Literature DB >> 24569950

Genetic influences on political ideologies: twin analyses of 19 measures of political ideologies from five democracies and genome-wide findings from three populations.

Peter K Hatemi1, Sarah E Medland, Robert Klemmensen, Sven Oskarsson, Levente Littvay, Christopher T Dawes, Brad Verhulst, Rose McDermott, Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Casey A Klofstad, Kaare Christensen, Magnus Johannesson, Patrik K E Magnusson, Lindon J Eaves, Nicholas G Martin.   

Abstract

Almost 40 years ago, evidence from large studies of adult twins and their relatives suggested that between 30 and 60% of the variance in social and political attitudes could be explained by genetic influences. However, these findings have not been widely accepted or incorporated into the dominant paradigms that explain the etiology of political ideology. This has been attributed in part to measurement and sample limitations, as well the relative absence of molecular genetic studies. Here we present results from original analyses of a combined sample of over 12,000 twins pairs, ascertained from nine different studies conducted in five democracies, sampled over the course of four decades. We provide evidence that genetic factors play a role in the formation of political ideology, regardless of how ideology is measured, the era, or the population sampled. The only exception is a question that explicitly uses the phrase "Left-Right". We then present results from one of the first genome-wide association studies on political ideology using data from three samples: a 1990 Australian sample involving 6,894 individuals from 3,516 families; a 2008 Australian sample of 1,160 related individuals from 635 families and a 2010 Swedish sample involving 3,334 individuals from 2,607 families. No polymorphisms reached genome-wide significance in the meta-analysis. The combined evidence suggests that political ideology constitutes a fundamental aspect of one's genetically informed psychological disposition, but as Fisher proposed long ago, genetic influences on complex traits will be composed of thousands of markers of very small effects and it will require extremely large samples to have enough power in order to identify specific polymorphisms related to complex social traits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24569950      PMCID: PMC4038932          DOI: 10.1007/s10519-014-9648-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Genet        ISSN: 0001-8244            Impact factor:   2.805


  43 in total

1.  Principal components analysis corrects for stratification in genome-wide association studies.

Authors:  Alkes L Price; Nick J Patterson; Robert M Plenge; Michael E Weinblatt; Nancy A Shadick; David Reich
Journal:  Nat Genet       Date:  2006-07-23       Impact factor: 38.330

Review 2.  Integrating social science and genetics: news from the political front.

Authors:  Peter K Hatemi; Christopher T Dawes; Amanda Frost-Keller; Jaime E Settle; Brad Verhulst
Journal:  Biodemography Soc Biol       Date:  2011

3.  Age changes in the causes of individual differences in conservatism.

Authors:  L Eaves; N Martin; A Heath; R Schieken; J Meyer; J Silberg; M Neale; L Corey
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 2.805

4.  Gene-environment interactions related to body mass: School policies and social context as environmental moderators.

Authors:  Jason D Boardman; Michael E Roettger; Benjamin W Domingue; Matthew B McQueen; Brett C Haberstick; Kathleen M Harris
Journal:  J Theor Polit       Date:  2012-07-01

5.  The Influence of Major Life Events on Economic Attitudes in a World of Gene-Environment Interplay.

Authors:  Peter K Hatemi
Journal:  Am J Pol Sci       Date:  2013-10-01

6.  Sources of human psychological differences: the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart.

Authors:  T J Bouchard; D T Lykken; M McGue; N L Segal; A Tellegen
Journal:  Science       Date:  1990-10-12       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  A variant in LIN28B is associated with 2D:4D finger-length ratio, a putative retrospective biomarker of prenatal testosterone exposure.

Authors:  Sarah E Medland; Tetyana Zayats; Beate Glaser; Dale R Nyholt; Scott D Gordon; Margaret J Wright; Grant W Montgomery; Megan J Campbell; Anjali K Henders; Nicholas J Timpson; Leena Peltonen; Dieter Wolke; Susan M Ring; Panos Deloukas; Nicholas G Martin; George Davey Smith; David M Evans
Journal:  Am J Hum Genet       Date:  2010-03-18       Impact factor: 11.025

Review 8.  A critical review of the first 10 years of candidate gene-by-environment interaction research in psychiatry.

Authors:  Laramie E Duncan; Matthew C Keller
Journal:  Am J Psychiatry       Date:  2011-09-02       Impact factor: 18.112

9.  Trait-associated SNPs are more likely to be eQTLs: annotation to enhance discovery from GWAS.

Authors:  Dan L Nicolae; Eric Gamazon; Wei Zhang; Shiwei Duan; M Eileen Dolan; Nancy J Cox
Journal:  PLoS Genet       Date:  2010-04-01       Impact factor: 5.917

10.  Nature, nurture, and conservatism in the Australian Twin Study.

Authors:  J C Loehlin
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  1993-05       Impact factor: 2.805

View more
  8 in total

1.  The Influence of Major Life Events on Economic Attitudes in a World of Gene-Environment Interplay.

Authors:  Peter K Hatemi
Journal:  Am J Pol Sci       Date:  2013-10-01

2.  Twin studies of brain, cognition, and behavior.

Authors:  John K Hewitt
Journal:  Neurosci Biobehav Rev       Date:  2020-04-24       Impact factor: 8.989

3.  Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance.

Authors:  Wylie Burke; Laura M Beskow; Susan Brown Trinidad; Stephanie M Fullerton; Kathleen Brelsford
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 1.718

4.  Political attitudes develop independently of personality traits.

Authors:  Peter K Hatemi; Brad Verhulst
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-03-03       Impact factor: 3.240

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

Authors:  Thomas Haarklau Kleppestø; Nikolai Olavi Czajkowski; Olav Vassend; Espen Røysamb; Nikolai Haahjem Eftedal; Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington; Jonas R Kunst; Lotte Thomsen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Great minds think different: Preserving cognitive diversity in an age of gene editing.

Authors:  Jonathan Anomaly; Christopher Gyngell; Julian Savulescu
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2019-04-02       Impact factor: 1.898

7.  Is negativity bias intuitive for liberals and conservatives?

Authors:  Metin Ege Salter; Firat Yavuz Duymaç; Onurcan Yilmaz; Hasan G Bahçekapili; Mehmet Harma
Journal:  Curr Psychol       Date:  2022-01-03

8.  Genes, Culture and Conservatism-A Psychometric-Genetic Approach.

Authors:  Inga Schwabe; Wilfried Jonker; Stéphanie M van den Berg
Journal:  Behav Genet       Date:  2015-11-20       Impact factor: 2.805

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.