Hostname: page-component-cc8bf7c57-8cnds Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-11T23:03:20.493Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gene-Environment Interplay in Twin Models

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Brad Verhulst  and
Peter K. Hatemi
Brad Verhulst
Affiliation:
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Virginia Commonwealth University, 800 East Leigh Street, Biotech 1, Richmond, VA 23219 e-mail: [email protected]
Peter K. Hatemi*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Microbiology and Biochemistry, Pennsylvania State University, 307 Pond Lab, University Park, PA 16802
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we respond to Shultziner's critique that argues that identical twins are more alike not because of genetic similarity, but because they select into more similar environments and respond to stimuli in comparable ways, and that these effects bias twin model estimates to such an extent that they are invalid. The essay further argues that the theory and methods that undergird twin models, as well as the empirical studies which rely upon them, are unaware of these potential biases. We correct this and other misunderstandings in the essay and find that gene-environment (GE) interplay is a well-articulated concept in behavior genetics and political science, operationalized as gene-environment correlation and gene-environment interaction. Both are incorporated into interpretations of the classical twin design (CTD) and estimated in numerous empirical studies through extensions of the CTD. We then conduct simulations to quantify the influence of GE interplay on estimates from the CTD. Due to the criticism's mischaracterization of the CTD and GE interplay, combined with the absence of any empirical evidence to counter what is presented in the extant literature and this article, we conclude that the critique does not enhance our understanding of the processes that drive political traits, genetic or otherwise.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 21 , Issue 3 , Summer 2013 , pp. 368 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Authors' note: Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site. Replication data for this article is available at http://dvn.iq.harvard.edu/dvn/dv/pan.

References

Alford, J. R., Funk, C., and Hibbing, J. R. 2005. Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review 99(2): 153–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, John R., Hatemi, Peter K., Hibbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J. 2011. The politics of mate choice. Journal of Politics 73(2): 362–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baron, R. M., and Kenny, D. A. 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boardman, Jason D. 2011. Is gene-environment interplay relevant to the study of political behaviors and attitudes? In Man Is by Nature a Political Animal, eds. Hatemi, Peter K. and McDermott, Rose. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Boardman, J. D., Blalock, C. L., Pampel, F. C., Hatemi, P. K., Heath, A. C., and Eaves, L. J. 2011. Population composition, public policy, and the genetics of smoking. Demography 48(4): 1517–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boardman, Jason D., Roettger, Michael E., Domingue, Benjamin W., McQueen, Matthew B., Haberstick, Brett C., and Harris, Kathleen Mullan. 2012. Gene-environment interactions related to body mass: School policies and social context as environmental moderators. Journal of Theoretical Politics 24(3): 370–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomsma, D. I., de Geus, E. J., van Baal, G. C., and Koopmans, J. R. 1999. A religious upbringing reduces the influence of genetic factors on disinhibition: Evidence for interaction between genotype and environment on personality. Twin Research 2(2): 115–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boomsma, D. I., and Martin, N. G. 2002. Gene-environment interactions. In Biological Psychiatry, 2 ed., eds. D'haenen, H., den Boer, J. A., and Willner, P., 181–87. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Box, George E.P., and Draper, Norman Richard. 1987. Empirical Model-Building and Response Surfaces. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. Applied Probability and Statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carey, Gregory. 1986. Sibling imitation and contrast effects. Behavior Genetics 16(3): 319–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charney, Evan, and English, William. 2012. Candidate genes and political behavior. American Political Science Review 106(1): 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
De Moor, M. H., Boomsma, D. I., Stubbe, J. H., Willemsen, G., and de Geus, E. J. 2008. Testing causality in the association between regular exercise and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Archives of General Psychiatry 65(8): 897–905.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, D. L., and Martin, N. G. 1994. Inferring the direction of causation in cross-sectional twin data: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Genetic Epidemiology 11(6): 483–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaves, L. 1976. A model for sibling effects in man. Heredity 36(2): 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaves, L. J., Chen, S., Neale, M. C., Maes, H. H., and Silberg, J. L. 2005. Questions, models and methods in psychiatric genetics. In Psychiatric Genetics: Review of Psychiatry, eds. Kendler, K. S. and Eaves, L. J., 19–94. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.Google Scholar
Eaves, L., and Erkanli, A. 2003. Markov chain Monte Carlo approaches to analysis of genetic and environmental components of human developmental change and G × E interaction. Behavior Genetics 33(3): 279–99.Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., and Martin, N. G. 1989. Genes, Culture, and Personality: An Empirical Approach. London and San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J., and Hatemi, P. K. 2008. Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Effects of genes, social learning and mate selection. Behavior Genetics 38(3): 247–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaves, L. J., Hatemi, P. K., Prom-Womley, E. C., and Murrelle, L. 2008. Social and genetic influences on adolescent religious attitudes and practices. Social Forces 86(4): 1621–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaves, L., Heath, A., Martin, N., Maes, H., Neale, M., Kendler, K., Kirk, K., and Corey, L. 1999. Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30,000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research 2(2): 62–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaves, L. J., Last, Krystyna, Martin, N. G., and Jinks, J. L. 1977. A progressive approach to non-additivity and genotype-environmental covariance in the analysis of human differences. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 30(1): 1–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eaves, L., Martin, N., Heath, A., Schieken, R., Meyer, J., Silberg, J., Neale, M., and Corey, L. 1997. Age changes in the causes of individual differences in conservatism. Behavior Genetics 27(2): 121–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eaves, Lindon J., Hatemi, Peter K., Heath, Andrew C., and Martin, Nicholas G. 2011. Modeling biological and cultural inheritance. In Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics, eds. Hatemi, Peter K. and McDermott, Rose, 101–84. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fazekas, Zoltan, and Littvay, Levente. 2011. Evolution overnight: Exploring why party identification suddenly became heritable in the 2008 Minnesota twins political survey. Paper presented at the Elections Public Opinion and Parties, Exeter, UK, September.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. 1918. The correlation between relatives on the supposition of mendelian inheritance. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 52: 399–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, J. H., and Dawes, C. 2013. In defense of genopolitics. American Political Science Review 107: 362–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fulker, D. W. 1979. Nature and nurture. In The Structure and Measurement of Intelligence, ed. Eysenck, Hans J. Berlin, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
Galton, Francis. 1869. Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into Its Laws and Consequences. London, UK: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, N. A., and Martin, Nicholas G. 2005. Direction of causation models. In Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, eds. Everitt, Brian S. and Howell, David C., Vol. 1, 496–99. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Google Scholar
Gillespie, Nathan A., Gehrman, Philip, Byrne, Enda M., Kendler, Kenneth S., Heath, Andrew C., and Martin, Nicholas G. 2012. Modeling the direction of causation between cross-sectional measures of disrupted sleep, anxiety and depression in a sample of male and female Australian twins. Journal of Sleep Research 21(6): 675–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillespie, N. A., Zhu, G., Neale, M. C., Heath, A. C., and Martin, N. G. 2003. Direction of causation modeling between cross-sectional measures of parenting and psychological distress in female twins. Behavior Genetics 33(4): 383–96.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatemi, Peter K. 2012. The intersection of behavioral genetics and political science: Introduction to the special issue. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15(1): 1–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatemi, Peter K. Forthcoming 2013. The influence of major life events on economic policy attitudes in a world of gene-environment interplay. American Journal of Politcal Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Funk, Carolyn L., Medland, Sarah E., Maes, Hermine M., Silberg, Judy L., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J. 2009. Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time. Journal of Politics 71(3): 1141–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Dawes, Christopher T., Frost-Keller, Amanda, Settle, Jamie E., and Verhulst, Brad. 2011. Integrating social science and genetics: News from the political front. Biodemography and Social Biology 57(1): 67–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatemi, Peter K., Byrne, Enda, and McDermott, Rose. 2012. Introduction: What is a “gene” and why does it matter for political science? Journal of Theoretical Politics 24(3): 305–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Gillespie, N. A., Eaves, L. J., Maher, B. S., Webb, B. T., Heath, A. C., Medland, S. E., Smyth, D. C., Beeby, H. N., Gordon, S. D., Montgomery, G. W., Zhu, G., Byrne, E. M., and Martin, N. G. 2011. A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes. Journal of Politics 73(1): 271–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., Martin, N. G., and Eaves, L. J. 2010. Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. American Journal of Politcal Science 54(3): 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Alford, John R., Hibbing, John R., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J. 2009. Is there a “party” in your genes? Political Research Quarterly 62(3): 584–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose. 2011. Man Is by Nature a Political Animal: Evolution, Biology, and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose. 2012a. The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics 28(10): 525–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose. 2012b. A neurobiological approach to foreign policy analysis: Identifying individual differences in political violence. Foreign Policy Analysis 8(2): 111–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, A. C., Kessler, R. C., Neale, M. C., Hewitt, J. K., Eaves, L. J., and Kendler, K. S. 1993. Testing hypotheses about direction of causation using cross-sectional family data. Behavior Genetics 23(1): 29–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jinks, J. L., and Fulker, D. W. 1970. Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of human behavior. Psychological Bulletin 73(5): 311–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keller, M. C., Medland, S. E., Duncan, L. E., Hatemi, P. K., Neale, M. C., Maes, H. H., and Eaves, L. J. 2009. Modeling extended twin family data I: Description of the cascade model. Twin Research and Human Genetics 12(1): 8–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kendler, K. S., and Eaves, L. J. 1986. Models for the joint effect of genotype and environment on liability to psychiatric illness. American Journal of Psychiatry 143(3): 279–89.Google ScholarPubMed
King, G. 2011. Ensuring the data-rich future of the social sciences. Science 331(6018): 719–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemmensen, R. 2011. Genetic and environmental effects on welfare attitudes: An experimental study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Klemmensen, Robert, Hatemi, Peter K., Hobolt, Sara B., Skytthe, Axel, and Nørgaard, Asbjørn S. 2012b. Heritability in political interest and efficacy across cultures: Denmark and the United States. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15(1): 15–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klemmensen, Robert, Hatemi, Peter K., Hobolt, Sara Binzer, Petersen, Inge, Skytthe, Axel, and Nørgaard, Asbjørn S. 2012a. The genetics of political participation, civic duty, and political efficacy across cultures: Denmark and the United States. Journal of Theoretical Politics 24(3): 409–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klofstad, Casey A., McDermott, Rose, and Hatemi, Peter K. 2012. Do bedroom eyes wear political glasses? The role of politics in human mate attraction. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(2): 100–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kohler, H. P., Behrman, J. R., and Schnittker, J. 2011. Social science methods for twins data: Integrating causality, endowments, and heritability. Biodemography and Social Biology 57(1): 88–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ligthart, Lannie, and Boomsma, Dorret I. 2012. Causes of comorbidity: Pleiotropy or causality? Shared genetic and environmental influences on migraine and neuroticism. Twin Research and Human Genetics 15(2): 158–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loehlin, John C. 2004. Latent Variable Models : An Introduction to Factor, Path, and Structural Equation Analysis. 4th ed. Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, N. G., and Eaves, L. J. 1977. The genetical analysis of covariance structure. Heredity 38(1): 79–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L. M., and Eysenck, H. J. 1986. Transmission of social attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 83(12): 4364–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mather, Kenneth, and Jinks, John L. 1971. Biometrical Genetics: The Study of Continuous Variation. 2nd rev. ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matsusaka, John G., and Palda, Filip. 1999. Voter turnout: How much can we explain? Public Choice 98 (3/4): 431–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medland, S. E., Neale, M. C., Eaves, L. J., and Neale, B. M. 2009. A note on the parameterization of Purcell's G × E model for ordinal and binary data. Behavior Genetics 39(2): 220–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medland, Sarah E., and Hatemi, Peter K. 2009. Political science, biometric theory, and twin studies: A methodological introduction. Political Analysis 17(2): 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendel, Gregor. 1930. Experiments in Plant-Hybridisation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Middeldorp, C. M., Cath, D. C., Beem, A. L., Willemsen, G., and Boomsma, D. I. 2008. Life events, anxious depression and personality: A prospective and genetic study. Psychological Medicine 38(11): 1557–65.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Molenaar, P. C. M., Boomsma, D. I., Neeleman, D., Dolan, C. V., Rao, D. C., and Vogler, G. P. 1990. Using factor scores to detect G × E interactive origin of “pure” genetic or environmental factors obtained in genetic covariance structure analysis. Genetic Epidemiology 7(1): 93–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neale, M. C., Boker, S. M., Xie, G., and Maes, H. H. 2002. Mx, Statistical Modeling. 6th ed. Richmond: Virginia Commonwealth University.Google Scholar
Neale, Michael C., and Cardon, Lon R. 1992. Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neale, Michael C., Duffy, David L., and Martin, Nicholas G. 1994. Direction of causation: Reply to commentaries. Genetic Epidemiology 11(6): 463–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norgaard, Asbjorn. 2012. Education, political orientation and participation in a world of genes and environments. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Ozaki, K., and Ando, J. 2009. Direction of causation between shared and non-shared environmental factors. Behavior Genetics 39(3): 321–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pearson, K., and Lee, A. 1903. On the laws of inheritance in man. Biometrika 2: 357–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plomin, Robert. 1994. Genetics and Experience: The Interplay between Nature and Nurture. Sage Series on Individual Differences and Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Plomin, Robert, and Asbury, Kathryn. 2005. Nature and nurture: Genetic and environmental influences on behavior. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 600(1): 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plutzer, Eric. 2002. Becoming a habitual voter: Inertia, resources, and growth in young adulthood. American Political Science Review 96(1): 41–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Samuel, Baker, Laura, Heath, Andrew, and Martin, Nicholas. 1996. Social contact, social attitudes, and twin similarity. Behavior Genetics 26(2): 123–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Price, Thomas S., and Jaffee, Sara R. 2008. Effects of the family environment: Gene-environment interaction and passive gene-environment correlation. Developmental Psychology 44(2): 305–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Purcell, S. 2002. Variance components models for gene-environment interaction in twin analysis. Twin Research 5(6): 554–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Rao, D. C., Morton, N. E., and Yee, S. 1976. Resolution of cultural and biological inheritance by path analysis. American Journal of Human Genetics 28(3): 228–42.Google ScholarPubMed
Rutter, Michael. 2006. Genes and Behavior: Nature-Nurture Interplay Explained. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Rutter, M., and Silberg, J. 2002. Gene-environment interplay in relation to emotional and behavioral disturbance. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 463–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Settle, Jaime E., Dawes, Christopher T., Christakis, Nicholas A., and Fowler, James H. 2010. Friendships moderate an association between a dopamine gene variant and political ideology. Journal of Politics 72(4): 1189–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shultziner, Doron. 2013. Genes and Politics: A new explanation and evaluation of twin study results and association studies in political science. Political Analysis 21: 350–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, K., Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Eaves, L. J., Funk, C., and Hibbing, J. R. 2012. Biology, ideology, and epistemology: How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care? American Journal of Politcal Science 56(1): 17–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, Kevin, and Hatemi, Peter. 2013. Ols is Aok for Ace: A regression-based approach to synthesizing political science and behavioral genetics models. Political Behavior 35(2): 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, Patrick, Read, Sanna, Hatemi, Peter, Zhu, Gu, Trull, Tim, Wright, Margaret, and Martin, Nicholas. 2010. A genetic basis for social trust? Political Behavior 32(2): 205–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Truett, K. R., Eaves, L. J., Walters, E. E., Heath, A. C., Hewitt, J. K., Meyer, J. M., Silberg, J., Neale, M. C., Martin, N. G., and Kendler, K. S. 1994. A model system for analysis of family resemblance in extended kinships of twins. Behavior Genetics 24(1): 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., and Gottesman, II. 2003. Socioeconomic status modifies heritability of IQ in young children. Psychological Science 14(6): 623–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verhulst, Brad, Eaves, Lindon J., and Hatemi, Peter K. 2012. Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of Politcal Science 56(1): 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verhulst, Brad, and Estabrook, Ryne. 2012. Using genetic information to test causal relationships in cross-sectional data. Journal of Theoretical Politics 24(3): 328–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vitaro, Frank, Brendgen, Mara, and Arseneault, Louise. 2009. The discordant MZ-twin method: One step closer to the holy grail of causality. International Journal of Behavioral Development 33(4): 376–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, S. 1920. The relative importance of heredity and environment in determining the piebald pattern of guinea-pigs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 6(6): 320–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. 1921. Correlation and causation. Journal of Agriculture Research 20(7): 557–85.Google Scholar
Wright, S. 1934. The method of path coefficients. Annals of Mathematical Statistics 5(3): 161–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zietsch, B. P., Verweij, K. J., Heath, A. C., and Martin, N. G. 2011. Variation in human mate choice: Simultaneously investigating heritability, parental influence, sexual imprinting, and assortative mating. American Naturalist 177(5): 605–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Supplementary material: File

Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material

Appendix 1

Download Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material(File)
File 117.2 KB
Supplementary material: File

Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material

Appendix 2

Download Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material(File)
File 91.1 KB
Supplementary material: File

Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material

Appendix 3

Download Verhulst and Hatemi supplementary material(File)
File 101.4 KB