Asymmetric genetic attributions for one’s own prosocial versus antisocial behavior

ABSTRACT

People tend to rate prosocial or positive behavior as more strongly influenced by the actor’s genes than antisocial or negative behavior. The current study tested whether people would show a similar asymmetry when rating the role of genes in their own behavior, and if so, what variables might mediate this difference. Participants were prompted to think about an example of their own behavior from the past year that was either prosocial or antisocial. Those in the prosocial condition rated the role of genetics in causing the behavior as significantly greater than did those in the antisocial condition. A mediation analysis suggested that this asymmetry could be accounted for by a tendency to view prosocial behavior as more natural and more aligned with one’s true self than antisocial behavior. These findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people’s reasoning about genetics may be influenced by evaluative judgments.

KEYWORDS:

• Genetics
• social cognition
• causal attribution
• motivated reasoning

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Institutional review board approval

Study procedures were approved by the New York State Psychiatric Institute IRB (protocol 7369).

Data availability statement

The data described in this article are openly available in the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/2t7ks/files/.

Open Scholarship

This article has earned the Center for Open Science badges for Open Data and Open Materials through Open Practices Disclosure. The data and materials are openly accessible at https://osf.io/2t7ks/files/.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by funding from the Genetics & Human Agency Initiative of the John Templeton Foundation and from the National Human Genome Research Institute (grants R00HG010084 and RM1HG007257).

Notes on contributors

Matthew S. Lebowitz

Matthew Lebowitz, PhD is an Assistant Professor of Medical Psychology (in Psychiatry) at Columbia University and is affiliated with Columbia's Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics. His research focuses on how people reason about and react to genetic and other biomedical explanations for human health, behavior, and identity.

Kathryn Tabb

Kathryn Tabb, PhD, is an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Bard College and is affiliated with Columbia University's Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics. Her scholarly work focuses on the history and philosophy of psychiatry. She also has an interest in medical ethics and has studied the ethical implications of using behavioral genetics to inform the field of psychiatry and precision medicine.

Paul S. Appelbaum

Paul S. Appelbaum, MD is the Dollard Professor of Psychiatry, Medicine & Law at Columbia University. He directs Columbia’s Center for Research on Ethical, Legal & Social Implications of Psychiatric, Neurologic & Behavioral Genetics. His recent work has focused on the ethical and psychosocial effects of advances in genetic technologies, with ongoing interests in ethical and legal issues in medical treatment and research.