Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Genetic and Environmental Roots of Variance in Negativity toward Foreign Nationals

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study quantified genetic and environmental roots of variance in prejudice and discriminatory intent toward foreign nationals and examined potential mediators of these genetic influences: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and narrow-sense xenophobia (NSX). In line with the dual process motivational (DPM) model, we predicted that the two basic attitudinal and motivational orientations—RWA and SDO—would account for variance in out-group prejudice and discrimination. In line with other theories, we expected that NSX as an affective component would explain additional variance in out-group prejudice and discriminatory intent. Data from 1,397 individuals (incl. twins as well as their spouses) were analyzed. Univariate analyses of twins’ and spouses’ data yielded genetic (incl. contributions of assortative mating) and multiple environmental sources (i.e., social homogamy, spouse-specific, and individual-specific effects) of variance in negativity toward strangers. Multivariate analyses suggested an extension to the DPM model by including NSX in addition to RWA and SDO as predictor of prejudice and discrimination. RWA and NSX primarily mediated the genetic influences on the variance in prejudice and discriminatory intent toward foreign nationals. In sum, the findings provide the basis of a behavioral genetic framework integrating different scientific disciplines for the study of negativity toward out-groups.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The questionnaire in German and English item formulations is available on request from the first author.

  2. Rerunning the analyses for different subsamples (twin a, twin b, spouse a, spouse b, male, and females) did not lead to different results for both prejudice and discriminatory intent toward foreign nationals. Concerning prejudices, we also ran PCAs with promax rotation on the basis of the seven bipolar adjective items for each foreign nationality separately. These yielded one-factor solutions for prejudice toward three nationals (accounting for 55 %, 58 %, and 53 % of the variance) expect for prejudice toward Italians. For the latter, the scree and the MAP tests yielded two components which explained 60 % of the variance. A second-order PCA, however, yielded again two components which accounted for 60 % of the variance and could be clearly interpreted as PREJEU and PREJNEU. Concerning discriminatory intent, we did the equivalent analyses. PCAs yielded one-factor solutions for discriminatory intent in all four cases of foreign nationals (accounting for 59 %, 57 %, 58 %, and 61 % of the variance). A second-order PCA yielded only one component which accounted for 94 % of the variance.

  3. The twin correlations for the 101 same-sex DZ twin pairs (on average .30) did not differ significantly from those for the 67 opposite-sex twin pairs (on average .27). Therefore and because of statistical power, we did not exclude opposite-sex twin pairs from our analyses.

  4. According to a proposal of an anonymous reviewer, we also ran alternative model analyses to compare between models allowing for phenotypic assortment and models allowing for reciprocal spouse interaction (see Agrawal et al. 2006, for more details). These model analyses yielded comparable results: A model allowing for reciprocal spouse interaction best fitted the data in case of NSX, whereas models allowing for phenotypic assortment provided the best fit for all other variables.

References

  • Adorno TW, Frenkel-Brunswik E, Levinson DJ, Sanford RN (1950) The authoritarian personality. Harper and Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Agrawal A, Heath AC, Grant JD, Pergadia ML, Statham DJ, Bucholz KK, Martin NG, Madden PAF (2006) Assortative mating for cigarette smoking and for alcohol consumption in female Australian twins and their spouses. Behav Genet 36:553–566

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Alford AR, Hatemi PK, Hibbing JR, Martin NG, Eaves LJ (2011) The politics of mate choice. J Polit 73:369–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Addison Wesley, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer B (1981) Right-wing authoritarianism Winnibeg. University of Manitoba Press, Canada, Manitoba

    Google Scholar 

  • Altemeyer B (1996) The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Asbrock F, Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2010) Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice: a longitudinal test European. J Pers 24:240–324

    Google Scholar 

  • Berezin M (2006) Xenophobia and the new nationalisms. In: Delanty G, Kumar K (eds) The sage handbook of nations and nationalism. SAGE Publications, London, pp 273–284

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Blair IV, Park B, Bachelor J (2003) Understanding intergroup anxiety: are some people more anxious than others? Group Process Intergroup Relat 6:151–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blascovich J, Mendes WB, Hunter SB, Lickel B, Kowai-Bell N (2001) Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:253–267

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bolaffi G, Bracalenti R, Braham P, Gindro S (2002) Dictionary of race, ethnicity, and culture. SAGE Publications, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard TJ Jr (2004) Genetic influences on human psychological traits: a survey. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 13:148–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard TJ Jr (2009) Authoritarianism, religiousness, and conservatism: Is “obedience to authority” the explanation for their clustering, universality and evolution? In: Voland E, Schiefenhövel W (eds) The biological evolution of religious mind and behavior. Springer, Berlin, pp 165–180

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bouchard TJ Jr, McGue M (2003) Genetic and environmental differences on human psychological differences. J Neurobiol 54:4–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boyer P, Bergstrom B (2011) Threat-detection in child development: an evolutionary perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:1034–1041

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer MB (1999) The psychology of prejudice: in-group love or out-group hate? J Soc Issues 55:429–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cattell RB (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivar Behav Res 1:245–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides L, Tooby J (1992) Cognitive adaptations for social exchange. In: Barkow J, Cosmides L, Tooby J (eds) The adapted mind: evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crush J, Ramachandran S (2009) Xenophobia, international migration and human development. United Nations Development Program, Human Development Reports, Research Paper 47

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Gaertner SL (2002) Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. J Pers Soc Psychol 82:62–68

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt J (2006) Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on out-group attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to out-groups. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 32:684–696

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt J, Sibley CG (2007) Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. Eur J Pers 21:113–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt J, Sibley CG (2010) Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: a dual-process motivational model. J Pers 78:1861–1893

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duckitt J, Wagner C, du Plessis I, Birum I (2002) The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: testing a dual process model. J Pers Soc Psychol 83:75–93

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eaves LJ (1979) The use of twins in the analysis of assortative mating. Heredity 43:399–409

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekehammer B, Akrami N (2003) The relation between personality and prejudice: a variable- and a person-centered approach. Eur J Pers 17:449–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekehammer B, Akrami N, Gylje M, Zakrisson I (2004) What matters most to prejudice: big Five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism? Eur J Pers 18:463–482

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esses VM, Dovidio JF, Jackson LM, Armstrong TL (2001) The immigration dilemma: the role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. J Soc Issues 57:389–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Faulkner J, Schaller M, Park JH, Duncan LA (2004) Evolved disease-avoidance mechanisms and contemporary xenophobic attitudes. Group Process Intergroup Relat 7:333–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fisher RA (1918) The correlation between relatives on the supposition of Mendelian inheritance. Trans R Soc Edinburgh 52:399–433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk CL, Smith KB, Alford JR, Hibbing MV, Eaton NR, Krueger RF, Eaves LJ, Hibbing JR (2013) Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations. Polit Psychol 34:805–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funke F (2005) The dimensionality of right-wing authoritarianism: lessons from the dilemma between theory and measurement. Polit Psychol 26:195–218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gonzales KV, Verkuyten M, Weesie J, Poppe E (2008) Prejudice toward Muslims in the Netherlands: testing integrated threat theory. Br J Soc Psychol 47:667–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hahn E, Spinath FM, Siedler T, Wagner GG, Schupp J, Kandler C (2012) The complexity of personality: advantages of a genetically sensitive multi-group design. Behav Genet 42:221–233

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1964) The genetic evolution of social behavior. I and II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi PK, Hibbing JR, Medland SE, Keller MC, Alford JR, Smith KB, Martin NG, Eaves LJ (2010) Not by twins alone: using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. Am J Polit Sci 54:798–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi PK, Dawes CT, Frost-Keller A, Settle JE, Verhulst B (2011) Integrating social science and genetics: news from the political front. Biodemogr Soc Biol 57:67–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi PK, McDermott R, Eaves LJ, Kendler KS, Neale MC (2013) Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: a genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences. Am J Polit Sci 57:279–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heath AC, Eaves LJ (1985) Resolving the effects of phenotype and social background on mate selection. Behav Genet 15:15–30

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hettema JM, Neale MC, Kendler KS (2001) A review and meta-analysis of the genetic epidemiology of anxiety disorders. Am J Psychiatry 158:1568–1578

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ho AK, Sidanius J, Pratto F, Levin S, Thomson L, Kteily N, Sheehy-Skeffington J (2012) Social dominance orientation: revisiting the structure and function of a variable predicting social and political attitudes. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 38:583–606

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson W (2007) Genetic and environmental influences on behavior: capturing all the interplay. Psychol Rev 114:423–440

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kandler C, Riemann R, Kämpfe N (2009) Genetic and environmental overlap between measures of personality and family environment in twins reared together. Behav Genet 39:24–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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. J Pers Soc Psychol 102:633–645

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC, Coventry WL, Heath AC, Martin NG (2005) Widespread evidence for non-additive genetic variation in Cloninger’s and Eysenck’s personality dimensions using a twin plus sibling design. Behav Genet 35:707–721

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lehmiller JJ, Schmitt MT (2007) Group domination and inequality in context: evidence for the unstable meanings of social dominance and authoritarianism. Eur J Soc Psychol 37:704–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GJ, Bates TC (2010) Genetic evidence for multiple biological mechanisms underlying in-group favoritism. Psychol Sci 21:1623–1628

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GJ, Bates TC (2013) Common heritable effects underpin concerns over norm maintenance and in-group favoritism: Evidence from genetic analyses of right-wing authoritarianism and traditionalism. J Personal. doi:10.1111/jopy.12055

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GJ, Kandler C, Riemann R (2014) Distinct heritable influences underpin in-group love and out-group derogation. Soc Psychol Personal Sci 5:407–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Little RJA, Rubin DB (2002) Statistical analysis with missing data, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin JC (1993) Nature, nurture, and conservatism in the Australian Twin Study. Behav Genet 23:287–290

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ludeke SG, Krueger RF (2013) Authoritarianism as a personality trait: evidence from a longitudinal behavior genetic study. Personal Individ Differ 55:480484

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner JK, Kenrick DT, Becker DV, Robertson T, Hofer B, Neuberg SL, Delton AW, Butner J, Schaller M (2005) Functional projection: how fundamental social motives can bias interpersonal perception. J Pers Soc Psychol 88:63–78

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Martin NG, Eaves LJ, Heath AC, Jardine R, Feingold LM, Eyenck HJ (1986) Transmission of social attitudes. PNAS 83:4364–4368

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McCourt K, Bouchard TJ Jr, Lykken DT, Tellegan A, Keyes M (1999) Authoritarianism revisited: genetic and environmental influence examined in twins reared apart and together. Personal Individ Differ 27:985–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McFarland S (2010) Authoritarianism, social dominance, and other roots of generalized prejudice. Polit Psychol 31:453–477

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGue M, Bouchard TJ Jr (1984) Adjustment of twin data for the effects of age and sex. Behav Genet 14:325–343

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morton NE (1973) Analysis of family resemblance I. Introduction. Am J Human Genet 26:318–330

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale MC, Boker SM, Xie G, Maes HHM (2003) Mx: Statistical modeling, 6th edn. Virginia Commonwealth University, Department of Psychiatry, Richmond

    Google Scholar 

  • Neuberg SL, Kenrick DT, Schaller M (2011) Human threat management systems: self-protection and disease avoidance. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35:1042–1051

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor BP (2000) SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 32:396–402

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Olson JM, Vernon PA, Harris JA, Jang KL (2001) The heritability of attitudes: a study of twins. J Pers Soc Psychol 80:845–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Orey BDA, Park H (2012) Nature, nurture, and ethnocentrism in the Minnesota Twin Study. Twin Res Hum Genet 15:71–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Özcan V (2007) Länderprofil Nr. 1: Deutschland (State Profile No. 1: Germany). Hamburgisches WeltWirtschaftsInstitut (HWWI), Hamburg

  • Paolini S, Hewstone M, Cairns E, Voci A (2004) Effects of direct and indirect cross-group friendships on judgements of Catholics and Protestant in Northern Ireland: the mediating role of an anxiety-reduction mechanism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:770–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Park JH, Faulkner J, Schaller M (2003) Evolved disease-avoidance processes and contemporary anti-social behavior: prejudicial attitudes and avoidance of people with physical disabilities. J Nonverbal Behav 27:65–87

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry R, Sibley CG (2012) Big-five personality prospectively predicts social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. Personal Individ Differ 52:3–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew TF, Tropp LR (2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. J Pers Soc Psychol 90:751–783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pilia G, Chen WM, Scuteri A, Orrú M, Albei G, Die M, Schlessinger D (2006) Heritability of cardiovascular and personality traits in 6,148 Sardinians. PLoS Genet 2:e132

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Posthuma D (2009) Multivariate genetic analysis. In: Kim Y-K (ed) Handbook of behavior genetics. Springer, New York, pp 47–60

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pratto F, Sidanius J, Stallworth L, Malle B (1994) Social dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. J Pers Soc Psychol 67:741–763

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds CA, Baker LA, Pedersen NL (1996) Models of spouse similarity: applications to fluid ability measured in twins and their spouses. Behav Genet 26:73–88

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Riek BM, Mania EW, Gaertner SL (2006) Intergroup threat and out-group attitudes: a meta-analytic review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 10:336–353

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rushton JP, Bons TA (2005) Mate choice and friendship in twins. Psychol Sci 16:555–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Saucier G, Goldberg LR (1998) What is beyond the Big Five? J Pers 66:495–524

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schütz H, Six B (1996) How strong is the relationship between prejudice and discrimination? A meta-analytic answer. Int J Intercult Relat 20:441–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sherif M, Harvey OJ, White BJ, Hood WR, Sherif CW (1961) Intergroup cooperation and competition: the robbers cave experiment. University Book Exchange, Norman

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2008) Personality and prejudice: a meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev 12:248–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sibley CG, Duckitt J (2010) The personality bases of ideology: a one-year longitudinal study. J Soc Psychol 150:540–559

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sidanius J, Pratto F (2001) Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith KB, Oxley D, Hibbing MV, Alford JR, Hibbing JR (2011) Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left-right political orientation. PLoS ONE 6:e25552

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Staerkle C, Sidanius J, Green EGT, Molina L (2005) Ethnic minority-majority asymmetry and attitudes toward immigrants across 11 nations. Psicologia Politica 30:7–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiger JH (1990) Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res 25:173–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan WG, Stephan CW (2000) An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In: Oskamp S (ed) Claremont symposium on applied social psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, pp 23–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan WG, Diaz-Loving R, Duran A (2000) Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. J Cross Cult Psychol 31:240–249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan WG, Boniecki KA, Ybarra O, Bettencourt A, Ervin KS, Renfro CL (2002) The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 28:1242–1254

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stößel K, Kämpfe N, Riemann R (2006) The Jena twin registry and the jena twin study of social attitudes (JeTSSA). Twin Res Hum Genet 9:783–786

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel H, Turner JC (1979) An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In: Austin WG, Worchel S (eds) The social psychology of intergroup relations. Brooks/Cole, Monterey, pp 33–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL (1971) The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Q Rev Biol 46:35–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Truett KR, Eaves LJ, Meyer JM, Heath AC, Martin NG (1992) Religion and education as mediators of attitudes: a multivariate analysis. Behav Genet 22:43–62

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RN, Hewstone M, Voci A (2007) Reducing explicit and implicit out-group rejudice via direct and extended contact: the mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. J Pers Soc Psychol 93:369–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Turner RN, Hewstone M, Voci A, Vonofakou C (2008) A test of the extended intergroup contact hypothesis: the mediating role of intergroup anxiety, perceived in-group and out-group norms, and inclusion of the out-group in the self. J Pers Soc Psychol 95:843–860

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van Hiel A, Pandelaere M, Duriez B (2004) The impact of need for closure on conservative beliefs and racism: differential mediation by authoritarian submission and authoritarian dominance. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30:824–837

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Verweij KJH, Shekar SN, Zietsch BP, Eaves LJ, Bailey JM, Boomsma DI, Martin NG (2008) Genetic and environmental influences on individual differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: an Australian twin study. Behav Genet 38:257–265

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Voci A, Hewstone M (2003) Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: the meditational role of anxiety and the moderating role of group salience. Group Process Intergroup Relat 6:37–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson D, Klohnen EC, Castillas A, Simms EN, Haig J, Berry DS (2004) Match makers and deal breakers: analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. J Pers 72:1029–1068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Watson D, Beer A, McDate-Montez E (2014) The role of active assortment in spousal similarity. J Personal. doi:10.1111/jopy.12039

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1921) Systems of mating. Genetics 6:111–178

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Yakushko O (2009) Xenophobia: understanding the roots and consequences of negative attitudes toward immigrants. Couns Psychol 37:36–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of Interest

Christian Kandler, Gary J. Lewis, Lea Henrike Feldhaus and Rainer Riemann declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

All ethical standard procedures were followed in accordance with standards declared by the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (German Society for Psychology) and the American Psychological Association. All participants provided informed consent.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Sport Sciences, Bielefeld University, Universitätsstr. 25, 33615, Bielefeld, Germany

    Christian Kandler & Rainer Riemann

  2. Department of Psychology, University of York, Heslington, UK

    Gary J. Lewis

  3. Department of Psychology and Ergonomics, Berlin Institute of Technology, Berlin, Germany

    Lea Henrike Feldhaus

Authors
  1. Christian Kandler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gary J. Lewis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Lea Henrike Feldhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rainer Riemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Kandler.

Additional information

Edited by Michael Lyons.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kandler, C., Lewis, G.J., Feldhaus, L.H. et al. The Genetic and Environmental Roots of Variance in Negativity toward Foreign Nationals. Behav Genet 45, 181–199 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-014-9700-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-014-9700-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation