Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qlrfm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T06:26:19.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Analysis of Marital Interaction in Cross-Sectional Twin Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

A.C. Heath*
Affiliation:
Department of Human Genetics, Medical College of Virginia, Richmond, USA
*
Department of Human Genetics, Box 33, MCV Station, Richmond VA 23298, USA

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

The effects on twin data of social interaction between spouses is examined. When social interaction leads to an increase in marital resemblance (eg through reciprocal imitation), the variance of married individuals is increased, compared to the variance of unmarried individuals. Furthermore, the expected correlations between concordant married twin pairs will be lower than the expected correlations between concordant unmarried twin pairs, with the discordant twin correlations being intermediate in value. It is therefore possible, in principle, to detect the effects of marital interaction without using either longitudinal data or data on spouse pairs. However, to be detectable in twin data, marital interaction must be strong, or must exhibit marked asymmetry of effects between males and females. Genotype × environment interaction can also produce heterogeneity of correlation between concordant married, discordant, and concordant unmarried twin pairs, when genetic and environmental effects interact with marital status. However, this will usually produce increased estimates of the genetic component of variance in unmarried twins, whereas marital interaction produces increased genetic variance in married twins.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The International Society for Twin Studies 1987

References

REFERENCES

1.Brown, GW, Harris, T (1978): Social Origins of Depression. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
2.Carey, G (1986): Sibling imitation and contrast effects. Behav Genet 16:319343.Google Scholar
3.Cloninger, CR (1980): Interpretation of intrinsic and extrinsic structural relations by path analysis: theory and application to assortative mating. Genet Res 36:135145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Eaves, LJ (1976): Inferring the causes of human variation. J Roy Statist Soc Ser A 140:324355.Google Scholar
5.Eaves, LJ (1982): The utility of twins. In Sing, CF, Hauser, , Andersen, EV (eds): Genetic Basis of the Epilepsies. New York: Alan R Liss.Google Scholar
6.Fisher, RA (1918): The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans Roy Soc Edinburgh 52:399433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7.Heath, AC (1987): Resolving the effects of marital interaction and mate selection on spousal resemblance. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
8.Heath, AC, Eaves, LJ (1985): Resolving the effects of phenotype and social background on mate selection. Behav Genet 15:1530.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Heath, AC, Jardine, R, Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ (1986): Interaction of marital status and genetic risk for symptoms of depression. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
10.Martin, NG, Eaves, LJ, Heath, AC, Jardine, R, Feingold, LM, Eysenck, HJ (1986): Trasmission of social attitudes. Proc Natl Acad Sci. USA 83:43644368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11.Wright, S (1968): Evolution and the Genetics of Populations, Vol 1. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar