the environments that we experience in common with family mem-
bers but environments that affect us one individual at a time. Both
genes and environments thus contribute to our uniqueness. More-
over, it is the genetic influences on our behavior, not the non-
genetic ones, that seem to cumulate over time, meaning that the
phenotypes for some of our core traits move ever closer to our geno-
types with advancing age (for instance, the genotype-phenotype
correlation,h,for intelligence rises from 0.4 in early childhood to
0.9 by late adulthood, on a scale from 0 to 1.0). Behavioral geneti-
cists theorize that this increase results from individuals seeking and
creating environments that bring out and reinforce their genetic
proclivities. Career theories that emphasize shared family influences
and passive learning as the source of individual differences in
career-related behavior cannot, therefore, explain the most impor-
tant precursors to career development (Rowe, 1997).
Modern Nature-Nurture
Partnership Theory of Individual Differences
The nature-nurture partnership theory rejects the view that indi-
viduals are effects and that rearing environments are their causes.
Instead, it conceives of both individuals and environments as mutual
creations of the other and as emerging simultaneously from an indi-
vidual’s stream of experience. This view is illustrated in the bottom
panel of Figure 4.5 by the alternating succession of “traits” and
“experiences.” The “genes-drive-experience” version of nature-nur-
ture partnership theory (Bouchard, Lykken, Tellegen, & McGue,
1996) emphasizes how people’s genetic individuality shapes their
experiences (shown by the arrows in Figure 4.5 from genes to envi-
ronments and experiences). Genetically distinct individuals evoke
and create different environments for themselves, as noted earlier.
Scarr’s “niche-seeking” version of the theory (Scarr, 1997; Scarr &
McCartney, 1983) emphasizes the cumulative life-course ramifica-
tions of ceaselessly tending toward experiences that comport better
GOTTFREDSON’S THEORY OF CIRCUMSCRIPTION, COMPROMISE, AND SELF-CREATION 115