Advertisement

Social Justice Research

, Volume 30, Issue 4, pp 408–437 | Cite as

A Genetic Basis of Economic Egalitarianism

  • Nemanja Batrićević
  • Levente Littvay
Article

Abstract

Studies of political attitudes and ideologies have sought to explain their origin. They have been assumed to be a result of political values ingrained during the process of socialization until early adulthood, as well as personal political experience, party affiliation, social strata, etc. As a consequence of these environment-dominated explanations, most biology-based accounts of political preference have never been considered. However, in the light of evidence accumulated in recent years, the view that political attitudes are detached from any physical properties became unsustainable. In this paper, we investigate the origins of social justice attitudes, with special focus on economic egalitarianism and its potential genetic basis. We use Minnesota Twin Study data from 2008, collected from samples of monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs (n = 573) in order to estimate the additive genetic, shared environmental, and unique environmental components of social justice attitudes. Our results show that the large portion of the variance in a four-item economic egalitarianism scale can be attributed to genetic factor. At the same time, shared environment, as a socializing factor, has no significant effect. The effect of environment seems to be fully reserved for unique personal experience. Our findings further problematize a long-standing view that social justice attitudes are dominantly determined by socialization.

Keywords

Social justice Equality Egalitarianism Genes Genetics Twin studies 

Notes

Funding

The data employed in this project were collected with the financial support of the National Science Foundation in the form of SES-0721378, PI: John R. Hibbing; Co-PIs: John R.Alford, Lindon J. Eaves, Carolyn L. Funk, Peter K. Hatemi, and Kevin B. Smith, and with the cooperation of the Minnesota Twin Registry at the University of Minnesota, Robert Krueger and Matthew McGue, Directors.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

Nemanja Batrićević declares that he has no conflict of interest. Levente Littvay declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

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

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., & La Ferrara, E. (2005). Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities. Journal of public Economics, 89(5), 897–931.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(02), 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2008). The new empirical biopolitics. Annual Review of Political Science, 11, 183–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Andersen, R., & Yaish, M. (2012). Public opinion on income inequality in 20 democracies: The enduring impact of social class and economic inequality (Vol. 48). Gini Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  6. Baldi, S. (2001). What democracy means to ninth-graders US results from the international IEA civic education study. Washington: DIANE Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Beckwith, J., & Morris, C. A. (2008). Twin studies of political behavior: Untenable assumptions? Perspectives on Politics, 6(04), 785–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berelson, B. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Beutel, A. M., & Marini, M. M. (1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review, 1, 436–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Blekesaune, M., & Quadagno, J. (2003). Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: A comparative analysis of 24 nations. European Sociological Review, 19, 415–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Boardman, J. D. (2011). Is gene-environment interplay relevant to the study of political behaviors and attitudes. Man is by nature a political animal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Boker, S. M., Neale, M. C., Maes, H. H., Wilde, M. J., Spiegel, M., Brick, T. R., et al. (2012). OpenMx 1.2 user guide. Charlottesville, VA: The OpenMx Project.Google Scholar
  13. Bollen, K. A. (1989). A new incremental fit index for general structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 17(3), 303–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31(3), 243–273.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Bouchard, T. J., & McGue, M. (2003). Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology, 54(1), 4–45.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Bouchard, T. J., Segal, N. L., Tellegen, A., McGue, M., Keyes, M., & Krueger, R. (2003). Evidence for the construct validity and heritability of the Wilson–Patterson conservatism scale: A reared-apart twins study of social attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 34(6), 959–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Broido, E. M., & Reason, R. D. (2005). The development of social justice attitudes and actions: An overview of current understandings. New Directions for Student Services, 2005(110), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Campbell, A. (1980). The american voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Charney, E. (2008). Genes and ideologies. Perspectives on Politics, 6(02), 299–319.Google Scholar
  20. Converse, P. E. (1962). The nature of belief systems in mass publics (pp. 206–261). Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  21. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2000). Preference formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duffy, D. L., & Martin, N. G. (1994). Inferring the direction of causation in cross-sectional twin data: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Genetic Epidemiology, 11(6), 483–502.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Eaves, L. J., & Eysenck, H. J. (1974). Genetics and the development of social attitudes. Nature, 249(5454), 288–289.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture and personality: An empirical approach. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  27. Eaves, L., Heath, A., Martin, N., Maes, H., Neale, M., Kendler, K., et al. (1999). Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30 000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research, 2(02), 62–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Esping-Andersen,  G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  29. Falconer, D. S. (1960). Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
  30. Falconer, D. S., Mackay, T. F., & Frankham, R. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th edn). Trends in Genetics, 12(7), 280.Google Scholar
  31. Fazekas, Z., & Littvay, L. (2012). Choosing sides: The genetics of why we go with the loudest. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(3), 389–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Fazekas, Z., & Littvay, L. (2015). The importance of context in the genetic transmission of US party identification. Political Psychology, 36(4), 361–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1981). Direct experience and attitude-behavior consistency. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 161–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Feagin, J. R. (1975). Subordinating the poor. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  35. Feldman, S. (1982). Economic self-interest and political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 26, 446–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Feldman, S. (1983). Economic individualism and American public opinion. American Politics Quarterly, 11(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Feldman, S., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2001). The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. American Journal of Political Science, 1, 658–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Feldman, S., & Zaller, J. (1992). The political culture of ambivalence: Ideological responses to the welfare state. American Journal of Political Science, 1, 268–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Flanagan, C. A., Syvertsen, A. K., Gill, S., Gallay, L. S., & Cumsille, P. (2009). Ethnic awareness, prejudice, and civic commitments in four ethnic groups of American adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38(4), 500–518.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Flanagan, C. A., & Tucker, C. J. (1999). Adolescents’ explanations for political issues: Concordance with their views of self and society. Developmental Psychology, 35(5), 1198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Fowler, J. H., Baker, L. A., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Genetic variation in political participation. American Political Science Review, 102(02), 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Fowler, J. H., & Dawes, C. T. (2008). Two genes predict voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 70(3), 579–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Fraser, N. (1999). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. Culture and economy after the cultural turn, 1, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Funk, C. L., Smith, K. B., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, M. V., Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., et al. (2013). Genetic and environmental transmission of political orientations. Political Psychology, 34(6), 805–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Furniss, N., & Tilton, T. A. (1977). The case for the welfare state: From social security to social equality (Vol. 230). Offaly: Midland Books.Google Scholar
  46. Gelissen, J. (2000). Popular support for institutionalised solidarity: A comparison between European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare, 9(4), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Grayman, J. K., & Godfrey, E. B. (2013). Social justice attitudes and their demographic correlates among a nationally representative sample of US adolescents. Social Justice Research, 26(4), 422–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Groskind, F. (1994). Ideological influences on public support for assistance to poor families. Social Work, 39(1), 81–89.Google Scholar
  49. Hasenfeld, Y., & Rafferty, J. A. (1989). The determinants of public attitudes toward the welfare state. Social Forces, 67(4), 1027–1048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hatemi, P. K. (2013). The influence of major life events on economic attitudes in a world of gene-environment interplay. American Journal of Political Science, 57(4), 987–1007.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Hatemi, P. K., Alford, J. R., Hibbing, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Eaves, L. J. (2009a). Is there a “party” in your genes? Political Research Quarterly, 62(3), 584-600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Hatemi, P. K., Funk, C. L., Medland, S. E., Maes, H. M., Silberg, J. L., Martin, N. G., et al. (2009b). Genetic and environmental transmission of political attitudes over a life time. The Journal of Politics, 71(3), 1141–1156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Hatemi, P. K., Hibbing, J. R., Medland, S. E., Keller, M. C., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., et al. (2010). Not by twins alone: Using the extended family design to investigate genetic influence on political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 798–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (Eds.). (2011). Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology, and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  55. Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525–533.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2016). Give me attitudes. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 331–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Hatemi, Peter K., Medland, Sarah E., & Eaves, Lindon J. (2009c). Do genes contribute to the “gender gap”? The Journal of Politics, 71(1), 262–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., et al. (2014). Genetic influences on political ideologies: Twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations. Behavior Genetics, 44(3), 282–294.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Horwitz, A. V., Videon, T. M., Schmitz, M. F., & Davis, D. (2003). Rethinking twins and environments: Possible social sources for assumed genetic influences in twin research. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 44, 111–129.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Jacobs, L. R., & Skocpol, T. (Eds.). (2005). Inequality and American democracy: What we know and what we need to learn. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  61. Jacoby, W. G. (1994). Public attitudes toward government spending. American Journal of Political Science, 38, 336–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62(01), 169–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1966). Personal influence, the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  64. Kinder, D. R., & Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case. British Journal of Political Science, 11(02), 129–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self-interest, racial affect, and stratification beliefs on Whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 797–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans’ views of what is and what ought to be. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Ksiazkiewicz, A., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). The role of genes and environments in linking the need to evaluate with political ideology and political extremity. Social Justice Research.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-017-0292-3.
  68. Kulin, J., & Svallfors, S. (2011). Class, values, and attitudes towards redistribution: A European comparison. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Lane, R. E. (1959). Fathers and sons: Foundations of political belief. American Sociological Review, 24, 502–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Larsen, C. A. (2008). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Comparative Political Studies, 41(2), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The peoples choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  72. Lipset, S. M. (1963). The value patterns of democracy: A case study in comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 28, 515–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Littvay, L. (2012). Do heritability estimates of political phenotypes suffer from an equal environment assumption violation? Evidence from an empirical study. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(01), 6–14.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Martin, N. G., Eaves, L. J., Heath, A. C., Jardine, R., Feingold, L. M., & Eysenck, H. J. (1986). Transmission of social attitudes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 83(12), 4364–4368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. McCloskey, H., & Zaller, J. (1984). The American ethos. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Medland, S. E., & Hatemi, P. K. (2009). Political science, biometric theory, and twin studies: A methodological introduction. Political Analysis, 17, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Merrill, S., & Grofman, B. (1999). A unified theory of voting. Directional and proximity spatial models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. L. (1992). Methodology of genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  80. Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cllffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  81. Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Harris, J. A., & Jang, K. L. (2001). The heritability of attitudes: a study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 845.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Page, B. I., & Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 77(01), 175–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Posthuma, D., Beem, A. L., De Geus, E. J., Van Baal, G. C. M., von Hjelmborg, J. B., Iachine, I., et al. (2003). Theory and practice in quantitative genetics. Twin research, 6(05), 361–376.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Robinson, R. V., & Bell, W. (1978). Equality, success, and social justice in England and the United States. American Sociological Review, 43, 125–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Roller, E. (1995) The welfare state: The equality dimension. In O. Borre, & E. Scarbrough (Eds.), The Scope of Government. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  87. Saudino, K. J., Pedersen, N. L., Lichtenstein, P., McClearn, G. E., & Plomin, R. (1997). Can personality explain genetic influences on life events? Journal of personality and social psychology, 72(1), 196.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Advances in experimental social psychology24, 1–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Sniderman, P. M., & Brody, R. A. (1977). Coping: The ethic of self-reliance. American Journal of Political Science, 21, 501–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sturgis, P., Read, S., Hatemi, P. K., Zhu, G., Trull, T., Wright, M. J., et al. (2010). A genetic basis for social trust? Political Behavior, 32(2), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Svallfors, S. (1997). Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: A comparison of eight western nations. European Sociological Review, 13(3), 283–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Verba, S., & Orren, G. R. (1985). Equality in America: The view from the top. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  93. Yaish, M., & Andersen, R. (2012). Social mobility in 20 modern societies: The role of economic and political context. Social Science Research, 41(3), 527–538.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations