Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Matthew A. Sarraf , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Thomas R. Coyle , Guy Madison
{"title":"倾斜、发展模块和认知分化-整合努力:对索约宁等人(2024)的多项研究回应","authors":"Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Matthew A. Sarraf , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Thomas R. Coyle , Guy Madison","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112849","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Sorjonen et al. (2024) critique a recently published finding that cognitive tilts are heritable, which was advanced as a line of evidence supporting their substantive (rather than artefactual) nature. These researchers claim: i) that the heritability of tilts is simply a function of the heritabilities of the specific cognitive dimensions used in their estimation, and ii) that spuriously heritable tilts can be recovered using difference scores between psychometric, anthropometric, and even random number variables. Here, multiple studies employing three behavior genetic datasets are used to test these claims. Even when cognitive tilts are residualized for their association with their constituent abilities, they still exhibit small, but non-zero heritabilities. <em>Shared</em> environmentality (C) accounts for the largest proportion of variance among these residuals. Tilts generated using random numbers are, by contrast, in all cases associated with AE models, exhibiting near 100 % E variance, corresponding to error. In the Swedish Twin Registry, the tilt residual is positively correlated with a measure of life history speed (Mini-<em>K</em> score), suggesting that tilts capture cognitive differentiation-integration effort conditioned developmentally by C variance. Distinct latent factors among psychometric and anthropometric variables in the Georgia Twin Study are also found. These indicate the presence of distinct developmental modules, meaning that tilts estimated using manifest variables associated with <em>different</em> modules lack theoretical credibility, as also evidenced by weak cross loadings.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tilts, developmental modules, and cognitive differentiation-integration effort: A multi-study response to Sorjonen et al. (2024)\",\"authors\":\"Michael A. Woodley of Menie , Matthew A. Sarraf , Mateo Peñaherrera-Aguirre , Thomas R. Coyle , Guy Madison\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112849\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Sorjonen et al. (2024) critique a recently published finding that cognitive tilts are heritable, which was advanced as a line of evidence supporting their substantive (rather than artefactual) nature. These researchers claim: i) that the heritability of tilts is simply a function of the heritabilities of the specific cognitive dimensions used in their estimation, and ii) that spuriously heritable tilts can be recovered using difference scores between psychometric, anthropometric, and even random number variables. Here, multiple studies employing three behavior genetic datasets are used to test these claims. Even when cognitive tilts are residualized for their association with their constituent abilities, they still exhibit small, but non-zero heritabilities. <em>Shared</em> environmentality (C) accounts for the largest proportion of variance among these residuals. Tilts generated using random numbers are, by contrast, in all cases associated with AE models, exhibiting near 100 % E variance, corresponding to error. In the Swedish Twin Registry, the tilt residual is positively correlated with a measure of life history speed (Mini-<em>K</em> score), suggesting that tilts capture cognitive differentiation-integration effort conditioned developmentally by C variance. Distinct latent factors among psychometric and anthropometric variables in the Georgia Twin Study are also found. These indicate the presence of distinct developmental modules, meaning that tilts estimated using manifest variables associated with <em>different</em> modules lack theoretical credibility, as also evidenced by weak cross loadings.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48467,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Individual Differences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692400309X\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019188692400309X","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Sorjonen 等人(2024 年)对最近发表的一项认知倾斜具有遗传性的研究结果进行了批判,该研究结果被认为是支持认知倾斜具有实质性(而非人为性)的证据。这些研究人员声称:i) 倾斜的遗传性仅仅是其估算中使用的特定认知维度的遗传性的函数;ii) 可以使用心理测量、人体测量甚至随机数变量之间的差分来恢复虚假的遗传倾斜。本文利用三个行为遗传数据集的多项研究来验证这些观点。即使对认知倾斜与其组成能力的关联进行残差分析,它们仍然表现出较小但非零的遗传率。在这些残差中,共享环境性(C)占了最大的变异比例。相比之下,使用随机数生成的倾斜度在所有情况下都与AE模型有关,显示出接近100%的E方差,与误差相对应。在瑞典双胞胎登记中,倾斜残差与衡量生活史速度的指标(Mini-K 分数)呈正相关,这表明倾斜捕捉到了以 C 方差为发展条件的认知分化-整合努力。在佐治亚双胞胎研究中,心理测量和人体测量变量之间也发现了不同的潜在因素。这表明存在不同的发展模块,这意味着使用与不同模块相关的显变量估算的倾斜度缺乏理论可信度,交叉负荷较弱也证明了这一点。
Tilts, developmental modules, and cognitive differentiation-integration effort: A multi-study response to Sorjonen et al. (2024)
Sorjonen et al. (2024) critique a recently published finding that cognitive tilts are heritable, which was advanced as a line of evidence supporting their substantive (rather than artefactual) nature. These researchers claim: i) that the heritability of tilts is simply a function of the heritabilities of the specific cognitive dimensions used in their estimation, and ii) that spuriously heritable tilts can be recovered using difference scores between psychometric, anthropometric, and even random number variables. Here, multiple studies employing three behavior genetic datasets are used to test these claims. Even when cognitive tilts are residualized for their association with their constituent abilities, they still exhibit small, but non-zero heritabilities. Shared environmentality (C) accounts for the largest proportion of variance among these residuals. Tilts generated using random numbers are, by contrast, in all cases associated with AE models, exhibiting near 100 % E variance, corresponding to error. In the Swedish Twin Registry, the tilt residual is positively correlated with a measure of life history speed (Mini-K score), suggesting that tilts capture cognitive differentiation-integration effort conditioned developmentally by C variance. Distinct latent factors among psychometric and anthropometric variables in the Georgia Twin Study are also found. These indicate the presence of distinct developmental modules, meaning that tilts estimated using manifest variables associated with different modules lack theoretical credibility, as also evidenced by weak cross loadings.
期刊介绍:
Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.