FED- CEPECE Seminar: “Unpacking Gene–Environment Interplay in Substance Use and Mental Health”

On January 27, 2026, the Centre for Educational Psychology and Early Childhood Education (CEPECE) of the Faculty of Education at the University of Macau, was honored to host Jinni Su, Associate Professor from the Department of Psychology at Arizona State University. The seminar was opened by Prof. Nan Zhou, the Director of CEPECE, who warmly introduced and welcomed Prof. Su to the Faculty of Education. Prof. Su then delivered a thought-provoking research talk entitled “Unpacking Gene–Environment Interplay in Substance Use and Mental Health,” drawing a large audience of faculty members, postgraduate students, and researchers from related disciplines.

Prof. Su began by situating her work within a pressing global and regional public health context. Citing recent large-scale epidemiological evidence, she highlighted the high prevalence of substance use disorders and mental health problems among adults in the United States, as well as emerging data from Macau showing substantial proportions of adults at moderate to high risk for depression and anxiety. These patterns underscore the urgency of understanding why some individuals are more vulnerable than others—and, critically, what can be done to promote resilience.

The core of Prof. Su’s presentation focused on genetically informed research approaches and how they advance our understanding of substance use and mental health. She first introduced classic twin studies as a foundational method for disentangling genetic and environmental influences, explaining how phenotypic variance can be decomposed into additive genetic (A), shared environmental (C), and non-shared environmental (E) components. Building on this foundation, Prof. Su then walked the audience through advances in molecular genetics, including genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and the construction of genome-wide polygenic scores (GPS). A key takeaway emphasized throughout the talk was that complex behavioral and psychological outcomes are influenced not by single genes, but by many genetic variants, each with very small effects.
Crucially, Prof. Su stressed that genes are not destiny. A major theme of the lecture was gene–environment interaction (G×E), demonstrating how environmental contexts can either exacerbate or buffer genetic risk. Drawing on her own empirical work and landmark studies in the field, she illustrated how positive environmental factors, such as high parental monitoring, strong social support, and cohesive communities, can attenuate genetic risk for substance use and mental health problems. In contrast, adverse contexts, including peer deviance, chronic stress, and social marginalization, may amplify underlying genetic vulnerabilities.

In addition to G×E, Prof. Su introduced the audience to gene–environment correlation (rGE), a complementary process through which genetic differences shape individuals’ exposure to particular environments. She presented evidence showing that genetic predispositions related to externalizing behaviors or depression are associated with greater family conflict and more deviant peer affiliations, highlighting the importance of accounting for genetic influences when interpreting environmental effects.
A particularly impactful portion of the talk addressed cultural diversity in genetically informed research. Prof. Su discussed the longstanding “diversity problem” in genetic studies, which have disproportionately focused on individuals of European ancestry, limiting generalizability. She argued for broadening the conceptualization of “environment” by integrating sociocultural experiences, such as racial and ethnic discrimination, into gene–environment research. Her recent work demonstrating that perceived discrimination can moderate genetic influences on adolescent psychopathology exemplified this culturally informed approach.
In closing, Prof. Su explored the implications of gene–environment research for prevention and intervention, noting growing evidence that well-designed interventions can buffer genetic risk. While she cautioned that polygenic scores are not yet ready for routine clinical use, she outlined a forward-looking vision in which genetic information may eventually support personalized prevention, education, and counseling efforts, accompanied by careful ethical considerations.

The session concluded with a lively Q&A discussion, during which the audiences actively raised questions about methodological challenges, cultural considerations, and the future integration of genetic information into educational and psychological interventions. Prof. Su responded thoughtfully, offering clarifications, sharing practical insights from her research experience, and encouraging interdisciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration.