2021
DOI: 10.1007/s10519-021-10080-w
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Heritability × SES Interaction for IQ: Is it Present in US Adoption Studies?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is also possible that non-ordinary characteristics about step siblings and adoptive/foster pairs prevent the Scarr-Rowe effect from being generalized to these families. In fact, the Scarr-Rowe effect was also absent in a recent family study of adoptees (Loehlin et al, 2022). of the additive genetic effect by both parental education and peer academic environment was observed, but only marginally significant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It is also possible that non-ordinary characteristics about step siblings and adoptive/foster pairs prevent the Scarr-Rowe effect from being generalized to these families. In fact, the Scarr-Rowe effect was also absent in a recent family study of adoptees (Loehlin et al, 2022). of the additive genetic effect by both parental education and peer academic environment was observed, but only marginally significant.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 79%
“…in analyses to amplify statistical power (Kirkpatrick et al, 2015;Rowe et al, 1999). Moreover, including these genetic pairs broadens the scope of the relationship to which the Scarr-Rowe can be applied: one recent study has included adoptive families as a way of examining the Scarr-Rowe interaction in contexts broader than only MZ and DZ twins (Loehlin et al, 2022). Siblings and adoptees have also provided valuable insights into other forms of gene-environment interplay in quantitative genetic and social genomic studies A second reason for variability in the Scarr-Rowe interaction is that gene×SES interactions may differ in strength across different populations or societies.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Model-fitting results for Osborne Set One are provided in Table S1. As one might expect given the theory and evidence that support most genetic variance being additive (Hill et al, 2008;Hivert et al, 2021;Mäki-Tanila & Hill, 2014;Pazokitoroudi et al, 2021) and the presence of shared environmental effects in adoption studies (Cesarini & Visscher, 2017;Kendler et al, 2014;Mason & Frick, 1994;Rhee & Waldman, 2002;Willoughby et al, 2021) 5 , models featuring shared 5 Because typical adoption studies can only tell us about the presence of C and cannot say anything about D, the fact that many adoption studies do not support non-zero C (e.g., Frisell et al, 2012;Loehlin et al, 2022;Mednick et al, 1984) is irrelevant to the decision between C and D.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other studies of the Scarr-Rowe effect have used different behavior-genetic techniques, including adoption designs ( Loehlin et al, 2022 ), parent-offspring resemblance measures ( Nagoshi and Johnson, 2005 ; Flores-Mendoza et al, 2017 ), and molecular methods such as single nucleotide polymorphism heritabilities and polygenic scoring (PGS) ( Woodley of Menie et al, 2018 ; Rask-Andersen et al, 2021 ; Woodley of Menie et al, 2021 ; Peñaherrera-Aguirre et al, 2022 ). The results of these studies have also been mixed, with some (e.g., Woodley of Menie et al, 2018 , 2021 ; Peñaherrera-Aguirre et al, 2022 ) finding evidence for the effect in both younger and older US cohorts, some finding evidence for the effect in (younger) Brazilian cohorts ( Flores-Mendoza et al, 2017 ), some finding no evidence for the effect in (older) US cohorts ( Nagoshi and Johnson, 2005 ; Loehlin et al, 2022 ), and another finding evidence for the opposite effect in a large middle-aged UK cohort ( Rask-Andersen et al, 2021 ).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%