Exploring Relationships Among Belief in Genetic Determinism,Genetics Knowledge,and Social Factors

Genetic determinism can be described as the attribution of the formation of traits to genes, where genes are ascribed more causal power than what scientific consensus suggests. Belief in genetic determinism is an educational problem because it contradicts scientific knowledge, and is a societal problem because it has the potential to foster intolerant attitudes such as racism and prejudice against sexual orientation. In this article, we begin by investigating the very nature of belief in genetic determinism. Then, we investigate whether knowledge of genetics and genomics is associated with beliefs in genetic determinism. Finally, we explore the extent to which social factors such as gender, education, and religiosity are associated with genetic determinism. Methodologically, we gathered and analyzed data on beliefs in genetic determinism, knowledge of genetics and genomics, and social variables using the “Public Understanding and Attitudes towards Genetics and Genomics” (PUGGS) instrument. Our analyses of PUGGS responses from a sample of Brazilian university freshmen undergraduates indicated that (1) belief in genetic determinism was best characterized as a construct built up by two dimensions or belief systems: beliefs concerning social traits and beliefs concerning biological traits; (2) levels of belief in genetic determination of social traits were low, which contradicts prior work; (3) associations between knowledge of genetics and genomics and levels of belief in genetic determinism were low; and (4) social factors such as age and religiosity had stronger associations with beliefs in genetic determinism than knowledge. Although our study design precludes causal inferences, our results raise questions about whether enhancing genetic literacy will decrease or prevent beliefs in genetic determinism.     

Predicting transition and adjustment to college: biomedical and behavioral science aspirants’ and minority students’ first year of college

The purpose of this study is to explore key factors that impact the college transition of aspiring underrepresented minority students in the biomedical and behavioral sciences, in comparison with White, Asian students and non-science minority students. We examined successful management of the academic environment and sense of belonging during the first college year. Longitudinal data were derived from the Higher Education Research Institute’s (HERI) 2004 Cooperative Institutional Research Program (CIRP) Freshman Survey and the 2005 Your First College Year (YFCY) Survey. Using a reformulation of the integration model (Nora, Barlow, and Crisp, 2005), we find concerns about college financing, negotiating family support and responsibility, and campus racial dynamics (perceived and behavioral) affect student adjustment and sense of integration in the first year. This study was made possible by the support of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, NIH Grant Number 1 RO1 GMO71968-01. This independent research and the views expressed here do not indicate endorsement by the sponsor.     

Effects of varying trial distribution,intra- and extramaze cues,and amount of reward on proactive interference in the radial maze

Rats are typically less accurate in their arm selections in the radial maze over successive trials in a session (Roberts & Dale, 1981). In the present study, rats’ choice accuracy declined when such trials were separated by 2-min (massed) but not by 2-h (spaced) intertriai intervals. Changing intramaze visual/tactile arm stimuli (Experiments 1 and 3) or extramaze landmark stimuli (Experiment 4) between trials weakened the massed-trials effect, but changing the number of food pellets per arm, either alone or in conjunction with changes in intramaze cues (Experiments 2 and 3), did not. The rats also tended to avoid the spatial locations of their last four choices on a previous trial during their first four choices on a current trial, and more so with massed than with spaced trials. These findings indicate that intertriai proactive interference (PI) occurred only with massed trials and was weakened by changing intra- and extramaze cues between such trials.