Genes are increasingly understood to influence behavior. Research—generally conducted among convenience samples— has suggested that genetic influences tend to be perceived as playing a greater role in positive (e.g. prosocial) behaviors than in negative (e.g. antisocial) behaviors. Several potential bases for this asymmetry have been explored previously. We examined, in a U.S. sample, whether an asymmetry in genetic attributions between prosocial and antisocial behavior would be observed, and if so, what might help to explain it. Results revealed that the asymmetry did occur and appeared to be robustly mediated by an asymmetry between how “natural” prosocial and antisocial behavior are perceived to be. Genetic attributions were also lower on average when the individual was described as African American, especially as an African American man. These findings provide further evidence that genetic attributions are endorsed selectively, in ways that appear to reflect pre-existing psychological motivations and views about human nature.
AlickeMD (2000) Culpable control and the psychology of blame. Psychological Bulletin126(4): 556–574.
2.
AppelbaumPS (2005) Law & psychiatry: Behavioral genetics and the punishment of crime. Psychiatric Services56(1): 25–27.
3.
AppelbaumPSScurichN (2014) Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online42(1): 91–100.
4.
AppelbaumPSScurichNRaadR (2015) Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law21(2): 134–144.
5.
BastianBHaslamN (2006) Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology42(2): 228–235.
6.
ByrdWCRayVE (2015) Ultimate attribution in the genetic era: White support for genetic explanations of racial difference and policies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science661(1): 212–235.
7.
CheungBYHeineSJ (2015) The double-edged sword of genetic accounts of criminality: Causal attributions from genetic ascriptions affect legal decision making. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin41(12): 1723–1738.
8.
ClarkCJLuguriJBDittoPHKnobeJShariffAFBaumeisterRF (2014) Free to punish: A motivated account of free will belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology106(4): 501–513.
9.
ColeERToby EpsteinJCecchiLAFeldbaumMPettyEM (2007) Vive la difference? Genetic explanations for perceived gender differences in nurturance. Sex Roles57(3–4): 211–222.
10.
ConditCM (2019) Laypeople are strategic essentialists, not genetic essentialists. Hastings Center Report49: S27–S37.
11.
ConwayCCSlavichGM (2017) Behavior genetics of prosocial behavior. In: GilbertP (ed.) Compassion: Concepts, Research, and Applications, 1st edn. London: Routledge, pp. 151–170.
12.
Dar-NimrodIHeineSJ (2011) Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin137(5): 800–818.
13.
EllemersN (2018) Gender stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology69: 275–298.
14.
HeineSJDar-NimrodICheungBYProulxT (2017) Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. In: OlsonJM (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp. 137–192.
15.
HughesJSSandelAYeldermanLAInmanV (2021) Beliefs about an offender’s capacity to be rehabilitated: Black offenders are seen as more capable of change. Basic and Applied Social Psychology43(6): 406–422.
16.
JayaratneTEYbarraOSheldonJPBrownTNFeldbaumMPfefferCA, et al. (2006) White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations9(1): 77–94.
17.
KnobeJ (2003) Intentional action and side effects in ordinary language. Analysis63(3): 190–194.
18.
LebowitzMSAppelbaumPS (2017) Beneficial and detrimental effects of genetic explanations for addiction. International Journal of Social Psychiatry63(8): 717–723.
19.
LebowitzMSAppelbaumPS (2019) Biomedical explanations of psychopathology and their implications for attitudes and beliefs about mental disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology15: 555–577.
20.
LebowitzMSTabbKAppelbaumPS (2019) Asymmetrical genetic attributions for prosocial versus antisocial behaviour. Nature Human Behaviour3(9): 940–949.
21.
LebowitzMSTabbKAppelbaumPS (2022) Genetic attributions and perceptions of naturalness are shaped by evaluative valence. The Journal of Social Psychology162(3): 359–370.
22.
LebowitzMSTabbKAppelbaumPS (2024a) Asymmetric genetic attributions for one’s own prosocial versus antisocial behavior. The Journal of Social Psychology164(3): 273–279.
23.
LebowitzMSTabbKAppelbaumPS (2024b) Asymmetrical genetic attributions for the presence and absence of health problems. Psychology & Health39(7): 839–857.
24.
LeslieAMKnobeJCohenA (2006) Acting intentionally and the side-effect effect: Theory of mind and moral judgment. Psychological Science17(5): 421–427.
25.
LynchKEMorandiniJSDar-NimrodIGriffithsPE (2019) Causal reasoning about human behavior genetics: Synthesis and future directions. Behavior Genetics49(2): 221–234.
26.
MorosoliJColodro-CondeLBarlowFMedlandSE (2019) Public understanding of behavioral genetics: Integrating heuristic thinking, motivated reasoning and planned social change theories for better communication strategies. Behavior Genetics49: 469–477.
27.
NajdowskiCJ (2023) How the “Black criminal” stereotype shapes Black people’s psychological experience of policing: Evidence of stereotype threat and remaining questions. American Psychological Association78: 695–713.
28.
NewmanGEDe FreitasJKnobeJ (2015) Beliefs about the true self explain asymmetries based on moral judgment. Cognitive Science39(1): 96–125.
29.
R Core Team (2023) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
ShiBChoiratCCoullBAVanderWeeleTJValeriL (2021) CMAverse: A suite of functions for reproducible causal mediation analyses. Epidemiology32(5): e20–e22.
32.
SteinbergMDiekmanAB (2016) The double-edged sword of stereotypes of men. In: WongYJWesterSR (eds) APA Handbook of Men and Masculinities. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 433–456.
33.
StrohmingerNKnobeJNewmanG (2017) The true self: A psychological concept distinct from the self. Perspectives on Psychological Science12(4): 551–560.
34.
TielbeekJJUffelmannEWilliamsBSColodro-CondeLGagnonEMallardTT, et al. (2022) Uncovering the genetic architecture of broad antisocial behavior through a genome-wide association study meta-analysis. Molecular Psychiatry27(11): 4453–4463.
35.
TurkheimerE (2011) Genetics and human agency: Comment on Dar-Nimrod and Heine (2011). Psychological Bulletin137(5): 825–828.
36.
TurkheimerE (2019) Genetics and human agency: The philosophy of behavior genetics introduction to the special issue. Behavior Genetics49(2): 123–127.
37.
Van BuurenSGroothuis-OudshoornK (2011) Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software45(3): 1–67.
38.
VanderWeeleTVansteelandtS (2014) Mediation analysis with multiple mediators. Epidemiologic Methods2(1): 95–115.
39.
WesseldijkLWBartelsMVinkJMVan BeijsterveldtCEMLigthartLBoomsmaDI, et al. (2018) Genetic and environmental influences on conduct and antisocial personality problems in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry27(9): 1123–1132.
40.
WilliamsKEG (2023) Stereotypes of criminality in the U.S. track ecology, not race. Evolution and Human Behavior44(3): 255–263.
41.
WilloughbyEALoveACMcGueMIaconoWGQuigleyJLeeJJ (2019) Free will, determinism, and intuitive judgments about the heritability of behavior. Behavior Genetics49(2): 136–153.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
