Does Biology Justify Ideology? The Politics of Genetic Attribution

Abstract

Conventional wisdom suggests that political conservatives are more likely than liberals to endorse genetic explanations for many human characteristics and behaviors. Whether and to what extent this is true has received surprisingly limited systematic attention. We examine evidence from a large U.S. public opinion survey that measured the extent to which respondents believed genetic explanations account for a variety of differences among individuals as well as groups in society. We find that conservatives were indeed more likely than liberals to endorse genetic explanations for perceived race and class differences in characteristics often associated with socioeconomic inequality (intelligence, math skills, drive, and violence). Different ideological divisions emerged, however, with respect to respondents' explanations for sexual orientation. Here, liberals were more likely than conservatives to say that sexual orientation is due to genes and less likely to say that it is due to choice or the environment. These patterns suggest that conservative and liberal ideologues will tend to endorse genetic explanations where their policy positions are bolstered by "naturalizing" human differences. That said, debates over genetic influence may be more politicized with respect to race, class, and sexual orientation than population differences generally: We find that left/right political ideology was significantly associated with genetic (or other) attributions for individual differences in intelligence, math skills, drive, or violence. We conclude that conceptions of the proper role of government are closely intertwined with assumptions about the causes of human difference, but that this relationship is a complex one.

Exploring Relationships Among Belief in Genetic Determinism, Genetics Knowledge, and Social Factors

“…Hence, the possible effect of knowledge on the epistemic beliefs relating to genetic determinism should be visible at the individual level. However, despite the findings of Suhay and Jayaratne (2012), there might of course be overlaps and possible effects at the group level. To be able to find such overlaps, we also decided to investigate the effects of social groups on genetic deterministic beliefs, focusing on age, gender, education, religiosity, and previous experiences with genetics.…”

“…This dimension captures the conflict between values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (universalism, benevolence) and values that emphasize pursuit of one's own interests and relative success and dominance over others (power achievement). Some of the literature suggests that genetic determinism can be used as an explanatory model justifying and maintaining unequal social benefits (Shostak et al 2009;Suhay and Jayaratne 2012), which is very similar to the selftranscendence dimension measured in Schwartz's scale of basic values (2012).…”

“…Perhaps the participants form more conservative political ideas as they get older, or reach higher socioeconomic status. These are factors that have been suggested to induce genetic deterministic thinking as a way to preserve and justify advantages for the social group one belongs to (Keller 2005b;Shostak et al 2009;Suhay and Jayaratne 2012). Alternatively, these results could be explained by older participants having different personal experiences when starting families and thereby evolving more traditional lifestyles, which in turn might influence the way they perceive and explain social traits.…”

“…A previous study involving participants from 20 countries revealed that conceptions related to essentialism and genetic determinism can vary dramatically depending on cultural contexts, political stances, and religious beliefs (Castéra and Clément 2014;Castéra et al 2008). Also, systematic studies in which different social factors are investigated are needed, as argued in the literature (Keller 2005b;Suhay and Jayaratne 2012). It would also be interesting to investigate in what ways beliefs in genetic determinism relate to other values and belief systems.…”

When do circumstances excuse? Moral prejudices and beliefs about the true self drive preferences for agency-minimizing explanations

“…It might be objected that whereas participants with negative attitudes towards homosexuality may be more inclined to think that the agent's sexual orientation is fundamentally something he has chosen, participants with more positive attitudes may think that he was born gay and there's not much use in fighting it (Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008;Jayaratne et al, 2006;Lewis, 2009;Suhay & Jayaratne, 2012). Thus, because people tend to believe that actions arising from innate traits are more stable across time and less sensitive to environmental variation than those acquired as result of choice (Gelman, 2003;Gelman, Heyman, & Legare, 2007;Haslam, Bastian, & Bissett, 2004), the results of Study 1 might be explained on the hypothesis that our attitudes to homosexuality influence the degree to which we perceive same-sex attraction as causally sensitive to variations in the agent's situation.…”