Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 168–174 | Cite as

Genes and Virtue: Exploring How Heritability Beliefs Shape Conceptions of Virtue and Its Development

  • Matthew Vess
  • Rebecca J. Brooker
  • Matt Stichter
  • Jenae M. Neiderhiser
Original Research

Abstract

In this paper, we provide an overview of our ongoing project in the Genetics and Human Agency Initiative sponsored by the John Templeton Foundation. Our project focuses on the ways that lay beliefs about the heritability of virtue influence reasoning about the nature of virtue, parenting behaviors, and the development of virtue in children. First, we provide philosophical perspectives on the nature of virtue and suggest that viewing virtue as a malleable skill may have important advantages. Next, we review theory and research that highlights the ways that lay heritability beliefs potentially undermine conceptualizations of virtue as a malleable skill. Finally, we discuss how lay heritability beliefs might ultimately affect parent–child interactions and child virtue development. The paper thus provides a brief description our project’s theoretical foundation and a general look at the empirical questions it will tackle.

Keywords

Genetic essentialism Virtue Lay heritability beliefs 

Notes

Funding

This project was funded by The John Templeton Foundation’s Genetics and Human Agency Initiative.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Matthew Vess declares that he has no conflict of interest. Rebecca Brooker declares that she has no conflict of interest. Matt Stichter declares that he has no conflict of interest. Jenae Neiderhiser declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Akpan N (2017) How white supremacists respond when their DNA says they’re not white. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/white-supremacists-respond-genetics-say-theyre-not-white
  2. Alfano M (2013) Identifying and defending the hard core of virtue ethics. J Philos Res 38:233–260Google Scholar
  3. Annas J (2011) Intelligent virtue. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Ardelt M, Eccles JS (2001) Effects of mothers’ parental efficacy beliefs and promotive parenting strategies in inner-city youth. J Fam Issues 22:944–972Google Scholar
  5. Batson CD, Kobrynowicz D, Dinnerstein JL, Kampf HC, Wilson AD (1997) In a very different voice: unmasking moral hypocrisy. J Pers Soc Psychol 72(6):1335–1348Google Scholar
  6. Baumrind D (1973) The development of instrumental competence through socialization. In: Pick A (ed) Minnesota symposia on child psychology, vol 7. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 3–46Google Scholar
  7. Baumrind D (1991) The influence of parenting style on adolescent competence and substance use. J Early Adolesc 11:56–95Google Scholar
  8. Brittian AS, Lerner RM (2013) Early influences and later outcomes associated with developmental trajectories of Eriksonian fidelity. Dev Psychol 49(4):722–735Google Scholar
  9. Cheung BY, Heine SJ (2015) The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 41:1723–1738Google Scholar
  10. Darley JM, Batson CD (1973) From Jerusalem to Jericho: a study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 27:100–108Google Scholar
  11. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol Bull 137:800–818Google Scholar
  12. Dodge KA, Pettit GS, Bates JE (1994) Socialization mediators of the relation between socioeconomic status and child conduct problems. Child Dev 65:649–665Google Scholar
  13. Doris JM (1998) Persons, situations, and virtue ethics. Nous 32(4):504–530Google Scholar
  14. Dumka LE, Stoerzinger HD, Jackson KM, Roosa MW (1996) Examination of the cross-cultural and cross-language equivalence of the parenting self-agency measure. Fam Relat 45:216–222Google Scholar
  15. Dweck CS (2000) Self-theories: their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Farrell NR, Lee AA, Deacon BJ (2015) Biological or psychological? Effects of eating disorder psychoeducation on self-blame and recovery expectations among symptomatic individuals. Behav Res Ther 74:32–37Google Scholar
  17. Foot P (1978) Virtues and vices. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Gallagher J (2017). Incredible editing of life’s building blocks. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-41724994
  19. Gaunt R (2006) Biological essentialism, gender ideologies, and role attitudes: what determines parents’ involvement in child care. Sex Roles 55:523–533Google Scholar
  20. Guzell JR, Vernon-Feagans L (2004) Parental perceived control over caregiving and its relationship to parent-infant interaction. Child Dev 75:134–146Google Scholar
  21. Haney C, Banks C, Zimbardo P (1973) A study of prisoners and guards in a simulated prison. In: Aronson E (ed) Readings about the social animal, 3rd edn. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  22. Harman G (1999) Moral philosophy meets social psychology: virtue ethics and the fundamental attribution error. Proc Aristot Soc 99:315–331Google Scholar
  23. Haslam N, Kvaale EP (2015) Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: the mixed-blessings model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(5):399–404Google Scholar
  24. Haslam N, Bastian B, Bain P, Kashima Y (2006) Psychological essentialism, implicit theories, and intergroup relations. Group Process Intergroup Relat 9(1):63–76Google Scholar
  25. Hauser O (2012) Pushing daddy away? A qualitative study of maternal gatekeeping. Qual Sociol Rev 8(1):34–59Google Scholar
  26. Hogenboom M (2014) Two genes linked with violent crime. Retrieved April 10, 2018 from http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29760212
  27. Hursthouse R (1999) On virtue ethics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Izzo C, Weiss L, Shanahan T, Rodriguez-Brown F (2000) Parental self-efficacy and social support as predictors of parenting practices and children’s socioemotional adjustment in Mexican immigrant families. J Prev Interv Community 20:197–213Google Scholar
  29. Jones TL, Prinz RJ (2005) Potential roles of parental self-efficacy in parent and child adjustment: a review. Clin Psychol Rev 25:341–363Google Scholar
  30. Kashdan TB, Rose P, Fincham FD (2004) Curiosity and exploration: facilitating positive subjective experiences and personal growth opportunities. J Pers Assess 82:291–305Google Scholar
  31. 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):686–702Google Scholar
  32. Kochanska G, Murray KT (2000) Mother-child mutually responsive orientation and conscience development: from toddler to early school age. Child Dev 71:417–431Google Scholar
  33. Kohlberg L (1969) Stage and sequence: the cognitive-developmental approach to socialization. In: Gustin D (ed) Handbook of socialization theory and research. Rand MacNally, New York, pp 349–480Google Scholar
  34. Kvaale EP, Haslam N, Gottdiener WH (2013) The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: a meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clin Psychol Rev 33(6):782–794Google Scholar
  35. Latané B, Darley JM (1970) The unresponsive bystander: why doesn’t he help? Appleton-Century-Crofts, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  36. Lebowitz MS, Ahn WK (2014). Effects of biological explanations for mental disorders on clinicians’ empathy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(50):17786–17790Google Scholar
  37. Lebowitz MS, Ahn WK (2015) Emphasizing malleability in the biology of depression: durable effects on perceived agency and prognostic pessimism. Behav Res Ther 71:125–130Google Scholar
  38. Lebowitz MS, Ahn WK, Nolen-Hoeksema S (2013) Fixable or fate? Perceptions of the biology of depression. J Consult Clin Psychol 81(3):518–527Google Scholar
  39. Milgram S (1974) Obedience to authority. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Mischel W (1979) On the interface of cognition and personality: beyond the person–situation debate. Am Psychol 34(9):740–754.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.34.9.740 Google Scholar
  41. Miu AS, Yeager DS (2015) Preventing symptoms of depression by teaching adolescents that people can change: effects of a brief incremental theory of personality intervention at 9-month follow-up. Clin Psychol Sci 3(5):726–743Google Scholar
  42. Molden DC, Dweck CS (2006) Finding” meaning” in psychology: a lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development. Am Psychol 61(3):192–203Google Scholar
  43. Moorman EA, Pomerantz EM (2010) Ability mindsets influence the quality of mothers’ involvement in children’s learning: an experimental investigation. Dev Psychol 46:1354–1362Google Scholar
  44. Narvaez D (2005) The Neo-Kohlbergian tradition and beyond: schemas, expertise and character. In Carlo G, Pope-Edwards C (eds.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (51: Moral Motivation through the Lifespan, 119–163). University of Nebraska Press, LincolnGoogle Scholar
  45. Olin L, Doris JM (2014) Vicious minds: virtue epistemology, cognition, and skepticism. Philos Stud 168:665–692Google Scholar
  46. Park N, Peterson C, Seligman ME (2004) Strengths of character and well-being. J Soc Clin Psychol 23(5):603–619Google Scholar
  47. Pollard B (2003) Can virtuous actions be both habitual and rational? Ethical Theory Moral Pract 6:411–425Google Scholar
  48. Reiss D, Neiderhiser JM, Hetherintgon EM, Plomin R (2000) The relationship code. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  49. Russell DC (2009) Practical intelligence and the virtues. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  50. Shumow L, Lomax R (2002) Parental efficacy: predictor of parenting behavior and adolescent outcomes. Parenting 2:127–150Google Scholar
  51. Slicker EK (1998) Relationship of parenting style to behavioral adjustment in graduating high school seniors. J Youth Adolesc 27:345–372Google Scholar
  52. Smetana JG (1999) The role of parents in moral development: a social domain analysis. J Moral Educ 28(3):311–321Google Scholar
  53. Snow NE (2010) Virtue as social intelligence: an empirically grounded theory. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  54. Sosa E (2007) A virtue epistemology: apt belief and reflective knowledge, volume 1. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  55. Stichter M (2017) Virtue as skill. In: Nancy S (ed) Oxford handbook of virtue. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 57–84Google Scholar
  56. Stichter M (in press). The skillfulness of virtue: improving our moral and epistemic lives. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Stouthamer-Loeber M, Loeber R (1986) Boys who lie. J Abnorm Child Psychol 14:551–564Google Scholar
  58. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1981) The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 211(30):453–457Google Scholar
  59. United States Food and Drug Administration (2017) FDA allows marketing of first direct-to-consumer tests that provide genetic risk information for certain conditions (Press release). Retrieved April 10, 2018 from http://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm551185.htm
  60. Yeager DS, Dweck CS (2012) Mindsets that promote resilience: when students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educ Psychol 47(4):302–314Google Scholar
  61. Yeager DS, Johnson R, Spitzer BJ, Trzesniewski KH, Powers J, Dweck CS (2014) The far-reaching effects of believing people can change: implicit theories of personality shape stress, health, and achievement during adolescence. J Pers Soc Psychol 106(6):867–884Google Scholar
  62. Zagzebski L (1996) Virtues of the mind. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological and Brain SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.School of Politics, Philosophy, and Public AffairsWashington State UniversityPullmanUSA
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyThe Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations