Genetic attributions and perceptions of naturalness are shaped by evaluative valence

Asymmetrical genetic attributions for the presence and absence of health problems

OBJECTIVE

Recent research has suggested that people more readily make genetic attributions for positively valenced or desirable traits than for negatively valenced or undesirable traits-an asymmetry that may be mediated by perceptions that positive characteristics are more 'natural' than negative ones. This research sought to examine whether a similar asymmetry in genetic attributions would emerge between positive and negative health outcomes.

DESIGN

Across seven experiments, participants were randomly assigned to read a short vignette describing an individual experiencing a health problem (e.g. hypertension) or a corresponding healthy state (e.g. normal blood pressure).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

All participants provided ratings of naturalness and genetic attributions for the outcome described in their assigned vignette.

RESULTS

For diagnoses other than addictive disorders, participants rated the presence of a diagnosis as less genetically caused than its absence; for addictive disorders, the presence of a diagnosis was rated as more genetically caused than its absence. Participants consistently rated the presence of a health problem as less natural than its absence.

CONCLUSION

Even within a single domain of health, people ascribe differing degrees of 'naturalness' and genetic causation to positive versus negative health outcomes, which could impact their preferences for treatment and prevention strategies.

Asymmetric genetic attributions for one's own prosocial versus antisocial behavior

People tend to rate prosocial or positive behavior as more strongly influenced by the actor's genes than antisocial or negative behavior. The current study tested whether people would show a similar asymmetry when rating the role of genes in their own behavior, and if so, what variables might mediate this difference. Participants were prompted to think about an example of their own behavior from the past year that was either prosocial or antisocial. Those in the prosocial condition rated the role of genetics in causing the behavior as significantly greater than did those in the antisocial condition. A mediation analysis suggested that this asymmetry could be accounted for by a tendency to view prosocial behavior as more natural and more aligned with one's true self than antisocial behavior. These findings add to a growing body of evidence suggesting that people's reasoning about genetics may be influenced by evaluative judgments.

Asymmetric Causal Attributions to Environmental Influences for Prosocial Versus Antisocial Behavior

Several recent studies have explored how people may favor different explanations for others' behavior depending on the moral or evaluative valence of the behavior in question. This research tested whether people would be less willing to believe that a person's environment played a role in causing her to exhibit antisocial (as compared to prosocial) behavior. In three experiments, participants read a description of a person engaging in either antisocial or prosocial behavior. Participants were less willing to endorse environmental causes of antisocial (versus prosocial) behavior when the environmental influence in question was witnessing others behaving similarly, either during childhood (Experiment 1) or recently (Experiment 2), or being directly encouraged by others to engage in the behavior described (Experiment 3). These results could be relevant to understanding why people resist attributing wrongdoing to causes outside of individual control in some cases.