Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26379311›Full record

ArticlePublic opinion quarterly2013

Does Biology Justify Ideology? The Politics of Genetic Attribution.

Elizabeth Suhay, Toby Epstein Jayaratne

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public opinion quarterly, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Predicting Ideological Prejudice.Psychological science · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Elizabeth SuhayE lizabeth S uhay is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Law, Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA. T oby E pstein J ayaratne is an Assistant Research Scientist in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. The authors would like to thank Bill Dunne, Michael Feola, Martin Johnson, and Kristina Petronko as well as participants in the Spring 2010 New York Area Political Psychology Meeting, especially Leonie Huddy, Stanley Feldman, and Jeremiah Garretson. They would also like to thank Luc Bruggeman, Ryan Dawe, Brian Selvarajah, and Kelly Senters for excellent research assistance and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback and suggestions. This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute [HG01881 to T.E.J.].
Toby Epstein JayaratneE lizabeth S uhay is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Government and Law, Lafayette College, Easton, PA, USA. T oby E pstein J ayaratne is an Assistant Research Scientist in the Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. The authors would like to thank Bill Dunne, Michael Feola, Martin Johnson, and Kristina Petronko as well as participants in the Spring 2010 New York Area Political Psychology Meeting, especially Leonie Huddy, Stanley Feldman, and Jeremiah Garretson. They would also like to thank Luc Bruggeman, Ryan Dawe, Brian Selvarajah, and Kelly Senters for excellent research assistance and the anonymous reviewers for helpful feedback and suggestions. This work was supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute [HG01881 to T.E.J.].

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Conventional wisdom suggests that political conservatives are more likely than liberals to endorse genetic explanations for many human characteristics and behaviors. Whether and to what extent this is true has received surprisingly limited systematic attention. We examine evidence from a large U.S. public opinion survey that measured the extent to which respondents believed genetic explanations account for a variety of differences among individuals as well as groups in society. We find that conservatives were indeed more likely than liberals to endorse genetic explanations for perceived race and class differences in characteristics often associated with socioeconomic inequality (intelligence, math skills, drive, and violence). Different ideological divisions emerged, however, with respect to respondents' explanations for sexual orientation. Here, liberals were more likely than conservatives to say that sexual orientation is due to genes and less likely to say that it is due to choice or the environment. These patterns suggest that conservative and liberal ideologues will tend to endorse genetic explanations where their policy positions are bolstered by "naturalizing" human differences. That said, debates over genetic influence may be more politicized with respect to race, class, and sexual orientation than population differences generally: We find that left/right political ideology was

Identifiers

PMID26379311
PMCPMC4567596

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.