Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 196–210 | Cite as

Interpreting Behavior Genetic Models: Seven Developmental Processes to Understand

  • Daniel A. BrileyEmail author
  • Jonathan Livengood
  • Jaime Derringer
  • Elliot M. Tucker-Drob
  • R. Chris Fraley
  • Brent W. Roberts
Original Research

Abstract

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?

Keywords

Gene–environment interplay Human agency Personality Cognitive ability Developmental genetics 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. Baumert A, Schmitt M, Perugini M, Johnson W, Blum G et al (2017) Integrating personality structure, personality process, and personality development. Eur J Personal 31:503–528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beam CR, Turkheimer E (2013) Phenotype–environment correlations in longitudinal twin models. Dev Psychopathol 25:7–16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Beam CR, Turkheimer E, Dickens WT, Davis DW (2015) Twin differentiation of cognitive ability through phenotype to environment transmission: the Louisville Twin Study. Behav Genet 45:622–634CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. Bell AM, Saltz JB (2017) Profitable interplay between the study of human and nonhuman personality. Eur J Personal 31:532–533Google Scholar
  6. Bell AM, Hankison SJ, Laskowski KL (2009) The repeatability of behaviour: a meta-analysis. Anim Behav 31:532–533Google Scholar
  7. Belsky DW, Domingue BW, Wedow R, Arseneault L, Boardman JD, Caspi A et al (2018) Genetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1801238115 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bengston SE, Dahan RA, Donaldson Z, Phelps SM, van Oers K, Sih A, Bell AM (2018) Genomic tools for behavioural ecologists to understand repeatable individual differences in behaviour. Nat Ecol Evol.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-017-0411-4 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Braddon-Mitchell D (2001) Lossy laws. Noûs 35:260–277CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brant AM, Munakata Y, Boomsma DI, DeFries JC, Haworth CMA, Keller MC et al (2013) The nature and nurture of high IQ: an extended sensitive period for intellectual development. Psychol Sci 24:1487–1495CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM (2013) Explaining the increasing heritability of cognitive ability across development: a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies. Psychol Sci 24:1704–1713CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM (2014) Genetic and environmental continuity in personality development: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 140:1303–1331CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Briley DA, Tucker-Drob EM (2017) Comparing the developmental genetics of cognition and personality over the lifespan. J Personal 85:51–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briley DA, Harden KP, Tucker-Drob EM (2014) Child characteristics and parental educational expectations: evidence for transmission with transaction. Dev Psychol 50:2614–2632CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Briley DA, Livengood J, Derringer J (2018) Behavior genetic frameworks of causal reasoning for personality psychology. Eur J Personal 32:202–220Google Scholar
  16. Bronfenbenner U, Ceci SJ (1994) Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: a bioecological model. Psychol Rev 101:568–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Caspi A, Houts RM, Belsky DW, Goldman-Mellor SJ, Harrington H, Israel S et al (2014) The p factor: one general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clin Psychol Sci 2:119–137CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Chabris CF, Hebert BM, Benjamin DJ, Beauchamp J, Cesarini D, Van der Loos M et al (2012) Most reported genetic associations with general intelligence are probably false positives. Psychol Sci 23:1314–1323CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Chabris CF, Lee JJ, Cesarini D, Benjamin DJ, Laibson DI (2015) The fourth law of behavior genetics. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24:304–312CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Cheesman R, Selzam S, Ronald A, Dale PS, McAdams TA, Eley TC, Plomin R (2017) Childhood behavior problems show the greatest gap between DNA-based and twin heritability. Transl Psychiatry 7:1284CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Cho CE, Norman M (2013) Cesarean section and development of the immune system in the offspring. Am J Obstet Gynecol 208:249–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Conley D, Laidley T, Belsky DW, Fletcher JM, Boardman JD, Domingue BW (2016) Assortative mating and differential fertility by phenotype and genotype across the 20th century. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:6647–6652CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Cuijpers P, Smit F, Penninx BWJH, de Graaf R, ten Have M, Beekman ATF (2010) Economic costs of neuroticism: a population-based study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 67:1086–1093CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. D’Onofrio BM, Eaves LJ, Murelle L, Maes HH, Spilka B (1999) Understanding biological and social influences on religious affiliation, attitudes, and behaviors: a behavior genetic perspective. J Personal 67:953–984CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol Bull 137:800–818CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. De Regt HW (2015) Scientific understanding: truth or dare? Synthese 192:3781–3797CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dickens WT, Flynn JR (2001) Heritability estimates versus large environmental effects: the IQ paradox resolved. Psychol Rev 108:349–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Domingue BW, Fletcher J, Conley D, Boardman JD (2014) Genetic and educational assortative mating among US adults. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:7996–8000CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Duncan LE, Keller MC (2011) A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate Gene-by-Environment Interaction research in psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 168:1041–1049CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. Duncan LE, Pollastri AR, Smoller JW (2014) Mind the gap: why many geneticists and psychological scientists have discrepant views about gene–environment interaction (G × E) research. Am Psychol 69:249–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Earman J (1993) Underdetermination, realism, and reason. Midwest Studies Philos 18:19–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Eaves L, Heath A, Martin N, Maes H, Neale M et al (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 2:62–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Falconer DS (1960) An introduction to quantitative genetics. Ronald, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Forster M (2002) Predictive accuracy as an achievable goal of science. Philos Sci 69:S124–S134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Forster M, Sober E (1994) How to tell when simpler, more unified, or less ad hoc theories will provide more accurate predictions. Br J Philos Sci 45:1–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Fraley RC, Roisman GI, Haltigan JD (2013) The legacy of early experiences in development: formalizing alternative models of how early experiences are carried forward over time. Dev Psychol 49:109–126CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Freund J, Brandmaier AM, Lewejohann L, Kirste I, Kritzler M et al (2013) Emergence of individuality in genetically identical mice. Science 340:756–759CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Glymour C (1970) Theoretical equivalence and the semantic view of theories. Philos Sci 80:286–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Haberstick BC, Lessem JM, Hewitt JK, Smolen A, Hopfer CJ, Halpern CT et al (2014) MAOA genotype, childhood maltreatment, and their interaction in the etiology of adult antisocial behaviors. Biol Psychiatry 75:25–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 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
  41. Hankin BL, Oppenheimer C, Jenness J, Barrocas A, Shapero BG, Goldband J (2009) Developmental origins of cognitive vulnerabilities to depression: review of processes contributing to stability and change across time. J Clin Psychol 65:1327–1338CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Harden KP, Quinn PD, Tucker-Drob EM (2011) Genetically influenced change in sensation seeking drives the rise of delinquent behavior during adolescence. Dev Sci 15:150–163CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  43. Harden KP, Patterson MW, Briley DA, Engelhardt LE, Kretsch N et al (2015) Developmental changes in genetic and environmental influences on rule-breaking and aggression: age and pubertal development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:1370–1379CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Hausman DM, Stern R, Weinberger N (2014) Systems without a graphical causal representation. Synthese 19:1925–1930CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Haworth CMA, Wright MJ, Luciano M, Martin NG, de Geus EJC, van Beijsterveldt CEM et al (2010) The heritability of general cognitive ability increases linearly from childhood to young adulthood. Mol Psychiatry 15:1112–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Hugh-Jones D, Verweij KJH, Pourcain B, Abdellaoui A (2016) Assortative mating on educational attainment leads to genetic spousal resemblance for polygenic scores. Intelligence 59:103–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Johnson W (2007) Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: capturing all the interplay. Psychol Rev 114:423–440CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson W, Penke L, Spinath FM (2011) Heritability in the era of molecular genetics: some thoughts for understanding genetic influences on behavioural traits. Eur J Personal 25:254–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kandler C, Papendick M (2017) Behavior genetics and personality development: a methodological and meta-analytic review. In: Specht J (ed) Personality development across the lifespan. Academic, Cambridge, p 473–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kandler C, Zapko-Willmes A (2017) Theoretical perspectives on the interplay of nature and nurture in personality development. In: Specht J (ed) Personality development across the lifespan. Academic, Cambridge, p 101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Keller EF (1985) Reflections on gender and science. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  52. Keller MC (2014) Gene × environment interaction studies have not properly controlled for potential confounders: the problem and the (simple) solution. Biol Psychiatry 75:18–24CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 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 40:377–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Kendler KS (2008) Explanatory models for psychiatric illness. Am J Psychiatry 165:695–702CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Kendler KS, Baker JH (2007) Genetic influences on measures of the environment: a systematic review. Psychol Med 37:615–626CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Klahr AM, Burt SA (2014) Elucidating the etiology of individual differences in parenting: a meta-analysis of behavioral genetic research. Psychol Bull 140:544–586CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Koellinger PD, Harden KP (2018) Using nature to understand nurture. Science 359:386–387CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Kong A, Thorleifsson G, Frigge ML, Vilhjalmsson BJ, Young AI, Thorgeirsson TE, et al (2018) The nature of nurture: effects of parental genotypes. Science 359:424–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Krapohl E, Plomin R (2016) Genetic link between family socioeconomic status and children’s educational achievement estimated from genome-wide SNPs. Mol Psychiatry 21:437–443CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Krapohl E, Rimfeld K, Shakeshaft NG, Trzaskowski M, McMillan A, Pingault J-B et al (2014) The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influences traits, not just intelligence. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 42:15273–15278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Krapohl E, Hannigan LJ, Pingault J-B, Patel H, Kadeva N, Curtis C et al (2017) Widespread covariation of early environmental exposures and trait-associated polygenic variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114:11727–11732CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 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
  64. Lee JJ, Wedow R, Okbay A, Kong E, Maghzian O, Zacher M et al (2018) Gene discovery and polygenic prediction from a genome-wide association study of educational attainment in 1.1 million individuals. Nat Genet 50:1112–1121CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Li M, Vitányi P (1997) An introduction to Kolmogorov complexity and its applications, 2nd edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lucas RE (2007) Adaptation and the set-point model of subjective well-being: does happiness change after major life events? Curr Dir Psychol Sci 16:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lynch KE (2017) Heritability and causal reasoning. Biol Philos 32:25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Manuck SB, McCaffery JM (2014) Gene–environment interaction. Annu Rev Psychol 65:41–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. McGue M, Wette R, Rao DC (1989) Path analysis under generalized marital resemblance: evaluation of the assumptions underlying the mixed homogamy model by the Monte Carlo method. Genet Epidemiol 6:373–388CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Mõttus R, Allik J, Hřebíčková M, Kööts-Ausmees L, Realo A (2016) Age differences in the variance of personality characteristics. Eur J Personal 30:4–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Mõttus R, Soto CJ, Slobodskaya HR (2017) Are all kids alike? The magnitude of individual differences in personality characteristics tends to increase from early childhood to early adolescence. Eur J Personal 31:313–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Nagel E (1967) The nature and aim of science. In: S Morgenbesser (ed) Philosophy of science today. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  73. Nivard MG, Boomsma DI (2016) Genetics: from molecule to society. Curr Biol 26:R1194–R1196CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Norton J (2008) Must evidence underdetermine theory? In: Carrier M, Howard D, Kourany J (eds) The challenge of the social and the pressure of practice: science and values revisited. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, p 17–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. NWEA (2015) 2015 NWEA MAP growth normative data. https://www.nwea.org/content/uploads/2015/11/Normative-Data-2015.pdf
  76. Plomin R, Daniels D (1987) Why are children from the same family so different from one another? Behav Brain Sci 10:1–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Loehlin JC (1977) Genotype–environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 84:309–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM (2016) Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspect Psychol Sci 11:3–23CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  79. Polderman TJC, Benyamin B, de Leeuw CA, Sullivan PF, van Bochoven A, Visscher PM, Posthuma D (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet 47:702–709CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. Popper K (1957) The aim of science. Ratio 1:24–35Google Scholar
  81. Purcell S (2002) Variance components models for gene–environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Res Hum Genet 5:554–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Rietveld CA, Medland SE, Derringer J, Yang J, Esko T, Martin NW et al (2013) GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science 340:1467–1471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  83. Roberts BW, Walton KE, Viechtbauer W (2006) Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychol Bull 132:1–25CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL (2017) A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychol Bull 143:117–141CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Saltz JB (2011) Natural genetic variation in social environment choice: context-dependent gene–environment correlation in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 8:2325–2334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Saltz JB (2013) Genetic composition of social groups influence male aggressive behaviour and fitness in natural genotypes of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc R Soc Lond B 280:20131926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Saltz JB (2014) Genetic variation in social environment construction influences the development of aggressive behavior in Drosophila melanogaster. Heredity 118:340–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Saltz JB, Foley BR (2011) Natural genetic variation in social niche construction: social effects of aggression drive disruptive sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Am Nat 177:645–654CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. Saltz JB, Nuzhdin S (2014) Genetic variation in niche construction: implications for development and evolutionary genetics. Trends Ecol Evol 29:8–14CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. Saltz JB, Bell AM, Flint J, Gomulkiewicz R, Hughes KA, Keagy J (2018) Why does the magnitude of genotype-by-environment interaction vary? Ecol Evol 8:6342–6353CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  91. Samek DR, Bailey J, Hill KG, Wilson S, Lee S, Keyes MA et al (2016) A test-replicate approach to candidate gene research on addiction and externalizing disorders: a collaboration across five longitudinal studies. Behav Genet 46:608–626CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  92. Sayood K (2005) Introduction to data compression. Elsevier, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  93. Scarr S, McCartney K (1983) How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype → environment effects. Child Dev 54:424–435PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. Schmitt D, Realo A, Voracek M, Allik J (2008) Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. J Personal Soc Psychol 94:168–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Sih A, Bell A, Johnson JC (2004) Behavioral syndromes: an ecological and evolutionary overview. Trends Ecol Evol 19:372–378CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  96. Stanford PK (2001) Refusing the devil’s bargain: what kind of underdetermination should we take seriously? Philos Sci 68:S1–S12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Stanford PK (2006) Exceeding our grasp: science, history, and the problem of unconceived alternatives. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Tabery J (2014) Beyond versus: the struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. MIT Press, BostonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Thorgeirsson TE, Geller F, Sulem P, Rafnar T, Wiste A, Magnusson KP et al (2008) A variant associated with nicotine dependence, lung cancer and peripheral arterial disease. Nature 452:638–642CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  100. Tropf FC, Lee SH, Verwij RM, Stulp G, van der Most PJ et al (2017) Hidden heritability due to heterogeneity across seven populations. Nat Hum Behav 1:757–765CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  101. Tucker-Drob EM (2009) Differentiation of cognitive abilities across the life span. Dev Psychol 45:1097–1118CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  102. Tucker-Drob EM (2011) Global and domain-specific changes in cognition throughout adulthood. Dev Psychol 47:331–343CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  103. Tucker-Drob EM (2012) Preschools reduce early academic achievement gaps: a longitudinal twin approach. Psychol Sci 23:310–319CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  104. 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
  105. Tucker-Drob EM, Bates TC (2016) Large cross-national differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status interaction on intelligence. Psychol Sci 27:138–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA (2014) Continuity of genetic and environmental influences on cognition across the life span: a meta-analysis of longitudinal twin and adoption studies. Psychol Bull 140:949–979CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  107. 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
  108. Tucker-Drob EM, Harden KP (2012) Early childhood cognitive development and parental cognitive stimulation: evidence for reciprocal gene–environment transactions. Dev Sci 15:250–259CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  109. Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA, Harden KP (2013) Genetic and environmental influences on cognition across development and context. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 22:349–355CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  110. Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA, Engelhardt LE, Mann FD, Harden KP (2016) Genetically-mediated associations between measures of childhood character and academic achievement. J Personal Soc Psychol 111:790–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Turkheimer E (1998) Heritability and biological explanation. Psychol Rev 105:782–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. Turkheimer E (2000) Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 9:160–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Turkheimer E, Gottesman II (1991) Individual differences and the canalization of human behavior. Dev Psychol 27:18–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Turkheimer E, Gottesman II (1996) Simulating the dynamics of genes and environment in development. Dev Psychopathol 8:667–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Turkheimer E, Waldron M (2000) Nonshared environment: a theoretical, methodological, and quantitative review. Psychol Bull 126:78–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. van Fraassen BC (1980) The scientific image. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. van Fraassen BC (1986) Aim and structure of scientific theories. Stud Logic Found Math 144:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. van der Sluis S, Posthuma D, Dolan CVD (2012) A note on false positives and power in G × E modelling of twin data. Behav Genet 42:170–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. Waddington CH (1942) Canalization of development and the inheritance of acquired characters. Nature 150:563–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Wallace C, Freeman P (1987) Estimation and inference by compact coding. J R Stat Soc B 49:240–251Google Scholar
  121. Wheeler B (2016) Simplicity, language-dependency and the best system account of laws. Theoria 31:189–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 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
  123. Zeng J, de Vlaming R, Wu Y, Robinson M, Lloyd-Jones L, Yengo L et al (2018) Signatures of negative selection in the genetic architecture of human complex traits. Nat Genet 50:746–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel A. Briley
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jonathan Livengood
    • 2
  • Jaime Derringer
    • 1
  • Elliot M. Tucker-Drob
    • 3
  • R. Chris Fraley
    • 1
  • Brent W. Roberts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignChampaignUSA
  3. 3.Department of Psychology and Population Research CenterUniversity of Texas at AustinAustinUSA

Personalised recommendations