The current study was motivated by an interest in deepening understanding of Brazilian twin research, which is underrepresented internationally, in an effort to rectify this situation. Our aim was threefold: (1) to carry out a comprehensive investigation of Brazilian research on twins according to the area of knowledge; (2) to evaluate the representation of research in the field of psychology in comparison with other areas; (3) to evaluate characteristics of the research that may have contributed to its exclusion from the comprehensive meta-analysis of 50 years of twin research. A scoping review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Titles and abstracts were searched up to 2022 in six databases: CAPES, BDLTD, PePSIC, PubMed, Google Scholar, and SciELO, using selected keywords both in Portuguese and in English (e.g., ‘twins’ and ‘Brazil’; ‘twinning’ and ‘Brazil’; ‘gemelaridade’ [twinning], and ‘gêmeos’ [twins]). Three hundred and forty publications were included in the review. Approximately half (53.8‰) used the classic twin design to investigate the heritability of several traits, and the other half (46.2%) used other research designs. The scoping review showed that the number of publications doubled approximately every 10 years. Most publications were from the health area, with medicine accounting for approximately half of the studies, followed by psychology, odontology, and biology. We found that the interest in studying twins among Brazilian scientists is increasing over the years and there are reasons to be enthusiastic about the potential impact of this trend in the global scenario.

The present study examined the longitudinal associations between three dimensions of temperament – activity, affect-extraversion, and task orientation – and childhood aggression. Using 131 monozygotic and 173 dizygotic (86 same-sex) twin pairs from the Louisville Twin Study, we elucidated the ages, from 6 to 36 months, at which each temperament dimension began to correlate with aggression at age 7. We employed latent growth modeling to show that developmental increases (i.e., slopes) in activity were positively associated with aggression, whereas increases in affect-extraversion and task orientation were negatively associated with aggression. Genetically informed models revealed that correlations between temperament and aggression were primarily explained by common genetic variance, with nonshared environmental variance accounting for a small proportion of each correlation by 36 months. Genetic variance explained the correlations of the slopes of activity and task orientation with aggression. Nonshared environmental variance accounted for almost half of the correlation between the slopes of affect-extraversion and aggression. Exploratory analyses revealed quantitative sex differences in each temperament-aggression association. By establishing which dimensions of temperament correlate with aggression, as well as when and how they do so, our work informs the development of future child and family interventions for children at highest risk of aggression.

The University of Minnesota has played an important role in the resurgence and eventual mainstreaming of human behavioral genetics in psychology and psychiatry. We describe this history in the context of three major movements in behavioral genetics: (1) radical eugenics in the early 20th century, (2) resurgence of human behavioral genetics in the 1960s, largely using twin and adoption designs to obtain more precise estimates of genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in behavior; and (3) use of measured genotypes to understand behavior. University of Minnesota scientists made significant contributions especially in (2) and (3) in the domains of cognitive ability, drug abuse and mental health, and endophenotypes. These contributions are illustrated through a historical perspective of major figures and events in behavioral genetics.

The sociogenomics revolution is upon us, we are told. Whether revolutionary or not, sociogenomics is poised to flourish given the ease of incorporating polygenic scores (or PGSs) as “genetic propensities” for complex traits into social science research. Pointing to evidence of ubiquitous heritability and the accessibility of genetic data, scholars have argued that social scientists not only have an opportunity but a duty to add PGSs to social science research. Social science research that ignores genetics is, some proponents argue, at best partial and likely scientifically flawed, misleading, and wasteful. Here, I challenge arguments about the value of genetics for social science and with it the claimed necessity of incorporating PGSs into social science models as measures of genetic influences. In so doing, I discuss the impracticability of distinguishing genetic influences from environmental influences because of non-causal gene–environment correlations, especially population stratification, familial confounding, and downward causation. I explain how environmental effects masquerade as genetic influences in PGSs, which undermines their raison d’être as measures of genetic propensity, especially for complex socially contingent behaviors that are the subject of sociogenomics. Additionally, I draw attention to the partial, unknown biology, while highlighting the persistence of an implicit, unavoidable reductionist genes versus environments approach. Leaving sociopolitical and ethical concerns aside, I argue that the potential scientific rewards of adding PGSs to social science are few and greatly overstated and the scientific costs, which include obscuring structural disadvantages and cultural influences, outweigh these meager benefits for most social science applications.

Behavior genetics is a controversial science. For decades, scholars have sought to understand the role of heredity in human behavior and life-course outcomes. Recently, technological advances and the rapid expansion of genomic databases have facilitated the discovery of genes associated with human phenotypes such as educational attainment and substance use disorders. To maximize the potential of this flourishing science, and to minimize potential harms, careful analysis of what it would mean for genes to be causes of human behavior is needed. In this paper, we advance a framework for identifying instances of genetic causes, interpreting those causal relationships, and applying them to advance causal knowledge more generally in the social sciences. Central to thinking about genes as causes is counterfactual reasoning, the cornerstone of causal thinking in statistics, medicine, and philosophy. We argue that within-family genetic effects represent the product of a counterfactual comparison in the same way as average treatment effects (ATEs) from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Both ATEs from RCTs and within-family genetic effects are shallow causes: They operate within intricate causal systems (non-unitary), produce heterogeneous effects across individuals (non-uniform), and are not mechanistically informative (non-explanatory). Despite these limitations, shallow causal knowledge can be used to improve understanding of the etiology of human behavior and to explore sources of heterogeneity and fade-out in treatment effects.

Genetic studies of complex traits often show disparities in estimated heritability depending on the method used, whether by genomic associations or twin and family studies. We present a simulation of individual genomes with dynamic environmental conditions to consider how linear and nonlinear effects, gene-by-environment interactions, and gene-by-environment correlations may work together to govern the long-term development of complex traits and affect estimates of heritability from common methods. Our simulation studies demonstrate that the genetic effects estimated by genome wide association studies in unrelated individuals are inadequate to characterize gene-by-environment interaction, while including related individuals in genome-wide complex trait analysis (GCTA) allows gene-by-environment interactions to be recovered in the heritability. These theoretical findings provide an explanation for the “missing heritability” problem and bridge the conceptual gap between the most common findings of GCTA and twin studies. Future studies may use the simulation model to test hypotheses about phenotypic complexity either in an exploratory way or by replicating well-established observations of specific phenotypes.

Twin studies can help us understand the relative contributions of genes and environment to phenotypic trait variation, including attentional and brain activation measures. In terms of applying methodologies such as electroencephalography (EEG) and eye tracking, which are key methods in developmental neuroscience, infant twin studies are almost nonexistent. Here, we describe the Babytwins Study Sweden (BATSS), a multi-method longitudinal twin study of 177 MZ and 134 DZ twin pairs (i.e., 622 individual infants) covering the 5−36 month time period. The study includes EEG, eye tracking and genetics, together with more traditional measures based on in-person testing, direct observation and questionnaires. The results show that interest in participation in research among twin parents is high, despite the comprehensive protocol. DNA analysis from saliva samples was possible in virtually all participants, allowing for both zygosity confirmation and polygenic score analyses. Combining a longitudinal twin design with advanced technologies in developmental cognitive neuroscience and genomics, BATSS represents a new approach in infancy research, which we hope to have impact across multiple disciplines in the coming years.

The Academic Development Study of Australian Twins was established in 2012 with the purpose of investigating the relative influence of genes and environments in literacy and numeracy capabilities across two primary and two secondary school grades in Australia. It is the first longitudinal twin project of its kind in Australia and comprises a sample of 2762 twin pairs, 40 triplet sets and 1485 nontwin siblings. Measures include standardized literacy and numeracy test data collected at Grades 3, 5, 7 and 9 as part of the National Assessment Program: Literacy and Numeracy. A range of demographic and behavioral data was also collected, some at multiple longitudinal time points. This article outlines the background and rationale for the study and provides an overview for the research design, sample and measures collected. Findings emerging from the project and future directions are discussed.

The Wisconsin Twin Project encompasses nearly 30 years of longitudinal research that spans infancy to early adulthood. The twin sample was recruited from statewide birth records for birth cohorts 1989–2004. We summarize early recruitment, assessment, retention and recently completed twin neuroimaging studies. In addition to the focal twins, longitudinal data were also collected from two parents and nontwin siblings. Our adolescent and young adult neuroimaging sample (N = 600) completed several previous behavioral and environmental assessments, beginning shortly after birth. The extensive phenotyping is meant to support a range of empirical investigations with potentially differing theoretical perspectives.

The purpose of this update is to provide the most current information about both the Colorado Adoption Project (CAP) and the Longitudinal Twin Study (LTS) and to introduce the Colorado Adoption/Twin Study of Lifespan behavioral development and cognitive aging (CATSLife), a product of their merger and a unique study of lifespan behavioral development and cognitive aging. The primary objective of CATSLife is to assess the unique saliency of early childhood genetic and environmental factors to adult cognitive maintenance and change, as well as proximal influences and innovations that emerge across development. CATSLife is currently assessing up to 1600 individuals on the cusp of middle age, targeting those between 30 and 40 years of age. The ongoing CATSLife data collection is described as well as the longitudinal data available from the earlier CAP and LTS assessments. We illustrate CATSLife via current projects and publications, highlighting the measurement of genetic, biochemical, social, sociodemographic and environmental indices, including geospatial features, and their impact on cognitive maintenance in middle adulthood. CATSLife provides an unparalleled opportunity to assess prospectively the etiologies of cognitive change and test the saliency of early childhood versus proximal influences on the genesis of cognitive decline.

The Wisconsin Twin Project comprises multiple longitudinal studies that span infancy to early adulthood. We summarize recent papers that show how twin designs with deep phenotyping, including biological measures, can inform questions about phenotypic structure, etiology, comorbidity, heterogeneity, and gene–environment interplay of temperamental constructs and mental and physical health conditions of children and adolescents. The general framework for investigations begins with rich characterization of early temperament and follows with study of experiences and exposures across childhood and adolescence. Many studies incorporate neuroimaging and hormone assays.

The Louisville Twin Study (LTS) is nationally recognized as one of the largest and most comprehensive studies of child development related to multiple birth status. The LTS is unique because of the extensive longitudinal face-to-face assessments, the frequency of data collection, the inclusion of data on additional family members (i.e., parents, siblings, grandparents; and later, twins’ own spouses and children), and the variety of data collection methods used. Data preservation efforts began in 2008 and are largely complete, although efforts are ongoing to obtain funding to convert the electronic data to a newer format. A pilot study was completed in the summer of 2018 to bring the twins, who are now middle-aged, back for testing. A grant is currently under review to extend the pilot study to include all former participants who are now ≥40 years of age. Opportunities for collaboration are welcome.

Determining (1) the direction of causation and (2) the size of causal effects between two constructs is a central challenge of the scientific study of humans. In the early 1990s, researchers in behavioral genetics invented what was termed the direction of causation (DoC) model to address exactly these two concerns. The model claims that for any two traits whose mode of inheritance is sufficiently different, the direction of causation can be ascertained using a sufficiently large genetically informative sample. Using a series of simulation studies, we demonstrate a major challenge to the DoC model, namely that it is extremely sensitive to even tiny amounts of non-shared confounding. Even under ideal conditions for the DoC model (a large sample, N = 10,000), a large causal relationship (e.g., a causal correlation of .50) with very different modes of inheritance between the two traits (e.g., a pure AE model for one trait and a pure CE model for another trait) and a modest degree (correlation of .10) of non-shared confounding between the two traits results in the choice of the wrong causal models and estimating the wrong causal effects.

A new paradigm has emerged in which both genetic and environmental factors are cited as possible influences on sociopolitical attitudes. Despite the increasing acceptance of this paradigm, several aspects of the approach remain underdeveloped. Specifically, limitations arise from a reliance on a twins-only design, and all previous studies have used self-reports only. There are also questions about the extent to which existing findings generalize cross-culturally. To address those issues, this study examined individual differences in liberalism/conservatism in a German sample that included twins, their parents, and their spouses and incorporated both self- and peer reports. The self-report findings from this extended twin family design were largely consistent with previous research that used that rater perspective, but they provided higher estimates of heritability, shared parental environmental influences, assortative mating, and genotype-environment correlation than the results from peer reports. The implications of these findings for the measurement and understanding of sociopolitical attitudes are explored.

In 1968, long before the publication of Stephen J. Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve, or Arthur Jensen's Bias in Mental Testing, Irving Gottesman published a book chapter that addressed head-on the issues that would define the relationship between the genetics of social behavior and large-scale social theory for the next 50 years. That he could do so with his characteristic scholarly thoroughness and scientific tough-mindedness without once lapsing into regressive hereditarianism is a testimony to the scope of his scientific knowledge and the generosity of his intellectual spirit.