article Analysis of Heritability and Shared Heritability ...
Heritability of Subjective Well-Being in a Representative Sample
description
Transcript of Heritability of Subjective Well-Being in a Representative Sample
Heritability of Subjective Well-Being in a
Representative Sample
Alexander Weiss1 Timothy Bates1 & Michelle Luciano2
1: Department of PsychologyUniversity of Edinburgh2: QIMR, Brisbane Australia
Why are subjective well-being and personality correlated?
Temperament model (Gray, 1981, 1991)
Congruence model (Moskowitz & Cotes, 1995)
Costa & McCrae (1986) N = mood E = social contact effects O = variance in well-being A = lack of friends and support C = ability to set and meet goals
Behaviour Genetics of Well-being Lykken and Tellegen (1996)
80% of the variance of the stable component was heritable
No significant effect of shared environment
50% of the variance resulted from nonadditive genetic effects
Baker et al. (1992) 50% of the variance was heritable
•Evidence for dominance No shared environmental effects.
Common Genes
Genetic correlation between Neuroticism and Depression.
Roberts & Kendler (1999)
Chimpanzee Dominance and subjective well-being are genetically correlated.
Weiss et al. (2002)
Goal of the Present Study Estimate common and unique genetic and environmental effects of subjective well-being
and personality
Predictions: Happiness genes are all personality genes
Significant dominance effects Personality influences well-being via E, N, & C
MIDUS Subjects 973 twin pairs (age M = 44.9; SD = 12.1) 170 male and 195 female MZ pairs 136 male and 213 female same sex DZ pairs
259 opposite sex DZ pairs
MIDUS Dataset Measures Personality measured by 30 adjectives
Five factors extracted with PCA. Differentially-weighted factor scores.
Three item subjective well-being measure “… how satisfied are you with your LIFE?”
“… how much control do you have over your life IN GENERAL?”
“… how satisfied are you with your SELF?”
Model Comparisons
Model -2LL df χ2 (Δdf) p AIC
Saturated ACE 17092.42 10323
Saturated ADE 17083.67 10323 vs. ADE
Reduced 1 17089.39 10333 5.72 (10) .83 -14.28
Reduced 2 17088.45 10335 4.78 (12) .96 -19.22
Reduced 3 17091.60 10337 7.93 (14) .89 -20.07
3a) Reduce AD paths
17096.98 10348 13.31 (25)
.97 -36.69
3b) Drop D entirely 17111.20 10351 27.53 (28)
.14 -28.47
3c) Reduce A 17114.41 10352 30.74 (29)
.38 -27.26
Unreduced ADE Model
AN AE
AG
ACAA
N E O A C W
AO
Dominance effects mirror additive genetic effects
Reduced Model 3
AN AE
AG
ACAA
N E O A C W
AO
No influences of AO or AA on subjective well-being
Final Reduced Model 3a
No influences of AO or AA on subjective well-being
.25
.24.47
.10.57.39
.42
.33
.10
.22-.62
.13.34`.21.50.45-.30
AN AE
AG
ACAA
N E O A C W
AO
D
Final Reduced Model 3b
No dominance effects
.57.37
.50
.38
.28
.20
-.62
.18.32.31.44.56-.28
AN AE
AG
ACAA
N E O A C W
AO
Findings
Main findings Subjective well-being has no genetic or environmental determinants over and above those of N, E, and C.
Additional findings Common genetic influences underlie all five factors.
E and A are also influenced by dominance effects.
Future Directions Studying co-morbidity has led to a greater understanding of several phenotypes. Depression Personality disorders
Studying co-vitality might be similarly illuminating. Humor Happiness Resilience Altruism