Behavior Genetics

, Volume 43, Issue 2, pp 120–131 | Cite as

A Demonstration of the Generalizability of Twin-based Research on Antisocial Behavior

Original Research

Abstract

Researchers typically analyze samples of twin pairs in order to decompose trait variance into genetic and environmental components. This methodological technique, referred to as twin-based research, rests on several assumptions that must be satisfied in order to produce unbiased results. While research has analyzed the tenability of certain assumptions such as equal environments, less attention has been given to whether results gleaned from samples of twins generalize to the broader population of non-twins. The current study analyzed data drawn from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health and findings suggested twins do not systematically differ from the general population of non-twins on many measures of behavior and development. Furthermore, the effects of specific covariates on measures of antisocial behavior did not appear to differ across twin status. In sum, evidence concerning the etiology of antisocial behavior (e.g., heritability estimates) gleaned from twin-based research is likely to generalize to the non-twin population.

Keywords

Twin research Assumptions Limitations Generalizability External validity 

References

  1. Barnes JC, Beaver KM (2010) An empirical examination of adolescence-limited offending: a direct test of Moffitt’s maturity gap thesis. J Crim Just 38:1176–1185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes JC, Beaver KM, Boutwell BB (2011) Examining the genetic underpinnings to Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy: a behavioral genetic analysis. Criminology 49:923–954CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaver KM (2008) Nonshared environmental influence on adolescent delinquent involvement and adult criminal behavior. Criminology 46:341–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Billy JOG, Wenzlow AT, Grady WR (1998) National longitudinal study of adolescent health: part I, wave I and II contextual database. Carolina Population Center: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonacich P (1987) Power and centrality: a family of measures. Am J Sociol 92:1170–1182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borkenau P, Riemann R, Angleitner A, Spinath FM (2002) Similarity of childhood experiences and personality resemblance in monozygotic and dizygotic twins: a test of the equal environments assumption. Pers Individ Differ 33:261–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouchard TJ, Loehlin JC (2001) Genes, evolution, and personality. Behav Genet 31:243–273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boutwell BB, Beaver KM, Barnes JC (2012) More alike than different: assortative mating and antisocial behaviors, substance use, and criminality in adulthood. Crim Just Behav 39:1240–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burt SA (2009) Are there meaningful etiological differences within antisocial behavior? Results of a meat-analysis. Clin Psychol Rev 29:163–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carey G (2003) Human genetics for the social sciences. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  11. Chantala K, Tabor J (1999) Strategies to perform a design-based analysis using the Add Health data. Carolina Population Center, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  12. Christensen K, Petersen I, Skytthe A, Herskind AM, McGue M, Bingley P (2006) Comparison of academic performance of twins and singletons in adolescence: follow-up study. Br Med J 333:1095–1097CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cleveland HH, Beekman C, Zheng Y (2011) The independence of criminological “predictor” variables: A good deal of concerns and some answers from behavioral genetic research. In: Beaver KM, Walsh A (eds) The Ashgate research companion to biosocial theories of crime. Ashgate, FranhamGoogle Scholar
  14. Cronk NJ, Slutske WS, Madden PAF, Bucholz KK, Reich W, Heath AC (2002) Emotional and behavioral problems among female twins: an evaluation of the equal environments assumption. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 41:829–837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derks EM, Dolan CV, Boomsma DI (2006) A test of the equal environment assumption (EEA) in multivariate twin studies. Twin Res Hum Genet 9:403–411PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. DeVellis RF (2011) Scale development: theory and applications, 3rd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  17. Eaves L, Foley D, Silberg J (2003) Has the “equal environments” assumption been tested in twin studies? Twin Res 6:486–489PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferguson CJ (2010) Genetic contributions to antisocial personality and behavior: a meta-analytic review from an evolutionary perspective. J Soc Psychol 150:1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferguson CJ, Beaver KM (2009) Natural born killers: the genetic origins of extreme violence. Aggress Violent Behav 14:286–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guo G, Roettger ME, Cai T (2008) The integration of genetic propensities into social-control models of delinquency and violence among male youths. Am Sociol Rev 73:543–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harris KM (2009) The national longitudinal study of adolescent health (Add health), waves I & II, 1994–1996; wave III, 2001–2002; wave IV, 2007–2009 [machine-readable data file and documentation]. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  22. Harris KM (2011) Design features of the Add Health. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  23. Haynie DL (2001) Delinquent peers revisited: does network structure matter? Am J Sociol 106:1013–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jacobson KC, Rowe DC (1998) Genetic and shared environmental influences on adolescent BMI: interactions with race and sex. Behav Genet 28:265–278PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Johnson W, Krueger RF, Bouchard TJ, McGue M (2002) The personalities of twins: just ordinary folks. Twin Res 5:125–131PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Kelley MS, Peterson JL (1997) The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health), Waves I & II, 1994–1996: a user’s guide to the machine-readable files and documentation (Data sets 48–50, 98, A1–A3). Sociometrics Corporation, American Family Data Archive, Los AltosGoogle Scholar
  27. Kendler KS, Martin NG, Heath AC, Eaves LJ (1995) Self-report psychiatric symptoms in twins and their nontwin relatives: are twins different? Am J Med Genet (Neuropsychiatric Genetics) 60:588–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Klump KL, Holly A, Lacono WG, McGue M, Willson LE (2000) Physical similarity and twin resemblance for eating attitudes and behaviors: a test of the equal environments assumption. Behav Genet 30:51–58PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Krueger RF, Moffitt TE, Caspi A, Bleske A, Silva PA (1998) Assortative mating for antisocial behavior: developmental and methodological implications. Behav Genet 18:173–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Levy F, McLaughlin M, Wood C, Hay D, Waldman I (1996) Twin-sibling differences in parental reports of ADHD, speech, reading and behaviour problems. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 37:569–578PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Martin JA et al (2011) Births: Final data for 2009. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  32. Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJK (2012) Three decades of twin births in the United States, 1980–2009. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  33. Miller HV, Barnes JC, Beaver KM (2011) Self-control and health outcomes in a nationally representative sample. Am J Health Behav 35:15–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Morris RG, Matthew CJ (2011) Sedentary activities, peer behavior, and delinquency among american youth. Crime Delinquency, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  35. Petersen I, Nielsen MMF, Beck-Nielsen H, Christensen K (2011) No evidence of a higher 10 year period prevalence of diabetes among 77,885 twins compared with 215,264 singletons from the Danish birth cohorts 1910–1989. Diabetologia 54:2016–2024PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Plomin R, Bergeman CS (1991) The nature of nurture: genetic influences on “environmental” measures. Behav Brain Sci 14:373–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderhiser JM (2013) Behavioral genetics, 6th edn. Worth, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Pulkkinen L, Vaalamo I, Hietala R, Kaprio J, Rose RJ (2003) Peer reports of adaptive behavior in twins and singletons: twinship a risk or advantage? Twin Res 6:106–118PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Radloff LS (1977) The CES-D scale: a self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1:385–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Raine A (1993) The psychopathology of crime: criminal behavior as a clinical disorder. Academic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Raine A (2002) Biosocial studies of antisocial and violent behaviors in children and adolescents: a review. J Abnorm Child Psychol 30:311–326PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Rhee SH, Waldman ID (2002) Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychol Bull 128:490–529PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Robbers SCC, Meike B, van Oort FVA, van Beijsterveldt CEM, van der Jan E, Verhulst FC, Dorret I, Boomsma DI, Huizink AC (2010) A twin-singleton comparison of developmental trajectories of externalizing and internalizing problems in 6- to 12-year-old children. Twin Res Hum Genet 13:79–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rutter M (2006) Genes and behavior: nature-nurture interplay explained. Blackwell, MaldenGoogle Scholar
  45. Rutter M, Redshaw J (1991) Annotation: growing up as a twin: twin-singleton differences in psychological development. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 32:885–895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Shinwell ES, Haklai T, Eventov-Friedman S (2009) Outcomes of multiples. Neonatology 95:6–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsou M-T, Tsou M-W, M-P Wu, Liu J-T (2008) Academic achievement of twins and singletons in early adulthood: taiwanese cohort study. Br Med J 337:a438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van den Oord EJCG, Koot HM, Boomsma DI, Verhulst FC, Orlebeke JF (1995) A twin-singleton comparison of problem behaviour in 2–3-year-olds. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 56:449–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Voracek M, Haubner T (2008) Twin-singleton differences in intelligence: a meta-analysis. Psychol Rep 102:951–962PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Webbink D, Posthuma D, Boomsma DI, de Geus EJC, Visscher PM (2008) Do twins have lower cognitive ability than singletons? Intelligence 36:539–547CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, The University of Texas at DallasRichardsonUSA
  2. 2.College of Criminal Justice, Sam Houston State UniversityHuntsvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations