The validity of twin studies

By David M. Evans, Nicholas G. Martin. 2000

106 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Genetic and Environmental Origins of Learning Abilities and Disabilities in the Early School (2007, methodology): “Despite some potential limitations, the twin study remains the best method for assessing the relative contribution of genes and environment to traits in human populations (Evans & Martin, 2000).”
A Genetic Basis for Social Trust? (2010, background): “In our view, the sorts of differences between the environments of MZ and DZ twins that have been demonstrated to date (see, for example, Evans and Martin 2000; Scarr and Carter-Saltzman 1979) cannot plausibly account for the large difference in concordance in social trust that we have found here.”
Pulling back the curtain on heritability studies: biosocial criminology in the postgenomic era (2014, background): “For instance, MZ twins are more likely to be treated similarly by their parents (Evans and Martin, 2000), to have the same friends (Cronk et al., 2002; Horowitz et al., 2003), to share the same classroom (Cronk et al., 2002; Morris-Yates et al., 1990), to spend time together (and therefore…”
Meta-analysis of twin studies highlights the importance of genetic variation in primary school educational achievement (2015, background): “Such violations of the equal environments assumption have been tested by empirical approaches in large scale studies [13] [14] [15] which show that the assumption holds for, amongst others, educational achievement.”