Better characterization of the sources of phenotypic variation in human behavioural traits—stemming from genetic and environmental influences—will allow for more informed decisions about how to approach a range of challenges arising from variation, ranging from societal issues to the treatment of diseases. In particular, understanding how the environment moderates genetic influence on phenotypes (i.e., genotype–environment interactions, or G × E) is a central component of the behavioral sciences. Yet, understanding of this phenomenon is lagging somewhat, due in part to the difficulties of detecting G × E. We discuss the logic behind one of the primary ways to detect G × E: comparing heritability estimates across environments. Then, we highlight some pitfalls, with an emphasis on how very strong G × E can sometimes be undetectable using this method when high heritability is present in multiple environments. We conclude by forwarding some initial, yet tentative, suggestions for how best to address to the problem.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
It is worth pointing out that debates about the nature, prevalence, and importance of G × E are not new in behavior genetics, and some of the very points we touch on here have been discussed previously. See for instance, Sesardic (1993), and the exchanges sparked from around the topic of non-additive genetic effects and reaction norms. Moreover, behavioral geneticists have, for decades, acknowledged pitfalls when testing for G × E and have been suggesting supplementary methods, so neither is this component of our paper particularly novel (see, for instance, Plomin et al. 1977). Our intention, then, is to revive interest in the topic across fields where the discussion has either faded, or has yet to take hold in general (e.g., criminology, sociology, etc.).
It is worth mentioning that a biometric—or twin based—approach to testing for the presence of G × E in human data involves examining either differences in heritability estimates across environments, or differences in (raw) additive genetic variance across environments. For researchers using the approach described by Purcell (2002), it is the second strategy that is being employed.
Barnes JC, Wright JP, Boutwell BB, Schwartz JA, Connolly EJ, Nedelec JL, Beaver KM (2014) Demonstrating the validity of twin research in criminology. Criminology 52(4):588–626
Bradshaw AD (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Adv Gener 13:115–155
Carlson CS, Matise TC, North KE, Haiman CA, Fesinmeyer MD, Buyske S, Schumacher FR, Peters U, Franceschini N, Ritchie MD, Duggan DJ, Spencer KL, Dumitrescu L, Eaton CB, Thomas F, Young A, Carty C, Heiss G, Marchand LL, Crawford DC, Hindorff LA, Kooperberg CL, Page Consortium (2013) Generalization and dilution of association results from European GWAS in populations of non-European ancestry: the PAGE study. PLoS Biol 11(9):e1001661
Caspi A, McClay J, Moffitt TE, Mill J, Martin J, Craig IW, Taylor A, Poulton R (2002) Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science 297(5582):851–854
Chabris CF, Lee JJ, Cesarini D, Benjamin DJ, Laibson DI (2015) The fourth law of behavior genetics. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(4):304–312
Conley D (2016) Socio-genomic research using genome-wide molecular data. Ann Rev Sociol 42:275–299
Davey Smith G, Hemani G (2014) Mendelian randomization: genetic anchors for causal inference in epidemiological studies. Human Mol Genet 23(R1):R89–R98
Dick DM (2011) Gene–environment interaction in psychological traits and disorders. Annu Rev Clin Psychol 7:383–409
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(10):1041–1049
Falconer DS, Mackay TFC (1996) Introduction to quantitative genetics, 4th edn. Longman, Harlow
Ghalambor CK, McKay JK, Carroll SP, Reznick DN (2007) Adaptive versus non-adaptive plasticity and the potential for contemporary adaptation in new environments. Funct Ecol 21(3):394–407
Ingleby FC, Hosken DJ, Flowers K, Hawkes MF, Lane SM, Rapkin J, Dworkin I, Hunt J (2013) Genotype-by-environment interactions for cuticular hydrrocarbon expression in Drosophila simulans. J Evolution Biol 26:94–107
Karlsson K, Eroukhmanoff F, Svensson EI (2010) Phenotypic plasticity in response to the social environment: effects of density and sex ratio on mating behaviour following ecotype divergence. PLoS ONE 5(9):e12755
Plomin R, Deary IJ (2015) Genetics and intelligence differences: five special findings. Mol Psychiatry 20(1):98–108
Plomin R, DeFries JC, Loehlin JC (1977) Genotype–environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 84(2):309
Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopik VS, Neiderheiser J (2013) Behavioral genetics, 6th edn. Worth Publishers, New York
Polderman TJ, 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(7):702–709
Purcell S (2002) Variance components models for gene–environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Res Human Genet 5(6):554–571
Ritchie S (2015) Intelligence: all that matters. Hodder & Stoughton, Hachette
Roff DA (1997) Evolutionary quantitative genetics. Chapman and Hall, New York
Scarr-Salapatek S (1971) Race, social class, and IQ. Science 174(4016):1285–1295
Schlichting C, Pigliucci M (1998) Phenotypic evolution: a reaction norm perspective. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland
Sesardic N (1993) Heritability and causality. Philos Sci 60(3):396–418
Tucker-Drob EM, Bates TC (2016) Large cross-national differences in gene × socioeconomic status interaction on intelligence. Psychol Sci 27(2):138–149
Turkheimer E (2000) Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 9(5):160–164
Via S, Gomulkiewicz R, De Jong G, Scheiner SM, Schlichting CD, Van Tienderen PH (1995) Adaptive phenotypic plasticity: consensus and controversy. Trends Ecol Evol 10:212–217
West-Eberhard MJ (1989) Phenotypic plasticity and the origins of diversity. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 20:249–278
West-Eberhard MJ (2003) Developmental plasticity and evolution. Oxford University Press, New York
A Spark Microgrant from Saint Louis University provided funding for this project. Feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript (however, any errors and omissions are the product solely of the authors): RL Rodriguez, R Tinghitella, and A Burt.
This project was funded by a SPARK microgrant from Saint Louis University.
Conflict of interest
Kasey D. Fowler-Finn and Brian B. Boutwell declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Statement of human and animal rights
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
For this type of study formal consent is not required.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Edited by Matt McGue.
About this article
Cite this article
Fowler-Finn, K.D., Boutwell, B. Using Variation in Heritability Estimates as a Test of G × E in Behavioral Research: A Brief Research Note. Behav Genet 49, 340–346 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-019-09948-9