Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Status Attainment and Social Mobility

How can Genetics Contribute to an Understanding of their Causes?

Status Attainment und Soziale Mobilität

Wie kann Genetik zu einem Verständnis ihrer Ursachen beitragen?

KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Cite this article

Abstract

This paper discusses why and how the consideration of inter-individual genetic variation can enhance the explanatory power of sociological inquiries of status attainment and social stratification. We argue that accounting for genetic variation may help to address longstanding and in some cases overlooked causality problems in explaining the emergence of social inequalities—problems which may interfere with both implicit and explicit interpretations of a society as “open” or “closed,” as meritocratic or non-meritocratic. We discuss the basic methodological tenets of genetically informative research (Sect. 2) and provide empirical examples and theoretical conceptualizations on how genetic variation contributes to status attainment (Sect. 3). This is followed by a discussion of gene-environment interplay in relation to more abstract ideas about social mechanisms that generate inequality, touching on normative implications of these ideas as well as considerations from a social justice perspective (Sect. 4). Finally, we briefly review the potential benefits as well as pitfalls of incorporating genetic influences into sociological explanations of status attainment. As we will argue, understanding how social influences impinge on the individual and how genes influence our lives requires sophisticated research designs based on sound sociological theory and methodology (Sect. 5).

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag legt dar, wie die Berücksichtigung genetischer Variation die Erklärungskraft soziologischer Untersuchungen zu Status Attainment und sozialer Ungleichheit verbessern kann. Die Berücksichtigung genetischer Variation kann helfen, Probleme kausaler Schlüsse bei der Erklärung sozialer Ungleichheit zu mindern, die für eine implizite oder explizite Interpretation einer Gesellschaft als „offen“ oder „geschlossen“, als meritokratisch oder nicht meritokratisch ausschlaggebend sein können. Nach der Einleitung stellen wir die methodologischen Grundlagen verhaltensgenetischer und genetisch informativer Forschung dar (Abschn. 2) und zeigen theoretische Mechanismen und empirische Beispiele auf, wie genetische Variation Status Attainment beeinflussen kann (Abschn. 3). Anschließend werden die Grundlagen von Gen-Umwelt-Interaktionen diskutiert, insbesondere im Hinblick auf theoretische Überlegungen zur Genese und Bewertung sozialer Ungleichheit (Abschn. 4). Im letzten Teil stellen wir mögliche Vorteile und Fallstricke der Einbeziehung genetischer Variation in soziologische Erklärungen zu Status Attainment und sozialer Ungleichheit dar. Um zu verstehen, wie soziale und genetische Faktoren miteinander wirken und das Leben beeinflussen, braucht es anspruchsvolle Forschungsdesigns auf der Grundlage solider soziologischer Theorie und Methodologie (Abschn. 5).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. It is important to note that these designs rely on average known degrees of relatedness. For instance, dizygotic twins share 50 % of their genes on average. A particular dizygotic twin pair may also share more, or fewer, genes.

  2. There are also other types of genetically informative designs (i.e. the adoption design). All of them follow the same idea and use information on known degrees of genetic and/or environmental similarity (for an overview see, i.e., Plomin et al. (2013)).

  3. This is called narrow-sense heritability, because it only estimates the proportion of variance due to additive genetic effects (Purcell 2013, p. 381).

  4. Heritability can be also be estimated through mixed effects (multilevel) models and DeFries-Fulker models.

  5. This section describes patterns of the interplay of environmental and genetic factors. Genetic expression can be triggered by many mechanisms which are not discussed in this article. However, the newly evolving field of epigenetics provides promising insights on how environmental factors affect genes and therefore alter genetic expression without being inherited (see for a discussion on epigenetic mechanisms Shanahan and Hofer (2011)).

References

  • Adkins, Daniel E., and Stephen Vaisey. 2009. Toward a unified stratification theory: Structure, genome, and status across human societies. Sociological Theory 27:99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arrow, Kenneth J., Samuel Bowles, and Steven N. Durlauf (Eds.). 2000. Meritocracy and economic inequality. Princeton University Press.

  • Bartels, Meike, Marjolein J. H. Rietveld, Caroline Van Baal, and Dorrit I. Boomsma. 2002. Genetic and environmental influences on the development of intelligence. Behavior Genetics 32:237–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beauchamp, Jonathan P., David Cesarini, Magnus Johannesson, Matthijs van der Loos, Philipp D. Köllinger, Patrick J. F. Groenen, James H. Fowler, Niels J. Rosenquist, Roy A. Thurik, and Nicholas A. Christakis. 2011. Molecular genetics and economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives 25:57–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrman, Jere R., and Paul Taubman. 1989. Is schooling “mostly in genes”? Nature-nurture decomposition using data on relatives. The Journal of Political Economy 97:1425–1446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behrman, Jere R., Zdenek Hrubec, Paul Taubman, and Terence J. Wales. 1980. Socioeconomic success: A study of the effects of genetic endowments, family environment, and schooling. New York: North-Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benjamin, Daniel J., David Cesarini, Christopher F. Chabris, Edward L. Glaeser, David I. Laibson, Vilmundur Guðnason, Tamara B. Harris, Lenore J. Launer, Shaun Purcell, Albert Vernon Smith, Magnus Johannesson, Patrik K. E. Magnusson, Jonathan P. Beauchamp, Nicholas A. Christakis, Craig S. Atwood, Benjamin Hebert, Jeremy Freese, Robert M. Hauser, Taissa S. Hauser, Alexander Grankvist, Christina M. Hultman, and Paul Lichtenstein. 2012. The promises and pitfalls of genoeconomics. Annual Review of Economics 4:627–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bihagen, Erik, Magnus Nermo, and Charlotta Stern. 2013. Class origin and elite position of men in business firms in Sweden, 1993–2007: The importance of education, cognitive ability, and personality. European Sociological Review 29:939–954.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Björklund, Anders, Markus Jäntti, and Gary Solon. 2005. Influences of nature and nurture on earnings variation: A report on a study of various sibling types in Sweden. In Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success, eds. Samuel Bowles, Herbert Gintis, Melissa Osborne Groves, 145–164. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, Peter M., and Otis D. Duncan. 1967. The American occupational structure. New York: Wiley and Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman, Jason, Jonathan Daw, and Jeremy Freese. 2013. Defining the environment in gene–environment research: Lessons from social epidemiology. American Journal of Public Health 103:64–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, Thomas J., and Matthew McGue. 1981. Familial studies of intelligence: A review. Science 212:1055–1059.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard, Thomas Jr., and Matthew McGue. 2003. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology 54:4–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, Samuel, and Herbert Gintis. 2002. The inheritance of inequality. Journal of Economic Perpectives 16:3–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne Groves. 2001. Incentive-enhancing preferences: Personality, behavior, and earnings. American Economic Review 91:155–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bowles, Samuel, Herbert Gintis, and Melissa Osborne Groves. 2005. Unequal chances: family background and economic success. New York:Princeton University Press.

  • Branigan, Amelia R., Kenneth J. McCallum, and Jeremy Freese. 2013. Variation in the heritability of educational attainment: An international meta-analysis. Social Forces 92:109–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breen, Richard, and Jan O. Jonsson. 2005. Inequality of opportunity in comparative perspective: Recent research on educational attainment and social mobility. Annual Review of Sociology 31:223–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carey, James R., and James W. Vaupel. 2005. Biodemography. In Handbook of population, eds. Dudley Poston and Michael Micklin, 625–658. New York: Springer US.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carmichael, Crista M., and Matt Mcgue. 1995. A cross-sectional examination of height, weight, and body mass index in adult twins. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 50:B237–B244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesarini, David, Christopher T. Dawes, Magnus Johannesson, Paul Lichtenstein, and Björn Wallace. 2009. Genetic variation in preferences for giving and risk-taking. Quarterly Journal of Economics 124:809–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, Edith, Gregory E. Miller, Michael S. Kobor, and Steve W. Cole. 2011. Maternal warmth buffers the effects of low early-life socioeconomic status on pro-inflammatory signaling in adulthood. Molecular Psychiatry 16:729–737.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, Randall. 1979. The credential society: An historical sociology of education and stratification. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, Dalton. 2004. The pecking order: A bold new look at how family and society determine who we become. New York: Pantheon Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, Dalton. 2009. The promise and challenges of incorporating genetic data into longitudinal social science surveys and research. Biodemography and Social Biology 55:238–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, Dalton, and Emily Rauscher. 2013. Genetic interactions with prenatal social environment: Effects on academic and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 54:109–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conley, Dalton, Kate W. Strully, and Neil G. Bennett. 2003. The starting gate. Birth weight and life chances. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coventry, William L., and Matthew C. Keller. 2005. Estimating the extent of parameter bias in the classical twin design: A comparison of parameter estimates from extended twin family and classical twin designs. Twin Research and Human Genetics 8:214–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deary, Ian. J., Wendy Johnson, and Michael Houlihan. 2009. Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics 126:215–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Derks, Eske M., Conor V. Dolan, and Dorret I. Boomsma. 2006. A test of the equal environment assumption (EEA) in multivariate twin studies. Twin Research and Human Genetics 9:403–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diewald, Martin. 2010. Zur Bedeutung genetischer Variation für die soziologische Ungleichheitsforschung. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 39:4–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diewald, Martin. 2011. Neither conflicting nor simply complementary: How social inequality research can profit from paying attention to genetic variation. In Equal is not enough: challenging differences and inequalities in contemporary societies. Conference Proceedings, eds. Joz Motmans, Daniel Cuypers, Petra Meier, Dimitri Mortelmans, Patrizia Zanoni, 334–351. Antwerp: Policy Research Centre on Equal opportunities: University of Antwerp-Hasselt University.

  • Diewald, Martin, and Thomas Faist. 2012. From heterogeneities to inequalities: Looking at social mechanisms as an explanatory approach to the generation of social inequalities. SFB 882 Working Paper Series, No. 1. Bielefeld: DFG Research Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • DiPrete, Thomas, and Gregory M. Eirich. 2006. Cumulative advantage as a mechanism for inequality: A review of theory and evidence. Annual Review of Sociology 32:271–297.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downey, Douglas B. 1995. When bigger is not better: Family size, parental resources, and children’s educational performance. American Sociological Review 60:746–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erikson, Robert, and John H. Goldthorpe. 1992. The constant flux: A study of class mobility in industrial societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Freese, Jeremy. 2008. Genetics and the social science explanation of individual outcomes. American Journal of Sociology 114:1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara, Takeo, and Ichiro Kawachi. 2009. Is education causally related to better health? A twin fixed-effect study in the USA. International Journal of Epidemiology 38:1310-1322.

  • Fulker, David W., and Hans J. Eyseneck. 1979. Nature and nurture: Heredity. In The structure and measurement of intelligence, eds. Hans J. Eyseneck. New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, Neil. 2009. A pragmatist theory of social mechanisms. American Sociological Review 74:358–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Guang, and Elisabeth Stearns. 2002. The social influences on the realization of genetic potential for intellectual development. Social Forces 80:881–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, Guang, Yuying Y. Tong, and Tianji J. Cai. 2008. Gene by social context interactions for number of sexual partners among white male youths: Genetics-informed sociology. American Journal of Sociology 114:36–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haller, Archibald O., and Alejandro Portes. 1973. Status attainment processes. Sociology of Education 46:51–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi, Peter K., Christopher T. Dawes, Amanda Frost-Keller, Jaime E. Settle, and Brad Verhulst. 2011. Integrating social science and genetics: News from the political front. Biodemography and Social Biology 57:67–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, Robert M., and Raymond S. Wong. 1989. Sibling resemblance and intersibling effects in educational attainment. Sociology of Education 62:149–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, Robert M., John R. Warren, Min-Hsiung Huang, and Wendy Y. Carter. 2000. Occupational status, education, and social mobility in the meritocracy. In Meritocracy and economic inequality, eds. Kenneth Arrow, Samual Bowles, and Steven Durlauf, 179–229. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath, Andrew C., Alexandre A. Todorov, Elliot C. Nelson, Pamela A. F. Madden, Kathleen K. Bucholz, and Nicholas G. Martin. 2002. Gene-environment interaction effects on behavioral variation and risk of complex disorders: The example of alcoholism and other psychiatric disorders. Twin Research 5:30–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, James J. 2006. Skill formation and economics of investing in disadvantaged children. Science 312:1900–1902.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Michelle. 2006. Personality traits and occupational attainment. European Sociological Review 22:187–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaffee, Sara R., and Thomas S. Price. 2007. Gene-environment correlations. A review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness. Molecular Psychiatry 12:432–442.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jencks, Christopher, and Laura Tach. 2006. Would equal opportunity mean more mobility? In Mobility and inequality: Frontiers of research in sociology and economics, eds. Stephen Morgan, David Grusky, and Gary Fields, 23–58. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Wendy, and Robert F. Krueger. 2005. Genetic effects on physical health: Lower at higher income levels. Behavior Genetics 35:579-590.

  • Johnson, Wendy, Kirsten O. Kyvik, Erik L. Mortensen, Axel Skytthe, G. David Batty, and Ian J. Deary. 2010. Education reduces the effects of genetic susceptibilities to poor physical health. International journal of epidemiology 39:406-414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Wendy, Matt McGue, and William G. Iacono. 2005. Disruptive behavior and school achievement: Genetic and environmental relationships in 11-year-olds. Journal of Educational Psychology 97:391–405.

  • Johnson, Wendy, Matt McGue, and William G. Iacono. 2006. Genetic and environmental influences on academic achievement trajectories during adolescence. Developmental Psychology 42:514–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Wendy, Matt McGue, and William G. Iacono. 2007. Socioeconomic status and school grades: Placing their association in broader context in a sample of biological and adoptive families. Intelligence 35:526–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Andrew M., Philip A. Vernon, and Amanda R. Feiler. 2008. Behavioral genetic studies of personality: An introduction and review of the results of 50 + years of research. In The Sage handbook of personality theory and assessment, eds. Gregory J. Boyle, Gerald Matthews, and Donald H. Saklofske, 145–173. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Wendy, Eric Turkheimer, Irving I. Gottesman, and Thomas J. Bouchard. 2009. Beyond heritability: Twin studies in behavioral research. Current Directions in Psychological Science 18:217–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kanfer, Ruth, Connie R. Wanberg, and Tracy M. Kantrowitz. 2001. Job search and employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review. Journal of Applied Psychology 86:837–855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keller, Matthew C., Sarah E. Medland, Laramie E. Duncan, Peter K. Hatemi, Michael C. Neale, Hermine H. M. Maes, and Lindon J. Eaves. 2009. Modeling extended twin family data I: Description of the cascade model. Twin Research and Human Genetics 12:8–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendler, Kenneth S. 2001. Twin studies of psychiatric illness: An update. Archives of General Psychiatry 58:1005–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendler, Kenneth S., Ronald C. Kessler, Ellen E. Walters, Charles MacLean, Michael C. Neale, Andrew C. Heath, and Lindon J. Eaves. 1995. Stressful life events, genetic liability, and onset of an episode of major depression in women. American Journal of Psychiatry 152:833–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Yong-Kyu. 2009. Handbook of behavior genetics. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Hans-Peter, and Joseph L. Rodgers. 2003. Education, fertility, and heritability: Explaining a paradox. In Offspring: Human fertility behavior in biodemographic perspective, ed. National Research Council of the National Academies, 46–90. The Natioinal Academies Press. Washington D.C.

  • Kohler, Hans-Peter., Joseph L. Rodgers, and Kaare Christensen. 1999. Is fertility behavior in our genes? Findings from a Danish twin study. Population and Development Review 25:253–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, Hans-Peter, Jere R. Behrman, and Jason Schnittker. 2011. Social science methods for twins data: Integrating causality, endowments, and heritability. Biodemography and Social Biology 57:88–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, Peter. 2004. Activities and causation: The metaphysics and epistemology of mechanisms. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18:27–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manuck, Stephen B., and Jeanne M. McCaffery. 2014. Gene-environment interaction. Annual Review of Psychology 65:41–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, François. 2006. Achievement and ascription in educational attainment: Genetic and environmental influences on adolescent schooling. Social Forces 85:193–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nisbett, Richard E., Joshua Aronson, Clancy Blair, William Dickens, James Flynn, Diane F. Halpern, and Eric Turkheimer. 2012. Intelligence. New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist 67:130–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, Martha. 2000. Review of from chance to choice: Genetics and justice by Allen Buchanan, Dan W. Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler. New Republic 12:38–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, Robert, and Denise Daniels. 2011. Why are children in the same family so different from one another? International Journal of Epidemiology 40:563-582.

  • Plomin, Robert, John C. DeFries, and John C. Loehlin.1977. Genotype-environment interaction and correlation in the analysis of human development. Psychological Bulletin 84:309–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, Robert, John C. DeFries, Gerald E. McClearn, and Peter McGuffin. 2008. Behavioral genetics. 5th. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, Robert, John C. DeFries, Valerie S. Knopik, and Jenae M. Neiderhiser. 2013. Behavioral genetics. 6th. New York: Worth Publisher

    Google Scholar 

  • Plomin, Robert, and Stephen M. Kosslyn. 2001. Genes, brain and cognition. Nature neuroscience 4:1153-1154.

  • Posthuma, Daniëlle. 2009. Multivariate genetic analysis. In Handbook of behavior genetics, eds. Yong-Kyu Kim, 47–60. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma, Dorret, and Danielle I. Boomsma. 2000. A note on the statistical power in extended twin designs. Behavior Genetics 30:147–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purcell, Shaun. 2013. Appendix: Statistical methods in behaviorial genetics. In Behavioral genetics, eds. Robert Plomin, John C. DeFries, Valerie S. Knopik, and Jenae M. Neiderhiser 6th. New York: Worth Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, John. 2012. What is the justification of studying intergenerational mobility of economic status? In From parents to children, eds. John Ermisch, Markus Jäntti, and Timothy Smeeding, 482–488. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowe, David C., Wendy J. Vesterdal, and Joseph L. Rodgers. 1998. Herrnstein’s syllogism: Genetic and shared environmental influences on IQ, education, and income. Intelligence 26:405–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rutter, Michael, Michael Pickles, Andrew Murray, and Lindon Eaves. 2001. Testing hypotheses on specific environmental causal effects on behavior. Psychological Bulletin 127:291–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saunders, Peter. 2002. Reflections on the meritocracy debate in Britain: A response to Richard Breen and John Goldthorpe. British Journal of Sociology 53:559–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scarr, Sandra, and Louise Carter-Saltzman. 1979. Twin method: Defense of a critical assumption. Behavior Genetics 9:527–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Michael J. 2013. Social genomics and the life course: Opportunities and challenges for multilevel population research. In New directions in the sociology of aging, eds. Linda J. Waite and Thomas J. Plewes, 255–276. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Michael J., and Jason Boardman. 2009. Genetics and behavior in the life course: a promising frontier. In The craft of life course research, eds. Glen A. Jr. Elder and Janet Z. Giele, 215–235. London: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Michael J., and Scott M. Hofer. 2005. Social context in gene-environment interactions: Retrospect and prospect. Journals of Gerontology 60B:65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Michael. J., and Scott M. Hofer. 2011. Molecular genetics, aging, and well-being: sensitive period, accumulation, and pathway models. In Handbook of aging and social sciences, eds. Robert H. Binstock and George L. K. Morris, 135–147. New York: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, Michael J., Scott M. Hofer, and Lilly Shanahan. 2003. Biological models of behavior and the life course. In Handbook of the Life Course - Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research, eds. Jeylan T. Mortimer and Michael J. Shanahan, 597-622. US: Springer.

  • Silberg, Judy L., Michael Rutter, and Lindon Eaves. 2001. Genetic and environmental influences on the temporal association between earlier anxiety and later depression in girls. Biological psychiatry 49:1040-1049.

  • Smeeding, Timothy, Robert Erikson, and Markus Jäntti. 2011. Introduction. In Persistence, privilege, and parenting, eds. Timothy Smeeding, Robert Erikson, and Markus Jäntti, 1–26. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Kevin B, and Peter K. Hatemi. 2013. OLS is AOK for ACE: a regression-based approach to synthesizing political science and behavioral genetics models. Political Behavior 35:383-408.

  • Tambs, Kristian, Jon Martin Sundet, Per Magnus, and Kare Berg. 1989. Genetic and environmental contributions to the covariance between occupational status, educational attainment, and IQ: A study of twins. Behavior Genetics 19:209–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turkheimer, Eric. 1998. Heritability and biological explanation. Psychological Review 105:782-791.

  • Turkheimer, Eric. 2000. Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9:160-164.

  • Turkheimer, Eric, Andreana Haley, Mary Waldron, Brian D’Onofrio, and Irving I. Gottesman. 2003. Socieoeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science 14:623–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaupel, James W. 2004. The biodemography of aging. Population and Development Review 30:48–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Visscher, Peter M., William G. Hill, and Naomi R. Wray. 2008. Heritability in the genomics era—concepts and misconceptions. Nature Reviews Genetics 9:255–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, Maxime, James Vaupel, and Kenneth Wachter. 2008. Biosocial surveys. Report of the National Research Council of the National Academies. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyphur, Michael J., Jayanth Narayanan, Richard D. Arvey, and Gordon J. Alexander. 2009. The genetics of economic risk preferences. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22:367–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Bielefeld University, 33501, Postfach 100131, Bielefeld, Germany

    Martin Diewald, Tina Baier, Wiebke Schulz & Reinhard Schunck

Authors
  1. Martin Diewald
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tina Baier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Wiebke Schulz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Reinhard Schunck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Martin Diewald.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Diewald, M., Baier, T., Schulz, W. et al. Status Attainment and Social Mobility. Köln Z Soziol 67 (Suppl 1), 371–395 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-015-0317-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-015-0317-6

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

search

Navigation