IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nathum/v3y2019i9d10.1038_s41562-019-0651-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Asymmetrical genetic attributions for prosocial versus antisocial behaviour

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew S. Lebowitz

    (Columbia University Irving Medical Center)

  • Kathryn Tabb

    (Bard College)

  • Paul S. Appelbaum

    (Columbia University Irving Medical Center)

Abstract

Genetic explanations of human behaviour are increasingly common. While genetic attributions for behaviour are often considered relevant for assessing blameworthiness, it has not yet been established whether judgements about blameworthiness can themselves impact genetic attributions. Across six studies, participants read about individuals engaging in prosocial or antisocial behaviour, and rated the extent to which they believed that genetics played a role in causing the behaviour. Antisocial behaviour was consistently rated as less genetically influenced than prosocial behaviour. This was true regardless of whether genetic explanations were explicitly provided or refuted. Mediation analyses suggested that this asymmetry may stem from people’s motivating desire to hold wrongdoers responsible for their actions. These findings suggest that those who seek to study or make use of genetic explanations’ influence on evaluations of, for example, antisocial behaviour should consider whether such explanations are accepted in the first place, given the possibility of motivated causal reasoning.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew S. Lebowitz & Kathryn Tabb & Paul S. Appelbaum, 2019. "Asymmetrical genetic attributions for prosocial versus antisocial behaviour," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 3(9), pages 940-949, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:9:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0651-1
    DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0651-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-019-0651-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/s41562-019-0651-1?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nathum:v:3:y:2019:i:9:d:10.1038_s41562-019-0651-1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.