F1000Research 2018, 5:2744 Last updated: 31 AUG 2021 RESEARCH ARTICLE How messages about behavioral genetics research can impact on genetic attribution beliefs [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] Previously titled: Communicating behavioral genetics: Charting the limits of the genetic interpolation effect Alexandre Morin-Chassé Université de Montréal, Montréal, Canada v2 First published: 22 Nov 2016, 5:2744 Open Peer Review https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10032.1 Latest published: 29 Jan 2018, 5:2744 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10032.2 Reviewer Status Invited Reviewers Abstract Science communication has the potential to reshape public 1 2 3 4 understanding of science. Yet, some research findings are more difficult to explain and more likely to be misunderstood. The version 2 contribution of this paper is threefold. It opens with a review of (revision) report report report fascinating interdisciplinary literature on how scientific research about 29 Jan 2018 human genetics is disseminated in the media, and how this type of information could influence public beliefs and world views. It then version 1 presents the theoretical framework for my research program, 22 Nov 2016 report report providing a logical basis for how messages about human genetics may influence people's beliefs about the role of genes in causing human traits. Based on this reasoning, I formulate the genetic 1. Brian M. Donovan, Biological Sciences interpolation hypothesis, which predicts that messages about specific Curriculum Study, Colorado Springs, USA research findings in behavioral genetics can lead members of the public to infer greater genetic causation for other social traits not 2. Kostas Kampourakis, University of Geneva, mentioned in the content of the message. While this framework offers Geneva, Switzerland clear, testable predictions, some questions remain unaddressed. For instance, what kind of message formats are persuasive enough to 3. Matteo Farinella , Columbia University in alter people's views? The third contribution of this paper is to begin to the City of New York, New York, USA address this question empirically. I present the results of a survey experiment that was designed to test whether a simple, short 4. Fabien Medvecky, University of Otago, paragraph about behavioral genetics is a powerful enough stimulus to Dunedin, New Zealand cause the genetic interpolation effect. Keywords Any reports and responses or comments on the science communication, public understanding of science, behavior article can be found at the end of the article. genetics, genetic attribution, biased assimilation, genetic interpolation effect, media effects, survey experiment Page 1 of 36 F1000Research 2018, 5:2744 Last updated: 31 AUG 2021 Corresponding author: Alexandre Morin-Chassé ([email protected]) Author roles: Morin-Chassé A: Conceptualization, Formal Analysis, Methodology, Project Administration, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: Data collected by Time-sharing Experiments for the Social Sciences, NSF Grant 0818839, Jeremy Freese and James Druckman, Principal Investigators. The author also benefited from a Ph.D. Scholarship awarded by the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Société et culture at the time the survey was fielded. Copyright: © 2018 Morin-Chassé A. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite this article: Morin-Chassé A. How messages about behavioral genetics research can impact on genetic attribution beliefs [version 2; peer review: 3 approved with reservations, 1 not approved] F1000Research 2018, 5:2744 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10032.2 First published: 22 Nov 2016, 5:2744 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10032.1 Page 2 of 36 F1000Research 2018, 5:2744 Last updated: 31 AUG 2021 social science programs influences students’ views on the role REVISED Amendments from Version 1 of genetics14–16. The present study speaks to a third branch I am grateful to both reviewers for presenting me with their of research that investigates the roles played by the news media. views on my paper and with propositions on how to improve it. As KK and BMD will find out, answering their queries required The contribution of this paper is threefold. It begins with a major revision of the paper. Critics are addressed at different places in the paper. A new literature review illustrates clearly the a review of fascinating literature on how human genetics is dis- place of this contribution in the current debates and the direct seminated in the media and how this type of information could links with my previous contribution (KK). The paper carries on influence beliefs and world views. This literature is produced and elaborates a new theoretical framework from which clear by intellectuals and social scientists from a variety of disci- hypotheses are derived, providing more information about the anchoring and adjustment heuristic and the schema theory plines such as sociology, ethics, psychology, and communication (KK), thus clarifying how this theoretical framework sets people’s studies. My review highlights the milestones in the evolution of general prior belief structure as an assumption (BMD). this branch of research. With this map in hand, I then present the Figure 1 was added to help readers understand the expected theoretical framework for my research program, providing a logi- “chain reaction”. This section also eliminates the confusion cal basis for how messages about human genetics may influence regarding word choice (interpolation vs extrapolation) and whether some hypotheses are conditional on others (KK). The people’s beliefs about the role of genes in causing human traits. empirical section now justifies the relevance of studying the The central argument is that people’s reactions vary depend- impact of a short paragraph on behavioral genetics (BMD), a ing on whether the presented information is from medical/ clarification that later offers guidance for interpreting the null- physical genetics or behavioral genetics research findings. The finding (BMD). The empirical section also addresses other problems raised by reviewers: the number of participants and main hypothesis that can be derived from this framework is the their spread across the experimental groups (KK and BMD); genetic interpolation hypothesis, which predicts that messages specifying which tests are confirmatory or exploratory and, about how genes impact on specific behavior can lead the pub- accordingly, using the appropriate statistical method (BMD); lic to infer greater genetic causation for social traits that are presenting additional statistics to compute effect sizes (BMD); not even mentioned in the content of the message. secondary analyses further exploring the distribution of response patterns in the control group (BMD). Finally, the discussion section highlights the limitations of the current work, such as the The main strength of my framework is that it offers clear, inability to control for previous beliefs (BMD) and presents a new testable predictions. However, it is not without limitations and paragraph speculating on the reasons that might account for the some questions remain unanswered. One of these questions is: unexpected finding (BMD). Finally, the discussion reemphasizes the importance of this contribution (KK and BMD) and lists what kind of message formats can succeed at altering people’s directions for future research. views about the influence of genes on human beings? The third See referee reports contribution of this paper is to begin to address this question empirically. I present the results of a survey experiment that was designed to test whether a simple, short paragraph about behavioral genetics is a powerful enough stimuli to cause the genetic interpolation effect. Introduction How do laypeople—as opposed to experts—understand Genetics in news media: A literature review human genetics? This subject has been approached from a diver- During the ’90s and early 2000s, an important group of sity of angles. For example, one stream of research focuses on intellectuals expressed concern about how genetics research is clinical contexts to assess public understanding in situations communicated to the public17–21. The blame was divided between where, for example, patients are informed about their own three culprits: overenthusiastic scientists, fantasizing pop culture, genetic predispositions or the predispositions of their relatives1–3. and misreporting news media. The news media were also charged Another stream of research examines how attributing certain for reporting inflated optimism about genetics research, over- conditions such as schizophrenia, obesity or sexual orientation emphasizing benefits and ignoring or downplaying risks. But the to genetic influence correlates with or impacts on stereotyp- media was mainly criticized for how they described the influence ing attitudes4–8. Moreover, a group of studies tests how different of genetics as deterministic, that is, as if genetics were the only, types of claims about the existence or non-existence of signifi- or at least, the most important factor at play. It was argued that, cant genetic differences