] Marees A. T., De Kluiver H., Stringer S., Vorspan F., Curis E., Marie-Claire C., & Derks E. M. (2018). A tutorial on conducting genome-wide association studies: Quality control and statistical analysis. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 27(2), e1608.
[36] Mekki Y., Guillemot V., Lemaître H., Carrión-Castillo A., Forkel S., Frouin V., & Philippe C. (2022). The genetic architecture of language functional connectivity. NeuroImage, 249, 118795.
[37] Monroe, S. M., Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: Implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 406-425.
[38] Neubauer A. C., Grabner R. H., Fink A., & Neuper C. (2005). Intelligence and neural efficiency: Further evidence of the influence of task content and sex on the brain-IQ relationship. Cognitive Brain Research, 25(1), 217-225.
[39] Ober C., Loisel D. A., & Gilad Y. (2008). Sex-specific genetic architecture of human disease. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9(12), 911-922.
[40] Parker G., Tupling H., & Brown L. B. (1979). A parental bonding instrument. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 52(3), 1-10.
[41] Perry B. L., Pescosolido B. A., Bucholz K., Edenberg H., Kramer J., Kuperman S., & Nurnberger J. I. (2013). Gender-specific gene-environment interaction in alcohol dependence: The impact of daily life events and GABRA2. Behavior Genetics, 43(5), 402-414.
[42] Price A. L., Patterson N. J., Plenge R. M., Weinblatt M. E., Shadick N. A., & Reich D. (2006). Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies. Nature Genetics, 38(8), 904-909.
[43] Rabenstein R. L., Addy N. A., Caldarone B. J., Asaka Y., Gruenbaum L. M., Peters L. L., & Picciotto M. R. (2005). Impaired synaptic plasticity and learning in mice lacking β-adducin, an actin-regulating protein. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(8), 2138-2145.
[44] Rietveld C. A., Conley D., Eriksson N., Esko T., Medland S. E., Vinkhuyzen A. A., & Social Science Genetics Association Consortium. (2014). Replicability and robustness of genome-wide-association studies for behavioral traits. Psychological Science, 25(11), 1975-1986.
[45] Roisman G. I., Newman D. A., Chris F. R., Haltigan J. D., Groh A. M., & Haydon K. C. (2012). Distinguishing differential susceptibility from diathesis-stress: Recommendations for evaluating interaction effects. Development and Psychopathology, 24, 389-409.
[46] Roshyara, N. R., Scholz, M. (2014). fcGENE: A versatile tool for processing and transforming SNP datasets. PLoS ONE, 9(7), e97589.
[47] Runco M. A., Cramond B., & Pagnani A. R. (2010). Gender and creativity. In J. C. Chrisler & D. R. Mccreary (Eds), Handbook of gender research in psychology: Volume 1: Gender research in general and experimental psychology (pp. 343-357). Springer New York.
[48] Saeki N., Fan X., & Van duesen L. (2001). A comparative study of creative thinking of American and Japanese college students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(1), 24-36.
[49] Shanahan M. J., Vaisey S., Erickson L. D., & Smolen A. (2008). Environmental contingencies and genetic propensities: Social capital, educational continuation, and dopamine receptor gene DRD2. American Journal of Sociology, 114(S1), S260-S286.
[50] Si S., Su Y., Zhang S., & Zhang J. (2020b). Genetic susceptibility to parenting style: DRD2 and COMT influence creativity. NeuroImage, 213, 116681.
[51] Si S., Zhang S., & Zhang J. (2020a). DRD2 Taq IA polymorphism interacts with parenting in predicting creativity: Evidence of differential susceptibility. Creativity Research Journal, 32(3), 274-286.
[52] Tang C., Duan Q., & Long H. (2022). How do parents influence student creativity? Evidence from a large-scale survey in China. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 46, 101134.
[53] Taylor, C. L., & Barbot, B. (2021). Gender differences in creativity: Examining the greater male variability hypothesis in different domains and tasks. Personality and Individual Differences, 174, 110661.
[54] Toyoshima K., Inoue T., Masuya J., Fujimura Y., Higashi S., & Kusumi I. (2021). Interaction between childhood parental bonding and affective temperaments on adulthood depressive symptoms. Journal of Affective Disorders Reports, 3, 100056.
[55] van Leeuwen E., Kanterakis A., Deelen P., Kattenberg M. V. (2015). Population-speciﬁc genotype imputations using minimac or IMPUTE2. Nature Protocols, 10(9), 1285-1296.
[56] Wang M., He L., Fan Y., Guo W., Zhang R., Wang Q., Zhang M. F., Yang X., & Gong P. (2023). Parental care interacts with dopamine β-hydroxylase gene in trait of forgiveness with differential susceptibility effect. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(7), 547-556.
[57] Werme J., van der Sluis S., Posthuma D., & de Leeuw, C. A. (2021). Genome-wide gene-environment interactions in neuroticism: An exploratory study across 25 environments. Translational Psychiatry, 11(1), 180.
[58] Yu Q., Si S., Zhang S., & Zhang J. (2020). Paternal indifference and neglect in early life and creativity: Exploring the moderating role of TPH1 genotype and offspring gender. PloS ONE, 15, e0221383.
[59] Zhang S., Yang X., Si S., & Zhang J. (2021). The neurobiological basis of divergent thinking: Insight from gene co-expression network-based analysis. NeuroImage, 245, 118762.
[60] Zhang S., Zhao D., Zhang J., Mao Y., Kong L., Zhang Y., Liang B., Sun X. X., & Xu C. (2019). BasePhasing: A highly efficient approach for preimplantation genetic haplotyping in clinical application of balanced translocation carriers. BMC Medical Genomics, 12(1), 1-10.
[61] Zhang W., Zou H., & Li X. (2011). Current status of adolescents parental monitoring and its effect on their social adjustment. Psychological Development and Education, 27(3), 267-273.
[62] Zhao, X., & Yang, J. (2021). Fostering creative thinking in the family: The importance of parenting styles. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100920.