This study examined the relationship between White Americans' genetic explanations, conceptualized as genetic lay theories, for perceived racial differences and for sexual orientation, and attitudes toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians, respectively. Considering contrasting public discourse surrounding race and sexual orientation, we predicted that genetic lay theories would be associated with greater prejudice toward Blacks, but less prejudice toward gay men and lesbians. The findings, based on a representative sample of 600 White Americans, were consistent with expectations. Results are discussed in relation to the literature on essentialism and implicit theories of the malleability of traits. The present research broadens our view of lay theories by showing how they support either prejudice or tolerance, depending on the target group.

It is predicted that the rapid acquisition of new genetic knowledge and related applications during the next decade will have significant implications for virtually all members of society. Currently, most people get exposed to information about genes and genetics only through stories publicized in the media. We sought to understand how individuals in the general population used and understood the concepts of 'genetics' and 'genes.' During in-depth one-on-one telephone interviews with adults in the U.S., we asked questions exploring their basic understanding of these terms, as well as their belief as to the location of genes in the human body. A wide-range of responses was received. Despite conversational familiarity with genetic terminology, many noted frustration or were hesitant when trying to answer these questions. In addition, some responses reflected a lack of understanding about basic genetic science that may have significant implications for broader public education measures in genetic literacy, genetic counseling, public health practices, and even routine health care.

This paper examines three common explanations for human characteristics: genes, the environment, and choice. Based on data from a representative sample of White and Black Americans, respondents indicated how much they believed each factor influenced individual differences in athleticism, nurturance, drive, math ability, violence, intelligence, and sexual orientation. Results show that across traits: 1) Black respondents generally favor choice and reject genetic explanations, whereas White respondents indicate less causal consistency; 2) although a sizeable subset of respondents endorse just one factor, most report multiple factors as at least partly influential; and 3) among White respondents greater endorsement of genetic explanations is associated with less acceptance of choice and the environment, although among Black respondents a negative relationship holds only between genes and choice. The social relevance of these findings is discussed within the context of the attribution, essentialism and lay theory literature. The results underscore the need to consider more complex and nuanced issues than are implied by the simplistic, unidimensional character of the nature/nurture and determinism/free will debates -perennial controversies that have significance in the current genomic era. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptRev Gen Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2010 January 12. Why do people behave the way they do? Why do individuals have particular talents, skills, and abilities? Although various causal factors have been proposed, three explanations with strong social relevance have emerged as prominent: genes, the environment, and personal choice. These three factors play a central role in two major ongoing debates. The first, commonly termed the "nature/nurture" question, is typically conceptualized as a contrast between genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) explanation. The second debate, frequently referred to as "determinism/free will," generally focuses on whether human nature is controlled by natural laws (genetic factors) and is therefore somewhat "determined," or is influenced by free will (personal choice). Although scholars note the obvious fallacies of framing these controversies in stark, "either/or" terms (e.g., Moore, 2001), it is crucial to understand the relative roles of these factors in people's everyday construals, especially given that commonsense explanations that people provide have important implications for how they react to their own and others' behaviors (Buchanan & Seligman, 1995;Weiner, 1986). This paper addresses two key questions: (1) which explanatory factor(s) do people offer to explain human characteristics?and (2) what are the interrelations among the perceived causal factors? Furthermore, given that causal beliefs often differ by ethnicity and social group (e.g., Marcus & Kitayama, 1991), our analysis considers the potential effect of ethnic group on these perceptions.What is the significance of our questions? First, burgeoning genetic research and t...

Homosexuality is viewed by many as a social problem. As such, there has been keen interest in elucidating the origins of homosexuality among many scholars, from anthropologists to zoologists, psychologists to theologians. Research has shown that those who believe sexual orientation is inborn are more likely to have tolerant attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, whereas those who believe it is a choice have less tolerant attitudes. The current qualitative study used in-depth, openended telephone interviews with 42 White and 44 Black Americans to gain insight into the public's beliefs about the possible genetic origins of homosexuality. Along with etiological beliefs (and the sources of information used to develop those beliefs), we asked respondents to describe the benefits and dangers of scientists discovering the possible genetic basis for homosexuality. We found that although limited understanding and biased perspectives likely led to simplistic reasoning concerning the origins and genetic basis of homosexuality, many individuals appreciated complex and interactive etiological perspectives. These interactive perspectives often included recognition of some type of inherent aspect, such as a genetic factor(s), that served as an underlying predisposition that would be manifested after being influenced by other factors such as choice or environmental exposures. We also found that beliefs in a genetic basis for homosexuality could be used to support very diverse opinions, including those in accordance with negative eugenic agendas.