Jensen Effects in the Texas Adoption Study as reported by Loehlin et al. (1994)

Continuing with my running commentary on Meng Hu’s Re-analysis of Jensen’s study of Capron and Duyme adoption data post, I looked at the correlation between g-loadings and sibling correlations in the Texas Adoption Study. Loehlin et al. (1994) reported father, mother — biological, adopted offspring correlations. I correlated these with the g-loadings reported by Kan (2011), as in the previous analysis. Below: (1) r average adoptive father + mother – adopted offspring, (2) r adoptive father – adopted offspring, (3) r adoptive mother – adopted offspring, (4) r average biological father + mother – reared biological offspring, (5) r biological father – reared biological offspring, (6) r biological mother – reared biological offspring, (7) r biological mother — reared apart biological offspring, (8) average Wechsler g-loadings, (9) average of the g-loadings for the tests used. There was an initial assessment and a 10 year follow up; correlations were averaged across both times. The Jensen Effect on r average adoptive father + mother – adopted offspring was 0.18/0.14. For comparison, the Jensen Effect on r average biological father + mother – reared biological offspring was 0.49/0.47.

These results are basically consistent with what I mused prior: “While shared environment probably doesn’t induce strong positive Jensen Effects and therefore probably can’t explain the Jensen Effects on ethnic group differences, the effects that it seems to induce i.e, a weak to modest positive one…..”

Jensen Effect on adoption in TAS

Reference

Loehlin, J. C., Horn, J. M., & Willerman, L. (1994). Differential inheritance of mental abilities in the Texas Adoption Project. Intelligence, 19(3), 325-336.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Jensen Effects in the Texas Adoption Study as reported by Loehlin et al. (1994)

  1. 猛虎 says:

    Columns 1 to 7 are interesting indeed. This appears to be consistent with Jensen’s analysis on Capron & Duyme where he suggested that cognitive stimulation from adopted homes and biological homes emerges from different causes. By the way, I emailed Duyme for his 1999 study : data request. No response yet. Of course, the study is dated now and generally, researchers do not preserve the data. Few months/years after, there are destroyed or lost. Sad time.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s