Monozygotic Twin Similarity in Multiple Psychophysiologic Parameters and Measures

  • James D. Block


One stage in our understanding of human psychophysiologic function is to delineate the various components, or parameters, of function and those factors which affect their magnitude and quality of expression. A corollary aim of clear importance in this respect is to determine the relative susceptibility of the various parameters to alteration by environmental influence. Comparison among functional parameters is thus required, but one in which genetic influences are held constant. For such investigation, the monozygotic (MZ) twin pair furnishes ideal subject material.


Twin Pair Physiologic Measure Pulse Height Stimulus Level Galvanic Skin Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Baggaley, A.R.: Intermediate Correlational Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Block, J. D.: Stimulus discrimination among autonomic measures: Individual and group characteristics, Psychosom. Med. 27 (3): 212–228, 1965.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Block, J. D.: Multiple prestimulus-change relationships: Implications for covariance analysis of psychophysiologic responses (in preparation).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Block, J. D., and Bridger, W. H.: The law of initial value in psychophysiology: A reformulation in terms of experimental and theoretical considerations, Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 98: 1229–1241, 1962.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haggard, E.A.: Intraclass Correlation andtheAnalysis of Variance, The Dryden Press, Inc., New York, 1958.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Husén, T.: Psychological Twin Research, Almqvist and Wiksell, Stockholm, 1959.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jost, H., and Sontag, L. W.: The genetic factor in autonomic nervous system function, Psychosom. Med. 6: 308–310, 1944.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kempthorne, O., and Osborne, R. H.: The interpretation of twin data, Amer. J. Human Genet. 13: 320–339, 1961.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malmo, R.B., and Davis, J. F.: Physiological gradients as indicants of “arousal” in mirror tracing, Canad. J. Psychol. 10: 231–238, 1956.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, D.R.: On the interaction of simultaneous responses, Psychol. Bull. 50: 204–220, 1953.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ohira, K.: Resemblance of the galvanic skin response in twins (in Japanese), Jap. J. Psychol. 27: 15–21, 1956.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Price, B.: Primary biases in twin studies: A review of prenatal and natal difference-producing factors in monozygotic pairs, Amer. J. Human Genet. 2 (4): 293–352, 1950.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rachman, S.: Galvanic skin response in identical twins, Psych. Rep. 6: 298, 1960.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Snedecor, G. W.: Statistical Methods: Applied to Experiments in Agriculture and Biology (ed. 5 ), Iowa State College Press, Ames, Iowa, 1956.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Steinschneider, A., and Lipton, E. L.: Individual differences in autonomic responsivity: Problems of measurement, Psychosom. Med. 27: 446–456, 1965.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vandenberg, S.G., et al.: Psychophysiological reactions of twins: Hereditary factors in galvanic skin resistance, heartbeat, and breathing rates, Eugenics Quart. 12 (1): 7–10, 1965.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Webster, J. T.: Covariance analysis with unequal slopes (in preparation).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wilde, G. J.S.: Inheritance of personality traits: An investigation into the hereditary determination of neurotic instability, extraversion, and other personality traits by means of a questionnaire administered to twins, Acta Psychologica 22: 37–51, 1964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • James D. Block

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations