↓ Skip to main content

Twin Studies in Psychiatry and Psychology: Science or Pseudoscience?

Overview of attention for article published in Psychiatric Quarterly, March 2002
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#40 of 652)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
16 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
69 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Twin Studies in Psychiatry and Psychology: Science or Pseudoscience?
Published in
Psychiatric Quarterly, March 2002
DOI 10.1023/a:1012896802713
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jay Joseph

Abstract

Twin studies are frequently cited in support of the influence of genetic factors for a wide range of psychiatric conditions and psychological trait differences. The most common method, known as the classical twin method, compares the concordance rates or correlations of reared-together identical (MZ) vs. reared-together same-sex fraternal (DZ) twins. However, drawing genetic inferences from MZ-DZ comparisons is problematic due to methodological problems and questionable assumptions. It is argued that the main theoretical assumption of the twin method--known as the "equal environment assumption"--is not tenable. The twin method is therefore of doubtful value as an indicator of genetic influences. Studies of reared-apart twins are discussed, and it is noted that these studies are also vulnerable to methodological problems and environmental confounds. It is concluded that there is little reason to believe that twin studies provide evidence in favor of genetic influences on psychiatric disorders and human behavioral differences.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 16 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 1%
Norway 1 1%
Ireland 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 92 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 21%
Student > Bachelor 14 14%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 8 8%
Professor 4 4%
Other 20 21%
Unknown 18 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 34 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Social Sciences 6 6%
Neuroscience 4 4%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 21 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 05 May 2023.
All research outputs
#1,724,496
of 25,818,700 outputs
Outputs from Psychiatric Quarterly
#40
of 652 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,575
of 50,206 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychiatric Quarterly
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,818,700 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 652 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
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 50,206 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them