top of page
The take-home exercise
Using (at least) the references listed below, and drawing on your knowledge about the  sociological literature on primary effects, answer the first five questions plus one of the latter three (in total you must answer 6 questions): 

 
​
1)    Why/how does the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging (SATSA) allow researchers to separate out genetic  influences from sociological influences on cognitive abilities? (Please answer by explaining what  the within-pair and the between-pair effects of social class on adult abilities capture in the STATA study)
2)    Do you think different types of abilities might have different levels of social and genetic inheritance (if so please explain why and provide examples)? 
3)    Ericsson et al (2017) measure ability at old age. Do you think their results regarding the effect of genetic inheritance would hold if abilities were measured in early adulthood? Why?
4)    Why do you think adopted children show lower performance in school? Is this effect operating through cognitive abilities?
5)    How can we conciliate the findings of adoption and twin studies regarding the relative weight of nurture versus nature?
AND
6)    Do you think the nurture vs nature distinction is helpful for understanding the combined effect of genetic and sociological influences?
OR
7)    How can social sciences contribute to the study of genetic heritability? 
OR
8)    What are, in your opinion, the most important questions and avenues for future research in the nurture vs nature debate? 
REFERENCES

Ref. #1: Ericsson, Malin. 2017. “Childhood Social Class and Cognitive Aging in the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging.”  PNAS, 114(29):7001-7006.
​
Ref. #2: Nelson Charles A. et al. 2007. “Cognitive Recovery in Socially Deprived Young Children: The Bucharest Early Intervention Project”. Science, 1937-1940.
 
Ref. #3: van IJzendoorn et al. 2005 “Adoption and Cognitive Development: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Adopted and Nonadopted Children’s IQ and School Performance”. Psychological Bulletin 131(2): 301–316.
​
​
​
​
bottom of page