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

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.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since the samples for generating published estimates and lay estimates are not comparable, this is considered an ecological correlation. A p-value for this correlation would not necessarily be meaningful or interpretable and therefore has not been included.

  2. 2.

    T-statistic and p-value presented have been corrected for inequality of variance.

References

  1. Adleberg T, Thompson M, Nahmias E (2014) Do men and women have different philosophical intuitions? Further data. Philos Psychol 28(5):615–641

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Baumeister RF, Bauer IM, Lloyd SA (2010) Choice, free will, and religion. Psychol Relig Spiritual 2(2):67–82

    Article  Google 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):3–5

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):e0169808

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google 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, Oxford

    Google 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):618–635

    Article  Google 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, Baltimore

    Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):685–715

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Earman J (1986) A primer on determinism. Springer, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Feldman S (1988) Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. Am J Polit Sci 32(2):416–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Feldman S, Steenbergen MR (2001) The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. Am J Polit Sci 45(3):658–677

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Feltz A, Cokely ET (2012) The philosophical personality argument. Philos Stud 161:227–246

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Gericke N et al (2017) Exploring relationships among belief in genetic determinism, genetics knowledge, and social factors. Sci Educ 26(10):1223–1259

    Article  Google 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):1029–1046

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Haga SB et al (2013) Public knowledge of and attitudes towards genetics and genetic testing. Genetic Test Mol Biomark 17(4):327–335

    Article  Google 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, 252

  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):655–663

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Hume D (1975/1738) A treatise of human nature. In Selby-Bigge LA, ed. 2nd ed. revised by P.H. Nidditch. Clarendon Press

  20. Ismael JT (2016) How physics makes us free. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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, Mineola

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kan C et al (2016) Genetic overlap between type 2 diabetes and depression in Swedish and Danish twin registries. Mol Psychiatry 21:903–909

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kane R (ed) (2002) Oxford handbook on free will. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google 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):686–702

    Article  Google 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):75–80

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Libet B (1985) Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behav Brain Sci 8:529–566

    Article  Google 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):155–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mele A (2009) Effective intentions: the power of conscious will. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mucci LA et al (2016) Familial risk and heritability of cancer among twins in Nordic countries. JAMA 315(1):68–76

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Nadelhoffer T et al (2014) The free will inventory: measuring beliefs about agency and responsibility. Conscious Cogn 25:27–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nadelson LS, Hardy KK (2015) Trust in science and scientists and the acceptance of evolution. Evol: Educ Outreach 8(9):1–9

    Google 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):561–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. O’Connor T (2016) Free will. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Standford

    Google Scholar 

  34. Patterson N, Price AL, Reich D (2006) Population structure and eigenanalysis. PLoS Genet 2(12):e190

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Paulhus DL, Carey JM (2011) The FAD-plus: measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. J Pers Assess 93(1):96–104

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):702–709

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):1056–1078

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Russell P (2016) Hume on free will. In: Zalta EN (ed) The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, Standford

    Google Scholar 

  39. Suhay E, Jayaratne TE (2013) Does biology justify ideology? The politics of genetic attribution. Public Opin Q 77(2):497–521

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Tabery J (2014) Beyond versus: the struggle to understand the interaction of nature and nurture. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  41. Thomas KA, Clifford S (2017) Validity and mechanical turk: an assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Comput Hum Behav 77:184–197

    Article  Google 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):1–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Vinkhuyzen AAE et al (2009) The heritability of aptitude and exceptional talent across different domains in adolescents and young adults. Behav Genet 39:380–392

    PubMed Central  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Weinberg J, Nichols S, Stich S (2001) Normativity and epistemic intuitions. Philos Topics 29:429–460

    Article  Google 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):247–254

    Article  PubMed  Google 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):197–210

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily A. Willoughby.

Ethics declarations

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.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 1191 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Willoughby, E.A., Love, A.C., McGue, M. et al. Free Will, Determinism, and Intuitive Judgments About the Heritability of Behavior. Behav Genet 49, 136–153 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9931-1

Download citation

Keywords

  • Heritability
  • Free will
  • Determinism
  • Human agency
  • Genetics
  • Environment