Genes, Ideology, and Sophistication

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2021-03-08 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2021.4

Nathan P. Kalmoe, Martin Johnson

引用次数: 7

Abstract

Twin studies function as natural experiments that reveal political ideology’s substantial genetic roots, but how does that comport with research showing a largely nonideological public? This study integrates two important literatures and tests whether political sophistication – itself heritable – provides an “enriched environment” for genetic predispositions to actualize in political attitudes. Estimates from the Minnesota Twin Study show that sociopolitical conservatism is extraordinarily heritable (74%) for the most informed fifth of the public – much more so than population-level results (57%) – but with much lower heritability (29%) for the public’s bottom half. This heterogeneity is clearest in the Wilson–Patterson (W-P) index, with similar patterns for individual index items, an ideological constraint measure, and ideological identification. The results resolve tensions between two key fields by showing that political knowledge facilitates the expression of genetic predispositions in mass politics.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

基因、意识形态和复杂性

双胞胎研究是揭示政治意识形态实质遗传根源的自然实验，但这与显示基本上非意识形态公众的研究如何一致？这项研究整合了两篇重要的文献，并测试了政治复杂性——本身是可遗传的——是否为遗传倾向在政治态度中的实现提供了一个“丰富的环境”。明尼苏达双胞胎研究的估计表明，社会政治保守主义在最知情的五分之一公众中具有非凡的遗传性（74%），远高于人口水平的结果（57%），但在公众的下半部分则具有更低的遗传力（29%）。这种异质性在Wilson–Patterson（W-P）指数中最为明显，个别指数项目、意识形态约束措施和意识形态认同的模式相似。研究结果表明，政治知识有助于大众政治中基因倾向的表达，从而解决了两个关键领域之间的紧张关系。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

期刊最新文献

Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – ADDENDUM Testing the Effect of Information on Discerning the Veracity of News in Real Time (How) Do Information Campaigns Influence Migration Decisions?