Deterministic Attributions of Behavior: Brain versus Genes

Abstract

This research examined the influence of social-, genetic-, and brain-based explanations on attributions of others’ behaviors. Participants were university students in Studies 1 (N = 140), 2 (N = 142), and 3 (N = 260). Participants read a vignette about an individual who possessed several undesirable behaviors and answered related questions. The first two studies had within-subjects designs. Participants in Study 1 were provided with social-, genetic-, and brain-based explanations for the individual’s behavior. The order of the genetic- and brain-based explanations was reversed in Study 2. Study 3 used the same materials, but had a between-subjects design where participants were assigned to one of three groups that differed in their explanation: social, genetic, or brain. Participants also completed measures of social desirability and free will beliefs in all three studies. Consistently, biological explanations had more influence than social explanations on ratings of others’ responsibility, capacity for change, and sentencing considerations. There was inconsistent evidence across the three studies, however, that brain-based explanations had more influence than genetic-based explanations. Interestingly, Free will scores were associated with aspects of the individual’s behavior in the social condition but not in the biological conditions. Additional social cognition research is needed to determine whether brain-based explanations are just one specific instantiation of biological explanations or whether they are unique in this regard when it comes to the attributions we make about others’ behaviors.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Data availability

The data, materials, and R-based code that support the findings of these studies are available from the corresponding author, [K. Peters], upon reasonable request.

Notes

  1. 1.

    As it relates to the brain, essentialism has been described of in at least two ways in the relevant literature: The general view that we as humans are essentially reducible to our brains [8] and a more nuanced view that certain entities have an essence that defines them as natural categories, which is immutable, homogeneous, and discrete [35]. Although these two views are not interchangeable, they are often confused and treated as such in the literature.

References

  1. 1.

    de Melo-Martín, Inmaculada. 2003. Biological explanations and social responsibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 34: 345–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-8486(02)00070-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Monterosso, John, Edward B. Royzman, and Barry Schwartz. 2005. Explaining away responsibility: Effects of scientific explanation on perceived culpability. Ethics & Behavior 15: 139–158. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327019eb1502_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Ogletree, Shirley M., and Richard L. Archer. 2011. Interpersonal judgments: Moral responsibility and blame. Ethics & Behavior 21: 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2011.537569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Rangel, Ulrike, and Johannes Keller. 2011. Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Fiske, Susan T, and Shelley E. Taylor. 2017. Attribution processes. In Social cognition: From brains to culture (3rd ed., 158–187). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

  6. 6.

    Baertschi, Bernard, and Alexandre Mauron. 2011. Genetic determinism, neuronal determinism, and determinism tout court. In The Oxford handbook of neuroethics, ed. Judy Illes and Barbara J. Sahakian, 151–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199570706.013.0047.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Dunagan, Jake F. 2010. Politics for the neurocentric age. Journal of Future Studies 15: 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Reiner, Peter B. 2011. The rise of neuroessentialism. In The Oxford handbook of neuroethics, ed. Judy Illes and Barbara J. Sahakian, 151–160. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199570706.013.0049.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Frazzetto, Giovanni, and Suzanne Anker. 2009. Neuroculture. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10: 815–821. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2736.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    McCabe, David P., and Alan D. Castel. 2008. Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition 107: 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Weisberg, Deena S., Frank C. Keil, Joshua Goodstein, Elizabeth Rawson, and Jeremy R. Gray. 2008. The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 20: 470–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Hook, Cayce J., and Martha J. Farah. 2013. Look again: Effects of brain images and mind–brain dualism on lay evaluations of research. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 25: 1397–1405. https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Schweitzer, Nicholas J., Dale A. Baker, and Evan F. Risko. 2013. Fooled by the brain: Re-examining the influence of neuroimages. Cognition 129: 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.08.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Aspinwall, Lisa G., Teneille R. Brown, and James Tabery. 2012. The double-edged sword: Does biomechanism increase or decrease judges’ sentencing of psychopaths? Science 337: 846–849. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1219569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Greene, Edith, and Brian S. Cahill. 2012. Effects of neuroimaging evidence on mock juror decision making: Effects of neuroimages. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 30: 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.1993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Roskies, Adina L., Norman J. Schweitzer, and Michael J. Saks. 2013. Neuroimages in court: Less biasing than feared. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 17: 99–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2013.01.008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Vitacco, Michael J., Emily Gottfried, Scott O. Lilienfeld, and Ashley Batastini. 2020. The limited relevance of neuroimaging in insanity evaluations. Neuroethics 13: 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-019-09421-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Appelbaum, Paul S., Nicholas Scurich, and Raymond Raad. 2015. Effects of behavioral genetic evidence on perceptions of criminal responsibility and appropriate punishment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 21: 134–144. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000039.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Kvaale, Erlend P., Nick Haslam, and William H. Gottdiener. 2013. The ‘side effects’ of medicalization: A meta-analytic review of how biogenetic explanations affect stigma. Clinical Psychology Review 33: 782–794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2013.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Phelan, Jo. C. 2005. Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: The case of mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 46: 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1177/002214650504600401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Zhang, Zhiyong, and Ke-Hai. Yuan. 2018. Practical Statistical Power Analysis Using Webpower and R. Granger: ISDSA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Paulhus, Delroy L. 1991. Measurement and control of response bias. In Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes, ed. John P. Robinson, Phillip R. Shaver, and Lawrence S. Wrightsman, 17–59. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Paulhus, Delroy L., and Jasmine M. Carey. 2011. The FAD–Plus: Measuring lay beliefs regarding free will and related constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment 93: 96–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-project.org

  25. 25.

    Brunner, Edgar, Sebastian Domhof, and Frank Langer. 2002. Nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Noguchi, Kimihiro, R. Yulia, Edgar Brunner Gel, and Frank Konietschke. 2012. NparLD: An R software package for the nonparametric analysis of longitudinal data in factorial experiments. Journal of Statistical Software 50: 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v050.i12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Erceg-Hurn, David M., and Vikki M. Mirosevich. 2008. Modern robust statistical methods: An easy way to maximize the accuracy and power of your research. American Psychologist 63: 591–601. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.7.591.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Konietschke, Frank, Marius Placzek, Frank Schaarschmidt, and Ludwig A. Hothorn. 2015. Nparcomp: An R software package for nonparametric multiple comparisons and simultaneous confidence intervals. Journal of Statistical Software 64: 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Cliff, Norman. 1993. Dominance statistics: Ordinal analyses to answer ordinal questions. Psychological Bulletin 114: 494–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Vargha, András, and Harold D. Delaney. 2000. A critique and improvement of the CL Common Language Effect Size statistics of McGraw and Wong. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 25: 101–132.

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical power analysis for the behavoral sciences, 2nd ed. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Grissom, Robert J., and John J. Kim. 2012. Effect sizes for research: Univariate and multivariate applications, 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Signorell, Andri. 2020. DescTools: Tools for descriptive statistics. Retrieved from https://cran.r-project.org/package=DescTools.

  34. 34.

    Gilpin, Andrew R. 1993. Table for conversion of Kendall’s tau to Spearman’s rho within the context of measures of magnitude of effect for meta-analysis. Educational & Psychological Measurement 53: 87–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Dar-Nimrod, Ilan, and Steven J. Heine. 2010. Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin 137: 800–818.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Denno, Deborah W. 2011. Courts’ increasing consideration of behavioral genetics evidence in criminal cases: Results of a longitudinal study. (Michigan State Law Review, 967–1047).

  37. 37.

    Shariff, Azim F., Joshua D. Greene, Johan C. Karremans, Jamie B. Luguri, Cory J. Clark, Jonathan W. Schooler, Roy F. Baumeister, and Kathleen D. Vohs. 2014. Free will and punishment: A mechanistic view of human nature reduces retribution. Psychological Science 25: 1563–1570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614534693.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Applelbaum, Paul S., and Nicholas Scurich. 2014. Impact of behavioral genetic evidence on the adjudication of criminal behavior. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 42: 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Gebotys, Robert J., and Bikram Dasgupta. 1987. Attribution of responsibility and crime seriousness. The Journal of Psychology 121: 607–613.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Baumeister, Roy F., and Lauren E. Brewer. 2012. Believing versus disbelieving in free will: Correlates and consequences: Free will beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 6: 736–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2012.00458.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

K. Peters and A. Kalinina developed the study concept and design for Studies 1 and 2. K. Peters and N. Downer developed the study concept and design for Study 3. Data collection was performed by A. Kalinina (Studies 1 and 2) and N. Downer (Study 3). K. Peters performed the data analysis and interpretation. K. Peters drafted the manuscript with the assistance of A.Van Elswyk. A.Kalinina. N. Downer, and A. Van Elswyk provided critical comments for revision. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin R. Peters.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval

This study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was granted by the Research Ethics Board of Trent University (File # 23499 for Studies 1 and 2; File # 25497 for Study 3).

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Consent to publish

As part of their informed consent form, all participants consented to their anonymized data being used in research publication(s).

Conflicts of interest/Competing interests

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Peters, K.R., Kalinina, A., Downer, N.M. et al. Deterministic Attributions of Behavior: Brain versus Genes. Neuroethics (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09471-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Attributions
  • Responsibility
  • Determinism
  • Neuroscience