The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 13 of the 26 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence
Open accessAbstract
A core hypothesis in developmental theory predicts that genetic influences on intelligence and academic achievement are suppressed under conditions of socioeconomic privation and more fully realized under conditions of socioeconomic advantage: a Gene × Childhood Socioeconomic Status (SES) interaction. Tests of this hypothesis have produced apparently inconsistent results. We performed a meta-analysis of tests of Gene × SES interaction on intelligence and academic-achievement test scores, allowing for stratification by nation (United States vs. non–United States), and we conducted rigorous tests for publication bias and between-studies heterogeneity. In U.S. studies, we found clear support for moderately sized Gene × SES effects. In studies from Western Europe and Australia, where social policies ensure more uniform access to high-quality education and health care, Gene × SES effects were zero or reversed.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis finds a positive gene × socioeconomic status (G × SES) interaction on intelligence in US studies but no such effect—or a reversed effect—in Western Europe and Australia. The cross-national difference is statistically significant and not explained by publication bias.
Key findings
- In US studies, the G × SES interaction was significant and positive (a′ = .074, SE = .020, p < .0005); in non-US studies from Western Europe and Australia, it was trivial and non-significant (a′ = −.027, SE = .022, p = .223). The difference between US and non-US effects was significant (b = .101, SE = .032, p = .001).
- The unconditional meta-analytic mean G × SES effect was non-significant (a′ = .029, SE = .019, p = .136), with significant heterogeneity (random-effect SD = .048, SE = .019, p = .011). Excluding Netherlands studies made non-US effects essentially zero (a′ = −.001, SE = .033, p = .979).
- In the US model, genetic variance in intelligence increased from .24 at 2 SD below mean SES to .61 at 2 SD above mean SES, corresponding to heritability estimates of 26% and 61%, respectively. Shared and non-shared environmental variance decreased with SES, but these interactions were not statistically significant.
- Publication-bias checks found no evidence of bias: funnel asymmetry tests were non-significant, and p-curve analysis indicated evidential value for US studies (z = −3.427, p < .001) but not for non-US studies (z = −1.264, p = .103). A power simulation estimated that 3,300 twin pairs are needed for 80% power based on the meta-analytic US estimate, versus 500 based on Turkheimer et al. (2003).
Methods
- The authors meta-analyzed published and unpublished G × SES studies on objective intelligence/achievement measures, requiring sibling/twin genetic relatedness, known zygosity, childhood family SES as moderator, and no selection on diagnoses or test scores. The final dataset included k = 43 effect sizes from K = 14 independent studies and N = 24,926 twin/sibling pairs (approximately 50,000 individuals); US samples contributed k = 18, K = 8, N = 10,831, and non-US samples k = 25, K = 6, N = 14,095.
- To ensure comparable estimates, the authors reanalyzed raw data, obtained reanalyses from original authors, or reanalyzed published subgroup covariance matrices. They fitted Purcell’s (2002) biometric model of latent Gene × Measured Shared Environment interaction, with Z-transformed phenotypes and SES, extracting a, c, e, s, a′, c′, and e′ parameters.
- Effect sizes were meta-analyzed using random-effects meta-regression in Mplus, allowing multiple effect sizes per sample, weighting by the reciprocal number of effect sizes and inverse sampling variance, and using a sandwich estimator to correct standard errors for non-independence. Moderator analyses and publication-bias/robustness checks were also conducted.
Limitations
- The authors state they could not fully test whether the US G × SES effects were driven by greater racial and ethnic diversity in US samples, though they cite individual studies suggesting this is not the case. They also note that candidate mechanisms for national differences—such as educational quality, medical/educational access, social mobility, and income support—were not directly tested.
- The non-US evidence is limited to Western Europe and Australia, so the “non-US” estimate may not generalize to other nations. The authors also excluded several notable studies for methodological reasons (e.g., Scarr-Salapatek, 1971; NLSY kinship data; Nagoshi & Johnson, 2005; Friend et al.; Prescott et al.).
- Evident from the text: the meta-analysis cannot establish causal environmental mechanisms, and residual non-US heterogeneity was driven by Netherlands studies, meaning the non-US summary may mask country-level variation. Publication-bias tests reduce but cannot entirely rule out bias.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 8 Own interpretation · 5 Partly supported · 4 Sources not found · 4 No full text of the sources · 4 Own method · 3 Supported · 3 No basis given · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Some subsequent US research has replicated the interaction (Bates, Lewis, & Weiss, 2013; Harden, Turkheimer, & Loehlin, 2007; Tucker-Drob, Rhemtulla, Harden, Turkheimer, & Fask, 2011; Turkheimer, Haley, Waldron, D’Onofrio, & Gottesman, 2003).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Bates, Lewis, & Weiss, 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The indexed record’s title (metadata; no section or page) identifies a study of childhood socioeconomic status amplifying genetic effects on adult intelligence, which supports the interaction component. The available passages do not establish that this was US research or that it replicated an earlier finding; searches for the study setting and replication returned only metadata. (LLM, conf=0.72)
- Not matchedcites Harden, Turkheimer, & Loehlin, 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Tucker-Drob, Rhemtulla, Harden, Turkheimer, & Fask, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“We also replicated the well-established phenomenon of increasing genetic influences, and decreasing shared environmental influences, on intelligence with childhood age (e.g. Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013; Haworth et al., 2009) in the current meta-analytic dataset.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013 source
The Results section (‘Changes in genetic and environmental factors’) reports that longer intervals between measurements were associated with larger increases in heritability and larger decreases in shared environmentality. The citing authors’ statement about replication in their current dataset describes their own finding, not a finding attributed to Briley and Tucker-Drob. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Supportedcites Haworth et al., 2009 source
The Abstract reports that, in the full twin sample, genetic influence on intelligence increased from childhood through young adulthood, while shared environmental influence declined significantly from childhood to adolescence. The citing authors’ replication in their own meta-analytic dataset is not attributed to this source. The cited paper’s separate analysis of high cognitive ability did not detect significant age-group differences, but that does not negate the background finding it reports. (LLM, conf=0.89)
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It also indicated that the p-curve is not flatter than one would expect if studies were powered at 33% (z = .122, p = .548)”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Probing for Publication Bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A model that excluded these effect sizes (reported in Harden et al., 2007; Tucker-Drob et al., 2011; Turkheimer et al., 2003), yielded a null G × SES effect in non-US samples (a′ = −.027, SE = .022, p = .220)”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Robustness Checks
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analytic finding of a G × SES interaction in the US, was based on a total sample size of over 10,000 pairs of US twins and siblings.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Implications of Meta-Analytic Effect Size Estimates for Reproducibility
plainn = 10,000- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a significant G × SES effect in the US (a′ = .058, SE = .020, p = .003)”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Robustness Checks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As instantaneous proportions of variance, these correspond to heritability estimates of 26% at 2 SD’s below the mean SES, and 61% at 2 SD’s above the mean SES.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > G × SES Effects in US and Non-US Samples
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post-hoc analysis revealed that, exclusive of effect sizes from the Netherlands, residual heterogeneity was nil in the non-US group (τ = .005, SE = .517, p = .993)”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > G × SES Effects in US and Non-US Samples
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In contrast, when the same procedure was implemented using parameter estimates for FSIQ from Turkheimer et al. (2003), an early and highly publicized study that reported a much larger G × SES than was indicated by the current meta-analysis, results indicated that a minimum sample size of only 500 twin pairs is needed to achieve ≥ 80% power.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Implications of Meta-Analytic Effect Size Estimates for Reproducibility
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Turkheimer et al. (2003) source
hedgedn = 500- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, when only non-US studies were entered into p-curve analysis, p-checker did not indicate significant right skew (z = −1.264, p = .103), indicating that there was no evidence for a non-null a’ effect outside of the US.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Probing for Publication Bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 6
- It may state two separate claims as one. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In order to ensure that effect sizes were placed on a metric that was comparable across studies, we ensured that phenotypes and continuous SES measures were Z-transformed (based on the M and SD from data pooled across all twins and siblings of all relatedness types) prior to fitting the Purcell (2002) model.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Method > Obtaining Effect Size Estimates
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Purcell (2002) source
The citation identifies the model the citing authors fitted, not the source of their Z-transformation procedure. The paper’s “Continuous Moderator Variables” section describes a gene–environment interaction model with continuous moderators, including socioeconomic status. The sentence presents standardization for cross-study comparability as the citing authors’ own choice. (LLM, conf=0.91)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“findings generally supported by heritability estimates from genome-wide data on unrelated individuals (Davies et al., 2011; Plomin et al., 2013).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Davies et al., 2011 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract and Discussion report genome-wide estimates from unrelated adults that support substantial heritability of intelligence. The paper does not show that heritability increases; its estimates concern fluid and crystallized intelligence in middle to older adulthood, not a change over time. (LLM, conf=0.84)
- Partly supportedcites Plomin et al., 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports a substantial GCTA estimate for general cognitive ability, and the Genomewide Complex-Trait Analysis section reports estimates from unrelated adults and children. The paper describes increasing heritability from childhood to adulthood as a finding from developmental research, but does not show that genome-wide estimates establish that increase. (LLM, conf=0.86)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“and increase with age (Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013)”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013 source
The Results section reports that this longitudinal meta-analysis largely confirmed developmental increases in heritability, with larger increases associated with older ages. The Abstract identifies the underlying data as twin and sibling pairs measured repeatedly from infancy through adolescence. (LLM, conf=0.92)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“there was significant support for age differences in the a and c parameters, indicating that genetic variance increases and shared environmental variance decreases with age”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Additional Moderator Analyses
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Briley & Tucker-Drob, 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results section (Changes in genetic and environmental factors; page not provided) reports significant longitudinal increases in heritability and decreases in shared environmentality. But these are changes in proportions of variance: the Discussion (Strengths and limitations; page not provided) says the study could not adequately assess changes in absolute genetic or environmental variance. The claim's unqualified statement about variance therefore exceeds the findings. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Partly supportedcites Haworth et al., 2009 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Abstract reports significant age-related increases in heritability and a decline in shared environmental influence for the broader 11,000-pair sample, citing an earlier analysis. But this paper’s Results (Heterogeneity model-fitting analyses; page unavailable) found no significant age-group differences in A, C, or E for its high-cognitive-ability sample. The claim does not distinguish the earlier finding from this paper’s own result. (LLM, conf=0.84)
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Other studies, however, have failed to replicate the finding (Bartels, van Beijsterveldt, & Boomsma, 2009; Kremen et al., 2005; Soden-Hensler, 2012; van der Sluis, Willemsen, de Geus, Boomsma, & Posthuma, 2008), including the largest sample to date (Hanscombe et al., 2012).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Abstract
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Bartels, van Beijsterveldt, & Boomsma, 2009 source
The Results report no obvious differences in twin correlations across maternal-education levels. The Discussion reports only a small genetic-influence difference between the low- and middle-education groups, with the estimate higher in the low-education group; this supports citing Bartels et al. as a failure to replicate the G × SES pattern. The separate claim about the largest sample is attributed to Hanscombe et al., not Bartels et al. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Supportedcites Kremen et al., 2005 source
The Discussion (p. 12) reports no increase in genetic variance with parental education and concludes that the study found a parental-education × shared-environment interaction only, not a parental-education × gene interaction. The 'largest sample to date' clause is attributed to Hanscombe et al. (2012), not to Kremen et al. (LLM, conf=0.90)
- Partly supportedcites Hanscombe et al., 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion reports that this large UK-representative study did not replicate the predicted genetic interaction between SES and children's IQ. The Methods (Participants) report 8,716 twin pairs, but the passages in our copy do not establish that it was the largest sample to date. (LLM, conf=0.82)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Indeed, both phenomena may reflect a process of increased and accumulated effects of gene-environment transactions with the increased opportunity that comes with both social class and age (Tucker-Drob et al., 2013; Turkheimer & Horn, 2014).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Tucker-Drob et al., 2013 source
The Abstract says transactional processes can produce increasing genetic influence with both age and environmental opportunity. The Socioeconomic Differences in Heritability section links opportunity to SES and notes that positive Gene × SES findings have mostly come from the United States. The claim appropriately presents this shared mechanism as a possibility, not an established cause. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not matchedcites Turkheimer & Horn, 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is also some indication that the shared and non-shared environmental variance components decrease with SES, although these interactions were not statistically significant.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > G × SES Effects in US and Non-US Samples
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but no G × SES effect for non-US studies (a′ = −.001, SE = .033, p = .979).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > G × SES Effects in US and Non-US Samples
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“None of these moderators achieved statistical significance.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Additional Moderator Analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In conclusion, all robustness checks indicated the presence of a significantly positive G × SES interaction in the US but not in Western Europe/Australia, with the difference between US and non-US studies being statistically significant.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Robustness Checks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“our meta-analytic dataset consisted of k = 43 effect sizes from a total of N = 24,926 pairs of twins and siblings (approximately 50,000 individuals) participating in K = 14 independent studies.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Summary of Meta-Analytic Dataset
plainn = 24,926- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were relatively evenly split across US (k = 18, K = 8, N = 10,831) and Non-US (Western Europe and Australia) samples (k = 25, K = 6, N = 14,095).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Summary of Meta-Analytic Dataset
plainn = 24,926- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and a significant difference between US and non-US studies (difference = .135, SE = .042, p = .001).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Robustness Checks
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When only US studies were entered into p-curve analysis, p-checker indicated that the p-curve is, in fact, right skewed, indicating that these studies contain evidential value (z = −3.427, p < .001).”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Probing for Publication Bias
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not find evidence of publication or reporting bias in our meta-analytic dataset. Both visual and formal tests of funnel plot asymmetry were not significant, both when applied to the overall meta-analytic dataset, and when separately applied to effects sizes from US and non-US samples.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Genes account for considerably more variation in intelligence at both higher ages and in higher US socioeconomic contexts.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with the cross national difference identified in our primary meta-analysis, p-curve analysis further indicated evidential value for a non-zero G × SES effect in US studies, but did not indicate evidential value for a nonzero G × SES effect in the non-US studies.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, in studies conducted outside the US (in Western Europe and Australia), the best estimate for G × SES magnitude was very slightly negative, and not significantly different from zero.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We included multiple effect sizes per sample (e.g. for different intelligence measures, different waves, or different measures of SES), weighted meta-regression models by the reciprocal number of effect sizes included for the corresponding sample and by the inverse of each parameter’s sampling variance, and implemented a sandwich estimator that corrects standard errors for non-independence of data”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Method > Meta-Analyzing Effect Sizes
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Additionally, Harden et al. (2007) reported evidence for G × SES interaction in a positively selected sample of US adolescents that contained very few racial minorities.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Results > Cross-National Differences in Racial Diversity
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harden et al. (2007)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used sophisticated methods for estimating random effects meta-regressions in nested data (i.e., in a meta-analytic dataset that contained multiple effect sizes per study).”
- Also stated in: § Meta-Analyzing Effect Sizes · plain
“Random effects models do not require the traditional assumption that all effect sizes were derived from the same population with a single true effect size. Rather, they allow for population variation in the true effect size above and beyond variation attributable to sampling error.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Meta-Analyzing Effect Sizes · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because this methodology required that all effect sizes and standard errors be calculated using a consistent modeling approach, we typically (a) obtained the raw data and re-analyzed it ourselves, (b) were provided with parameter estimates from re-analyses by the original study authors (all authors contacted complied with our request), or (c) re-analyzed the published sub-group covariance matrices”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Method
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we meta-analyzed tests of G × SES interaction on intelligence and academic achievement test scores, allowing for stratification by nation (US vs non-US), and conducted rigorous tests for publication bias and between-study heterogeneity.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results indicate that G × SES effects are not uniform, but can rather take positive, zero, and even negative values depending on factors that differ at the national-level.”
§ Large Cross-National Differences in Gene × Socioeconomic Status Interaction on Intelligence > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
A continuous normal distribution underlies ordered categorical SES distributions.
“The assumption that a continuous normal distribution underlies ordered categorical SES distributions was considered reasonable, because the studies that did employ continuous measures of SES typically transformed their SES measure to normality if it was not already approximately normally distributed.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Not confirmedz = 1.253reported p = .895 · recomputed p = .210
“(z = 1.253, p = .895”
- Not confirmedz = 3.427reported p = 1 · recomputed p < .001
“(z = 3.427, p = 1.000”
- Not confirmedz = -1.264reported p = .103 · recomputed p = .206
“(z = −1.264, p = .103”
- Not confirmedz = 0.122reported p = .548 · recomputed p = .903
“(z = .122, p = .548”
- Not confirmedz = 1.264reported p = .897 · recomputed p = .206
“(z = 1.264, p = .897”
- Consistentz = -3.427reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“(z = −3.427, p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
Nature-nurture reconceptualized in developmental perspective: A bioecological model.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Ceci, S. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.568 · Cited by 2,973 · cited 1×
“One hypothesis that has been offered as a rapprochement between hereditarian and sociological views is that natural potentials for adaptive functioning are more fully expressed in the context of more nourishing environmental experiences (Bronfenbrenner & Ceci, 1994).”
BackgroundHow Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement
Jensen, A. (1969) · Harvard Educational Review · doi:10.17763/haer.39.1.l3u15956627424k7 · Cited by 2,907 · cited 1×
“One of the most important, but contentious, topics of the nature-nurture debate is the source of individual differences in intelligence (Galton, 1869; Jensen, 1969).”
The Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium, U.K.
Mossman, K. (2008) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0108-42a · Cited by 2,714
Socioeconomic Disparities In Health: Pathways And Policies
Adler, N. E., & Newman, K. (2002) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.21.2.60 · Cited by 2,102 · cited 2×
“…this type of explanation have pointed to higher social stratification in access to education (Hauser, 1970) and relatively modest social health (Adler & Newman, 2002) and social-welfare support (DeNavas-Walt & Proctor, 2014) in the United States compared with Australia and Western Europe.”
Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences.
Galton, F. (1869) · Macmillan eBooks · doi:10.1037/13474-000 · Cited by 1,950
Hereditary Genius: An Inquiry into its Laws and Consequences
Galton, F. (1914) · Nature · doi:10.1038/093453b0 · Cited by 1,552 · cited 1×
“One of the most important, but contentious, topics of the nature-nurture debate is the source of individual differences in intelligence (Galton, 1869; Jensen, 1969).”
P-curve: A key to the file-drawer.
Simonsohn, U., Nelson, L. D., & Simmons, J. P. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/a0033242 · Cited by 1,500 · cited 1×
“(2012), and Tucker-Drob et al. (2013). We also consulted a table of previous studies included in Hanscombe et al.”
Why Most Discovered True Associations Are Inflated
Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2008) · Epidemiology · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e31818131e7 · Cited by 1,495
Socioeconomic Status Modifies Heritability of IQ in Young Children
Turkheimer, E., Haley, A., Waldron, M., D'Onofrio, B., & Gottesman, I. I. (2003) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x · Cited by 1,373
Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments
Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/a0026699 · Cited by 1,031 · cited 1×
“We used sophisticated methods for estimating random-effects meta-regressions in nested data (i.e., in a meta-analytic data set that contained multiple effect sizes per study).”
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Jacobson K. C., 2012, Behavior Genetics, 42, 941
- Muthén L. K., 2012, Mplus user’s guide
- Prescott C. A., 2014, Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Behavior Genetics Association
- Soden-Hensler B. (2012). An examination of Gene × Socioeconomic Status interactions for reading achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Florida State University). Retrieved from http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6923&context=etd
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Persistence and Fadeout in the Impacts of Child and Adolescent Interventions
Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Odgers, C. L., & Yu, W. (2016) · Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness · doi:10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459 · Cited by 609
“PERSISTENCE AND FADEOUT IN INTERVENTION IMPACTS 13 development of poor versus more affluent children’s cognitive skills (Tucker-Drob & Bates, 2016), attempts to boost general intelligence experimentally in individuals within the commonly observed range of intervention intensity and child…”
BackgroundThe new genetics of intelligence
Plomin, R. J., & von Stumm, S. (2018) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg.2017.104 · Cited by 525
Identifying Pathways Between Socioeconomic Status and Language Development
Pace, A. E., Luo, R., Hirsh‐Pasek, K., & Golinkoff, R. M. (2016) · Annual Review of Linguistics · doi:10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011516-034226 · Cited by 471
“…compelling new evidence suggests that in countries where social policies ensure more uniform access to high-quality education and health care (e.g., Australia), the effects of childhood SES on intelligence and academic achievement can be nullified or even reversed (Tucker-Drob & Bates 2015).”
BackgroundCausal relationship between gut microbiota and cancers: a two-sample Mendelian randomisation study
Long, Y., Tang, L., Zhou, Y., Zhao, S., & Zhu, H. (2023) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-023-02761-6 · Cited by 404
“Meanwhile, the role of genetic factors also depends on environmental influences [73, 74].”
BackgroundGenetic analysis of social-class mobility in five longitudinal studies
Belsky, D. W., Domingue, B. W., Wedow, R., Arseneault, L., Boardman, J. D., Caspi, A., Conley, D., Fletcher, J. M., Freese, J., Herd, P., et al. (2018) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1801238115 · Cited by 315
Metadata
- Authors
- Tucker-Drob, E. M., & Bates, T. C.
- Affiliations
- Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- ORCID
- Bates, Timothy C.
- Venue
- Psychological Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2015-12-15
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 138-149
- ISSN
- 0956-7976 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9280
- PMC
- PMC4749462
- OpenAlex
- W2197899923
- Cited by
- 359
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 26 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 29 · 2019: 39 · 2018: 31 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 1
- FWCI
- 38.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Russell Sage Foundation
- National Institutes of Health (5p2chd042849-22)
- Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (# P2CHD042849, R21 HD081437, R24 HD042849, P01HD031921)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
- Keywords
- intelligence, academic performance, genetic influences on intelligence, cross-national differences, publication bias, study heterogeneity, educational inequality, Western Europe, Australia
- MeSH terms
- Educational Measurement, Humans, Intelligence, Models, Genetic, Models, Psychological, Social Class, United States, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-29, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-29 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
