Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T09:36:48.148Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Abstraction Skilfulness in Monozygotic and Dizygotic Twin Pairs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

S. Nicole  and
C. Del Miglio
S. Nicole
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
C. Del Miglio*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Roma “La Sapienza”
*
Dipartimento di Psicologia, Via dei Marsi 78 – 00185 Rome, Italy

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The computerized version of the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (WCST) was administered to a sample of 96 subjects (Ss), constituted in equal parts by monozygotic twins (MZ), dizygotic twins (DZ), unique children and couples of “almost contemporary” brothers. The statistic tests (Analysis of principal components, ANOVA) underline, as far as the rapidity to define a category is concerned, a statistically significant difference between DZ and singletons, independently from the fact that the latter may be unique children. A significant difference emerged neither between MZ and singletons, nor between MZ and DZ.

Keywords

AbstractionPrincipal components analysisTwins
Type
Research Article
Information
Acta geneticae medicae et gemellologiae: twin research , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , January 1997 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1997

References

REFERENCES

1.Bouchard, TJ Jr. (1984): Twins reared together and apart. What they tell us about human diversity. In Fox, SW (ed.) Individuality and determinis. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 147–178.Google Scholar
2.Cattell, RB (1971): Abilities, their structure, growth and action. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
3.Cattel, RB (1987): Intelligence, its structure, growth and action. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
4.Cronbach, LJ (1984): Essentials of psychological testing. New York: Harper (trad. it. I test psicologici: Giunti Martello 1979-82).Google Scholar
5.Del Miglio, C, Paluzzi, S, Talli, M, Falanga, M (1996): Field dependence and characteristics of conceptualization in identical twins. Acta Gen Med Gemellol, 45, 449–460.Google ScholarPubMed
6.Greenacre, MJ (1984): Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic press.Google Scholar
7.Harris, ME (1990). Wisconsin card sorting test: computer version. Manual for Apple computers. Odessa USA.Google Scholar
8.Heaton, RK (1981). Wisconsin card sorting test manual. USA: P.A.R.Google Scholar
9.Huteau, M (1995): Manuel de psychologie différentielle. Paris: Dunod (trad. it. La prospettiva differenziale in Psicologia: Borla, Roma 1996).Google Scholar
10.Kendall, MG (1975): Multivariate analysis. New York: Hafner Press.Google Scholar
11.Juel-Nielsen, N (1965): Individual and environment. A psychiatric psychological investigation of monozigotic twins reared apart. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavia, Supplement, 183.Google Scholar
12.Newman, HH, Freeman, FN, Holzinger, KJ (1937): Twins. A study of heredity and environment. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
13.Shield, H (1962): Monozigotic twins brought up apart and brought up together. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
14.Thurstone, LL, Thurstone, TG (1941): Factorial studies of intelligence.Google Scholar
15.Vernon, PE (1972): The distinctiveness of field independence. J Personality, 40, 366–391.Google Scholar