Genetic influence on political discussion: Results from two twin studies

References

• Anspach, N. M. (2017). The new personal influence: How our Facebook friends influence the news we read. Political Communication, 34(4), 590–606. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2017.1316329
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bakker, T. P., & De Vreese, C. H. (2011). Good news for the future?: Young people, internet use, and political participation. Communication Research, 38(4), 451–470. doi: 10.1177/0093650210381738
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbato, C. A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E. M. (1997). Interpersonal communication motives and perceptions of humor among elders. Communication Research Reports, 14(1), 48–57. doi: 10.1080/08824099709388644
   Google Scholar
• Barbato, C. A., Graham, E. E., & Perse, E. M. (2003). Communicating in the family: An examination of the relationship of family communication climate and interpersonal communication motives. Journal of Family Communication, 3(3), 123–148. doi: 10.1207/S15327698JFC0303_01
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., Heisel, A. D., Hall, A. E., Levine, T. R., & La France, B. H. (2002). What can we learn from the study of twins about genetic and environmental influences on interpersonal affiliation, aggressiveness, and social anxiety?: A meta-analytic study. Communication Monographs, 69(1), 1–18. doi: 10.1080/03637750216534
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., Marshall, L. A., & Rudd, J. E. (2001). A twins study of communicative adaptability: Heritability of individual differences. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 87(4), 366–377. doi: 10.1080/00335630109384346
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). It’s in our nature: Verbal aggressiveness as temperamental expression. Communication Quarterly, 45(4), 446–460. doi: 10.1080/01463379709370076
   Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Heisel, A. D. (1998). Communication apprehension as temperamental expression: A communibiological paradigm. Communication Monographs, 65(3), 197–219. doi: 10.1080/03637759809376448
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beatty, M. J., McCroskey, J. C., & Pence, M. E. (2009). Communibiological paradigm. In M. J. Beatty, J. C. McCroskey, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, methods, and research (pp. 3–16). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Blokland, G. A. M., Mosing, M. A., Verweij, K. H., & Medland, S. E. (2013). Twin studies and behavior genetics. In T. D. Little (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods; Volume 2, Statistical analysis. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199934898.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31(3), 243–273. doi: 10.1023/A:1012294324713
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappella, J. N. (1996). Why biological explanation? Journal of Communication, 46(3), 4–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1996.tb01485.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarini, D., Dawes, C. T., Fowler, J. H., Johannesson, M., Lichtenstein, P., & Wallace, B. (2008). Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105(10), 3721–3726. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0710069105
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cesarini, D., & Visscher, P. M. (2017). Genetics and educational attainment. npj Science of Learning, 2(1), 1–7. doi: 10.1038/s41539-017-0005-6
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cho, J., Shah, D. V., McLeod, J. M., McLeod, D. M., Scholl, R. M., & Gotlieb, M. R. (2009). Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory, 19(1), 66–88. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01333.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deryakulu, D., & Ursavaş, ÖF. (2014). Genetic and environmental influences on problematic internet use: A twin study. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 331–338. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2014.07.038
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiLalla, L. F. (2004). Behavioral genetics: Background, current research, and goals for the future. In L. F. DiLalla (Ed.), Behavior genetics principles: Perspectives in development, personality, and psychopathology (pp. 1–16). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10684-000
   Google Scholar
• Duggan, M., & Smith, A. (2016). The political environment on social media. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2016/10/24160747/PI_2016.10.25_Politics-and-Social-Media_FINAL.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication, 21(2), 177–193. doi: 10.1080/10584600490443877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P., & Hively, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network size, and “heterogeneity” of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and participation. Journal of Communication, 59(2), 205–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01412.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eveland, W. P., Morey, A. C., & Hutchens, M. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1082–1103. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01598.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, K. (2014). Humans are people, too: Nurturing an appreciation for nature in communication research. Review of Communication Research, 2(1), 1–29. doi: 10.12840/issn.2255-4165.2014.02.01.001
   Google Scholar
• Funk, C. L., Smith, K. B., Alford, J., Hibbing, M. V., Hatemi, P. K., & Hibbing, J. R. (2010). Toward a modern view of political man: Genetic and environmental sources of political orientations and participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association (APSA), Washington, DC.
   Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011). The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14), doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2012). Disagreement and the avoidance of political discussion: Aggregate relationships and differences across personality traits. American Journal of Political Science, 56(4), 849–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00571.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gil de Zúñiga, H., Valenzuela, S., & Weeks, B. E. (2016). Motivations for political discussion: Antecedents and consequences on civic engagement. Human Communication Research, 42(4), 533–552. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham, E. E., Barbato, C. A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). The interpersonal communication motives model. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 172–186. doi: 10.1080/01463379309369877
   Google Scholar
• Hardy, B. W., & Scheufele, D. A. (2009). Presidential campaign dynamics and the ebb and flow of talk as a moderator: Media exposure, knowledge, and political discussion. Communication Theory, 19(1), 89–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2008.01334.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., Byrne, E., & McDermott, R. (2012). Introduction: What is a “gene” and why does it matter for political science? Journal of Theoretical Politics, 24(3), 305–327. doi: 10.1177/0951629812437752
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525–533. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2012.07.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., McDermott, R., Eaves, L. J., Kendler, K. S., & Neale, M. C. (2013). Fear as a disposition and an emotional state: A genetic and environmental approach to out-group political preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 279–293. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Klemmensen, R., Oskarsson, S., Littvay, L., Dawes, C. T., … Christensen, K. (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. doi: 10.1007/s10519-014-9648-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., Medland, S. E., Morley, K. I., Heath, A. C., & Martin, N. G. (2007). The genetics of voting: An Australian twin study. Behavior Genetics, 37(3), 435. doi: 10.1007/s10519-006-9138-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., Smith, K., Alford, J. R., Martin, N. G., & Hibbing, J. R. (2015). The genetic and environmental foundations of political, psychological, social, and economic behaviors: A panel study of twins and families. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 18(3), 243–255. doi: 10.1017/thg.2015.13
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hatemi, P. K., Smith, K., Hibbing, J. R., & Alford, J. R. (2016). Minnesota twins political survey data. Harvard Dataverse, V1. doi: 10.7910/DVN/0F2FJ0
   Google Scholar
• Hibbing, M. V., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. R. (2011). Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior, 33(4), 601–624. doi: 10.1007/s11109-010-9147-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hively, M. H., & Eveland, W. P. (2009). Contextual antecedents and political consequences of adolescent political discussion, discussion elaboration, and network diversity. Political Communication, 26(1), 30–47. doi: 10.1080/10584600802622837
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horvath, C. W. (1995). Biological origins of communicator style. Communication Quarterly, 43(4), 394–407. doi: 10.1080/01463379509369987
   Google Scholar
• Huskey, R., Craighead, B., & Weber, R. (2017). Evolutionary approaches to media processes and effects. The International Encyclopedia of Media Effects, doi: 10.1002/9781118783764.wbieme0174
   Google Scholar
• Kearney, M. (2017). Interpersonal goals and political uses of Facebook. Communication Research Reports, 34(2), 106–114. doi: 10.1080/08824096.2016.1250069
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenski, K., & Stroud, N. J. (2006). Connections between internet use and political efficacy, knowledge, and participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 173–192. doi: 10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirzinger, A. E., Weber, C., & Johnson, M. (2012). Genetic and environmental influences on media use and communication behaviors. Human Communication Research, 38(2), 144–171. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.2011.01424.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klofstad, C. A. (2009). Civic talk and civic participation: The moderating effect of individual predispositions. American Politics Research, 37(5), 856–878. doi: 10.1177/1532673X09333960
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klofstad, C. A. (2010). The lasting effect of civic talk on civic participation: Evidence from a panel study. Social Forces, 88(5), 2353–2375. doi: 10.1353/sof.2010.0047
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klofstad, C. A. (2015). Exposure to political discussion in college is associated with higher rates of political participation over time. Political Communication, 32(2), 292–309. doi: 10.1080/10584609.2014.944322
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knopik, V. S., Neiderhiser, J., DeFries, J. C., & Plomin, R. (2016). Behavioral genetics (7th ed.). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Kreek, M. J., Nielsen, D. A., Butelman, E. R., & LaForge, K. S. (2005). Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nature Neuroscience, 8(11), 1450. doi: 10.1038/nn1583
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littvay, L. (2012). Do heritability estimates of political phenotypes suffer from an equal environment assumption violation? Evidence from an empirical study. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 6–14. doi: 10.1375/twin.15.1.6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockyer, A., & Hatemi, P. K. (2018). Genetics and politics: A review for the social scientist. In R. L. Hopcroft (Ed.), Oxford handbook of evolution, biology, and society. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190299323.013.44
   Google Scholar
• Ludeke, S., Johnson, W., & Bouchard, T. J. (2013). “Obedience to traditional authority:” A heritable factor underlying authoritarianism, conservatism and religiousness. Personality and Individual Differences, 55(4), 375–380. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2013.03.018
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maes, H. (2016). Program: oneACEo.R. Retrieved from http://ibg.colorado.edu/cdrom2016/maes/UnivariateAnalysis/one/oneACEo.R
   Google Scholar
• McCroskey, J., Heisel, A., & Richmond, V. (2001). Eysenck’s BIG THREE and communication traits: Three correlational studies. Communication Monographs, 68(4), 360–366. doi: 10.1080/03637750128068
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Medland, S. E., & Hatemi, P. K. (2009). Political science, biometric theory, and twin studies: A methodological introduction. Political Analysis, 17(2), 191–214. doi: 10.1093/pan/mpn016
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, G., Zhu, G., Wright, M. J., Hansell, N. K., & Martin, N. G. (2012). The heritability and genetic correlates of mobile phone use: A twin study of consumer behavior. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 15(1), 97. doi: 10.1375/twin.15.1.97
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukherjee, S. (2017). The gene: An intimate history. New York, NY: Scribner.
   Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2002a). Cross-cutting social networks: Testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 111–126. doi: 10.1017/S0003055402004264
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2002b). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political participation. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 838–855. doi: 10.2307/3088437
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511617201
   Google Scholar
• Neale, M. (2009). Biometrical models in behavioral genetics. In Y.-K. Kim (Ed.), Handbook of behavior genetics (pp. 15–33). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-76727-7
   Google Scholar
• Neale, M. C., & Maes, H. M. (2004). Methodology for genetic studies of twins and families. Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic. Retrieved from http://ibgwww.colorado.edu/workshop2004/cdrom/HTML/book2004a.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Neale, M., & Cardon, L. (1992). Methodology for genetics studies of twins and families. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic. doi: 10.1007/978-94-015-8018-2
   Google Scholar
• Ockerman, E. (2017). Double the pleasure, double the fun. At Twins Days, an Ohio town revels in its quirky past. Retrieved from http://wapo.st/2uehkVX?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.9573ff5fddf3
   Google Scholar
• Plomin, R., Corley, R., DeFries, J. C., & Fulker, D. W. (1990). Individual differences in television viewing in early childhood: Nature as well as nurture. Psychological Science, 1(6), 371–377. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00244.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23. doi: 10.1177/1745691615617439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polderman, T. J., Benyamin, B., De Leeuw, C. A., Sullivan, P. F., Van Bochoven, A., Visscher, P. M., & Posthuma, D. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702. doi: 10.1038/ng.3285
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M. (2009a). Uses-and-gratifications perspective on media effects. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media effects: Advances in theory and research (pp. 165–184). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, A. M. (2009b). Uses and gratifications: An evolving perspective of media effects. In R. L. Nabi & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), The Sage handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 147–160). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602–628. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Eveland, W. P., & Kwak, N. (2005). Information and expression in a digital age: Modeling internet effects on civic participation. Communication Research, 32(5), 531–565. doi: 10.1177/0093650205279209
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., Cho, J., Nah, S., Gotlieb, M. R., Hwang, H., Lee, N. J., … McLeod, D. M. (2007). Campaign ads, online messaging, and participation: Extending the communication mediation model. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 676–703. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00363.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shah, D. V., McLeod, D. M., Rojas, H., Cho, J., Wagner, M. W., & Friedland, L. A. (2017). Revising the communication mediation model for a new political communication ecology. Human Communication Research, 43(4), 491–504. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherry, J. L. (2001). Toward an etiology of media use motivations: The role of temperament in media use. Communication Monographs, 68(3), 274–288. doi: 10.1080/03637750128065
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sherry, J. L. (2004). Media effects theory and the nature/nurture debate: A historical overview and directions for future research. Media Psychology, 6(1), 83–109. doi: 10.1207/s1532785xmep0601_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, K., Alford, J. R., Hatemi, P. K., Eaves, L. J., Funk, C., & Hibbing, J. R. (2012). Biology, ideology, and epistemology: How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care? American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 17–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00560.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, K. B., & Hatemi, P. K. (2013). OLS is AOK for ACE: A regression-based approach to synthesizing political science and behavioral genetics models. Political Behavior, 35(2), 383–408. doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9192-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strachan, E., Duncan, G., Horn, E., & Turkheimer, E. (2017). Neighborhood deprivation and depression in adult twins: Genetics and gene × environment interaction. Psychological Medicine, 47(4), 627–638. doi: 10.1017/S0033291716002622
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Valenzuela, S., & Bachmann, I. (2015). Pride, anger, and cross-cutting talk: A three-country study of emotions and disagreement in informal political discussions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(4), 544–564. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edv040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weber, R., Sherry, J., & Mathiak, K. (2009). The neurophysiological perspective in mass communication research. In M. J. Beatty, J. C. McCroskey, & K. Floyd (Eds.), Biological dimensions of communication: Perspectives, methods, and research (pp. 41–71). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Yoo, S. W., Kim, J. W., & Gil de Zúñiga, H. (2017). Cognitive benefits for senders: Antecedents and effects of political expression on social media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 94(1), 17–37. doi: 10.1177/1077699016654438
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• York, C. (2017). A regression approach to testing genetic influence on communication behavior: Social media use as an example. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 100–109. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar