Attachment and Political Personality are Heritable and Distinct Systems, and Both Share Genetics with Interpersonal Trust and Altruism.

The attachment and caregiving domains maintain proximity and care-giving behavior between parents and offspring, in a way that has been argued to shape people's mental models of how relationships work, resulting in secure, anxious or avoidant interpersonal styles in adulthood. Several theorists have suggested that the attachment system is closely connected to orientations and behaviors in social and political domains, which should be grounded in the same set of familial experiences as are the different attachment styles. We use a sample of Norwegian twins (N = 1987) to assess the genetic and environmental relationship between attachment, trust, altruism, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), and social dominance orientation (SDO). Results indicate no shared environmental overlap between attachment and ideology, nor even between the attachment styles or between the ideological traits, challenging conventional wisdom in developmental, social, and political psychology. Rather, evidence supports two functionally distinct systems, one for navigating intimate relationships (attachment) and one for navigating social hierarchies (RWA/SDO), with genetic overlap between traits within each system, and two distinct genetic linkages to trust and altruism. This is counter-posed to theoretical perspectives that link attachment, ideology, and interpersonal orientations through early relational experiences.

Genetic similarity between relatives provides evidence on the presence and history of assortative mating.

Assortative mating - the non-random mating of individuals with similar traits - is known to increase trait-specific genetic variance and genetic similarity between relatives. However, empirical evidence is limited for many traits, and the implications hinge on whether assortative mating has started recently or many generations ago. Here we show theoretically and empirically that genetic similarity between relatives can provide evidence on the presence and history of assortative mating. First, we employed path analysis to understand how assortative mating affects genetic similarity between family members across generations, finding that similarity between distant relatives is more affected than close relatives. Next, we correlated polygenic indices of 47,135 co-parents from the Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study (MoBa) and found genetic evidence of assortative mating in nine out of sixteen examined traits. The same traits showed elevated similarity between relatives, especially distant relatives. Six of the nine traits, including educational attainment, showed greater genetic variance among offspring, which is inconsistent with stable assortative mating over many generations. These results suggest an ongoing increase in familial similarity for these traits. The implications of this research extend to genetic methodology and the understanding of social and economic disparities.

The genetic underpinnings of right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation explain political attitudes beyond Big Five personality.

OBJECTIVE: Political attitudes are predicted by the key ideological variables of right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), as well as some of the Big Five personality traits. Past research indicates that personality and ideological traits are correlated for genetic reasons. A question that has yet to be tested concerns whether the genetic variation underlying the ideological traits of RWA and SDO has distinct contributions to political attitudes, or if genetic variation in political attitudes is subsumed under the genetic variation underlying standard Big Five personality traits. METHOD: We use data from a sample of 1987 Norwegian twins to assess the genetic and environmental relationships between the Big Five personality traits, RWA, SDO, and their separate contributions to political policy attitudes. RESULTS: RWA and SDO exhibit very high genetic correlation (r = 0.78) with each other and some genetic overlap with the personality traits of openness and agreeableness. Importantly, they share a larger genetic substrate with political attitudes (e.g., deporting an ethnic minority) than do Big Five personality traits, a relationship that persists even when controlling for the genetic foundations underlying personality traits. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that the genetic foundations of ideological traits and political attitudes are largely non-overlapping with the genetic foundations of Big Five personality traits.

Intergenerational transmission of ADHD behaviors: genetic and environmental pathways.

BACKGROUND: We investigate if covariation between parental and child attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) behaviors can be explained by environmental and/or genetic transmission. METHODS: We employed a large children-of-twins-and-siblings sample (N = 22 276 parents and 11 566 8-year-old children) of the Norwegian Mother, Father and Child Cohort Study. This enabled us to disentangle intergenerational influences via parental genes and parental behaviors (i.e. genetic and environmental transmission, respectively). Fathers reported on their own symptoms and mothers on their own and their child's symptoms. RESULTS: Child ADHD behaviors correlated with their mother's (0.24) and father's (0.10) ADHD behaviors. These correlations were largely due to additive genetic transmission. Variation in children's ADHD behaviors was explained by genetic factors active in both generations (11%) and genetic factors specific to the children (46%), giving a total heritability of 57%. There were small effects of parental ADHD behaviors (2% environmental transmission) and gene-environment correlation (3%). The remaining variability in ADHD behaviors was due to individual-specific environmental factors. CONCLUSIONS: The intergenerational resemblance of ADHD behaviors is primarily due to genetic transmission, with little evidence for parental ADHD behaviors causing children's ADHD behaviors. This contradicts theories proposing environmental explanations of intergenerational transmission of ADHD, such as parenting theories or psychological life-history theory.

Non-random Mating Patterns in Education, Mental, and Somatic Health: A Population Study on Within- and Cross-Trait Associations.

Partners resemble each other on many traits, such as health and education. The traits are usually studied one by one in data from established couples and with potential participation bias. We studied all Norwegian parents who had their first child between 2016 and 2020 (N=187,926) and the siblings of these parents. We analysed grade point averages (GPA), educational attainment (EA), and medical records with prospective diagnostic data on 10 mental and 10 somatic health conditions measured 10 to 5 years before childbirth. We found stronger partner similarity in mental (median r=0.14) than in somatic health conditions (median r=0.04), with ubiquitous cross-trait correlations for mental health conditions (median r=0.13). GPA correlated 0.43 and EA 0.47 between partners. High GPA or EA was associated with better mental (median r=-0.16) and somatic (median r=-0.08) health in partners. Elevated correlations for mental health (median r=0.25) in established couples indicated convergence. Analyses of data on siblings and in-laws revealed deviations from direct assortment, suggesting instead indirect assortment based on related traits. GPA and EA accounted for 30-40% of the partner correlations in health. This has implications for the distribution of risk factors among children and for studies of intergenerational transmission.

Where not to look for targets of social reforms and interventions, according to behavioral genetics.

Behavioral genetics typically finds that the so-called shared environment contributes little or nothing to explaining within-population variation on most traits. If true, this has important implications for where not to look for good targets of interventions: Namely all things that are within the normal range of variation from one rearing environment to the next in that population.

Justice sensitivity is undergirded by separate heritable motivations to be morally principled and opportunistic.

Injustice typically involves some people benefitting at the expense of others. An opportunist might then be selectively motivated to amend only the injustice that is harmful to them, while someone more principled would respond consistently regardless of whether they stand to gain or lose. Here, we disentangle such principled and opportunistic motives towards injustice. With a sample of 312 monozygotic- and 298 dizygotic twin pairs (N = 1220), we measured people's propensity to perceive injustice as victims, observers, beneficiaries, and perpetrators of injustice, using the Justice Sensitivity scale. With a biometric approach to factor analysis, that provides increased stringency in inferring latent psychological traits, we find evidence for two substantially heritable factors explaining correlations between Justice Sensitivity facets. We interpret these factors as principled justice sensitivity (h2 = 0.45) leading to increased sensitivity to injustices of all categories, and opportunistic justice sensitivity (h2 = 0.69) associated with increased sensitivity to being a victim and a decreased propensity to see oneself as a perpetrator. These novel latent constructs share genetic substrate with psychological characteristics that sustain broad coordination strategies that capture the dynamic tension between honest cooperation versus dominance and defection, namely altruism, interpersonal trust, agreeableness, Social Dominance Orientation and opposition to immigration and foreign aid.

Motivated moral judgments about freedom of speech are constrained by a need to maintain consistency.

Speech is a critical means of negotiating political, adaptive interests in human society. Prior research on motivated political cognition has found that support for freedom of speech depends on whether one agrees with its ideological content. However, it remains unclear if people (A) openly hold that some speech should be more free than other speech; or (B) want to feel as if speech content does not affect their judgments. Here, we find support for (B) over (A), using social dominance orientation and political alignment to predict support for speech. Study 1 demonstrates that if people have previously judged restrictions of speech which they oppose, they are less harsh in condemning restrictions of speech which they support, and vice versa. Studies 2 and 3 find that when participants judge two versions of the same scenario, with only the ideological direction of speech being reversed, their answers are strongly affected by the ordering of conditions: While the first judgment is made in accordance with one's political attitudes, the second opposing judgment is made so as to remain consistent with the first. Studies 4 and 5 find that people broadly support the principle of giving both sides of contested issues equal speech rights, also when this is stated abstractly, detached from any specific scenario. In Study 6 we explore the boundaries of our findings, and find that the need to be consistent weakens substantially for speech that is widely seen as too extreme. Together, these results suggest that although people can selectively endorse moral principles depending on their political agenda, many seek to conceal this bias from others, and perhaps also themselves.

Correlations between social dominance orientation and political attitudes reflect common genetic underpinnings.

A foundational question in the social sciences concerns the interplay of underlying causes in the formation of people's political beliefs and prejudices. What role, if any, do genes, environmental influences, or personality dispositions play? Social dominance orientation (SDO), an influential index of people's general attitudes toward intergroup hierarchy, correlates robustly with political beliefs. SDO consists of the subdimensions SDO-dominance (SDO-D), which is the desire people have for some groups to be actively oppressed by others, and SDO-egalitarianism (SDO-E), a preference for intergroup inequality. Using a twin design (n = 1,987), we investigate whether the desire for intergroup dominance and inequality makes up a genetically grounded behavioral syndrome. Specifically, we investigate the heritability of SDO, in addition to whether it genetically correlates with support for political policies concerning the distribution of power and resources to different social groups. In addition to moderate heritability estimates for SDO-D and SDO-E (37% and 24%, respectively), we find that the genetic correlation between these subdimensions and political attitudes was overall high (mean genetic correlation 0.51), while the environmental correlation was very low (mean environmental correlation 0.08). This suggests that the relationship between political attitudes and SDO-D and SDO-E is grounded in common genetics, such that the desire for (versus opposition to) intergroup inequality and support for political attitudes that serve to enhance (versus attenuate) societal disparities form convergent strategies for navigating group-based dominance hierarchies.