We take it for granted that certain aspects of our social behavior—whether we chat easily with strangers at a party, for instance, or prefer to be a wallflower—are influenced by genetics. But now researchers at the University of California, San Diego, and Harvard University have shown that genes have a much broader sway, affecting the kinds of social networks people form and the positions they occupy in them.
James Fowler, a political scientist at U.C.S.D., and his colleagues studied the social networks of 1,110 adolescent fraternal and identical twins. They found that three aspects of the twins’ social networks appeared to be shaped by genetics. How many times each teen was named by others as a friend and how likely each youth’s friends were to know one another were both approximately 50 percent related to genetic factors. Whether a teen was located at the center of a network or toward the edge was about 30 percent genetic.
“We have innate characteristics that give us a tendency to gravitate toward one part of a network,” Fowler explains. “We vary in the tendency with which we’ll attract people as friends, and we vary in our tendency to introduce our friends to one another.” The genetic foundation uncovered in the study, he posits, is probably a broad combination of genes that are mostly linked to personality traits such as humor, generosity or extroversion.
Fowler and his co-authors have previously shown that health-related traits and behaviors, including obesity and smoking, seem to spread through social networks—people whose close friends gain weight, for example, are likely to bulk up themselves. Now that the researchers have shown that social networks have a genetic component, they are moving on to the next question: Is it possible that certain genes associated with obesity are not acting directly on the body but are influencing the structure of someone’s social network in a way that makes that person more likely to “catch” obesity? “Social networks might be a conduit through which genes act,” Fowler says. “It’s a pretty big and speculative hypothesis, but this is the first step.”
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Popularity Genes."
See what we're tweeting about
5 Comments
Add CommentConsidering:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) Genes affect --up to a maximum of 50% in special cases and by much less than 50% on average-- who we have as friends.
and deducing:
2) Social development affects --up to much more than 50% on average and in special cases by no less than 50%-- who we have as friends.
the stories title is very inaccurate.
[Marc]: I was shocked at this title too; that's why I read it (terrible, I know, it just feedsthe potential for "bullshit science in the guise of news." I must agree that two of the three social BAHAVIORS observed (in twins) that appeared to be "shaped by genetics" are "How many times each teen was named by others as a friend and how likely each youths friends were to know one another were both approximately 50 percent related to genetic factors"... there no reference to twins raised apart... don't you think that you might possibly have the same "friends" on Facebook that your twin sister or brother have? Where is the data coming from (I'm only guessing that it's Internet social networking sites)...?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIs it so hard to understand that your genetically given look affects your position in life? The better (and more caucasian) you look, the higher your social state and popularity. No need for researchers, every bullied students knows that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisits easy to accept that genes play important role in shaping ouer phenotype, but social network its sounds too much. The gene of obesity of one pepole affects other, making him obese too....................HARD TO ACCEPT.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswow, this article is laughable. genes affecting popularity... hmmm.. NO SH!T SHERLOCK! to put it simply, if you're good looking, slim, and light-skinned, you have a good chance of being quite popular. my god. stop wasting time writing such stupid articles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this