The nature of human kindness

[Stevil]

Researchers uncover the nature of human kindness
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10727306

A woman's kindness - or nastiness - is largely due to the genes she inherited from her mum and dad.
But for men it comes from the environment. That's the conclusion of a new scientific study addressing the age-old nature versus nurture debate.

[The Black Jester]

"It means that women have a much stronger internal moral compass than men do. For women that compass seems to be more built-in and more independent of the environment," said Kiwi psychologist Professor Tim Bates.

I suppose this gives the lie to 'sin' originating with Eve.

I am curious to find which particular 'moral' traits are supposedly genetically determined in women, and what exactly their definition of 'kindness' is.  I would be interested to read the original study.  My suspicion is that it is a fairly conventional and superficial use of the word.  Not all 'kindness' is actually kind: that is...truly to the benefit of the recipient of the action.  But I am a male and so my shoddy upbringing may bias me. 

[Recusant]

The paper that this article uses as a springboard came out in February of this year. If anyone wants to read it, it is available online here. (PDF)  The abstract:

Although it has been shown that prosocial behaviour is heritable, it has not yet been established whether narrower aspects of prosociality are heritable, nor whether a common mechanism influences prosociality across its multiple domains. Here, we examine civic duty, work-place commitment and concern for the welfare of others with a study of prosocial obligations in 958 adult twin-pairs. Multivariate modelling indicated the existence of genetic factors underlying general prosocial obligations in females, with familial effects (genetic and shared-environment effects were indistinguishable) influencing this general mechanism in males. At the domain specific level, modest genetic effects were observed in females for civic and work obligations, with shared-environment effects influencing welfare obligations. In males, genetic influences were observed for welfare obligation, with unique environments affecting work and civic duty.

British newspapers had their own takes in regard to the paper back when it first came out, and the "Atomic Spin" blog took them to task: "More 'Battle of the Sexes' BS" (Atomic Spin).

Abby Gillies of nzherald.co.nz is not only late out of the starting gate, but might have gotten a little confused regarding the authors of the study.  She mentions that it was conducted by "New Zealand researchers" in one paragraph, then in another says that it was "researchers from Edinburgh University."  Both of the authors are employed at Edinburgh, and aside from this article I can't find anything linking them to New Zealand. She may know something I don't, but her piece doesn't give me confidence. My guess is that she rattled off a pot-boiling bit of fluff journalism in somewhat of a hurry and her copy editor did a very poor (or non-existent) job of proof-reading.

[Stevil]

She mentions that it was conducted by "New Zealand researchers" in one paragraph, then in another says that it was "researchers from Edinburgh University."

Yes, I picked up on that too, thought it was confusing, maybe a NZer studying or working at Edinburgh University, but maybe not NZ related at all.
Thanks for giving more detail (and the link) on the real survey.