Biology, ideology, and epistemology: How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care?

Kevin Smith, John R. Alford, Peter K. Hatemi, Lindon J. Eaves, Carolyn Funk, John R Hibbing

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

58 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Evidence that political attitudes and behavior are in part biologically and even genetically instantiated is much discussed in political science of late. Yet the classic twin design, a primary source of evidence on this matter, has been criticized for being biased toward finding genetic influence. In this article, we employ a new data source to test empirically the alternative, exclusively environmental, explanations for ideological similarities between twins. We find little support for these explanations and argue that even if we treat them as wholly correct, they provide reasons for political science to pay more rather than less attention to the biological basis of attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis suggests that the mainstream socialization paradigm for explaining attitudes and behaviors is not necessarily incorrect but is substantively incomplete.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)17-33
Number of pages17
JournalAmerican Journal of Political Science
Volume56
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2012

Fingerprint

political attitude
epistemology
political science
biology
ideology
political behavior
socialization
evidence
paradigm

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Biology, ideology, and epistemology : How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care? / Smith, Kevin; Alford, John R.; Hatemi, Peter K.; Eaves, Lindon J.; Funk, Carolyn; Hibbing, John R.

In: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 56, No. 1, 01.01.2012, p. 17-33.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Smith, Kevin ; Alford, John R. ; Hatemi, Peter K. ; Eaves, Lindon J. ; Funk, Carolyn ; Hibbing, John R. / Biology, ideology, and epistemology : How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care?. In: American Journal of Political Science. 2012 ; Vol. 56, No. 1. pp. 17-33.
@article{823808de5f95434bb5aab3995fe45a80,
title = "Biology, ideology, and epistemology: How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care?",
abstract = "Evidence that political attitudes and behavior are in part biologically and even genetically instantiated is much discussed in political science of late. Yet the classic twin design, a primary source of evidence on this matter, has been criticized for being biased toward finding genetic influence. In this article, we employ a new data source to test empirically the alternative, exclusively environmental, explanations for ideological similarities between twins. We find little support for these explanations and argue that even if we treat them as wholly correct, they provide reasons for political science to pay more rather than less attention to the biological basis of attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis suggests that the mainstream socialization paradigm for explaining attitudes and behaviors is not necessarily incorrect but is substantively incomplete.",
author = "Kevin Smith and Alford, {John R.} and Hatemi, {Peter K.} and Eaves, {Lindon J.} and Carolyn Funk and Hibbing, {John R}",
year = "2012",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00560.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "56",
pages = "17--33",
journal = "American Journal of Political Science",
issn = "0092-5853",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Biology, ideology, and epistemology

T2 - How do we know political attitudes are inherited and why should we care?

AU - Smith, Kevin

AU - Alford, John R.

AU - Hatemi, Peter K.

AU - Eaves, Lindon J.

AU - Funk, Carolyn

AU - Hibbing, John R

PY - 2012/1/1

Y1 - 2012/1/1

N2 - Evidence that political attitudes and behavior are in part biologically and even genetically instantiated is much discussed in political science of late. Yet the classic twin design, a primary source of evidence on this matter, has been criticized for being biased toward finding genetic influence. In this article, we employ a new data source to test empirically the alternative, exclusively environmental, explanations for ideological similarities between twins. We find little support for these explanations and argue that even if we treat them as wholly correct, they provide reasons for political science to pay more rather than less attention to the biological basis of attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis suggests that the mainstream socialization paradigm for explaining attitudes and behaviors is not necessarily incorrect but is substantively incomplete.

AB - Evidence that political attitudes and behavior are in part biologically and even genetically instantiated is much discussed in political science of late. Yet the classic twin design, a primary source of evidence on this matter, has been criticized for being biased toward finding genetic influence. In this article, we employ a new data source to test empirically the alternative, exclusively environmental, explanations for ideological similarities between twins. We find little support for these explanations and argue that even if we treat them as wholly correct, they provide reasons for political science to pay more rather than less attention to the biological basis of attitudes and behaviors. Our analysis suggests that the mainstream socialization paradigm for explaining attitudes and behaviors is not necessarily incorrect but is substantively incomplete.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84855949200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84855949200&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00560.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00560.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 22400141

AN - SCOPUS:84855949200

VL - 56

SP - 17

EP - 33

JO - American Journal of Political Science

JF - American Journal of Political Science

SN - 0092-5853

IS - 1

ER -