Advertisement

Behavior Genetics

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 128–135 | Cite as

Behavioral Genetics and Attributions of Moral Responsibility

  • Kathryn TabbEmail author
  • Matthew S. Lebowitz
  • Paul S. Appelbaum
Original Research

Abstract

While considerable research has examined how genetic explanations for behavior impact assessments of moral responsibility, results across studies have been inconsistent. Some studies suggest that genetic accounts diminish ascriptions of responsibility, but others show no effect. Nonetheless, conclusions from behavior genetics are increasingly mobilized on behalf of defendants in court, suggesting a widespread intuition that this sort of information is relevant to assessments of blameworthiness. In this paper, we consider two sorts of reasons why this kind of intuition, if it exists, is not consistently revealed in empirical studies. On the one hand, people may have complex and internally conflicting intuitions about the relationship between behavior genetics and moral responsibility. On the other hand, it may be that people are motivated to think about the role of genetics in behavior differently depending on the moral valence of the actions in question.

Keywords

Behavior genetics Moral psychology Social cognition Moral responsibility Motivated cognition 

Notes

Funding

This study was funded by the Genetics and Human Agency Grant from the John Templeton Foundation and the Center for Research on the Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, NHGRI (Grant Number 1P50HG007257).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Paul S. Appelbaum declares he has no conflict of interest. Matthew S. Lebowitz declares he has no conflict of interest. Kathryn Tabb declares she has no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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

References

  1. Alicke MD (1992) Culpable causation. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:368–378Google Scholar
  2. Alicke MD (2000) Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychol Bull 126(4):556Google Scholar
  3. Appelbaum PS, Scurich N (2014) Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 42(1):91–100Google Scholar
  4. Appelbaum PS, Scurich N, Raad R (2015) Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychol Public Policy Law 21(2):134–144Google Scholar
  5. Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J (2012) The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337:846–849Google Scholar
  6. Boysen GA, Vogel DL (2008) Education and mental health stigma: the effects of attribution, biased assimilation, and attitude polarization. J Soc Clin Psychol 27(5):447–470Google Scholar
  7. 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(12):1723–1738Google Scholar
  8. Clark CJ, Luguri JB, Ditto PH, Knobe J, Shariff AF, Baumeister RF (2014) Free to punish: a motivated account of free will belief. J Pers Soc Psychol 106(4):501–513Google Scholar
  9. Crandall CS (1994) Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(5):882–894Google Scholar
  10. Crisafulli MA, Von Holle A, Bulik CM (2008) Attitudes towards anorexia nervosa: the impact of framing on blame and stigma. Int J Eat Disord 41(4):333–339Google Scholar
  11. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011a) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol Bull 137(5):800–818Google Scholar
  12. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011b) Some thoughts on essence placeholders, interactionism, and heritability: reply to Haslam (2011) and Turkheimer (2011). Psychol Bull 137(5):829–833Google Scholar
  13. Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ, Cheung BY, Schaller M (2011) Do scientific theories affect men’s evaluations of sex crimes? Aggressive Behav 37(5):440–449Google Scholar
  14. Denno DW (2011) Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: results of a longitudinal study. Mich Law Rev 2011:967–1047Google Scholar
  15. Ditto PH, Pizarro DA, Tannenbaum D (2009) Motivated moral reasoning. Moral Judgment Decis Making 50:307–338Google Scholar
  16. Doris J, Knobe J, Woolfolk R (2007) Variantism about responsibility. Philos Perspect 21:183–214Google Scholar
  17. Feltz A, Millan M (2015) An error theory for compatibilist intuitions. Philos Psychol 28(4):529–555Google Scholar
  18. Feresin E (2009) Lighter sentence for murder with ‘bad genes.’ Nature News, October 30. Available at http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091030/full/news.2009.1050.html
  19. Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. J Philos 68:5–20Google Scholar
  20. Fuss J, Dressing H, Briken P (2015) Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges. J Med Genet 52(11):730–737Google Scholar
  21. Galton F (1865) Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Mag 12(157–166):318–327Google Scholar
  22. Genschow O, Rigoni D, Brass M (2017) Belief in free will affects causal attributions when judging others’ behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(38):10071–10076Google Scholar
  23. Goddard HH (1911) Heredity of feeble-mindedness. Eugenics Rev 3(1):46–60Google Scholar
  24. Gray K, Young L, Waytz A (2012) Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol Inq 23(2):101–124Google Scholar
  25. Haslam N, Kvaale EP (2015) Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: the mixed-blessings model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(5):399–404Google Scholar
  26. Hilbert A, Rief W, Braehler E (2008) Stigmatizing attitudes toward obesity in a representative population-based sample. Obesity 16(7):1529–1534.  https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2008.263 Google Scholar
  27. Kvaale EP, Gottdiener WH, Haslam N (2013a) Biogenetic explanations and stigma: a meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Soc Sci Med 96:95–103Google Scholar
  28. Kvaale EP, Haslam N, Gottdiener WH (2013b) The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: a meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clin Psychol Rev 33(6):782–794Google Scholar
  29. Lebowitz MS, Appelbaum PS (2017) Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction. Int J Soc Psychiatry 63(8):717–723Google Scholar
  30. Lebowitz MS, Rosenthal JE, Ahn W-k (2012) Effects of biological versus psychosocial explanations on stigmatization of children with ADHD. J Atten Disord 20(3):240–250Google Scholar
  31. Lebowitz MS, Pyun JJ, Ahn W (2014) Biological explanations of generalized anxiety disorder: effects on beliefs about prognosis and responsibility. Psychiatr Serv 65(4):498–503Google Scholar
  32. Monterosso J, Royzman EB, Schwartz B (2005) Explaining away responsibility: effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics Behav 15:139–158Google Scholar
  33. Nahmias E, Morris S, Nadelhoffer T, Turner J (2005) Surveying freedom: Folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Philoso Psychol 18(5):561–584Google Scholar
  34. Newman GE, Bloom P, Knobe J (2013) Value judgments and the true self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 40:203–216Google Scholar
  35. Newman GE, De Freitas J, Knobe J (2015) Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cogn Sci 39(1):96–125Google Scholar
  36. Nichols S, Knobe J (2007) Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Noûs 41:663–685Google Scholar
  37. Pearl RL, Lebowitz MS (2014) Beyond personal responsibility: effects of causal attributions for overweight and obesity on weight-related beliefs, stigma, and policy support. Psychol Health 29(10):1176–1191Google Scholar
  38. Phelan JC, Cruz-Rojas R, Reiff M (2002) Genes and stigma: the connection between perceived genetic etiology and attitudes and beliefs about mental illness. Psychiatr Rehabil Skills 6(2):159–185Google Scholar
  39. Pizarro D, Uhlmann E, Salovey P (2003) Asymmetry in judgments of moral praise and blame: the role of perceived metadesires. Psychol Sci 14:267–272Google Scholar
  40. Pizarro DA, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF (2006) Ripple effects in memory: judgments of moral blame can distort memory for events. Mem Cogn 34:550–555Google Scholar
  41. Sarkissian H, Chatterjee A, De Brigard F, Knobe J, Nichols S, Sirker S (2010) Is belief in free will a cultural universal? Mind Lang 25(3):346–358Google Scholar
  42. Schlenker BR, Britt TW, Pennington J, Murphy R, Doherty K (1994) The triangle model of responsibility. Psychol Rev 101(4):632–652Google Scholar
  43. Scurich N, Appelbaum PS (2016) The blunt-edged sword: genetic explanations of misbehavior neither mitigate nor aggravate punishment. J Law Biosci 3(1):140–157Google Scholar
  44. Strohminger N, Knobe J, Newman G (2017) The true self: a psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(4):551–560Google Scholar
  45. Turkheimer E (2015) Genetic prediction. Hastings Cent Rep 45(S1):S32–S38Google Scholar
  46. Turkheimer E (2016) Weak genetic explanation 20 years later. Perspect Psychol Sci 11(1):24–28Google Scholar
  47. Weiner B, Perry RP, Magnusson J (1988) An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:738–748Google Scholar
  48. Woolfolk RL, Doris JM, Darley JM (2006) Identification, situational constraint, and social cognition: studies in the attribution of moral responsibility. Cognition 100(2):283–301Google Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kathryn Tabb
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Matthew S. Lebowitz
    • 1
  • Paul S. Appelbaum
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, Department of PsychiatryColumbia University Medical CenterNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations