September 12

siennaredwoodIA et Robotique

23 févr. 2014 (il y a 8 années et 9 jours)

341 vue(s)

“Repeal… would undermine recruiting and retention, impact
leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness
of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service,
and eventually break the All
Volunteer Force.”

March 2009 statement signed by
retired admirals

“The flag and general officers for the military, 1,167 to date,
51 of them former four
stars, said that this law, if repealed,
could indeed
the All
Volunteer Force. They chose that
word very carefully. They have a lot of military experience…
and they know what they’re talking about.”

Elaine Donnelly, Center for Military Readiness, May

No overall negative effects on cohesion, recruiting, retention,
harassment, readiness, morale, etc.

positive reports about DADT repeal emerged in the media,
repeal opponents who predicted that open service would
compromise readiness have adjusted their forecasts by
emphasizing the possibility of long
term damage that will only
become apparent in the future rather than identifiable
consequences in the short

A single dimension? (

and colleagues)

Two dimensions? (

and colleagues)

Three dimensions? (

, 2012)

More than three? (e.g.,

et al.)

Does the way we conceptualize it affect our results?

How can and should we measure it?

Is there more emphasis on social LC? Why?

Does everyone even fall on this continuum?

Do conceptions vary by culture?

MZ and DZ twins raised together vs. apart

MZ twins vs. DZ twins raised together

MZ twins raised together vs. apart

DZ twins raised together vs. apart

“shared environment”

Additive genetic

Shared environment

Unshared environment

Adding in spouses can get at:


mating (overestimates environment, underestimates

Social homogamy (increases MZ and DZ so no effect)

Social influence (no effect)

What is a heritability coefficient? How do you interpret one?

Tesser, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes.
Psychological Review, 100
(1), 129

© 1993 American Psychological Association

, A. (1993). The importance of heritability in psychological research: The case of attitudes.
Psychological Review, 100
(1), 129

© 1993 American Psychological Association


Structural equation modeling

Best fit

What are the different ways that parents could influence
political ideology of their children?


et al., 2009

How do children’s ideologies change over time?

How do the effects of genetics, shared environment, and unique
environment change over time?

Figure 1

What does this suggest about the effects of parents on
children’s political attitudes?

Effects of genetics and home environment at age 21

Why do the effects of shared environment decrease?

Figures 5 and 6

What does this study tell us about how we get our ideologies?

Any other comments/issues with this study?

What were their samples?

What new approaches did this study add?

What was the sample for this study?

How did they measure political orientation? Table 1

Any other drawbacks of the study?

Figure 4

AI: additive genetic, shared, environmental, social
social influence

RC: also genotypic

mating and


Parents didn’t seem to affect attitudes other than through

Is this consistent with

et al.?

There was shared environmental influence within twins. How
could this occur?

AI: openness and agreeableness

RC: conscientiousness, extraversion, and openness

Most of relation between personality and orientation is due to
genetics, but not all of the genetic effects are explained by

How could personality influence PO?

What other genetic factors could influence PO?

Ideology serves needs for certainty, security, and solidarity (echoes
of TMT). What motivates liberals?

Ideology comes form orientations toward uncertainty, threat, and
conformity (

, 2012). What does that mean for being
conservative vs. liberal? For social class?

What are some of the correlates of liberalism/conservatism they

What effect did 9/11 have on political orientation, according to the
authors? How does that mesh with the findings we talked about last
week on TMT?

Block and Block (2006) nursery school

Zamboni et al. 2009

fMRI while read statements.
Conservative statements associated with greater activity in
brain region associated with negative affect, withdraw


et al. 2007

liberals more able to deal with response
conflict (go/no
go task) and more ACC activity (conflict area)

“In sum, these results suggest that a more liberal ideology is
associated with stronger motivation to seek out new information
and integrate potentially conflicting pieces of information in
order to arrive at a relatively complex understanding of
reality.” COMMENTS?

Oxley et al., 2008
Conservatives more arousal in response to
threat (GSR,

Kanai et al., 2011

liberalism and larger ACC; conservatism
and larger amygdala

Genetic polymorphisms predictive of voting behavior, attitudes

So where do ideologies come from? What is the causal order
for these factors?
Can the social environment affect genetics?

Do these genetic findings suggest
that PO is
not rational and
can’t change?

What about moderates?

Proposal due in 2 weeks. Questions?

Next week: How liberals and conservatives differ