Genetic essentialism more common among supporters of radical right-wing parties

A new study published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research sheds light on a troubling connection between support for far-right political parties and belief in genetic essentialism. Genetic essentialism is the idea that genes largely determine who we are, including our social traits and behaviors. The study, led by political scientist Alexandre Morin-Chassé, found that supporters of populist radical right parties in Sweden and Norway are more likely than others to endorse these views, which have historically been linked to discriminatory and eugenic ideologies.

Morin-Chassé was motivated to investigate this topic after noticing a striking pattern in the manifestos of several far-right terrorists. These individuals did not merely express bigoted views; they attempted to root them in what appeared to be scientific authority, promoting the belief that different racial or ethnic groups possess fixed, biologically determined traits. The study set out to answer a previously unexplored question: do ordinary supporters of far-right populist parties also hold genetically essentialist beliefs?

“My previous works investigate the causes of genetic essentialism. Every once in awhile, the news media publish a story about how scientists have underpinned the influence of genetics on social traits like musical talents, intelligence or political preferences,” said Morin-Chassé, an independent researcher based in Canada.

“In Morin-Chassé 2014 and Morin-Chassé 2020, I have tested how people interpret these findings and found that readers tend to extrapolate scientists’ statements. For instance, after reading a news story about the influence of genetics on gambling addiction, participants increased the role they attribute to genetics in explaining other social traits not mentioned in the news (e.g. turning out to vote at elections). In other words, news about behavioral genetics research can increase genetic essentialism.”

“My recent piece turns to another, related question: who endorses genetic essentialism? Interestingly, a look at the manifestos left by far-right terrorists in Chicago, Oslo and Christchurch reveals that they all made references to genetic essentialist arguments to legitimize their crimes. Also, the literature shows that some psychological traits are consistently associated with genetic essentialism: nationalism, xenophobia, racism, right-wing authoritarianism, social-dominance orientation, sexism and conservative ideology.”

“As it turns out, these psychological traits are also associated with support for far-right parties,” Morin-Chassé explained. “In spite of this converging evidence, no study had examined how supporters of far-right parties view the influence of genetics, so I thought it was worth conducting research on this matter.”

In Sweden, the data came from over 8,000 adults who participated in the University of Gothenburg’s Citizen Panel in 2015. Respondents rated how much they liked various political parties and answered questions that measured the extent to which they believed genetics determine traits such as intelligence, behavior, and group differences. These questions were drawn from a validated psychological scale assessing belief in genetic determinism.

Statistical analysis showed that higher levels of genetic essentialism were associated with greater support for the Sweden Democrats, a right-wing populist political party. Even after controlling for age, gender, education, and ideological self-placement on the left-right spectrum, the link remained. The effect of genetic essentialism was smaller than that of political ideology but stronger than that of education. Interestingly, the relationship followed a curvilinear pattern: the more strongly someone endorsed genetic essentialism, the more likely they were to support the Sweden Democrats, with the steepest increase among those holding the most extreme essentialist beliefs.

In Norway, Morin-Chassé analyzed data from the Norwegian Citizen Panel, a large online survey conducted in 2016. Out of nearly 5,000 participants, a subset of 1,190 answered the genetic essentialism questions. While the pattern of results was broadly similar, the link between genetic essentialism and support for the conservative Progress Party was weaker than in Sweden. The association was still statistically significant, but less pronounced and not curvilinear.

Morin-Chassé suggests a few possible reasons for these country-level differences. The Sweden Democrats are generally considered more radical than the Progress Party, which may attract a broader range of supporters in Norway, diluting the relationship. The Swedish survey also used a longer and more reliable measure of genetic essentialism, which may have yielded more accurate estimates.

“The results showed that, in both Sweden and Norway, high levels of genetic essentialism correlated with stronger support for Far-right parties,” Morin-Chassé said. “In other words, compared to supporters of other parties, Far-right supporters were more inclined to view genetics as a significant factor influencing abilities, talents, and social behaviors, as well as explaining similarities and differences among individuals, genders, and ethnic groups.”

“Notably, this association was stronger in Sweden among supporters of the Swedish Democrats than in Norway, where supporters of the relatively less radical Progress Party were surveyed. Genetic essentialism was also positively correlated with support for some other right-wing parties (e.g. Christian Democratic Party in Sweden, the Conservative Party in Norway), though to a lesser extent than for far-right ones.”

The study does have limitations. The data were collected nearly a decade ago, in 2015 and 2016, when both the Sweden Democrats and the Progress Party were less politically prominent than they are today. As these parties have grown, they may have attracted a more diverse set of voters, potentially weakening the observed associations. Additionally, both Sweden and Norway are relatively similar in terms of culture and political structure, so it remains to be seen whether these findings apply to far-right supporters in other parts of the world, such as Latin America, Asia, or Africa.

“In spite of these limitations, these findings should raise concern for at least two reasons,” Morin-Chassé explained.

“First, high levels of genetic essentialism contradict the contemporary scientific understanding of genetics. Scholars and scientists of the 19th and 20th centuries speculated about the influence of genetics on social outcomes without having the appropriate tools to validate their theories. The completion of the human genome sequencing in 2003 provided scientists with new information to directly investigate the role of genes. ”

“The findings revealed a far more complex picture than previously anticipated,” Morin-Chassé continued. “Simple Mendelian inheritance models fail to account for most human traits, including some basic biological characteristics. According to contemporary research, genes interact with each other and with various environmental factors. Epigenetics adds another layer of complexity by demonstrating that heritable biological traits can exist outside of DNA and can be reversible. In short, the beliefs held by far-right supporters regarding genetics are oversimplified, lack scientific backing, and more closely resemble outdated biological theories.

“Second, and most importantly : eugenics, i.e. public policies promoting reproduction among individuals deemed fit for breeding or discouraging it among those declared unfit. In the 19th and 20th centuries, deterministic views of genetics were used to justify eugenic policies, including those implemented in Scandinavian countries. Thousands of individuals categorized as ‘feeble-minded,’ ‘sexually deviant,’ or ‘unfit to be custodians of children’ underwent coerced or pressured sterilization, all in the name of improving public health based on the assumption that their conditions had unchangeable genetic roots.”

“While compulsory sterilization was largely discredited in the decades following World War II, recent studies indicate that some level of public support for eugenic policies remains,” Morin-Chassé said. “These studies also find that genetic essentialism significantly predicts support for such policies. Combining this research with my findings leads to a troubling hypothesis: far-right supporters—who often exhibit high levels of genetic essentialism—may also be inclined to endorse eugenic policies. Future studies should empirically investigate this question.”

Looking ahead, Morin-Chassé argues that social scientists must better understand how people come to believe that genes explain social traits, especially within political communities. It is also vital to assess whether these individuals are aware of scientific research that challenges such beliefs, and whether their views could shift in response to clearer communication from the scientific community.

“In many countries, far-right parties are gaining political power, attracting more votes, and winning an unprecedented number of seats,” Morin-Chassé said. “Social scientists investigate the risks associated with this trend, comparing this wave of support and the previous ones. If my findings offer an interesting path of research, they raise more questions than they offer answers. Indeed, research on how contemporary far-right parties view genetic essentialism and eugenic policies is still in its early stages. In particular, there is a need for knowledge of how party supporters of the Far-right come to believe that genes are a significant factor influencing social outcomes. Furthermore, research should explore their awareness of scientific research challenging this viewpoint, and whether they would support or oppose eugenic policies if the question arose.”

The study, “Genetic Essentialism Among Supporters of Populist Radical-Right Parties: Evidence From Sweden and Norway,” was published March 11, 2025.