Political attitude is established well before adolescents reach adulthood, however, a recent debate within of the political science field of study brings about questions of whether ‘political attitude’ is established genetically or during the early stages of adolescence. The current state in which we find this debate is outlined clearly when we consider the research conducted by R. Chris Fraley published in his journal article Developmental Antecedents of Political Ideology: A Longitudinal Investigation From Birth to Age 18 Years, alongside the research presented in Pete K. Hatemi’s Not by Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs.
Fraley notes that his findings only add to various theories of the development of political attitudes in reference to parenting styles expressed during early stages of adolescence. He states that this early parental socialization, the process of learning to behave in a way that is acceptable to society based solely off of the actions and observations of one’s parents, seems to be the largest contributor of political attitudes at a later point in life, most noticeably adulthood (Fraley, et al.).
Although not completely in contrast, what is found in Hatemi’s journal article is that genetic influence makes up a substantial portion of one’s political identity which was proven by testing not only using the twin model but also using non twin sibling and extended family result causing critics to have a difficulty denying the developments in his team of researcher’s findings (Hatemi et al.).
127 our experts are availableright now
Ultimately How political identities are formed has become significant within the political science community because political ideological leanings ultimately lead to voting habits. If conclusively proven both arguments set the stance that voting is more out of the control of any individual voter than believed throughout modern day democratic governments. At the roots of the current argument, we find that both perspectives of the most recent debate agree that political ideology formation is not arbitrary and occurs prior to any formal stance is made.
One commonality between the two approaches to the idea of political identity formation is the indication that a large portion of the political science field believes the most significant influence of political identity is a parental influence. However, within this agreement between the approaches it is still not clear if parental influence could be the byproduct of either genetics or parenting styles. Nonetheless, people are subject to influence predating adulthood that affects their political identity. Therefore, it can be deduced that political identity is not a choice that is made but rather the manifestation of prior influence from either the early portion of one’s life or predating birth.
If we are then to take this new idea further what is found is the idea that voting habits and party affiliation, while not proven to be strictly in line with political ideology, may also hold correlations within the foundations of behavioral genetics or early childhood experience. Prior to this new development of causation of political identity, the ideas of behavioralist, those who favored the idea of political attitudes being a learned behavior over the course of several years which were continuously molded throughout adulthood, were considered to be the overwhelming consensus within the political science community.
Essentially since political attitude, just as any other human behavior, is not perfectly stable it is subject to change. The new claims of political identity formation suggest that it is extremely unlikely that one will change their political ideologies in adulthood. This claim has specifically put the theory as stated by traditional behaviorist under heavy understandable, critique. Since adults experience a wide array of social environments and outside influences but seldom have revealed significant changes in political ideology it becomes more likely that the formation of their ideologies happens and are mostly finite prior to the start of adulthood (Fraley et al.).
This is not to mean that Farley and Hatemi are opposed to the ideas of behavioralist only that the full story of political identity formation is not told by their accounts alone. In Farley article it is stated that “as [young adults] leave home, join the workforce, attend college, and expand their social networks, children’s political attitudes might begin to diverge from their initial attitudes” this statement clearly echoes the ideas of behavioralist (Fraley et al.). Additionally, Hatemi states that “As important as environmental forces undoubtedly are, it is unscientific to assume without empirical tests that they are the only forces operating” (Hatemi et al.).
Using both articles we find that there is at the very least an acknowledgment of traditional socialization to be a contributing factor serving as at an agent in forming a political identity. One of the key implications of the Fraley piece was the correlation of experienced parenting styles with political ideologies during adulthood. By use of longitudinal data gathered from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development’s (NICHD) along with an additional study conducted by Booth LaForce in 2012 Fraley found that it was possible to predict the political orientation of someone that has reached the age of 18 years old based solely on the parenting styles they experienced throughout the first five years of their life (Fraley et al.).
Specifically, Fraley’s study suggested that children who experienced a more “authoritarian style of parenting” during early adolescence were likely to develop a political orientation of conservative by the age of 18 (Fraley et al.). Inversely, those who experience “egalitarian parenting styles” during this developmental age were likely to identify as liberal by the age of 18 (Fraley et al.). This idea of the impact of childhood experiences in relation to political orientation does not directly contradict the ideas presented by Hatemi but it does overlook the significance of one’s political orientation’s developmental process that happens predating birth as suggested in his findings.
Hatemi notes that one of the most significant discoveries within the scientific community over the last 20 years has been the introduction to the idea of behavioral genetics and how they shape attitudes (Hatemi et al.). Although he mentions that genetic influence must work in tandem with environmental influences he provides strong evidence to suggest that the largest contributor to political orientation is genetic inheritance (Hatemi et al.).
As we can see Hatemi’s argument does not impede the argument of Fraley but rather reduces the significance of parenting styles experienced early on in a child’s life. Although at their core both articles suggest the formation of political orientation to be related to different forces in nature, a prominent result that is considered in Hatemi’s article is the idea that a child’s political orientation may vary from child to child even within one household due to the complexity of genetic transfer and an average rate of about 50 percent of genetic similarity between siblings (Hatemi et al.).
Contrary to popular belief siblings are not genetically identical even in the case of monozygotic twins (identical twins) therefore variance in political identity is understood as a possibility to happen between siblings. Additionally, it is possible to have a genetic inheritance in political identity that is seemingly in opposition from one’s parent due to this complexity. Fraley’s argument offers that parental style, which in most case is consistent within a household, determines the political identity of young adults, however, if that were the only explanation than one could deduce that all siblings would have the same political identity which has been proven to be likely although, not definite (Fraley et al.).
However, it should be noted that not all children experience the same parental styles throughout adolescent even in the case of the same household. For instance, it is possible for a father to treat his daughter and son differently especially regarding disciplinary actions. For this reason, further study must be done to find if in the case of different political identification amongst siblings is there a significant change in the parenting that is experienced.
Bibliography
- Fraley, R. Chris, et al. “Developmental Antecedents of Political Ideology.” Psychological Science, vol. 23, no. 11, 2012, pp. 1425–1431., doi:10.1177/0956797612440102.
- Hatemi, Peter K., et al. “Not by Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 54, no. 3, 2010, pp. 798–814., doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00461.x.
