Polygenic Indices (a.k.a. Polygenic Scores) in Social Science: A Guide for Interpretation and Evaluation.

Polygenic indices (PGI)-the new recommended label for polygenic scores (PGS) in social science-are genetic summary scales often used to represent an individual's liability for a disease, trait, or behavior based on the additive effects of measured genetic variants. Enthusiasm for linking genetic data with social outcomes and the inclusion of premade PGIs in social science datasets have facilitated increased uptake of PGIs in social science research-a trend that will likely continue. Yet, most social scientists lack the expertise to interpret and evaluate PGIs in social science research. Here, we provide a primer on PGIs for social scientists focusing on key concepts, unique statistical genetic considerations, and best practices in calculation, estimation, reporting, and interpretation. We summarize our recommended best practices as a checklist to aid social scientists in evaluating and interpreting studies with PGIs. We conclude by discussing the similarities between PGIs and standard social science scales and unique interpretative considerations.

All that glisters is not gold: Genetics and social science.

In their target article, Madole & Harden offer an account of "what it means for genes to be causes" of social outcomes to bolster their claim that genetics should be incorporated into social science with practical implications. Here I object to several key features of their arguments, their representation of the state of science, and claims about the utility of genetics for social science and society.

Polygenic scores for social science: Clarification, consensus, and controversy.

In this response, I focus on clarifying my arguments, highlighting consensus, and addressing competing views about the utility of polygenic scores (PGSs) for social science. I also discuss an assortment of expansions to my arguments and suggest alternative approaches. I conclude by reiterating the need for caution and appropriate scientific skepticism.

Irreducibly Social: Why Biocriminology's Ontoepistemology is Incompatible with the Social Reality of Crime.

Professing interactionist bio + social terminology, contemporary biocriminology asserts a break from its biologically essentialist past. Assurances notwithstanding, whether biocriminology has undergone a decisive paradigm shift rejecting notions of biological criminals and bad brains remains uncertain. Unfortunately, discussions of biocriminology's assumptions are mired in politics, obscuring important scientific issues. Motivated to clarify misunderstanding, I address the ontoepistemology of biocriminology from a scientific realist perspective. Drawing on familiar notions of crime as a social construction, I explain how and why biocriminology's ontoepistemology is inconsistent with the social reality of crime for scientific not ideological reasons. I explain that recognizing crime is a social construction does not imply that crime is not real or objective and cannot be studied scientifically. On the contrary, the irreducibly social nature of crime requires that scientific realists reject assumptions of 'biological crime' as well as the biologically reductionist epistemology on which biocriminology depends.

Cultural evolutionary theory is not enough: Ambiguous culture, neglect of structure, and the absence of theory in behavior genetics.

Uchiyama et al. propose a unified model linking cultural evolutionary theory to behavior genetics (BG) to enhance generalizability, enrich explanation, and predict how social factors shape heritability estimates. A consideration of culture evolution is beneficial but insufficient for purpose. I submit that their proposed model is underdeveloped and their emphasis on heritability estimates misguided. I discuss their ambiguous conception of culture, neglect of social structure, and the lack of a general theory in BG.

Challenging the utility of polygenic scores for social science: Environmental confounding, downward causation, and unknown biology.

The sociogenomics revolution is upon us, we are told. Whether revolutionary or not, sociogenomics is poised to flourish given the ease of incorporating polygenic scores (or PGSs) as "genetic propensities" for complex traits into social science research. Pointing to evidence of ubiquitous heritability and the accessibility of genetic data, scholars have argued that social scientists not only have an opportunity but a duty to add PGSs to social science research. Social science research that ignores genetics is, some proponents argue, at best partial and likely scientifically flawed, misleading, and wasteful. Here, I challenge arguments about the value of genetics for social science and with it the claimed necessity of incorporating PGSs into social science models as measures of genetic influences. In so doing, I discuss the impracticability of distinguishing genetic influences from environmental influences because of non-causal gene-environment correlations, especially population stratification, familial confounding, and downward causation. I explain how environmental effects masquerade as genetic influences in PGSs, which undermines their raison d'être as measures of genetic propensity, especially for complex socially contingent behaviors that are the subject of sociogenomics. Additionally, I draw attention to the partial, unknown biology, while highlighting the persistence of an implicit, unavoidable reductionist genes versus environments approach. Leaving sociopolitical and ethical concerns aside, I argue that the potential scientific rewards of adding PGSs to social science are few and greatly overstated and the scientific costs, which include obscuring structural disadvantages and cultural influences, outweigh these meager benefits for most social science applications.

Experimental studies of bias: Imperfect but neither useless nor unique.

Cesario provides a compelling critique of the use of experimental social psychology to explain real-world group disparities. We concur with his targeted critique and extend "the problem of missing information" to another common measures of bias. We disagree with Cesario's broader argument that the entire enterprise be abandoned, suggesting instead targeted utilization. Finally, we question whether the critique is appropriately directed at experimental social psychologists.

Has GWAS lost its status as a paragon of open science?

Genomic research led the way in open science, a tradition continued by genome-wide association studies (GWAS)-through the sharing of materials, results, and data. Coordinated quality control procedures also contributed to robust findings. However, recent years have seen declines in GWAS transparency. Here, we assess some shifts away from open science practices with the aim of stimulating a discussion of these issues.

Self-Control and Crime: Beyond Gottfredson and Hirschi's Theory.

Over the past several decades, Gottfredson & Hirschi's (1990) SCT has dominated research on self-control and crime. In this review, I assess the current state of self-control knowledge and encourage the field to move beyond SCT, as its peculiar conceptualization of self-control and causal model presents challenges for integrative scholarship. Drawing heavily on scholarship outside criminology, I clarify the definition of self-control; describe the malleable nature of trait self-control; highlight its situational variability as state self-control; and consider the multiplicity of contextual, situational, and individual factors that affect its operation in relation to crime. This specification of contingencies and the interplay between impulse strength and control efforts in the process of self-control is intended as a springboard for research moving beyond SCT and its key premise that self-control ability is sufficient for explanation. Finally, I address what I see as important areas for further study in light of current knowledge.

INCORPORATING ROUTINE ACTIVITIES, ACTIVITY SPACES, AND SITUATIONAL DEFINITIONS INTO THE SOCIAL SCHEMATIC THEORY OF CRIME.

Simons and Burt's (2011) social schematic theory (SST) of crime posits that adverse social factors are associated with offending because they promote a set of social schemas (i.e., a criminogenic knowledge structure) that elevates the probability of situational definitions favorable to crime. This study extends the SST model by incorporating the role of contexts for action. Furthermore, the study advances tests of the SST by incorporating a measure of criminogenic situational definitions to assess whether such definitions mediate the effects of schemas and contexts on crime. Structural equation models using 10 years of panel data from 582 African American youth provided strong support for the expanded theory. The results suggest that childhood and adolescent social adversity fosters a criminogenic knowledge structure as well as selection into criminogenic activity spaces and risky activities, all of which increase the likelihood of offending largely through situational definitions. Additionally, evidence shows that the criminogenic knowledge structure interacts with settings to amplify the likelihood of situational definitions favorable to crime.

Racial Discrimination, Ethnic-Racial Socialization, and Crime: A Micro-sociological Model of Risk and Resilience.

Dominant theoretical explanations of racial disparities in criminal offending overlook a key risk factor associated with race: interpersonal racial discrimination. Building on recent studies that analyze race and crime at the micro-level, we specify a social psychological model linking personal experiences with racial discrimination to an increased risk of offending. We add to this model a consideration of an adaptive facet of African American culture: ethnic-racial socialization, and explore whether two forms-cultural socialization and preparation for bias-provide resilience to the criminogenic effects of interpersonal racial discrimination. Using panel data from several hundred African American male youth from the Family and Community Health Study, we find that racial discrimination is positively associated with increased crime in large part by augmenting depression, hostile views of relationships, and disengagement from conventional norms. Results also indicate that preparation for bias significantly reduces the effects of discrimination on crime, primarily by reducing the effects of these social psychological mediators on offending. Cultural socialization has a less influential but beneficial effect. Finally, we show that the more general parenting context within which preparation for bias takes place influences its protective effects.

LEARNING TO BE BAD: ADVERSE SOCIAL CONDITIONS, SOCIAL SCHEMAS, AND CRIME.

In this paper we develop and test a new approach to explain the link between social factors and individual offending. We argue that seemingly disparate family, peer, and community conditions lead to crime because the lessons communicated by these events are similar and promote social schemas involving a hostile view of people and relationships, a preference for immediate rewards, and a cynical view of conventional norms. Further, we posit that these three schemas are interconnected and combine to form a criminogenic knowledge structure that gives rise to situational interpretations legitimating criminal behavior. Structural equation modeling with a sample of roughly 700 hundred African American teens provided strong support for the model. The findings indicated that persistent exposure to adverse conditions such as community crime, discrimination, harsh parenting, deviant peers and low neighborhood collective efficacy increased commitment to the three social schemas. The three schemas were highly intercorrelated and combined to form a latent construct that strongly predicted increases in crime. Further, in large measure the effect of the various adverse conditions on increases in crime was indirect through their impact on this latent construct. We discuss the extent to which the social schematic model presented in the paper might be used to integrate concepts and findings from several of the major theories of criminal behavior.

A test of explanations for the effect of harsh parenting on the perpetration of dating violence and sexual coercion among college males.

This study uses structural equation modeling (SEM) with a sample of 760 college males to test various hypotheses regarding the avenues whereby harsh corporal punishment and a troubled relationship with parents increase the risk that a boy will grow up to engage in sexual coercion and dating violence. We found that three variables--a general antisocial orientation, sexually permissive attitudes, and believing that violence is a legitimate component of romantic relationships--mediated most of the association between negative parenting and our two outcomes. In addition to this indirect influence, we found that harsh corporal punishment had a direct effect upon dating violence. The findings are discussed with regard to various theoretical perspectives regarding the manner in which family of origin experiences increase the chances that a young man will direct violence toward a romantic partner.

Less crime, more punishment.

Recasting Durkheim's "community of saints" thesis, the authors argue that the severity of punishment is predicted in part by the prevalence of the deviant behavior of which the deviant stands accused. Although there is some curvilinearity at low levels of prevalence, the relationship is generally negative. Thus, all else equal, where a particular crime is frequent, any punishment applied to it is likely to be mild; conversely, where a crime is infrequent, its punishment ought to be severe. Using hierarchical regression models, the authors support this hypothesis with 1988 homicide conviction and imprisonment decisions in 32 U.S. counties.

Supportive parenting moderates the effect of discrimination upon anger, hostile view of relationships, and violence among African American boys.

Studies have shown that exposure to discrimination increases the probability that African American adolescents will engage in delinquent behavior, especially acts of violence. The present study extended this research by examining the extent to which supportive parenting buffers a youth from these deleterious consequences of discrimination. Analyses based upon two waves of data from a sample of 332 African American adolescent males and their caretakers supported this hypothesis. Further the results indicated that there are two avenues whereby supportive parenting reduces the probability that discrimination will lead to violence. First, supportive parenting decreases the chances that discrimination will lead to anger and a hostile view of relationships. Second, supportive parenting lowers the risk that anger or a hostile view of relationships, when they develop, will result in violence.

Rape reporting after reforms: have times really changed?

Using data from the National Violence Against Women Survey, the authors examine whether rapes committed after reforms were more likely to be reported to police than those committed before reforms. The authors also consider whether the gap between the reporting of simple versus aggravated rape has narrowed. They find that rapes committed after 1990 were more likely to be reported than rapes occurring before 1974. Aggravated rape continues to be more likely to be reported than simple rape, however, and this effect is stable over time. The authors conclude by discussing the implications of these findings for evaluating the success of rape reform statutes.