Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Biological Essentialism, Heuristic Thinking, Need for Closure, and Conservative Values: Insights From a Survey and Twin Study

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

A Correction to this article was published on 19 May 2022

This article has been updated

Abstract

Biological essentialism, the belief that human attributes are determined by biology, is a core component of essentialist thinking. Previous studies have shown that individual differences in essentialist thinking are associated with heuristic thinking, cognitive ability and style, conservative values, and prejudice. None, however, have examined whether biological essentialism is itself heritable, or the extent to which familial aggregation explains associations with core correlates. In order to do this, we analyzed data from a genetically informative sample of families with twins in Australia (N = 2,103), as well as general population samples from the UK (N = 501) and the US (N = 500). Genetic factors had little influence in individual differences in biological essentialism or in its relationship with heuristic thinking. Conservative values were genetically correlated with cognitive styles (i.e., need for closure and heuristic thinking). These findings support a bigger role of genes in explaining the relationship between cognitive processes and moral reasoning and ideology than they do the association between cognitive processes and essentialist thinking.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data and code available upon request.

Change history

References

  • Akaike H (1987) Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52(3):317–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barlow FK, Sherlock JM, Zietsch BP (2016) The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of Prejudice. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Barlow FK (2019) Nature vs nurture is nonsense: On the necessity of an integrated genetic, social, developmental, and personality psychology. Aust J Psychol 71(1):68–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartlett MS (1937) Properties of sufficiency and statistical tests. Series A-Math and Phys Sci 160(901):268–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastian B, Haslam N (2006) Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. J Exp Soc Psychol 42(2):228–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL, Newman GE (2013) The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. J Pers Soc Psychol 105(6):891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Chapman GB, Elstein AS (2000) Cognitive processes and biases in medical decision making. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen S, Duckworth K, Chaiken S (1999) Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychol Inq 10(1):44–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cimpian A, Salomon E (2014) The inherence heuristic: an intuitive means of making sense of the world, and a potential precursor to psychological essentialism. Behav Brain Sci 37(5):461–480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod I, Kuntzman R, MacNevin G, Lynch K, Woods M, Morandini J (2021) Genetic essentialism: The mediating role of essentialist biases on the relationship between genetic knowledge and the interpretations of genetic information. Euro J Med Gene 64(1):104119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol Bull 137(5):800–818. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021860

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • De Moor MH, Boomsma DI, Stubbe JH, Willemsen G, de Geus EJ (2008) Testing causality in the association between regular exercise and symptoms of anxiety and depression. Arch Gen Psychiatry 65(8):897–905. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.65.8.897

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dziuban CD, Shirkey EC (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychol Bull 81(6):358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eidelman S, Crandall CS, Goodman JA, Blanchar JC (2012) Low-effort thought promotes political conservatism. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 38(6):808–820

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Evans JSB (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frederick S (2005) Cognitive reflection and decision making. J Econo Perspect 19(4):25–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman SA (2003) The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gnambs T, Schroeders U (2020) Cognitive abilities explain wording effects in the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Assessment 27(2):404–418

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Graham J, Nosek BA, Haidt J, Iyer R, Koleva S, Ditto PH (2011) Mapping the moral domain. J Pers Soc Psychol 101(2):366

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Hair JF, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2018) Moving beyond the Basics In Multivariate data analysis. Cengage Learning, US

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam N, Kvaale EP (2015) Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: the mixed-blessings model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(5):399–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam N (2017) The Science of Lay Theories. Springer International Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heath AC, Nyholt DR, Neuman R, Madden PAF, Bucholz KK, Todd RD, Martin NG (2003) Zygosity diagnosis in the absence of genotypic data: an approach using latent class analysis. Twin Res 6(1):22–26. https://doi.org/10.1375/136905203762687861

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heine SJ, Dar-Nimrod I, Cheung BY, Proulx T (2017) Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes In Advances in experimental social psychology. Elsevier, Netherlands

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Horn JL (1965) A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30(2):179–185

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu L-T, Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 6(1):1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Itamar S, Aner S (2011) On the heritability of consumer decision making: an exploratory approach for studying genetic effects on judgment and choice. J Consum Res 37(6):951–966. https://doi.org/10.1086/657022

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost JT, Amodio DM (2012) Political ideology as motivated social cognition: behavioral and neuroscientific evidence. Motiv Emot 36(1):55–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost JT, Orsolya H (2005) Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 14(5):260–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Sulloway FJ (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychol Bull 129(3):339–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2012) Taming Intuitive Predictions. In Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller J (2005) In genes we trust: the biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 88(4):686

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Keller MC, Coventry WL (2005) Quantifying and addressing parameter indeterminacy in the classical twin design. Twin Res Hum Genet 8(3):201–213

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ksiazkiewicz A, Ludeke S, Krueger R (2016) The role of cognitive style in the link between genes and political ideology. Polit Psychol 37(6):761–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunda Z (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull 108(3):480

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lebowitz MS, Ahn W-K (2017) Testing positive for a genetic predisposition to depression magnifies retrospective memory for depressive symptoms. J Consult Clin Psychol 85(11):1052

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J (2012) Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol Sci Pub Inter 13(3):106–131

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis CM, Vassos E (2020) Polygenic risk scores: from research tools to clinical instruments. Genome Med 12:1–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis GJ, Kandler C, Riemann R (2014) Distinct Heritable Influences Underpin In-Group Love and Out-Group Derogation. Soc Psychol Person Sci 5(4):407–413. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613504967

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loehlin JC (1996) The Cholesky approach: a cautionary note. Behav Genet 26(1):65–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02361160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch KE, Morandini JS, Dar-Nimrod I, Griffiths PE (2018) Causal reasoning about human behavior genetics: synthesis and future directions. Behav Genet. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9909-z

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McGue M, Christensen K (1997) Genetic and environmental contributions to depression symptomatology: evidence from Danish twins 75 years of age and older. J Abnorm Psychol 106(3):439

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • McNeish D, Wolf MG (2020) Thinking twice about sum scores. Behav Res Method 52(6):2287–2305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin DL, Ortony A (1989) Psychological essentialism. In: Vosniadou S, Ortony A (eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, pp 179–195

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Meiser B, Guo XY, Putt S, Fullerton JM, Schofield PR, Mitchell PB, Yanes T (2020) Psychosocial implications of living with familial risk of a psychiatric disorder and attitudes to psychiatric genetic testing: a systematic review of the literature. Am J Med Genet Part B Neuropsyc Genet. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajmg.b.32786

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin-Chassé A, Suhay E, Jayaratne TE (2017) Discord over DNA: ideological responses to scientific communication about genes and race 1. J Race, Ethn Polit 2(2):260–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morosoli JJ, Colodro-Conde L, Barlow FK, Medland SE (2019) Public understanding of behavioral genetics: integrating heuristic thinking, motivated reasoning and planned social change theories for better communication strategies. Behav Genet 49(5):469–477

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morosoli JJ, Colodro-Conde L, Barlow FK, Medland SE (2021) Investigating perceived heritability of mental health disorders and attitudes toward genetic testing in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet 186(6):341–352

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morosoli, J. J., Colodro-Conde, L., Barlow, F. K., & Medland, S. E. (2020). Understanding science communication in human genetics using text mining. bioRxiv, 2020.2007.2024.219683. doi:https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.24.219683

  • Morton TA, Postmes T, Haslam SA, Hornsey MJ (2009) Theorizing gender in the face of social change: is there anything essential about essentialism? J Pers Soc Psychol 96(3):653–664. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012966

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Napier JL, Luguri JB (2013) Moral mind-sets: Abstract thinking increases a preference for “individualizing” over “binding” moral foundations. Soc Psychol Person Sci 4(6):754–759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neale MC, Hunter MD, Pritikin JN, Zahery M, Brick TR, Kirkpatrick RM, Boker SM (2016) OpenMx 2.0: extended structural equation and statistical modeling. Psychometrika 81(2):535–549

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Neale MC, Miller MB (1997) The use of likelihood-based confidence intervals in genetic models. Behav Genet 27(2):113–120

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Palan S, Schitter C (2018) Prolific. ac—a subject pool for online experiments. J Behav Exp Financ 17:22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polderman TJ, Benyamin B, De Leeuw CA, Sullivan PF, Van Bochoven A, Visscher PM, Posthuma D (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet 47(7):702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Viena, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org/. Accessed 25 May 2021

  • Rebollo I, De Moor MH, Dolan CV, Boomsma DI (2006) Phenotypic factor analysis of family data: correction of the bias due to dependency. Twin Res Hum Genet 9(3):367–376

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle W, Rocklin T (1979) Very simple structure: an alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivar Behav Res 14(4):403–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Revelle, W. (2020). psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research (Version R package version 2.0.12). Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych. Accessed 25 May 2021

  • Rhodes M, Gelman SA (2009) A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cogn Psychol 59(3):244–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.05.001

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rijsdijk FV, Sham PC (2002) Analytic approaches to twin data using structural equation models. Brief Bioinform 3(2):119–133

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Roets A, Van Hiel A (2006) Need for closure relations with authoritarianism, conservative beliefs and racism: the impact of urgency and permanence tendencies. Psychologica Belgica 46(3):235–252. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb-46-3-235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roets A, Van Hiel A (2011a) Allport’s prejudiced personality today: need for closure as the motivated cognitive basis of prejudice. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 20(6):349–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roets A, Van Hiel A (2011b) Item selection and validation of a brief, 15-item version of the Need for Closure Scale. Personality Individ Differ 50(1):90–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roets A (2017) Three decades of need for closure research: About epistemic goals and (not) means. In The motivation-cognition interface. Routledge, UK

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Smith KB, Alford JR, Hibbing JR, Martin NG, Hatemi PK (2017) Intuitive ethics and political orientations: testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology: intuitive ethics and political orientations. Am J Polit Sci 61(2):424–437. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strupp-Levitsky M, Noorbaloochi S, Shipley A, Jost JT (2020) Moral “foundations” as the product of motivated social cognition: Empathy and other psychological underpinnings of ideological divergence in “individualizing” and “binding” concerns. PloS one 15(11):e0241144

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Suhay E, Jayaratne TE (2012) Does biology justify ideology? The politics of genetic attribution. Public Opin Q 77(2):497–521

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer WF (1976) Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika 41(3):321–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhulst B, Prom-Wormley E, Keller M, Medland S, Neale MC (2019) Type I error rates and parameter bias in multivariate behavioral genetic models. Behav Genet 49(1):99–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9942-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wray NR, Lin T, Austin J, McGrath JJ, Hickie IB, Murray GK, Visscher PM (2020) From basic science to clinical application of polygenic risk scores: A primer. JAMA psychiatry 78(1):101–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright MJ, Martin NG (2004) Brisbane adolescent twin study: outline of study methods and research projects. Aust J Psychol 56(2):65–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study and article would not have been feasible without the Brisbane Longitudinal Twin Study, including all its personnel and research participants. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge Richard Parker and Prof. Nick Martin for their continued work managing research participants and data collections at QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute.

Funding

This study was funded by the John Templeton Foundation (Genetics and Human Agency Project). SEM was supported by NHMRC grant APP1172917.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Mental Health and Neuroscience Department, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Royal Brisbane Hospital, 300 Herston Rd, Locked Bag 2000, Brisbane, QLD, 4029, Australia

    J. J. Morosoli, L. Colodro-Conde & S. E. Medland

  2. School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    J. J. Morosoli, F. K. Barlow & S. E. Medland

Authors
  1. J. J. Morosoli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. K. Barlow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Colodro-Conde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. E. Medland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JJM completed this manuscript under the guidance of SEM, FKB, and LCC. Specifically, JJM conceived and planned the research, carried out the analysis, and wrote the manuscript. SEM assisted in conceiving and planning the research. SEM, FKB, and LCC, revised the manuscript and provided critical input.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. J. Morosoli.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

JJ Morosoli, FK Barlow, L Colodro-Conde, and SE Medland declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Committee of QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute and the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Queensland (approval numbers: P2227 and JM03024).

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Participants signed informed consent regarding publishing their data.

Additional information

Edited by: Eric Turkheimer.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Morosoli, J.J., Barlow, F.K., Colodro-Conde, L. et al. Genetic and Environmental Influences on Biological Essentialism, Heuristic Thinking, Need for Closure, and Conservative Values: Insights From a Survey and Twin Study. Behav Genet 52, 170–183 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-022-10101-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-022-10101-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation