2.

5 Genetics of Human Psychological Differences

I. Developmental of individuals vs. Development of differences among individuals
a. In the development of individuals, the effects of genes and experience are inseparable. In
the development of differences among individuals, theyre separable.
b. Musician example: music of musician is product of interaction btwn the person & the
instrument. If 100 random people were selected to play different types of guitars, the most
variation in quality of the music resulted from differences in the subjects (experienced vs. nonexperienced players)
c. Researchers can select a group & ask what proportion of the variation among them in some
attribute (intelligence) results from genetic differences than experiential differences.
d. Monozygotic (identical) twins (develop from the same zygote & are genetically similar).
Dizygotic (fraternal) twins (develop from 2 zygotes & are no more similar than a pair of
siblings).
II. Minnesota study of twins reared apart
a. 59 pairs of monozygotic twins & 47 pairs of dizygotic twins (age 19-68). 50 hrs of testing
assessments of intelligence & personality. Cognitively & personality adult monozygotic twins
were more similar to one another on all psychological dimensions than adult dizygotic twins
(whether or not they were separated or were raised together).
b. Heritability estimate (not individual development, but a numerical estimate of the
proportion of variability that occurred in a particular trait in a particular study as a result of the
genetic variation in that study).
c. Herit. est. tells us about the contribution of genetic differences to phenotypic differences
among participants in a study; dont tell you about the relative contributions of genes and
experience to development of individuals. Depends on amount of genetic & enviro variations.
Minn. didnt use a lot of variations. Subjects intelligence & personality resulted from genetic
variation.
d. Herit. est. huge role for understanding complex human traits and behaviors (intelligence,
aggression., divorce, mental disorders, tv watching). They tend to be the same regardless of
behavior under consideration & the particular basis used to calculate them (twin, adoption,
family studies). Btwn 40%-80%
III. A look into the future: two kinds of twin studies
a. Twin studies of epigenetic effects most studies have focused on nonhuman species;
found that epigenetic changes can be triggered by experience & can last lifetime & pass on to
diff gens. Identical twins assessing DNA can document development & survival of epigenetic
differences that develop btwn them.
b. Possible to see changes caused by experiential or genetic factors epi changes under
genetic control epi changes more in identical.
c. Fraga (2005) took tissue samples from 40 pairs of mono twins (age 3-74). Screened tissue for
DNA methylation & histone modifications. Found that twins were epigenetically indistinguishable
early age, but differences happened as they aged displaying diff epigenetic profile. Mono twins
genetically identical = false.
d. Wong (2010) examined DNA methylation in buccal cells (cells of lining in mouth) [46 mono,
47 dizy; age 5 & 10]. DNA methylation found to be prominent in both at both ages, so differences
is consequence of experiential factors.
e. epigenetic differences may explain why one twin gets disease & the other doesnt. Bell &
Spector (2011) discordant monozygotic twin studies. One searches each pair for epi differences
focusing on those areas of DNA that are thought to be involved w/ disorder.
f. Twin studies of the effects of experience on heritability herit. est. depend on
particular conditions & subjects of a part. study. Before Turkheimers study mid to upper class
families had herit. est. for intelligence .75. Assessed intelligence in 2 samples of 7 yr old twins
from SES & middle to high SES. Mid to high = .70. Low SES for intelligence = .10.
g. Major implication to think of intelligence as developing from interaction of inheritance &
experience, not from 1 or the other. One can inherit intelligence, but not recognized bc of

poverty. Important implication to develop programs for the poor. Reducing poverty would permit
many of the poor to develop their genetic potential.