Three studies tested the hypothesis that there are genetic constraints on group-level self-organization. In Study 1, an analysis of archival data reported in Eaves, Eysenck, and Martin showed that large groups of monozygotic and dizygotic twins display greater group-level diversity of opinions on issues with higher heritabilities. Results of Study 2 suggested that small groups discussing opinion issues that were higher in heritability showed less tendency toward consolidation (reduction in diversity). Study 3 was a field study showing that students living in a campus housing complex showed less geographic clustering of attitudes on issues with a larger genetic component. Theoretical and practical implications of heritability constraints on dynamic social impact are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abelson, R. P. (1979). Social clusters and opinion clusters. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.), Perspectives in social network research (pp. 239-256). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Allport, G. W. (1935). Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
3.
Bailey, J. M. (1998). Can behavior genetics contribute to evolutionary behavioral science? In C. Crawford & D. L. Krebs (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4.
Blackmore, S. J. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Bourgeois, M. J. , & Bowen, A. M. (2001). Self-organization of alcoholrelated attitudes and beliefs in a campus housing complex. Health Psychology, 20, 434-437.
6.
Bowen, A. M. , & Bourgeois, M. J. (2001). The contribution of pluralistic ignorance, dynamic social impact, and contact theories to attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual college students. Journal of American College Health, 50, 91-96.
7.
Buss, D. M. (1984). Toward a psychology of person-environment correspondence: The role of spouse selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 361-377.
8.
Caspi, A. , & Herbener, E. S. (1990). Continuity and change: Assortative marriage and the consistency of personality in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 250-258.
9.
Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
10.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
11.
Eaves, L. J. , Eysenck, H. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture, and personality: An empirical approach. London: Academic Press.
12.
Eysenck, H. J. (1951). Primary social attitudes as related to social class and political party. British Journal of Sociology, 2, 198-209.
13.
Festinger, L. , Schachter, S., & Back, K. (1950). Social pressure in informal groups. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
14.
Fuller, J. L. , & Thompson, W. R. (1960). Behavior genetics. New York: John Wiley.
15.
Harton, H. C. (1998). The dynamics of attitudes: Individual beliefs to cultural norms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boca Raton, FL.
16.
Harton, H. C. , & Eshbaugh, E. M. (2001). Group discussion and question type. Unpublished manuscript, University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, IA.
17.
Harton, H. C. , Green, L. R., Jackson, C. J., & Latane, B. (1998). Demonstrating dynamic social impact: Consolidation, clustering, correlation, and (sometimes) the correct answer. Teaching of Psychology, 25, 31-35.
18.
Harton, H. C. , & Latane, B. (1997). The social self-organization of culture. In F. Schweitzer (Ed.), Self-organization of complex structures: From individual to collective dynamics (pp. 355-366). London: Gordon & Breach.
19.
Huguet, P. , Latane, B., & Bourgeois, M. J. (1998). The emergence of a social representation of human rights via interpersonal communication: Empirical evidence for the convergence of two theories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 831-846.
20.
Jackson, C. C. , Bourgeois, M. J., & Latane, B. (2001). Dynamic social impact theory on trial: Consolidation, clustering, and continuing diversity in electronic juries. Unpublished manuscript, Boca Raton, FL.
21.
Krosnick, J. A. (1988). Attitude importance and attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 240-255.
22.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36, 343-365.
23.
Latane, B. (1996). Dynamic social impact: The creation of culture by communication. Journal of Communication, 46, 13-25.
24.
Latane, B. , & Bourgeois, M. J. (1996a). Commentary on “Minority influence in social psychology: Points for a historical reconstruction.”Revista di Psicologica Social, 10, 105-109.
25.
Latane, B. , & Bourgeois, M. J. (1996b). Experimental evidence for dynamic social impact: The formations of subcultures in electronic groups. Journal of Communication, 46, 35-47.
26.
Latane, B. , & Bourgeois, M. J. (2000a). Dynamic social impact and the consolidation, clustering, correlation, and continuing diversity of culture. In R. S. Tindale & M. Hogg (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Vol. 4. Group processes. London: Blackwell.
27.
Latane, B. , & Bourgeois, M. J. (2000b). Simulating dynamic social impact: Three levels of prediction. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Sydney symposium on social psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
28.
Latane, B. , & L’Herrou, T. (1996). Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1218-1230.
29.
Latane, B. , & Nowak, A. (1994). Attitudes as catastrophes: From dimensions to categories with increasing involvement. In R. R. Vallacher & A. Nowak (Eds.), Dynamical systems in social psychology (pp. 219-249). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
30.
Latane, B. , & Nowak, A. (1997). Self-organizing social systems: Necessary and sufficient conditions for the emergence of consolidation and clustering. In G. Barnett & F. Boster (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences: Persuasion. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
31.
Lord, C. G. , Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
32.
Marsden, P. (1998). Memetics and social contagion: Two sides of the same coin?Journal of Memetics: Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission, 2. Retrieved from http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit/1998/vol2/marsden_p.html
33.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Social influence and social change. London: Academic Press.
34.
Nowak, A. , Szamrej, J., & Latane, B. (1990). From private attitude to public opinion: A dynamic theory of social impact. Psychological Review, 97, 362-376.
35.
Plomin, R. , Defries, J. C., & McClearn, M. (Eds.). (2000). Behavioral genetics. New York: Freeman & Co.
36.
Schaller, M. (2000). Unintended influence: Social-evolutionary processes in the construction and change of culturally-shard beliefs. In J. Forgas & K. Williams (Eds.), Sydney symposium on social psychology. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
37.
Sperber, D. (1996). Explaining culture: A naturalistic approach. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
38.
Strickberger, M. W. (1996). Genetics (2nd ed.). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.
39.
Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes. Psychological Review, 100, 129-142.
40.
Weiss, M. J. (1994). Latitudes and attitudes: An atlas of American tastes, trends, politics, and passions. Boston: Little, Brown.
41.
Weiss, M. J. (2000). The clustered world: How we live, what we buy, and what it all means about who we are. Boston: Little, Brown.
42.
Zuwerink, J. R. , & Devine, P. G. (1996). Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion: It’s not just the thought that counts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 931-944.
