No links between genetic variation and developing theory of mind: A preregistered replication attempt of candidate gene studies.
No links between genetic variation and developing theory of mind: A preregistered replication attempt of candidate gene studies.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/desc.13100
复制
发表时间：
2021-03
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Timm Opitz;Tobias Schuwerk;M. Paulus;Daniela Kloo;Christopher Osterhaus;K. Lesch;B. Sodian
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Timm Opitz;Tobias Schuwerk;M. Paulus;Daniela Kloo;Christopher Osterhaus;K. Lesch;B. Sodian
遗传变异被认为是心理理论发展中个体间差异的来源。先前的研究记录了DRD 4 VNTR 48 bp、OXTR rs 53576、COMT rs 4680的变异与心理理论任务表现之间的关联。由于关于这些关联的经验证据很少，我们进行了一项研究的预注册复制尝试，该研究报告了50个月大的儿童中DRD 4 VNTR 48 bp与错误信念理解之间的联系[Lackner，C.，Sabbagh，M. A.、Hallinan，E.，刘，X.，&霍尔顿，J. J.（2012）.发展科学，15（2），272-280。此外，我们还尝试重复研究OXTR rs 53576和COMT rs 4680在心理理论中的作用。在这两次重复实验中，我们在一系列分析中没有发现任何证据表明采样的遗传标记与心理理论能力之间存在关联。扩展Lackner等人的复制尝试，我们采用了来自多个任务和测量点的纵向数据，这使我们能够用更可靠的分数进行后续的鲁棒性检查。这些广泛的分析证实了我们的零发现。这种全面的非复制性对于平衡当前心理理论遗传标记的研究是重要的。在我们自己的和以前的研究的综合评价，我们指出，心理理论发展的遗传基础的研究所面临的实质性的方法论问题。我们的结论是，这些限制目前阻止坚定的结论，心理理论的发展遗传的影响。
Genetic variability is being discussed as a source of inter-individual differences in Theory of Mind development. Previous studies documented an association between variations in DRD4 VNTR 48 bp, OXTR rs53576, COMT rs4680, and Theory of Mind task performance. As empirical evidence on these associations is sparse, we conducted a preregistered replication attempt of a study reporting a link between DRD4 VNTR 48 bp and false belief understanding in 50-month-old children [Lackner, C., Sabbagh, M. A., Hallinan, E., Liu, X., & Holden, J. J. (2012). Developmental Science, 15(2), 272-280.]. Additionally, we attempted a replication of studies on the role of OXTR rs53576 and COMT rs4680 in Theory of Mind. In both replication attempts, we did not find any evidence for associations between the sampled genetic markers and Theory of Mind ability in a series of analyses. Extending the replication attempt of Lackner et al., we employed longitudinal data from several tasks and measurement points, which allowed us to run follow-up robustness checks with more reliable scores. These extensive analyses corroborated our null finding. This comprehensive non-replication is important to balance current research on genetic markers of Theory of Mind. In a combined evaluation of our own and previous studies, we point to substantial methodological issues that research on the genetic basis of Theory of Mind development faces. We conclude that these limitations currently prevent firm conclusions on genetic influences on Theory of Mind development.