When children are unmotivated at school, new research suggests their genes may be part of the equation.
A study of more than 13,000 twins from six countries found that 40 to 50 percent of the differences in children’s motivation to learn could be explained by their genetic inheritance from their parents.
The results surprised study co-author Stephen Petrill, who thought before the study that the twins’ shared environment – such as the family and teachers that they had in common – would be a larger factor than genetics.
Instead, genetics and nonshared environment factors had the largest effect on learning motivation, whereas the shared environment had negligible impact.
“We had pretty consistent findings across these different countries with their different educational systems and different cultures. It was surprising,” said Petrill, who is a professor of psychology at The Ohio State University.
The results strongly suggest that we should think twice before automatically blaming parents, teachers and the children themselves for students who aren’t motivated in class.
“The knee-jerk reaction is to say someone is not properly motivating the student, or the child himself is responsible,” Petrill said.
“We found that there are personality differences that people inherit that have a major impact on motivation. That doesn’t mean we don’t try to encourage and inspire students, but we have to deal with the reality of why they’re different.”
The findings appear in the July 2015 issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences.
The study involved separate studies of twins aged 9 to 16 in the United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, Germany, Russia and the United States. The study methodology and questions in each country were slightly different, but all measured similar concepts.
In all the countries, students completed a measure of how much they enjoyed various academic activities. For example, in Germany, students rated how much they liked reading, writing and spelling.
All students were also asked to rate their own ability in different subjects in school. For example, in the United States, students were asked to rate how much they agreed with statements like “I know that I will do well in reading next year.”
The researchers compared how close the answers were for fraternal twins – who share half their inherited genes, on average – with identical twins, who share all of their inherited genes. To the extent that identical twins’ answers were more closely matched than those of fraternal twins, that suggests a stronger genetic effect.
The results were strikingly similar across all six countries with children of all ages, Petrill said. On average, 40 to 50 percent of the difference between twins in motivation could be explained by genetics. About the same percentage could be explained by what is called the twins’ nonshared environment – for example, differential parenting or a teacher that one twin has but not the other. Only about 3 percent could be explained by their shared environment, such as their common family experience.
“Most personality variables have a genetic component, but to have nearly no shared environment component is unexpected,” Petrill said. “But it was consistent across all six countries.”
The results don’t mean there is a gene for how much children enjoy learning, he said. But the findings suggest a complex process, involving many genes and gene-environment interactions, that help influence children’s motivation to learn.
“We should absolutely encourage students and motivate them in the classroom. But these findings suggest the mechanisms for how we do that may be more complicated than we had previously thought,” he said.
Petrill had 25 co-authors from institutions in all six countries. The lead author was Yulia Kovas, a professor of psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London.
The study was partially supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Development.
I don’t think it is correct to say that genetics influence a student’s learning motivation, motivation is completely abstract and depends on a person’s attitude and their attitude towards a certain subject. It would be better to say that genetics influence a student’s learning capabilities. If for example you are able to remember study material well, then it would be easier for you to study and with an interesting subject, will lead to motivation to learn. In the case of identical twins, both of them will find it easy to learn and so influences motivation. With fraternal twins one might find it more difficult to learn or study than the other and this will lead to decreased motivation towards academics but then perhaps increase motivation in practical learning.
coming to think of it logically, this study might be true. just saying.
i agree with the study,because according to researchers 40% of the child’s intelligence is inherited and obviously if you find parents who did not go to school and do not put education as a first priority it is obvious that the child will not be motivated because he or she will not see the meaning of going to school.
Intriguing indeed. I personally think that this is a mental illness which goes with low self esteem due to some social factors associated with physical appearance in teenagers for example. But then a lot of proves are needed for such a case before conclusions are drawn.
15301878
This is rather interesting… when you come to think of it logically; people with different genetic make-up controlling their intellectual and cognitive processes would have different responses/ approaches to different skill-based tasks. Which would explain why they would have to be motivated in ways that appeal to their cognitive responses: that’s how I understand this whole thing. Cece, don’t you think it makes sense this way ?
I previously thought motivation depended on the motivation and cause, if this study is true we certainly have a long way to go in understanding human behaviour.
This studies are just another reason for people to assume that they understand how humans were created to be.
@MATUBA-TUBA: Like you are saying that kids should not know the information of this study, how is that since everybody has access to the internet?
This study is not to be known by school kids because they will make not enjoying school because of genes an excuse why they do not perform well in their studies.
I dont understand this study. How can a conclusion be drawn from studies of different methodology but similar concepts? The study methodologies should be similar too regardless of how different the countries are.
This is nonsensical. How can one possibly blame the fact that kids don’t enjoy school on their genetic inheritance. kids simply don’t enjoy school because they can not relate with any of the stuff being taught in schools and since they can not relate then to them there is a lack of interest that is shown towards school itself. people should just stop trying to “scientifically” justify things which are plain and simple.