American Academy of Political and Social Science
Nature and Nurture: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Behavior
Author(s): Robert Plomin and Kathryn Asbury
Source: The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 600, The
Use and Usefulness of the Social Sciences: Achievements, Disappointments, and Promise
(Jul., 2005), pp. 86-98
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. in association with the American Academy of
Political and Social Science
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25046112
Accessed: 11-02-2020 18:17 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/25046112?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Sage Publications, Inc. are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
The appropriate conjunction between the words natu
and nurture is not versus but and. There is increasi
acceptance of the evidence for substantial genetic inf
ence on many behavioral traits, but the same resear
also provides the best available evidence for the impo
tance of environmental influence and important clu
about how the environment works. Because much
developmental action is at the interface between genes
and environment, genetic research needs to incorporate
Nature and
Nurture:
measures of the environment, and environmental
research will be enhanced by collecting DNA.
Keywords: genetics; nature vs. nurture; twin studies;
behavioral traits; DNA
Genetic and
Environmental
Influences on
Behavior
After thetheAmerican
AmericansixAcademy
hundredofAcademy
Political volumes
and of of The Political Annals and of
Social Science with hardly a mention of genetics,
it is time to consider genetic as well as environmental influences on behavior. The theme of
this review is that both genetics and environment, and the interplay between them, contribute importantly to the development of individ-
ual differences in behaviors including mental
By
ROBERT PLOMIN
and
KATHRYN ASBURY
health and cognition. Quantitative genetic
research - exemplified by the twin design that
compares identical twins (monozygotic, MZ)
and fraternal twins (dizygotic, DZ) - has gone
beyond merely demonstrating the importance
of genetic influence (heritability) to investigat-
ing more sophisticated issues such as developmental change and continuity, heterogeneity
and comorbidity, and the interplay between
genes and environment.
Robert Plomin is MRC Research Professor of Behavioral
Genetics at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, where
he is deputy director of the Social, Genetic and Devel-
opmental Psychiatry (SGDP) Centre. The goal of the
SGDP Centre is to bring together genetic and environ-
mental research strategies to investigate behavioral
development, a theme that characterizes his research.
Kathryn Asbury is a postdoctoral researcher at the
SGDP Centre whose research focuses on the developmental interface between genes and environment.
DOI: 10.1177/0002716205277184
86 ANNALS, AAPSS, 600, July 2005
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
Most
AND
NURTURE
exciting
is
87
the
floo
the specific DNA sequenc
ioral disorders such as m
as
personality.
called
most
QTLs
in
a
The
latter
quantitative
trait
important implicatio
of small effect size
"QTL
set"
that
can
environmental risk indices such as socioeconomic status or education are used.
Unlike quantitative genetic research that requires unique samples such as twins,
molecular genetic research only requires DNA, which can be obtained painlessly
and inexpensively using cheek swabs. We look forward to exciting advances in
understanding the interplay between genes and environment once DNA is incorporated into social science research. Our hope for this article is that it facilitates
this integration.
In the first part of the article, we describe quantitative genetic research, emphasizing what it has taught us about the way the environment works to affect behav-
ioral development. The second part considers the future of genetic research,
which lies with DNA. The brevity of this article does not permit us to discuss back-
ground issues (such as the focus on individual differences rather than population
means), methodological issues (such as the twin method or methods for finding
QTL associations), or to document thoroughly the research that supports our conclusions (for details, see Plomin et al. 2001).
The History of Nature and Nurture
The application of genetic research to human problems has experienced spectacular highs and lows over the decades since its inception in 1865. The study of
nature and nurture in the development of behavioral traits began quietly with work
from Francis Galton (1865). Pace and interest increased only gradually until, in
1924, the first twin and adoption studies in developmental psychology were published (Merriman 1924; Theis 1924). Events little more than a decade later compli-
cated the course of progress. The slow but steady growth of genetic science was
stopped abruptly by a world sickened by Nazi war crimes and all that was associated with them. The Nazi regime s abuse of genetics was high-profile and terrifying
to a world in mourning, a world whose way of life had been threatened. The emergence of behaviorism around the same time (Watson 1930) proved a further road-
block in the development of genetic science, achieving a huge impact on the
behavioral sciences with its ostensibly comforting theory of an environmental
paradigm based on the assumption that we are what we learn.
Even from this poor midcentury soil, however, molecular genetic research managed to flourish, bursting onto the scientific stage in a Nobel Prize-winning blaze
of glory with the discovery of the structure of DNA less than a decade after the end
of World War II (Watson and Crick 1953). The genetic code was cracked in 1966,
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
t
88 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
the four-letter alphabet (G, A, T, C) of DNA
code for the twenty amino acids that are
crowning glory of the century and the begin
Human Genome Project s working draft of th
DNA in the human genome, nucleotide bases t
case of DNA (International Human Genome
et al. 2001).
The slow but steady growth o
was stopped abruptly by a w
by Nazi war crimes and all
associated with them.
During this time, genetic research on hum
building a case for the importance of genetics
book on behavioral genetics was only publis
research with nonhuman animals (Fuller a
nearly every area of behavior that has been s
shown strong genetic influence (Plomin e
sistently shown heritable influence in man
research such as mental illness, personality, c
drug use and abuse. Some areas showing st
surprising, such as self-esteem, interests, a
This research has led to growing acceptance
ronment in the etiology of individual differe
in the growing number of genetics papers in
funded research grants. The public also acce
F or example, a recent poll found that more t
reported genetics as being at least as importan
ness, personality, learning difficulties, and in
coming). Before the pendulum of fashion shift
important to emphasize that this same geneti
evidence for the importance of the environm
ents and teachers have it about right: genet
about half of the variance.
Consider schizophrenia. Until the 1960s, sch
ronmental in origin, with theories putting th
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
for
AND
the
NURTURE
fact
that
89
schizop
could
run
in
families
f
adoption
studies
succe
twins
are
much
more
sim
twins
are
genetically
ide
are
only
50
percent
simi
phrenic,
the
chances
are
DZ
twins,
the
chances
schizophrenia
is
just
as
phrenic
parents
at
birt
ents,
providing
efforts
to
dramatic
identify
schizophrenia
2003).
som
(Craddo
Back in the 1960s, when schizophrenia was thought to be caused environmentally, it was important to emphasize the evidence for genetic influence, such as the
concordance of 45 percent for identical twins. Now that genetic influence is widely
recognized, it is important to emphasize that identical twins are only 45 percent
concordant for schizophrenia, which means that in more than half of the cases,
these pairs of genetic clones are discordant for schizophrenia. This discordance
cannot be explained genetically - it must be due to environmental factors. Note
that the word environment in genetic research really means nongenetic , a much
broader definition of environment than is usually encountered in the behavioral
sciences. That is, environment denotes all nonheritable factors including possible
biological events such as prenatal and postnatal illnesses, not just psychosocial factors. Nonetheless, the point is that genetics often explains half of the variance of
behavioral traits, but this means that the environment explains the other half.
In addition to providing strong evidence for the importance of environmental
influence, two of the most important findings from genetic research involve nurture rather than nature: nonshared environment and what has been called the
nature of nurture.
Nonshared environment. Recent research shows that the environment works
very differently than we previously supposed. Theories of socialization have gener-
ally assumed that aspects of the environment such as socioeconomic status or
parental divorce will, for better or worse, make children growing up in the same
family similar to each other. Environmental research in genetically sensitive
designs has consistently found a different pattern, namely, that the environments
that affect behavioral development work by making children in the same family dif-
ferent (Plomin and Daniels 1987). We know this, for example, because genetically
unrelated children growing up in the same adoptive family scarcely resemble each
other for personality, psychopathology, and cognitive abilities after adolescence.
Siblings are often similar, but their similarity is rooted in their genes rather than in
the environment they share. Environment is hugely important to human development, but genetic research has shown beyond doubt that the most effective envi-
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
90 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
ronmental influences are those that ope
different, not similar. These environm
because they are not shared by children g
So why are children growing up in the s
almost two decades has attempted to ide
ronment, exploring differential parentin
ences in relation to a wide range of beh
with many environments showing signifi
and Dunn 2001; Turkheimer and Waldron
find specific nonshared environmental
variance, it should be emphasized that non
the environment works to influence beha
on the family environment, it seems reas
ily, with peers and individual life event
sources of nonshared environment (Har
contributes to nonshared environment in
experiences, or the subtle interplay of
over time, small differences in experienc
come. Identifying the factors responsible
of the big challenges for the future of th
The nature of nurture. Dozens of twi
genetic factors substantially influence me
ments such as parenting, stress, or soc
called "the nature of nurture" (Plomin
can this be true, given that environmen
environments can be considered as extend
ences between individuals as they select, m
ence of the world. In quantitative gene
type-environment (GE) correlation bec
genetic propensities and exposures to e
Given that environmental measures as well as behavioral measures show
genetic influence, it is reasonable to ask whether associations between environ
mental and behavioral measures are mediated genetically Multivariate genetic
analysis (discussed later) can be used to analyze genetic and environmental contributions to the correlation between environmental and behavioral measures.
Genetic factors can mediate the correlation to the extent that the environment rep-
resents a direct response to genetically influenced characteristics. For example,
differences in parenting could be the genetic result of child psychopathology,
rather than its cause. A general guideline from multivariate genetic research of this
sort is that genetic factors tend to be responsible for about half of the phenotypic
correlation between measures of the environment and measures of behavior. For
this reason, environmental measures cannot be assumed to be truly environmental. A far-reaching implication of this research supports a shift from thinking about
passive models of how the environment affects individuals toward models that rec-
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
AND
NURTURE
91
ognize the active role we
structing in memory - o
In quantitative genetics
action,
which
refers
to
dif
relation, which denotes
psychopathology, a part
diathesis-stress
Wachs,
strate
and
in
detect
in
which
Plomin
quantitative
an
overall
h
fort
gene
effect
DeFries, and Fulker 1988
GE interaction have been
measured environments
coming). One example es
functional polymorphism
moderate the effect of ch
(Caspi et al. 2002).
In short, genetic resear
about the environment
ment and the role of gen
mechanisms can be predi
the context of geneticall
of genes in experience a
research strategies are b
importance
heritability
multivariate
of
analyses
Developmental
one
ing
s
nature
estimates
change
development
these
of
stages,
does
teen-year-olds.
responsible
For
for
h
a
no
althoug
genetic effects at one
same genes could have
be
ar
age
dif
exam
the
fact
for individuals who late
"schizophrenia genes" are
that these genes operate t
only express their hallucin
opment
One
of
enables
the
such
more
hig
striking
ability, often called intell
influence increases steadil
(McGue et al. 1993). This i
ronmental
factors
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
becom
92 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
ing the life course. It is not known why
increases during development. It is possib
development, but it is also possible that t
latter hypothesis receives support from
age change and continuity that suggests t
for genetic influence throughout deve
how can genetic influence increase? On
ment correlation , which, as mentioned
genetic propensities and exposure to ex
may occur because small genetic differen
life, creating environments that are corr
[Ejnvironments can be con
phenotypes, reflecting gen
between individuals as they
construct their own experi
Multivañate heterogeneity and comor
which genetic research is going beyond h
which, as mentioned earlier, focuses on th
rather than the variance of each trait con
to which genetic factors that affect one
genetic research in psychopathology su
often differ greatly from traditional dia
as anxiety or depression. For example,
genes are largely responsible for anxie
Recent research suggests that this genetic
broader in that genetic influences
psychopathology: internalizing problem
phobia; and externalizing problems that in
der, and drug abuse (Kendler et al. 200
Broad effects of genes have also been
the differences between cognitive abili
abilities, the same genes largely affect all
Genetic overlap is also substantial acro
reading, and mathematics disability, leadi
ing disabilities (Plomin and Kovas forth
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
AND
NURTURE
overlap
among
93
cognitive
ab
understanding the brain
and Spinath 2002).
Sometimes multivariate
comorbidity.
An
example
o
social sciences concerns
behavior. Antisocial beha
genetic influence and, un
influence. However, anti
personality
(Viding
et
traits
al.
is
highly
forthcomin
that the genetic core of ea
sonality (Viding, Frick, an
iors characteristic of aut
deficits in both social an
reveals marked genetic h
related
and
traits
Plomin
nonsocial
as
assessed
by
forthcoming
traits
indicative
The results of these mul
not only for diagnosis but
immediate implication is t
for molecular genetic res
responsible for genetic inf
unemotional personality
hood suggests that this sh
than the broader phenoty
DNA
The future of genetic research on behavior lies in molecular genetic st
DNA that will eventually identify specific DNA variants responsible for the
spread influence of genes in behavioral development. Identifying these DNA
ants will make it possible to address questions such as those raised above
gene-environment, developmental, and multivariate mechanisms - wit
greater precision and power. As compared to quantitative genetic studies of
and adoptees, molecular genetics will have a far greater practical impact on b
ioral research because molecular genetic research does not require special
tions such as twins or adoptees. DNA can be easily and inexpensively o
(from cheek swabs rather than blood, for about $10 per individual), and gen
of a DNA marker is also inexpensive (about 100 per individual). Moreover
called gene chips (microarrays) are available that can genotype hundreds
sands of genes for an individual in three days (Butcher et al. 2004).
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
94 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Finding genes associated with complex tr
genes already identified is easy and ine
dimension to behavioral research (Plomi
area of dementia in later life will be p
research. The only known risk factor f
(LOAD) is a gene, apolipoprotein E (APO
form of the gene called allele 4 increases
association between APOE allele 4 and
(Corder et al. 1993), much research on d
APOE to ascertain whether results differ for individuals with and without this
genetic risk factor (e.g., Laurin et al. 2004; Mukamal et al. 2003; Podewils et al.
2005). Genotyping APOE will also become routine in clinics if this genetic risk factor is found to predict differential response to interventions or treatments. Many
large-scale behavioral studies are currently obtaining DNA on their samples in
anticipation of the time when genes are identified that are relevant to their area of
interest.
There is nothing to be gained by sticking our
heads in the sand and pretending that
genetic differences do not exist.
It should be noted that DNA variation has a unique causal status in explaining
behavior. When behavior is correlated with anything else, the old adage applies
that correlation does not imply causation. For example, parenting is correlated
with children's behavioral outcomes, but this does not necessarily mean that the
parenting causes the outcome. Genetic research has shown that parenting behavior in part reflects genetic influences on children's behavior. When it comes to
interpreting correlations between biology and behavior, such correlations are
often mistakenly interpreted as if biology causes behavior. For example, correlations between neurotransmitter physiology and behavior or between neuroimaging indices of brain activation and behavior are often interpreted as if brain
differences cause behavioral differences. However, these correlations do not nec-
essarily imply causation because behavioral differences can cause brain differ-
ences. In contrast, in the case of correlations between DNA variants and behavior,
the behavior of individuals does not change their genome. The DNA sequence
itself does not change. For this reason, correlations between DNA differences and
behavioral differences can be interpreted causally: DNA differences cause the
behavioral differences.
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
There
AND
is
NURTURE
no
single
95
huma
in a thousand of DNA bas
the population. Most life
but medical and behaviora
genome
that
are
respons
been ide
genes th
APOE gene that is a risk
successful for the thousan
single gene is necessary
gene disorders have beha
282 of these disorders inc
Restifo 2004). However, su
of .0001 or less. The DNA
ble for the heritability of
usually called complex tr
genes as well as by mult
schizophrenia, affective
ism, and hyperactivity ar
genes have been identified
complex traits in behavi
more difficult than antic
many more genes of muc
McGuffin 2003).
ants have already
find some of the
The
most
these
ful
far-reaching
genes
are
portion
of
schizophrenia,
identified
the
varia
research
w
tices of our schools, our c
cal diagnoses, individualiz
diction of problems that
Behavioral
science
will
b
postgenomic era in which
how these genes work. Su
to the bottom-up strategy
fied by its DNA sequence
cells and then cell system
other
end
of
the
continu
integrationist top-down l
organism rather than a re
single
the
molecule
effects
of
in
a
sing
specific
ge
relate with experience (P
This top-down behavior
to
distinguish
it
from
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
th
96 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
phrase has become synonymous with b
that behavioral genomic research is like
diagnosis, and intervention, and eventu
genes as early-warning systems. Bottom
gene-behavior pathways will eventually
tion is that DNA will serve as an integr
including the behavioral sciences.
Nature and Nurture
As discussed earlier, the importance of genes as well as environment in the etiology of individual differences in behavior is increasingly accepted in science as well
as in society. We predict that this trend will accelerate in the postgenomic era as
specific genes are found that are responsible for the heritability of behavioral disor-
ders and dimensions. However, as is the case with most advances in science, these
new findings also raise new problems for medicine, parenting, education, employment, law, and insurance, as well as larger philosophical issues such as human dignity, free will, and moral responsibility. These issues have been addressed recently
in a report by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2002). The Nuffield report has
three parts. The first explains the historical and scientific background to behavioral
genetic research, which is also the topic of a book by Steven Pinker called The
Blank Slate (2002). The second part reviews the findings of behavioral genetics,
coming to similar conclusions to those described in this article. The third part is
most relevant here: it examines the ethical, legal, and policy implications of this
research. With the postgenomic era of DNA, the report is especially concerned
about the need to monitor and regulate DNA tests and interventions and the possi-
bilities for enhancing capabilities that could lead to even greater inequalities in
society.
A general sense of unease about genetics comes from a feeling that genetic differences contradict equality: are not all men (and women) created equal? Although
this was a self-evident truth to the signers of the American Declaration of Independence, the founding fathers of the United States were not so naïve as to think
that all people are created identical. The essence of a democracy is that all people
should have legal equality despite their individual differences, regardless of the
environmental or genetic origins or those differences. Decisions, both good and
bad, can be made with or without knowledge, but we believe firmly that better
decisions can be made with knowledge than without. There is nothing to be gained
by sticking our heads in the sand and pretending that genetic differences do not
exist. The basic message of behavioral genetics is that each of us is an individual.
Recognition of, and respect for, individual differences is essential to the ethic of
individual worth. Proper attention to individual needs, including provision of the
environmental circumstances that will optimize the development of each person,
is a Utopian ideal and no more attainable than other utopias. Nevertheless, we can
approach this ideal more closely if we recognize, rather than ignore, individuality.
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
NATURE
AND
NURTURE
97
References
Asbury,
and
K.,
Bouchard
ence:
D.
T.
Wachs,
nonverbal
T.
EPD
J.,
Butcher,
L.
ples
to
type
Caspi,
in
J.
K.
E.
DNA
QTLs
cycle
on
for
T.
of
E.
A.
In
In
M.
L.
L
micr
comple
violence
T.
J
Moffitt,
E.
Moderation
H.,
Lykken
Meaburn,
Sugden,
depression:
Corder,
E.
McClay,
the
A.,
T.
Plom
early
Baltimore:
pooled
detect
A.,
D.
R.
in
revisited.
5-43.
M.,
Genotyping
Caspi,
Jr.,
theory
Lubinski,
and
abilities
in
Moffitt
by
a
Saunders,
po
W
J. L. Haines, and M. A. Pericak V
Alzheimer's disease in late onset
Craddock,
N.,
Dissecting
Fuller,
J.
Galton,
Harlaar,
sis
of
and
L.,
F.
M.
and
1865.
N.,
DNA
C.
O'Donovan,
psychosis.
L.
W.
Journal
R.
Heredity
Butcher,
markers
o
Thompso
E.
talent
Meabu
associated
w
Psychiatry.
Harris,
Inlow,
J.
J.
R.
1998.
K.,
and
The
L.
L.
nurture
as
Restifo.
2
166:835-81.
International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. 2001. Initial sequencing and analysis of the human
genome. Nature 409:860-921.
Kendler, K. S., M. C. Neale, C. A. Prescott, R. C. Kessler, A. C. Heath, L. A. Corley, and L. J. Eaves. 1996.
Childhood parental loss and alcoholism in women: A casual analysis using twin-family design. Psychological Medicine 26:79-95.
Kendler, K. S., C. A. Prescott, J. Myers, and M. C. Neale. 2003. The structure of genetic and environmental
risk factors for common psychiatric and substance use disorders in men and women. Archives of General
Psychiatry 60:929-37.
Laurin, D., K. H. Masaki, D. J. Foley, L. R. White, and L. J. Launer. 2004. Midlife dietary intake of antioxidants and risk of late-life incident dementia: The Honolulu- Asia Aging Study. American Journal of Epide-
miology 159:959-67.
McGue M., T. J. Bouchard Jr., W. G. Iacono, and D. T. Lykken. 1993. Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability:
A life-span perspective. In Nature, nurture, and psychology , ed. R. Plomin and G. E. McClearn, 59-76.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Merriman, C. 1924. The intellectual resemblance of twins. Psychological Monographs 33:1-58.
Mukamal, K. J., L. H. Kuller, A. L. Fitzpatrick, W. T. Longstreth Jr., M. A. Mittleman, and D. S. Siscovick.
2003. Prospective study of alcohol consumption and risk of dementia in older adults. JAMA 289: 1405-13.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002. Genetics and human behaviour: The ethical context London: Nuffield
Council on Bioethics.
Petrill, S. A. 1997. Molarity versus modularity of cognitive functioning? A behavioral genetic perspective.
Current Directions in Psychological Science 6:96-99.
Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Penguin.
Plomin, R. 1994. Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and nurture. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Plomin, R., K. Asbury, and J. Dunn. 2001. Why are children in the same family so different? Nonshared envi-
ronment a decade later. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 46:225-33.
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
98 THE ANNALS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY
Plomin, R., and C. S. Bergeman. 1991. The nature of nur
sures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 14:373-427.
Plomin, R., and D. Daniels. 1987. Why are children in the same family so different from each other? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 10:1-16.
Plomin, R., J. C. DeFries, I. W. Craig, and P. McGuffin. 2003a. Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
. 2003b. Behavioral genomics. In Behavioral genetics in the postgenomic era, ed. R. Plomin, J. C.
DeFries, I. W Craig, and P. McGuffin, 531-40. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Plomin, R., J. C. DeFries, and D. W. Fulker. 1988. Nature and nurture during infancy and early childhood.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Plomin, R., J. C. DeFries, G. E. McClearn, and P. McGuffin. 2001. Behavioral genetics. 4th ed. New York:
Worth Publishers.
Plomin, R., and Y. Kovas. Forthcoming. Generalist genes and learning disabilities. Psychological Bulletin.
Plomin, R., and P. McGuffin. 2003. Psychopathology in the postgenomic era. Annual Review of Psychology
54:205-28.
Plomin, R., M. J. Owen, and P. McGuffin. 1994. The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Science
264:1733-39.
Plomin, R., and F. M. Spinath. 2002. Genetics and general cognitive ability (g). Trends in Cognitive Sci
6:169-76.
Podewils, L. J., E. Guallar, L. H. Kuller, L. P. Fried, O. L. Lopez, M. Carlson, andC. G. Lyketsos. 2005. Physi-
cal activity, APOE genotype, and dementia risk: Findings from the Cardiovascular Health Cognition
Study. American Journal of Epidemiology 161:639-51.
Ronald, A., F. Happé, and R. Plomin. Forthcoming. The genetic relationship between individual differences
in social and nonsocial behaviors characteristic of autism. Developmental Science.
Theis, S. V. S. 1924. How foster children turn out. Publication no. 165. New York: State Charities Aid
Association.
Turkheimer, E., and M. Waldron. 2000. Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quanti-
tative review. Psychological Bulletin 126:78-108.
Venter, J. C., et al. 2001. The sequence of the human genome. Science 291:1304-51.
Viding, E., R. ]. R. Blair, T. E. Moffitt, and R. Plomin. Forthcoming. Evidence for substantial genetic risk for
psychopathy in 7-year-olds. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry.
Viding, E., P. ]. Frick, and R. Plomin. N.d. Genetic influences on the relationship between callousunemotional traits and conduct problems in 7-year-old twins. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wahlsten, D. 1990. Insensitivity of the analysis of variance to heredity-environment interaction. Behavioral
and Brain Sciences 13:109-61.
Walker, S. O., and R. Plomin. Forthcoming. The nature-nurture question: Teachers' perceptions of how
genes and the environment influence educationally relevant behavior Educational Psychology.
Watson, J. B. 1930. Behaviorism. New York: Norton.
Watson, J. D., and F. H. C. Crick. 1953. Genetical implications of the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid.
Nature 171:964-67.
This content downloaded from 130.111.28.95 on Tue, 11 Feb 2020 18:17:04 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms