Advertisement

Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments About the Heritability of Behavior

  • Emily A. Willoughby
  • Alan C. Love
  • Matt McGue
  • William G. Iacono
  • Jack Quigley
  • James J. Lee
Original Research

Abstract

The fact that genes and environment contribute differentially to variation in human behaviors, traits and attitudes is central to the field of behavior genetics. Perceptions about these differential contributions may affect ideas about human agency. We surveyed two independent samples (N = 301 and N = 740) to assess beliefs about free will, determinism, political orientation, and the relative contribution of genes and environment to 21 human traits. We find that lay estimates of genetic influence on these traits cluster into four distinct groups, which differentially predict beliefs about human agency, political orientation, and religiosity. Despite apparent ideological associations with these beliefs, the correspondence between mean lay estimates and published heritability estimates for the surveyed traits is large (r = .77). Belief in genetic determinism emerges as a modest predictor of accuracy in these lay estimates. Additionally, educated mothers with multiple children emerge as particularly accurate in their estimates of the genetic contribution to these traits.

Keywords

Heritability Free will Determinism Human agency Genetics Environment 

Notes

Funding

Research was supported in part by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation as part of their Genetics and Human Agency initiative (Grant Number 60780).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Emily A. Willoughby, Alan C. Love, Matt McGue, William G. Iacono, Jack Quigley, James J. Lee declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

All procedures followed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 (5). Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study. This article does not contain any studies with animal subjects performed by the any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10519_2018_9931_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.2 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1191 KB)

References

  1. Adleberg T, Thompson M, Nahmias E (2014) Do men and women have different philosophical intuitions? Further data. Philos Psychol 28(5):615–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumeister RF, Bauer IM, Lloyd SA (2010) Choice, free will, and religion. Psychol Relig Spiritual 2(2):67–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical turk: a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carver RB et al (2017) Young adults’ belief in genetic determinism, and knowledge and attitudes towards modern genetics and genomics: The PUGGS questionnaire. PLoS ONE 12(1):e0169808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chan H-Y, Deutsch M, Nichols S (2016) Free will and experimental philosophy. In: Sytsma J, Buckwalter W (eds) A companion to experimental philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Condit CM (2011) When do people deploy genetic determinism? A review pointing to the need for multi-factorial theories of public utilization of scientific discourses. Sociol Compass 5(7):618–635CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Condit C, Parrott R, Harris T (2006) Laypeople and behavior genetics. In: Parens E, Chapman AR (eds) Wrestling with behavior genetics. The John Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  8. Crosswaite M, Asbury K (2018) Teacher beliefs about the aetiology of individual differences in cognitive ability, and the relevance of behavioural genetics to education. Br J Educ Psychol.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12224 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Duckitt J, Bizumic B, Krauss SW, Heled E (2010) A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: the authoritarianism-conservatism-traditionalism model. Polit Psychol 31(5):685–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Earman J (1986) A primer on determinism. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Feldman S (1988) Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. Am J Polit Sci 32(2):416–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Feldman S, Steenbergen MR (2001) The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. Am J Polit Sci 45(3):658–677CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feltz A, Cokely ET (2012) The philosophical personality argument. Philos Stud 161:227–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gericke N et al (2017) Exploring relationships among belief in genetic determinism, genetics knowledge, and social factors. Sci Educ 26(10):1223–1259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Graham J, Haidt J, Nosek BA (2009) Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. J Pers Soc Psychol 96(5):1029–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Haga SB et al (2013) Public knowledge of and attitudes towards genetics and genetic testing. Genetic Test Mol Biomark 17(4):327–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton LC (2015) Conservative and liberal views of science, does trust depend on topic? The Carsey School of Public Policy at the Scholars’ Repository, 252Google Scholar
  18. Hirsh JB, DeYoung CG, Xu X, Peterson JB (2010) Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36(5):655–663CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hume D (1975/1738) A treatise of human nature. In Selby-Bigge LA, ed. 2nd ed. revised by P.H. Nidditch. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Ismael JT (2016) How physics makes us free. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. James W (1956/1884) The dilemma of determinism. In The will to believe: and other essays in popular philosophy and human immortality. Dover, MineolaGoogle Scholar
  22. Kan C et al (2016) Genetic overlap between type 2 diabetes and depression in Swedish and Danish twin registries. Mol Psychiatry 21:903–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kane R (ed) (2002) Oxford handbook on free will. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. 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):686–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Långström N et al (2010) Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Arch Sex Behav 39(1):75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Libet B (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behav Brain Sci 8:529–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McCright AM, Dunlap RE (2011) The politicization of climate change and polarization in the American public’s views of global warming, 2001–2010. Sociol Q 52(2):155–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mele A (2009) Effective intentions: the power of conscious will. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mucci LA et al (2016) Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic countries. JAMA 315(1):68–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Nadelhoffer T et al (2014) The free will inventory: measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Conscious Cogn 25:27–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Nadelson LS, Hardy KK (2015) Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evol: Educ Outreach 8(9):1–9Google Scholar
  32. Nahmias E, Morris S, Nadelhoffer T, Turner J (2005) Surveying freedom: folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Philos Psychol 18(5):561–584CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. O’Connor T (2016) Free will. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, StandfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D (2006) Population structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet 2(12):e190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Paulhus DL, Carey JM (2011) The FAD-plus: measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. J Pers Assess 93(1):96–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Polderman TJ et al (2015) Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nat Genet 47(7):702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rangel U, Keller J (2011) Essentialism goes social: belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. J Pers Soc Psychol 100(6):1056–1078CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Russell P (2016) Hume on free will. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, StandfordGoogle Scholar
  39. Suhay E, Jayaratne TE (2013) Does biology justify ideology? The politics of genetic attribution. Public Opin Q 77(2):497–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tabery J (2014) Beyond versus: the struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. MIT Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thomas KA, Clifford S (2017) Validity and mechanical turk: an assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Comput Hum Behav 77:184–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Velicer WF, Jackson DN (1990) Component analysis versus common factor analysis: some issues in selecting an appropriate procedure. Multivar Behav Res 25(1):1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vinkhuyzen AAE et al (2009) The heritability of aptitude and exceptional talent across different domains in adolescents and young adults. Behav Genet 39:380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weinberg J, Nichols S, Stich S (2001) Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philos Topics 29:429–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Zdravkovic S et al (2002) Heritability of death from coronary heart disease: a 36-year follow-up of 20,966 Swedish twins. J Intern Med 252(2):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhu G et al (2004) A genome scan for eye color in 502 twin families: most variation is due to a QTL on chromosome 15q. Twin Res 7(2):197–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily A. Willoughby
    • 1
  • Alan C. Love
    • 2
  • Matt McGue
    • 1
  • William G. Iacono
    • 1
  • Jack Quigley
    • 1
  • James J. Lee
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Minnesota Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Minnesota Twin CitiesMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations