Back

Disentangling principled and opportunistic motives for reacting to injustice: A genetically-informed exploration of justice sensitivity

Eftedal, N. H.; Kleppesto, T. H.; Czajkowski, N. O.; Sheehy-Skeffington, J.; Roysamb, E.; Vassend, O.; Ystrom, E.; Thomsen, L.

2020-06-10 genetics
10.1101/2020.06.10.143925 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Moral judgments may be driven by both principled and opportunistic motivations. Being morally principled is to consistently adhere to a single set of rules about morality and justice. Opportunistic morality rather involves selectively enforcing rules when they are beneficial to ones interests. These two kinds of motivations sometimes pull in the same direction, other times not. Prior studies on moral motivations have mostly focused on principled morality. Opportunistic morality, along with its phenotypic and genetic correlates, remains largely unexamined. Here, utilizing a sample from the Norwegian Twin Registry, consisting of 312 monozygotic-and 298 dizygotic twin pairs (N = 1220), we measure peoples propensity to react to injustice as victims, observers, beneficiaries, and perpetrators of injustice, using the Justice Sensitivity scale. Our genetically informative sample allows a biometric modeling approach that provides increased stringency in inferring latent psychological traits. We find evidence for two substantially heritable traits explaining correlations between Justice Sensitivity facets, which we interpret as a principled justice sensitivity (h2 = .45) leading to increased sensitivity to injustices of all categories, and an opportunistic justice sensitivity (h2 = .69) associated with increased victim sensitivity and a decreased propensity to feel guilt from being a perpetrator. These heritable justice traits share a genetic substrate with broad strategies for cooperation (as measured by altruism and trust) and for selectively benefitting oneself over the adaptive interests of others (as measured by social dominance orientation and support for monopolizing territory and resources), and differ genetically and phenotypically from Big Five personality traits.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
28.2%
2
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 13%
12.7%
3
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 13%
6.9%
4
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
6.5%
50% of probability mass above
5
Nature Human Behaviour
85 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.9%
6
Psychological Science
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 20%
4.2%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.8%
9
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.9%
10
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 15%
1.8%
11
European Journal of Human Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
12
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.7%
13
Current Biology
596 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
14
Social Science & Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
15
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.9%
16
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.9%
17
Behavior Genetics
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
0.8%
18
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
Evolution
199 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
Animal Behaviour
65 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.7%
21
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%
22
NeuroImage
813 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%
23
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
24
Cognition
44 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
25
Nature Neuroscience
216 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.5%