The quest for quantitative trait loci associated with intelligence

Plomin, Robert; Kennedy, Joanna K. J.; Craig, Ian

doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.01.001

Cited by 47 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 133 publications

(142 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, since the sheer number of involved loci will impede selection's ability to deplete V A , the magnitude of D a for downstream traits will likely be in the medium range (Stirling et al, 2002). These predictions (Table 1) are consistent with what is currently known about the genetic structure of g (Plomin, Kennedy, & Craig, 2006;Plomin & Spinath, 2004). Enormous efforts to identify single genes of major effect underlying intelligence led to meagre success at best, and to the conclusion that a huge number of pleiotropic polymorphisms must be responsible for its genetic variation (Kovas & Plomin, 2006).…”

Section: Further Predictionssupporting

confidence: 73%

The evolutionary genetics of personality

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Genetic influences on personality differences are ubiquitous, but their nature is not well understood. A theoretical framework might help, and can be provided by evolutionary genetics. We assess three evolutionary genetic mechanisms that could explain genetic variance in personality differences: selective neutrality, mutation-selection balance, and balancing selection. Based on evolutionary genetic theory and empirical results from behaviour genetics and personality psychology, we conclude that selective neutrality is largely irrelevant, that mutation-selection balance seems best at explaining genetic variance in intelligence, and that balancing selection by environmental heterogeneity seems best at explaining genetic variance in personality traits. We propose a general model of heritable personality differences that conceptualises intelligence as fitness components and personality traits as individual reaction norms of genotypes across environments, with different fitness consequences in different environmental niches. We also discuss the place of mental health in the model. This evolutionary genetic framework highlights the role of gene-environment interactions in the study of personality, yields new insight into the person-situation-debate and the structure of personality, and has practical implications for both quantitative and molecular genetic studies of personality.

show abstract

Section: Further Predictionssupporting

confidence: 73%

The evolutionary genetics of personality

2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this should perhaps not be seen as unexpected or discouraging. Even if general intelligence is unitary as a statistical construct, its biological basis appears to involve hundreds, if not thousands, of individual genes, each of which makes but a minute contribution to variability in the phenotype (Plomin 2006). As we study simple physiological or behavioral phenomena that are associated with intelligence, we might expect a similarly complex jigsaw puzzle, where each component mechanism is only a small part of the complete picture.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behaviour: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behavior: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing Experimental Brain Research, 2011, Vol. 214, Issue 2, p. 175 -183 doi 10.1007/s00221-011-2817 Access to the published version may require subscription. Published with permission from: Springer AbstractIntelligence is associated with accuracy in a wide range of timing tasks. One source of such associations is likely to be individual differences in top-down control, e.g. sustained attention, that influence performance in both temporal tasks and other cognitively controlled behaviors.In addition, we have studied relations between intelligence and a simple rhythmic motor task, isochronous serial interval production (ISIP), and found a substantial component of that relation, which is independent of fluctuations in top-down control. The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether such bottom-up mechanisms are involved also in the relation between intelligence and reaction time (RT) tasks. We thus investigated if common variance between the ISIP and RT tasks underlies their respective associations with intelligence. 112 participants performed a simple RT task, a choice RT task and the ISIP task.Intelligence was assessed with the Raven SPM Plus. The analysed timing variables included mean and variability in the RT tasks and two variance components in the ISIP task. As predicted, RT and ISIP variables were associated with intelligence. The timing variables were positively intercorrelated and a principal component analysis revealed a substantial first principal component that was strongly related to all timing variables, and positively correlated with intelligence. Furthermore, a commonality analysis demonstrated that the relations between intelligence and the timing variables involved a commonality between the timing variables as well as unique contributions from choice RT and ISIP. We discuss possible implications of these findings, and argue that they support our main hypothesis, i.e. that relations between intelligence and RT tasks have a bottom-up component.

show abstract

“…Consequently, attempts to replicate, which are typically based on larger samples where there is less opportunity to capitalize on chance findings due to multiple testing, will report smaller and sometimes nonsignificant effects sizes. The importance of the DRD2/alcoholism saga is that it has shown us that: 1) genetic association studies will require large samples (in the thousands rather than the hundreds) to produce statistically reliable results; and 2) the effect of any single genetic locus is likely to be very small -ORs of 1.1 to 1.3 for categorical outcomes and < .5% of variance accounted for quantitative outcomes (Plomin, Kennedy, & Craig, 2006).…”

Section: The Future Of Behavioral Genetic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The End of Behavioral Genetics?

McGue

2010

Behav Genet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although genetic models were in the ascendance within psychology during the early 20 th century, the association of early behavioral genetic research with the eugenics movement served to discredit the field in the eyes of many. Twin and adoption studies throughout the latter half of the 20 th century helped to reestablish the importance of behavioral genetic models and set the stage for the current focus of the field on developing and testing models of gene-environment interplay. Research findings on developmental behavioral genetic research, gene-environment interaction, and the use of behavioral genetic models to test causal hypotheses are used to highlight the contributions of contemporary behavioral genetic research to psychological research. It is argued that future efforts to investigate models of gene-environment interplay will depend heavily of the field's ability to identify the specific genetic variants that contribute to individual differences in behavior. The anticipated yield from genome-wide association studies gives much reason to be optimistic about the future vitality of behavior genetics.The end of behavioral genetics? Recently the developmental psychologist, Richard Lerner, published a commentary entitled, "Another nine-inch nail for behavioral geneticists!" (Lerner, 2006). Lerner began his commentary with the lament, "Why do we have to keep reinterring behavior genetics" (p. 337), but concluded confident in the belief that a critical analysis of IQ adoption studies (Richardson & Norgate, 2006) had finally help put the field irretrievably where he felt it belonged, presumably six feet under. Singing the death knell of behavior genetics has been a popular pastime for critics of the field over the past 100 years, but critiques like that by Richardson and Norgate (2006) have done little to dampen interest in behavioral genetics. It is not that behavioral genetics is above criticism; quite the contrary there is much to criticize about the field. Rather, the reason Lerner and his fellow critics are engaged in the Sisyphean task of "reinterring" behavioral genetics is that they have failed to recognize the enormous impact the field has had on the way psychologists think about individual differences in behavior; they have failed to understand the essential nature of the behavioral genetic research paradigm.The purpose of this special issue of Acta Psychologica Sinica is, of course, to recognize the vitality of contemporary behavioral genetic research, not to mourn its demise. Nonetheless, even as we highlight research progress in the field, it can be helpful to consider how others have reacted to behavioral genetic findings, even the field's most enthusiastic critics. Behavioral genetics has often been caught up in controversy, sometimes unfairly, and an assessment of its current impact on psychology can benefit from both a discussion of the field's historical roots, with which I will begin, and speculation over its possible future, where I will end. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptXin Li...

show abstract

The quest for quantitative trait loci associated with intelligence

Cited by 47 publications

References 133 publications

The evolutionary genetics of personality

The evolutionary genetics of personality

Intelligence and temporal accuracy of behaviour: unique and shared associations with reaction time and motor timing

The End of Behavioral Genetics?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About