| Title |
Understanding “What Could Be”: A Call for ‘Experimental Behavioral Genetics’
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Behavior Genetics, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10519-018-9918-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
S. Alexandra Burt, Kathryn S. Plaisance, David Z. Hambrick |
| Abstract |
Behavioral genetic (BG) research has yielded many important discoveries about the origins of human behavior, but offers little insight into how we might improve outcomes. We posit that this gap in our knowledge base stems in part from the epidemiologic nature of BG research questions. Namely, BG studies focus on understanding etiology as it currently exists, rather than etiology in environments that could exist but do not as of yet (e.g., etiology following an intervention). Put another way, they focus exclusively on the etiology of "what is" rather than "what could be". The current paper discusses various aspects of this field-wide methodological reality, and offers a way to overcome it by demonstrating how behavioral geneticists can incorporate an experimental approach into their work. We outline an ongoing study that embeds a randomized intervention within a twin design, connecting "what is" and "what could be" for the first time. We then lay out a more general framework for a new field-experimental BGs-which has the potential to advance both scientific inquiry and related philosophical discussions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Australia | 1 | 25% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 25% |
| United States | 1 | 25% |
| Unknown | 1 | 25% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 50% |
| Scientists | 1 | 25% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 25% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 20% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 2 | 8% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 9 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 5 | 20% |
| Social Sciences | 4 | 16% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Arts and Humanities | 1 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 8 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2019.
All research outputs
#13,624,398
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Genetics
#576
of 918 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,505
of 330,840 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Genetics
#7
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 918 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 330,840 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.