![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Behavior genetics has demonstrated that genetic variance is an important component of variation for all behavioral outcomes, but variation among families is not. These results have led some critics of behavior genetics to conclude that heritability is so ubiquitous as to have few consequences for scientific understanding of development, while some behavior genetic partisans have concluded that family environment is not an important cause of developmental outcomes. Both views are incorrect. Genotype is in fact a more systematic source of variability than environment, but for reasons that are methodological rather than substantive. Development is fundamentally nonlinear, interactive, and difficult to control experimentally. Twin studies offer a useful methodological shortcut, but do not show that genes are more fundamental than environments.
| Goldsmith, H. (1993). Nature-nurture issues in the behavioral genetic context: Overcoming barriers to communication. In Plomin, R., McClearn, G. (Eds.), Nature, nurture and psychology (pp. 325–339. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Google Scholar, Crossref | |
| Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Theory. Developmental Psychology, 27, 4–13. Google Scholar, Crossref, ISI | |
| Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar | |
| Gottlieb, G. (1995). Some conceptual deficiencies in “developmental” behavior genetics. Human Development, 38, 131–141. Google Scholar, Crossref | |
| Harris, J.R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar | |
| Lewontin, R.C. (1974). The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes. American Journal of Human Genetics, 26, 400–411. Google Scholar, Medline, ISI | |
| Meehl, P.E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834. Google Scholar, Crossref, ISI | |
| Plomin, R., Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so different from one another? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–60. Google Scholar, Crossref, ISI | |
| Rowe, D.C. (1994). The limits of family influence: Genes, experience, and behavior. New York: Guilford Press. Google Scholar | |
| Scarr, S. (1992). Developmental theories for the 1990s: Development and individual differences. Child Development, 63, 1–19. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline, ISI | |
| Turkheimer, E. (1998). Heritability and biological explanation. Psychological Review, 105, 782–791. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline, ISI | |
| Turkheimer, E., Goldsmith, H.H., Gottesman, I.I. (1995). Commentary. Human Development, 38, 142–153. Google Scholar, Crossref | |
| Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I.I. (1991). Is H2 = 0 a null hypothesis anymore? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 410–411. Google Scholar, Crossref | |
| Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I.I. (1996). Simulating the dynamics of genes and environment in development. Development and Psychopathology, 8, 667–677. Google Scholar, Crossref | |
| Turkheimer, E., Waldron, M.C. (2000). Nonshared environment: A theoretical, methodological, and quantitative review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 78–108. Google Scholar, Crossref, Medline, ISI |
