CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 65Intergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesGenetic Associations and EpidemiologyCognitive Abilities and Testing

More than nature and nurture, indirect genetic effects on children’s academic achievement are consequences of dynastic social processes

Open access
Nivard, Michel G., Belsky, Daniel W., Harden, K. Paige, Baier, Tina, Andreassen, Ole A., Ystrøm, Eivind, van Bergen, Elsje, Lyngstad, Torkild H.·2024·Nature Human Behaviour
DOI 10.1038/s41562-023-01796-2PMC PMC11569812
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Families transmit genes and environments across generations. When parents' genetics affect their children's environments, these two modes of inheritance can produce an 'indirect genetic effect'. Such indirect genetic effects may account for up to half of the estimated genetic variance in educational attainment. Here we tested if indirect genetic effects reflect within-nuclear-family transmission ('genetic nurture') or instead a multi-generational process of social stratification ('dynastic effects'). We analysed indirect genetic effects on children's academic achievement in their fifth to ninth years of schooling in N = 37,117 parent-offspring trios in the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). We used pairs of genetically related families (parents were siblings, children were cousins; N = 10,913) to distinguish within-nuclear-family genetic-nurture effects from dynastic effects shared by cousins in different nuclear families. We found that indirect genetic effects on children's academic achievement cannot be explained by processes that operate exclusively within the nuclear family.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41562-023-01796-2

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Some, but not all, methods using genome-wide summary statistics have been shown to be particularly vulnerable to biased inferences due to uncorrected population stratification confounding.

    “Some, but not all, of these methods have been shown to be particularly vulnerable to biased inferences due to uncorrected population stratification confounding: for example, measuring the strength of AM23, assessing evidence for IGEs11,42,43, assessing evidence for polygenic selection using ancient and modern DNA4,5,9, and Mendelian Randomisation13.”

    From Family-GWAS reveals effects of environment and mating on genetic associations (2024) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says population stratification can spuriously correlate genotype with environment, confounding genotype–outcome associations, and explains that the extended-pedigree design controls for subtle stratification when estimating indirect genetic effects. This supports the concern about biased IGE inference, but the paper does not establish the broader comparison that some, but not all, methods using genome-wide summary statistics are particularly vulnerable. (LLM, conf=0.83)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 40 · Cited by 65

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. [1]Lundborg P, Nordin M & Rooth DO The intergenerational transmission of human capital: the role of skills and health. Journal of Population Economics vol. 31 1035– 1065 Preprint at 10.1007/s00148-018-0702-3 (2018). · DOI
  2. [2]Silventoinen K. Genetic and environmental variation in educational attainment: an individual-based analysis of 28 twin cohorts. Sci. Rep 10, 12681 (2020). 32728164 PMC7391756
  3. [4]Howe LJ Within-sibship GWAS improve estimates of direct genetic effects. bioRxiv 2021.03.05.433935 (2021) doi: 10.1101/2021.03.05.433935. · DOI
  4. [6]Okbay A. Genome-wide association study identifies 74 loci associated with educational attainment. Nature 533, 539– 542 (2016). 27225129 PMC4883595
  5. [9]Demange PA Estimating effects of parents’ cognitive and non-cognitive skills on offspring education using polygenic scores. bioRxiv (2020) doi: 10.1101/2020.09.15.296236. PMC9399113 35999215 · DOI
  6. [11]Kong A. The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes. Science 359, 424– 428 (2018). 29371463
  7. [12]Bates TC The Nature of Nurture: Using a Virtual-Parent Design to Test Parenting Effects on Children’s Educational Attainment in Genotyped Families. Twin Res Hum. Genet 21, 73– 83 (2018). 29530109
  8. [13]Wang B. Robust genetic nurture effects on education: A systematic review and meta-analysis based on 38,654 families across 8 cohorts. Am. J. Hum. Genet (2021) doi: 10.1016/j.ajhg.2021.07.010. PMC8456157 34416156 · DOI · Paper page
  9. [16]Belsky DW Genetics and the geography of health, behaviour and attainment. Nat Hum Behav 3, 576– 586 (2019). 30962612 PMC6565482
  10. [18]Wertz J. Genetics of nurture: A test of the hypothesis that parents’ genetics predict their observed caregiving. Dev. Psychol 55, 1461– 1472 (2019). 30920238 PMC6586484
  11. [19]Belsky DW The genetics of success: How single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with educational attainment relate to life-course development. Psychol. Sci 27, 957– 972 (2016). 27251486 PMC4946990
  12. [20]Morris TT, Davies NM, Hemani G & Smith GD Population phenomena inflate genetic associations of complex social traits. Sci Adv 6, eaay0328 (2020). 32426451 PMC7159920
  13. [21]Koellinger PD & Harden KP Using nature to understand nurture. Science vol. 359 386– 387 (2018). 29371452 PMC7162683
  14. [23]Domingue BW & Fletcher J Separating Measured Genetic and Environmental Effects: Evidence Linking Parental Genotype and Adopted Child Outcomes. Behav. Genet 50, 301– 309 (2020). 32350631 PMC7442617
  15. [24]Cheesman R. Comparison of Adopted and Nonadopted Individuals Reveals Gene-Environment Interplay for Education in the UK Biobank. Psychol. Sci 31, 582– 591 (2020). 32302253 PMC7238511
  16. [25]Brumpton B. Avoiding dynastic, assortative mating, and population stratification biases in Mendelian randomization through within-family analyses. Nat. Commun 11, 3519 (2020). 32665587 PMC7360778
  17. [26]Wertz J. Using DNA From Mothers and Children to Study Parental Investment in Children’s Educational Attainment. Child Dev. 00, cdev.13329 (2019). PMC7183873 31657015
  18. [28]Robinson MR Genetic evidence of assortative mating in humans. Nat. Hum. Behav 1, 0016 (2017).
  19. [29]Border R. Assortative Mating Biases Marker-based Heritability Estimators. Preprint at 10.1101/2021.03.18.436091. PMC8814020 35115518 · DOI
  20. [30]Zaidi AA & Mathieson I Demographic history mediates the effect of stratification on polygenic scores. Elife 9, (2020). PMC7758063 33200985
  21. [31]Mostafavi H. Variable prediction accuracy of polygenic scores within an ancestry group. (2020) doi: 10.7554/eLife.48376. PMC7067566 31999256 · DOI · Paper page
  22. [33]Demange PA Investigating the genetic architecture of noncognitive skills using GWAS-by-subtraction. Nat. Genet 53, 35– 44 (2021). 33414549 PMC7116735
  23. [34]Isungset M. Social and Genetic Effects on Educational Performance in Early Adolescence. Preprint at 10.3386/w28498 (2021). · DOI
  24. [35]Zeeuw E. L. de Intergenerational transmission of education and ADHD: Effects of parental genotypes. Preprint at 10.1101/664128. PMC7355279 32026073 · DOI
  25. [36]Trejo S & Domingue BW Genetic Nature or Genetic Nurture? Quantifying Bias in Analyses Using Polygenic Scores. Preprint at 10.1101/524850. · DOI
  26. [37]Fletcher J, Wu Y, Li T & Lu Q Interpreting Polygenic Score Effects in Sibling Analysis. bioRxiv 2021.07.16.452740 (2021) doi: 10.1101/2021.07.16.452740. PMC10868763 38358994 · DOI
  27. [38]Veller C & Coop G Interpreting population and family-based genome-wide association studies in the presence of confounding. bioRxiv 2023.02.26.530052 (2023) doi: 10.1101/2023.02.26.530052. PMC11008796 38603516 · DOI · Paper page
  28. [40]Magnus P. Cohort Profile Update: The Norwegian Mother and Child Cohort Study (MoBa). Int. J. Epidemiol 45, 382– 388 (2016). 27063603
  29. [42]Carlin JB, Gurrin LC, Sterne JA, Morley R & Dwyer T Regression models for twin studies: a critical review. Int. J. Epidemiol 34, 1089– 1099 (2005). 16087687

Authors
Nivard, M. G., Belsky, D. W., Harden, K. P., Baier, T., Andreassen, O. A., Ystrøm, E., van Bergen, E., & Lyngstad, T. H.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • Columbia University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
  • Oslo University Hospital (NO)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
Corresponding author
Lyngstad, Torkild H.
ORCID
Venue
Nature Human Behaviour
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2024-01-15
Volume
8
Issue
4
Pages
771-778
ISSN
2397-3374 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1038/s41562-023-01796-2
PMC
PMC11569812
OpenAlex
W4390880491
Cited by
65
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 17
FWCI
46.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Nature Human Behaviour (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Bristol Research (University of Bristol) (submittedVersion)
  • Explore Bristol Research (submittedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Duo Research Archive (University of Oslo) (submittedVersion)
  • Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
Funders
  • Sage Foundation
  • Stiftelsen Kristian Gerhard Jebsen (223273)
  • University of Texas at Austin (P2CHD042849)
  • Trond Mohn stiftelse
  • ZonMw (849200011, 531003014, 024.001.003)
  • Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (024‐001‐003, 191G.030, VI.Veni.191G.030, 849200011)
  • Helse- og Omsorgsdepartementet
  • Jacobs Foundation (1810-08987, P2CHD042849)
  • Novo Nordisk
  • Helse Vest
  • Universitetet i Bergen
  • Norges Forskningsråd (229624, 223273, 1810-08987)
  • National Institutes of Health (223273)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health
  • National Institute on Aging (R01AG066887, R01AG073402)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH120219)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1810-08987)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (1810-08987, R01HD092548, P2CHD042849)
  • H2020 European Research Council (818420)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
indirect genetic effects, genetic nurture, educational attainment, academic performance, social stratification, intergenerational transmission, parent-offspring trios, nuclear family, educational inequality
MeSH terms
Academic Success, Adolescent, Child, Female, Humans, Male, Norway, Nuclear Family, Cohort Studies, Gene-Environment Interaction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review