Genetic essentialism: The mediating role of essentialist biases on the relationship between genetic knowledge and the interpretations of genetic information.

PURPOSE: Genetic research, via the mainstream media, presents the public with novel, profound findings almost on a daily basis. However, it is not clear how much laypeople understand these presentations and how they integrate such new findings into their knowledge base. Genetic knowledge (GK), existing causal beliefs, and genetic essentialist tendencies (GET) have been implicated in such processes; the current study assesses the relationships between these elements and how brief presentations of media releases of scientific findings about genetics are consumed and affect the readers. METHODS: An Australian national survey of GK, GET, and existing causal beliefs about health phenomena (heart disease and obesity) was conducted. Participants were also exposed to news headlines that offered genetic and non-genetic partial explanations of the same health phenomena and reported their evaluations of these headlines, as well as the effects of the headlines on their personal understanding of the health phenomena. RESULTS: GK was negatively-associated with GET. Whereas GK did not directly predict the evaluation and effects of the genetic headlines, GET did. GK predicted the effects of the headlines indirectly via GET and via GET and existing causal beliefs. CONCLUSION: GET seem to predict unwarranted effects of exposure to news headlines about genetic science, whereas GK seems to indirectly mitigate the same unwarranted effects.

Genetic Knowledge within a National Australian Sample: Comparisons with Other Diverse Populations.

BACKGROUND: Genetic knowledge, which plays important functions in our understanding of science, health, social groupings, and even behaviour, has been evaluated in past studies with various populations. This wide reach of genetics means that different types of items are used to assess genetic knowledge, which restricts meaningful comparisons across time- and locale-based studies. AIM: The present study addresses this limitation by recruiting an Australia-wide sample and evaluating their genetic knowledge using items sourced from four diverse samples. METHOD: Seven hundred and eighty Australians completed a variety of items assessing their genetic knowledge as well as several demographic indicators. RESULTS: The results show superior overall genetic knowledge in the current sample compared with previous samples. Additionally, the study finds that genetic knowledge about health and illness seems to be the most accurate, whereas such knowledge about social categorisations and behaviours seems to be the most error-prone. In the current sample, being a female and having interest in genetics were positive predictors of genetic knowledge; surprisingly educational attainment was not a significant predictor. CONCLUSION: Compared with previous surveys, the current sample showed significantly better genetic knowledge. However, certain areas that relate to public understating still indicate rampant misperceptions.

Are all ostracism experiences equal? A comparison of the autobiographical recall, Cyberball, and O-Cam paradigms.

In the present study, we aimed to compare the primary-need depletion elicited by three common ostracism paradigms: autobiographical recall (e.g., Zhong & Leonardelli in Psychological Science 19:838-842, 2008), Cyberball (Williams, Cheung, & Choi in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79:748-762, 2000), and O-Cam (Goodacre & Zadro in Behavior Research Methods 42:768-774, 2010). A total of 152 participants (52 males) were randomly allocated to one of the three paradigms, and their subsequent primary needs were measured (belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence). O-Cam was found to induce greater total primary-need depletion than did Cyberball and recall, which did not differ significantly from each other. Moreover, when examining the pattern of individual need depletion elicited by each paradigm, O-Cam was found to induce significantly greater depletion of belonging, control, and meaningful existence than did the recall paradigm, and significantly greater depletion of control and self-esteem than did Cyberball. No other comparisons were found to be significant, including the comparisons between the recall and Cyberball paradigms for each individual primary need. Collectively, the findings will assist ostracism researchers in making informed choices regarding (a) which paradigm is appropriate to implement with respect to their research aims, and (b) whether the interchangeable use of paradigms within a program of research is appropriate practice.