Abstract
Background On average taller individuals have been repeatedly found to have higher scores on cognitive assessments, yet it is unclear whether the magnitude of this association has systematically changed across time. Recent studies have found that this association can be explained by genetic factors, yet this does not preclude the influence of environmental or social factors that affect the genome. We tested whether the association between cognition and height has weakened across time.
Methods We used four British birth cohorts (born 1946c, 1958c, 1970c, and 2001) with comparable data available at 10/11 and 14/17 years (N = 41,418). Height was measured at each age, and cognition via verbal reasoning (10/11 years) and vocabulary/comprehension scales (14/16 years) and via mathematical tests at both ages. We constructed age-adjusted height and cognition measures and converted cognition measures to ridit scores to aid interpretation. We then used linear and quantile regression to investigate whether cross-sectional associations between cognition and height differed in each cohort, sequentially adjusting for sex, childhood socioeconomic position, and maternal and paternal height.
Results Taller participants had higher mean cognitive assessment scores in childhood and adolescence, yet the associations were weaker in later (1970c and 2001c) cohorts – after adjustment for sex the mean difference in height comparing the highest with lowest verbal cognition scores at 10/11 years was 0.57 SD (95% CI = 0.44, 0.7) in the 1946c, 0.59 SD (0.52, 0.65) in the 1958c, 0.47 SD (0.41, 0.53) in the 1970c, 0.30 SD (0.23, 0.37) in the 2001c. This pattern of change in association was observed across all specifications (ages 10/11 and 14/16 years, and for each cognition measure used), and was robust to adjustment for social class and parental height, and modelling of plausible missing-not-at-random scenarios. Quantile regression suggested that these average differences were driven by differences in the lower centiles of height. This pattern was most evident in older cohorts – for example, in 1958c, the difference in height was 0.73 SD (0.64, 0.82) at the 10th centile, yet 0.46 SD (0.34, 0.57) at the 90th centile.
Conclusion Associations between height and cognitive assessment scores in childhood-adolescence weakened by at least half from 1957 to 2018. These results support the notion that environmental and social change can markedly weaken associations between cognition and other traits.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
DB is supported by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number ES/M001660/1); DB and LW by the Medical Research Council (MR/V002147/1). NMD works in a unit that receives support from the University of Bristol and the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/1) and is supported by a Norwegian Research Council Grant number 295989. VM is supported by the CLOSER Innovation Fund WP19 which is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (award reference: ES/K000357/1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Data files are available through the UK Data Service (1958c, 1970c, and 2001c; https://www.data-archive.ac.uk/) and via application (1946c; https://skylark.ucl.ac.uk/).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵# Joint Senior Authors
Data Availability
Data files are available online via the UK Data Service (1958c, 1970c, and 2001c; https://www.data-archive.ac.uk/) and via application (1946c; https://skylark.ucl.ac.uk/).