Advertisement

The Nature of the Shared Environment

  • Kenneth S. Kendler
  • Henrik Ohlsson
  • Paul Lichtenstein
  • Jan Sundquist
  • Kristina Sundquist
Original Research

Abstract

While a standard part of twin modeling, the magnitude of shared environment (c2) is rarely examined by comparing estimates obtained using other methods. To clarify these effects on familial resemblance, we estimated c2 for 20 diverse phenotypes in: (i) monozygotic and dizygotic twins, (ii) all step-siblings, and (iii) reared together and apart half-siblings, ascertained from the Swedish general population. The mean c2 estimates (± 95% CIs) differed across methods and were higher from twins (0.18; 0.13–0.23) than from the step (0.12; 0.09–0.14) and half-sibs (0.09; 0.06–0.13). c2 estimates correlated moderately across these three methods (ICC = + 0.28). When step-siblings from blended (each sib biologically related to one parent) and adoption-like families (one sib offspring of both parents and one of neither), were examined separately, resemblance was much lower in the latter. We need to clarify the range of environmental processes now considered together under the term “shared environment.”

Keywords

Shared environment Twins Step-siblings Half-siblings Sweden 

Notes

Funding

This project was supported by Grant Nos. R01DA030005 and AA023534 from the National Institutes of Health, the Swedish Research Council (K2012-70X-15428-08-3), the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (In Swedish: Forte; Reg.nr: 2013-1836), the Swedish Research Council (2012-2378; 2014-10134) and FORTE (2014-0804) as well as ALF funding from Region Skåne awarded. The authors also wish to thank The Swedish Twin Registry at the Karolinska Institute, which provided the twin data for this study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Kenneth S. Kendler, Henrik Ohlsson, Paul Lichtenstein, Jan Sundquist and Kristina Sundquist declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. We secured ethical approval for this study from the Regional Ethical Review Board of Lund University. There were no animals used in this study.

Informed consent

Informed consent was not obtained from individual participants included in the study as we were working with anonymized data.

Supplementary material

10519_2018_9940_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 31 KB)

References

  1. Allen M, Donohue WA, Griffin A, Ryan D, Turner MM (2003) Comparing the influence of parents and peers on the choice to use drugs. Crim Justice Behav 30(2):163–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrews JA, Tildesley E, Hops H, Li F (2002) The influence of peers on young adult substance use. Health Psychol 21(4):349–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Burt SA (2009) Rethinking environmental contributions to child and adolescent psychopathology: a meta-analysis of shared environmental influences. Psychol Bull 135(4):608–637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Falconer DS (1989) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Harris KM (2013) The add health study: design and accomplishments. Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina, Chapel HillGoogle Scholar
  6. Hawkins JD, Herrenkohl T, Farrington DP, Brewer D, Catalano RF, Harachi TW (1998) A Review of predictors of youth violence. In: Loeber R, Farrington DP (eds) Serious and violent juvenile offenders: risk factors and successful interventions. Sage Publications, Inc., London, pp 106–146Google Scholar
  7. Hopper JL, Culross PR (1983) Covariation between family members as a function of cohabitation history. Behav Genet 13(5):459–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jinks JL, Fulker DW (1970) Comparison of the biometrical genetical, MAVA, and classical approaches to the analysis of human behavior. Psychol Bull 73(5):311–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kendler KS, Maes HH, Sundquist K, Ohlsson H, Sundquist J (2013a) Genetic and family and community environmental effects on drug abuse in adolescence: a swedish national twin and sibling study. Am J Psychiatry 171(2):209–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kendler KS, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Sundquist J (2013b) Within-family environmental transmission of drug abuse: a Swedish national study. JAMA Psychiatry 70(2):235–242CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kendler KS, Larsson Lönn S, Morris NA, Sundquist J, Långström N, Sundquist K (2014) A Swedish National Adoption Study of criminality. Psychol Med 44(9):1913–1925CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kendler KS, Maes HH, Lönn SL, Morris NA, Lichtenstein P, Sundquist J, Sundquist K (2015a) A Swedish National Twin Study of criminal behavior and its violent, white-collar and property subtypes. Psychol Med 45(11):2253–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kendler KS, Ohlsson H, Sundquist J, Sundquist K (2015b) Triparental families: a new genetic-epidemiological design applied to drug abuse, alcohol use disorders, and criminal behavior in a Swedish National Sample. Am J Psychiatry 172(6):553–560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kendler KS, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Sundquist J (2016a) The rearing environment and risk for drug abuse: a Swedish national high-risk adopted and not adopted co-sibling control study. Psychol Med 46(7):1359–1366CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kendler KS, PirouziFard M, Lonn S, Edwards AC, Maes HH, Lichtenstein P, Sundquist J, Sundquist K (2016b) A National Swedish Twin-Sibling Study of alcohol use disorders. Twin Res Hum Genet 19(5):430–437CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kendler KS, Ohlsson H, Sundquist J, Sundquist K (2018a) A Contagion Model for Within-Family Transmission of Drug-Abuse. Am J Psychiatry In PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Kendler KS, Ohlsson H, Sundquist K, Sundquist J (2018b) Sources of parent-offspring resemblance for major depression in a national swedish extended adoption study. JAMA Psychiatry 75(2):194–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lichtenstein P, de Faire U, Floderus B, Svartengren M, Svedberg P, Pedersen NL (2002) The Swedish Twin Registry: a unique resource for clinical, epidemiological and genetic studies. J Intern Med 252(3):184–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mather K, Jinks JL (1982) Biometrical genetics: the study of continuous variation. Chapman & Hall, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Muthén LK, Muthén BO (2015) Mplus user’s guide: 1998–2015. Muthén & Muthén, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  21. Neale MC, Cardon LR (1992) Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic Publishers B.V., DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petraitis J, Flay BR, Miller TQ, Torpy EJ, Greiner B (1998) Illicit substance use among adolescents: a matrix of prospective predictors. Subst Use Misuse 33(13):2561–2604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Polderman TJ, Benyamin B, de Leeuw CA, Sullivan PF, van Bochoven A, Visscher PM, Posthuma D (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet 47(7):702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Reiss D, Neiderhiser JM, Hetherington EM, Plomin R (2000) The relationship code: deciphering genetic and social influences on adolescent development. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Rhee SH, Waldman ID (2002) Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: a meta- analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychol Bull 128(3):490–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. SAS Institute I (2012) SAS/STAT® Online Documentation, Version 9.4. Cary. SAS Institute, Inc, CharlotteGoogle Scholar
  27. Sullivan PF, Kendler KS, Neale MC (2003) Schizophrenia as a complex trait: evidence from a meta-analysis of twin studies. Arch Gen Psychiatry 60(12):1187–1192CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral GeneticsVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychiatryVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Center for Primary Health Care ResearchLund UniversityMalmöSweden
  4. 4.Department of Medical Epidemiology and BiostatisticsKarolinska InstituteStockholmSweden
  5. 5.Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Department of Population Health Science and PolicyIcahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  6. 6.Department of Functional Pathology, School of Medicine, Center for Community-based Healthcare Research and Education (CoHRE)Shimane UniversityMatsueJapan

Personalised recommendations