MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410517887 · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2025.113260

The heritability of hope: Exploring genetics and the environment as sources of variation

2025· article· en· W4410517887 on OpenAlexafffund
Sereena Dargan, Julie Aitken Schermer

Bibliographic record

VenuePersonality and Individual Differences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCognitive Abilities and Testing
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilVersus ArthritisHorizon 2020National Institute for Health and Care ResearchChronic Disease Research FoundationSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsHeritabilityVariation (astronomy)PsychologyBehavioural geneticsEvolutionary biologyDevelopmental psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the heritability of cognitive trait hope and its agency and pathway components by estimating the effects of genetics and the environment on observed variation. Although hope is recognized as an important character strength positively associated with psychological health and well-being, little is understood about the contributions of genetics relative to the environment in shaping individual differences. Using a classic twin design, data was analyzed from 637 monozygotic (MZ) and 280 dizygotic (DZ) same-sex adult twin pairs. Structural equation modelling estimated a 41–43 % heritability for trait hope, with the remaining variance (57–59 %) being attributed to the unique environment. The findings align with broader patterns from behavioural genetics research in personality. Future investigations incorporating behaviour genetics approaches to explore hope's development and associations with other protective and risk factors for mental health are discussed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.371

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.090
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePersonality and Individual DifferencesSame topicCognitive Abilities and TestingFrench-language works237,207