Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Behavioral Genetics and Attributions of Moral Responsibility

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Behavior Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 08 September 2018

This article has been updated

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.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

  • 08 September 2018

    The original version of this article unfortunately contained a few mistakes in the Introduction section.

References

  • Alicke MD (1992) Culpable causation. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:368–378

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alicke MD (2000) Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychol Bull 126(4):556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum PS, Scurich N (2014) Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 42(1):91–100

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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):134–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aspinwall LG, Brown TR, Tabery J (2012) The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337:846–849

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):447–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1723–1738

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):501–513

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crandall CS (1994) Prejudice against fat people: ideology and self-interest. J Pers Soc Psychol 66(5):882–894

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ (2011a) Genetic essentialism: on the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychol Bull 137(5):800–818

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):829–833

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dar-Nimrod I, Heine SJ, Cheung BY, Schaller M (2011) Do scientific theories affect men’s evaluations of sex crimes? Aggressive Behav 37(5):440–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Denno DW (2011) Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: results of a longitudinal study. Mich Law Rev 2011:967–1047

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditto PH, Pizarro DA, Tannenbaum D (2009) Motivated moral reasoning. Moral Judgment Decis Making 50:307–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Doris J, Knobe J, Woolfolk R (2007) Variantism about responsibility. Philos Perspect 21:183–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feltz A, Millan M (2015) An error theory for compatibilist intuitions. Philos Psychol 28(4):529–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • Frankfurt HG (1971) Freedom of the will and the concept of a person. J Philos 68:5–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fuss J, Dressing H, Briken P (2015) Neurogenetic evidence in the courtroom: a randomised controlled trial with German judges. J Med Genet 52(11):730–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galton F (1865) Hereditary talent and character. Macmillan’s Mag 12(157–166):318–327

    Google Scholar 

  • Genschow O, Rigoni D, Brass M (2017) Belief in free will affects causal attributions when judging others’ behavior. Proc Natl Acad Sci 114(38):10071–10076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goddard HH (1911) Heredity of feeble-mindedness. Eugenics Rev 3(1):46–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray K, Young L, Waytz A (2012) Mind perception is the essence of morality. Psychol Inq 23(2):101–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haslam N, Kvaale EP (2015) Biogenetic explanations of mental disorder: the mixed-blessings model. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 24(5):399–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kvaale EP, Gottdiener WH, Haslam N (2013a) Biogenetic explanations and stigma: a meta-analytic review of associations among laypeople. Soc Sci Med 96:95–103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):782–794

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebowitz MS, Appelbaum PS (2017) Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction. Int J Soc Psychiatry 63(8):717–723

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):240–250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lebowitz MS, Pyun JJ, Ahn W (2014) Biological explanations of generalized anxiety disorder: effects on beliefs about prognosis and responsibility. Psychiatr Serv 65(4):498–503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Monterosso J, Royzman EB, Schwartz B (2005) Explaining away responsibility: effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics Behav 15:139–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nahmias E, Morris S, Nadelhoffer T, Turner J (2005) Surveying freedom: Folk intuitions about free will and moral responsibility. Philoso Psychol 18(5):561–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman GE, Bloom P, Knobe J (2013) Value judgments and the true self. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 40:203–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newman GE, De Freitas J, Knobe J (2015) Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cogn Sci 39(1):96–125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols S, Knobe J (2007) Moral responsibility and determinism: the cognitive science of folk intuitions. Noûs 41:663–685

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1176–1191

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):159–185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizarro D, Uhlmann E, Salovey P (2003) Asymmetry in judgments of moral praise and blame: the role of perceived metadesires. Psychol Sci 14:267–272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pizarro DA, Laney C, Morris EK, Loftus EF (2006) Ripple effects in memory: judgments of moral blame can distort memory for events. Mem Cogn 34:550–555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):346–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlenker BR, Britt TW, Pennington J, Murphy R, Doherty K (1994) The triangle model of responsibility. Psychol Rev 101(4):632–652

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scurich N, Appelbaum PS (2016) The blunt-edged sword: genetic explanations of misbehavior neither mitigate nor aggravate punishment. J Law Biosci 3(1):140–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strohminger N, Knobe J, Newman G (2017) The true self: a psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspect Psychol Sci 12(4):551–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkheimer E (2015) Genetic prediction. Hastings Cent Rep 45(S1):S32–S38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turkheimer E (2016) Weak genetic explanation 20 years later. Perspect Psychol Sci 11(1):24–28

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiner B, Perry RP, Magnusson J (1988) An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas. J Pers Soc Psychol 55:738–748

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolfolk RL, Doris JM, Darley JM (2006) Identification, situational constraint, and social cognition: studies in the attribution of moral responsibility. Cognition 100(2):283–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Research on Ethical, Legal and Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic and Behavioral Genetics, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, NY, USA

    Kathryn Tabb, Matthew S. Lebowitz & Paul S. Appelbaum

  2. Department of Philosophy, Columbia University, 708 Philosophy Hall, MC: 4971, 1150 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA

    Kathryn Tabb

Authors
  1. Kathryn Tabb
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthew S. Lebowitz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul S. Appelbaum
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kathryn Tabb.

Ethics declarations

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.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tabb, K., Lebowitz, M.S. & Appelbaum, P.S. Behavioral Genetics and Attributions of Moral Responsibility. Behav Genet 49, 128–135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9916-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10519-018-9916-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation