Behavior Genetics

, Volume 42, Issue 2, pp 221–233 | Cite as

The Complexity of Personality: Advantages of a Genetically Sensitive Multi-Group Design

  • Elisabeth Hahn
  • Frank M. Spinath
  • Thomas Siedler
  • Gert G. Wagner
  • Jürgen Schupp
  • Christian Kandler
Original Research


Findings from many behavioral genetic studies utilizing the classical twin design suggest that genetic and non-shared environmental effects play a significant role in human personality traits. This study focuses on the methodological advantages of extending the sampling frame to include multiple dyads of relatives. We investigated the sensitivity of heritability estimates to the inclusion of sibling pairs, mother–child pairs and grandparent–grandchild pairs from the German Socio-Economic Panel Study in addition to a classical German twin sample consisting of monozygotic- and dizygotic twins. The resulting dataset contained 1.308 pairs, including 202 monozygotic and 147 dizygotic twin pairs, along with 419 sibling pairs, 438 mother–child dyads, and 102 grandparent–child dyads. This genetically sensitive multi-group design allowed the simultaneous testing of additive and non-additive genetic, common and specific environmental effects, including cultural transmission and twin-specific environmental influences. Using manifest and latent modeling of phenotypes (i.e., controlling for measurement error), we compare results from the extended sample with those from the twin sample alone and discuss implications for future research.


Personality Genetics Structural modeling Twins 


  1. Arbuckle JL (2006) Amos 7.0 user’s guide. SPSS, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  2. Becker A, Busjahn A, Faulhaber H-D, Bähring S, Robertson J, Schuster H, Luft FC (1997) Twin zygosity: automated determination with microsatellites. J Reprod Med 42:260–266PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bleidorn W, Kandler C, Riemann R, Angleitner A, Spinath F (2009) Patterns and sources of adult personality development: growth curve analyses of the NEO-PI-R scales in a longitudinal twin study. J Pers Soc Psychol 97:142–155PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borkenau P, Riemann R, Angleitner A, Spinath F (2001) Genetic and environmental influences on observed personality: evidence from the German Observational Study of Adult Twins. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:655–668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bouchard TJ Jr, Loehlin JC (2001) Genes, evolution, and personality. Behav Genet 31:243–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. J Neurobiol 54:4–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard TJ Jr, Propping P (eds) (1993) Twins as a tool of behaviour genetics. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  8. Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, McGue M, Segal NL, Tellegen A (1990) Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Science 250:223–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Costa PT Jr, Mc Crae RR (1992) Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, OdessaGoogle Scholar
  10. Costa PT Jr, McCrae RR (1985) The NEO personality inventory manual. Psychological Assessment Resources, OdessaGoogle Scholar
  11. Coventry WL, Keller MC (2005) Estimating the extent of parameter bias in the classical twin design: a comparison of parameter estimates from Extended Twin-Family and classical twin designs. Twin Res Hum Genet 8:214–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dehne M, Schupp J (2007) Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP)—Konzept, Umsetzung und empirische Eigenschaften. Research Notes No. 26. DIW, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  13. Eaves LJ, Eysenck HJ, Martin NG (1989) Genes, culture and personality: an empirical approach. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Eaves L, Foley D, Silberg J (2003) Has the “equal environments” assumption been tested in twin studies? Twin Res 6:486–489Google Scholar
  15. Eaves L, Heath A, Martin N, Maes H, Neale M, Kendler K, Kirk K, Corey L (1999) Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30,000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Res 2:62–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans DM, Martin NG (2000) The validity of twin studies. GeneScreen 1:77–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Falconer DS (1960) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Ronald Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Farber SL (1981) Identical twins reared apart: a reanalysis. Basic Books Inc, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Gerlitz J-Y, Schupp J (2005) Zur Erhebung der Big-Five-basierten Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im SOEP. Dokumentation der Instrumententwicklung BFI-S auf Basis des SOEP-Pretests. Research notes 2005-4. DIW, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  20. Jang KL, McCrae RR, Angleitner A, Riemann R, Livesley WJ (1998) Heritability of facet level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: support for a hierarchical model of personality. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:1556–1565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. John OP, Donahue EM, Kentle RL (1991) The big five inventory—versions 4a and 54. Institute of Personality and Social Research, University of California, Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson AM, Vernon PA, Feiler AR (2008) Behavioral genetic studies of personality: an introduction and review of the results of 50+ years of research. In: Boyle GJ, Matthews G, Saklofske DH (eds) The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: volume 1 personality theories and models. SAGE, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. Kandler C, Riemann R, Kämpfe N (2009) Genetic and environmental mediation between measures of personality and family environment in twins reared together. Behav Genet 39:24–35PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kandler C, Bleidorn W, Riemann R, Spinath FM, Thiel W, Angleitner A (2010) Sources of cumulative continuity in personality: a longitudinal multiple-rater twin study. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:995–1008PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Keller MC, Coventry WL, Heath AC, Martin NG (2005) Widespread evidence for non-additive genetic variation in Cloninger’s and Eysenck’s personality dimensions using a twin plus sibling design. Behav Genet 35:707–721PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Keller MC, Medland SE, Duncan LE, Hatemi PK, Neale MC, Maes HHM, Eaves LJ (2009) Modeling extended twin family data I: description of the cascade model. Twin Res Hum Genet 12:8–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keller MC, Medland SE, Duncan LE (2010) Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models. Behav Genet 40:377–393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kendler KS, Neale MC, Kessler RC, Heath AC, Eaves LJ (1993) A test of the equal environment assumption in twin studies of psychiatric illness. Behav Genet 23:21–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kenrick DT, Funder DC (1988) Profiting from controversy: lessons from the person-situation debate. Am Psychol 43:23–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kline RB (1998) Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Koeppen-Schomerus G, Spinath F M, Plomin R (2003) Twins and non-twin siblings: different estimates of shared environmental influence in early childhood. Twin Res 6:97–105Google Scholar
  32. Krueger RF, Hicks BM, McGue M (2001) Altruism and antisocial behavior: independent tendencies, unique personality correlates, distinct etiologies. Psychol Sci 12:397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Krueger RF, South S, Johnson W, Iacono W (2008) The heritability of personality is not always 50%: gene-environment interactions and correlations between personality and parenting. J Pers 76:6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lake RI, Eaves LJ, Maes HH, Heath AC, Martin NG (2000) Further evidence against the environmental transmission of individual differences in neuroticism from a collaborative study of 45,850 twins and relatives on two continents. Behav Genet 30:223–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lewis IM, Watson BC, White KM (2009) Internet versus paper-and-pencil survey methods in psychological experiments: equivalence testing of participant responses to health-related messages. Aust J Psychol 61(2):107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  37. Loehlin JC, Willerman L, Horn JM (1985) Personality resemblances in adoptive families when the children are late-adolescent or adult. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:376–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Loehlin JC, McCrae RR, Costa PT, John OP (1998) Heritabilities of common and measure-specific components of the Big Five personality factors. J Res Pers 32:431–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Loehlin JC, Neiderhiser JM, Reiss D (2003) The behavior genetics of personality and the NEAD study. J Res Pers 37:373–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCrae RR (2001) Trait psychology and culture: exploring intercultural comparisons. J Pers 69:819–846PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr (1984) Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 14:325–343PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Medland SE, Keller MC (2009) Modeling extended twin family data II. Power associated with different family structures. Twin Res Hum Genet 12:19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, Maes HH (2004) Mx: statistical modeling, 6th edn. Department of Psychiatry, Richmond. Retrieved July 1, 2009, from
  44. Oniszczenko W, Angleitner A, Strelau J, Angert T (1993) The questionnaire of twins’ physical resemblance. Unpublished report. Department of Psychology, University of Warsaw, PolandGoogle Scholar
  45. Ozaki K, Toyoda H, Iwama N, Kudo S, Ando J (2011) Using non-normal SEM to resolve the ACDE model in the classical twin design. Behav Genet 41:329–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Plomin R (1994) Genetics and experience: the interplay between nature and nurture. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  47. Plomin R, Corley R, Caspi A, Fulker DW, DeFries JC (1998) Adoption results for self-reported personality: evidence for nonadditive genetic effects? J Pers Soc Psychol 75:211–218PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Plomin R, DeFries JC, McClearn GE, McGuffin P (2008) Behavioral genetics, 5th edn. Worth Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  49. Posthuma D, Boomsma DI (2000) A note on the statistical power in extended twin designs. Behav Genet 30(2):147–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reiss D, Neiderhiser JM, Hetherington E, Plomin R (2000) The relationship code: deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Rhee SH, Hewitt JK, Young SE, Corley RP, Crowley TJ, Stallings MC (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on substance initiation, use, and problem use in adolescents. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60:1256–1264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Scarr S, Carter-Saltzman L (1979) Twin method: defense of a critical assumption. Behav Genet 9:527–542PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spinath FM, Wolf H (2006) CoSMoS and TwinPaW: initial report on two new German twin studies. Twin Res Hum Genet 9:787–790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spinath FM, Angleitner A, Borkenau P, Riemann R, Wolf H (2002) German observational study of adult twins: a multimodal investigation of personality, temperament and cognitive ability. Twin Res 5:372–375PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stößel K, Kämpfe N, Riemann R (2006) The Jena twin registry and the Jena twin study of social attitudes (JeTSSA). Twin Res Hum Genet 9:783–786PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Twenge JM (2000) The age of anxiety? Birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:1007–1021PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wagner GG, Frick JR, Schupp J (2007) The German Socio-Economic Panel study (SOEP)—evolution, scope and enhancements. J Appl Soc Sci Stud 127(1):139–169Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elisabeth Hahn
    • 1
  • Frank M. Spinath
    • 1
  • Thomas Siedler
    • 2
  • Gert G. Wagner
    • 2
  • Jürgen Schupp
    • 2
  • Christian Kandler
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologySaarland UniversitySaarbrueckenGermany
  2. 2.German Institute of Economic Research (DIW Berlin)BerlinGermany
  3. 3.Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations