Interpreting Behavior Genetic Models: Seven Developmental Processes to Understand
Behavior genetic findings figure in debates ranging from urgent public policy matters to perennial questions about the nature of human agency. Despite a common set of methodological tools, behavior genetic studies approach scientific questions with potentially divergent goals. Some studies may be interested in identifying a complete model of how individual differences come to be (e.g., identifying causal pathways among genotypes, environments, and phenotypes across development). Other studies place primary importance on developing models with predictive utility, in which case understanding of underlying causal processes is not necessarily required. Although certainly not mutually exclusive, these two goals often represent tradeoffs in terms of costs and benefits associated with various methodological approaches. In particular, given that most empirical behavior genetic research assumes that variance can be neatly decomposed into independent genetic and environmental components, violations of model assumptions have different consequences for interpretation, depending on the particular goals. Developmental behavior genetic theories postulate complex transactions between genetic variation and environmental experiences over time, meaning assumptions are routinely violated. Here, we consider two primary questions: (1) How might the simultaneous operation of several mechanisms of gene–environment (GE)-interplay affect behavioral genetic model estimates? (2) At what level of GE-interplay does the ‘gloomy prospect’ of unsystematic and non-replicable genetic associations with a phenotype become an unavoidable certainty?
KeywordsGene–environment interplay Human agency Personality Cognitive ability Developmental genetics
The production of this manuscript was supported by a Grant from the John Templeton Foundation (JTF58792).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Daniel A. Briley, Jonathan Livengood, Jaime Derringer, Elliot M. Tucker-Drob, R. Chris Fraley, and Brent W. Roberts declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Human and animal rights and informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- Bates TC, Maher BS, Medland SE, McAloney K, Wright M, Hansell NK et al (2018) The nature of nurture: using a virtual-parent design to test parenting effects on children’s educational attainment in genotyped families. Twin Res 21:73–83Google Scholar
- Bell AM, Saltz JB (2017) Profitable interplay between the study of human and nonhuman personality. Eur J Personal 31:532–533Google Scholar
- Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL (2009) The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 31:532–533Google Scholar
- Briley DA, Livengood J, Derringer J (2018) Behavior genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. Eur J Personal 32:202–220Google Scholar
- Falconer DS (1960) An introduction to quantitative genetics. Ronald, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Haberstick BC, Boardman JD, Wagner B, Smolen A, Hewitt JK, Killeya-Jones LA et al (2016) Depression, stressful life events, and the impact of variation in the serotonin transporter: findings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health). PLoS ONE 11:e0148373CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Keller EF (1985) Reflections on gender and science. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
- Kelly K, Glymour C (2004) Why probability does not capture the logic of scientific justification. In: Hitchcock C (ed) Contemporary debates in the philosophy of science. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Kuczmarski RJ, Ogden CL, Guo SS, Grummer-Strawn LM, Flegal KM, Mei Z et al (2002) 2000 CDC growth charts for the United States: methods and development. DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 2002-1696Google Scholar
- Mõttus R, Briley DA, Zheng A, Mann FD, Engelhardt LE, Tackett JL et al. Kids becoming less alike: a behavioral genetic analysis of developmental increases in personality variance from childhood to adolescence. J Personal Soc Psychol. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323112699_Kids_becoming_less_alike_A_behavioral_genetic_analysis_of_developmental_increases_in_personality_variance_from_childhood_to_adolescence?enrichId=rgreq-6517f0bb889b3e63a2cf940f156fd788-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzMyMzExMjY5OTtBUzo2MDQyMjA4Njg4MTY4OTZAMTUyMTA2ODg4OTAwNA%3D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
- Nagel E (1967) The nature and aim of science. In: S Morgenbesser (ed) Philosophy of science today. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- NWEA (2015) 2015 NWEA MAP growth normative data. https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2015/11/Normative-Data-2015.pdf
- Popper K (1957) The aim of science. Ratio 1:24–35Google Scholar
- Sayood K (2005) Introduction to data compression. Elsevier, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Tucker-Drob EM (2017) Motivational factors as mechanisms of gene–environment transactions in cognitive development and academic achievement. In: Elliot A, Dweck C, Yeager D (eds) Handbook of competence and motivation, 2nd edn. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA (in press) Theoretical concepts in the genetics of personality development. In McAdams D, Shiner R, Tackett JL (eds), The Handbook of Personality DevelopmentGoogle Scholar
- Wallace C, Freeman P (1987) Estimation and inference by compact coding. J R Stat Soc B 49:240–251Google Scholar
- Yengo L, Robinson MR, Keller MC, Kemper KE, Yang Y, Trzaskowski M et al (2018) Imprint of assortative mating on the human genome. Preprint posted on bioRxivorg. https://doi.org/10.1101/300020