Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 45, Issue 2, pp 200–214 | Cite as

Replication of a Gene–Environment Interaction Via Multimodel Inference: Additive-Genetic Variance in Adolescents’ General Cognitive Ability Increases with Family-of-Origin Socioeconomic Status

  • Robert M. Kirkpatrick
  • Matt McGue
  • William G. Iacono
Original Research

Abstract

The present study of general cognitive ability attempts to replicate and extend previous investigations of a biometric moderator, family-of-origin socioeconomic status (SES), in a sample of 2,494 pairs of adolescent twins, non-twin biological siblings, and adoptive siblings assessed with individually administered IQ tests. We hypothesized that SES would covary positively with additive-genetic variance and negatively with shared-environmental variance. Important potential confounds unaddressed in some past studies, such as twin-specific effects, assortative mating, and differential heritability by trait level, were found to be negligible. In our main analysis, we compared models by their sample-size corrected AIC, and base our statistical inference on model-averaged point estimates and standard errors. Additive-genetic variance increased with SES—an effect that was statistically significant and robust to model specification. We found no evidence that SES moderated shared-environmental influence. We attempt to explain the inconsistent replication record of these effects, and provide suggestions for future research.

Keywords

Gene–environment interaction SES Multimodel inference General cognitive ability IQ Twin study Adoption study 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported in part by USPHS Grants from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (AA09367 and AA11886), the National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA05147, DA13240, and DA024417), and the National Institute on Mental Health (MH066140). The first author (RMK) was supported by a Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from the University of Minnesota Graduate School and by grant DA026119 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. The authors acknowledge the assistance of Niels G. Waller and Saonli Basu, who provided helpful comments on an early draft of this paper. The first author gives his special thanks to Scott I. Vrieze and Joshua D. Isen for thought-provoking discussion of model-selection and of the main effects of SES, respectively.

Conflict of interest

Robert M. Kirkpatrick, Matt McGue, and William G. Iacono declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

The MTFS and SIBS studies were reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Minnesota. Written informed assent or consent was obtained from all participants, with parents providing written consent for their minor children.

Supplementary material

10519_2014_9698_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (111 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 111 kb)

References

  1. Azen R, Budescu DV (2003) The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychol Methods 8(2):129–148. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.8.2.129 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Bartels LM (1997) Specification uncertainty and model averaging. Am J Polit Sci 41(2):641–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bates TC, Lewis GJ, Weiss A (2013) Childhood socioeconomic status amplifies genetic effects on adult intelligence. Psychol Sci 24(10):2111–2116. doi: 10.1177/0956797613488394
  4. Boker S, Neale M, Maes H, Wilde M et al. (2011) OpenMx: an open source extended structural equation modeling framework. Psychometrika, 76(2), 306–317. doi:  10.1007/S11336-010-9200-6. Software and documentation available at http://openmx.psyc.virginia.edu/
  5. Bouchard TJ (2004) Genetic influence on human psychological traits: a survey. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 13(4):148–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bouchard TJ, McGue M (1981) Familial studies of intelligence: a review. Science 212(4498):1055–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard TJ, McGue M (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. J Neurobiol 54:4–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Braveman PA, Cubbin C, Egerter S, Chideya S, Marchi KS, Metzler M, Posner S (2005) Socioeconomic status in health research: One size does not fit all. J Am Med Assoc 294(22):2879–2888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Breiman L (1992) The little bootstrap and other methods for dimensionality selection in regression: x-fixed prediction error. Journal of the American Statistical Association 87(419):738–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ (1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psychol Rev 101(4):568–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Browne MW (2000) Cross-validation methods. J Math Psychol 44:108–132. doi: 10.1006/jmps.1999.1279 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2001) Kullback-Leibler information as a basis for strong inference in ecological studies. Wildl Res 28:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2002) Model selection and multimodel inference: a practical information-theoretic approach, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: Understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociol Methods Res 33(2):261–304. doi: 10.1177/0049124104268644 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cherny SS, Cardon LR, Fulker DW, DeFries JC (1992) Differential heritability across levels of cognitive ability. Behav Genet 22(2):153–162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Deary IJ, Spinath FM, Bates TC (2006) Genetics of intelligence. Eur J Hum Genet 14:690–700. doi: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201588 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. DeFries JC, Fulker DW (1985) Multiple regression analysis of twin data. Behav Genet 15(5):467–473CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. DeFries JC, Fulker DW (1988) Multiple regression analysis of twin data: Etiology of deviant scores versus individual differences. Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae 37:205–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Evans GW (2004) The environment of childhood poverty. Am Psychol 59(2):77–92. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.77 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Fischbein S (1980) IQ and social class. Intelligence 4:51–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Galton F (1869). Hereditary genius: an inquiry into its laws and consequences. London: MacMillan & Co. Retrieved from http://galton.org/
  22. Grant MD, Kremen WS, Jacobson KC et al (2010) Does parental education have a moderating effect on the genetic and environmental influences of general cognitive ability in early adulthood? Behav Genet 40:438–446. doi: 10.1007/s10519-010-9351-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanscombe KB, Trzaskowski M, Haworth CMA, Davis OSP, Dale PS, Plomin R (2012) Socioeconomic status (SES) and children’s intelligence (IQ): in a UK-representative sample SES moderates the environmental, not genetic, effect on IQ. PLoS ONE 7(2):e30320. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0030320 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Harden KP, Turkheimer E, Loehlin JC (2007) Genotype by environment interaction in adolescents’ cognitive aptitude. Behav Genet 37:273–283. doi: 10.1007/s10519-006-9113-4 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Hastie T, Tibshirani R, Friedman J (2009) The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction, 2nd edn. Springer Science + Business Media, New York. doi: 10.1007/b94608 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hollingshead AB (1957) Two factor index of social position. Hollingshead, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  27. Hurvich CM, Tsai C-L (1989) Regression and time series model selection in small samples. Biometrika 76(2):297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Iacono WG, McGue M (2002) Minnesota twin family study. Twin Res 5(5):482–487CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Iacono WG, Carlson SR, Taylor J, Elkins IJ, McGue M (1999) Behavioral disinhibition and the development of substance-use disorders: findings from the Minnesota twin family study. Dev Psychopathol 11:869–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kapetanios G, Labhard V, Price S (2008) Forecasting using Bayesian and information-theoretic model-averaging: An application to U.K. inflation. J Bus Econ Stat 26(1):33–41. doi: 10.1198/073500107000000232 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Keyes MA, Malone SM, Elkins IJ, Legrand LN, McGue M, Iacono WG (2009) The enrichment study of the Minnesota twin family study: increasing the yield of twin families at high risk for externalizing psychopathology. Twin Res Human Genet 12(5):489–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kirkpatrick RM, McGue M, Iacono WG (2009) Shared-environmental contributions to high cognitive ability. Behav Genet 39:406–416. doi: 10.1007/s10519-009-9265-0 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirkpatrick RM, McGue M, Iacono WG, Miller MB, Basu S, Pankratz N (2014) Low-frequency copy-number variants and general cognitive ability: no evidence of association. Intelligence 42:98–106. doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2013.11.005 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Kohler HP, Rodgers JL (2001) DF-analyses of heritability with double-entry twin data: asymptotic standard errors and efficient estimation. Behav Genet 31(2):179–191CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Kullback S, Leibler RA (1951) On information and sufficiency. Ann Math Stat 22(1):79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Loehlin JC, Harden KP, Turkheimer E (2009) The effect of assumptions about parental assortative mating and genotype-income correlation on estimates of genotype-environment interaction in the National Merit Twin Study. Behav Genet 39:165–169. doi: 10.1007/s10519-008-9253-9 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Lukacs PM, Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2009) Model selection bias and Freedman’s paradox. Ann Inst Stat Math 62:117–125. doi: 10.1007/s10463-009-0234-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCallum RC, Mar CM (1995) Distinguishing between moderator and quadratic effects in multiple regression. Psychol Bull 118(3):405–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McGue M, Bouchard TJ (1984) Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 14(4):325–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. McGue M, Keyes M, Sharma A, Elkins I, Legrand L, Johnson W, Iacono WG (2007) The environments of adopted and non-adopted youth: Evidence on range restriction from the Sibling Interaction and Behavior Study (SIBS). Behav Genet 37:449–462. doi: 10.1007/s10519-007-9142-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Myrianthopolous NC, French KS (1968) An application of the U.S. Bureau of the Census socioeconomic index to a large, diversified patient population. Soc Sci Med 2:283–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pawitan Y (2013) In all likelihood: statistical modelling and inference using likelihood. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  43. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Loehlin JC (1977) Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 84(2):309–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Price TS, Jaffee SR (2008) Effects of the family environment: Gene-environment interaction and passive gene-environment correlation. Dev Psychol 44(2):305–315. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.44.2.305 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Purcell S (2002) Variance components models for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Research 5(6):554–571CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rathouz PJ, Van Hulle CA, Rodgers JL, Waldman ID, Lahey BB (2008) Specification, testing, and interpretation of gene-by-measured environment interaction models in the presence of gene-environment correlation. Behav Genet 38:301–315. doi: 10.1007/s10519-008-9193-4 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Rijsdijk FV, Vernon PA, Boomsma DI (2002) Application of hierarchical genetic models to Raven and WAIS subtests: a Dutch twin study. Behav Genet 32(3):199–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Rodgers JL, Kohler HP (2005) Reformulating and simplifying the DF analysis model. Behav Genet 35(2):211–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rodgers JL, McGue M (1994) A simple algebraic demonstration of the validity of Defries-Fulker analysis in unselected samples with multiple kinship levels. Behav Genet 24(3):259–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Rowe DC, Jacobson KC, van den Oord EJCG (1999) Genetic and environmental influences on vocabulary IQ: parental educational level as moderator. Child Dev 70(5):1151–1162CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Scarr S (1992) Developmental theories for the 1990s: development and individual differences. Child Dev 63:1–19CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Scarr S, Weinberg RA (1978) The influence of “family background” on intellectual attainment. Am Sociol Rev 43(5):674–692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Scarr-Salapatek S (1971) Race, social class, and IQ. Science 174(4016):1285–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Shao J (1997) An asymptotic theory for linear model selection. Stat Sin 7:221–264Google Scholar
  55. Spearman C (1904) “General intelligence”, objectively determined and measured. Am J Psychol 15(2):201–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stone M (1977). An asymptotic equivalence of choice of model by cross-validation and Akaike’s criterion. J R Stat Soc Ser B (Methodol), 39(1):44–47Google Scholar
  57. Tucker-Drob EM, Harden KP, Turkheimer E (2009) Combining nonlinear biometric and psychometric models of cognitive abilities. Behav Genet 39:461–471. doi: 10.1007/s10519-009-9288-6 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Turkheimer E, Haley A, Waldron M, D’Onofrio B, Gottesman II (2003) Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychol Sci 14(6):623–628CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Uher R, Dragomirecka E, Papezova H (2006) Use of socioeconomic status in health research. J Am Med Assoc 295(15):1770CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Van den Ooord EJCG, Rowe DC (1998) An examination of genotype-environment interactions for academic achievement in an U.S. National Longitudinal Survey. Intelligence 25(3):205–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van der Sluis S, Willemsen G, de Geus EJC, Boomsma DI, Posthuma D (2008) Gene-environment interaction in adults’ IQ scores: measures of past and present environment. Behav Genet 38:348–360. doi: 10.1007/s10519-008-9212-5 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Van der Sluis S, Posthuma D, Dolan CV (2012) A note on false positives and power in G × E modelling of twin data. Behav Genet 42:170–186. doi: 10.1007/s10519-011-9480-3 CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert M. Kirkpatrick
    • 1
    • 2
  • Matt McGue
    • 1
  • William G. Iacono
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Institute for Psychiatric & Behavioral GeneticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations