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

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.

When and Why Antiegalitarianism Affects Resistance to Supporting Black-Owned Businesses

Understanding how initiatives to support Black-owned businesses are received, and why, has important social and economic implications. To address this, we designed three experiments to investigate the role of antiegalitarian versus egalitarian ideologies among White American adults. In Study 1 (N = 199), antiegalitarianism (vs. egalitarianism) predicted viewing initiatives supporting a Black-owned business as less fair, but only when the business was competing with other (presumably White-owned) businesses. In Study 2 (N = 801), antiegalitarianism predicted applying survival-of-the-fittest market beliefs, particularly to Black-owned businesses. Antiegalitarianism also predicted viewing initiatives supporting Black-owned businesses as less fair than initiatives that targeted other (presumably White-owned) businesses, especially for tangible (vs. symbolic) support that directly impacts the success of a business. In Study 3 (N = 590), antiegalitarianism predicted rejecting a program investing in Black-owned businesses. These insights demonstrate how antiegalitarian ideology can have the effect of maintaining race-based inequality, hindering programs designed to reduce that inequality.

Maximizing the value of twin studies in health and behaviour

In the classical twin design, researchers compare trait resemblance in cohorts of identical and non-identical twins to understand how genetic and environmental factors correlate with resemblance in behaviour and other phenotypes. The twin design is also a valuable tool for studying causality, intergenerational transmission, and gene-environment correlation and interaction. Here we review recent developments in twin studies, recent results from twin studies of new phenotypes and recent insights into twinning. We ask whether the results of existing twin studies are representative of the general population and of global diversity, and we conclude that stronger efforts to increase representativeness are needed. We provide an updated overview of twin concordance and discordance for major diseases and mental disorders, which conveys a crucial message: genetic influences are not as deterministic as many believe. This has important implications for public understanding of genetic risk prediction tools, as the accuracy of genetic predictions can never exceed identical twin concordance rates.

Afraid of whom?: Threat sensitivity's influence changes with perceived source of threat

Taking insights from the fields of psychology and biology, a growing body of scholarship considers the psychophysiological foundations of political attitudes. Subconscious emotional reactions to threat, for example, have been shown to predict socially conservative attitudes toward out-groups. However, many of these studies fail to consider different sources of perceived threat. Using a combination of survey and physiological data, I distinguish between fear of others and fear of authority, finding that threat sensitivity predicts divergent political attitudes depending on the strength of each. Those who are more sensitive to threat from others tend to hold socially conservative attitudes, while those who fear authority generally take more libertarian positions. As sensitivity to threat is at least partially inherited, these findings highlight the genetic role of political predispositions.

Cooperative and conformist behavioural preferences predict the dual dimensions of political ideology

Decades of research suggest that our political differences are best captured by two dimensions of political ideology. The dual evolutionary framework of political ideology predicts that these dimensions should be related to variation in social preferences for cooperation and group conformity. Here, we combine data from a New Zealand survey and a suite of incentivised behavioural tasks (n = 991) to test whether cooperative and conformist preferences covary with a pair of widely used measures of the two dimensions of political ideology-Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)-and related policy views. As predicted, we find that cooperative behaviour is negatively related to SDO and economically conservative policy views, while conformist behaviour in the form of social information use is positively related to RWA and socially conservative policy views. However, we did not find the predicted relationships between punitive and rule following behaviours and RWA or socially conservative views, raising questions about the interpretation of punishment and rule following tasks and the nature of authoritarian conformist preferences. These findings reveal how cooperative and conformist preferences that evolved to help us navigate social challenges in our ancestral past continue to track our political differences even today.

Linking primary emotional traits to ideological attitudes and personal value types

The present study aimed at investigating associations of both ideological attitudes and personal value types with the personality traits derived from the Affective Neuroscience Theory (ANT). For that, data of N = 626 (n = 403 men, n = 220 women, n = 3 identifying as neither a man nor a woman) participants of an online survey in the German language were analyzed. Relations of primary emotional traits derived from the ANT with Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and personal value types, such as the higher-order value type dimensions "Conservation-Openness to Change" and "Self-Enhancement-Self-Transcendence", were examined by means of correlational analyses and structural equation modeling. Results revealed among others relations between low SEEKING, high ANGER and high RWA. Low CARE and high ANGER were associated with high SDO. Moreover, FEAR was related to the higher-order value type dimension ranging from Conservation to Openness to Change. ANGER was associated with the higher-order value type dimension ranging from Self-Enhancement to Self-Transcendence. The present results do not only expand knowledge on the personality traits associated with ideological attitudes and personal value types. Beyond this, considering the neuroanatomical, functional, and neurochemical correlates of the primary emotional traits SEEKING, ANGER, CARE, and FEAR, the present results may provide a roadmap for forthcoming studies aiming at examining biological correlates of ideological attitudes and personal value types, such as those works in the field of political neuroscience.

Is negativity bias intuitive for liberals and conservatives?

Previous research suggests that conservatives (right-wingers) tend to show more negativity bias than liberals (left-wingers) in several tasks. However, the majority of these studies are based on correlational findings and do not provide information on the cognitive underpinnings of this tendency. The current research investigated whether intuition promotes negativity bias and mitigates the ideological asymmetry in this domain in three underrepresented, non-western samples (Turkey). In line with the previous literature, we defined negativity bias as the tendency to interpret ambiguous faces as threatening. The results of the lab experiment revealed that negativity bias increases under high-cognitive load overall. In addition, this effect was moderated by the participants' political orientation (Experiment 1). In other words, when their cognitive resources were depleted, liberals became more like conservatives in terms of negativity bias. However, we failed to conceptually replicate this effect using time-limit manipulations in two online preregistered experiments during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the baseline negativity bias is thought to be already at peak. Thus, the findings provide no strong evidence for the idea that intuition promotes negativity bias and that liberals use cognitive effort to avoid this perceptual bias.

Idealisation, genetic explanations and political behaviours: Notes on the anti-reductionist critique of genopolitics

The rapid development of genetic research, determined, among others, by the requirements of The Human Genome Project, and a gradual reorientation in the perception of the role of nature and culture in the process of shaping complex networks of human relations by some political scientists, result in the increasing application of genetic data and methods in research regarding political behaviours. One of the key philosophical objections against the studies of the genetic foundations of political behaviours is that of excessive reductionism. This is supposed to manifest itself in the inadequate selection of the level of analysis for the explained phenomenon, the incompleteness of explanations and their low utility. My findings show that this objection is not sufficiently supported by contemporary science. Both studies using classical behavioural genetic methodologies and studies using DNA-based methods show that genes most likely play a role in political behaviours. Emphasising the significance of genetic influences in the midst of multiple extra-genetic interactions generates highly idealised explanations. Using the conceptual apparatus of the deformational concept of culture, I have demonstrated that the omission of a number of important extra-genetic influences by researchers is a consequence of focusing on specific causal patterns. This omission, however, does not entail negating the influence of non-genetic factors and, importantly, it may not have to be permanent. Following this approach, if correct, the reductionism of research into the genetic foundations of political behaviours is a standard cognitive procedure applied in science.

A neurocognitive model of ideological thinking

Ideological behavior has traditionally been viewed as a product of social forces. Nonetheless, an emerging science suggests that ideological worldviews can also be understood in terms of neural and cognitive principles. The article proposes a neurocognitive model of ideological thinking, arguing that ideological worldviews may be manifestations of individuals' perceptual and cognitive systems. This model makes two claims. First, there are neurocognitive antecedents to ideological thinking: the brain's low-level neurocognitive dispositions influence its receptivity to ideological doctrines. Second, there are neurocognitive consequences to ideological engagement: strong exposure and adherence to ideological doctrines can shape perceptual and cognitive systems. This article details the neurocognitive model of ideological thinking and synthesizes the empirical evidence in support of its claims. The model postulates that there are bidirectional processes between the brain and the ideological environment, and so it can address the roles of situational and motivational factors in ideologically motivated action. This endeavor highlights that an interdisciplinary neurocognitive approach to ideologies can facilitate biologically informed accounts of the ideological brain and thus reveal who is most susceptible to extreme and authoritarian ideologies. By investigating the relationships between low-level perceptual processes and high-level ideological attitudes, we can develop a better grasp of our collective history as well as the mechanisms that may structure our political futures.

Psychophysiology, cognition, and political differences: Guest editors' introduction to the special issue

We introduce the Politics and the Life Sciences special issue on Psychophysiology, Cognition, and Political Differences. This issue represents the second special issue funded by the Association for Politics and the Life Sciences that adheres to the Open Science Framework for registered reports (RR). Here pre-analysis plans (PAPs) are peer-reviewed and given in-principle acceptance (IPA) prior to data being collected and/or analyzed, and are published contingent upon the preregistration of the study being followed as proposed. Bound by a common theme of the importance of incorporating psychophysiological perspectives into the study of politics, broadly defined, the articles in this special issue feature a unique set of research questions and methodologies. In the following, we summarize the findings, discuss the innovations produced by this research, and highlight the importance of open science for the future of political science research.

Evidence of Psychological Targeting but not Psychological Tailoring in Political Persuasion Around Brexit

There are numerous associations between psychological characteristics and political values, but it is unclear whether messages tailored to these psychological characteristics can influence political decisions. Two studies (N = 398, N = 395) tested whether psychological-based argument tailoring could influence participants’ decision-making. We constructed arguments based on the 2016 Brexit referendum; Remain supporters were presented with four arguments supporting the Leave campaign, tailored to reflect the participant’s strongest (/weakest) moral foundation (Loyalty or Fairness) or personality trait (Conscientiousness or Openness). We tested whether individuals scoring high on a trait would find the tailored arguments more persuasive than individuals scoring low on the same trait. We found clear evidence for targeting, particularly for Loyalty, but either no evidence or weak evidence, in the case of Conscientiousness, for tailoring. Overall, the results suggest that targeting political messages could be effective, but provide either no, or weak evidence that tailoring these messages influences political decision-making.

Ideology and social cognition Are liberals and conservatives differentially affected by social cues about group inequality?

Research links liberal and conservative ideological orientations with variation on psychological and cognitive characteristics that are important for perceptual processes and decision-making. This study investigates whether this variation can impact the social behaviors of liberals and conservatives. A sample of subjects (n = 1,245) participated in a modified public goods game in which an intragroup inequality was introduced to observe the effect on individuals' tendency toward self-interested versus prosocial behavior. Overall, the contributions of neither liberal- nor conservative-oriented individuals were affected by conditions of a general intragroup inequality. However, in response to the knowledge that group members voted to redress the inequality, levels of contribution among liberals significantly increased in comparison to the control. This was not true for conservatives. The results provide evidence that differences in ideological orientation are associated with individual differences in social cognition.

The Barbarians Are at the Gate!

Nicholas Martin's contribution to science is well known. This article reviews one small part of his pioneering work that integrated political and social attitudes with behavior genetics. Nick Martin, in part, led to a paradigm shift in the social sciences, and in political science in particular. These fields were previously wed to behavioralist approaches and now routinely include genetic influences in both theoretical and empirical study. This article also celebrates a part of Nick's contribution that many do not know. Nick Martin does not just build science, he builds scientists. There are many who would not be academics or scholars without Nick's guidance, mentorship and friendship. This review was written to express the deepest appreciation for what he has done and continues to do for science and the scientist.

Beyond culture and the family: Evidence from twin studies on the genetic and environmental contribution to values

Human values are abstract goals, affecting decisions, choices and behavior (Schwartz, 1992). Despite much value research, there is a lack of research on the etiology of values, specifically potential genetic influences. We therefore reviewed all published twin studies on human values, classified as representing four higher order values across two bipolar dimensions: Self-transcendence versus Self-enhancement and Openness to change versus Conservation. Across most studies, and most values, monozygotic twins correlated more strongly than dizygotic twins, indicating genetic contribution to values. Significant heritability estimates ranged from 24.5 to 85.7%. The effects of the environment shared by family members were generally weaker. Finally, there was a contribution of the non-shared environment for all values. After discussing the implications for the neuropsychological research on values, we suggest several future research directions, which may help guide the future science of the etiology of values. We also discuss the possible discrepancy between our findings and theory and research on value socialization and discuss the interplay of genes and the environment in the development of values.

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

It is likely that gene editing technologies will become viable in the current century. As scientists uncover the genetic contribution to personality traits and cognitive styles, parents will face hard choices. Some of these choices will involve trade-offs from the standpoint of the individual's welfare, while others will involve trade-offs between what is best for each and what is good for all. Although we think we should generally defer to the informed choices of parents about what kinds of children to create, we argue that decisions to manipulate polygenic psychological traits will be much more ethically complicated than choosing Mendelian traits like blood type. We end by defending the principle of regulatory parsimony, which holds that when legislation is necessary to prevent serious harms, we should aim for simple rules that apply to all, rather than micro-managing parental choices that shape the traits of their children. While we focus on embryo selection and gene editing, our arguments apply to all powerful technologies which influence the development of children.

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

Deciphering the underlying psychology of societal attitudes and prejudices is important in times of political unpredictability. We focus on the foundational construct of preference for (or against) hierarchies between groups, as reflected in the 2 subdimensions of social dominance orientation (SDO). Studying SDO with a large-sample twin design, we show that both its sub-dimensions are heritable, share common genetic influences, and overlap genetically with 6 political attitudes that serve to enhance versus attenuate societal hierarchy. This suggests that desire for versus opposition to intergroup hierarchy, in abstract and concrete forms, constitutes a genetically-grounded behavioral syndrome, thus explaining an important part of the long-observed association among political views of various kinds.

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.

Is Apostasy Heritable? A Behavior Genetics Study

The present study explores whether genetic factors explain variation in the levels of apostasy - defined as a disengagement from religious belief, identity and/or practice - in a US-based sample during the transition from adolescence to early adulthood. I posit that genetic factors at least partially explain the variance of three measures of apostasy: disengagement from religious institutions, cessation of prayer and religious disaffiliation. I argue that genetic factors associated with risk-taking behaviors, externalizing behaviors and/or correlates of apostasy may all influence the likelihood of becoming an apostate during the transition from adolescence to early adulthood in the USA. Results reveal that genetic factors explain approximately 34% of the variance in cessation of prayer and 75% of the variance in religious disaffiliation. However, genetic factors do not influence disengagement from religious institutions. This study advances our knowledge of the etiology of apostasy and highlights the need to incorporate genetic data into social scientific research.

A Major Limitation of the Direction of Causation Model: Non-Shared Environmental Confounding

Determining (1) the direction of causation and (2) the size of causal effects between two constructs is a central challenge of the scientific study of humans. In the early 1990s, researchers in behavioral genetics invented what was termed the direction of causation (DoC) model to address exactly these two concerns. The model claims that for any two traits whose mode of inheritance is sufficiently different, the direction of causation can be ascertained using a sufficiently large genetically informative sample. Using a series of simulation studies, we demonstrate a major challenge to the DoC model, namely that it is extremely sensitive to even tiny amounts of non-shared confounding. Even under ideal conditions for the DoC model (a large sample,N= 10,000), a large causal relationship (e.g., a causal correlation of .50) with very different modes of inheritance between the two traits (e.g., a pure AE model for one trait and a pure CE model for another trait) and a modest degree (correlation of .10) of non-shared confounding between the two traits results in the choice of the wrong causal models and estimating the wrong causal effects.

The "chicken-and-egg" development of political opinions

Twin studies have revealed political ideology to be partially heritable. Neurological research has shown that ideological differences are reflected in brain structure and response, suggesting a direct genotype-phenotype link. Social and informational environments, however, also demonstrably affect brain structure and response. This leads to a "chicken-and-egg" question: do genes produce brains with ideological predispositions, causing the preferential absorption of consonant information and thereby forming an ideology, or do social and informational environments do most of the heavy lifting, with genetic evidence the spurious artifact of outdated methodology? Or are both inextricably intertwined contributors? This article investigates the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to ideological development using a role-play experiment investigating the development of opinions on a novel political issue. The results support the view that the process is bidirectional, suggesting that, like most traits, political ideology is produced by the complex interplay of genetic and (social/informational) environmental influences.

Handedness predicts Conservative-Republican preference and eliminates relations of Big Five personality to political orientation using the 48 contiguous American states as analytical units

The two present nomothetic studies focused on the period from 1996 to 2012 to determine relations between handedness and political orientation using the 48 contiguous American states as analytical units. The estimated percentage of left-handers in each state operationally defined handedness. A composite measure of Conservative-Republican preference was created from CBS/New York Times/Gallup polls of state resident conservatism and the percent in each state voting Republican in each presidential election from 1996 to 2012. Study 1 showed that state levels of left-handedness correlated to an extremely high degree with Conservative-Republican preference (r = -.80). As well, with common demographic differences between states reflected in socioeconomic status, White population percent, and urban population percent controlled through multiple regression, handedness still accounted for an additional 37.2% of the variance in Conservative-Republican preference. Study 2 found that each of the Big Five personality variables correlated significantly with handedness and with Conservative-Republican preference, but in the opposite direction. Furthermore, Study 2 demonstrated quite surprisingly that all Big Five personality relations to Conservative-Republican preference were eliminated when handedness was controlled in multiple regression equations. For all regression equations, the global Moran's I test specifically developed for detecting residual spatial autocorrelation indicated no significant spatial autocorrelation.

Social cues and ideology

Research shows that individuals with liberal and conservative ideological orientations display different value positions concerning the acceptance of social change and inequality. Research also links the expression of different values to a number of biological factors, including heredity. In light of these biological influences, I investigate whether differences in social values associated with liberal and conservative ideologies reflect alternative strategies to maximize returns from social interactions. Using an American sample of Democrats and Republicans, I test whether information about shared and unshared social values in the form of implicit social attitudes have a disproportionate effect on the willingness of Democrats and Republicans to trust an anonymous social partner. I find evidence that knowledge of shared values significantly increases levels of trust among Democrats but not Republicans. I further find that knowledge of unshared values significantly decreases trust among Republicans but not Democrats. These findings are consistent with studies indicating that differences in ideological orientation are linked to differences in cognition and decision-making.

Informed Consent in Translational Genomics: Insufficient Without Trustworthy Governance

Neither the range of potential results from genomic research that might be returned to participants nor future uses of stored data and biospecimens can be fully predicted at the outset of a study. Informed consent procedures require clear explanations about how and by whom decisions are made and what principles and criteria apply. To ensure trustworthy research governance, there is also a need for empirical studies incorporating public input to evaluate and strengthen these processes.

It Runs in the Family: A Study of Political Candidacy Among Swedish Adoptees

What motivates citizens to run for office? Recent work has shown that early life parental socialization is strongly associated with a desire to run for office. However, parents not only shape their children's political environment, they also pass along their genes to those same children. A growing area of research has shown that individual differences in a wide range of political behaviors and attitudes are linked to genetic differences. As a result, genetic factors may confound the observed political similarities among parents and their children. This study analyzes Swedish register data containing information on all nominated and elected candidates in the ten parliamentary, county council, and municipal elections from 1982 to 2014 for a large sample of adoptees and their adoptive and biological parents. By studying the similarity in political ambition within both adoptive and biological families, our research design allows us to disentangle so-called "pre-birth" factors, such as genes and pre-natal environment, and "post-birth" factors like parental socialization. We find that the likelihood of standing as a political candidate is twice as high if one's parent has been a candidate. We also find that the effects of pre-birth and post-birth factors are approximately equal in size. In addition, we test a number of potential pre- and post-birth transmission mechanisms. First, disconfirming our expectations, the pre-birth effects do not seem to be mediated by cognitive ability or leadership skills. Second, consistent with a role modeling mechanism, we find evidence of a strong transmission in candidacy status between rearing mothers and their daughters.

Genes, Culture and Conservatism-A Psychometric-Genetic Approach

The Wilson−Patterson conservatism scale was psychometrically evaluated using homogeneity analysis and item response theory models. Results showed that this scale actually measures two different aspects in people: on the one hand people vary in their agreement with either conservative or liberal catch-phrases and on the other hand people vary in their use of the “?” response category of the scale. A 9-item subscale was constructed, consisting of items that seemed to measure liberalism, and this subscale was subsequently used in a biometric analysis including genotype–environment interaction, correcting for non-homogeneous measurement error. Biometric results showed significant genetic and shared environmental influences, and significant genotype–environment interaction effects, suggesting that individuals with a genetic predisposition for conservatism show more non-shared variance but less shared variance than individuals with a genetic predisposition for liberalism.

The genetic and environmental foundations of political, psychological, social, and economic behaviors: a panel study of twins and families

Here we introduce the Genetic and Environmental Foundations of Political and Economic Behaviors: A Panel Study of Twins and Families (PIs Alford, Hatemi, Hibbing, Martin, and Smith). This study was designed to explore the genetic and environmental influences on social, economic, and political behaviors and attitudes. It involves identifying the psychological mechanisms that operate on these traits, the heritability of complex economic and political traits under varying conditions, and specific genetic correlates of attitudes and behaviors. In addition to describing the study, we conduct novel analyses on the data, estimating the heritability of two traits so far unexplored in the extant literature: Machiavellianism and Baron-Cohen's Empathizing Quotient.

Political attitudes develop independently of personality traits

The primary assumption within the recent personality and political orientations literature is that personality traits cause people to develop political attitudes. In contrast, research relying on traditional psychological and developmental theories suggests the relationship between most personality dimensions and political orientations are either not significant or weak. Research from behavioral genetics suggests the covariance between personality and political preferences is not causal, but due to a common, latent genetic factor that mutually influences both. The contradictory assumptions and findings from these research streams have yet to be resolved. This is in part due to the reliance on cross-sectional data and the lack of longitudinal genetically informative data. Here, using two independent longitudinal genetically informative samples, we examine the joint development of personality traits and attitude dimensions to explore the underlying causal mechanisms that drive the relationship between these features and provide a first step in resolving the causal question. We find change in personality over a ten-year period does not predict change in political attitudes, which does not support a causal relationship between personality traits and political attitudes as is frequently assumed. Rather, political attitudes are often more stable than the key personality traits assumed to be predicting them. Finally, the results from our genetic models find that no additional variance is accounted for by the causal pathway from personality traits to political attitudes. Our findings remain consistent with the original construction of the five-factor model of personality and developmental theories on attitude formation, but challenge recent work in this area.

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

The role of "genes" on political attitudes has gained attention across disciplines. However, person-specific experiences have yet to be incorporated into models that consider genetic influences. Relying on a gene-environment interplay approach, this study explicates how life-events, such as losing one's job or suffering a financial loss, influence economic policy attitudes. The results indicate genetic and environmental variance on support for unions, immigration, capitalism, socialism and property tax is moderated by financial risks. Changes in the magnitude of genetic influences, however, are temporary. After two years, the phenotypic effects of the life events remain on most attitudes, but changes in the sources of individual differences do not. Univariate twin models that estimate the independent contributions of genes and environment on the variation of attitudes appear to provide robust baseline indicators of sources of individual differences. These estimates, however, are not event or day specific. In this way, genetic influences add stability, while environment cues change, and this process is continually updated.