Lebowitz Matthew S, Tabb Kathryn, Appelbaum Paul S
Columbia University.
Bard College.
J Soc Psychol. 2021 Apr 9:1-12. doi: 10.1080/00224545.2021.1909522.
Genetic influences on human behavior are increasingly well understood, but laypeople may endorse genetic attributions selectively; e.g., they appear to make stronger genetic attributions for prosocial than for antisocial behavior. We explored whether this could be accounted for by the relationship of genetic attributions to perceptions of naturalness. Participants read about positively or negatively valenced traits or behaviors and rated naturalness and genetic causation. Positively valenced phenotypes were rated significantly more natural and significantly more genetically influenced than negatively valenced phenotypes, and the former asymmetry significantly mediated the latter (Experiments 1 and 2). Participants' interpretation of what "natural" meant was not synonymous with valence or genetic attributions (Experiment 3). People ascribe differing degrees of genetic influence to the same phenotype depending on whether it is expressed in socially favored or disfavored ways, potentially representing a significant threat to public understanding of genetics.
人们对基因对人类行为的影响有了越来越深入的了解，但外行人可能会有选择地认可基因归因；例如，他们似乎认为亲社会行为比反社会行为更具基因决定性。我们探讨了这是否可以用基因归因与自然感认知之间的关系来解释。参与者阅读了具有正向或负向价值的特质或行为，并对自然性和基因因果关系进行评分。与负向价值的表型相比，正向价值的表型被评为显著更自然且受基因影响更大，并且前者的不对称性显著介导了后者（实验1和2）。参与者对“自然”含义的解释与价值或基因归因并非同义（实验3）。人们根据同一表型是以社会认可还是不认可的方式表达，赋予其不同程度的基因影响，这可能对公众对遗传学的理解构成重大威胁。
