A Genetic Basis of Economic Egalitarianism
- 510 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSocial justice Equality Egalitarianism Genes Genetics Twin studies
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.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
- 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
- Baldi, S. (2001). What democracy means to ninth-graders US results from the international IEA civic education study. Washington: DIANE Publishing.Google Scholar
- Berelson, B. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Campbell, A. (1980). The american voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Charney, E. (2008). Genes and ideologies. Perspectives on Politics, 6(02), 299–319.Google Scholar
- 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
- Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture and personality: An empirical approach. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Falconer, D. S. (1960). Quantitative Genetics. Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd.Google Scholar
- Falconer, D. S., Mackay, T. F., & Frankham, R. (1996). Introduction to quantitative genetics (4th edn). Trends in Genetics, 12(7), 280.Google Scholar
- Feagin, J. R. (1975). Subordinating the poor. Upper Saddle River: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- Groskind, F. (1994). Ideological influences on public support for assistance to poor families. Social Work, 39(1), 81–89.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1966). Personal influence, the part played by people in the flow of mass communications. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
- 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
- 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.
- 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
- Neale, M. C., & Cardon, L. L. (1992). Methodology of genetic studies of twins and families. Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
- Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgment. Englewood Cllffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 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
- Sabbagh, C., & Schmitt, M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of social justice theory and research. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- Verba, S., & Orren, G. R. (1985). Equality in America: The view from the top. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar