What Explains the Heritability of Completed Fertility? Evidence from Two Large Twin Studies
- 450 Downloads
In modern societies, individual differences in completed fertility are linked with genotypic differences between individuals. Explaining the heritability of completed fertility has been inconclusive, with alternative explanations centering on family formation timing, pursuit of education, or other psychological traits. We use the twin subsample from the Midlife Development in the United States study and the TwinsUK study to examine these issues. In total, 2606 adult twin pairs reported on their completed fertility, age at first birth and marriage, level of education, Big Five personality traits, and cognitive ability. Quantitative genetic Cholesky models were used to partition the variance in completed fertility into genetic and environmental variance that is shared with other phenotypes and residual variance. Genetic influences on completed fertility are strongly related to family formation timing and less strongly, but significantly, with psychological traits. Multivariate models indicate that family formation, demographic, and psychological phenotypes leave no residual genetic variance in completed fertility in either dataset. Results are largely consistent across U.S. and U.K. sociocultural contexts.
KeywordsFertility Family formation Behavior genetics Personality Cognitive ability
This research is funded by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant SOCIOGENOME (615603, www.sociogenome.com) and an Economic and Social Research Council UK, National Centre for Research Methods SOCGEN Grant (www.ncrm.ac.uk/research/SOCGEN).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
Daniel A. Briley, Felix C. Tropf, and Melinda C. Mills declare they have no conflict of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
The MIDUS was approved by the institutional review boards of the University of Wisconsin and Harvard Medical School. The TwinsUK study was approved by the King’s College London Ethics Committee. All participants provided informed consent before taking part in the study.
- Cattell RB (1987) Intelligence: its structure, growth, and action. Springer, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Human Fertility Database (2013) Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (Germany) and Vienna Institute of Demography (Austria). www.humanfertility.org
- Jokela M, Hintsa T, Hintsanen M, Keltikangas-Järvinen L (2010) Adult temperament and childbearing over the life course. Eur J Pers 24:151–166Google Scholar
- Kohler H-P, Rodgers JL (2003) Education, fertility, and heritability: explaining a paradox. In: Wachter KW, Bulatao RA (eds) Offspring: human fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective. National Academies Press, Washington DC, pp 46–90Google Scholar
- Lesthaeghe R, van de Kaa DJ (1986) Twee demografische transities? Bevolking: Groei en Krimp. In: Lesthaeghe RJ, van de Kaa DJ (eds) Bevolking: groei en krimp. Mens en maatschappij. VanLoghum-Slaterus, Deventer, pp 9–24Google Scholar
- Mills MC, Tropf FC (2016) The biodemography of fertility: a review and future research frontiers. Kolner Z Soz Sozpsychol 55:397–424Google Scholar
- Muthén LK, Muthén BO (1998–2010) Mplus user’s guide, 6th edn. Muthén and Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- Ryff C, Almeida DM, Ayanian JS, Carr DS, Cleary PD, Coe C, Williams D (2006) Midlife development in the United States (MIDUS II), 2004–2006. University of Wisconsin, Survey Center, MadisonGoogle Scholar
- Skirbekk V, Blekesaune M (2014) Personality traits increasingly important for male fertility: evidence from Norway. Eur J Pers 28:521–529Google Scholar
- van de Kaa DJ (1987) Europe’s second demographic transition. Popul Bull 42:1–57Google Scholar