This article was downloaded by:[Lynch, John]
On: 8 May 2008
Access Details: [subscription number 792956179]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
New Genetics and Society
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713439262
A preliminary study of how multiple exposures to
messages about genetics impact on lay attitudes
towards racial and genetic discrimination
John Lynch a; Jennifer Bevan b; Paul Achter c; Tina Harris d; Celeste M. Condit d
a
Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA
b
Department of Communication Studies, Chapman University, USA
c
Department of Rhetoric and Communication Studies, University of Richmond, USA
d
Department of Speech Communication, University of Georgia, USA
Online Publication Date: 01 March 2008
To cite this Article: Lynch, John, Bevan, Jennifer, Achter, Paul, Harris, Tina and
Condit, Celeste M. (2008) 'A preliminary study of how multiple exposures to
messages about genetics impact on lay attitudes towards racial and genetic discrimination', New Genetics and Society,
27:1, 43 — 56
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/14636770701843634
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14636770701843634
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
Vol. 27, No. 1, March 2008, 43 – 56
A preliminary study of how multiple exposures to messages about genetics
impact on lay attitudes towards racial and genetic discrimination
John Lyncha , Jennifer Bevanb, Paul Achterc, Tina Harrisd and Celeste M. Conditd
a
Department of Communication, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, USA; bDepartment of
Communication Studies, Chapman University, USA; cDepartment of Rhetoric and Communication
Studies, University of Richmond, USA; dDepartment of Speech Communication, University of Georgia,
USA
Media depictions of genetics have led to concerns that this coverage will lead to increased
belief in genetic determinism and increased discrimination, including racism. Previous
studies of single exposures to messages about genetics or messages about genetics and race
have shown some increases in discrimination and racism. Since attitude change is linked to
repeated exposure to many messages, this study aimed to identify the effect of multiple
exposures to multiple messages about genetics on attitudes towards determinism,
discrimination and racism. Results showed an increase in genetically based racism, no
increase in general racist affect and no significant increase in belief in determinism. Based
on these results, we suggest that genetically based racism is a combination of racist affect
with belief that perceived differences in human characteristics are solely or primarily
influenced by genetics and that a move towards genetically based racism has implications
for social policy.
Keywords: genetics; media; determinism; discrimination; genetically based racism
The Human Genome Project and the first maps of the human genome have been the focus of
extensive mass media coverage (Conrad and Weinberg 1996, Djick 1998, Wilcox 2003) and
this research has begun to have an impact on clinical practice. These media depictions have
led to concerns that coverage of genetic studies will increase discrimination, including racism,
even as health promoters have begun to include genetic information in public health messages
(Duster 1990, Rothman 1998, Graves 2001, Silva 2005, Hansen 2006). Some research has
begun to explore what effects these media depictions have had on lay attitudes about genetics.
A few studies have examined the impact of messages and news headlines on genetic determinism,
and these studies have found that a single exposure to a message about genetics did not increase
genetic determinism (Condit and Williams 1997, Condit et al. 2000, 2001, 2004a, Bates et al.
2004). One of these studies showed differences in non-race based discriminatory affect related
to the content of the messages (Condit and Williams 1997). Another study has shown an increase
in racism, but in that study the messages explicitly linked genetics, race and health (Condit et al.
2004a). Given that attitude change tends to be a product of cumulative exposure to multiple messages, it is important to assess the impact of multiple exposures to genetics-based messages on
genetic determinism and to begin to explore in detail the components of messages that result
in changes in discriminatory attitudes. No experimental studies about the impact of multiple
exposures to messages about genetics on attitudes about race have been published.
Corresponding author. Email: john.lynch@uc.edu
ISSN 1463-6778 print/ISSN 1469-9915 online
# 2008 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/14636770701843634
http://www.informaworld.com
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
44
J. Lynch et al.
This paper addresses the issue of multiple exposures to messages about genetics and how those
messages impact on attitudes toward race, genetic determinism and genetic discrimination. First,
our concepts of genetic determinism, genetic discrimination, genetically based racism and general
racism will be situated at the intersection of previous research on race and genetics and research
on media influence on racist attitudes. Second, the paper will present the results of a study involving multiple exposures of participants to messages about genetics. Those results suggest that,
even when overall levels of racism are not increased by media messages about genetics, these
messages may increase the extent to which lay people attribute perceived differences among
groups to genetics (i.e. the genetic basis for their racism). Third, based on previous research
and the results of the study, we speculate on the implications of such a shift and outline
various pathways through which messages about genetics can influence racist attitudes and
offer suggestions for future research and practice.
Intersections of race, genetics and racism
Scientific studies of possible genetic bases for race and race-based pharmacogenomics highlight
three interrelated sets of issues. First, the same ethical and social concerns raised about genetics
and messages about genetics generally also arise in studies of genetics and race. Second, these
studies appear in socio-cultural settings where concerns about race and racism exist. Third, the
intersection of genetics and race raises new concerns in addition to the salient issues from
ongoing debates about the social impact of genetics and ongoing debates about the nature of
racism in contemporary society.
Genetics
Scholars in the social sciences and the humanities have raised concerns about increased knowledge of genetics in lay people. Some concerns focus on pragmatic issues concerning the right to
privacy, informed consent and creating mechanisms for insurance coverage of genetic therapies
(Kevles and Hood 1992, Collins 1999, Clayton 2003, Guttmacher and Collins 2003). Some historical and critical studies focus on the link between eugenics and genetics as a basis for concern
(Kevles 1980, Duster 1990, Larson 1995, Hasian 1996). Among the variety of critiques of
representations of genetics in the media, two prominent concerns are that media portrayals
will increase genetic determinism and media portrayals will increase discrimination based on
one’s genes.
First, critics worry about the possibility of genetic determinism: that lay people exposed to
genetic information will begin to believe people are reducible to their genes. Dorothy Nelkin
and Susan Lindee (1995) argue that mass media depictions of genetics send a message of
genetic essentialism that “reduces the self to a molecular entity, equating human beings, in all
their social, historical and moral complexity, with their genes” (p. 2). Silva (2005) notes,
“Genes are positioned as the roots of identity, behavior, and health across a wide range of
public media” (p. 101). Ellen Wright Clayton notes, “People tend to see genetic information as
more definitive and predictive than other types of data, in the sense that ‘you cannot change
your genes’ and that ‘genes tell all about your future’” (2003, p. 563). Second, critics worry
that determinism will lead to discrimination. Nelkin and Lindee argue that the popularity of genetics is grounded in its promise to “read” one’s genes and predict future fate as a result. These
predictions could be used to limit an individual’s opportunities: “If an employer, or educator,
or insurer can make the case that the ‘predicted’ future status of their client matters, then
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
45
discrimination – denial of opportunity for medical care, work or education – can occur with
impunity” (p. 167). Ruth Hubbard and Elijah Wald (1993) argue that the images used to describe
genes imply hierarchies that justify discriminating based on genetic condition: “When molecular
biologists speak of genes as ‘control centers’ or ‘blueprints,’ this is testimony to the hierarchical
models they use rather than a description of the ways in which organisms function” (p. 64).1
Critics have raised concerns that messages about genetics will lead to a belief that all human
characteristics are determined by genes and that this belief will justify discriminating against
individuals because of the presence or absence of specific gene variants. While concerns about
determinism and discrimination are prominent in their own right, it has been argued that messages
about genetics will increase racial discrimination: in other words, if people accept genetic determinism, this will lead them to believe that perceived differences between races are also shaped by
genetics (Rothman 1998).
Racism and media
According to Martin Bernal (1997), “we live in an age and society in which race has become
obsessional and has pervaded every nook and cranny of our social life and culture” (p. 75).
One means by which race and racism pervades our culture is mass media. Media scholars
have shown mass media routinely deploy stereotypes of racial minorities (Dates and Barlow
1990, Jhally and Lewis 1992, Turner 1994). The work of Robert Entman has examined racial
stereotyping in the media through a number of perspectives and methods (Entman 1990,
Entman and Rojecki 2000). His work has demonstrated that, apart from news coverage of
sports, depictions of African-Americans appear primarily in stories about inner-city crime, and
that African-American politicians are portrayed as playing to special interests. These studies
show how media stereotypes influence racial attitudes and increase suspicion between racial
groups. Additionally, the work of Entman and others has shown that direct expressions of
racist attitudes – so-called “old-fashioned” racism – has declined and been replaced by indirect,
or “modern” racism (Schuman et al. 1998, Entman and Rojecki 2000, Schneider 2004). Modern
racism manifests itself as a lack of awareness or understanding of the problems that minority
racial groups encounter, and it consists of three components: (1) anti-black affect or emotional
hostility toward African-Americans; (2) resistance to African-Americans’ political demands;
and (3) the belief that racial discrimination no longer affects African-Americans (Entman 1990).
Many theorists of racism have argued that the belief in a biological or inherited component of
race is central to racist attitudes: race is biological and therefore immutable, and this immutability
justifies discrimination (Wetherell and Potter 1992, Holt 2000, Reilly et al. 2003). Perceptions of
a biological basis for race might be exacerbated by messages about genetics, which would then
increase racist attitudes. In addition to the contribution to racism generally, the intersection of race
and genetics has the potential to raise specific concerns.
Genetics and race
Studies linking genetics and race and reports about them in the media raise concerns about genetic
determinism, discrimination and racism. Yet, these studies also raise the possibility of a new
problem: racism that is grounded in a belief in the genetic basis of race. Understanding this possibility requires addressing two areas: the scholarly examination of these issues, including scientific, sociological and ethical discussion of genetics and race, and lay understandings of the
intersection of genetics and race.
46
J. Lynch et al.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
Scientific, ethical and social studies
Some medical researchers argue that racial categories represent an adequate proxy for genetic
variation among humans (Risch et al. 2002). Medical personnel are using race to identify
groups of people who are most likely to have genes that impact the effectiveness of various
drugs (Exner et al. 2001, Caraco 2004, Taylor et al. 2004). Other geneticists and medical researchers hold that race is a biologically meaningless category and contest the utility of race as a proxy
for medically important genetic variations in many common chronic diseases (Goodman 2000,
Schwartz 2001, Collins 2004, Rebbeck et al. 2006). Studies supporting the use of race as a
genetic proxy reach their pinnacle in the production of race-based medications. The premier
race-based medication is NitroMed’s BiDil, a heart disease medication intended solely for
African-Americans (Bloche 2004). In 2004, researchers in the African-American Heart Failure
Trial compared the use of BiDil with a standardized heart disease treatment and found that
BiDil was somewhat more effective (Taylor et al. 2004). This trial has been viewed as meeting
the final set of requirements the FDA had set for approving the drug for public use (Bloche
2004). Research that assumes or explores race-based genetic differences and attempts to
produce race-based medication continues in large part because of financial considerations
(Foster et al. 2001, Daar and Singer 2005).
Studies of the ethical and social impacts of this scientific research highlight three main concerns. First, studies linking genetics and race potentially can stigmatize groups as well as individuals: this means scientists must develop means of informing and gaining assent from the
communities they study and that countries must develop legal protections for these groups
(Weijer and Miller 2004, Kahn 2006). Second, using race as a proxy for genetic differences obfuscates the complex interactions between health, poverty and lived experience (Goodman 2000,
Sankar et al. 2004). Third, the pursuit of genetic explanations for perceived racial differences
“reifies racial and ethnic classifications by reinforcing the notion of biological difference
rooted in genetics. This reification leads to stigmatization of racial and ethnic minorities”
(Braun 2002, p. 160).
Lay understandings
Most studies of public understandings of race and genetics have occurred within the context of
pharmacogenomics, especially the possibility of using race as a proxy for genetic difference in
medical and pharmaceutical practice. Individuals are suspicious of proposals to prescribe drugs
on the basis of race (Bevan et al. 2003, Condit et al. 2003). Lay people have indicated that the
effectiveness of race-based medication would be hampered by racism inherent in the medical
community and because “admixture” – a combination of ancestors from different socially
defined races – made effective prescription based on race impossible (Bevan et al. 2003).
The studies on pharmacogenomics indicate a distrust of medical institutions that would use
race as a diagnostic tool and doubts about the efficacy of race as an accurate tool for prescribing
medication. However, they do not highlight the role that lay people attribute to genes in shaping
differences between racial groups. Lay people use genetics and ancestry, along with cultural
factors, as the conceptual means of delineating racial categories (Lynch 2006). Ramsey et al.
(2001) argue that individuals who already believe in race-based differences would switch
between genetic, cultural and individual-based accounts to explain their belief. Condit et al.
(2004b) propose a four-part model of how the public understands the role of genetics in
shaping “race”:
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
47
1) lay people identify race primarily by physical features, but these identifications are categorized into
a variety of groupings that may be regional, national, or linguistic; 2) they believe that physical
appearance is caused largely by genetics, and therefore that race has a genetic basis; 3) lay people
believe that perceived differences in traits thought of as “non-physical” are caused by factors other
than genes, so that; 4) while lay people do perceive races as hierarchically arrayed, they do not necessarily attribute the basis of these hierarchies to genetics. (p. 253)
To the extent that race is embodied in physical attributes, race can be treated as genetic, but differences between races, from health outcomes to complex social behaviors, would have cultural and
individual roots as well.
Media depictions of this research play a role in shaping lay attitudes. A study of lay responses
to fictional direct-to-consumer advertisements for race-based medication showed that a majority
of respondents did not exhibit an increase in deterministic or discriminatory attitudes (Bates et al.
2004). A study of possible public service announcements linking genetics, race and heart disease
did show an increase in racism (Condit et al. 2004a), and a study of news coverage of genetics and
race found a majority of newspaper stories conveyed the idea that races are biologically distinct
(Lynch and Condit 2006).
Scholars studying the ethical impact, and public understanding, of research into genetics and
race identified a unique issue raised by scientific research into this area. In addition to concerns
raised about genetics and concerns raised about race, this research and media messages about it
raise the concern that a new type of racism will arise that is grounded in a belief that races are
genetically distinct. This genetically based racism would be independent of general racist attitudes but would interact with them as well as genetic determinism and discrimination (Condit
et al. 2004b). Messages about genetics might help reify race by emphasizing a genetic basis
for most human characteristics; messages that increased genetic determinism would therefore
foster a genetically based racism. Given the reviewed arguments about genetic discrimination,
racism and the biological or genetic bases for racism, we hypothesize that exposure to multiple
media messages about genetics will increase genetic discrimination, racism and genetically
based racism. This study tests that possibility through an experimental manipulation that assesses
the impact of multiple exposures to messages about genes.
Methods
Previous research has established four related issues pertinent to understanding lay responses to
messages about genetics and race that can be conceptualized as genetic determinism, genetic discrimination, racism and genetically based racism. These concepts have been operationalized,
transformed into a set of written survey questions to measure the degree to which participants
in our study professed attitudes that fit each conceptual category. The genetic determinism instrument measures the degree to which individuals believe that genes are the primary force shaping
their lives (unpublished data). The genetic discrimination instrument measures the degree to
which individuals hold attitudes supporting discrimination on the basis of one’s genes, and it consists of five sets of questions measuring the areas where individuals might feel discrimination is
justified (Parrott et al. 2005). Several different measures of racism exist. Two of them are Entman
and Rojecki’s (2000) racial denial scale, a well-validated and often-used instrument to measure
racist attitudes and beliefs, and the modern racism scale, which aims to measure racist beliefs
despite attempts by participants to give socially desirable responses that reflect contemporary disapproval of racism (McConahay 1986). The genetically based racism instrument measures the
degree to which individuals believe that hierarchically organized differences between races are
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
48
J. Lynch et al.
determined by genetics: for example, one question asks to what degree members of one racial
group will commit crimes more than members of another group because of their genes (Condit
et al. 2004b).
Participants for this study (N ¼ 104) were recruited from introductory communication classes
at a large public university in the southeastern United States. The study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board, and informed consent was obtained from all participants.
The study exposed participants to many messages that were designed to provide a relatively representative sample of messages about genes that people were likely to see in daily life, and to do so
across three time intervals. Participants were required to come to the laboratory three times at oneweek intervals and were given modest financial compensation ($20.00). A pre-test, post-test
experimental design was employed owing to concerns about maintaining a comparable random
sample across three time periods (different fall-out rates were possible among different race
and income groups).
At the beginning of the study, participants filled out a written survey that included the genetic
determinism instrument, the genetic discrimination instrument, a truncated racial denial scale, a
truncated modern racism scale, and the genetically based racism scale. They then viewed six
headlines displayed on large boards around a room as they watched a 12-minute videotape that
included three commercials mentioning genes, as well as part of a documentary about genetically
modified food. They then read a paragraph from an article associated with one of the news headlines. They returned one week later to view new headlines, a new news paragraph, and a repeat of
the video. They returned a third time after an additional week to view headlines, a new news paragraph, and a repeat of the video. They then answered the survey again. A total of 13 participants
who did not attend the second session were excluded from further participation.
Newspaper headlines were included because most people are exposed to more headlines about
genetics than to full news articles (Wilcox 2003, Caulfield and Bubela 2004). Headlines were
selected by using Lexis-Nexis to conduct a search of major newspapers from November 2002
to April 2003 using search terms “gene” and “for”. Seventy-five documents were retrieved and
we selected the first 12 (sorted by topic relevance) that were about genetics and that were published in US newspapers, after removing duplicate topics (e.g. “obesity”) or duplicate sources.
Headlines were rotated at each time period, so that participants saw each headline twice. News
paragraphs were drawn from the same articles as the headlines. Videotapes included the available
commercials with genes as content, a short out-take from a documentary about genetic modification of food crops and a news story covering the mapping of a human chromosome.
Results
Participants
Participants were asked to self-designate race, gender, ethnicity and income from closed option
categories. As Table 1 indicates, participants were more female, more white, less Hispanic/
Latino and had a lower income than the national average. They were also much younger, with
an average age of 21.5. As the table indicates, there was a higher dropout rate among nonwhite, Hispanic/Latino and low-income participants.
Genetic discrimination
The original genetic discrimination scale consisted of five subscales that measured a single (i.e.
unidimensional) aspect of genetic discrimination. Each genetic discrimination subscale was
New Genetics and Society
49
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
Table 1. Study 1 participants at time 1 (N ¼ 104) and time 3 (N ¼ 91).
Gender t1
Gender t3
“Race” t1
Female 60 (57.7%)
Female 52 (57.1%)
White 87 (84%)
“Race” t3
White 79 (87%)
Ethnicity t1 Hispanic 4 (3.8%)
Ethnicity t3 Hispanic 2 (2.2%)
Income t1
Income t3
, $20,000 47
(45.2%)
, $20,000 39
(43.3%)
Male 44 (42.3%)
Male 39 (42.9%)
African Am.
4 (3.8%)
African Am.
4 (3.3%)
Non-Hispanic 100
(96.2%)
Non-Hispanic 89
(97.8%)
$20– 35,000 9
(8.7%)
$20– 35,000 6
(6.7%)
Asian
6 (5.8%)
Asian
4 (3.3%)
Bi/multiracial
1 (1%)
Bi/multiracial
1 (1%)
Hispanic
1 (1%)
Hispanic
0 (0%)
$35–50,000
5 (4.8%)
$35–50,000
5 (5.6%)
$50– 80,000 9
(8.7%)
$50– 80,000 12
(13.3%)
.$80,000 33
(31.7%)
.$80,000 28
(31.1%)
assessed on a five-point, Likert-type scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree to 5 ¼ strongly agree). Further,
exploratory factor analyses were employed to discover the latent dimensions of a set of items and
ensure that each subscale measured a single factor. Within these factor analyses, varimax rotation
was selected to provide a clear identification of each item with a specific factor. Results for these
scales do not support the hypothesis of increased genetic discrimination following multiple
exposures to messages about genetics.
Crime subscale
Two items (e.g. all persons who are arrested should have their DNA put on file in police departments) originally formed a criminal subscale. Across both time 1 and time 3, these items formed a
unidimensional factor. Because participants responded to items within this scale fairly similarly,
the items were internally consistent with one another (as determined by Cronbach’s alpha) and the
scale was thus reliable (time 1 a ¼ 0.88, time 3 a ¼ 0.87). Paired sample t-tests, which are used
to compare two related groups (i.e. time 1 and time 3) in association with a dependent variable
(i.e. genetic discrimination) revealed that genetic discrimination relating to crime did not significantly differ from time 1, where the mean answer on the scale was 1.36, to time 3, where the mean
answer was 1.32. This difference is within chance variation (t ¼ –1.35, df ¼ 90, p ¼ 0.18).
Insurance subscale
The insurance subscale (e.g. insurance companies should not discriminate against those who have
genetic diseases) was comprised of five items. In time 1 and time 3, these items formed a unidimensional factor and were internally consistent, time 1 a ¼ 0.90, time 3 a ¼ 0.85. Paired sample
t-tests revealed that insurance genetic discrimination did not significantly differ from time 1
(mean ¼ 3.83) to time 3 (mean ¼ 3.84, t ¼ –0.101, df ¼ 90, p ¼ 0.92).
Personal reproduction and social reproduction subscale
The original social reproduction subscale consisted of three items (e.g. physicians should advise
all prospective parents who have genetic flaws against having children), whereas the individual
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
50
J. Lynch et al.
subscale included four items (e.g. I would not marry someone who has a high risk of getting a
genetic disease). In the present study, at both time 1 and time 3, these seven items combined
to form one unidimensional factor and were internally consistent, time 1 a ¼ 0.90, time 3
a ¼ 0.82. Paired sample t-tests revealed that the combined social and individual subscales did
not significantly differ from time 1 (mean ¼ 2.23) to time 3 (mean ¼ 2.17, t ¼ 0.943, df ¼ 90,
p ¼ 0.35). Scales were also run separately because the sample size was too low to allow factor
stability. There were no significant differences across time.
Organizational subscale
Three items originally formed the organizational subscale. In the time 1 factor analysis, items 18
(employers should have the option to not hire someone with a genetic disease) and 27 (employers
should have the option to not hire someone who is more likely than average to get a genetic
disease) cross-loaded with the insurance subscale items. In time 3, item 27 cross-loaded again
with the items in the insurance subscale. Because a single factor did not emerge, no further analyses for the organizational subscale were conducted.
Racism
Truncated versions of the racial denial scale and the modern racism scale were used to assess
racist attitudes and beliefs at time 1 and time 3. Each racism subscale was measured via a fivepoint, Likert-type scale with higher values indicating stronger agreement with each item (1 ¼
strongly disagree, 5 ¼ strongly agree). Exploratory factor analyses employing varimax rotation
were also conducted to ensure that each subscale assessed one factor. The results of the racial
denial scale and the modern racism scale do not support the hypothesis of increased racist attitudes following multiple exposures to the messages.
Racial denial scale
Across time 1 and time 3, the original four items (e.g. most Blacks who are on welfare programs
could get a job if they really tried) formed a unidimensional factor and were internally consistent
scales, time 1 a ¼ 0.73, time 3 a ¼ 0.82. Paired sample t-tests revealed that racial denial levels
did not significantly differ from time 1 (mean ¼ 3.35) to time 3 (mean ¼ 3.33, t ¼ 0.478,
df ¼ 90, p ¼ 0.63).
Modern racism scale
The four modern racism items (e.g. it is easy to understand the anger of Black people in America)
formed a unidimensional factor and was a reliable scale at both time 1 (a ¼ 0.75) and time 3
(a ¼ 0.81). Paired sample t-tests indicated that racial denial levels did not significantly differ
from time 1 (mean ¼ 2.92) to time 3 (mean ¼ 3.01, t ¼ – 1.39, df ¼ 90, p ¼ 0.169).
Genetically based racial discrimination
Eight items (e.g. one race may be stronger than another because of genetics) form the genetically
based racial discrimination scale. These eight items comprised a unidimensional factor in the
current study in both time 1 and time 3, which constituted an internally consistent scale, time
1 a ¼ 0.89, time 3 a ¼ 0.93. Paired sample t-tests revealed that genetically based discrimination
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
51
significantly increased from time 1 (mean ¼ 2.55) to time 3 (mean ¼ 2.80, t ¼ – 3.30, df ¼ 90,
p , 0.001). The effect size using means and standard deviations for both time periods is small-tomoderate, r ¼ 0.123 (Cohen’s d ¼ 0.248). The results support the hypothesis that multiple
exposures to messages about genetics increase genetically based racism.
Genetic determinism
The original genetic determinism instrument consisted of seven items that measured the belief
that genes are the primary force shaping people’s lives (e.g. genes make some people more
likely to benefit from medicine than others). Two principal axis factor analyses using varimax
rotation (one for each administration of the scale) each revealed that these items represented a
single factor. Both scales were also internally consistent, time 1 a ¼ 0.78, time 3 a ¼ 0.80.
Paired sample t-tests revealed that genetic determinism did not significantly increase from time
1 (mean ¼ 3.97) to time 3 (mean ¼ 4.08, t ¼ – 1.87, df ¼ 90, p ¼ 0.06). The modest sample
size makes this result equivocal, assuming a cut-off p-value of 0.05.
Linking types of racism and messages about genetics
The results of this study present an intriguing picture of how lay individuals respond to repeated
exposure to messages about genetics. The study suggests two things. First, it suggests that multiple exposures to these messages about genetics increase genetically based racism, but there is
not an increase in levels of racism. The increase in genetically based racism, without a concurrent
increase in levels of racist attitudes or genetic discrimination, may be explained by a switch in
explanations justifying racism. It is possible that people are adding genetics to or switching
from other explanations that justify their belief that differences exist between groups and their
explanation of the source of that difference. This finding is consonant with the results of a
study by Ramsey et al. (2001), which showed that people who have high levels of racism are
able to “explain” the differences among groups with a variety of rationales: individual motivation,
culture, family, neighborhoods or genetics. The current results suggest that exposure to information about genetics leads those with high levels of racism and genetic discrimination to attribute the cause of perceived differences to genetics.
Second, while the results are not definitive with regard to the increase in genetic determinism
and the non-significant finding is consistent with previous single-exposure studies, the result in
this multiple exposure study approaches significance, and this suggests the need for additional,
more precisely targeted research. We suggest first that such studies need to specify levels of
genetic determinism with regard to specific characteristics. Recent research suggests that
people do not assign a global level of genetic causation to all human characteristics, but rather
assign different levels of causation to different characteristics (Parrott et al. 2003, Condit et al.
2004b, Condit and Parrott 2004). The use of the global determinism measure may mask
changes in the levels of determinism that are relevant to genetically based racism. Second, we
suggest that future studies might profitably explore a deliberately planned range of levels of
genetic determinism in the messages. The current study sought to provide a representative or
at least typical set of messages, in order to provide the most naturalistic conditions. These messages include a wide range of levels of determinism, but on average may be relatively similar to the
middle range of genetic causation that typifies the lay public. It would now be useful to explore
whether more deterministic messages produce increased levels of genetic determinism. This
might clarify the equivocal findings of the present study.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
52
J. Lynch et al.
The pattern of results in the extant studies leads us to propose that attitudes about genetics and
race are shaped along the following paths of influence (see Figure 1). We propose that perceived
differences between “racial” groups plus a predisposition towards messages about hierarchical
rankings of those differences lead to racism. At this stage of influence, a hypothetical individual
exposed multiple times to messages linking genes, race and health might perceive, or believe he
or she perceives, a difference between racial groups, and if the individual also believes in a hierarchical ranking of those groups, they will exhibit greater racist affect. Also, it is possible that the
hypothetical individual will show an increase in the tendency to place groups in hierarchies as a
result of this exposure, although we believe this is a secondary route of influence that messages
about genetics, race and health might have.
The racism developed through the perception of “racial” differences and hierarchicalization will
combine with various beliefs about what causes human characteristics, whether they are genetic
causes, socio-cultural causes or individual causes. This combination produces accounts of racial
hierarchies that can be described as either genetically based racism or socio-culturally based
racism. If the hypothetical individual exposed to messages that increase their racist affect believes
society and culture are the primary determinants of human characteristics, he or she will account for
hierarchies using a socio-cultural racism, while individuals who believe genes are the primary determinants will produce an account shaped by genetically based racism. Also, as individuals are
Figure 1. Pathways influencing attitudes about genetics and race.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
53
exposed to different ways of accounting for so-called “racial” differences, the type of account they
give might change: for example, if an individual shifts from a genetic determinism to a social determinism, the type of racist affect they exhibit will change as well. Finally, it is possible that messages
emphasizing genetic causation will increase genetic determinism, which will contribute to an
increase in genetically based racism or a switch to accounts of racial hierarchies shaped by genetically based racism. When individualist accounts of behavior are dominant, racism appears as
uncaused, and the study by Ramsey et al. (2001) has indicated such cases do occur.
These pathways of influence are consistent with the existing pattern of results, in which messages linking genetics, race and health increase racism, and messages emphasizing genetic causation do not increase racism, but do increase genetically based racism. The shift to genetically
based racism also would entail a significant shift in beliefs about the possibility and desirability
of remedying differences. If differences between groups are a product of individual will or sociocultural differences, they are not necessarily permanent, while genetically based differences
would be permanent. Thus, programs that aim at remedying differences – whether it is the remediation of educational disparities through Head Start programs or addressing health disparities in
the Health People 2010 initiative – would be of value from a socio-cultural perspective on difference but not a genetically based perspective. Also, the different perspectives on difference would
alter the degree to which one thinks that individuals may vary from their perceived group “type”.
In a socio-cultural account, individual variation from a stereotypical norm may make more sense
than from a biological or genetic account.
Clearly, further studies will be needed. The impact of the shift from socio-cultural and individually based racism to a genetically based racism needs further examination: questions about how
genetically based racism shapes views of social programs and individual variation are salient.
Also, further study will need to address the attitudes of different racial and age groups. In our
study, the majority of participants were very young (average age of 21.5 years). The Human
Genome Project and increased attention to genetics in the media began over 15 years ago when
they were young children. This might have led to early exposure to messages about genetics that
had significant influence on their beliefs and attitudes towards genetic determinism and genetic discrimination. Also, participants were a predominantly white group of people attending a university in
the southeast US. That region’s history of racism might influence participant attitudes towards race.
Further study that includes a diversity of ages, ethnicities and geographic regions is needed.
Despite these limitations, this study suggests the immediate need for more research on the
impact of messages about genetics on lay attitudes, and the proposed model suggests a specific
agenda for that research. Until the impact of those messages can be more definitively determined,
we suggest caution when the public health or clinical community produces messages about genetics, especially those that link health, race and genetics for the public. The development of potential message strategies for mitigating negative impacts should be a priority.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by grant no. 5 R01 HG02191-02 from the National Institutes of Health to CMC.
The authors wish to thank Alan Templeton, Tasha Dubriwny, Kristan Poirot, Alison Trego and Richard
Nabring for their assistance in data collection and instrument development.
Note
1.
See also Lippman (1992), Rothman (1998). For a different reading of the “blueprint” metaphor of genes
that emphasizes non-deterministic and non-discriminatory interpretations, see Condit (1999).
54
J. Lynch et al.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
References
Bates, B.R., et al., 2004. Evaluating direct-to-consumer marketing of race-based pharmacogenomics: a focus
group study of public understandings of applied genomic medication. Journal of Health Communication, 9, 541– 559.
Bernal, M., 1997. Race in history. In: W.A. VanHorne, ed. Global convulsions: race, ethnicity and nationalism at the end of the twentieth century. Albany: State University of New York Press, 75 – 92.
Bevan, J.L., et al., 2003. Informed lay preferences for delivery of racially varied pharmacogenomics.
Genetics in Medicine, 5, 393– 399.
Bloche, M.G., 2004. Race-based therapeutics. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2035– 2037.
Braun, L., 2002. Race, ethnicity and health: can genetics explain disparities? Perspectives in Biology and
Medicine, 45, 159– 174.
Caraco, Y., 2004. Genes and the response to drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2867– 2869.
Caulfield, T. and Bubela, T., 2004. Media representations of genetic discoveries: hype in the headlines?
Health Law Review, 12, 53 – 61.
Clayton, E.W., 2003. Ethical, legal and social implications of genomic medicine. New England Journal of
Medicine, 349, 562– 569.
Collins, F.S., 1999. Medical and societal consequences of the Human Genome Project. New England
Journal of Medicine, 341, 28 – 37.
Collins, F.S., 2004. What we do and don’t know about “race”, “ethnicity”, genetics and health at the dawn of
the genome era. Nature Genetics, 36, S13– S15.
Condit, C.M., 1999. How the public understands genetics: non-deterministic and non-discriminatory
interpretations of the “blueprint” metaphor. Public Understanding of Science, 8, 169– 180.
Condit, C.M. and Parrott, R.L., 2004. Perceived levels of health risk associated with linguistic descriptors
and type of disease. Science Communication, 26, 152– 161.
Condit, C.M., Parrott, R.L. and O’Grady, B., 2000. Principles and practice of communication processes for
genetics in public health. In: M.J. Khoury, W. Burke and E. Thomson, eds. Genetics and public health:
translating advances in human genetics into disease prevention and health promotion. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 549– 568.
Condit, C.M. and Williams, M., 1997. Audience responses to the discourse of medical genetics: evidence
against the critique of medicalization. Health Communication, 8, 219– 235.
Condit, C.M., et al., 2001. An exploratory study of the impact of news headlines on genetic determinism.
Science Communication, 22, 379– 395.
Condit, C.M., et al., 2003. Attitudinal barriers to delivery of race-targeted pharmacogenomics among
informed lay persons. Genetics in Medicine, 5, 385– 392.
Condit, C.M., et al., 2004a. Exploration of the impact of messages about genes and race on lay attitudes.
Clinical Genetics, 66, 402– 408.
Condit, C.M., et al., 2004b. The role of “genetics” in popular understandings of race in the United States.
Public Understanding of Science, 13, 249– 272.
Conrad, P. and Weinberg, D., 1996. Has the gene for alcoholism been discovered three times since 1980?
Perspectives on Social Problems, 8, 3 – 25.
Daar, A.S. and Singer, P.A., 2005. Pharmacogenetics and geographical ancestry: implications for drug development and global health. Nature Reviews Genetics, 6, 241– 246.
Dates, J.L. and Barlow, W., eds., 1990. Split image: African Americans in the mass media. Washington, DC:
Howard University Press.
Dijck, J.V., 1998. Imagenation: popular images of genetics. New York University Press.
Duster, T., 1990. Backdoor to eugenics. New York: Routledge.
Entman, R.M., 1990. Modern racism and the images of black in local television news. Critical Studies in
Mass Communication, 7, 332– 345.
Entman, R.M. and Rojecki, A., 2000. The black image in the white mind: media and race in America.
University of Chicago Press.
Exner, D.V., et al., 2001. Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in black as
compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction. New England Journal of Medicine,
344, 1351 –1357.
Foster, M.W., Sharp, R.R. and Mulvihill, J.J., 2001. Pharmacogenetics, race, and ethnicity: social identities
and individualized medical care. Therapeutic Drug Monitoring, 23, 232– 238.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
New Genetics and Society
55
Goodman, A.H., 2000. Why genes don’t count (for racial differences in health). American Journal of Public
Health, 90, 1699– 1702.
Graves, J.L., 2001. The emperor’s new clothes: biological theories of race at the millennium. New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Guttmacher, A.E. and Collins, F.S., 2003. Welcome to the genomic era. New England Journal of Medicine,
349, 996 –998.
Hansen, A., 2006. Tampering with nature: “nature” and the “natural” in media coverage of genetics and biotechnology. Media, Culture and Society, 28, 811 – 834.
Hasian, M.A., 1996. The rhetoric of eugenics in Anglo-American thought. Athens, GA: University of
Georgia Press.
Holt, T.C., 2000. Problem of race in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hubbard, R. and Wald, E., 1993. Exploding the gene myth: how genetic information is produced and
manipulated by scientists, physicians, employers, insurance companies, educators and law enforcers.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Jhally, S. and Lewis, J., 1992. Enlightened racism: The Cosby Show, racism, and the myth of the American
Dream. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Kahn, J., 2006. Genes, race and population: avoiding a collision of categories. American Journal of Public
Health, 96, 1965– 1970.
Kevles, D.J., 1980. In the name of eugenics: genetics and the uses of human heredity. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf.
Kevles, D.J. and Hood, L., eds., 1992. The code of codes: scientific and social issues in the Human Genome
Project. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Larson, E.J., 1995. Sex, race, and science: eugenics in the Deep South. Baltimore and London: Johns
Hopkins University Press.
Lippman, A., 1992. Led (astray) by genetic maps: the cartography of the Human Genome and Health Care.
Social Science & Medicine, 35, 1469– 1476.
Lynch, J.L., 2006. Race and radical renamings: using cluster agon method to assess the radical potential of
“European American” as a substitute for “White.” KB journal, 2 (2) [online]. Available from: http://
kbjournal.org/lynch [Accessed 20 April 2007].
Lynch, J.L. and Condit, C.M., 2006. Genes and race in the news: a test of competing theories of news coverage. American Journal of Health Behavior, 30, 125– 135.
McConahay, J.B., 1986. Modern racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In: J.F. Dovidio and
S.L. Gaertner, eds. Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 91 – 125.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, S., 1995. The DNA mystique: the gene as cultural icon. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Parrott, R.L., Silk, K.J. and Condit, C.M., 2003. Diversity in lay perceptions of the sources of human traits:
genes, environments, and personal behaviors. Social Science & Medicine, 56, 1099– 1109.
Parrott, R.L., et al., 2005. The development and validation of tools to assess genetic discrimination and
genetically based racism. Journal of the National Medical Association, 97, 980– 990.
Ramsey, M., Achter, P.J. and Condit, C.M., 2001. Genetics, race, and crime: an audience study exploring the
effects of The bell curve and book reviews. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 18, 1 –22.
Rebbeck, T.R., Halbert, C.H. and Sankar, P., 2006. Genetics, epidemiology and cancer disparities: is it black
and white? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 24, 2164– 2169.
Reilly, K., Kaufman, S. and Bodino, A., eds., 2003. Racism: a global reader. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Risch, N., et al., 2002. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome
Biology, 3, 2007– 2012.
Rothman, B.K., 1998. Genetic maps and human imaginations: the limits of science in understanding who we
are. New York: W.W. Norton.
Sankar, P., et al., 2004. Genetic research and health disparities. Journal of the American Medical Association, 291, 2985– 2989.
Schneider, D.J., 2004. The psychology of stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press.
Schuman, H., et al., 1998. Racial attitudes in America: trends and interpretation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Schwartz, R.S., 2001. Racial profiling in medical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 344,
1392– 1393.
Silva, V.T., 2005. In the beginning was the gene: the hegemony of genetic thinking in contemporary culture.
Communication Theory, 15, 100– 123.
Downloaded By: [Lynch, John] At: 01:03 8 May 2008
56
J. Lynch et al.
Taylor, A.L., et al., 2004. Combination of isosorbide dinitrate and hydralazine in blacks with heart failure.
New England Journal of Medicine, 351, 2049 –2057.
Turner, P.A., 1994. Ceramic uncles and celluloid mammies: black images and their influence on culture.
New York: Doubleday.
Weijer, C. and Miller, P.B., 2004. Protecting communities in pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic
research. The Pharmacogenomics Journal, 4, 9 – 16.
Wetherell, M. and Potter, J., 1992. Mapping the language of racism: discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press.
Wilcox, S.A., 2003. Cultural context and the conventions of science journalism: drama and contradiction in
media coverage of biological ideas about sexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20,
225– 247.