Behavior Genetics

, Volume 45, Issue 6, pp 622–634 | Cite as

Twin Differentiation of Cognitive Ability Through Phenotype to Environment Transmission: The Louisville Twin Study

  • Christopher R. Beam
  • Eric Turkheimer
  • William T. Dickens
  • Deborah Winders Davis
Original Research


The Louisville Twin Study is one of the most intensive twin studies of cognitive ability. The repeated measurements of the twins are ideal for testing developmental twin models that allow for the accumulation of gene–environment correlation via a (P⇒E) transmission process to explain twins’ divergence in mean ability level over time. Using full-scale IQ scores from 566 pairs of twins (MZ = 278; DZ = 288), we tested whether a P⇒E transmission model provided better representation of actual developmental processes than a genetic simplex model. We also addressed whether the induced gene–environment correlation alters the meaning of the latent nonshared environmental factors with a simple numerical method for interpreting nonshared environmental factors in the context of P⇒E transmission. The results suggest that a P⇒E model provided better fit to twins’ FSIQ data than a genetic simplex model and the meaning of the nonshared environment was preserved in the context of P⇒E.


Louisville Twin Study Cognitive development Intelligence Genetic simplex Nonshared environment 


  1. Beam CR, Turkheimer E (2013) Phenotype–environment correlations in longitudinal twin models. Dev Psychopathol 25(1):7–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beam CR, Emery RE, Reynolds CA, Gatz M, Turkheimer E, Pedersen N (2015) Widowhood and the stability of late life depressive symptomatology in the swedish adoption twin study of aging. Behav Genet. doi:10.1007/s10519-015-9733-7 Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner U (1994) Ecological models of human development. In: Gauvin M, Cole M (eds) Readings on the development of children. Freeman, New York, pp 37–43Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner U, Ceci SJ (1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psych Rev 101(4):568–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Browne MW, Cudeck R (1992) Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Soc Methods Res 21(2):230–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burnham KP, Anderson DR (2004) Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Soc Methods Res 33(2):261–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Kort JM, Dolan CV, Boomsma DI (2012) Accommodation of genotype–environment covariance in a longitudinal twin design. Neth J Psychol 67(3):81–90Google Scholar
  8. de Kort J, Dolan C, Kan KJ, van Beijsterveldt C, Bartels M, Boomsma D (2014) Can GE-covariance originating in phenotype to environment transmission account for the Flynn Effect? J Intel 2(3):82–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dickens WT, Flynn JR (2001) Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychol Rev 108(2):346–369CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dickens WT, Turkheimer E, Beam CR (2011) The social dynamics of the expression of genes for cognitive ability. In: Kendler KS, Jaffee S, Romer D (eds) The dynamic genome and mental health: the role of genes and environments in youth development. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 103–127Google Scholar
  11. Dolan CV, de Kort JM, van Beijsterveldt TCEM, Bartels M, Boomsma DI (2014) GE covariance through phenotype to environment transmission: an assessment in longitudinal twin data and application to childhood anxiety. Behav Genet 44(3):240–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eaves LJ, Krystyna L, Martin NG, Jinks JL (1977) A progressive approach to non-additivity and genotype–environmental covariance in the analysis of human differences. Br J Math Stat Psychol 30:1–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Eaves LJ, Long J, Heath AC (1986) A theory of developmental change in quantitative phenotypes applied to cognitive development. Behav Genet 16(1):143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbein S (1978) Heredity–environment interaction in the development of twins. Int J Behav Dev 1(4):313–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gottlieb G (2003) On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Dev 46(6):337–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McArdle JJ (1986) Latent variable growth within behavior genetic models. Behav Genet 16(1):163–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McArdle JJ, Prescott CA (2005) Mixed-effects variance components models for biometric family analyses. Behav Genet 35(5):631–652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McCarthy D (1972) McCarthy scales of children’s abilities. Psychological Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Mcgue M, Christensen K (2002) The heritability of level and rate-of-change in cognitive functioning in Danish twins aged 70 years and older. Exp Aging Res 28:435–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2012) Mplus user’s guide. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. Plomin R, Spinath FM (2004) Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. J Personal Soc Psychol 86(1):112–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. R Core Team (2015) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  23. Revelle W (2015) Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Version = 1.5.4
  24. Tucker-Drob EM, Rhemtulla M, Harden KP, Turkheimer E, Fask D (2011) Emergence of a Gene x socioeconomic status interaction on infant mental ability between 10 months and 2 years. Psychol Sci 22(1):125–133PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Turkheimer E (2004) Spinach and ice cream: why social science is so difficult. In: DiLalla L (ed) Behavior genetics principles: perspectives in development, personality, and psychopathology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp 161–189Google Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Wechsler D (1967) Wechsler preschool and primary scale of intelligence. Psychological Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Wechsler D (1974) Wechsler intelligence scale for children-revised. Psychological Corporation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson RS (1983) The Louisville Twin Study: developmental synchronies in behavior. Child Dev 54(2):298–316CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilson RS (1986) Continuity and change in cognitive ability profile. Behav Genet 16(1):45–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Zonderman AB (1986) Twins, families, and the psychology of individual differences: the legacy of Steven G. Vandenberg. Behav Genet 16(1):11–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departments of Psychology and GerontologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.University of VirginiaCharlottesvilleUSA
  3. 3.Northeastern UniversityBostonUSA
  4. 4.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations