Heritability Studies and Crime - Criminal Justice

Heritability studies and crime examine the extent to which individual differences in criminal and antisocial behavior can be statistically attributed to genetic variation within a population, a quantitative genetic framework distinct from, though foundational to, the twin and adoption study designs examined in dedicated articles elsewhere in this category. Heritability is a population-level statistic describing the proportion of observed variance in a trait attributable to genetic differences among individuals in a specific population at a specific time, not a statement about any individual’s genetic destiny or a measure of a trait’s fixedness, a distinction that has been persistently misunderstood in both popular and, at times, scholarly discussion of criminal behavior’s genetic basis. This article, part of Biological Theories of Crime within the broader Criminology Theories silo, examines the heritability concept’s statistical foundations, the family aggregation research that first documented crime’s tendency to cluster within families, heritability estimates derived across the antisocial behavior spectrum, the gene-environment correlation and interaction processes that complicate simple heritability interpretation, the molecular genetic research that has struggled to identify the specific variants underlying twin-based heritability estimates, and the persistent interpretive controversies surrounding heritability’s proper role in criminological theory and criminal justice policy.

Heritability’s technical meaning within quantitative genetics differs substantially from its everyday usage, and this gap between technical and popular meaning has generated recurring confusion throughout the history of behavioral genetic research on crime. A heritability estimate of, for example, fifty percent does not mean that half of any individual’s criminal propensity is genetically determined and half environmentally determined; rather, it means that within the specific population studied, differences among individuals in the measured trait are statistically associated with genetic differences to an extent that accounts for roughly half the observed variance, a population-level statistic that can change considerably across different populations, environments, and historical periods without any change in the underlying genetic architecture itself.

This article proceeds through six sections: the statistical foundations of the heritability concept and its common misinterpretations, the family aggregation studies that established crime’s tendency to run in families, heritability estimates for criminal and antisocial behavior across the empirical literature, the gene-environment correlation and interaction processes that complicate any simple heritability interpretation, the molecular genetic research addressing the gap between twin-based heritability estimates and identified genetic variants, and the enduring interpretive and policy controversies surrounding heritability research’s proper role within criminology.

The Concept of Heritability in Behavioral Genetics

Quantitative Genetics and the Heritability Coefficient

Heritability, formally denoted h-squared within quantitative genetics, represents the proportion of phenotypic variance within a population attributable to genetic variance, calculated as the ratio of genetic variance to total phenotypic variance across a specified population and environment (Plomin, DeFries, Knopik, & Neiderhiser, 2016). This statistical framework originated in agricultural and evolutionary biology well before its application to human behavioral traits, developed initially to guide selective breeding programs in livestock and crops rather than to characterize the causal architecture of complex human behavior, an origin that shapes both the concept’s genuine statistical utility and the considerable interpretive caution required when extending it to traits as complex and multiply determined as criminal behavior (Falconer & Mackay, 1996).

The heritability coefficient decomposes phenotypic variance into genetic variance, shared environmental variance reflecting influences that make family members more similar to one another, and nonshared environmental variance reflecting influences that make family members different from one another, including measurement error, with these three variance components summing to the trait’s total observed variance within the studied population (Rowe, 2002). Twin and adoption study designs, examined in dedicated articles elsewhere in this category, provide the principal empirical methods for estimating these variance components, since they create natural experiments in which genetic relatedness and shared environment can be statistically disentangled through comparison of monozygotic twins, dizygotic twins, and adoptive relatives.

Heritability estimates are inherently population-specific and environment-specific statistics rather than universal biological constants, since the proportion of variance attributable to genetic differences depends directly on the range and distribution of environmental variation present within the studied population; a population with highly uniform environmental conditions will tend to show higher heritability estimates for a given trait than a population with highly variable environmental conditions, since environmental variance contributes proportionally less to total phenotypic variance when environmental conditions are relatively constant across individuals (Turkheimer, 2000).

What Heritability Does and Does Not Mean

A heritability estimate provides no information whatsoever about any individual’s genetic destiny, since heritability is fundamentally a population-level statistic describing the sources of variance among individuals rather than a statement about the causal determinants of any single individual’s trait level, a distinction that behavioral geneticists have emphasized repeatedly yet that remains persistently misunderstood in popular and even some scholarly discussion of genetic research on crime (Turkheimer, 2000). An individual with a high genetic loading for antisocial behavior, to whatever extent such loading could be meaningfully identified, is not thereby genetically destined toward criminal behavior, since gene expression and behavioral outcome remain substantially contingent on environmental exposure throughout development.

Heritability estimates also provide no direct information about a trait’s malleability or amenability to environmental intervention, a common source of confusion since intuitive lay reasoning frequently assumes that high heritability implies limited scope for environmental modification, an inference that quantitative genetics does not support. Phenylketonuria, a metabolic disorder with essentially complete genetic determination in the absence of dietary intervention, illustrates this point clearly: the condition’s severe cognitive consequences can be almost entirely prevented through dietary modification despite the trait’s overwhelmingly genetic etiology, demonstrating that high heritability and high environmental malleability are fully compatible rather than contradictory (Plomin et al., 2016).

Finally, heritability estimates say nothing about the relative importance of genetic versus environmental factors in explaining group differences, including differences in offending rates between demographic groups or across historical periods, since within-population heritability estimates cannot be validly extrapolated to explain between-population or between-group differences without additional assumptions that quantitative genetic methodology alone cannot supply, a methodological point that has proven essential in countering various misapplications of heritability research to justify claims about group differences in criminality (Rowe, 2002).

Family Studies of Criminal Behavior

Early Family Aggregation Studies

Family aggregation studies, documenting that criminal behavior clusters within family lines at rates exceeding what chance distribution would predict, established the initial empirical observation motivating subsequent twin and adoption research into crime’s heritable component, with early twentieth-century researchers including those responsible for the family pedigree studies examined in the eugenics literature elsewhere in this category documenting substantial family clustering of criminal and delinquent behavior (Farrington, Jolliffe, Loeber, Stouthamer-Loeber, & Kalb, 2001). More methodologically rigorous mid-twentieth-century family studies, employing standardized criminal record review rather than the retrospective reputation-based methodology of earlier eugenic pedigree research, confirmed that having a criminally convicted parent or sibling substantially increased an individual’s own risk of criminal conviction.

The Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development, a prospective longitudinal study following several hundred London boys from childhood into adulthood, documented that a small percentage of families accounted for a disproportionate share of the sample’s total criminal convictions, with convicted fathers and older siblings substantially predicting sons’ subsequent criminal involvement across the study’s multi-decade follow-up period (Farrington et al., 2001). This family clustering pattern, while consistent with a genetic contribution to criminal behavior, remained equally consistent with purely environmental transmission mechanisms, including shared neighborhood disadvantage, direct behavioral modeling, and family-level social learning processes, illustrating family aggregation research’s fundamental interpretive limitation.

Family aggregation research’s principal historical contribution lay in establishing the empirical phenomenon requiring explanation, crime’s substantial family clustering, rather than in adjudicating between genetic and environmental explanations for that clustering, a task that would require the more sophisticated twin and adoption designs subsequently developed within behavioral genetics.

Limitations of Family-Only Designs

Family-only studies, examining criminal behavior’s transmission across biologically related family members sharing a common household environment, cannot statistically distinguish genetic transmission from shared environmental transmission, since biological family members typically share both genetic relatedness and rearing environment simultaneously, confounding these two potential explanatory pathways in any straightforward family aggregation analysis (Rutter, 2006). This fundamental confound motivated the development of twin and adoption study designs specifically, since these designs create the natural experimental conditions, genetically identical twins reared together or apart, or genetically related individuals reared in different households, necessary to statistically separate genetic from environmental contributions to family resemblance.

Family-only research also cannot adequately address gene-environment correlation, the phenomenon in which genetically influenced parental behavior shapes the very environment in which offspring develop, since a criminally involved parent may simultaneously transmit genetic risk to offspring and create an environment, through inadequate supervision, exposure to criminal role models, or family instability, that independently increases offspring criminal risk, with family-only designs unable to statistically separate these intertwined genetic and environmental transmission pathways.

Despite these substantial interpretive limitations, family aggregation studies retain continuing methodological value within contemporary behavioral genetics as a preliminary screening tool identifying traits worth investigating through more definitive twin and adoption designs, and as a source of the large family-based samples increasingly used in molecular genetic research examining specific genetic variants associated with antisocial behavior.

Table 1. Study Designs for Estimating Genetic Contribution to Crime

Design	Genetic Relatedness Compared	Environmental Control	Primary Limitation	Typical Use
Family Aggregation	Biological relatives sharing household	None; genetic and environmental transmission confounded	Cannot separate genetic from shared environmental transmission	Preliminary screening for heritable traits
Twin Studies	Monozygotic vs. dizygotic twins	Assumes equal environments across twin types	Equal environments assumption may not fully hold	Primary source of heritability estimates
Adoption Studies	Biological vs. adoptive relatives	Separates genetic and rearing environment directly	Selective placement may bias comparisons	Cross-validation of twin-based estimates
Molecular Genetic (GWAS)	Direct DNA variant comparison	Controls for population stratification statistically	Requires very large samples for adequate statistical power	Identifying specific genetic variants
Polygenic Risk Score	Aggregated genome-wide variant effects	Depends on discovery sample representativeness	Predictive power currently modest for behavioral traits	Estimating individual genetic loading

Heritability Estimates for Antisocial and Criminal Behavior

Meta-Analytic Estimates Across Study Designs

Meta-analytic synthesis of the twin and adoption literature on antisocial behavior has produced heritability estimates generally clustering between forty and fifty percent, with the remaining variance attributed roughly equally to shared and nonshared environmental influences, though these summary figures conceal considerable variation across specific studies, measurement approaches, and antisocial behavior subtypes (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Kyung Hwa Rhee and Irwin Waldman’s influential meta-analysis, synthesizing over one hundred twin and adoption studies encompassing antisocial behavior broadly defined, found genetic factors accounting for approximately forty-one percent of variance, shared environment accounting for approximately sixteen percent, and nonshared environment accounting for the remainder.

These meta-analytic estimates, while providing the most methodologically comprehensive summary available, aggregate across studies employing considerably different measurement approaches, including official criminal conviction records, self-reported delinquency, and clinical diagnosis of conduct disorder or antisocial personality disorder, measurement heterogeneity that plausibly contributes to the substantial variation in heritability estimates observed across individual studies within the broader meta-analytic synthesis (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Studies relying on official criminal justice system records, including arrest and conviction data, have generally produced somewhat different heritability estimates than studies relying on self-reported antisocial behavior, a discrepancy that likely reflects both measurement differences and the role of detection and processing factors within the criminal justice system itself.

The consistency of moderate heritability estimates across numerous independent studies employing different samples, populations, and measurement approaches provides reasonably strong evidence that genetic factors contribute meaningfully to individual differences in antisocial behavior within the populations studied, even as the precise magnitude of this contribution remains subject to legitimate ongoing methodological debate and refinement.

Variation by Offense Type and Developmental Stage

Heritability estimates for antisocial behavior vary systematically across offense type, with property and general antisocial behavior typically showing higher heritability estimates than violent offending specifically, a pattern researchers attribute to violent offending’s stronger association with situational and environmental triggering factors relative to the more generalized antisocial propensity underlying property crime and rule violation (Baker, Bezdjian, & Raine, 2006). This offense-type variation suggests that heritability should not be treated as a single unitary statistic applicable uniformly across all forms of criminal behavior, but rather as varying meaningfully according to the specific behavioral phenotype under investigation.

Terrie Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, distinguishing life-course-persistent from adolescence-limited antisocial behavior, has motivated corresponding behavioral genetic research finding that life-course-persistent antisocial behavior, characterized by early onset and continuation into adulthood, shows higher heritability estimates than adolescence-limited antisocial behavior, which appears comparatively more strongly influenced by shared environmental and peer-related factors specific to the adolescent developmental period (Moffitt, 1993; Taylor, Iacono, & McGue, 2000). This developmental variation in heritability estimates provides indirect empirical support for Moffitt’s taxonomic distinction, suggesting that these two developmentally distinct antisocial trajectories may indeed reflect at least partially distinct underlying causal processes rather than a single unitary construct varying merely in severity or duration.

Heritability estimates also appear to increase somewhat across the developmental lifespan for certain antisocial behavior measures, a pattern attributed to genetically influenced individuals increasingly selecting and shaping their own environments as they gain autonomy from parental and institutional control during adolescence and early adulthood, an active gene-environment correlation process examined in greater detail in the following section.

Gene-Environment Correlation and Interaction

Passive, Evocative, and Active rGE

Gene-environment correlation, commonly abbreviated rGE, describes the nonrandom association between an individual’s genotype and the environment that individual experiences, a phenomenon behavioral geneticists have decomposed into three distinct mechanisms: passive rGE, in which genetically related parents provide both genes and a correlated rearing environment to their offspring; evocative rGE, in which an individual’s genetically influenced characteristics evoke particular responses from other people in the environment; and active rGE, in which individuals actively select or create environments correlated with their genetic predispositions (Scarr & McCartney, 1983). Each of these three mechanisms complicates the straightforward interpretation of heritability estimates, since genetic influence can operate substantially through environmental pathways rather than through any purely biological or neurological mechanism independent of environmental mediation.

Evocative gene-environment correlation carries particular significance for understanding antisocial behavior’s developmental origins, since a genetically influenced temperamental characteristic, including early irritability or impulsivity, may evoke harsher or less consistent parenting responses than a more temperamentally easy child would evoke, generating a correlation between child genotype and parenting environment that could be misattributed to purely environmental parenting effects in research designs failing to account for this evocative process (Jaffee & Price, 2007). This evocative mechanism illustrates how apparently environmental risk factors for antisocial behavior, including harsh or inconsistent parenting, may themselves be partly shaped by genetically influenced child characteristics rather than operating as purely exogenous environmental causes.

Active gene-environment correlation becomes increasingly influential across development as individuals gain greater autonomy to select their own environments, including peer groups, activities, and eventually occupational and residential settings, with genetically influenced temperamental and cognitive characteristics shaping these selections in ways that can reinforce or amplify initial genetic predispositions through what behavioral geneticists term a niche-picking process, potentially contributing to the developmental increase in heritability estimates noted in the preceding section.

Gene-Environment Interaction Models

Gene-environment interaction, distinct from gene-environment correlation, describes circumstances in which a genetic variant’s effect on behavior depends on the specific environmental context, such that the same genetic variant produces different behavioral outcomes depending on environmental exposure, a pattern most influentially documented in Avshalom Caspi and colleagues’ finding that a functional polymorphism affecting monoamine oxidase A activity predicted antisocial outcomes specifically among individuals who had experienced childhood maltreatment, with minimal effect among non-maltreated individuals (Caspi et al., 2002). This interaction framework represents contemporary behavioral genetics’ dominant theoretical orientation, explicitly rejecting the deterministic framing associated with earlier biological criminology in favor of models treating genetic variants as differential susceptibility factors that amplify or dampen environmental effects rather than independent causal agents.

Subsequent replication research has produced a mixed pattern of findings regarding specific gene-environment interaction hypotheses, including the original MAOA-maltreatment interaction, with meta-analytic synthesis finding a statistically significant but modest combined effect, smaller and less consistent than the original finding, a pattern that has prompted methodological reforms including larger sample sizes, genome-wide rather than single candidate-gene approaches, and greater caution in interpreting individual gene-environment interaction findings prior to independent replication (Byrd & Manuck, 2014).

Gene-environment interaction research’s broader theoretical significance lies in demonstrating that heritability estimates themselves may vary systematically across environmental contexts, since a genetic variant’s contribution to behavioral variance can differ substantially between high-risk and low-risk environments, complicating any assumption that heritability represents a fixed, context-independent population parameter even within a single studied population.

Table 2. Gene-Environment Processes Relevant to Antisocial Behavior

Process	Definition	Example in Antisocial Behavior Research	Implication for Heritability Interpretation
Passive rGE	Parents provide correlated genes and environment	Antisocial parents provide both genetic risk and a higher-conflict household	Confounds genetic and shared environmental estimates in family studies
Evocative rGE	Child’s genotype evokes particular caregiver responses	Irritable temperament evokes harsher parental discipline	Apparent environmental risk factors may be partly genetically mediated
Active rGE	Individual selects environments matching genetic predispositions	Impulsive adolescents select delinquent peer groups	Contributes to increasing heritability estimates across development
Gene-Environment Interaction	Genetic effect on behavior depends on environmental context	MAOA variant predicts antisocial outcomes only after maltreatment	Heritability estimates vary by environmental risk level
Epigenetic Modification	Environmental exposure alters gene expression without changing DNA sequence	Early stress exposure alters stress-response gene expression	Adds a further biological pathway linking environment to genetic expression

The Missing Heritability Problem

GWAS and Polygenic Risk Scores for Antisocial Behavior

Genome-wide association studies, examining associations between hundreds of thousands or millions of genetic variants and antisocial behavior across very large samples, have identified numerous individual variants showing statistically significant but individually minuscule associations with antisocial and criminal behavior phenotypes, collectively explaining only a small fraction of the heritability estimated through twin and adoption designs, a discrepancy known within behavioral genetics as the missing heritability problem (Tielbeek et al., 2017). This gap between twin-based heritability estimates, typically forty to fifty percent for antisocial behavior, and the variance explained by identified genetic variants, typically only a few percentage points even in the largest genome-wide association studies, has proven a persistent and only partially resolved challenge across nearly all complex human behavioral traits rather than a phenomenon specific to criminality.

Polygenic risk scores, aggregating the small individual effects of thousands of genetic variants identified through genome-wide association studies into a single composite genetic risk index, have improved predictive validity somewhat as genome-wide association sample sizes have grown, but continue to explain only a modest proportion of variance in antisocial behavior outcomes, considerably less than the variance twin-based heritability estimates suggest should ultimately prove identifiable through sufficiently large molecular genetic samples (Salvatore & Dick, 2018; Tielbeek et al., 2017).

Behavioral geneticists have proposed several complementary explanations for the missing heritability gap, including the likelihood that antisocial behavior’s genetic architecture involves an extremely large number of variants of individually tiny effect size that current sample sizes remain insufficiently powered to detect reliably, the possibility that gene-gene and gene-environment interactions contribute to twin-based heritability estimates in ways that simple additive genome-wide association models do not adequately capture, and the likelihood that rare genetic variants, poorly captured by the common-variant genotyping arrays used in most genome-wide association studies, contribute meaningfully to the trait’s overall heritability.

Explaining the Gap Between Twin-Based and Molecular Estimates

The persistent gap between twin-based and molecular genetic heritability estimates has prompted some researchers to question whether twin study methodology itself may inflate heritability estimates through violation of the equal environments assumption, the premise that monozygotic and dizygotic twins experience comparably similar environments such that any excess similarity among monozygotic twins reflects genetic rather than environmental factors, since monozygotic twins may in fact experience somewhat more similar environments than dizygotic twins in ways that could inflate apparent heritability estimates if not adequately accounted for in twin study analysis (Turkheimer, 2000). This equal environments assumption critique remains a genuinely contested methodological issue within behavioral genetics rather than a fully resolved question, with researchers continuing to develop and apply various statistical approaches designed to test and, where necessary, adjust for potential violations of this core twin study assumption.

Alternative explanations for the missing heritability gap emphasize the fundamental statistical differences between twin-based and molecular genetic approaches to estimating heritability, since twin studies capture the aggregate effect of all genetic variation, including rare variants, gene-gene interactions, and gene-environment interactions, whereas genome-wide association studies using standard additive statistical models primarily capture the additive effects of common genetic variants, a methodological difference that could substantially explain the observed gap without requiring any assumption of twin study methodological bias.

Continued growth in genome-wide association study sample sizes, now encompassing hundreds of thousands of individuals for some behavioral phenotypes, has gradually narrowed but not eliminated the missing heritability gap for antisocial behavior specifically, suggesting that the gap likely reflects some combination of the statistical and methodological factors identified above rather than any single decisive explanation, an active area of ongoing behavioral genetic research and methodological refinement.

Interpretive Controversies and Policy Implications

Misinterpretation of Heritability in Public Discourse

Heritability research on crime has been persistently subject to public and occasionally scholarly misinterpretation, most commonly through the erroneous inference that substantial heritability implies fixed, unmodifiable genetic destiny or that heritability estimates apply meaningfully to individual prediction rather than population-level variance decomposition, misinterpretations that behavioral geneticists have worked consistently to correct through explicit public communication regarding the concept’s proper statistical meaning (Turkheimer, 2000). This persistent public misunderstanding echoes, in updated statistical form, the same deterministic overreach that characterized Lombrosian atavism theory and eugenic hereditarianism examined elsewhere in this category, despite contemporary behavioral genetics’ explicit methodological and conceptual departure from those earlier, considerably less statistically sophisticated biological theories of crime.

Media coverage of heritability research has particularly struggled to accurately convey the population-specific, context-dependent nature of heritability estimates, frequently reporting a single heritability percentage as though it represented a fixed, universal biological fact about criminal behavior’s genetic basis rather than a statistic specific to the particular population, measurement approach, and environmental range characterizing the specific studies from which the estimate derived. This persistent media oversimplification has contributed to continuing public confusion regarding the proper interpretation and policy relevance of behavioral genetic research on crime.

Contemporary behavioral genetics researchers have increasingly emphasized proactive public communication strategies, including explicit discussion of heritability’s population-level statistical meaning within academic publications intended for broader audiences, as a partial corrective to this persistent pattern of public and media misinterpretation, though the underlying conceptual complexity of population genetic statistics continues to pose genuine communication challenges regardless of researcher communication effort.

Implications for Criminal Justice Practice

Heritability research’s proper policy implications remain a genuinely contested area within contemporary criminology and criminal justice ethics, with most behavioral geneticists and criminologists explicitly rejecting any direct translation of heritability findings into criminal justice practices resembling historical eugenic policy, while nonetheless debating heritability research’s more limited and carefully qualified potential relevance to developmentally timed prevention programming and, more controversially, to legal questions regarding criminal responsibility and sentencing (Walsh & Beaver, 2009). Legal scholars have increasingly examined whether behavioral genetic and neuroscientific evidence should inform sentencing determinations, particularly regarding mitigation arguments analogous to those historically raised, with limited success, in the XYY chromosome theory cases examined elsewhere in this category.

Most contemporary criminologists studying heritability explicitly frame their research as informing multifactorial, gene-environment interactive models supporting early developmental prevention rather than deterministic criminal justice classification or punishment enhancement, a framing that represents a deliberate and historically informed departure from the coercive policy applications that characterized earlier biological criminology, including eugenic sterilization policy and constitutional criminology’s institutional application within American penal administration.

The persistent gap between heritability research’s technical statistical meaning and its recurring popular and occasionally legal misapplication underscores a broader methodological lesson recurring throughout biological criminology’s history: the translation of population-level statistical findings into individual-level criminal justice decisions requires considerably more interpretive caution than either popular discourse or, at times, legal practice has historically provided.

Conclusion

Heritability studies and crime research demonstrates that genetic factors contribute meaningfully, though far from deterministically, to individual differences in antisocial and criminal behavior within studied populations, with meta-analytic heritability estimates clustering between forty and fifty percent alongside substantial contributions from both shared and nonshared environmental factors. This moderate and thoroughly qualified genetic contribution operates through complex gene-environment correlation and interaction processes rather than through any simple, direct genetic determination of criminal outcome, and the persistent gap between twin-based heritability estimates and molecular genetic findings, the missing heritability problem, illustrates that considerable scientific uncertainty remains regarding the precise genetic architecture underlying these population-level statistical estimates.

The heritability concept’s recurring popular and occasional scholarly misinterpretation, particularly the erroneous inference from population-level variance statistics to individual genetic destiny, echoes the deterministic overreach characterizing earlier biological criminology while occurring within a methodologically far more sophisticated and self-consciously cautious contemporary research tradition. Understanding heritability’s proper statistical meaning, including its population-specificity and its compatibility with substantial environmental malleability, remains essential context for evaluating the twin studies, adoption studies, and other specific research designs examined in the related articles throughout this category.

References

Baker, L. A., Bezdjian, S., & Raine, A. (2006). Behavioral genetics: The science of antisocial behavior. Law and Contemporary Problems, 69(1–2), 7–46.
Byrd, A. L., & Manuck, S. B. (2014). MAOA, childhood maltreatment, and antisocial behavior: Meta-analysis of a gene-environment interaction. Biological Psychiatry, 75(1), 9–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.05.004
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R. (2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297(5582), 851–854. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072290
Falconer, D. S., & Mackay, T. F. C. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th ed.). Longman.
Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., Loeber, R., Stouthamer-Loeber, M., & Kalb, L. M. (2001). The concentration of offenders in families, and family criminality in the prediction of boys’ delinquency. Journal of Adolescence, 24(5), 579–596. https://doi.org/10.1006/jado.2001.0424
Jaffee, S. R., & Price, T. S. (2007). Gene-environment correlations: A review of the evidence and implications for prevention of mental illness. Molecular Psychiatry, 12(5), 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.mp.4001950
Moffitt, T. E. (1993). Adolescence-limited and life-course-persistent antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review, 100(4), 674–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.100.4.674
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615617439
Rhee, S. H., & Waldman, I. D. (2002). Genetic and environmental influences on antisocial behavior: A meta-analysis of twin and adoption studies. Psychological Bulletin, 128(3), 490–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.3.490
Rowe, D. C. (2002). Biology and crime. Roxbury Publishing.
Rutter, M. (2006). Genes and behavior: Nature-nurture interplay explained. Blackwell Publishing.
Salvatore, J. E., & Dick, D. M. (2018). Genetic influences on conduct disorder. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 91, 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.06.034
Scarr, S., & McCartney, K. (1983). How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54(2), 424–435.
Taylor, J., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2000). Evidence for a genetic etiology of early-onset delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 109(4), 634–643. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.109.4.634
Tielbeek, J. J., Johansson, A., Polderman, T. J. C., Rautiainen, M.-R., Jansen, P., Taylor, M., et al. (2017). Genome-wide association studies of a broad spectrum of antisocial behavior. JAMA Psychiatry, 74(12), 1242–1250. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2017.3069
Turkheimer, E. (2000). Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(5), 160–164. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00084
Walsh, A., & Beaver, K. M. (2009). Biosocial criminology: New directions in theory and research. Routledge.