Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T12:32:53.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic and environmental influences on sociopolitical attitudes

Addressing some gaps in the new paradigm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2018

Edward Bell ,
Christian Kandler  and
Rainer Riemann
Edward Bell*
Affiliation:
Brescia University College at Western University
Christian Kandler
Affiliation:
MSB Medical School Berlin and University of Bremen
Rainer Riemann
Affiliation:
Bielefeld University
*
Correspondence: Edward Bell, School of Behavioral and Social Sciences, Brescia University College at Western University, London, Canada. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

A new paradigm has emerged in which both genetic and environmental factors are cited as possible influences on sociopolitical attitudes. Despite the increasing acceptance of this paradigm, several aspects of the approach remain underdeveloped. Specifically, limitations arise from a reliance on a twins-only design, and all previous studies have used self-reports only. There are also questions about the extent to which existing findings generalize cross-culturally. To address those issues, this study examined individual differences in liberalism/conservatism in a German sample that included twins, their parents, and their spouses and incorporated both self- and peer reports. The self-report findings from this extended twin family design were largely consistent with previous research that used that rater perspective, but they provided higher estimates of heritability, shared parental environmental influences, assortative mating, and genotype-environment correlation than the results from peer reports. The implications of these findings for the measurement and understanding of sociopolitical attitudes are explored.

Keywords

political attitudesheritabilitybehavior geneticsliberalism/conservatismextended twin family design
Type
Article
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 37 , Issue 2 , Fall 2018 , pp. 236 - 249
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Haidt, J., The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion (New York: Pantheon, 2012).Google Scholar
Janoff-Bulman, R., “To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political liberalism and conservatism,” Psychological Inquiry , 2009, 20: 120–128.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, B., Right-Wing Authoritarianism (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E., The American Voter (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1960).Google Scholar
Hyman, H., Political Socialization (New York: Free Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Jennings, M. K. and Niemi, R. G., “The transmission of political values from parent to child,” American Political Science Review , 1968, 62: 169–184.Google Scholar
Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., and Sanford, N., The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950).Google Scholar
Duriez, B., Soenens, B., and Vansteenkiste, M., “In search of the antecedents of adolescent authoritarianism: The relative contribution of parental goal promotion and parenting style dimensions,” European Journal of Personality , 2007, 21: 507–527.Google Scholar
Fraley, R. C., Griffin, B. N., Belsky, J., and Roisman, G. I., “Developmental antecedents of political ideology: A longitudinal investigation from birth to age 18 years,” Psychological Science , 2012, 23: 1425–1431.Google Scholar
Oesterreich, D., “Flight into security: A new approach and measure of the authoritarian personality,” Political Psychology , 2005, 26: 275–297.Google Scholar
Duckitt, J. and Sibley, C. G., “Personality, ideology, prejudice and politics: A dual process motivational model,” Journal of Personality , 2010, 78: 1861–1893.Google Scholar
Haidt.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Kruglanski, A. W., Glaser, J., and Sulloway, F. J., “Political conservatism as motivated social cognition,” Psychological Bulletin , 2003, 129: 339–375.Google Scholar
McClosky, H., “Conservatism and personality,” American Political Science Review , 1958, 52: 27–45.Google Scholar
Aarøe, L., Peterson, M. B., and Arceneaux, K., “The behavioral immune system shapes political intuitions: Why and how individual differences in disgust sensitivity underlie opposition to immigration,” American Political Science Review , 2017, 111: 277–294.Google Scholar
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D., Iyer, R., and Haidt, J., “Disgust sensitivity, political conservatism, and voting,” Social Psychological and Personality Science , 2012, 3: 537–544.Google Scholar
Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., and McDaniel, M. A., “The behavioral immune system and social conservatism: A meta-analysis,” Evolution and Human Behavior , 2013, 34: 99–108.Google Scholar
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., and Hibbing, J. R., “Are political orientations genetically transmitted? ” American Political Science Review , 2005, 99: 153–167.Google Scholar
Bell, E., Schermer, J. A., and Vernon, P. A., “The origins of political attitudes and behaviors: An analysis using twins,” Canadian Journal of Political Science , 2009, 42: 855–879.Google Scholar
Oskarsson, S., Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Magnusson, P. K. E., and Teorell, J., “Linking genes and political orientations: Testing the cognitive ability as mediator hypothesis,” Political Psychology , 2015, 36: 649–665.Google Scholar
For a discussion of twin modeling procedures, see, Neale, M. C. and Maes, H. H. M., Methodology for Genetic Studies of Twins and Families (Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic, 2004).Google Scholar
Keller, M. C., Medland, S. E., and Duncan, L. E., “Are extended twin family designs worth the trouble? A comparison of the bias, precision, and accuracy of parameters estimated in four twin family models,” Behavior Genetics , 2010, 4: 377–393.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Gottschling, J., and Spinath, F. M., “Genetic and environmental parent-child transmission of value orientations: An extended twin family study,” Child Development , 2016, 87: 270–284.Google Scholar
Scarr, S. and McCartney, K., “How people make their own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects,” Child Development , 1983, 54: 424–435.Google Scholar
Paulhus, D. L. and Vazire, S., “The self-report method,” in Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology, Robbins, R. W., Fraley, R. C., and Krueger, R. F., eds. (London: Guilford Press, 2007), pp. 224–239.Google Scholar
Paunonen, S. V. and O’Neill, T. A., “Self-reports, peer ratings and construct validity,” European Journal of Personality , 2010, 24: 189–206.Google Scholar
Moskowitz, D. S., “Comparison of self-reports, reports by knowledgeable informants, and behavioral observation data,” Journal of Personality , 1986, 54: 294–317.Google Scholar
Cohrs, J. C., Kämpfe-Hargrave, N., and Riemann, R., “Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: Evidence from peer-report data,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2012, 103: 343–361.Google Scholar
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., and Oltmanns, T. F., “Self- and peer perspectives on pathological personality traits and interpersonal problems,” Psychological Assessment , 2005, 17: 123–131.Google Scholar
Stößel, K., Kämpfe, N., and Riemann, R., “The Jena Twin Registry and the Jena Twin Study of Social Attitudes (JeTSSA),” Twin Research and Human Genetics , 2006, 9: 783–786.Google Scholar
Alford, Funk and Hibbing.Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J. and Hatemi, P. K., “Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Effects of genes, social learning and mate selection,” Behavior Genetics , 2008, 38: 247–256.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., Martin, N. G., and Eaves, L. J., “Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science , 2010, 54: 798–814.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Klohnen, E. C., Castillas, A., Simms, E. N., Haig, J., and Berry, D. S., “Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples,” Journal of Personality , 2004, 72: 1029–1068.Google Scholar
Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., and Eaves, L. J., “The politics of mate choice,” Journal of Politics , 2011, 73: 362–379.Google Scholar
Bouchard, T. J. Jr., “Authoritarianism, religiousness, and conservatism: Is ‘obedience to authority’ the explanation for their clustering, universality and evolution? ” in The Biological Evolution of Religious Mind and Behavior, Voland, E. and Schiefenhövel, W., eds. (Berlin: Springer, 2009), pp. 165–180.Google Scholar
Huber, G. A. and Malhotra, N., “Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior,” Journal of Politics , 2017, 79: 269–283.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., and Riemann, R., “Left or right? Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality ” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2012, 102: 633–645.Google Scholar
Watson, D., Beer, A., and McDade-Montez, E., “The role of active assortment in spousal similarity,” Journal of Personality , 2014, 82: 116–129.Google Scholar
See, Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., and Martin, N. G., Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical Approach (London: Academic Press, 1989).Google Scholar
Alford et al.Google Scholar
Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L. M., and Eysenck, H. J., “Transmission of social attitudes,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 1986, 83: 4364–4368.Google Scholar
Alford et al.Google Scholar
Eaves, Eysenck and Martin.Google Scholar
Alford, Funk, and Hibbing.Google Scholar
See, Wilson, G. D., Manual for the Wilson-Patterson Attitude Inventory (WPAI) (Windsor, UK: NFER Publishing, 1975).Google Scholar
Eaves, L. J. and Hatemi, P. K., “Transmission of attitudes toward abortion and gay rights: Effects of genes, social learning and mate selection,” Behavior Genetics , 2008, 38: 247–256.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing, et al.Google Scholar
Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., and Vilhjalmsson, B. J. et al. , “The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes,” Science , 2018, 359: 424–428.Google Scholar
Bleidorn, W., Hufer, A., Kandler, C., Hopwood, C. J., and Riemann, R., “A nuclear twin family study of self-esteem,” European Journal of Personality , 2018, in press, doi:10.1002/per.2136.Google Scholar
Eaves and Hatemi.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing, et al.Google Scholar
Jennings and Niemi.Google Scholar
Kandel, D. and Lesser, G., Youth in Two Worlds (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1972).Google Scholar
Acock, A. C. and Bengtson, V. L., “On the relative influence of mothers and fathers: A covariance analysis of political and religious socialization,” Journal of Marriage and Family , 1978, 40: 519–530.Google Scholar
Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G., and Eaves, L. J., “Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time,” Journal of Politics , 2009, 71: 1141–1156.Google Scholar
Bell, Schermer, and Vernon.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing, et al.Google Scholar
Feather, N. T., “Family resemblance in conservatism: Are daughters more similar to parents than sons are? ” Journal of Personality , 1978, 46: 260–278.Google Scholar
Bell, Schermer and Vernon.Google Scholar
Fraley et al.Google Scholar
Jylhä, K. M., Cantal, C., Akrami, N., and Milfont, T. L., “Denial of anthropogenic climate change: Social dominance orientation helps explain the conservative male effect in Brazil and Sweden,” Personality and Individual Differences , 2016, 98: 184–187.Google Scholar
Eaves and Hatemi.Google Scholar
Shapiro, R. Y. and Mahajan, H., “Gender differences in policy preferences: A summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s,” Public Opinion Quarterly , 1986, 50: 42–61.Google Scholar
Cornelis, I., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., and Kossowska, M., “Age differences in conservatism: Evidence on the mediating effects of personality and cognitive style,” Journal of Personality , 2008, 77: 51–87.Google Scholar
Tilley, J. and Evans, G., “Ageing and generational effects on vote choice: Combining cross-sectional and panel data to estimate APC effects,” Electoral Studies , 2014, 33: 19–27.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Bell, E., and Riemann, R., “The structure and sources of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation,” European Journal of Personality , 2016, 30: 406–420.Google Scholar
Everett, J. A. C., “The 12 Item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS),” PLoS ONE , 2013, 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
McGue, M. and Bouchard, T. J. Jr., “Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex,” Behavior Genetics , 1984, 14: 325–343.Google Scholar
Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Lewis, G. J., Feldhaus, L. H., and Riemann, R., “The genetic and environmental roots of variance in negativity toward foreign nationals,” Behavior Genetics , 2015, 45: 181–199.Google Scholar
Hu, L. and Bentler, P. M., “Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling , 1999, 6: 1–55.Google Scholar
Eaves and Hatemi.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing, et al.Google Scholar
Eaves and Hatemi.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing, et al.Google Scholar
Eaves and Hatemi.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Hibbing et al.Google Scholar
Kandler, Bell and Riemann.Google Scholar
Zapko-Willmes, A. and Kandler, C., “Genetic variance in homophobia: Evidence from self- and peer reports,” Behavior Genetics , 2018, 48: 34–43.Google Scholar
Kandler, Bleidorn, and Riemann.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., and Spinath, F. M., “The genetic links between the big five personality traits and general interest domains,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 2011, 37: 1633–1643.Google Scholar
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., Spinath, F. M., Borkenau, P., and Penke, L., “The nature of creativity: The roles of genetic factors, personality traits, cognitive abilities, and environmental sources,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 2016, 111: 230–249.Google Scholar