International Journal of Behavioral

Development
http://jbd.sagepub.com/

Behavioural genetics in the 21st century

Robert Plomin
International Journal of Behavioral Development 2000 24: 30
DOI: 10.1080/016502500383449

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/24/1/30

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development

Additional services and information for International Journal of Behavioral Development can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jbd.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jbd.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jbd.sagepub.com/content/24/1/30.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Mar 1, 2000

What is This?

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on May 6, 2014

International Journal of Behavioral Development © 2000 The International Society for the
2000, 24 (1), 30–34 Study of Behavioural Development
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/01650254.html

Behavioural genetics in the 21st century

Robert Plomin
Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK

Behavioural genetics will continue to ow into the mainstream of behavioural research as more
behavioural scientists incorporate this approach in their research. Future research will go beyond
simply asking whether and how much genetic factors inuence behaviour to ask questions about
development, about relations among traits, and about the interplay between nature and nurture. The
identiŽcation of speciŽc genes associated with behaviour will make it possible for behavioural
scientists to ask more precise questions about how genotypes become phenotypes.

The controversy that swirled around behavioural genetics Quantitative genetics

research during the 1970s has largely faded. During the 1980s
and especially the 1990s, the behavioural sciences became much Twin and adoption research and genetic research using
more accepting of genetic inuence, as can be seen in the nonhuman animal models will continue to thrive. We have
growing number of behavioural genetic articles in mainstream only scratched the surface of possible applications even in the
behavioural journals and in research grants. In my view, this is most studied domains of cognitive abilities and disabilities,
one of the most dramatic shifts in the modern history of the personality and psychopathology. For example, for cognitive
behavioural sciences. Behavioural genetics is the genetic study of abilities, most research has focused on general cognitive ability
behaviour, which includes quantitative genetics (twin and (intelligence) and major group factors of speciŽc cognitive
adoption studies) as well as molecular genetics (DNA studies) abilities assessed from the psychometric perspective (Plomin &
of human and animal behaviour broadly deŽned to include Petrill, 1997). The future of quantitative genetic research in
responses of the organism from responses measured in the brain this area lies in more Žne-grained analyses of cognitive abilities
such as functional neuroimaging to self-report questionnaires. and in the use of information-processing approaches (Neu-
Although animal models permit more powerful methods of bauer, Spinath, Riemann, Borkenau, & Angleitner, in press)
analysis because both the genome and the environment can be and brain measures such as neuroimaging (Kosslyn & Plomin,
manipulated, the present paper focuses on genetic research that in press). Personality is so complex that it can keep researchers
can be conducted in the human species. busy for decades, especially as they go beyond self-report
No crystal ball is needed to predict that the momentum of questionnaires to use other measures such as ratings by others
recent developments will carry the Želd of behavioural genetics (e.g. Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, 1997) and observational
well into the new millennium. This momentum is propelled by measures (Spinath, Riemann, Angleitner, & Strelau, in press).
new Žndings, methods, and projects in quantitative genetics For psychopathology, genetic research has just begun to
and especially in molecular genetics. The momentum will grow consider disorders other than schizophrenia and the major
stronger as genetics continues to ow into the mainstream of mood disorders. Much remains to be learned about disorders
behavioural research. Instead of only a hundred or so in childhood, for example (Rutter, Silberg, O’Connor, &
behavioural geneticists working on personality and cognition Simonoff, 1999a,b). A rich territory for future exploration
(and again as many in psychopathology), more behavioural involves the links between psychopathology and personality
scientists will incorporate these techniques in their research. (Nigg & Goldsmith, 1994).
This ‘‘giving away’’ of behavioural genetics is already happen- Cognitive abilities, personality, and psychopathology have
ing with some well-known behavioural scientists leading the been the targets for the vast majority of genetic research
way (Plomin, 1993). This is an important trend because the because these areas have traditionally considered individual
best behavioural genetic research will be done by behavioural differences that are the stuff of genetic analysis. Health
scientists who are not primarily geneticists and who use these psychology and ageing are two newer areas of psychological
methods to address theory-driven issues in their speciality research that consider individual differences and are beginning
Želds. For this reason, a major motivation for writing this piece to be explored genetically. Some of the oldest areas of
is to entice other behavioural scientists, and especially the next psychology—perception, learning, and language, for exam-
generation of behavioural scientists, to incorporate genetics in ple—have not emphasised individual differences and as a result
their research. have yet to be explored systematically from a genetic

Correspondence should be addressed to Dr Robert Plomin, Social,

Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Research Centre, Institute of
Psychiatry, DeCrespigny Park, 113 Denmark Hill, London
Downloaded SE5 8AF, at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on May 6, 2014
from jbd.sagepub.com
UK.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2000 , 24 (1), 30–34 31

perspective. Entire disciplines within the social and beha- yields a genetic structure that corresponds to its phenotypic
vioural sciences—such as economics, education, and sociol- structure (Loehlin, 1992).
ogy—are still essentially untouched by genetic research. Two other general directions for multivariate genetic
The greatest need is for quantitative genetic research that research are links between the normal and the abnormal and
goes beyond heritability, that is, beyond asking whether and between behaviour and biology. Adifferent type of multivariate
how much genetic factors are important in behavioural genetic analysis can address the extent to which genetic and
development. We need to address the mechanisms by which environmental effects on disorders are merely the quantitative
genetic factors have their ubiquitous effect on behaviour. How extremes of the same genetic and environmental factors that
do genetic effects unfold developmentally? What are the affect the rest of the distribution (DeFries & Fulker, 1985;
biological pathways between genes and behaviour? How do DeFries, Gillis, & Wadsworth, 1998). Or are disorders
nature and nurture interact and correlate? These three different in kind, not just in quantity, from the causes of the
directions for genetic research—developmental genetics, multi- normal range of behaviour? The surprise from such research so
variate genetics, and ‘‘environmental’’ genetics—will play an far is that the former seems to be the rule (Deater-Deckard,
increasingly important role in future behavioural genetic Reiss, Hetherington, & Plomin, 1997) with a few exceptions
research that goes beyond heritability. (e.g., Dale et al., 1998). This Žnding—which implies that there
may be no disorders, just the extremes of normal dimensions—
is of great relevance to molecular genetic studies of behaviour,
Developmental genetics as discussed later.
Finally, multivariate genetic analysis also can be used to
Developmental genetics considers change as well as continuity
explicate the mechanisms by which genetic factors inuence
during development throughout the lifespan. Two types of
behaviour by assessing genetic overlap between behaviour and
developmental questions can be asked. First, do genetic and
biological processes, such as hormones, neurotransmitters, and
environmental components of variance change during devel-
brain imaging. For example, despite the increasing use of
opment? The most striking example to date involves general
cortisol assays in developmental research, there has been no
cognitive ability (g). Genetic effects become increasingly
quantitative genetic research on cortisol or its links with the
important throughout the lifespan (McClearn, et al., 1997)
behavioural adjustment. Similarly, in the cognitive realm, there
and shared environmental effects that make siblings growing
has as yet been no quantitative genetic research on neuro-
up in the same family similar in terms of g are important in
imaging measures and their relationship to cognitive perfor-
childhood but are negligible after adolescence (McGue, 1993).
mance (Kosslyn & Plomin, in press).
The second type of question concerns the role of genetic
and environmental factors in age-to-age change and continuity
during development. Using g again as an example, we Žnd a
surprising degree of genetic continuity from childhood to ‘‘Environmental’’ genetics
adulthood. However, some evidence has been found for
Genetic research has made some of the most important
genetic change as well, for example, during the transition from
discoveries about the environment in recent decades, especially
early to middle childhood when formal schooling begins
about nonshared environment and the role of genetics in
(Fulker, Cherny, & Cardon, 1993).
experience. More discoveries about environmental mechan-
isms can be predicted as the environment continues to be
investigated in the context of genetically sensitive designs.
Multivariate genetics Much remains to be learned about interactions and correla-
Multivariate genetic research addresses the covariance between tions between nature and nurture.
traits rather than the variance of each trait considered by itself. Perhaps the single most important Žnding from genetic
A surprising multivariate genetic Žnding in the cognitive realm research is that the way the environment works in development
is that the same genetic factors affect most cognitive abilities must be very different from the way it has been thought to
(Plomin & Petrill, 1997). These Žndings will need to be taken work. Instead of making two children growing up in the same
into account in cognitive neuroscience which currently family similar to one another, which is what theories of
emphasises modularity, a view of cognitive processes that are socialisation generally assume, genetic research shows that
speciŽc and independent (e.g. Pinker, 1994). Even more environmental inuences that affect behavioural development
interesting is the multivariate genetic Žnding that genetic operate to make children in the same family different (Plomin
factors that affect school achievement are the same genetic & Daniels, 1987). We know this, for example, because
factors that inuence cognitive abilities (Wadsworth, 1994). genetically unrelated children growing up in the same adoptive
For psychopathology, one of the most important multivariate family scarcely resemble each other for personality, psycho-
genetic results is that the same genetic factors are involved in pathology, and cognitive abilities after adolescence. Other
anxiety and depression (Kendler, Neale, Kessler, Heath, & behavioural genetic results converge on this surprising conclu-
Eaves, 1992), suggesting that this traditional division in sion that growing up in the same family does not make siblings
affective disorders needs to be rethought. In developmental similar for environmental reasons (Plomin, Chipuer, &
psychopathology, such genetic comorbidity seems to be the Neiderhiser, 1994). Siblings are similar of course, but for
rule rather than the exception (Rutter et al., 1999b). Multi- genetic rather than environmental reasons. The environment is
variate genetic research will contribute to a genetic (rather than important, but environmental inuences operate to make
symptom-based) nosology of psychopathology based on children in the same family different, not similar. This topic
genetic constellations (comorbidity) and components (hetero- is called ‘‘nonshared environment’’ because these environ-
geneity) of psychopathology. Unlike cognitive abilities
Downloaded from or at UNIVmental
jbd.sagepub.com inuences
OF MICHIGAN are not shared by children growing up in the
on May 6, 2014
psychopathology, research on self-report personality generally same family.
32 PLOMIN / BEHAVIOURAL GENETICS IN THE 21S T CENTURY

This Žnding does not mean that family environment is Pike, McGuire, Hetherington, Reiss, & Plomin, 1996). Much
unimportant. What it means is that environmental inuences remains to be explored in this territory of the nature of nurture,
in development have their effect on an individual-by-individual which supports a more active model of the environment in
basis rather than on a family-by-family basis. The key question which children select, modify and construct (and reconstruct
is why children growing up in the same family are so different. in perception and memory) their experiences.
Nonshared environment is a crucible for environmental
research. Unless an environmental variable can be shown to
be experienced differently by siblings growing up in the same Molecular genetics
family, it cannot be an important environmental predictor of
developmental outcomes. The discovery of the importance of The behavioural sciences are at the dawn of a new era in which
nonshared environment has sparked research in psychology molecular genetic techniques will revolutionise genetic re-
that studies more than one child per family and asks why they search by identifying speciŽc genes that contribute to genetic
turn out so differently. variance for complex dimensions and disorders. The quest is to
The largest study of nonshared environment, begun over a Žnd, not the gene for a trait, but the multiple genes (called
decade ago, is the Nonshared Environment of Adolescent quantitative trait loci, QTLs) that affect the trait as probabil-
Development (NEAD) project (Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hether- istic propensities, not as predetermined programming (Plomin,
ington, & Plomin, in press). The results from NEAD showed Owen, & McGufŽn, 1994). The breathtaking pace of
that differences in family experiences were strongly related to molecular genetics, such as the Human Genome Project’s
differences in adjustment outcomes in the adolescent siblings. efforts towards sequencing the entire 3.5 billion bases of DNA
However, one of the reasons why siblings growing up in the in the human genome in the next two years or so, leads me to
same family are so different is genetics—siblings are 50% predict that behavioural scientists will routinely use DNA
similar genetically but this also means that they are 50% markers in their research in order to ask more precise questions
different genetically. For this reason, the NEAD study was about how genotypes become phenotypes. QTLs, or at least
embedded in a genetically sensitive design that included chromosomal regions that harbour QTLs, are being found for
identical and fraternal twins, full siblings, half siblings, and personality (Hamer & Copeland, 1998); reading disability
genetically unrelated siblings. NEAD results suggest that (Fisher et al., 1999a; Gayán et al., 1999), and g (Chorney
siblings are treated differently because adolescents’ genetically et al., 1998; Fisher et al., 1999b), in addition to the main area
inuenced patterns of adjustment elicit or evoke different of research in psychopathology (e.g. Rutter et al., 1999b).
responses from their parents. In other words, differences in Although attention is focused now on Žnding genes
parental treatment do not cause the differences in adolescent associated with behaviour, few behavioural scientists are likely
adjustment by means of nonshared environment. to join the hunt for genes because it is difŽcult and expensive.
The big question for future research is this: If family However, once genes are identiŽed, it is easy and inexpensive
environment is not responsible for nonshared environment, to use them in order to ask questions about development at the
what is? One possibility is that nonshared environment lies behavioural level of analysis (Plomin & Rutter, 1998). In 1993,
outside the family. A reasonable candidate in adolescence is the Žrst QTL identiŽed for behaviour was a gene for
differential experiences with peers, which is the theme of a cholesterol transport, called apolipoprotein-E, which is the
recent provocative book called The nurture assumption (Harris, only known predictor of late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (Corder
1998). However, the only behavioural genetic study in this area et al., 1993) and has been replicated in dozens of studies. In
suggests substantial genetic inuence on choice of peers research on dementia, it is now necessary to genotype subjects
(Manke, McGuire, Reiss, Hetherington, & Plomin, 1995). for apolipoprotein-E in order to ask whether results differ for
Although it makes sense to investigate systematic sources of individuals with and without this genetic risk factor. This is the
nonshared environment such as families and peers, we need to way in which genes will enter all areas of the behavioural
keep our minds open to the possibility that chance also sciences during the next decade.
contributes to nonshared environment in the sense of idiosyn- It is surprisingly easy and inexpensive to obtain DNAand to
cratic experiences (such as the formative experience when Bill genotype a few genes (Plomin & Rutter, 1998). For example,
Clinton as an adolescent met John Kennedy) or the subtle blood is not needed. Cheek swabs sent through the mail yield
interplay of a concatenation of events that might be thought to enough DNA to genotype thousands of DNA markers.
be chance (Dunn & Plomin, 1990). Thousands of genotypings can be conducted in a day using
NEAD is one of a dozen studies that have found genetic automated DNA sequencing mechines. Departments of
inuence on measures of the environment, a second important behavioural science will not need to have their own molecular
discovery about the environment that has emerged from genetic laboratories to do this work. There is a dramatic
genetic research. Although most research on the ‘‘nature of economy of scale involved in such high-throughput work and
nurture’’ has focused on family environment, genetic inuence companies exist that will carry out this work as well as
has also been reported for life events, social support, peers, and molecular genetic colleagues at universities for whom such
work environment (Plomin, 1994). If ostensible measures of analyses are routine. DNA assays are less expensive than
the environment are inuenced by genetic factors and if cortisol assays, which are now frequently used in behavioural
developmental outcome measures are also inuenced by science research. Also, DNA lasts indeŽnitely, which means
genetic factors, the implication is that the links between such that DNA can be collected and stored until genes are identiŽed
environmental measures and behavioural outcomes can be that are relevant to the research topic. The message is that
mediated by genetic factors. This is the main Žnding from now, not just in the next century, it is important to collect
NEAD (Reiss et al., in press) and several other studies DNA on any valuable sample.
(reviewed by Plomin, 1994; see also Downloaded Ge et fromal., 1996; at UNIV OFWhat
jbd.sagepub.com do
MICHIGAN we6,do
on May 2014with genes once they are found? The answer
O’Connor, Deater-Deckard, Fulker, Rutter, & Plomin, 1998; is functional genomics, understanding how genes work. The
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BEHAVIORAL DEVELOPMENT, 2000 , 24 (1), 30–34 33

molecular geneticists’ agenda for functional genomics is clear: Dale, P.S., Simonoff, E., Bishop, D.V.M., Eley, T.C., Oliver, B., Price, T.S.,
Purcell, S., Stevenson, J., & Plomin, R. (1998). Genetic inuence on language
Determine the gene product and try to understand how the delay in 2-year-olds. Nature Neuroscience, 1, 324–328.
gene works at the cellular level. This is the reductionistic Deater-Deckard , K., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E.M., & Plomin, R. (1997).
bottom-up perspective of molecular biology. However, as Dimensions and disorders of adolescent adjustment: A quantitative genetic
analysis of unselected samples and selected extremes. Journal of Child
behavioural scientists, we need to emphasise that the top-down Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 515–525.
behavioural level of analysis is equally valid in understanding DeFries, J.C., & Fulker, D.W. (1985). Multiple regression analysis of twin data.
the function of a gene. The term behavioural genomics has been Behavior Genetics, 15, 467–473.
proposed to emphasise the importance of top-down levels of DeFries, J.C., Gillis, J.J., & Wadsworth, S.J. (1998). Genes and genders: A twin
study of reading disability. In A.M. Galaburda (Ed.), Dyslexia and
analysis (Plomin & Crabbe, in press). Knowledge of speciŽc development: Neurobiological aspects of extra-ordinary brains (pp.186–344).
genes related to speciŽc behaviours will greatly improve our Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
ability to ask more reŽned and powerful questions such as the Dunn, J., & Plomin, R. (1990). Separate lives: Why siblings are so different. New
questions mentioned earlier about development, heterogeneity, York: Basic Books.
Fisher, P.J., Turic, D., McGufŽn, P., Asherson, P., Ball, D., Craig, I., Eley,
and comorbidity, and gene-environment interplay (Plomin & T.C., Hill, L., Chorney, K., Chorney, M.J., Benbow, C.P., Lubinski, D.,
Rutter, 1998). That is, do the effects of genes change during Plomin, R., & Owen, M.J. (1999a). DNA pooling identiŽes QTLs for general
development? Do the genes correlate with some aspects of a cognitive ability in children on chromosome 4. Human Molecular Genetics, 8,
915–922.
trait but not others (hererogeneity) or do their effects extend
Fisher, S.E., Marlow, A.J., Lamb, J., Maestrini, E., Williams, D.F., Richardson,
across several traits (comorbidity)? Are genes for disorders also A.J., Weeks, D.E., Stein, J.F., & Monoco, A.P. (1999b). A quantitative-trai t
associated with normal dimensions and vice versa? Do the locus on chromosome 6p inuences different aspects of developmental
genetic effects interact or correlate with the environment? This dyslexia. American Journal of Human Genetics, 64, 146–156.
Fulker, D.W., Cherny, S.S., & Cardon, L.R. (1993). Continuity and change in
will open up new scientiŽc horizons of immense potential. cognitive development. In R. Plomin & G.E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature,
This picture of the future will conŽrm some people’s worst nurture, and psychology (pp.77–97). Washington, DC: Psychological Associa-
fears about DNA. They fear that Žnding out about genetic risk tion.
when no prevention or cure is available will label people in Gayán, J., Smith, S.D., Cherny, S.S., Cardon, L.R., Fulker, D.W., Brower,
A.W., Olson, R.K., Pennington, B.F., & DeFries, J.C. (1999). Quantitative-
ways that might lead to discrimination for insurance and trait locus for speciŽc language and reading deŽcits on chromosome 6p.
employment without being able to help them. Knowing about American Journal of Human Genetics, 64, 157–164.
genetic risk might also become a self-fulŽlling prophecy, for Ge, X., Conger, R.D., Cadoret, R.J., Neiderhiser, J.M., Yates, W., Troughton,
E., & Stewart, M.A. (1996). T he developmental interface between nature and
example if a child is labelled as at risk for learning disorders.
nurture: A mutual inuence model of child antisocial behaviour and
Parents might select embryos (pre-implantation as in in vitro parenting. Developmental Psychology, 32, 574–589.
fertilisation) or fetuses (abortion) with fewer genetic risks and Hamer, D., & Copeland, P. (1998). Living with our genes. New York: Doubleday.
more genetic strengths. These are serious problems, but some Harris, J.R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do.
New York: Free Press.
of the fears derive from misunderstandings about what genetics
Kendler, K.S., Neale, M.C., Kessler, R.C., Heath, A.C., & Eaves, L.J. (1992).
can and cannot do (Plomin, in press; Rutter & Plomin, 1997). Major depression and generalized anxiety disorder: Same genes (partly)
The main misunderstanding is to think that genes determine different environments? Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 716–722.
outcomes in a hard-wired, there’s-nothing-we-can-do-about-it Kosslyn, S., & Plomin, R. (in press). Towards a neuro-cognitive genetics: Goals
and issues. In D. Dougherty, S.L. Rauch, & J.F. Rosenbaum (Eds.),
way. For thousands of rare single-gene disorders, such as the Psychiatric neuroimaging strategies: Research and clinical applications. Washing-
gene on chromosome 4 that causes Huntington’s disease, ton, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
genes do determine outcomes in this hard-wired way. How- Loehlin, J.C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury
ever, behavioural disorders and dimensions are complex traits Park, CA: Sage.
Manke, B., McGuire, S., Reiss, D., Hetherington, E.M., & Plomin, R. (1995).
inuenced by many genes as well as many environmental Genetic contributions to adolescents’ extrafamilial social interactions:
factors. For complex traits, genetic factors operate in a Teachers, best friends, and peers. Social Development, 4, 238–256.
probabilistic fashion like risk factors rather than predetermined McClearn, G.E., Johansson, B., Berg, S., Pedersen, N.L., Ahern, F., Petrill,
programming. S.A., & Plomin, R. (1997). Substantial genetic inuence on cognitive abilities
in twins 80 + years old. Science, 276, 1560 –1563 .
For these reasons, it is crucial for behavioural scientists not McGue, M. (1993). From proteins to cognitions: the behavioral genetics of
to be afraid of molecular genetics and that they take advantage alcoholism. In R. Plomin & G.E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture and
of the exciting developments in molecular genetics. Students in psychology, (pp.245–268). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associa-
tion.
the behavioural sciences must be taught about genetics in order Neubauer, A.C., Spinath, F.M., Riemann, R., Borkenau, P., & Angleitner, A.
to prepare them for this future. Otherwise, this opportunity will (in press). Genetic (and environmental) inuence on two measures of speed
slip away by default to geneticists, and genetics is much too of information processing and their relation to psychometric intelligence:
important a topic to be left to geneticists! Evidence from the German Observational Study of Adult Twins. Intelligence.
Nigg, J.T., & Goldsmith, H.H. (1994). Genetics of personality disorders:
Manuscript received April 1999 Perspectives from personality and psychopathology research. Psychological
Revised manuscript received July 1999 Bulletin, 115, 346–380.
O’Connor, T.G., Deater-Deckard, K., Fulker, D.W., Rutter, M., & Plomin, R.
(1998). Genotype-environment correlations in late childhood and early
adolescence: Antisocial behavioural problems in the Colorado Adoption
Project. Developmental Psychology, 34 , 970–981.
Pike, A., McGuire, S., Hetherington, E.M., Reiss, D., & Plomin, R.
References (1996). Family environment and adolescent depressive symptoms and
antisocial behavior: A multivariate genetic analysis. Developmental Psychology,
Chorney, M.J., Chorney, K., Seese, N., Owen, M.J., Daniels, J., McGufŽn, P., 32, 590–603.
Thompson, L.A., Detterman, D.K., Benbow, C.P., Lubinski, D., Eley, T.C., Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.
& Plomin, R. (1998). A quantitative trait locus (QTL) associated with Plomin, R. (1993). Nature and nurture: perspective and prospective. In
cognitive ability in children. Psychological Science, 9 , 1–8. R. Plomin & G.E. McClearn (Eds.), Nature, nurture, and psychology
Corder, E.H., Saunders, A.M., Strittmatter, W.J., Schmechel, D.E., Gaskell, (pp.457–483). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
P.C., Small, G.W., Roses, A.D., Haines, J.L., & Pericak Vance, M.A. (1993). Plomin, R. (1994). Genetics and experience: The interplay between nature and
Gene dose of apolipoprotein E type 4 allele and the risk of Alzheimer’s
Downloaded nurture.
disease at UNIV OF
from jbd.sagepub.com Thousand
MICHIGAN Oaks, CA: Sage.
on May 6, 2014
in late onset families. Science, 261, 921–923. Plomin, R. (in press). Genetics and general cognitive ability. Nature.
34 PLOMIN / BEHAVIOURAL GENETICS IN THE 21S T CENTURY

Plomin, R., Chipuer, H.M., & Neiderhiser, J.M. (1994). Behavioral genetic Rutter, M., & Plomin, R. (1997). Opportunities for psychiatry from genetic
evidence for the importance of nonshared environment. In E.M. Hether- Žndings. British Journal of Psychiatry, 171, 209–219.
ington, D. Reiss, & R. Plomin (Eds.), Separate social worlds of siblings: The Rutter, M., Silberg, J., O’Connor, T.G., & Simonoff, E. (1999a). Genetics and
impact of non-shared environment on development (pp.1–31). Hillsdale, NJ: child psychiatry: I. Advances in quantitative and molecular genetics. Journal of
Erlbaum. Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 3–18.
Plomin, R., & Crabbe, J. (in press). DNA. Psychological Bulletin. Rutter, M., Silberg, J., O’Connor, T.G., & Simonoff, E. (1999b). Genetics and
Plomin, R., & Daniels, D. (1987). Why are children in the same family so child psychiatry: II. Empirical research Žndings. Journal of Child Psychology
different from each other? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 1–16. and Psychiatry, 40, 19–56.
Plomin, R., Owen, M.J., & McGufŽn, P. (1994). The genetic basis of complex Spinath, F.M., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (in press). A day in the
human behaviors. Science, 264, 1733 –1739 . life: description of the German Observational Study on Adult Twins
Plomin, R., & Petrill, S.A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What’s new? (GOSAT) assessing twin similarity in controlled laboratory settings. In
Intelligence, 24 , 53–77. I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. DeFruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality
Plomin, R., & Rutter, M. (1998). Child development, molecular genetics, and Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7). Tilburg, the Netherlands: Tilburg University
what to do with genes once they are found. Child Development, 69, 1221 –1240 . Press.
Reiss, D., Neiderhiser, J.M., Hetherington, E.M., & Plomin, R. (in press). The Wadsworth, S.J. (1994). School achievement. In R. Plomin & D.W. Fulker
relationship code: Deciphering genetic and social patterns in adolescent development. (Eds.), Nature and nurture during middle childhood (pp.86–101). Oxford:
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Blackwell.
Reimann, R., Angleitner, A., & Strelau, J. (1997). Genetic and environmental
inuences on personality: A study of twins reared together using the self- and
peer report NEO-FFI scales. Journals of Personality, 65 , 449–476.

Downloaded from jbd.sagepub.com at UNIV OF MICHIGAN on May 6, 2014