Behavior Genetics

, Volume 9, Issue 6, pp 527–542 | Cite as

Twin method: Defense of a critical assumption

  • Sandra Scarr
  • Louise Carter-Saltzman
Article

Abstract

Since Galton's time, critics of the twin method have rejected the evidence of genetic differences in human behavior, because the twin method assumes that identical and fraternal pairs have equally similar environments. Twins whose genetic similarity is misperceived by themselves and others provide a critical test of the adequacy of this assumption. The relative effects of perceived and actual genetic similarity on cotwin differences in cognitive, personality, and physical development were assessed in a sample of young, adolescent twins whose genetic similarity was often misperceived. Twins' responses to questions about their own and other's judgments about their zygosity and physical similarity, and the ratings of similarity by eight judges, were used to estimate the perceived similarity of the twins. Actual zygosity was established by matching cotwins on 12 or more blood group loci. Perceived zygosity and perceived similarity by self and others were found to be insignificant biases in the twin study method.

Key Words

zygosity twins blood groups cognitive abilities personality skeletal growth tissue growth skin reflectance perceived similarity of twins 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Benton, A. L. (1963.The Revised Visual Retention Test, Form C, William C. Brown, Dubuque, Ia.Google Scholar
  2. Burgemeister, B. B., Blum, L. H., and Lorge, I. (1959).Columbia Mental Maturity Scale, Harcourt, Brace, & World, New York.Google Scholar
  3. Carter-Saltzman, L., and Scarr, S. (1977). MZ or DZ? Only your blood grouping laboratory knows for sure.Behav. Genet.,7(4):273–280.Google Scholar
  4. Cederlof, R., Friberg, L., Johsson, E., and Kaij, L. (1961). Studies on similarity diagnosis in twins with the aid of mailed questionnaires.Acta Genet.,11:338.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, D. J., Dibble, E., Grawe, J. M., and Pollin, W. (1973). Separating identical from fraternal twins.Arch. Gen. Psychiat.,29:465–469.Google Scholar
  6. Coopersmith, S. (1967).Antecedents of Self Esteem, Freeman, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  7. Dunn, L. M. (1959).Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, American Guidance Service, Circle Pines, Minn.Google Scholar
  8. Eysenck, S. B. G. (1965).Junior Eysenck Personality Inventory, Educational and Industrial Testing Service, San Diego, Calif.Google Scholar
  9. Gottesman, I. I. (1963). Heritability of personality: A demonstration.Psychol. Monogr.,77:Spring, Whole No. 572.Google Scholar
  10. Jones, H. E. (1955). Perceived differences among twins.Eugen. Quart.,5:98–102.Google Scholar
  11. Kamin, L. J. (1974).The Science and Politics of I.Q., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Potomac, Md.Google Scholar
  12. Loehlin, J. C. and Nichols, R. C. (1976).Heredity, Environment, and Personality, University of Texas Press, Austin, Tex.Google Scholar
  13. Nichols, R. C., and Bilbro, W. C. (1966). The diagnosis of twin zygosity.Acta Genet.,16:265–275.Google Scholar
  14. Scarr, S. (1968). Environmental bias in twin studies.Eugen. Q.,15:34–40.Google Scholar
  15. Smith, R. T. (1965). A comparison of socioenvironmental factors in monozygotic and dizygotic twins, testing an assumption. In Vandenberg, S. G. (ed.),Methods and Goals in Human Behavior Genetics, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra Scarr
    • 1
  • Louise Carter-Saltzman
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyYale UniversityNew Haven
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattle

Personalised recommendations