Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33420605›Full record

ArticleHuman nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.)2020

Are Moral Intuitions Heritable?

Kevin Smith, Peter K Hatemi

Abstract readTwin Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Human nature (Hawthorne, N.Y.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Kevin SmithUniversity of Nebraska, 509 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE, 68588, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0312-2284
Peter K HatemiPennsylvania State University, 307 Pond Lab, University Park, PA, 16802, USA. phatemi@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6514-2614

Funding

National Science Foundation (US) 0721707National Science Foundation (US) 0729493
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Two prominent theoretical frameworks in moral psychology, Moral Foundations and Dual Process Theory, share a broad foundational assumption that individual differences in human morality are dispositional and in part due to genetic variation. The only published direct test of heritability, however, found little evidence of genetic influences on moral judgments using instrumentation approaches associated with Moral Foundations Theory. This raised questions about one of the core assumptions underpinning intuitionist theories of moral psychology. Here we examine the heritability of moral psychology using the moral dilemmas approach commonly used in Dual Process Theory research. Using such measures, we find consistent and significant evidence of heritability. These findings have important implications not only for understanding which measures do, or do not, tap into the genetically influenced aspects of moral decision-making, but in better establishing the utility and validity of different intuitionist theoretical frameworks and the source of why people differ in those frameworks.

Indexed as

HeredityMoralsAdolescentAdultDecision MakingHumansPsychological TheorySocioeconomic FactorsYoung AdultDual process theoryGeneticsMoral foundations theoryMoral intuitions

Identifiers

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.