Arvey Et Al. - 2016

OP03CH07-Arvey ARI 25 February 2016 13:9
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Click here to view this article's
online features:
• Download ﬁgures as PPT slides
• Navigate linked references
• Download citations
• Explore related articles
Genetics and Organizational
• Search keywords
Behavior
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016.3:167-190. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Richard D. Arvey,1 Wen-Dong Li,2 and Nan Wang1

Access provided by University College London on 05/23/16. For personal use only.
1
Department of Management and Organization, National University of Singapore,
Singapore 119245, Singapore; email: bizra@nus.edu.sg; happywang86@gmail.com
2
Department of Psychological Sciences, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506;
email: oceanbluepsy@gmail.com
Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

3:167–90
behavioral genetics, work attitudes, work behaviors, person-environment
First published online as a Review in Advance on
February 22, 2016 interplay
The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Abstract
Organizational Behavior is online at
orgpsych.annualreviews.org Articles on the genetics of complex human behaviors and psychological traits
This article’s doi: provided in past volumes of journals published by Annual Reviews tended
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111251 to adopt a pathological perspective and focused heavily on the disorders of
Copyright c 2016 by Annual Reviews. human affect and behaviors. In our review, we expand our focus to the more
All rights reserved general, nonclinical population, and in particular on the advances in the
understanding of the genetics of attitudes and behaviors in work settings.
We review the recent and emerging literature using a behavioral genetics
approach to examine the influence of genetics on a wide array of important
constructs in organizational behavior (OB) research and provide unique the-
oretical insights offered by this approach. We discuss practical implications
and future research directions from a broad person-environment interac-
tionist perspective by taking a genetics approach.
167
INTRODUCTION
Slightly more than 26 years ago, Richard D. Arvey published what was among the first empirical
pieces showing that there was a genetic influence on job satisfaction (Arvey et al. 1989). This
article was recognized as being revolutionary in nature (Hulin & Judge 2003, p. 263) in that it
directly contradicted the notion that job satisfaction was a function solely of “the job” and the
environmental elements surrounding a job (e.g., pay, working conditions, etc.). The standard
social science model, which promoted the notion that most all of organizational behavior (OB)
(and most all human behavior for that matter) was a function of environmental influences plus
error, dominated at the time.
Since that article, much more research and several more investigations have ensued. Scholars
have been busy showing that indeed there are fundamental biological forces that shape behavior
at work. These forces are not only genetic, but hormonal, neurological, physical, and even evo-
lutionary in nature (see Colarelli & Arvey 2015, for a synopsis of extant research on biological
influences in OB).
In our review here, we take a narrower road and review the historical and current research
dealing specifically with genetic influences in OB. We note at the outset that other reviews are
available and we might be somewhat duplicative (see Arvey & Bouchard 1994, Dimotakis et al.
2015, Ilies et al. 2006); however, we go a bit further in our review. We have organized this review
as follows: First, we address the question why it is crucial for OB researchers to pay attention to
behavioral genetics approaches. Second, we summarize existing research dealing with the direct
examination of genetic influences on a variety of attitudes and behavior in organizational settings.
Third, we extend this to review existing evidence for specific molecular genes and their associations
with OB phenomena. Fourth, we review work that involves more complex models of genetic
influences, including genetic interactions, longitudinal studies, gene-environment correlations,
and mediation models, as that genetic information can be useful in terms of methodological
approaches in research. Subsequently, we discuss several controversial issues that have surfaced in
the context of using twin studies and other methodologies in examining genetics and OB. Finally,
we discuss future directions and potentials in this field.
We note that the major methodologies used in exploring genetic influences on organizational
phenomena have been well developed and articulated previously. Although quite sophisticated
structural equation modeling (SEM) of latent traits has been employed to develop estimates of
the various genetic and environmental influences, the premise behind these analytical methods is
quite simple. That is, genetic influences are inferred under two situations: if (a) identical twins
reared apart are relatively similar1 (i.e., there are no genetic differences between the twin pairs,
but there is variation in the environments experienced by the twins) and (b) greater similarity
is observed between identical twins than fraternal twins, under the assumption that each pair of
twins experience basically similar environments (i.e., the variation is in the genetic backgrounds
of the fraternal twins). Typically, the amount of variance in an observed variable is considered
an estimate of the heritability, which refers to the proportion of variance in a variable that can
be accounted for by genetic factors.2 All the other influences are referred to as environmental
influences. In total, genetic and environmental factors account for 100% of the variance in one
1
This is referred to as using the identical-twins-reared-apart methodology where identical twins separated at birth are reunited
as adults. These twins were raised in different environments (i.e., different parents, different cultures, different schooling,
etc.). Because they have the same genetic endowments, any differences observed would be due to their exposure to different
environments.
2
We recognize that much previous work by OB scholars explored variables as independent variables under some degree of
genetic influence. Thus, earlier research paved the way for the exploration of genetics in OB.
168 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
1 for identical twin group

0.5 for fraternal twin group 1 for both twin groups
A1 C1 E1 A2 C2 E2
a c e a c e
Job attitudetwin1 Job attitudetwin2

Figure 1
Univariate multigroup confirmatory structural model. A, additive genetic factors; C, shared environmental
factors; E, unique environmental factors and/or measurement error. A, C, and E are standardized latent
genetic and environmental factors with a mean and variance specified at 0 and 1, respectively; a, c, and e are
their corresponding coefficients.
variable. In addition, heritability can be narrow or broad, depending on whether only additive
genetic effects are considered (narrowband) or whether nonadditive genetic effects are also con-
sidered (broadband). The amount of variance attributed to environmental factors is broken down
into two categories: (a) variance due to shared environments—that is, the environmental factors
that make twins similar, such as their same father and mother, the same school systems, etc.—and
(b) variance due to nonshared environments, environmental events that each twin experiences
uniquely that cause differences between twins, such as unique family and work experiences. It
is obvious that one cannot attribute either the genetic factors (“nature”) or the environment
(“nurture”) explanation as a sole determinant; both environmental and genetic factors operate
together to influence outcomes.
SEM is also used to estimate these three sources of influences (i.e., those from genetic factors,
shared environmental factors, and unique environmental factors). In basic behavioral genetics re-
search with one research variable (e.g., univariate biometric analyses) with identical and fraternal
twins, influences from the three factors are modeled: additive genetic factors (A), shared environmental
factors (C), and unique environmental factors and/or measurement error (E). As depicted in Figure 1,
the covariance between one job attitude variable for twin 1 and the same job attitude variable for
twin 2 can be modeled for the two twin groups, and their variance can be specified. By comparing
the two twin groups, influences from genetic factors [A, = a2 /(a2 +c2 +e2 )], shared environmental
factors [C, = c2 /(a2 +c2 +e2 )], and unique environmental factors [E, = e2 /(a2 +c2 +e2 )] can be esti-
mated. The influences of genetic factors can be used as an estimate of heritability in a narrow
sense.
The term heritability has been variously interpreted (and sometimes wrongly interpreted,
unfortunately) and criticized over the years. In fact, the previous and ongoing debates about the
meaning of heritability are a jumble of critiques and defenses. We basically sidestep most of these
issues for now (for example, does a highly heritable trait mean it is determined or nonmalleable?)
but return to some of them later in discussing more complex models. For an excellent discussion
of the meaning of heritability and an insightful review of the controversies, see the book by the
philosopher Sesardic (2005) and the article by Johnson et al. (2009).
www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 169

WHY DO WE NEED GENETIC APPROACHES

IN ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAVIOR?
In our own experience, almost every time we talk about genetic research, either during conference
presentations or in informal conversations with OB researchers, the first question many people
ask us is, “Why do you study genetics in organizational research?” This is a fair question. Thus,
we first talk about why OB research needs behavioral genetics approaches. Most notably, there
has been a nature-versus-nurture (or person-versus-environment) debate in the main areas of OB,
such as job satisfaction (Arvey et al. 1989) and leadership (Arvey et al. 2006). In an important
sense, organizational researchers have a sustained interest in the question, “To what extent can
our attitudes and behavior be accounted for by the person and the environment?” Essentially, this
debate addresses an important question; that is, what is the relative potency of the person and
the environment in explaining organizational attitudes and behaviors? This debate perhaps dates
back to Lewin’s (1935) famous formula that behavior (B) is a joint product of the person (P) and
the environment (E) [i.e., B = f (P, E)]. In this regard, twin studies provide a suitable approach to
address this debate, because they help disentangle influences related to the person (e.g., nature),
as reflected via influences from genetic factors, from influences related to the environment (e.g.,
nurture; Plomin et al. 1994).
One might ask, what is the advantage of using a behavioral genetics approach in addressing the
nature-versus-nurture controversy, or cannot we just employ individual difference variables such
as personality traits and intelligence to indicate influences from the person? A simple answer is that
there is a unique advantage of utilizing genetic influences (i.e., through twin studies) to indicate
influences of the person versus the influences of the environment. Take job satisfaction research
as an example. Previous research has suggested that several individual difference variables, such as
various personality traits, intelligence, and even physical characteristics, may affect job satisfaction
(Arvey & Bouchard 1994, Ilies & Judge 2003). As such, it seems impractical to examine the effects
from all these individual characteristics in one single study to capture all such person-related effects
collectively (i.e., influences from the person). In this vein, twin studies allow us to examine the
aggregate contributions of all possible individual difference variables as reflected in the estimates
of overall genetic influences ( Johnson et al. 2009), because virtually all individual characteristics
are under genetic influence (Bouchard 2004, Turkheimer 2000).
A second reason is that twin studies can enhance our understanding of environmental influences
often studied in OB. Previous research in OB and other related fields has consistently shown that
most studied putative environmental variables, such as family environment, social support, work
characteristics, and job stressors, are actually under the influence of genetic factors (Arvey et al.
2007, Judge et al. 2012b, Li et al. 2016). Such findings challenge the assumptions and practices
in OB research that most measured environmental variables reflect influences solely from the
environment (not the person) and, consequently, the causal interpretations of studied relationships
concerning such measured environmental factors (i.e., environmental causation, and the person has
nothing to do with such relationships). One reason for the observed genetic influence on measured
environmental variables is that individuals are not randomly assigned into their environments;
instead they select, and/or are selected into, the environment compatible with their individual
characteristics (Holland 1996, Kristof-Brown & Guay 2010, Schneider 1987, Schneider et al.
1995). This idea is not entirely new. In behavioral genetics, such effects are referred to as the
nature of the nurture (Plomin et al. 2013a). These are critical findings, given that much research
on those topics typically presumes that these variables are solely environmentally influenced in
nature and thus they can be easily managed or changed to exert influences on their outcomes.
In addition to challenging the interpretation of environmental causation, twin studies, in this
170 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
regard, also provide a methodological advance to support environmental causation, because they
can control for influences from the person (i.e., through genetic influences) when examining
environmental influences on various outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction).
Behavioral genetics research is also able to offer novel insights into research on work atti-
tudes and behaviors in OB. Emerging trends in OB have suggested and shown that important
constructs in OB are associated with different biological components of individuals (Becker et al.
2011, Heaphy & Dutton 2008, Senior et al. 2011, Waldman et al. 2011, Zyphur et al. 2009).
Genes, together with environmental factors, may be involved in shaping work attitudes and be-
haviors through multiple processes, such as protein construction, brain functions, and individual
differences. In this vein, behavioral genetics, and molecular genetics in particular, provide a useful
way to unpack intriguing interplays between the human body and the work environment. In this
new era of big data, enormous amounts of DNA information are becoming increasingly available
to researchers. Thus, behavioral genetics research has the potential to generate general novel
insights into the person-environment interplay, which in turn may offer important contributions
to advance organizational research (Davis 2015).
REVIEW OF PRIOR RESEARCH

As Turkheimer (2000) spelled out, there is great universality in that almost all human traits
are heritable, sometimes referred to as the first law of behavioral genetics. This also has been
demonstrated in our own field where most, if not all, of the constructs subjected to genetic analyses
have shown nonzero heritabilities. Thus, we are fairly brief in this first part of our review. With
no specific notification, heritability refers to the narrow sense of heritability in our review.
Personality, Affectivity, and Cognitive Constructs

Early reviews have clearly shown that individual differences in personality, affectivity, and cognitive
abilities have some degree of genetic influence. Such research represents important starting points
because OB scholars have broadly utilized these constructs.
Personality
Among the wide variety of personality factors, the five-factor model of personality (extraversion,
agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness; also known as the Big Five person-
ality factors) is perhaps the most widely used scheme of personality traits to explain organizational
outcomes (e.g., Barrick & Mount 1991, Judge et al. 2002). Early research by Loehlin (1992)
showed that personality dimensions reflecting the Big Five personality factors were significantly
heritable. In an excellent review, Turkheimer et al. (2014, p. 536) also discussed issues of repli-
cability, reliability, and stability in regards to the association between genetics and personality,
concluding, “All personality traits are heritable, and equally so. To the limited extent it is possible
to specify numerical values of heritability at all, all personality traits are heritable at about h2 ≈
0.40.” In a more recent meta-analysis with 62 independent effect sizes and more than 100,000
participants, researchers again found genetic effects to explain 40% of individual differences in
personality (Vukasović & Bratko 2015). The authors further found that personality theories and
gender were not significant moderators of the heritability.
Personality constructs particularly relevant to work-related behaviors have also been examined
with regard to their genetic influences. For example, a recent study examined genetic influences
on the construct of proactive personality, a specific type of personality trait widely studied in OB.

It is defined as a “relative stable tendency to effect environmental change” (Bateman & Crant
1993, p. 103). Behavioral genetics analyses of a US national twin sample reveal that genetic factors
account for 42.5% of individual differences in proactive personality (W.D. Li, Z. Song, Z. Zhang,
and R. Arvey, submitted manuscript).
Using a sample of twins from the United Kingdom, Shane & Nicolaou (2015) found creative
personality (or the disposition of being creative) to be heritable. Approximately 48% of the variance
in creative personality was accounted for by genetic factors. They also found that people with
creative personality are more likely to identify business opportunities and start businesses, and that
the associations among these variables were likely explained by a common genetic foundation.
Core self-evaluation is a personality dimension that reflects people’s fundamental evaluations
about themselves and is presumed to be a higher-order construct composed of self-esteem, gen-
eral self-efficacy, and locus of control and neuroticism ( Judge et al. 1997). Judge et al. (2012a)
found that genetic effects explained 44% variance of this particular personality construct. Using a
different sample, Li et al. (2016) also found genetic factors accounted for 51.1% variance of core
self-evaluation. Consistent with the findings of general personality, the genetic effects on these
more specific personality constructs widely studied in OB are fairly substantial.
Affectivity
Affectivity, or affective traits, refers to the enduring dispositional characteristics that predispose
individuals to having certain affective experiences or reactions (Watson et al. 1999). Finkel &
McGue (1997) found that positive and negative emotionalities from the Multidimensional Per-
sonality Questionnaire (MPQ) have heritabilities of 0.50 and 0.44, respectively, which are con-
sistent with previous research (e.g., Loehlin 1992). In addition to affective traits, Riemann et al.
(1998) further found that genetic factors also influence the consistency of mood across situations,
although environments have explained even larger variances.
Intelligence
In addition to personality and affectivity, intelligence is one of the most important predictors
of performance at work (e.g., Gottfredson 1997, Schmidt & Hunter 2004). General intelligence
(or g) has been examined with regard to its genetic influence and has been shown to be highly
heritable with estimates generally ranging from 0.60 to 0.80 (Bouchard et al. 1998). Substantial
genetic effects on intelligence are well-established findings in previous research (e.g., Bouchard
2004, Deary et al. 2009).
Genetic Influences on Specific Organizational Behavior Related Variables

Below we review genetic research on work-related outcomes. We focus on work-related individual
difference variables (e.g., interests and values) and work-related outcomes (e.g., job satisfaction
and leadership).
Vocational and occupational interests. Quite early, Carter (1932) conducted an investigation
regarding whether vocational interests were inherited. This research involved 120 pairs of twins;
the average coefficients of correlations of the twins’ vocational interests are 0.50 for identical
twins and 0.28 for fraternal twins. Vandenberg & Stafford (1967) provided further evidence of
greater resemblance of vocational interests between identical twins, by showing greater within-
pair variances among fraternal twins compared with identical twins. Nichols (1978) conducted
172 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
meta-analyses of the early twin studies on vocational interests, and the results showed that the
mean intraclass correlation was 0.48 for monozygotic twins and 0.30 for dizygotic twins.
Later studies using more complex designs also revealed significant genetic influences in vo-
cational interests (Lykken et al. 1993, Moloney et al. 1991, Waller et al. 1995). For example,
Moloney et al. (1991) used two different measures of vocational interests and found the average
intraclass correlations of monozygotic twins reared apart were 0.38 and 0.47, respectively, for the
two measures; these values are interpreted as direct estimates of heritability. Lykken et al. (1993)
used 2,208 twins and 1,871 of their spouses and other family members to examine the genetic
effects for different interest factors measured at three levels (items level, 39 interest factors de-
rived from factor analysis, and 11 superfactors derived from the 39 interest factors). They found a
higher heritability of superfactors (average of 0.53) in comparison with the heritability at the item
level (average of 0.32) and with the heritability of the 39 factors (average of 0.48), suggesting that
heritability may be higher for constructs measured at a broader construct level. This is consistent
with Johnson et al.’s (2011, p. 256) statement, “The more broadly we consider a trait, the more
likely it is to display a good solid heritability that is rather stable across populations.”3
In addition to studies with a particular focus on vocational interests, some recent studies also
provided further information on the heritability of some particular occupational choices. One
study showed that the heritability for occupational choices as a manager, salesperson, or teacher
was 0.30, 0.46, and 0.43, respectively (Nicolaou & Shane 2010). Using data from the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health (Add Health Study), Beaver et al. (2015) have
examined genetic influences on military service behaviors. Interestingly, they found that genetic
factors account for as high as 82% of the variance in whether the respondent had ever served in
the military.
Work values. In a study using monozygotic twins reared apart as the sample, Keller et al.
(1992) found six work values from the Minnesota Importance Questionnaire—the preferences for
achievement, comfort, status, altruism, safety, and autonomy—had significant heritability ranging
from 0.18 to 0.56. Arvey et al. (1994) also found an average heritability of 0.35 for work values
using a much larger sample (1,165 pairs of dizygotic twins and 1,236 pairs of monozygotic twins
reared apart). Arvey et al. (1994) further conducted a principal component factor analysis, and
found that genetic factors account for 43% of the variance of the first principle factor of work
values.
Job satisfaction. Arvey et al. (1989) found that general job satisfaction has a heritability of ap-
proximately 0.30 using a sample of monozygotic twins reared apart. As mentioned earlier, this
finding received much attention because it suggested that job satisfaction could not be viewed as
merely a product of objective environmental job and work environments, but was also influenced
by genetic factors. The authors further found that genetic factors explained a significant variance
of intrinsic job satisfaction, but not for extrinsic job satisfaction. In a later study using twin samples
from the Minnesota Twin Family Registry and the National Academy of Sciences and National
Research Council, Arvey et al. (1994) replicated the previous findings and again found intrinsic
job satisfaction—not extrinsic job satisfaction—was under substantial genetic influence. Recently,
3
This may seem puzzling at first, but a common-sense observation makes the point. Consider the case of salmon that return to
their source because of genetic factors. We know that genetics will predict that salmon will return to a particular location, but
genetics would not predict the specific location of the salmon in the returning river, which would be accounted for by factors
as river volume, current, and other environmental factors. Hence, the prediction of a broad trait (i.e., general intelligence)
may be more predictable from genetic factors compared to other more narrow cognitive factors.

Judge et al. (2012b) found a significant heritability of job satisfaction, with an estimated heritabil-
ity of 0.35. Hahn et al. (2015) provided more recent evidence for significant genetic influence.
They used multivariate analyses based on a sample of 185 identical twin and 126 fraternal twin
pairs to show genetic influences accounted for 28% of the variance in job satisfaction. Moreover,
their results also showed that the genetic influence was mediated by three personality constructs
of neuroticism, extraversion, and conscientiousness.
Inconsistent findings also exist. Hershberger et al. (1994) failed to replicate the genetic effects on
job satisfaction. Nonetheless, they concluded that the different measurements used in their study
may be a reason for the failure of replication. They acknowledged that not all the satisfaction items
directly measured the worker’s attitude toward their job. Nonetheless, at the item level, they still
found evidence of significant heritability for three items measuring intrinsic job satisfaction.
It is perhaps worthwhile to reflect on the relative level of the heritability found for job satisfac-
tion. Some might argue that 30% is still a relatively low amount of explained variance. However,
the corresponding correlation (the square root of 0.30) is 0.55. If one examines the research liter-
ature concerning job satisfaction, it is difficult to find any externally measured variable with such
a high level of correlation with job satisfaction (Humphrey et al. 2007, Kinicki et al. 2002).
Job switching and turnover. A growing body of research followed Arvey et al.’s (1989) study,
with the targeted phenotype not constrained to job satisfaction. McCall et al. (1997) investigated
whether genetic factors influenced job and occupational switching behaviors, as these behaviors
are often considered outcomes of low job satisfaction. On the basis of model-fitting analyses and
using a sample of 1,165 dizygotic and 1,236 monozygotic white male twin pairs reared together,
McCall et al. (1997) found that genetic factors explained 36% of the variance in job switching and
26% of the variance in occupational switching.
Leadership. In the leadership research, behavioral genetics has provided a useful tool to inves-
tigate the often-debated question of whether leaders are born or made. Johnson et al. (1998)
conducted univariate genetic analyses for the subscales of the Multifactor Leadership Question-
naire using 247 twin pairs (183 monozygotic and 64 same-sex dizygotic twin pairs). They found
most dimensions were heritable: 48% of the variance in transactional leadership was explained by
genetic effects and 59% by nonadditive effects, showing that some genes may interact with other
genes in influencing transformational leadership. A study using the California Psychological In-
ventory also found significant genetic effects on a scale indicating leadership potential (Bouchard
et al. 1998). Moreover, attitudes toward being group leaders also have been found to be heritable
(Olson et al. 2001).
Arvey et al. (2006) used a measure of leadership role occupancy as a proxy for leadership
and found that genetic factors accounted for 30% of the variance in leadership role occupancy
among a sample of male twin pairs. An additional study using a female sample of twins and the
same leadership variable showed that the heritability of leadership was again significant with an
estimate of 0.32 (Arvey et al. 2007). These findings were replicated in another two studies, which
found genetic factors to explain, respectively, 29% and 24% of the variance in leadership role
occupancy (De Neve et al. 2013, Li et al. 2012). In addition, another study (Chaturvedi et al. 2012)
also revealed that genes explained a significant portion of variance for the emergent leadership
behavior (approximately 44% for women and 37% for men).
Entrepreneurship. Similar with leadership researchers, entrepreneurship researchers have also

sought to understand whether entrepreneurship has a genetic basis. Nicolaou et al. (2008) found
that 48% of the variance in a variable measuring the propensity to become self-employed was
174 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
explained by genetic factors. In another study, Nicolaou et al. (2009) further identified significant
genetic effects on opportunity recognition and tendency to be an entrepreneur in a different
sample. One study using 1,285 monozygotic and 849 dizygotic twins found significant heritability
for being an entrepreneur, although the genetic effects were limited to women (Zhang et al.
2009b). Nicolaou & Shane (2010) conducted a more detailed examination on the heritability of
past and present self-employment and occupational choice. They found that the heritability was
0.48 and 0.64 for current and past self-employment, respectively, and for the male-only sample
the heritability became 0.50 and 0.70, respectively. In addition, entrepreneurial intention had a
heritability of 0.42. In another study, the heritability was estimated as 0.69 for males, 0.34 for
females, and 0.39 for the pooled sample for their measure of entrepreneurship (van der Loos
et al. 2011). Although results are not always consistent across gender, most studies demonstrate
substantial genetic effects underlying entrepreneurship.

Measured work environments. Genetic factors are found to play a role in influencing work
environments. This should not be surprising. Individuals will seek out various environments that
are compatible with their personality, cognitive skills, interests, etc. (the gravitational hypothesis;
McCormick et al. 1972), and this is not different for twins. Thus, identical twins might seek jobs that
are challenging, offer recognition, etc., more so than fraternal twins. For example, Hershberger
et al. (1994) identified significant genetic effects on the perceptions of organizational climate for
dimensions of support and annoyance. Additive genetic effects explained approximately 22% and
27% of the variance in the two variables, respectively; however, no genetic effects were found for
perceptions of time pressure.
Li et al. (2016) used a national US twin sample and studied genetic influences on three job char-
acteristics based on the job demands-control-support model (Karasek 1979, Karasek & Theorell
1990). These authors found that significant amounts of variance in job demands (28.6%) and job
control (34.2%) were accounted for by genetic factors. Social support at work (from coworkers
and supervisors) was not significantly affected by genetic factors. They also found that genetic
factors, on the basis of a US national occupational database, explained 33.1% of the variance in
the objectively measured job complexity.
Survey response. Although not particularly unique to OB psychologists, researchers using sur-
veys for data collection purposes are often disappointed by the response rates. One study using
twin pairs from the Minnesota Twin Registry (MTR) revealed that people’s compliance with sur-
vey participations also has a genetic foundation (Thompson et al. 2011). The authors found that
genetic factors explained 45% of the survey response behaviors for both males and females, and
shared environments had little effects.
Summary
On the basis of the research reviewed above, it is clear that genetic factors account for a fairly
substantial amount of variance in specific variables used in OB research. Generally, the heritability
estimates obtained in OB appear to range from approximately 0.30 to 0.40 (which is relatively
smaller than those for cognitive and personality variables). Although there are some isolated
instances of these variables failing to exhibit significant heritabilities, it is safe to conclude that
genetic factors play a significant role in shaping many variables studied by OB scholars. This is
consistent with Turkheimer’s (2000) first law of behavioral genetics: Almost every studied variable
has a genetic component. It is certainly consistent with a very recent meta-analysis published in

Nature Genetics (Polderman et al. 2015), which examined the heritabilities of almost 18,000 traits
from 2,748 publications where the average heritability across all of these complex traits was 0.49.
Although we have not presented the various estimates in the studies reviewed of the amount
of variance accounted for by the shared environmental factor, it is noticeable that this factor
accounted for a negligible amount of variance in the various studies. This is true in almost all
behavioral genetics research and has caused considerable scratching of heads. How is it that the
environmental features shared by twins (e.g., the same family environments) seem not important?
There have been two responses to this query. One is that each twin experiences a singularly
different environment from his/her twin and thus these influences become part of the nonshared
environmental features (Hoffman 1991, Loehlin 2007). A second response is that the analytical
methods to capture these effects are not adequate, or there are methodological flaws in the basic
twin designs (e.g., the shared-environmental effects get captured in the genetics effects) (Plomin
et al. 2013a, Turkheimer 2000).
Another observation we can make is that although the research is clear that genetic effects
have important influences on OB constructs, it is also clear that environmental factors are greatly
influential as well (e.g., Ilies et al. 2006). There is a problem, however. The literature is essentially
silent in terms of (a) which genes are involved in explaining the significant heritability estimates,
and (b) which features of the environment are most important. The answers to these two ques-
tions have not been provided in the literature just reviewed. We turn now to more recent work
exemplifying more sophisticated approaches starting to address these issues.
Recent Trends in Genetics Research on Organizational

Behavior–Related Variables
The majority of behavioral genetics studies in OB focused on studying genetic influences on one
single work attitude or behavior. Now equipped with more sophisticated biometric modeling
methodology (Neale & Cardon 1992, Plomin et al. 2013a) and the fast advancement of DNA
sequencing, researchers have started to investigate more intriguing issues. The new recent trends
include (a) studying moderators of genetics on work attitudes or behavior, (b) examining to what
extent relationships studied in OB are accounted for by genetic and environmental influences, and
(c) specifying specific genes that may explain the overall genetic influences.
Change of genetic influences across different samples. Given that genes seldom change
dramatically during one’s lifespan, there is often a misunderstanding that genetic influences (i.e.,
heritability estimates) do not and cannot change across different samples. This is not true. Previous
behavioral genetics research has shown that effects of genetic factors can be enhanced or diminished
by a range of environmental factors, such as family background and education (Bates et al. 2013,
Taylor et al. 2010).
As an example, Chaturvedi et al. (2012) showed that for women, genetic influences on emer-
gent leadership were highest at middle age and lowest at senior age; for men, however, there were
no significant changes. Zhang et al. (2009a) found that social environment moderated genetic
influences on leadership role occupancy. Specifically, genetic influences were found to be more
pronounced in relatively poor social environments (e.g., low family socioeconomic status, high
parental support, and high conflict with parents). In entrepreneurship, Zhang et al. (2009b) re-
ported that genetic influences on entrepreneurship were only significant for their female sample,
but not for males.
Change of genetic influences across time. Recently, researchers have begun to study the role of
time in OB (Mitchell & James 2001, Parker et al. 2014, Sonnentag 2012). This trend has also been
176 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
reflected in behavioral genetics research (Kandler 2012, Tucker-Drob et al. 2013, Turkheimer
et al. 2014). A question that should be addressed in integrating the temporal perspective with
behavioral genetics research in OB is, “Are genetic influences on work attitudes and behavior
stable over time?” This question is of significance for at least two reasons. First, an underlying
assumption of most dispositional theories (e.g., on job satisfaction and leadership) is that influences
from individual characteristics are relatively stable over time (George 1992, Staw & Ross 1985,
Sturman 2007). Thus, if genetic influence on job satisfaction or leadership change across various
time points, this “may change the meaning of concepts [e.g., genetic influences] or the relationships
between them [e.g., between genetic influences and work attitude]” (Zaheer et al. 1999, p. 734).
Second, there are many misinterpretations of genetic influences. For instance, Gerhart (2005,
p. 88) lamented that significant genetic effects are often misinterpreted: “To the degree a trait [or
an attitude] is heritable, it is not malleable.” In this vein, if genetic influences are shown to change
over time, this can mitigate those misinterpretations and thus help develop a healthy public image
of OB genetics research.
Thus far, the only study on the stability of genetic influences in OB focuses on job satisfaction.
Interestingly, two contrasting theoretical perspectives exist regarding the direction of possible
change in genetic influences on job satisfaction over time. One perspective is that genetic influences
on job satisfaction may increase as people age. For example, research on person–environment
fit suggests that through multiple processes (e.g., occupational and organization selection, and
job crafting), individuals gradually gravitate to work environments compatible with their abilities
(McCormick et al. 1972, Wilk et al. 1995). Behavioral genetics research also suggests that over time,
people have increasing control over selecting or creating experiences that foster the development
of their genetically based dispositions (Bouchard 1997, McGue et al. 1993, Plomin & Spinath 2004,
Scarr & McCartney 1983). Taken together, genetic influences on job satisfaction may increase over
time. This is indeed what researchers have found on genetic influences on intelligence (Bergen
et al. 2007, Bouchard 2013, Johnson 2010, Wilson 1978).
The other perspective, however, suggests a decreasing trend for genetic influences on job
satisfaction as people age. The argument is that, as people accumulate more and more experiences,
the overall experiences become more and more reflective of the influences from the environment,
not the person (Staw 2004). This perspective has received support from research on the changing
genetic influences on some personality traits (Bleidorn et al. 2014, Eaves et al. 1986, Plomin &
Spinath 2004).
Using a three-wave longitudinal twin study, Li et al. (2015a) found that genetic influences on
job satisfaction decreased from explaining 31.2% of the variance at age 21 to 18.7% and 19.8%
of variance at ages of 25 and 30. Moreover, the same genetic factors were found to influence
job satisfaction at each of the three time points, although with different magnitudes. Coinciding
with the second perspective, it seems that over time as people age, environmental influences
become more influential on job satisfaction. This may be because work environments represent
strong situations, for example, work characteristics (Morgeson et al. 2012), and macroeconomic
and labor market conditions may greatly shape people’s attitudes toward their job ( Judge et al.
2012a), especially over time (Staw 2004). Nonetheless, as supportive evidence has emerged for
both increased and decreased genetic influences over time, more future research is needed to
specify when and why the genetic influences will increase or decrease.
Genetic influences in explaining relationships of two variables related to work. Examining

to what extent a relationship of two or three work variables is shaped by genetic and environmental
factors has important theoretical significance for OB. Even if a variable is highly heritable, its re-
lationship with other variables may be mostly environmentally caused (Plomin et al. 2013a). Such

λ λ
A1 E1 A2 E2 A3 E3 A4 E4
a21 a21
a11 e21 a22 e22 a11 e21 a22 e22
e11 e11
Job demandstwin1 Well-beingtwin1 Job demandstwin2 Well-beingtwin2

Figure 2
Bivariate biometric analyses for job demands and well-being using the Cholesky decomposition. A, additive
genetic factors; E, unique environmental factors and/or measurement error. Effects of shared environmental
factors (C) are not modeled because the effects are typically not significant, which is also a consistent finding
in previous research. λ= 1 for identical twins and 0.5 for fraternal twins.
investigations shed light on the causal interpretation of those studied relationships. As Johnson
et al. (2009, p. 216) pointed out, twin studies are able to “distinguish selection from environmental
causation.” As discussed earlier, individuals select themselves, and/or are selected, into work and
life environments that are related to their intelligence, personality traits, or even physical char-
acteristics (Holland 1996, Kristof-Brown & Guay 2010, Schneider 1987, Schneider et al. 1995).
As such, many studied relationships among so-called environmental variables may in fact reflect
selection instead of environmental causation. Therefore, it is important to control for the effects
of selection via genetic influences in studying the causal effects of environmental factors on work
attitudes and behaviors. However, because most individual characteristics are affected by genetic
factors that do not change significantly across one’s lifespan, many people may assume that the
relationships of individual characteristics with work attitudes and behaviors reflect selection (in-
stead of environmental causation). Such an assumption should be examined rigorously. We review
such organizational research below.
Li et al. (2016) decomposed the relationships of work characteristics with well-being
(Figure 2). They reported that the observed relationship between job demands and subjective
well-being and that between job control and physical well-being were mostly genetic. According
to Figure 2, the observed relationship (e.g., r) between job demands and well-being can be decom-
posed into two parts: one component (a11 ∗ a21 ) influenced by the same genetic factor (A1 ), and the
other (e11 ∗ e21 ) influenced by the same environmental factor (A1 ). Thus, r = a11 ∗ a21 +e11 ∗ e21 . This
model has also been used to examine the mediating role of job demands (or a personality trait)
in transmitting genetic influences on well-being (or job satisfaction). This is because (a) genetic
factors affect both job demands and well-being, and (b) work design research (or personality the-
ories) has suggested the causal direction from job demands (or the personality trait) to well-being
(or job satisfaction).
Similarly, Li and colleagues [Li et al. 2015a,b, 2016; D. Li, Z. Song, Z. Zhang, and R. Arvey
(submitted manuscript)] reported that genetic factors were mainly responsible for shaping the re-
lationships of core self-evaluation with job demands, job control, and job complexity. Such genetic
influences reflect influences from the person as a whole, probably through multiple processes of
selection ( Johnson et al. 2009), including occupational selection (Holland 1996), organizational
178 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
selection (Schneider 1987, Schneider et al. 1995), and/or job crafting (Wrzesniewski & Dutton
2001). However, environmental factors explained most of the relationship of CSE with social
support at work. Such influences reflect environmental causation ( Johnson et al. 2009). These
findings show differential roles of genetic and environmental influences in accounting for re-
lationships of personality traits with work attitudes and behaviors. Such findings are important
because most people would assume that genetics would play the largest role, given (a) personality
traits are affected by genetic factors and (b) many organizational researchers still believe that adult
personality traits are difficult to change.
The distinct effects of genetic and environmental influences in determining relationships of
personality traits with work attitudes or behavior have also been observed in other research.
D. Li, Z. Song, Z. Zhang, and R. Arvey (submitted manuscript) found that the relationship be-
tween proactive personality and job complexity was mainly genetically influenced, indicating in-
fluences from the person through multiple processes of selection, as discussed above. In contrast,
environmental factors contributed mostly to the relationships between proactive personality with
income and leadership role occupancy. Such findings highlight the significance of environmental
influences in shaping those relationships and thus may have important practical implications in
terms of cultivating people’s long-term proactivity.
Arvey et al. (2007) found that the relationship between family experiences and leadership role
occupancy was mostly genetically influenced (e.g., caused by selection), whereas both genetic and
environmental influences were responsible for the relationship between work experiences and
leadership role occupancy. In the area of entrepreneurship, Nicolaou et al. (2009) found that
53% of the relationship between opportunity recognition and entrepreneurship was explained
by genetic factors. Zyphur et al. (2015) found that environmental factors mainly explained the
relationship between income and subjective financial well-being, but only for men.
There are also a few studies examining the relationships of personality traits with work attitudes
and behavior, with the aim of disentangling to what extent such relationships are associated with
genetic or environmental influences. Theoretically, such investigations (Neale & Cardon 1992)
imply that personality traits mediate genetic influences on work attitude and behavior because
(a) genetic factors affect both personality traits and work attitude or behavior, and (b) personality
theories suggest causal influences of personality traits on attitudes and behaviors. Thus, if genetic
factors play a role in explaining such relationships, it theoretically means that personality traits
are one of the pathways through which genetic factors exert their influences on work attitude or
behavior ( Jocklin et al. 1996).
In leadership research, using a male sample from the MTR, Arvey et al. (2006) reported that
both genetic and environmental factors were responsible for the relationships of leadership role
occupancy with two personality traits from MPQ (social potency and achievement). Chaturvedi
et al. (2011) found that the majority of the relationship between dispositional hope and trans-
formational leadership was explained by genetic factors. Thus, personality traits mediate genetic
influences on these measures of leadership.
In the area of entrepreneurship, researchers have also explored the role of genetic and en-
vironmental factors in accounting for relationships between entrepreneurship and personality
traits. For example, Zhang et al. (2009b) found that only for females, most of the relationships
of entrepreneurship with neuroticism and extraversion were genetically influenced. (For male en-
trepreneurs, genetic influences on entrepreneurship were not significant.) Similarly, Shane et al.
(2010) also reported that genetic factors were responsible for explaining the relationships of en-
trepreneurship with openness; extraversion; creative personality (Shane & Nicolaou 2015); and
sensation seeking, a component of openness (Nicolaou et al. 2008).

Together, the above reviewed research shows the mediating effects of personality traits in
transmitting genetic influences on work attitude and behavior. Thus, in a sense, this line of research
addresses one limitation of twin studies, that is, not specifying the sources of genetic influences.
At the same time, by disentangling the relationships into genetic and environmental components,
these investigations offer important theoretical contributions by elucidating the differential roles
of selection and environmental causation ( Johnson et al. 2009).
It is also noteworthy that the same approach of decomposing observed relationships into genetic
and environmental components can also be adopted in studying relationships of two variables
without explicitly assuming causal directions. Such investigations offer insights into whether the
same genetic factors are responsible for overall genetic influences on two variables, and thus pave
the way for molecular genetics in searching for specific genes to explain genetic influences. In
cognitive studies, researchers have proposed a “generalist genes” hypothesis (Kovas & Plomin
2007) in which the same genes were considered to affect cognitive abilities and disabilities. Some
organizational studies echo this hypothesis. For example, Li et al. (2012) found that the same
genetic factors explained the majority of the relationship between leadership role occupancy and
transformational leadership. The study by Hahn et al. (2015) on the heritability of job satisfaction
mentioned earlier also showed very strong overlap between the genetic factors influencing the
personality factors of conscientiousness, neuroticism, and extraversion with job satisfaction. This
means that there may also be “generalist genes” that are responsible for multiple manifestations
of leadership.
Molecular genetics research linking specific genes to work-related variables. Given that a
moderate level of heritability has been found for most psychological traits, Bouchard (2004, p. 151)
pointed out that “a scientifically impressive way must describe the specific molecular mechanism
that explicates how genes transact with the environment to produce behaviors.” Molecular genetics
is used to investigate the relationship between specific genes or genetic markers and targeted
phenotypes. In genetics research, genotype refers to the genetic makeup of the organism, whereas
phenotype refers to the physical, psychological, or behavioral features considered as outcomes of
the specific gene(s) and the related environments (Plomin et al. 2013a).
In living organisms, DNA is the major material foundation of inheritance. DNA exists as a pair
of long polymers in the shape of a double helix, and it can be divided into discrete functional regions
called genes. Genes produce specific proteins to regulate the functions of a living organism. The
double helix structure of DNA consists of repeated units of four nucleotides (adenine, cytosine,
guanine, and thymine), the combination of which influences the coding instructions to produce
proteins. In the population of humans, 99.9% of the nucleotide base pairs (bps) are exactly the
same; the remaining 0.1% bps, determining individual differences, are called single-nucleotide
polymorphisms (SNPs).
In the paradigm of molecular genetics, researchers have widely applied candidate gene ap-
proaches and the genome-wide association studies (GWASs) to build associations between spe-
cific genetic markers and particular phenotypes. The candidate gene approach is usually guided
by theories and prior knowledge of the specific genetic markers. This approach focuses on the
associations between prespecified genes and the phenotypes. For example, prior knowledge that a
certain kind of neurotransmitter is involved in emotion regulation may lead researchers to explore
the relationship between emotion disorder and a specific gene that is known to influence the effec-
tiveness of the neurotransmitter system. In contrast, the GWAS approach conducts genome-wide
analyses to search for novel SNPs in the whole human genome associated with the investigated
phenotype (Plomin et al. 2013a). The GWAS approach can also identify candidate SNPs for
180 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
follow-up research. For example, Rietveld et al. (2013) found three independent SNPs to be
significantly associated with education achievement in two large samples. This finding provides
novel candidate genes for future research, and it may also provide direction for the exploration
of underlying mechanisms from genes to education achievement. Although molecular genetics
approaches have been widely adopted in psychological and medical studies, their application in
OB is still in its infancy.
In the first study of molecular genetics in OB, Song et al. (2011) explored specific DNA
markers related to job satisfaction using the sample from the Add Health Study. They found two
genetic markers, a dopamine receptor DRD4 and a serotonin transporter gene 5-HTTLPR, to be
significantly associated with job satisfaction and that pay level mediates the relationship between
DRD4 and job satisfaction. Both genetic markers in this study have also been the focus in the
development of personality genetics; for example, DRD4 has been related with novelty seeking,
and 5-HTTLPR has been related with neuroticism (Carver et al. 2011, Munafò et al. 2008).
To look for specific genetic markers that are involved in occupying leadership positions, De
Neve et al. (2013) explored two large data sets with overlapped genetic markers and found a
genetic marker rs4590 on a nicotine acetylcholine receptor gene (CHRNB3) to be significantly
correlated with leadership role occupancy. However, this study did not pinpoint a causal pathway
that connected the genetic marker to leadership role occupancy, such as the underlying psycho-
logical pathways. Li et al. (2015b) found recently that a dopamine transporter gene, DAT1, to be
negatively related to proactive personality, but also positively related to leadership role occupancy.
Moreover, the finding was not only replicated in another sample, but a countervailing mechanism
through moderate rule breaking was also revealed. DAT1 has been related to the tendency of
impulsivity, and in this study it was positively related to moderate rule breaking, which was fur-
ther positively related with leadership role occupancy. These studies showed that multiple genes
may be involved in shaping leadership emergence, and the meditational mechanisms can be com-
plex. Li et al. (2015b) suggested that a middle-ground approach (e.g., integrating a theory-driven
approach and a data-driven approach) may be needed in such multidisciplinary investigations.
In entrepreneurship research, Nicolaou et al. (2011) found a genetic marker (rs1486011) of
the dopamine receptor DRD3 gene to be significantly associated with the tendency to be an
entrepreneur. However, this finding was not replicated in the study by van der Loos et al. (2011).
Nonetheless, van der Loos et al. (2013) used a large-scale collaboration of samples that have both
genome-wide genotypes and self-employment information to investigate the molecular genetic
architecture of self-employment. They found that common SNPs jointly explain approximately
half the variance in self-employment, but no genome-wide significant SNPs were identified. That
is, there lacks strong evidence about which specific SNPs are related with self-employment. Their
results showed that self-employment might have a highly polygenic molecular structure, where
many genes work together to have an impact, whereas single genes have only small effects.
We note that molecular genetic studies, although showing some significant associations with
work-related outcomes, still demonstrate somewhat small effect sizes and correlations. These
findings are consistent with other related molecular genetics research that shows weak relationships
to even highly heritable characteristics (Caspi et al. 2003, Ebstein et al. 2010, Fowler & Dawes
2013, Kim et al. 2010). The typical explanation is that there are probably many genes involved
(i.e., traits are polygenetic) as well as multiple interactions among genes such that the search for
specific genes associated with these outcomes will be enormously complex (Plomin et al. 2013a).
Emerging research in behavioral genetics has started investigating novel approaches constructing
polygenetic scores based on hundreds or thousands of DNA markers and linking them to important
individual difference variables (e.g., McCrae et al. 2010, Plomin et al. 2013b).

ONGOING ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

There are several ongoing challenges facing researchers conducting twin studies that need to
be noted. Several methodological issues have been raised. One such issue is the assumption that
identical twins have roughly the same exposure to a common environment as fraternal twins—
the traditional equal environments assumption. However, this assumption has been questioned
(Gottesman & Shields 1972, Kendler et al. 1994). And indeed there is evidence that the environ-
ments of identical twins are more similar than those of fraternal twins (Scarr & Carter-Saltzman
1979). To address the concerns, authors have argued that although there may be more similarities
in the environments of identical twins, such environmental similarities must be relevant to the
trait, or the phenotype under investigation (Gottesman & Shields 1972), which can be referred to
as the trait-relevant environment assumption (Carey & DiLalla 1994). For example, it needs to be
shown that something in the twins’ environment was correlated with job satisfaction to produce
the greater similarities of job satisfaction between identical twins. Fortunately, many studies have
examined this assumption, and the findings show that this assumption seems reasonable in most
studied individual difference variables (Plomin et al. 2013a).
A related issue is the confounding effects of potential correlations between genes and environ-
ments. As Johnson (2011, p. 259) noted, “The presence of gene-environment correlations and
interactions introduces systematic biases in heritability estimates made under the independent
assumption in twin studies.” Thus, there is a need to study and incorporate relationships in twin
studies such as the studies cited previously that attempt to tease apart the independent effects of
genetics and environment under conditions of a gene-environment correlation.
There are other modeling challenges. For example, Zyphur et al. (2013) have argued that
the typical analytical methods for studying genetic influences are not accurate because they fail to
include important dominance factors in their models. They included data derived from other family
members (e.g., parent-child, etc.) to improve the accuracy of the models. However, Polderman
et al. (2015) in their meta-analyses of 2,748 studies across thousands of human traits showed that
observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where an additive
gene model was best.
Johnson et al. (2011) identify several other limitations associated with traditional twin studies,
including such problems as measurement issues (e.g., reliability) of the variables examined, re-
striction of range (for example, if the environment is restricted, the genetic factor will be larger),
sample differences, etc., but concludes by saying that genetically informed research designs are still
critical in understanding developmental processes. Similarly, Zyphur et al. (2013, p. 572) recently
concluded, “If researchers are interested in understanding a broad sense of genetic influences on
observed variables, traditional twin models are adequate.”
There is still the ongoing notion that genetic influence means determinism or that one’s pheno-
type is unchangeable. This is an erroneous conclusion for several reasons. First, even highly herita-
ble traits are modifiable. For example, height of individuals—a highly heritable characteristic—can
be changed (especially over generations) by good nutrition. Bad eyesight can be changed by spec-
tacles, etc. Also, a correct interpretation of a genetic influence is that it results in some phenotypes
or behaviors being more probable, that is, not specific predictions. Finally, heritability refers
to the amount of interindividual differences in one variable that is related to genetic makeup,
whereas changeability deals with intraindividual difference across time. Thus, they are relatively
independent.
What then are the practical implications of behavioral genetics research? We laid out the the-
oretical implications of behavioral genetics in terms of enriching our understanding of (a) the
effects of the person, (b) influences of organizational environments, (c) causal interpretations of
182 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
studied relationships in OB, and (d ) the person-environment correlation and interaction. From
the perspective of employees, enhanced understanding of the influences of their genetic endow-
ments has the potential to guide their career choices and proactivity (e.g., crafting their work
and careers) to optimize their development. In the era of boundless careers (Arthur & Rousseau
1996) and worker-centric psychology (Weiss & Rupp 2011), such knowledge can also help pro-
mote employees’ hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Moreover, the important main effects and
moderating effects of genetic factors suggest that organizations should treat individual differences
more seriously. In the long run, organizations should consider using more personalized or individ-
ualized practices to meet employees’ distinct needs, as suggested by some organization researchers
(Lawler 1974, Rousseau 2005). Interestingly, such individualized approaches have also been ad-
vocated and implemented in medicine (Evans & Relling 2004, Reiss 2010), a field from which
organizational research often borrows (e.g., evidence-based approaches). Such individualized ap-
proaches are useful alternatives to the most often utilized standardized practices (Rousseau 2005),
because enhanced person–organization fit engendered by those approaches can produce high lev-
els of organizational effectiveness (Edwards 2008, Kristof-Brown & Guay 2010). In the long run,
such approaches can also facilitate organizations attracting and keeping the talented employees.
Although we have specified numerous theoretically interesting directions (e.g., developing fit
models to measure which individuals with specific genetic backgrounds might work best in differ-
ent work environments), actually applying these models would be difficult at this stage of research
development. The challenges involve (a) actually specifying the gene structures involved; (b) the
fairly low effect sizes involved, making practical use limited because of false predictions; and (c) the
legal, ethical, and professional controversies involved. Regarding legal challenges, the United
States enacted in 2008 the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (Pub L. 110–233, 122 Stat.
881), which prohibits the use of genetic information in many HR domains. Specifically, the Act
reads, “The legislation also bars employers from using individuals’ genetic information when mak-
ing hiring, firing, job placement, or promotion decisions.” Thus, this act serves to greatly reduce
the potential uses of genetic information in practical HR terms. Of course it is possible that future
uses of genetic information in organizational settings might be more “relaxed” as greater speci-
ficity of the nature of the relationships become known and are reviewed from ethical perspectives.
Few people have explored the ethical implications of using genetic information in HR settings.
However, one exception is the work of Clark et al. (2016) who discuss ethical issues in using genetic
information in personnel selectin contexts from both employer and job-seeker perspectives.
Other Potential Uses of Twin Study Designs for Organizational

Behavior Researchers
There are several ways in which OB researchers might harness the power of twin designs. For
example, it might be interesting to employ twins in studying the impact of leadership development
programs where one twin is trained and the other is considered a control unit. This is called the
co-twin control methodology, and we are not aware of its use in the field of I/O psychology.
Twins could be incorporated into observational research methods. It could be useful to observe
when identical twins are “discordant.” The discrepancy between the two could be correlated with
corresponding environmental features that are responsible for one twin being different from the
other twin. Using twin studies to make causal inferences provides a useful tool for a counterfactual
design. McGue et al. (2010) have provided insights about using twins in making causal inferences
with a review of discordant-twin studies in aging. The review revealed that the studies were
consistent with a causal effect of lifestyle in important later life outcomes, though the establishment
of the causal effect was not unambiguous.

Future Research Directions

Given the advantages of behavioral genetics related to theoretical building and methodologi-
cal rigor, we encourage more OB researchers to consider using this approach in their research.
Specifically, we provide several suggestions for future research below.
First, we believe there is a need for more research on genetic influences on work attitude and
behavior in areas where there is a strong tradition focusing merely on environmental influences
(e.g., work design and human resources practices). As Johnson et al. (2009, p. 218) forcefully
argued, “heritability studies do continue to have some importance in areas of the social sciences
in which genetic influences have not been acknowledged.”
Second, studies examining how environmental variables moderate genetic influences on im-
portant OB constructs should be conducted as a way to study gene-environment interactions.

Such studies also have policy implications in terms of facilitating positive genetic influences (e.g.,
on employee development and high levels of well-being) and inhibiting adverse genetic influences
(e.g., on ill-being).
Third, more research examining genetic and environmental influences in shaping relationships
related to work attitude and behavior is needed. Such investigations contribute to causational
interpretations of the relationships often studied in OB, that is, due to selection or environmental
influences.
Fourth, there is a need for future longitudinal studies that examine the effect of potential
changes of genetic influences on OB constructs or in explaining the relationships related to OB
over time. Such investigations answer the call for integrating a temporal perspective to enrich
our theories and empirical research (Mitchell & James 2001, Sonnentag 2012). Essentially, such
developmental genetics research contributes to unpacking a form of gene-environment interaction
using time as a core environmental factor that may potentially turn genes on or off. Twin designs
could be useful in longitudinal designs where genetic factors could be examined in different ways:
(a) examining whether the heritabilities change over time; (b) whether genetic factors can shape
the possible change (e.g., via the slope in latent growth models), as well as the starting point
(e.g., via the intercept) of OB constructs over time, and (c) the use of genetics to help understand
the nature of development processes among individuals with regard to organizationally relevant
variables and constructs.
Fifth, future molecular genetics research using candidate genes or polygenetic scores from a
relatively theory-driven approach is needed to identify multiple specific genes that are involved
(e.g., through gene-environment correlation and interaction) in producing genetic influences on
work attitude and behavior (Fowler & Dawes 2013). In addition, GWASs are also needed to
explore the possible role of multiple genes, using a data-driven approach, and their interactions
in shaping work attitude and behavior.
Finally, in the long run, studies using whole-genome information (maybe taking a big data
approach) and environmental factors (e.g., family background and work experiences) to study how
such genetic information is related to and interacts with environmental factors to drive human
development and well-being need to be carried out. This is an ambitious agenda for future research
but we hope scholars will follow and join us in our own future research endeavors.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that
might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.
184 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We are grateful for the constructive comments provided by Fred Morgeson and Ben Schneider on
an earlier version of this review. The preparation of this review was partially funded by Singapore
Ministry of Education research grants (R-317-000-085-112 and R-317-000-95-112) and by the
National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 71072024). However, any opinions, find-
ings, and conclusions or recommendations in this review are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the funding agencies.
LITERATURE CITED
Arthur MB, Rousseau DM. 1996. The Boundaryless Career: A New Employment Principle for a New Organizational
Era. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press
Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ. 1994. Genetics, twins, and organizational behavior. Res. Organ. Behav. 16:47–82
Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ, Segal NL, Abraham LM. 1989. Job satisfaction: environmental and genetic compo-
nents. J. Appl. Psychol. 74:187–92
Arvey RD, McCall BP, Bouchard TJ, Taubman P, Cavanaugh MA. 1994. Genetic influences on job satisfaction
and work values. Personal. Individ. Diff. 17:21–33
Arvey RD, Rotundo M, Johnson W, Zhang Z, McGue M. 2006. The determinants of leadership role occu-
pancy: genetic and personality factors. Leadersh. Q. 17:1–20
Arvey RD, Zhang Z, Avolio BJ, Krueger RF. 2007. Developmental and genetic determinants of leadership
role occupancy among women. J. Appl. Psychol. 92:693–706
Barrick MR, Mount MK. 1991. The Big Five personality dimensions and job performance: a meta-analysis.
Pers. Psychol. 44:1–26
Bateman TS, Crant JM. 1993. The proactive component of organizational behavior: a measure and correlates.
J. Organ. Behav. 14:103–18
Bates TC, Lewis GJ, Weiss A. 2013. Childhood socioeconomic status amplifies genetic effects on adult intel-
ligence. Psychol. Sci. 24:2111–16
Beaver KM, Barnes JC, Schwartz JA, Boutwell BB. 2015. Enlisting in the military: the influential role of
genetic factors. Sage Open 5(2):1–8
Becker WJ, Cropanzano R, Sanfey AG. 2011. Organizational neuroscience: taking organizational theory inside
the neural black box. J. Manag. 37:933–61
Bergen SE, Gardner CO, Kendler KS. 2007. Age-related changes in heritability of behavioral phenotypes
over adolescence and young adulthood: a meta-analysis. Twin Res. Hum. Genet. 10:423–33
Bleidorn W, Kandler C, Caspi A. 2014. The behavioural genetics of personality development in adulthood-
classic, contemporary, and future trends. Eur. J. Pers. 28(3):244–55
Bouchard TJ. 1997. Experience producing drive theory: how genes drive experience and shape personality.
Acta Paediatr. 86(S422):60–64
Bouchard TJ. 2004. Genetic influence on human psychological traits. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13:148–51
Bouchard TJ. 2013. The Wilson effect: the increase in heritability of IQ with age. Twin Res. Hum. Genet.
16:923–30
Bouchard TJ, McGue M, Hur YM, Horn JM. 1998. A genetic and environmental analysis of the California
Psychological Inventory using adult twins reared apart and together. Eur. J. Pers. 12:307–20
Carey G, DiLalla DL. 1994. Personality and psychopathology: genetic perspectives. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 103:32–
43
Carter HD. 1932. Twin similarities in occupational interests. J. Educ. Psychol. 23:641–55
Carver CS, Johnson SL, Joormann J, Kim Y, Nam JY. 2011. Serotonin transporter polymorphism interacts
with childhood adversity to predict aspects of impulsivity. Psychol. Sci. 22:589–95
Caspi A, Sugden K, Moffitt TE, Taylor A, Craig IW, et al. 2003. Influence of life stress on depression:
moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science 301:386–89
Chaturvedi S, Arvey RD, Zhang Z, Christoforou PT. 2011. Genetic underpinnings of transformational lead-
ership: the mediating role of dispositional hope. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 18:469–79

Chaturvedi S, Zyphur MJ, Arvey RD, Avolio BJ, Larsson G. 2012. The heritability of emergent leadership:
age and gender as moderating factors. Leadersh. Q. 23:219–32
Clark B, Barney CE, Reddington T. 2016. The ethical implications of using genetic information in personnel
selection. Ethics Behav. 26(2):144–62
Colarelli SM, Arvey RD. 2015. The Biological Foundations of Organizational Behavior. Chicago: Univ. Chicago
Press
Davis GF. 2015. What is organizational research for? Adm. Sci. Q. 60:179–88
De Neve J-E, Mikhaylov S, Dawes CT, Christakis NA, Fowler JH. 2013. Born to lead? A twin design and
genetic association study of leadership role occupancy. Leadersh. Q. 24:45–60
Deary IJ, Johnson W, Houlihan LM. 2009. Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Hum. Genet. 126:215–
32
Dimotakis N, Schatten J, Arvey RD. 2015. Genetic factors in organizational psychology. In International
Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, ed. JD Wright, pp. 919–25. Oxford: Elsevier
Eaves LJ, Long J, Heath AC. 1986. A theory of developmental change in quantitative phenotypes applied to
cognitive development. Behav. Genet. 16(1):143–62
Ebstein RP, Israel S, Chew SH, Zhong S, Knafo A. 2010. Genetics of human social behavior. Neuron 65:831–44
Edwards JR. 2008. Person–environment fit in organizations: an assessment of theoretical progress.
Acad. Manag. Ann. 2:167–230
Evans WE, Relling MV. 2004. Moving towards individualized medicine with pharmacogenomics. Nature
429:464–68
Finkel D, McGue M. 1997. Sex differences and nonadditivity in heritability of the Multidimensional Person-
ality Questionnaire Scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72:929–38
Fowler JH, Dawes CT. 2013. In defense of genopolitics. Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 107:1–13
George JM. 1992. The role of personality in organizational life: issues and evidence. J. Manag. 18:185–213
Gerhart B. 2005. The (affective) dispositional approach to job satisfaction: sorting out the policy implications.
J. Organ. Behav. 26:79–97
Gottesman I, Shields J. 1972. Schizophrenia and Genetics: A Twin Study Vantage Point. New York: Academic
Gottfredson LS. 1997. Why g matters: the complexity of everyday life. Intelligence 24:79–132
Hahn E, Gottschling J, König CJ, Spinath FM. 2015. The heritability of job satisfaction reconsidered: only
unique environmental influences beyond personality. J. Bus. Psychol. doi: 10.1007/s10869-015-9413-x
Heaphy ED, Dutton JE. 2008. Positive social interactions and the human body at work: linking organizations
and physiology. Acad. Manag. Rev. 33:137–62
Hershberger SL, Lichtenstein P, Knox SS. 1994. Genetic and environmental influences on perceptions of
organizational climate. J. Appl. Psychol. 79:24–33
Hoffman LW. 1991. The influence of the family environment on personality: accounting for sibling differences.
Psychol. Bull. 110:187–203
Holland JL. 1996. Exploring careers with a typology: what we have learned and some new directions. Am.
Psychol. 51:397–406
Hulin CL, Judge TA. 2003. Job attitudes. In Handbook of Psychology, ed. WC Borman, DR Ilgen, RJ Klimoski,
pp. 255–67. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
Humphrey SE, Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP. 2007. Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work
design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. J. Appl.
Psychol. 92:1332–56
Ilies R, Arvey RD, Bouchard TJ. 2006. Darwinism, behavioral genetics, and organizational behavior: a review
and agenda for future research. J. Organ. Behav. 27:121–41
Ilies R, Judge TA. 2003. On the heritability of job satisfaction: the mediating role of personality. J. Appl.
Psychol. 88:750–59
Jocklin V, McGue M, Lykken DT. 1996. Personality and divorce: a genetic analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
71:288–99
Johnson AM, Vernon PA, McCarthy JM, Molson M, Harris JA, Jang KJ. 1998. Nature vs. nurture: Are leaders
born or made? A behavior genetic investigation of leadership style. Twin Res., 1:216–23
Johnson W. 2010. Understanding the genetics of intelligence: Can height help? Can corn oil? Curr. Dir.
Psychol. Sci. 19:177–82
186 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
Johnson W, Penke L, Spinath FM. 2011. Heritability in the era of molecular genetics: some thoughts for
understanding genetic influences on behavioural traits. Eur. J. Pers. 25:254–66
Johnson W, Turkheimer E, Gottesman II, Bouchard TJ. 2009. Beyond heritability: twin studies in behavioral
research. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 18:217–20
Joseph J. 2002. Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: science or pseudoscience? Psychatr. Q. 73:71–82
Judge TA, Bono JE, Ilies R, Gerhardt MW. 2002. Personality and leadership: a qualitative and quantitative
review. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:765–80
Judge TA, Higgins CA, Thoresen CJ, Barrick MR. 1999. The Big Five personality traits, general mental
ability, and career success across the life span. Pers. Psychol. 52(3):621–52
Judge TA, Hulin CL, Dalal RS. 2012a. Job satisfaction and job affect. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational
Psychology, ed. SWJ Kozlowski, pp. 496–525. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Judge TA, Ilies R, Zhang Z. 2012b. Genetic influences on core self-evaluations, job satisfaction, and work
stress: a behavioral genetics mediated model. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 117:208–20
Judge TA, Locke EA, Durham CC. 1997. The dispositional causes of job satisfaction: a core evaluations
approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:151–88

Kandler C. 2012. Nature and nurture in personality development: the case of neuroticism and extraversion.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 21:290–96
Karasek RA. 1979. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: implications for job redesign.
Adm. Sci. Q. 24:285–308
Karasek RA, Theorell T. 1990. Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity, and the Reconstruction of Working Life. New
York: Basic Books
Keller LM, Bouchard TJ, Arvey RD, Segal NL, Dawis RV. 1992. Work values: genetic and environmental
influences. J. Appl. Psychol. 77:79–88
Kendler KS, Neale MC, Kessler RC, Heath AC, Eaves LJ. 1994. Parental treatment and the equal environment
assumption in twin studies of psychiatric illness. Psychol. Med. 24:579–90
Kim HS, Sherman DK, Sasaki JY, Xu J, Chu TQ, et al. 2010. Culture, distress, and oxytocin receptor poly-
morphism (OXTR) interact to influence emotional support seeking. PNAS 107:15717–21
Kinicki AJ, McKee-Ryan FM, Schriesheim CA, Carson KP. 2002. Assessing the construct validity of the job
descriptive index: a review and meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 87:14–32
Kovas Y, Plomin R. 2007. Learning abilities and disabilities: generalist genes, specialist environments.
Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 16:284–88
Kristof-Brown AL, Guay RP. 2010. Person-environment fit. In APA Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, ed. S Zedeck, pp. 3–50. Washington, DC: APA
Lawler EE. 1974. The individualized organization: problems and promise. Calif. Manag. Rev. 17:31–39
Lewin K. 1935. A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York: McGraw-Hill
Li WD, Arvey RD, Zhang Z, Song Z. 2012. Do leadership role occupancy and transformational leadership
share the same genetic and environmental influences? Leadersh. Q. 23:233–43
Li WD, Fay D, Frese M, Harms PD, Gao X. 2014. Reciprocal relationships between proactive personality
and work characteristics: a latent change score approach. J. Appl. Psychol. 99:948–65
Li WD, Stanek K, Ones DS, Zhang Z, Johnson W, McGue M. 2015a. Are genetic and environmental in-
fluences on job satisfaction stable over time? A three-wave longitudinal twin study. J. Appl. Psychol. doi:
10.5465/AMBPP.2015.11821abstract. In press
Li WD, Wang N, Arvey R, Soong R, Saw SM, Song Z. 2015b. A mixed blessing? Dual mediating mechanisms
in the relationship between dopamine transporter gene DAT1 and leadership role occupancy. Leadersh.
Q. 26:671–86
Li WD, Zhang Z, Song Z, Arvey R. 2016. It’s also in our nature: genetic effects on work characteristics and
in explaining their relationships with well-being. J. Organ. Behav. doi/10.1002/job.2079
Loehlin JC. 1992. Genes and Environment in Personality Development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publ.
Loehlin JC. 2007. The strange case of c2 = 0: What does it imply for views of human development? Res. Hum.
Dev. 4:151–62
Lykken DT, Bouchard T, McGue M, Tellegen A. 1993. Heritability of interests: a twin study. J. Appl. Psychol.
78:649–61

McCall BP, Cavanaugh MA, Arvey RD, Taubman P. 1997. Genetic influences on job and occupational
switching. J. Vocat. Behav. 50:60–77
McCormick EJ, Jeanneret PR, Mecham RC. 1972. A study of job characteristics and job dimensions as based
on the Position Analysis Questionnaire (PAQ). J. Appl. Psychol. 56:347–68
McCrae RR, Scally M, Terracciano A, Abecasis GR, Costa PT Jr. 2010. An alternative to the search for
single polymorphisms: toward molecular personality scales for the five-factor model. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
99:1014–24
McGue M, Bouchard TJ, Iacono WG, Lykken DT. 1993. Behavioral genetics of cognitive ability: a life-span
perspective. In Nature, Nurture, and Psychology, ed. R Plomin, GE McClearn, pp. 59–76. Washington,
DC: APA
McGue M, Osler M, Christensen K. 2010. Causal inference and observational research: the utility of twins.
Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5(5):546–56
Mitchell TR, James LR. 2001. Building better theory: time and the specification of when things happen.
Acad. Manag. Rev. 26:530–47
Moloney DP, Bouchard TJ, Segal NL. 1991. A genetic and environmental analysis of the vocational interests
of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reared apart. J. Vocat. Behav. 39:76–109

Morgeson FP, Garza AS, Campion MA. 2012. Work design. In Handbook of Psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, ed. N Schmitt, S Highhouse, pp. 525–59. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 2nd ed.
Munafò MR, Yalcin B, Willis-Owen SA, Flint J. 2008. Association of the Dopamine D4 Receptor (DRD4)
gene and approach-related personality traits: meta-analysis and new data. Biol. Psychiatry 63:197–206
Neale MC, Cardon LR. 1992. Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. Dordrecht, Neth.: Kluwer
Acad.
Nichols RC. 1978. Twin studies of ability, personality and interests. Homo 29:158–73
Nicolaou N, Shane S. 2010. Entrepreneurship and occupational choice: genetic and environmental influences.
J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 76:3–14
Nicolaou N, Shane S, Adi G, Mangino M, Harris J. 2011. A polymorphism associated with entrepreneurship:
evidence from dopamine receptor candidate genes. Small Bus. Econ. 36:151–55
Nicolaou N, Shane S, Cherkas L, Spector TD. 2008. The influence of sensation seeking in the heritability of
entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 2:7–21
Nicolaou N, Shane S, Cherkas L, Spector TD. 2009. Opportunity recognition and the tendency to be an
entrepreneur: a bivariate genetics perspective. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 110:108–17
Olson JM, Vernon PA, Harris JA, Jang KL. 2001. The heritability of attitudes: a study of twins. J. Personal.
Soc. Psychol. 80:845–60
Parker SK, Andrei D, Li WD. 2014. An overdue overhaul: revamping work design theory from a time per-
spective. In Time and Work: How Time Impacts Individuals, ed. AJ Shipp, Y Fried, pp. 191–228. New York:
Psychology Press
Plomin R, DeFries JC, Knopic VS, Neiderhiser JM. 2013a. Behavioral Genetics. New York: Worth
Plomin R, Haworth CM, Meaburn EL, Price TS, Davis OS. 2013b. Common DNA markers can account for
more than half of the genetic influence on cognitive abilities. Psychol. Sci. 24:562–68
Plomin R, Owen MJ, McGuffin P. 1994. The genetic basis of complex human behaviors. Science 264:1733–39
Plomin R, Spinath FM. 2004. Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86(1):112–29
Polderman TJC, Benyamin B, De Leeuw CA, Sullivan PF, van Bochoven A, et al. 2015. Meta-analysis of the
heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat. Genet. 47:702–9
Reiss D. 2010. Introduction to the special issue: genetics, personalized medicine, and behavioral intervention—
Can this combination improve patient care? Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5:499–501
Riemann R, Angleitner A, Borkenau P, Eid M. 1998. Genetic and environmental sources of consistency and
variability in positive and negative mood. Eur. J. Pers. 12:345–64
Rietveld CA, Medland SE, Derringer J, Yang J, Esko T, et al. 2013. GWAS of 126,559 individuals identifies
genetic variants associated with educational attainment. Science 340:1467–71
Rousseau DM. 2005. I-Deals: Idiosyncratic Deals Employees Negotiate for Themselves. New York: M. E. Sharpe
Scarr S, Carter-Saltzman L. 1979. Twin method: defense of a critical assumption. Behav. Genet. 9(6):527–42
Scarr S, McCartney K. 1983. How people make their own environments: a theory of genotype → environment
effects. Child Dev. 54(2):424–35
188 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
Schmidt FL, Hunter J. 2004. General mental ability in the world of work: occupational attainment and job
performance. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 86:162–73
Schneider B. 1987. The people make the place. Pers. Psychol. 40:437–53
Schneider B, Goldstein HW, Smith DB. 1995. The ASA framework: an update. Pers. Psychol. 48:747–73
Senior C, Lee N, Butler MJR. 2011. Organizational cognitive neuroscience. Organ. Sci. 22:804–15
Sesardic N. 2005. Making Sense of Heritability. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Shane S, Nicolaou N. 2015. Creative personality, opportunity recognition and the tendency to start businesses:
a study of their genetic predispositions. J. Bus. Venturing 30:407–19
Shane S, Nicolaou N, Cherkas L, Spector TD. 2010. Genetics, the Big Five, and the tendency to be self-
employed. J. Appl. Psychol. 95:1154–62
Song Z, Li WD, Arvey RD. 2011. Associations between dopamine and serotonin genes and job satisfaction:
preliminary evidence from the Add Health Study. J. Appl. Psychol. 96:1223–33
Sonnentag S. 2012. Time in organizational research: catching up on a long neglected topic in order to improve
theory. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2:361–68
Staw BM. 2004. The dispositional approach to job attitudes: an empirical and conceptual review. In Personality
and Organization, ed. B Schneider, B Smitt, pp. 163–91. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Staw BM, Ross J. 1985. Stability in the midst of change: a dispositional approach to job attitudes. J. Appl.
Psychol. 70:469–80
Sturman MC. 2007. The past, present, and future of dynamic performance research. In Research in Personnel
and Human Resources Management, ed. JJ Martocchio, pp. 49–110. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publ.
Taylor J, Roehrig A, Hensler BS, Connor C, Schatschneider C. 2010. Teacher quality moderates the genetic
effects on early reading. Science 328:512–14
Thompson LF, Zhang Z, Arvey RD. 2011. Genetic underpinnings of survey response. J. Organ. Behav.
32:395–412
Tucker-Drob EM, Briley DA, Harden KP. 2013. Genetic and environmental influences on cognition across
development and context. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 22:349–55
Turkheimer E. 2000. Three laws of behavior genetics and what they mean. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 9:160–64
Turkheimer E, Pettersson E, Horn EE. 2014. A phenotypic null hypothesis for the genetics of personality.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65:515–40
van der Loos MJHM, Koellinger PD, Groenen PJF, Rietveld CA, Rivadeneira F, et al. 2011. Candidate gene
studies and the quest for the entrepreneurial gene. Small Bus. Econ. 37:269–75
Vandenberg SG, Stafford RE. 1967. Hereditary influences on vocational preferences as shown by scores of
twins on the Minnesota Vocational Interest Inventory. J. Appl. Psychol. 51:17
van der Loos MJHM, Rietveld CA, Eklund N, Koellinger PD, Rivadeneira F, et al. 2013. The molecular
genetic architecture of self-employment. PLOS ONE 8(4):e60542
Vukasović T, Bratko D. 2015. Heritability of personality: a meta-analysis of behavior genetic studies. Psychol.
Bull. 141:1–17
Waldman DA, Balthazard PA, Peterson SJ. 2011. Leadership and neuroscience: Can we revolutionize the way
that inspirational leaders are identified and developed? Acad. Manag. Perspect. 25:60–74
Waller NG, Lykken DT, Tellegen A. 1995. Occupational interests, leisure time interests, and personality:
Three domains or one? Findings from the Minnesota Twin Registry. In Assessing Individual Differences in
Human Behavior: New Concepts, Methods, and Findings, ed. RV Dawis, DJ Lubinski, pp. 233–59. Palo Alto,
CA: Davies-Black Publ.
Watson D, Wiese D, Vaidya J, Tellegen A. 1999. The two general activation systems of affect: structural
findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 76:820–38
Weiss HM, Rupp DE. 2011. Experiencing work: an essay on a person-centric work psychology. Ind. Organ.
Psychol.: Perspect. Sci. Pract. 4:83–97
Wilk SL, Desmarais LB, Sackett PR. 1995. Gravitation of jobs commensurate with ability: longitudinal and
cross-sectional tests. J. Appl. Psychol. 80:79–85
Wilson RS. 1978. Synchronies in mental development: an epigenetic perspective. Science 202:939–48
Wrzesniewski A, Dutton JE. 2001. Crafting a job: revisioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad.
Manag. Rev. 26:179–201

Zaheer S, Albert S, Zaheer A. 1999. Time scales and organizational theory. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24:725–41
Zhang Z, Ilies R, Arvey RD. 2009a. Beyond genetic explanations for leadership: the moderating role of the
social environment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 110:118–28
Zhang Z, Zyphur MJ, Narayanan J, Arvey RD, Chaturvedi S, et al. 2009b. The genetic basis of entrepreneur-
ship: effects of gender and personality. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 110:93–107
Zyphur MJ, Li W-D, Zhang Z, Arvey RD, Barsky AP. 2015. Income, personality, and subjective financial
well-being: the role of gender in their genetic and environmental relationships. Front. Psychol. 6:1–16
Zyphur MJ, Narayanan J, Koh G, Koh D. 2009. Testosterone-status mismatch lowers collective efficacy in
groups: evidence from a slope-as-predictor multilevel structural equation model. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Decis. Process. 110:70–79
Zyphur MJ, Zhang Z, Barsky AP, Li W-D. 2013. An ACE in the hole: twin family models for applied behavioral
genetics research. Leadersh. Q. 24:572–94
190 Arvey · ·
Li Wang
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Annual Review
of Organizational
Psychology and
Organizational
Behavior
Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Autobiographical Look at the Direction of Organizational Research
Barry M. Staw p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Team-Centric Leadership: An Integrative Review
Steve W.J. Kozlowski, Stanton Mak, and Georgia T. Chao p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
Mindfulness in Organizations: A Cross-Level Review
Kathleen M. Sutcliffe, Timothy J. Vogus, and Erik Dane p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p55
Themes in Expatriate and Repatriate Research over Four Decades:
What Do We Know and What Do We Still Need to Learn?
Maria Kraimer, Mark Bolino, and Brandon Mead p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p83
Identity Under Construction: How Individuals Come to Define
Themselves in Organizations
Blake E. Ashforth and Beth S. Schinoff p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 111
Dyadic Relationships
Robert C. Liden, Smriti Anand, and Prajya Vidyarthi p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
Genetics and Organizational Behavior
Richard D. Arvey, Wen-Dong Li, and Nan Wang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Safety Climate in Organizations
Mark A. Griffin and Matteo Curcuruto p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 191
To Seek or Not to Seek: Is That the Only Question? Recent
Developments in Feedback-Seeking Literature
Susan J. Ashford, Katleen De Stobbeleir, and Mrudula Nujella p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Dynamic Modeling
Mo Wang, Le Zhou, and Zhen Zhang p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Learner Control and e-Learning: Taking Stock and Moving Forward
Kenneth G. Brown, Garett Howardson, and Sandra L. Fisher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 267
vii
OP03-FrontMatter ARI 4 March 2016 14:16
Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

John Antonakis, Nicolas Bastardoz, Philippe Jacquart, and Boas Shamir p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
The Nonconscious at Work
Michael G. Pratt and Eliana Crosina p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 321
How Technology Is Changing Work and Organizations
Wayne F. Cascio and Ramiro Montealegre p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 349
Impression Management in Organizations: Critical Questions,
Answers, and Areas for Future Research
Mark Bolino, David Long, and William Turnley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 377
Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What

We Need to Know
Filip Lievens and Jerel E. Slaughter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407

The Social Context of Decisions
Richard P. Larrick p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 441
Adaptive Measurement and Assessment
Matt Barney and William P. Fisher Jr. p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Errata
An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

Organizational Behavior articles may be found at http://www.annualreviews.org/
errata/orgpsych
viii Contents

Arvey Et Al. - 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Arvey Et Al. - 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

OP03CH07-Arvey ARI 25 February 2016 13:9

Richard D. Arvey,1 Wen-Dong Li,2 and Nan Wang1

Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016. Keywords

1 for identical twin group

Job attitudetwin1 Job attitudetwin2

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 169

WHY DO WE NEED GENETIC APPROACHES

REVIEW OF PRIOR RESEARCH

Personality, Affectivity, and Cognitive Constructs

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 171

Genetic Influences on Specific Organizational Behavior Related Variables

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 173

Entrepreneurship. Similar with leadership researchers, entrepreneurship researchers have also

substantial genetic effects underlying entrepreneurship.

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 175

Recent Trends in Genetics Research on Organizational

Genetic influences in explaining relationships of two variables related to work. Examining

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 177

a11 e21 a22 e22 a11 e21 a22 e22

Job demandstwin1 Well-beingtwin1 Job demandstwin2 Well-beingtwin2

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 179

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 181

ONGOING ISSUES, CHALLENGES, AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Other Potential Uses of Twin Study Designs for Organizational

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 183

Future Research Directions

portant OB constructs should be conducted as a way to study gene-environment interactions.

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 185

approach. Res. Organ. Behav. 19:151–88

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 187

of monozygotic and dizygotic twins reared apart. J. Vocat. Behav. 39:76–109

www.annualreviews.org • Genetics and Organizational Behavior 189

Contents Volume 3, 2016

Stumbling Toward a Social Psychology of Organizations: An

Charisma: An Ill-Defined and Ill-Measured Gift

Employer Image and Employer Branding: What We Know and What

Filip Lievens and Jerel E. Slaughter p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 407

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and

You might also like