Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
Media
Part of Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
- Title
- Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
- extracted text
-
Genetic Foundations
of Attitude Formation
CHRISTIAN KANDLER, EDWARD BELL, CHIZURU SHIKISHIMA,
SHINJI YAMAGATA, and RAINER RIEMANN
Abstract
Since the pioneering work of Eaves and Eysenck (1974) appeared in Nature some
40 years ago, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and behavioral geneticists have investigated the effects of nature and nurture on the formation of social
attitudes. It has consistently been found that manifestations of social attitudes (i.e.,
preferences, values, and beliefs pertaining to things such as politics, religion and
the treatment of ingroups and outgroups) are genetically influenced. More recently,
researchers have focused their efforts on the psychophysiological pathways between
gene activity and attitudes. In particular, a broad body of research examines how personality traits may be a link between genetic factors and political orientations. The
latter are typically treated as either a single left–right dimension or divided into two
core aspects: resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism and acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation. In this essay, we provide an overview of this research,
present some findings from our recent international behavioral genetic study on the
topic, and identify key issues for future research. We suggest that future studies treat
attitude formation as a complex process in which genetic factors and the psychophysiological phenomena that stem from them are affected by the surrounding social
environment and culture. Such research will require (i) international study designs
capturing individual and cultural levels of variation and (ii) interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists and researchers in various fields of study such as genetics,
psychology, sociology, political science, neuroscience, and human biology.
INTRODUCTION
An attitude is defined as a personal view or orientation (e.g., a belief, value, or
opinion) toward things such as politics, religion, entertainment, or environmental protection. Attitude formation can be affected by social and cultural
experiences acquired through social networks, the media, and other forms
of contact with people who hold opinions on given issues (Watts & Dodds,
2007; Wu & Huberman, 2006). Moreover, behavioral genetic studies have
shown that individual differences in opinions on social, political, and religious issues are partially attributable to genetic influences (e.g., D’Onofrio,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Eaves, Murrelle, Maes, & Spilka, 1999; Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001;
Renner et al., 2012).
Today, it is important to understand the nature of those genetic influences.
One way in which genetic factors may contribute to individual differences
in attitude formation is via attributes such as core personality traits. Here we
provide an overview of the research that has examined how genetic factors
may influence political attitudes and how those attitudes may be affected by
personality traits. We also offer our own contribution to this area of research
by presenting the results from our recent international project on this topic
and by discussing some important issues for future research.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
CORE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Political orientations have been studied most often in terms of a single dimension from left to right or from liberal to conservative (Jost, 2006). However, a
number of studies suggest that more than one dimension is needed to illuminate most individuals’ political opinions (see Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009,
for a review). In fact, several studies have provided support for two core
dimensions that capture political views (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Jost,
Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Treier & Hillygus, 2009). One dimension reflects attitudes toward social, cultural, and systemic change versus
tradition. It can be characterized as advocating versus resisting change (Jost
et al., 2003); right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981); authoritarian conservatism (Kohn & Schooler, 1983); or openness to change versus conservation
(Schwartz, 1994). The other dimension reflects attitudes toward social and
economic equality versus hierarchy. It can be described in terms of rejecting versus accepting inequality (Jost et al., 2003); social dominance orientation
(SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994); or self-enhancement versus
self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1994).
Presented as fundamental aspects of left–right political orientation (Jost,
Nosek, & Gosling, 2008), the two dimensions are factor-analytically distinct
but often positively correlated (Kandler, Bleidorn, & Riemann, 2012), at
least in Western countries (Aspelund, Lindeman, & Verkasalo, 2013), where
resistance to change has generally entailed a defense of social and economic
hierarchy. People with left-wing opinions tend to prefer change and hold
attitudes advocating equality, whereas right-oriented individuals generally
favor system stability and accept inequality.
THE GENETIC BASIS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Heritability and Genes. Twin studies have consistently shown moderate to
substantial genetic influences on individual differences in political positions
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
3
on a left–right (liberalism–conservatism) dimension. These studies provide
estimates of heritability, which is the proportion of population variation
in a variable attributable to genetic differences. Heritability estimates for
left–right orientation are generally in the 50–60% range (Alford, Funk, &
Hibbing, 2005; Bouchard et al., 2003). With regard to the two core dimensions, resistance to change appears to show a higher heritability (61%) than
acceptance of inequality (34%) after correction for measurement error (Kandler
et al., 2012). Heritability estimates of more specific opinions ranged from
about 20% (e.g., attitudes toward federal housing) to 70% (e.g., attitudes
toward school prayer; Alford et al., 2005; Hatemi et al., 2010). Even specific
political behaviors and decisions (e.g., voter turnout and vote choice) are
genetically influenced (Bell, Schermer, & Vernon, 2009; Fowler & Schreiber,
2008).
Recently, molecular genetic studies using the candidate gene approach
and genome-wide association scans have detected specific polymorphisms
linked to individual differences in political attitudes and behavior (Dawes &
Fowler, 2009; Fowler & Dawes, 2008; Hatemi et al., 2011). For example,
Hatemi et al. (2011) identified several chromosomal regions associated
with political orientation. These studies suggest that political orientation
is affected by a number of different genes, and that the genetic processes
involved in attitude formation are highly complex.
Psychophysiological Pathways between Genes and Political Orientations. Because
it is unlikely that genes influence attitude formation directly, it is important
to examine the pathways between genes and attitudes, which would encompass neuroanatomical and neurobiological processes as well as basic cognitive, affective, and motivational tendencies. Studies in this area of research
have already begun (see Jost & Amodio, 2012; Jost, Nam, Amodio, & van
Bavel, 2014, for reviews). For example, greater conservatism was found to be
associated with a smaller anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and a larger right
amygdala volume (Kanai, Feilden, Firth, & Rees, 2011).
In line with the neuroanatomical findings, Oxley et al. (2008) found faster
threat reaction (oculi startle blink reflex) for people with more right-wing
positions, and it has been observed that threat sensitivity is associated with
amygdala activity (LeDoux, 2000). In addition, Amodio, Jost, Master, and
Yee (2007) found that left-oriented people showed significantly more activity
in the ACC, which was associated with greater behavioral accuracy in the
presence of new and unexpected information. Similarly, Weissflog, Choma,
Dywan, van Noordt, and Segalowitz (2013) observed that self-reported attitudinal rejection of inequality and low scores on right-wing authoritarianism were associated with greater ACC activity. Thus, greater endorsement
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of egalitarian values and less authoritarian conservatism (i.e., left-oriented
opinions) appear to be associated with less threat sensitivity and more cognitive
flexibility, the latter being defined as the tendency “to seek out new information and integrate potentially conflicting pieces of information in order
to arrive at a relatively complex understanding of reality” (Jost & Amodio,
2012, p. 60).
The basic tendency to seek out and integrate new and unexpected information is also known as openness to experience, a Big Five personality dimension
that reflects the need for variety, novelty, change, and sophistication (McCrae
& Costa, 2008). Not surprisingly, personality has been suggested as an important link in the long psychophysiological chain between genes and political
attitudes (Smith, Oxley, Hibbing, Alford, & Hibbing, 2011).
Personality as a Key Link between Genes and Political Orientations. Personality
traits are promising candidates in the search for variables that mediate
between genetic influences and political orientations for a number of
reasons. First, they are highly heritable, largely stable across time, and
structurally invariant among different cultures (Kandler et al., 2010; Kandler,
Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2010; Yamagata et al., 2006). Second, political attitudes consistently show significant associations with openness and
other core personality traits, such as agreeableness and conscientiousness
(Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, &
Ha, 2010; Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl, & Richter, 1993; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2008). Third, longitudinal studies indicate that personality traits
predict political preferences rather than vice versa (Perry & Sibley, 2012;
Sibley & Duckitt, 2013). Fourth, the links between personality traits and
political attitudes are largely driven by genetic factors (Kandler et al., 2012;
Verhulst, Hatemi, & Martin, 2010). These findings support a conceptualization of political orientations as attitudes that are influenced by genetically
anchored personality traits.
However, the genetic contributions to political orientations cannot be completely accounted for by personality traits (Kandler et al., 2012). Other individual attributes with a strong genetic basis may account for genetic variance
in political orientations beyond that explained by personality traits. General
cognitive ability, for example, showed substantial links to left–right political orientation at the individual and national levels (Stankov, 2009), and a
longitudinal study found that intelligence in childhood predicted liberal and
antitraditional attitudes in adulthood (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008). It is also
plausible to conceive of political views as distinct elements in a broad system of dispositional attributes. That is, political opinions may be systematically and genetically associated with personality traits, intelligence, or other
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
5
dispositional variables, but not caused by them. In line with that position,
Verhulst, Eaves, and Hatemi (2012) found no support for the hypothesis that
the direction of causation flows from personality factors to political attitudes.
One possibility examined by Verhulst et al. is that political attitudes and personality traits are distinct phenomena that are influenced by common genetic
factors.
The study of the psychophysiological pathways between genes and political opinions has only recently entered the field of science. Future studies
will provide more insight into the mechanisms and processes involved, and
may help reconcile some contradictory findings and perspectives. But the
accumulated evidence leaves little room for doubt that political attitudes are
genetically influenced.
POLITICAL ATTITUDE FORMATION BEYOND GENETIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS
Similar to other kinds of social attitudes, political positions are also affected
by environmental factors such as education and media exposure. Several
genetically informed studies have reported that individual life experiences
and experiences shared by family members have a significant impact on
political attitudes (e.g., Alford et al., 2005; Hatemi et al., 2010). In fact,
genetically informed research designs provide the best means to examine
the relative contribution of environmental and genetic influences.
On the basis of an extended twin family design that included parents and
spouses of twins, Kandler et al. (2012) studied several sources of individual differences in the two core political orientations acceptance of inequality
and resistance to change. They found significant environmental sources that
act to increase the similarity of twins, spouses, brothers- and sisters-in-law,
and other family groups. This highlights the importance of social interaction and social networks in political opinion formation, and illustrates how
nongenetic factors have a major impact on political attitudes. The evidence
suggests that political attitudes are shaped by both the social environment
and by the underlying genetic effects that influence individual receptiveness
to specific opinions.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH: OUR CROSS-CULTURAL TWIN STUDY
Behavioral genetic studies of political opinions typically use subjects from
a single nation or culture, thus ignoring the effect that cultural differences
may have on political attitude formation. To rectify this shortcoming, we
started an international project that combines twin samples from three
different countries (Kandler, Bell, Shikishima, Yamagata, & Riemann, 2013).
Our focus was on the etiology of the relationship between the Big Five
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and extraversion) and political orientations.
SAMPLE AND DESIGN
In February 2013, genetically informative data from three separate studies
were assembled (Table 1). The sample included over 3000 individuals and
over 1400 twin pairs from three different continents. Monozygotic (MZ) and
dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs are listed separately in the table because a crucial
aspect of twin studies involves a comparison of those two types of twin
pairs. Greater similarity of MZ compared with DZ twins on a characteristic
of interest indicates that genetic factors are at play. That is because MZ twins
are virtually genetically identical while DZ twins share on average about
50% of their genetic makeup that can vary among humans (see Alford et al.,
2005, for more details on the methodology and assumptions that underlie
twin studies).
CORE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Although the items measuring political opinions varied across the German,
American, and Japanese data, principal component analyses (PCAs) yielded
at least two components that were interpretable as the two core political
dimensions. Right-wing authoritarianism items (e.g., “Obedience and
respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”;
Altemeyer, 1996; Funke, 2005), conservatism items (e.g., “It’s wrong to do
things differently from the way our forefathers did”; Kohn & Schooler,
1983), and specific ideological attitudes (e.g., lenience vs law and order)
characterized the first component. It was interpreted as a dimension capturing political opinions toward social and system change versus tradition
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Age
Data source
Nation
N
Number of Complete Twin Pairs
Range NPAIRS MZM MZF DZM DZF
JeTSSA
Germany
875 17–82
394
Minnesota Twin Study United States 1349 52–61
596
Keio Twin Project
Japan
942 16–38
470
Total
3166 16–92 1460
48
143
85
276
178 20 81
213 86 154
233 33 69
624 139 304
DZOS
67
0
50
117
Note: JeTSSA, Jena Twin Study of Social Attitudes; MZ, monozygotic twin pairs; DZ, dizygotic twin pairs;
M , male; F , female; OS , opposite sex.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
7
(i.e., resistance to change or authoritarian conservatism; RC/AC). Items
from a SDO scale (e.g., “We should strive to make incomes as equal as
possible”; Sidanus & Pratto, 2001), other items on equality (e.g., “If wealth
were more equal in this country we would have many fewer problems”),
and specific ideological positions (e.g., support vs rejection of minority
groups) comprised the second component. It was interpreted as a dimension
capturing attitudes toward social and economic equality versus inequality
(i.e., acceptance of inequality or social dominance orientation; AI/SDO).
In addition, we combined all items to create a composite score for each person in the study. This composite reflects the individual’s position on a global
left–right ideological spectrum. We then created RC/AC and AI/SDO subscale scores based on all items that were clearly related to one of the two
dimensions derived from the PCAs (i.e., factor loadings > 0.30). Internal consistency and correlations between RC/AC and AI/SDO are shown in Table 2
for each national sample.
For the Japanese data, the internal consistency of the left–right composite
scores was comparatively low. However, this may be attributable not only to
lower psychometric quality but also to the fact that in Eastern and other relatively collectivistic nations the two core components RC/AC and AI/SDO
are often marginally or even negatively interrelated. This would lead to
low internal consistency in left–right composite scores. Several studies have
Table 2
Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s ?) of Scales and Interrelations
between RC/AC and AI/SDO
Left–right
Data source
JeTSSA
Minnesota Twin Study
Keio Twin Project
RC/AC
AI/SDO
Correlation
nITEMS
?
nITEMS
?
nITEMS
?
RC/AC ↔ AI/SDO
57a
26b
18c
0.89
0.88
0.63
25
15
10
0.88
0.87
0.73
22
9
8
0.84
0.65
0.63
0.29
0.43
0.00
Note: JeTSSA, Jena Twin Study of Social Attitudes; nITEMS , number of items; Left–right, left–right political
dimension; RC/AC, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism; AI, acceptance of inequality/social
dominance orientation.
a Left–right composite scale includes a 12-item right-wing-authoritarianism (RWA) short scale (Altemeyer,
1996; Funke, 2005), a 16-item social dominance orientation (SDO) scale (Sidanus & Pratto, 2001), 21
self-constructed conservatism items, and 8 items on political orientation (e.g., “support vs rejection of
minority”; Kandler et al., 2012).
b Left–right composite scale includes a 15-item RWA short scale (Altemeyer, 1996), 9 items on attitudes
toward social and economic equality, and 2 items on political positions (liberalism vs conservatism and
Democrat vs Republican).
c Left–right composite scale includes a 10-item authoritarian conservatism scale (Kohn & Schooler, 1983)
and 8 self-constructed items on attitudes toward equality.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
shown that the relationship between the core political dimensions can vary
between cultures as a function of their historical economic arrangements
(Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005; Thorisdottir, Jost, Liviatan, & Shrout,
2007). For example, conservative individuals living in formerly communist
states tended to favor egalitarian ideas, while conservative individuals in
states with histories of capitalism tended to favor inequality. In our study,
the RC/AC and AI/SDO scores were uncorrelated in the Japanese sample.
In summary, our data indicate that political attitudes can be organized
along a left–right political dimension in these three nations, although the
underlying structure of those attitudes varied because of varying correlations between the two core dimensions (RC/AC and AI/SDO) (Figure 1).
In societies where political attitudes are polarized along a single left–right
dimension such as in the United States and Germany, RC/AC and AI/SDO
are expected to be positively correlated, as they were here for those two
countries. But the two core dimensions can be unrelated in other societies
(Mirisola, Sibley, Boca, & Duckitt, 2007), as we found with the Japanese
sample.
Advocating
equality
(egalitarianism)
Left
Advocating
change
(progressivism)
Resistance to
change
(traditionalism)
Right
Acceptance of
inequality
(hierarchy)
Figure 1 Left–right ideological spectrum and its two core dimensions (i)
advocating equality versus acceptance of inequality and (ii) advocating change
versus resistance to change. Data for Germany (black lines), United States (blue
lines), and Japan (red lines) are shown. The smaller the angle between the
left–right continuum and its two core dimensions, the higher the correlations
between the two core dimensions.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
9
GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF POLITICAL ATTITUDES
Twin model analyses using data from all three countries (which took variation in measurement error among the national samples into account) indicated that genetic effects explained 49% of individual differences in left–right
political orientation and about one-third of the variance in the two core political dimensions (Figure 2). The remaining variance was due to environmental
effects that were shared by twins (including shared cultural influences) and
environmental influences not shared by twins.
Estimates of genetic and environmental effects on individual differences
in global left–right political orientation did not vary significantly between
the United States and German samples, but the results from both of those
countries differed significantly from the Japanese results. For RC/AC and
AI/SDO, model fitting analyses yielded significant differences among all
three nations. In general, the multinational analyses yielded slightly lower
heritability estimates and stronger environmental effects for political orientations compared to previous, single-nation studies (e.g., Alford et al., 2005;
Bouchard et al., 2003; Kandler et al., 2012). This was primarily due to lower
heritability estimates produced by the Japanese data. Thus, it appears that
cultural variation contributed to these differences, although methodological
artifacts stemming from differences in the way the variables were measured
among the national samples cannot be ruled out.
Left-right political
orientation
Resistance to change/
authoritarian conservatism
32%
Acceptance of inequality/
social dominance
30%
31%
38%
49%
50%
19%
20%
31%
Additive genetic effects
Shared environmental effects
Nonshared environmental effects
Figure 2 Cross-cultural estimates of genetic and environmental sources of
individual differences in left–right ideology and core ideological opinions
Resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism and acceptance of
inequality/social dominance orientation.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
PATTERNS AND SOURCES OF THE LINKS BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND POLITICAL
ATTITUDES
The primary aim of the multinational twin study was to examine the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes. Despite the fact
that different measuring instruments were used to capture political opinions
in the United States, German, and Japanese samples, the correlation patterns
were fairly similar (Figure 3). The three measures of political attitudes were
primarily linked to openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. More
specifically, openness was negatively correlated with all three political measures; agreeableness showed negative associations to AI/SDO; and conscientiousness was positively related to global left–right orientation and RC/AC.
We also investigated the etiology of six associations that were consistent
across the three subsamples: left–right political orientation and RC/AC
with openness and conscientiousness, and AI/SDO with openness and
agreeableness. As shown in Table 3, significant genetic correlations were
observed for each pair of variables. A significant genetic correlation suggests
that some of the genetic influences involved are the same for both variables.
For example, the data in our study indicate that left–right orientation
and openness are affected by common genetic influences. Environmental
correlations (corrected for measurement error), which are indicative of
common environmental effects, were found to be lower or nonsignificant,
which suggests that the genetic influences on the variables are more similar
than the environmental influences. In layperson’s terms, there was more
nature in common than there was nurture in each of the pairings shown in
Table 3.
Table 3
Cross-Cultural Phenotypic, Genetic, and Environmental Correlations
between Core Political Orientations and Personality Traits
Correlations
Links
Left-right PO and O
Left-Right PO and C
RC/AC and O
RC/AC and C
AI/SDO and O
AI/SDO and A
Phenotypic
Genetic
−0.32***
0.15***
−0.31***
0.17***
−0.20***
−0.18***
−0.56***
0.33***
−0.64***
0.36***
−0.40**
−0.38**
Environmental
−0.18***
−0.04
−0.15**
0.08
−0.13*
−0.23***
Note: Correlations were based on bivariate twin model analyses and were corrected for measurement
error; PO, political orientation; RC/AC, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism; AI/SDO, acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation; O, openness; C, conscientiousness; A, agreeableness;
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
11
Left-right political orientation
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0.16* 0.15* 0.13*
0.12*
0.01 0.01
Openness
0.01
0.06
0.00 0.03
−.04
−0.26*
−0.32*
−0.23*
Germany
USA
−0.47*
(a)
Japan
Resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0.25*
0.08
0.05
0.15*
0.07
0.07 0.06 0.05
0.13*
0.17*
0.15*
−0.03
−0.14*
−0.27*
Germany
USA
(b)
Japan
−0.58*
Acceptance of inequality/Social dominance orientation
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
0.05
−0.08 −0.03
−0.11*
(c)
Conscientiousness
0.08
−0.01
−0.02
−0.13
−0.14*
−0.19*
−0.15*
−0.17*
−0.04
Germany
USA
−0.33*
−0.41*
Japan
Figure 3 Correlations between core political orientations and personality traits
corrected for measurement error; *p < 0.01.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Finally, we tested the direction of causation between personality traits and
political attitudes. In other words, we sought to determine whether it makes
more sense to say that personality traits cause political attitudes, or that political attitudes cause personality traits. The cross-correlations between personality traits in one twin and political orientations in the co-twin provide critical
information about the direction of an effect if the proportions of the total variation accounted for by genetic and environmental effects are different for
those two variables (see Heath, Kessler, Neale, Eaves, & Kendler, 1993, for
more details), which was the case in this study. Corrected for error variance,
genetic effects (including nonadditive genetic influences) accounted for 65,
52, and 55% of the variance in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness for the combined sample, while the remaining variance component was
attributable to nonshared environmental effects. Those proportions of variation were different for the three measures of political orientations, shown in
Figure 2.
In order to test direction of causation, we compared four models: (i)
correlation (noncausal) models where all latent factors affecting personality traits were also affecting political attitudes; (ii) models allowing for
reciprocal causation; (iii) unidirectional models where personality affects
political attitudes; and (iv) unidirectional models where political attitudes
affect personality. The main results are illustrated in Figure 4. These results
indicate that the associations for both left–right political orientation and
RC/AC with personality traits (openness and conscientiousness) can be best
described as a correlation attributable to common genetic influences rather
Conscientiousness
+
Openness
−
Resistance to
change/authoritarian
conservatism
+
−
Left-right
ideological
orientation
Agreeableness
−
−
Acceptance of
inequality/social
dominance orientation
Figure 4 Correlations and direction of causation between personality traits
(openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and core political orientations
(left–right political orientation, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism,
and acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation) based on the results of
cross-cultural genetically informative direction-of-causation analyses.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
13
than a causal relationship. In case of AI/SDO, however, the model fitting
analyses indicate a unidirectional causal relationship from personality traits
(openness and agreeableness) to AI/SDO.
CONCLUSIONS
The two-dimensional structure of political attitudes characterized by RC/AC
and AI/SDO was found in all three cultures, suggesting that the two dimensions may be universal (although the correlations between them did vary
across nations). Individual differences in all three measures of political orientations were shown to have both environmental and genetic causes. This was
consistent with previous findings, but the magnitude of the genetic effects
varied across cultures. As in other studies, political attitudes were associated
with openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Genetic correlations
indicated that these links could be due to common genetic factors. However,
results from our direction-of-causation analyses cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that the flow of causation goes from personality traits to political attitudes. By and large, the results presented here provide support for
the position that personality traits and political attitudes are systematically
related but distinct elements within a broad system of individual attributes.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The research on political orientations provides strong evidence that there is
a genetic component to social attitude formation. However, the processes
and pathways between genes and attitudes are not yet fully understood. In
particular, it will be important to examine how genetic (or neurophysiological) and environmental (e.g., social and cultural) influences may correlate
and interact. For example, is a given genetic predisposition more likely to be
found in certain kinds of political environments? Does the effect of a given
political environment vary depending on an individual’s genetic makeup?
The investigation of gene–environment correlations and interactions in conjunction with the study of psychophysiological pathways between genetic
factors and behavior are the most promising and exciting areas of research for
future studies. A more macro approach could also yield important insights;
for example, one could examine how genetic factors influence political culture and vice versa. All of these sorts of studies will require collaborative
interdisciplinary teams of scientists drawn from fields such as psychology,
sociology, political science, genetics, and neuroscience.
Although our multinational study is informative about cross-cultural universality (e.g., a two-dimensional structure of political attitudes) and cultural
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
differences (e.g., different levels of correlation between those two core dimensions), future international studies should endeavor to use the same measuring instruments across cultures. Also, additional nations need to be included
in order to provide a more complete picture of the sources of variation in
political attitudes. This will require collaborative international teams of scientists to rigorously apply sophisticated methodologies to analyze complex
genetically informative data at both the individual and national levels.
As noted, previous research provides a rationale for viewing personality
traits as a link between genetic factors and social attitudes. Longitudinal
studies have primarily supported this conception (Perry & Sibley, 2012;
Sibley & Duckitt, 2013), whereas behavioral genetic studies, including this
one, cast doubt on it (Verhulst et al., 2012). Future studies on this issue should
be both longitudinal and genetically informative to provide a more complete
picture of the phenomena in question. Ideally, these studies should include
subjects who are at the age at which personality trait structure and political
attitudes begin to take shape. Moreover, a variety of methods should be used
to control for potential artifacts of measurement such as random error or
socially desirable responding. Also, intelligence and motivational variables
such as interests and goals (which appear to have a genetic basis that is
partly independent of the genetic sources of personality traits; Bleidorn
et al., 2010; Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2011) should
be brought into the analysis.
The core aspects of political orientations considered here may reflect
basic factors that drive more specific values and attitudes (e.g., toward
homosexuals, foreigners, the death penalty, or environmental protection).
More research should be done on the hierarchical structure of political
attitudes, and on the genetic architecture of that structure.
This short review has focused on political attitudes. A great deal of research
has been done on other attitude domains as well (e.g., D’Onofrio et al., 1999;
Olson et al., 2001). All the issues we raise here—in particular the need for
cross-cultural data, the value of direction-of-causation research, and the
role of correlations and interactions between genetic and environmental
influences—should also be considered in future research in those other areas.
Although we have learned a lot about the genetic foundation of individual
differences in attitudes during the past four decades, much remains to be
learned on the specific underlying processes and pathways between gene
activity and attitude formation.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
15
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of
Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates
of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1246–1247.
Aspelund, A., Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2013). Political conservatism and
left-right political orientation in 28 Eastern and Western European countries. Political Psychology, 34, 409–417.
Bell, E., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). The origins of political attitudes
and behaviours: An analysis using twins. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42,
855–879.
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Hülsheger, U. R., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath,
F. M. (2010). Nature and nurture of the interplay between personality traits and
major life goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 366–379.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R.
(2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson
conservatism scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 959–969.
Carney, D., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and
conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave
behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.
Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Partisanship, voting, and the dopamine D2 receptor gene. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1157–1171.
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened
adults. Psychological Science, 19, 1−6.
D’Onofrio, B. M., Eaves, L. J., Murrelle, L., Maes, H. H., & Spilka, B. (1999). Understanding biological and social influences on religious affiliation, attitudes, and
behaviors: A behavior genetic perspective. Journal of Personality, 67, 953–984.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A
dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.
Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the sociopolitical context
and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299–320.
Eaves, L. J., & Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Genetics and the development of social attitudes.
Nature, 249, 288–289.
Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 70, 579–594.
Fowler, J. H., & Schreiber, D. (2008). Biology, politics, and the emerging science of
human nature. Science, 322, 912–914.
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from
the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195–218.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political
contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Hatemi, P. K., Gillespie, N. A., Eaves, L. J., Maher, B. S., Webb, B. T., Heath, A. C., …
Martin, N. G. (2011). A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political
attitudes. Journal of Politics, 73, 271–285.
Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K.
B., … Eaves, L. J. (2010). Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design
to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 798–814.
Heath, A. C., Kessler, R. C., Neale, M. C., Eaves, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1993). Testing
hypotheses about direction of causation using cross-sectional family data. Behavior
Genetics, 23, 29–50.
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.
Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition:
Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55–64.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism
as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M., & van Bavel, J. J. (2014). Political neuroscience:
The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 3–42.
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated
with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21, 677–680.
Kandler, C., Bell, E., Shikishima, C., Yamagata, S., & Riemann, R. (2013). The genetic
sources of core political attitudes and the role of personality traits: A cross-cultural
twin study. Behavior Genetics, 43, 525 Paper presented at the 43rd annual meeting
of the Behavior Genetic Association in Marseille, June 28 to July 2.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political
orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating,
and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). The
genetic links between big five personality traits and general interest domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1633–1643.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Thiel, W., & Angleitner, A.
(2010). Sources of cumulative continuity in personality: A longitudinal multiplerater twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 995–1008.
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2010). Sources of variance in personality facets: A multiple-rater twin study of self-peer, peer-peer, and
self-self (dis)agreement. Journal of Personality, 78, 1565–1594.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of
social stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp.
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23,
155–184.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
17
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P.
John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mirisola, A., Sibley, C. G., Boca, S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). On the ideological consistency
between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1851–1862.
Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 845–860.
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, M. S., Scalora, M. J.,
… Hibbing, J. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science,
321, 1667–1670.
Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Big-five personality prospectively predicts social
dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 3–8.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation:
A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Renner, W., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M.
(2012). Human values: Genetic and environmental effects on five lexically derived
domains and their facets. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 89–93.
Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and
attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15,
313–321.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and
theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. Journal of Social Psychology, 153,
448–466.
Sidanus, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political
Psychology, 32, 369–397.
Stankov, L. (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability. Intelligence, 37, 294–304.
Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and
values underlying left–right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from
Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 175–203.
Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 679–703.
Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of
Political Science, 56, 34–51.
18
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. K., & Martin, N. G. (2010). The nature of the relationship
between personality traits and political attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 306–316.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 441–458.
Weissflog, M. J., Choma, B. L., Dywan, J., van Noordt, S. J. R., & Segalowitz, S. J.
(2013). The political (and physiological) divide: Political orientation, performance
monitoring, and the anterior cingulate response. Social Neuroscience, 8, 434–447.
Wu, F. & Huberman, B. (2006). Social structure and opinion formation. Retrieved from
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/opinions/opinions.pdf.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., … Jang, K. L.
(2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural
twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 987–998.
FURTHER READING
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A
dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political
orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating,
and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: reconceptualizing political ideology. Political
Psychology, 32, 369–397.
CHRISTIAN KANDLER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Christian Kandler is a scientific assistant and lecturer in personality psychology and psychological assessment in the Department of Psychology at
Bielefeld University. For his dissertation (October 2007 to July 2010), he investigated the genetic and environmental sources of personality structure and
development as well as artificial sources of personality measurement. In his
postdoctoral work, his interests expanded to include the examination of the
genetic and environmental sources of the structure and development of individual determinants of behavior conceptually distinct from but related to
personality traits (e.g., major life goals, interests, sociopolitical attitudes, and
religiousness) in order to capture a broader picture of the genetic architecture
of an individuals’ trait and motivational spectrum. In addition to publications in international scientific journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
19
Psychology, Developmental Psychology, and Current Directions in Psychological
Science) and monographs in German, Kandler has given many lectures and
talks on the topic of behavioral genetics, personality structure, and personality development in various academic settings, including several international
conferences.
Webpage: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
doebrich.html & http://ekvv.uni-bielefeld.de/pers_publ/publ/
PersonDetail.jsp?personId=5774219&lang=en
Publications: http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/person/5774219
EDWARD BELL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Edward Bell is a political sociologist at Brescia University College at Western
University, in London, Canada. He has done research on Canadian political
movements, including Western separatism and Social Credit. More recently,
he has done behavioral genetic work on political attitudes and behaviors. His
articles have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, the Canadian
Journal of Sociology, the Canadian Political Science Review, Personality and Individual Differences, and the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. His book on
the Social Credit movement was published by McGill-Queen’s University
Press, and he is a coauthor of a methodology textbook published by Oxford
University Press.
Webpage: http://www.brescia.uwo.ca/about/our_people/our_faculty/
sociology_fs/edward_bell.html
CHIZURU SHIKISHIMA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Chizuru Shikishima received her PhD in education from Keio University
and is currently an associate professor in the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University, Tokyo. Her research focuses on factors
underlying individual differences in human social traits, intelligence, and
family background. Her work relies on the twin method of behavioral genetics and data from large-scale longitudinal studies. Specifically, she intends to
identify sources of diversity observed in social attitudes, and in educational
and social achievements through statistical analyses of underlying genetic
and environmental commonalities and specificities as well as the interplay
with IQ, personality traits, and family environments. Her goal is to construct
a grand theory that can be used to reinterpret traditional sociological and
psychological theories and to explain mechanisms by which individuals,
families, and societies are linked. Her studies have been published in international journals (e.g., Intelligence, Social Psychological and Personality Science,
and Twin Research and Human Genetics) as well as in Japanese scientific
20
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
periodicals (e.g., Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, Sociological Theory and
Methods, and Japanese Journal of Family Sociology).
SHINJI YAMAGATA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Shinji Yamagata is an assistant professor at the Kyushu University, Japan.
For his dissertation (April 2004 to March 2007, University of Tokyo), he
investigated the genetic and environmental etiologies of personality structure, specifically the association between self-regulatory temperament and
behavior problems in childhood and adolescence. In his recent work, he
uncovered the “pure” bidirectional causal relationship between maternal
authoritative parenting and children’s peer problems using a longitudinal
MZ-twin-difference design. His interests are broad and cover not only the
genetic and environmental etiologies of personality and behavior problems
but also the measurement and development of cognitive ability, the analysis
of unequal opportunity in education from a behavior genetic perspective,
and political socialization. In addition to publications in international
scientific journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal
of Educational Psychology, Evolution and Human Behavior, and Developmental
Science), he contributed to a chapter in the Handbook of Behavior Genetics
(edited by Y. K. Kim, 2009) and has written many academic papers and
chapters in Japanese.
Webpage: http://hyoka.ofc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/search/details/K005199/
english.html
RAINER RIEMANN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Rainer Riemann is professor of personality psychology and psychological
assessment at Bielefeld University. He graduated in Psychology at Bielefeld,
earning his PhD there with a thesis on George Kelly’s personal construct
theory. Together with Alois Angleitner and Jan Strelau he worked on
the Bielefeld twin studies, which were extended longitudinally (BiLSAT)
and methodologically (GOSAT). He published a number of papers on the
behavioral genetics of personality. From 1999 to 2007, he was professor at
the Friedrich Schiller University Jena and initiated the Jena Twin Study of
Social Attitudes (JeTSSA). He recently started, as principal investigator, a
large-scale longitudinal study on social inequalities (TWINLIFE) using a
nuclear twin family study design.
Webpage: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
riemann.html & https://ekvv.uni-bielefeld.de/pers_publ/publ/
PersonDetail.jsp?personId=5381445&lang=en
Publications: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
RR_Publikation09.pdf
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
21
RELATED ESSAYS
Social Epigenetics: Incorporating Epigenetic Effects as Social Cause and
Consequence (Sociology), Douglas L. Anderton and Kathleen F. Arcaro
Genetics and the Life Course (Sociology), Evan Charney
Genetic and Environmental Approaches to Political Science (Political Science),
Zoltán Fazekas and Peter K. Hatemi
Evolutionary Approaches to Understanding Children’s Academic Achievement (Psychology), David C. Geary and Daniel B. Berch
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare
-
Genetic Foundations
of Attitude Formation
CHRISTIAN KANDLER, EDWARD BELL, CHIZURU SHIKISHIMA,
SHINJI YAMAGATA, and RAINER RIEMANN
Abstract
Since the pioneering work of Eaves and Eysenck (1974) appeared in Nature some
40 years ago, psychologists, sociologists, political scientists, and behavioral geneticists have investigated the effects of nature and nurture on the formation of social
attitudes. It has consistently been found that manifestations of social attitudes (i.e.,
preferences, values, and beliefs pertaining to things such as politics, religion and
the treatment of ingroups and outgroups) are genetically influenced. More recently,
researchers have focused their efforts on the psychophysiological pathways between
gene activity and attitudes. In particular, a broad body of research examines how personality traits may be a link between genetic factors and political orientations. The
latter are typically treated as either a single left–right dimension or divided into two
core aspects: resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism and acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation. In this essay, we provide an overview of this research,
present some findings from our recent international behavioral genetic study on the
topic, and identify key issues for future research. We suggest that future studies treat
attitude formation as a complex process in which genetic factors and the psychophysiological phenomena that stem from them are affected by the surrounding social
environment and culture. Such research will require (i) international study designs
capturing individual and cultural levels of variation and (ii) interdisciplinary collaboration among scientists and researchers in various fields of study such as genetics,
psychology, sociology, political science, neuroscience, and human biology.
INTRODUCTION
An attitude is defined as a personal view or orientation (e.g., a belief, value, or
opinion) toward things such as politics, religion, entertainment, or environmental protection. Attitude formation can be affected by social and cultural
experiences acquired through social networks, the media, and other forms
of contact with people who hold opinions on given issues (Watts & Dodds,
2007; Wu & Huberman, 2006). Moreover, behavioral genetic studies have
shown that individual differences in opinions on social, political, and religious issues are partially attributable to genetic influences (e.g., D’Onofrio,
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.
1
2
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Eaves, Murrelle, Maes, & Spilka, 1999; Olson, Vernon, Harris, & Jang, 2001;
Renner et al., 2012).
Today, it is important to understand the nature of those genetic influences.
One way in which genetic factors may contribute to individual differences
in attitude formation is via attributes such as core personality traits. Here we
provide an overview of the research that has examined how genetic factors
may influence political attitudes and how those attitudes may be affected by
personality traits. We also offer our own contribution to this area of research
by presenting the results from our recent international project on this topic
and by discussing some important issues for future research.
FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
CORE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Political orientations have been studied most often in terms of a single dimension from left to right or from liberal to conservative (Jost, 2006). However, a
number of studies suggest that more than one dimension is needed to illuminate most individuals’ political opinions (see Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009,
for a review). In fact, several studies have provided support for two core
dimensions that capture political views (e.g., Duckitt & Sibley, 2010; Jost,
Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Treier & Hillygus, 2009). One dimension reflects attitudes toward social, cultural, and systemic change versus
tradition. It can be characterized as advocating versus resisting change (Jost
et al., 2003); right-wing authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981); authoritarian conservatism (Kohn & Schooler, 1983); or openness to change versus conservation
(Schwartz, 1994). The other dimension reflects attitudes toward social and
economic equality versus hierarchy. It can be described in terms of rejecting versus accepting inequality (Jost et al., 2003); social dominance orientation
(SDO) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994); or self-enhancement versus
self-transcendence (Schwartz, 1994).
Presented as fundamental aspects of left–right political orientation (Jost,
Nosek, & Gosling, 2008), the two dimensions are factor-analytically distinct
but often positively correlated (Kandler, Bleidorn, & Riemann, 2012), at
least in Western countries (Aspelund, Lindeman, & Verkasalo, 2013), where
resistance to change has generally entailed a defense of social and economic
hierarchy. People with left-wing opinions tend to prefer change and hold
attitudes advocating equality, whereas right-oriented individuals generally
favor system stability and accept inequality.
THE GENETIC BASIS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Heritability and Genes. Twin studies have consistently shown moderate to
substantial genetic influences on individual differences in political positions
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
3
on a left–right (liberalism–conservatism) dimension. These studies provide
estimates of heritability, which is the proportion of population variation
in a variable attributable to genetic differences. Heritability estimates for
left–right orientation are generally in the 50–60% range (Alford, Funk, &
Hibbing, 2005; Bouchard et al., 2003). With regard to the two core dimensions, resistance to change appears to show a higher heritability (61%) than
acceptance of inequality (34%) after correction for measurement error (Kandler
et al., 2012). Heritability estimates of more specific opinions ranged from
about 20% (e.g., attitudes toward federal housing) to 70% (e.g., attitudes
toward school prayer; Alford et al., 2005; Hatemi et al., 2010). Even specific
political behaviors and decisions (e.g., voter turnout and vote choice) are
genetically influenced (Bell, Schermer, & Vernon, 2009; Fowler & Schreiber,
2008).
Recently, molecular genetic studies using the candidate gene approach
and genome-wide association scans have detected specific polymorphisms
linked to individual differences in political attitudes and behavior (Dawes &
Fowler, 2009; Fowler & Dawes, 2008; Hatemi et al., 2011). For example,
Hatemi et al. (2011) identified several chromosomal regions associated
with political orientation. These studies suggest that political orientation
is affected by a number of different genes, and that the genetic processes
involved in attitude formation are highly complex.
Psychophysiological Pathways between Genes and Political Orientations. Because
it is unlikely that genes influence attitude formation directly, it is important
to examine the pathways between genes and attitudes, which would encompass neuroanatomical and neurobiological processes as well as basic cognitive, affective, and motivational tendencies. Studies in this area of research
have already begun (see Jost & Amodio, 2012; Jost, Nam, Amodio, & van
Bavel, 2014, for reviews). For example, greater conservatism was found to be
associated with a smaller anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and a larger right
amygdala volume (Kanai, Feilden, Firth, & Rees, 2011).
In line with the neuroanatomical findings, Oxley et al. (2008) found faster
threat reaction (oculi startle blink reflex) for people with more right-wing
positions, and it has been observed that threat sensitivity is associated with
amygdala activity (LeDoux, 2000). In addition, Amodio, Jost, Master, and
Yee (2007) found that left-oriented people showed significantly more activity
in the ACC, which was associated with greater behavioral accuracy in the
presence of new and unexpected information. Similarly, Weissflog, Choma,
Dywan, van Noordt, and Segalowitz (2013) observed that self-reported attitudinal rejection of inequality and low scores on right-wing authoritarianism were associated with greater ACC activity. Thus, greater endorsement
4
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
of egalitarian values and less authoritarian conservatism (i.e., left-oriented
opinions) appear to be associated with less threat sensitivity and more cognitive
flexibility, the latter being defined as the tendency “to seek out new information and integrate potentially conflicting pieces of information in order
to arrive at a relatively complex understanding of reality” (Jost & Amodio,
2012, p. 60).
The basic tendency to seek out and integrate new and unexpected information is also known as openness to experience, a Big Five personality dimension
that reflects the need for variety, novelty, change, and sophistication (McCrae
& Costa, 2008). Not surprisingly, personality has been suggested as an important link in the long psychophysiological chain between genes and political
attitudes (Smith, Oxley, Hibbing, Alford, & Hibbing, 2011).
Personality as a Key Link between Genes and Political Orientations. Personality
traits are promising candidates in the search for variables that mediate
between genetic influences and political orientations for a number of
reasons. First, they are highly heritable, largely stable across time, and
structurally invariant among different cultures (Kandler et al., 2010; Kandler,
Riemann, Spinath, & Angleitner, 2010; Yamagata et al., 2006). Second, political attitudes consistently show significant associations with openness and
other core personality traits, such as agreeableness and conscientiousness
(Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, &
Ha, 2010; Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl, & Richter, 1993; Sibley &
Duckitt, 2008). Third, longitudinal studies indicate that personality traits
predict political preferences rather than vice versa (Perry & Sibley, 2012;
Sibley & Duckitt, 2013). Fourth, the links between personality traits and
political attitudes are largely driven by genetic factors (Kandler et al., 2012;
Verhulst, Hatemi, & Martin, 2010). These findings support a conceptualization of political orientations as attitudes that are influenced by genetically
anchored personality traits.
However, the genetic contributions to political orientations cannot be completely accounted for by personality traits (Kandler et al., 2012). Other individual attributes with a strong genetic basis may account for genetic variance
in political orientations beyond that explained by personality traits. General
cognitive ability, for example, showed substantial links to left–right political orientation at the individual and national levels (Stankov, 2009), and a
longitudinal study found that intelligence in childhood predicted liberal and
antitraditional attitudes in adulthood (Deary, Batty, & Gale, 2008). It is also
plausible to conceive of political views as distinct elements in a broad system of dispositional attributes. That is, political opinions may be systematically and genetically associated with personality traits, intelligence, or other
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
5
dispositional variables, but not caused by them. In line with that position,
Verhulst, Eaves, and Hatemi (2012) found no support for the hypothesis that
the direction of causation flows from personality factors to political attitudes.
One possibility examined by Verhulst et al. is that political attitudes and personality traits are distinct phenomena that are influenced by common genetic
factors.
The study of the psychophysiological pathways between genes and political opinions has only recently entered the field of science. Future studies
will provide more insight into the mechanisms and processes involved, and
may help reconcile some contradictory findings and perspectives. But the
accumulated evidence leaves little room for doubt that political attitudes are
genetically influenced.
POLITICAL ATTITUDE FORMATION BEYOND GENETIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FACTORS
Similar to other kinds of social attitudes, political positions are also affected
by environmental factors such as education and media exposure. Several
genetically informed studies have reported that individual life experiences
and experiences shared by family members have a significant impact on
political attitudes (e.g., Alford et al., 2005; Hatemi et al., 2010). In fact,
genetically informed research designs provide the best means to examine
the relative contribution of environmental and genetic influences.
On the basis of an extended twin family design that included parents and
spouses of twins, Kandler et al. (2012) studied several sources of individual differences in the two core political orientations acceptance of inequality
and resistance to change. They found significant environmental sources that
act to increase the similarity of twins, spouses, brothers- and sisters-in-law,
and other family groups. This highlights the importance of social interaction and social networks in political opinion formation, and illustrates how
nongenetic factors have a major impact on political attitudes. The evidence
suggests that political attitudes are shaped by both the social environment
and by the underlying genetic effects that influence individual receptiveness
to specific opinions.
CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH: OUR CROSS-CULTURAL TWIN STUDY
Behavioral genetic studies of political opinions typically use subjects from
a single nation or culture, thus ignoring the effect that cultural differences
may have on political attitude formation. To rectify this shortcoming, we
started an international project that combines twin samples from three
different countries (Kandler, Bell, Shikishima, Yamagata, & Riemann, 2013).
Our focus was on the etiology of the relationship between the Big Five
6
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
personality traits (openness, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,
and extraversion) and political orientations.
SAMPLE AND DESIGN
In February 2013, genetically informative data from three separate studies
were assembled (Table 1). The sample included over 3000 individuals and
over 1400 twin pairs from three different continents. Monozygotic (MZ) and
dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs are listed separately in the table because a crucial
aspect of twin studies involves a comparison of those two types of twin
pairs. Greater similarity of MZ compared with DZ twins on a characteristic
of interest indicates that genetic factors are at play. That is because MZ twins
are virtually genetically identical while DZ twins share on average about
50% of their genetic makeup that can vary among humans (see Alford et al.,
2005, for more details on the methodology and assumptions that underlie
twin studies).
CORE DIMENSIONS OF POLITICAL ORIENTATIONS
Although the items measuring political opinions varied across the German,
American, and Japanese data, principal component analyses (PCAs) yielded
at least two components that were interpretable as the two core political
dimensions. Right-wing authoritarianism items (e.g., “Obedience and
respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn”;
Altemeyer, 1996; Funke, 2005), conservatism items (e.g., “It’s wrong to do
things differently from the way our forefathers did”; Kohn & Schooler,
1983), and specific ideological attitudes (e.g., lenience vs law and order)
characterized the first component. It was interpreted as a dimension capturing political opinions toward social and system change versus tradition
Table 1
Sample Characteristics
Age
Data source
Nation
N
Number of Complete Twin Pairs
Range NPAIRS MZM MZF DZM DZF
JeTSSA
Germany
875 17–82
394
Minnesota Twin Study United States 1349 52–61
596
Keio Twin Project
Japan
942 16–38
470
Total
3166 16–92 1460
48
143
85
276
178 20 81
213 86 154
233 33 69
624 139 304
DZOS
67
0
50
117
Note: JeTSSA, Jena Twin Study of Social Attitudes; MZ, monozygotic twin pairs; DZ, dizygotic twin pairs;
M , male; F , female; OS , opposite sex.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
7
(i.e., resistance to change or authoritarian conservatism; RC/AC). Items
from a SDO scale (e.g., “We should strive to make incomes as equal as
possible”; Sidanus & Pratto, 2001), other items on equality (e.g., “If wealth
were more equal in this country we would have many fewer problems”),
and specific ideological positions (e.g., support vs rejection of minority
groups) comprised the second component. It was interpreted as a dimension
capturing attitudes toward social and economic equality versus inequality
(i.e., acceptance of inequality or social dominance orientation; AI/SDO).
In addition, we combined all items to create a composite score for each person in the study. This composite reflects the individual’s position on a global
left–right ideological spectrum. We then created RC/AC and AI/SDO subscale scores based on all items that were clearly related to one of the two
dimensions derived from the PCAs (i.e., factor loadings > 0.30). Internal consistency and correlations between RC/AC and AI/SDO are shown in Table 2
for each national sample.
For the Japanese data, the internal consistency of the left–right composite
scores was comparatively low. However, this may be attributable not only to
lower psychometric quality but also to the fact that in Eastern and other relatively collectivistic nations the two core components RC/AC and AI/SDO
are often marginally or even negatively interrelated. This would lead to
low internal consistency in left–right composite scores. Several studies have
Table 2
Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s 𝛼) of Scales and Interrelations
between RC/AC and AI/SDO
Left–right
Data source
JeTSSA
Minnesota Twin Study
Keio Twin Project
RC/AC
AI/SDO
Correlation
nITEMS
𝛂
nITEMS
𝛂
nITEMS
𝛂
RC/AC ↔ AI/SDO
57a
26b
18c
0.89
0.88
0.63
25
15
10
0.88
0.87
0.73
22
9
8
0.84
0.65
0.63
0.29
0.43
0.00
Note: JeTSSA, Jena Twin Study of Social Attitudes; nITEMS , number of items; Left–right, left–right political
dimension; RC/AC, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism; AI, acceptance of inequality/social
dominance orientation.
a Left–right composite scale includes a 12-item right-wing-authoritarianism (RWA) short scale (Altemeyer,
1996; Funke, 2005), a 16-item social dominance orientation (SDO) scale (Sidanus & Pratto, 2001), 21
self-constructed conservatism items, and 8 items on political orientation (e.g., “support vs rejection of
minority”; Kandler et al., 2012).
b Left–right composite scale includes a 15-item RWA short scale (Altemeyer, 1996), 9 items on attitudes
toward social and economic equality, and 2 items on political positions (liberalism vs conservatism and
Democrat vs Republican).
c Left–right composite scale includes a 10-item authoritarian conservatism scale (Kohn & Schooler, 1983)
and 8 self-constructed items on attitudes toward equality.
8
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
shown that the relationship between the core political dimensions can vary
between cultures as a function of their historical economic arrangements
(Duriez, Van Hiel, & Kossowska, 2005; Thorisdottir, Jost, Liviatan, & Shrout,
2007). For example, conservative individuals living in formerly communist
states tended to favor egalitarian ideas, while conservative individuals in
states with histories of capitalism tended to favor inequality. In our study,
the RC/AC and AI/SDO scores were uncorrelated in the Japanese sample.
In summary, our data indicate that political attitudes can be organized
along a left–right political dimension in these three nations, although the
underlying structure of those attitudes varied because of varying correlations between the two core dimensions (RC/AC and AI/SDO) (Figure 1).
In societies where political attitudes are polarized along a single left–right
dimension such as in the United States and Germany, RC/AC and AI/SDO
are expected to be positively correlated, as they were here for those two
countries. But the two core dimensions can be unrelated in other societies
(Mirisola, Sibley, Boca, & Duckitt, 2007), as we found with the Japanese
sample.
Advocating
equality
(egalitarianism)
Left
Advocating
change
(progressivism)
Resistance to
change
(traditionalism)
Right
Acceptance of
inequality
(hierarchy)
Figure 1 Left–right ideological spectrum and its two core dimensions (i)
advocating equality versus acceptance of inequality and (ii) advocating change
versus resistance to change. Data for Germany (black lines), United States (blue
lines), and Japan (red lines) are shown. The smaller the angle between the
left–right continuum and its two core dimensions, the higher the correlations
between the two core dimensions.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
9
GENETIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL SOURCES OF POLITICAL ATTITUDES
Twin model analyses using data from all three countries (which took variation in measurement error among the national samples into account) indicated that genetic effects explained 49% of individual differences in left–right
political orientation and about one-third of the variance in the two core political dimensions (Figure 2). The remaining variance was due to environmental
effects that were shared by twins (including shared cultural influences) and
environmental influences not shared by twins.
Estimates of genetic and environmental effects on individual differences
in global left–right political orientation did not vary significantly between
the United States and German samples, but the results from both of those
countries differed significantly from the Japanese results. For RC/AC and
AI/SDO, model fitting analyses yielded significant differences among all
three nations. In general, the multinational analyses yielded slightly lower
heritability estimates and stronger environmental effects for political orientations compared to previous, single-nation studies (e.g., Alford et al., 2005;
Bouchard et al., 2003; Kandler et al., 2012). This was primarily due to lower
heritability estimates produced by the Japanese data. Thus, it appears that
cultural variation contributed to these differences, although methodological
artifacts stemming from differences in the way the variables were measured
among the national samples cannot be ruled out.
Left-right political
orientation
Resistance to change/
authoritarian conservatism
32%
Acceptance of inequality/
social dominance
30%
31%
38%
49%
50%
19%
20%
31%
Additive genetic effects
Shared environmental effects
Nonshared environmental effects
Figure 2 Cross-cultural estimates of genetic and environmental sources of
individual differences in left–right ideology and core ideological opinions
Resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism and acceptance of
inequality/social dominance orientation.
10
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
PATTERNS AND SOURCES OF THE LINKS BETWEEN PERSONALITY TRAITS AND POLITICAL
ATTITUDES
The primary aim of the multinational twin study was to examine the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes. Despite the fact
that different measuring instruments were used to capture political opinions
in the United States, German, and Japanese samples, the correlation patterns
were fairly similar (Figure 3). The three measures of political attitudes were
primarily linked to openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. More
specifically, openness was negatively correlated with all three political measures; agreeableness showed negative associations to AI/SDO; and conscientiousness was positively related to global left–right orientation and RC/AC.
We also investigated the etiology of six associations that were consistent
across the three subsamples: left–right political orientation and RC/AC
with openness and conscientiousness, and AI/SDO with openness and
agreeableness. As shown in Table 3, significant genetic correlations were
observed for each pair of variables. A significant genetic correlation suggests
that some of the genetic influences involved are the same for both variables.
For example, the data in our study indicate that left–right orientation
and openness are affected by common genetic influences. Environmental
correlations (corrected for measurement error), which are indicative of
common environmental effects, were found to be lower or nonsignificant,
which suggests that the genetic influences on the variables are more similar
than the environmental influences. In layperson’s terms, there was more
nature in common than there was nurture in each of the pairings shown in
Table 3.
Table 3
Cross-Cultural Phenotypic, Genetic, and Environmental Correlations
between Core Political Orientations and Personality Traits
Correlations
Links
Left-right PO and O
Left-Right PO and C
RC/AC and O
RC/AC and C
AI/SDO and O
AI/SDO and A
Phenotypic
Genetic
−0.32***
0.15***
−0.31***
0.17***
−0.20***
−0.18***
−0.56***
0.33***
−0.64***
0.36***
−0.40**
−0.38**
Environmental
−0.18***
−0.04
−0.15**
0.08
−0.13*
−0.23***
Note: Correlations were based on bivariate twin model analyses and were corrected for measurement
error; PO, political orientation; RC/AC, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism; AI/SDO, acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation; O, openness; C, conscientiousness; A, agreeableness;
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
11
Left-right political orientation
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0.16* 0.15* 0.13*
0.12*
0.01 0.01
Openness
0.01
0.06
0.00 0.03
−.04
−0.26*
−0.32*
−0.23*
Germany
USA
−0.47*
(a)
Japan
Resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0.25*
0.08
0.05
0.15*
0.07
0.07 0.06 0.05
0.13*
0.17*
0.15*
−0.03
−0.14*
−0.27*
Germany
USA
(b)
Japan
−0.58*
Acceptance of inequality/Social dominance orientation
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
0.05
−0.08 −0.03
−0.11*
(c)
Conscientiousness
0.08
−0.01
−0.02
−0.13
−0.14*
−0.19*
−0.15*
−0.17*
−0.04
Germany
USA
−0.33*
−0.41*
Japan
Figure 3 Correlations between core political orientations and personality traits
corrected for measurement error; *p < 0.01.
12
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Finally, we tested the direction of causation between personality traits and
political attitudes. In other words, we sought to determine whether it makes
more sense to say that personality traits cause political attitudes, or that political attitudes cause personality traits. The cross-correlations between personality traits in one twin and political orientations in the co-twin provide critical
information about the direction of an effect if the proportions of the total variation accounted for by genetic and environmental effects are different for
those two variables (see Heath, Kessler, Neale, Eaves, & Kendler, 1993, for
more details), which was the case in this study. Corrected for error variance,
genetic effects (including nonadditive genetic influences) accounted for 65,
52, and 55% of the variance in openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness for the combined sample, while the remaining variance component was
attributable to nonshared environmental effects. Those proportions of variation were different for the three measures of political orientations, shown in
Figure 2.
In order to test direction of causation, we compared four models: (i)
correlation (noncausal) models where all latent factors affecting personality traits were also affecting political attitudes; (ii) models allowing for
reciprocal causation; (iii) unidirectional models where personality affects
political attitudes; and (iv) unidirectional models where political attitudes
affect personality. The main results are illustrated in Figure 4. These results
indicate that the associations for both left–right political orientation and
RC/AC with personality traits (openness and conscientiousness) can be best
described as a correlation attributable to common genetic influences rather
Conscientiousness
+
Openness
−
Resistance to
change/authoritarian
conservatism
+
−
Left-right
ideological
orientation
Agreeableness
−
−
Acceptance of
inequality/social
dominance orientation
Figure 4 Correlations and direction of causation between personality traits
(openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness) and core political orientations
(left–right political orientation, resistance to change/authoritarian conservatism,
and acceptance of inequality/social dominance orientation) based on the results of
cross-cultural genetically informative direction-of-causation analyses.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
13
than a causal relationship. In case of AI/SDO, however, the model fitting
analyses indicate a unidirectional causal relationship from personality traits
(openness and agreeableness) to AI/SDO.
CONCLUSIONS
The two-dimensional structure of political attitudes characterized by RC/AC
and AI/SDO was found in all three cultures, suggesting that the two dimensions may be universal (although the correlations between them did vary
across nations). Individual differences in all three measures of political orientations were shown to have both environmental and genetic causes. This was
consistent with previous findings, but the magnitude of the genetic effects
varied across cultures. As in other studies, political attitudes were associated
with openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Genetic correlations
indicated that these links could be due to common genetic factors. However,
results from our direction-of-causation analyses cast doubt on the conventional wisdom that the flow of causation goes from personality traits to political attitudes. By and large, the results presented here provide support for
the position that personality traits and political attitudes are systematically
related but distinct elements within a broad system of individual attributes.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The research on political orientations provides strong evidence that there is
a genetic component to social attitude formation. However, the processes
and pathways between genes and attitudes are not yet fully understood. In
particular, it will be important to examine how genetic (or neurophysiological) and environmental (e.g., social and cultural) influences may correlate
and interact. For example, is a given genetic predisposition more likely to be
found in certain kinds of political environments? Does the effect of a given
political environment vary depending on an individual’s genetic makeup?
The investigation of gene–environment correlations and interactions in conjunction with the study of psychophysiological pathways between genetic
factors and behavior are the most promising and exciting areas of research for
future studies. A more macro approach could also yield important insights;
for example, one could examine how genetic factors influence political culture and vice versa. All of these sorts of studies will require collaborative
interdisciplinary teams of scientists drawn from fields such as psychology,
sociology, political science, genetics, and neuroscience.
Although our multinational study is informative about cross-cultural universality (e.g., a two-dimensional structure of political attitudes) and cultural
14
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
differences (e.g., different levels of correlation between those two core dimensions), future international studies should endeavor to use the same measuring instruments across cultures. Also, additional nations need to be included
in order to provide a more complete picture of the sources of variation in
political attitudes. This will require collaborative international teams of scientists to rigorously apply sophisticated methodologies to analyze complex
genetically informative data at both the individual and national levels.
As noted, previous research provides a rationale for viewing personality
traits as a link between genetic factors and social attitudes. Longitudinal
studies have primarily supported this conception (Perry & Sibley, 2012;
Sibley & Duckitt, 2013), whereas behavioral genetic studies, including this
one, cast doubt on it (Verhulst et al., 2012). Future studies on this issue should
be both longitudinal and genetically informative to provide a more complete
picture of the phenomena in question. Ideally, these studies should include
subjects who are at the age at which personality trait structure and political
attitudes begin to take shape. Moreover, a variety of methods should be used
to control for potential artifacts of measurement such as random error or
socially desirable responding. Also, intelligence and motivational variables
such as interests and goals (which appear to have a genetic basis that is
partly independent of the genetic sources of personality traits; Bleidorn
et al., 2010; Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2011) should
be brought into the analysis.
The core aspects of political orientations considered here may reflect
basic factors that drive more specific values and attitudes (e.g., toward
homosexuals, foreigners, the death penalty, or environmental protection).
More research should be done on the hierarchical structure of political
attitudes, and on the genetic architecture of that structure.
This short review has focused on political attitudes. A great deal of research
has been done on other attitude domains as well (e.g., D’Onofrio et al., 1999;
Olson et al., 2001). All the issues we raise here—in particular the need for
cross-cultural data, the value of direction-of-causation research, and the
role of correlations and interactions between genetic and environmental
influences—should also be considered in future research in those other areas.
Although we have learned a lot about the genetic foundation of individual
differences in attitudes during the past four decades, much remains to be
learned on the specific underlying processes and pathways between gene
activity and attitude formation.
REFERENCES
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
15
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of
Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Amodio, D. M., Jost, J. T., Master, S. L., & Yee, C. M. (2007). Neurocognitive correlates
of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience, 10, 1246–1247.
Aspelund, A., Lindeman, M., & Verkasalo, M. (2013). Political conservatism and
left-right political orientation in 28 Eastern and Western European countries. Political Psychology, 34, 409–417.
Bell, E., Schermer, J. A., & Vernon, P. A. (2009). The origins of political attitudes
and behaviours: An analysis using twins. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 42,
855–879.
Bleidorn, W., Kandler, C., Hülsheger, U. R., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath,
F. M. (2010). Nature and nurture of the interplay between personality traits and
major life goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 366–379.
Bouchard, T. J., Jr., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R.
(2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson
conservatism scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 959–969.
Carney, D., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and
conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave
behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.
Dawes, C. T., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Partisanship, voting, and the dopamine D2 receptor gene. The Journal of Politics, 71, 1157–1171.
Deary, I. J., Batty, G. D., & Gale, C. R. (2008). Bright children become enlightened
adults. Psychological Science, 19, 1−6.
D’Onofrio, B. M., Eaves, L. J., Murrelle, L., Maes, H. H., & Spilka, B. (1999). Understanding biological and social influences on religious affiliation, attitudes, and
behaviors: A behavior genetic perspective. Journal of Personality, 67, 953–984.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A
dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.
Duriez, B., Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance in Western and Eastern Europe: The importance of the sociopolitical context
and of political interest and involvement. Political Psychology, 26, 299–320.
Eaves, L. J., & Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Genetics and the development of social attitudes.
Nature, 249, 288–289.
Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 70, 579–594.
Fowler, J. H., & Schreiber, D. (2008). Biology, politics, and the emerging science of
human nature. Science, 322, 912–914.
Funke, F. (2005). The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: Lessons from
the dilemma between theory and measurement. Political Psychology, 26, 195–218.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political
contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.
16
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Hatemi, P. K., Gillespie, N. A., Eaves, L. J., Maher, B. S., Webb, B. T., Heath, A. C., …
Martin, N. G. (2011). A genome-wide analysis of liberal and conservative political
attitudes. Journal of Politics, 73, 271–285.
Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K.
B., … Eaves, L. J. (2010). Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design
to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 798–814.
Heath, A. C., Kessler, R. C., Neale, M. C., Eaves, L. J., & Kendler, K. S. (1993). Testing
hypotheses about direction of causation using cross-sectional family data. Behavior
Genetics, 23, 29–50.
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.
Jost, J. T., & Amodio, D. M. (2012). Political ideology as motivated social cognition:
Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motivation and Emotion, 36, 55–64.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism
as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
Jost, J. T., Nam, H. H., Amodio, D. M., & van Bavel, J. J. (2014). Political neuroscience:
The beginning of a beautiful friendship. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 3–42.
Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.
Kanai, R., Feilden, T., Firth, C., & Rees, G. (2011). Political orientations are correlated
with brain structure in young adults. Current Biology, 21, 677–680.
Kandler, C., Bell, E., Shikishima, C., Yamagata, S., & Riemann, R. (2013). The genetic
sources of core political attitudes and the role of personality traits: A cross-cultural
twin study. Behavior Genetics, 43, 525 Paper presented at the 43rd annual meeting
of the Behavior Genetic Association in Marseille, June 28 to July 2.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political
orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating,
and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). The
genetic links between big five personality traits and general interest domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1633–1643.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., Thiel, W., & Angleitner, A.
(2010). Sources of cumulative continuity in personality: A longitudinal multiplerater twin study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 995–1008.
Kandler, C., Riemann, R., Spinath, F. M., & Angleitner, A. (2010). Sources of variance in personality facets: A multiple-rater twin study of self-peer, peer-peer, and
self-self (dis)agreement. Journal of Personality, 78, 1565–1594.
Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. (1983). Work and personality: An inquiry into the impact of
social stratification. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Pub. Corp.
LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23,
155–184.
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
17
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2008). The five-factor theory of personality. In O. P.
John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research
(3rd ed., pp. 159–181). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Mirisola, A., Sibley, C. G., Boca, S., & Duckitt, J. (2007). On the ideological consistency
between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1851–1862.
Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 845–860.
Oxley, D. R., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Miller, M. S., Scalora, M. J.,
… Hibbing, J. R. (2008). Political attitudes vary with physiological traits. Science,
321, 1667–1670.
Perry, R., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Big-five personality prospectively predicts social
dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personality and Individual
Differences, 52, 3–8.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation:
A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Renner, W., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., Angleitner, A., & Spinath, F. M.
(2012). Human values: Genetic and environmental effects on five lexically derived
domains and their facets. Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 89–93.
Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and
attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15,
313–321.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of
human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2008). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and
theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. H. (2013). The dual process model of ideology and prejudice: A longitudinal test during a global recession. Journal of Social Psychology, 153,
448–466.
Sidanus, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy
and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: Reconceptualizing political ideology. Political
Psychology, 32, 369–397.
Stankov, L. (2009). Conservatism and cognitive ability. Intelligence, 37, 294–304.
Thorisdottir, H., Jost, J. T., Liviatan, I., & Shrout, P. E. (2007). Psychological needs and
values underlying left–right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from
Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 175–203.
Treier, S., & Hillygus, D. S. (2009). The nature of political ideology in the contemporary electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73, 679–703.
Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of
Political Science, 56, 34–51.
18
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. K., & Martin, N. G. (2010). The nature of the relationship
between personality traits and political attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 306–316.
Watts, D. J., & Dodds, P. S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 441–458.
Weissflog, M. J., Choma, B. L., Dywan, J., van Noordt, S. J. R., & Segalowitz, S. J.
(2013). The political (and physiological) divide: Political orientation, performance
monitoring, and the anterior cingulate response. Social Neuroscience, 8, 434–447.
Wu, F. & Huberman, B. (2006). Social structure and opinion formation. Retrieved from
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/papers/opinions/opinions.pdf.
Yamagata, S., Suzuki, A., Ando, J., Ono, Y., Kijima, N., Yoshimura, K., … Jang, K. L.
(2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural
twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 90, 987–998.
FURTHER READING
Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically
transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A
dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1893.
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.
Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., & Riemann, R. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political
orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating,
and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
Smith, K. B., Oxley, D. R., Hibbing, M. V., Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2011). Linking genetics and political attitudes: reconceptualizing political ideology. Political
Psychology, 32, 369–397.
CHRISTIAN KANDLER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Christian Kandler is a scientific assistant and lecturer in personality psychology and psychological assessment in the Department of Psychology at
Bielefeld University. For his dissertation (October 2007 to July 2010), he investigated the genetic and environmental sources of personality structure and
development as well as artificial sources of personality measurement. In his
postdoctoral work, his interests expanded to include the examination of the
genetic and environmental sources of the structure and development of individual determinants of behavior conceptually distinct from but related to
personality traits (e.g., major life goals, interests, sociopolitical attitudes, and
religiousness) in order to capture a broader picture of the genetic architecture
of an individuals’ trait and motivational spectrum. In addition to publications in international scientific journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
19
Psychology, Developmental Psychology, and Current Directions in Psychological
Science) and monographs in German, Kandler has given many lectures and
talks on the topic of behavioral genetics, personality structure, and personality development in various academic settings, including several international
conferences.
Webpage: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
doebrich.html & http://ekvv.uni-bielefeld.de/pers_publ/publ/
PersonDetail.jsp?personId=5774219&lang=en
Publications: http://pub.uni-bielefeld.de/person/5774219
EDWARD BELL SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Edward Bell is a political sociologist at Brescia University College at Western
University, in London, Canada. He has done research on Canadian political
movements, including Western separatism and Social Credit. More recently,
he has done behavioral genetic work on political attitudes and behaviors. His
articles have appeared in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, the Canadian
Journal of Sociology, the Canadian Political Science Review, Personality and Individual Differences, and the Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. His book on
the Social Credit movement was published by McGill-Queen’s University
Press, and he is a coauthor of a methodology textbook published by Oxford
University Press.
Webpage: http://www.brescia.uwo.ca/about/our_people/our_faculty/
sociology_fs/edward_bell.html
CHIZURU SHIKISHIMA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Chizuru Shikishima received her PhD in education from Keio University
and is currently an associate professor in the Department of Psychology, Faculty of Liberal Arts, Teikyo University, Tokyo. Her research focuses on factors
underlying individual differences in human social traits, intelligence, and
family background. Her work relies on the twin method of behavioral genetics and data from large-scale longitudinal studies. Specifically, she intends to
identify sources of diversity observed in social attitudes, and in educational
and social achievements through statistical analyses of underlying genetic
and environmental commonalities and specificities as well as the interplay
with IQ, personality traits, and family environments. Her goal is to construct
a grand theory that can be used to reinterpret traditional sociological and
psychological theories and to explain mechanisms by which individuals,
families, and societies are linked. Her studies have been published in international journals (e.g., Intelligence, Social Psychological and Personality Science,
and Twin Research and Human Genetics) as well as in Japanese scientific
20
EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
periodicals (e.g., Japanese Journal of Social Psychology, Sociological Theory and
Methods, and Japanese Journal of Family Sociology).
SHINJI YAMAGATA SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Shinji Yamagata is an assistant professor at the Kyushu University, Japan.
For his dissertation (April 2004 to March 2007, University of Tokyo), he
investigated the genetic and environmental etiologies of personality structure, specifically the association between self-regulatory temperament and
behavior problems in childhood and adolescence. In his recent work, he
uncovered the “pure” bidirectional causal relationship between maternal
authoritative parenting and children’s peer problems using a longitudinal
MZ-twin-difference design. His interests are broad and cover not only the
genetic and environmental etiologies of personality and behavior problems
but also the measurement and development of cognitive ability, the analysis
of unequal opportunity in education from a behavior genetic perspective,
and political socialization. In addition to publications in international
scientific journals (e.g., Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal
of Educational Psychology, Evolution and Human Behavior, and Developmental
Science), he contributed to a chapter in the Handbook of Behavior Genetics
(edited by Y. K. Kim, 2009) and has written many academic papers and
chapters in Japanese.
Webpage: http://hyoka.ofc.kyushu-u.ac.jp/search/details/K005199/
english.html
RAINER RIEMANN SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Rainer Riemann is professor of personality psychology and psychological
assessment at Bielefeld University. He graduated in Psychology at Bielefeld,
earning his PhD there with a thesis on George Kelly’s personal construct
theory. Together with Alois Angleitner and Jan Strelau he worked on
the Bielefeld twin studies, which were extended longitudinally (BiLSAT)
and methodologically (GOSAT). He published a number of papers on the
behavioral genetics of personality. From 1999 to 2007, he was professor at
the Friedrich Schiller University Jena and initiated the Jena Twin Study of
Social Attitudes (JeTSSA). He recently started, as principal investigator, a
large-scale longitudinal study on social inequalities (TWINLIFE) using a
nuclear twin family study design.
Webpage: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
riemann.html & https://ekvv.uni-bielefeld.de/pers_publ/publ/
PersonDetail.jsp?personId=5381445&lang=en
Publications: http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/psychologie/personen/ae04/
RR_Publikation09.pdf
Genetic Foundations of Attitude Formation
21
RELATED ESSAYS
Social Epigenetics: Incorporating Epigenetic Effects as Social Cause and
Consequence (Sociology), Douglas L. Anderton and Kathleen F. Arcaro
Genetics and the Life Course (Sociology), Evan Charney
Genetic and Environmental Approaches to Political Science (Political Science),
Zoltán Fazekas and Peter K. Hatemi
Evolutionary Approaches to Understanding Children’s Academic Achievement (Psychology), David C. Geary and Daniel B. Berch
Genetics and Social Behavior (Anthropology), Henry Harpending and Gregory Cochran
An Evolutionary Perspective on Developmental Plasticity (Psychology),
Sarah Hartman and Jay Belsky
Attitude: Construction versus Disposition (Psychology), Charles G. Lord
Implicit Attitude Measures (Psychology), Gregory Mitchell and Philip E.
Tetlock
Behavioral Heterochrony (Anthropology), Victoria Wobber and Brian Hare