Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T15:53:03.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The “chicken-and-egg” development of political opinions

The roles of genes, social status, ideology, and information

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 April 2017

Peter Beattie
Peter Beattie*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine
*
Correspondence: Peter Beattie, Department of Political Science, University of California, Irvine. Email: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Twin studies have revealed political ideology to be partially heritable. Neurological research has shown that ideological differences are reflected in brain structure and response, suggesting a direct genotype-phenotype link. Social and informational environments, however, also demonstrably affect brain structure and response. This leads to a “chicken-and-egg” question: do genes produce brains with ideological predispositions, causing the preferential absorption of consonant information and thereby forming an ideology, or do social and informational environments do most of the heavy lifting, with genetic evidence the spurious artifact of outdated methodology? Or are both inextricably intertwined contributors? This article investigates the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to ideological development using a role-play experiment investigating the development of opinions on a novel political issue. The results support the view that the process is bidirectional, suggesting that, like most traits, political ideology is produced by the complex interplay of genetic and (social/informational) environmental influences.

Keywords

Genopoliticsideologytwin studiessocial statuspublic opinion
Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , Spring 2017 , pp. 1 - 13
Copyright
© Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 2017 

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

Tuschman, Avi, Our Political Nature: The Evolutionary Origins of What Divides Us (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2013).Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Federico, Christopher M., and Napier, Jaime L., “Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities,” Annual Review of Psychology , 2009, 60: 307–337, at p. 310.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., Smith, Kevin B., and Alford, John R., “Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2014, 37: 297–350.Google Scholar
Schreiber, Darren, Fonzo, Greg, Simmons, Alan N., Dawes, Christopher T., Flagan, Taru, Fowler, James H., and Paulus, Martin P., “Red brain, blue brain: evaluative processes differ in Democrats and Republicans,” PLOS ONE , 2013, 8(2): e52970.Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Noorbaloochi, Sharareh, and Van Bavel, Jay J., “The ‘chicken-and-egg’ problem in political neuroscience,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2014, 37(3): 317–318, at p. 317.Google Scholar
Charney, Evan, “Behavior genetics and postgenomics,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2012, 35(5): 331–358.Google Scholar
Alford, John R., Funk, Carolyn L., and Hibbing, John R., “Are political orientations genetically transmitted? ” American Political Science Review , 2005, 99(2): 153–167.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L., “Genetic foundations of political behavior,” in The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David O., and Levy, Jack S., eds. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 237–261.Google Scholar
Christopher, Dawes, Cesarini, David, Fowler, James H., Johannesson, Magnus, Magnusson, Patrik K. E., and Oskarsson, Sven, “The relationship between genes, psychological traits, and political participation,” American Journal of Political Science , 2014, 58(4): 888–903.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Hibbing, John R., Medland, Sarah E., Keller, Matthew C., Alford, John R., Smith, Kevin B., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J., “Not by twins alone: using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs,” American Journal of Political Science , 2010, 54(3): 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandler, Christian, Bleidorn, Wiebke, and Riemann, Rainer, “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(3): 633–645.Google Scholar
Eaves, Lindon, Martin, Nicholas, Heath, Andrew, Schieken, Richard, Meyer, Joanne, Silberg, Judy, Neale, Michael, and Corey, Linda, “Age changes in the causes of individual differences in conservatism,” Behavior Genetics , 1997, 27(2): 121–124.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Funk, Carolyn L., Medland, Sarah E., Maes, Hermine M., Silberg, Judy L., Martin, Nicholas G., and Eaves, Lindon J., “Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time,” Journal of Politics , 2009, 71(3): 1141–1156.Google Scholar
Schwabe, Inga, Jonker, Wilfried, and Berg, Stéphanie M., “Genes, culture and conservatism — a psychometric-genetic approach,” Behavior Genetics , 2016, 46(4): 516–528.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Medland, Sarah E., Klemmensen, Robert, Oskarsson, Sven, Littvay, Levente, Dawes, Christopher T., and Verhulst, Brad et al. , “Genetic influences on political ideologies: twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations,” Behavior Genetics , 2014, 44(3): 282–294.Google Scholar
Hatemi et al. , 2014, p. 291.Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin, Alford, John R., Hatemi, Peter K., Eaves, Lindon J., Funk, Carolyn, and Hibbing, John R., “Biology, ideology, and epistemology: how do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care? ” American Journal of Political Science , 2012, 56(1): 17–33.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Eaves, Lindon, and McDermott, Rose, “It’s the end of ideology as we know it,” Journal of Theoretical Politics , 2012, 24(3): 345–369.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K. and Verhulst, Brad, “Political attitudes develop independently of personality traits,” PLOS ONE , 2015, 10(3): e0118106.Google Scholar
Ksiazkiewicz, Aleksander, Ludeke, Steven, and Krueger, Robert, “The role of cognitive style in the link between genes and political ideology,” Political Psychology , 2016, 37(6): 761–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onraet, Emma, Van Hiel, Alain, Dhont, Kristof, Hodson, Gordon, Schittekatte, Mark, and De Pauw, Sarah, “The association of cognitive ability with right-wing ideological attitudes and prejudice: a meta-analytic review,” European Journal of Personality , 2015, 29(6): 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oskarsson, Sven, Cesarini, David, Dawes, Christopher T., Fowler, James H., Johannesson, Magnus, Magnusson, Patrik K. E., and Teorell, Jan, “Linking genes and political orientations: testing the cognitive ability as mediator hypothesis,” Political Psychology , 2015, 36(6): 649–665.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., Gillespie, Nathan A., Eaves, Lindon J., Maher, Brion S., Webb, Bradley T., Heath, Andrew C., and Medland, Sarah E. et al. , “A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political attitudes,” Journal of Politics , 2011, 73(1): 271–285.Google Scholar
Reuter, Martin, Frenzel, Clemens, Walter, Nora T., Markett, Sebastian, and Montag, Christian, “Investigating the genetic basis of altruism: the role of the COMT Val158Met polymorphism,” Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience , 2011, 6(5): 662–668.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Settle, Jaime E., Dawes, Christopher T., Christakis, Nicholas A., and Fowler, James H., “Friendships moderate an association between a dopamine gene variant and political ideology,” Journal of Politics , 2010, 72(4): 1189–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Charney, Evan and English, William, “Candidate genes and political behavior,” American Political Science Review , 2012, 106(1): 1–34.Google Scholar
Charney, Evan and English, William, “Genopolitics and the science of genetics,” American Political Science Review , 2013, 107(2): 382–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, Daniel J., Cesarini, David, van der Loos, Matthijs J. H. M., Dawes, Christopher T., Koellinger, Philipp D., Magnusson, Patrik K. E., and Chabris, Christopher F. et al. , “The genetic architecture of economic and political preferences,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2012, 109(21): 8026–8031.Google Scholar
Davis, Mark H., Luce, Carol, and Kraus, Stephen J., “The heritability of characteristics associated with dispositional empathy,” Journal of Personality , 1994, 62(3): 369–391.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Konrath, Sara H., O’Brien, Edward H., and Hsing, Courtney, “Changes in dispositional empathy in American college students over time: a meta-analysis,” Personality and Social Psychology Review , 2011, 15(2): 180–198.Google Scholar
Marks, Jonathan, What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Beckwith, Jon and Morris, Corey A., “Twin studies of political behavior: untenable assumptions? ” Perspectives on Politics , 2008, 6(4): 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojeda, Christopher, “The effect of 9/11 on the heritability of political trust,” Political Psychology , 2014, 37(1): 73–88.Google Scholar
Shultziner, Doris, “Genes and politics: a new explanation and evaluation of twin study: results and association studies in political science,” Political Analysis , 2013, 21(3): 350–367.Google Scholar
Dar-Nimrod, Ilan, “Postgenomics and genetic essentialism,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2012, 35(5): 362–363.Google Scholar
Fox Keller, Evelyn, The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Charney, Evan, “Humans, fruit flies, and automatons,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2012, 35(5): 381–410, at p. 386.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Allan V., Videon, Tami M., Schmitz, Mark F., and Davis, Diane, “Double vision: reply to Freese and Powell,” Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 2003, 44(2): 136–141.Google Scholar
Joseph, Jay, “The genetics of political attitudes and behavior: claims and refutations,” Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry , 2010, 12(3): 200–217.Google Scholar
Cf., Littvay, Levente, “Do heritability estimates of political phenotypes suffer from an equal environment assumption violation? Evidence from an empirical study,” Twin Research and Human Genetics , 2012, 15(1): 6–14.Google Scholar
Charney, 2012.Google Scholar
Zuk, Or, Hechter, Eliana, Sunyaev, Shamil R., and Lander, Eric S., “The mystery of missing heritability: genetic interactions create phantom heritability,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , 2012, 109(4): 1193–1198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Crusio, Wim E., “Heritability estimates in behavior genetics: Wasn’t that station passed long ago? ” Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 2012, 35(5): 361–362.Google Scholar
Fowler, James H. and Dawes, Christopher T., “In defense of genopolitics,” American Political Science Review , 2013, 107(2): 362–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Nam, Hannah, Amodio, David M., and Van Bavel, Jay J., “Political neuroscience: the beginning of a beautiful friendship,” Political Psychology , 2014, 35(S1): 3–42.Google Scholar
Jost, Noorbaloochi, and Van Bavel, 2014.Google Scholar
Woollett, Katherine and Maguire, Eleanor A., “Acquiring ‘the knowledge’ of London’s layout drives structural brain changes,” Current Biology , 2011, 21(24): 2109–2114.Google Scholar
Napier, Jaime L. and Jost, John T., “The ‘antidemocratic personality’ revisited: a cross-national investigation of working-class authoritarianism,” Journal of Social Issues , 2008, 64(3): 595–617.Google Scholar
Xu, Xiaowen and Peterson, Jordan B., “Differences in media preference mediate the link between personality and political orientation,” Political Psychology , 2017, 38(1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, Federico, and Napier, 2009.Google Scholar
Jost, John T., Nosek, Brian A., and Gosling, Samuel D., “Ideology: its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology,” Perspectives on Psychological Science , 2008, 3(2): 126–136, at pp. 133–134.Google Scholar
De Neve, Jan-Emmanuel, “Ideological change and the economics of voting behavior in the US, 1920–2008,” Electoral Studies , 2014, 34: 27–38.Google Scholar
Verhulst, Brad, Hatemi, Peter K., and Eaves, Lindon, “Disentangling the importance of psychological predispositions and social constructions in the organization of American political ideology,” Political Psychology , 2012, 33(3): 375–393.Google Scholar
Hatemi, Eaves, and McDermott, 2012.Google Scholar
Althaus, Scott L., “Information effects in collective preferences,” American Political Science Review , 1998, 92(3): 545–558.Google Scholar
Beattie, Peter, “Information: evolution, psychology, and politics,” Papers on Social Representations , 2016, 25(1): 1–37.Google Scholar
Friedman, Jeffrey, No Exit: The Problem with Technocracy (forthcoming).Google Scholar
For a comprehensive review, see, Yardley-Matwiejczuk, Krysia M., Role Play: Theory and Practice (London: Sage, 1997).Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J., Huber, Gregory A., and Lenz, Gabriel S., “Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk,” Political Analysis , 2012, 20(3): 351–368.Google Scholar
Huber, John D., “Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: measuring ideology,” European Journal of Political Research , 1989, 17(5): 599–621.Google Scholar
Rico, Guillem and Kent Jennings, M., “The formation of left-right identification: pathways and correlates of parental influence,” Political Psychology , 2015, 37(2): 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oskarsson et al. , 2015, p. 653.Google Scholar
Funk, Carolyn L., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Eaton, Nicholas R., Krueger, Robert F., Eaves, Lindon J., and Hibbing, John R., “Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations,” Political Psychology , 2013, 34(6): 805–819.Google Scholar
Jost, Federico, and Napier, 2009.Google Scholar
Jost, Federico, and Napier, 2009.Google Scholar
Kandler, Christian, Bleidorn, Wiebke, and Riemann, Rainer, “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(3): 633–645.Google Scholar
Jost, Federico, and Napier, 2009.Google Scholar
Hochschild, Jennifer and Sen, Maya, “Technology optimism or pessimism about genomic science: variation among experts and scholarly disciplines,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science , 2015, 658(1): 236–252.Google Scholar
Keller, 2010.Google Scholar
Bhaskar, Roy, A Realist Theory of Science (New York: Verso, 1975/2008), p. 18.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Beattie supplementary material

Appendix

Download Beattie supplementary material(File)
File 552.7 KB