Lay Understandings of Sex/Gender and Genetics: A Methodology That Preserves Polyvocal Coder Input

Condit, Celeste M.; Condit, Deirdre M.; Dubriwny, Tasha N.; Sefcovic, Enid; Acosta‐Alzuru, Carolina; Brown-Givens, Sonja; Dietz, Cindy; Parrott, Roxanne

doi:10.1023/b:sers.0000003127.32481.f1

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Other articles considered effects on fertility and pregnancy of social factors, such as employment opportunities and workplace perceptions (Booth and Duvall 1981;Cunningham and Macan 2007;Falbo et al 1978;Masser et al 2007). Another pair of articles addressed laypersons' knowledge of and reactions to genetic explanations of gendered characteristics (Cole et al 2007;Condit et al 2003). Rogers and Walsh (1982); DeBold and Luria (1983); Rogers (1983); Rodgers et al (1998) Baruch (1975; Frodi et al (1984); Collins (1985); Butcher (1989) Why So Little Evidence for Consideration of the Role of Biology?…”

Section: Coverage Of Social Influences On Gendered Biological Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We take the opportunity of the 35th anniversary of Sex Roles to examine the journal and the field of gender research from a biological perspective. We discuss the limited coverage of biological perspectives in the pages of the journal and likely reasons for it in light of historical perspectives on the role of biology in gendered psychological processes and behaviors, review briefly contemporary research on biological (especially hormonal) influences on gender-related behavior, advocate for greater attention to biological perspectives, and suggest ways to integrate biological and socialization approaches into questions of interest to gender researchers.In honor of the journal's 35th anniversary, the editors of Sex Roles are publishing a special series of articles (Frieze and Dittrich 2010). In our paper in this series, we consider the impact of biological factors on gender-related behavior and psychological processes. We are primarily concerned with characteristics that differ in level or form between boys or men and girls or women, most of which also show variations within each gender; we do not address social and political factors that disproportionately affect women's lives (such as sexual harassment or rape). Our domain of focus is usually referred to as gender differences, gender typing, gender-related behavior, or gendered characteristics (e.g., Ruble et al. 2006). We use this paper to consider historical and contemporary work on the biology of sex and gender, examine how these issues have been represented in Sex Roles, speculate about why biological research has not played a larger role than it has, and, finally, suggest some changes to the journal's mission.Why should gender researchers consider the possibility that genes and physiology (such as hormones and brain function) are important for behavior? Sex Roles has consistently been focused on social processes, stereotyping, and experiences of particular relevance to women's lives; this is the stated mission of the journal. But, increasingly, behavior of all types has been shown to be influenced by genes and physiology and mediated by the brain. A complete picture of gender-related behavior necessitates a consideration of biology.

show abstract

Section: Coverage Of Social Influences On Gendered Biological Processesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a good reason to predict that neurogenetic essentialism is affected by the content of the genetics curriculum. Studies have found that science textbooks, science teachers, and science students conflate sex and gender (Bazzul & Sykes, ; Bianchini, ; Condit et al, ; Preston, ; Snyder & Broadway, ) and experiments have linked belief in neurogenetic essentialism to genetics texts. For example, in a lab experiment with undergraduate women, Coleman and Hong () randomized individuals to read a science text arguing for either a biological explanation of gender difference or one arguing for a social explanation for gender difference.…”

Section: (De)constructing Gender Concepts Through School Geneticsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gendered genetics: How reading about the genetic basis of sex differences in biology textbooks could affect beliefs associated with science gender disparities

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The belief that men and women differ in science ability because of genetics contributes to gender disparities in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) in complex ways. In this field experiment, we explored how the content of the genetics curriculum affected beliefs about science ability through its impact on a social-cognitive bias known as neurogenetic essentialism. Students (n = 460, 8th-10th grade) were randomized to read a genetics text that (a) explained plant sex differences, (b) explained human sex differences, or (c) refuted neurogenetic essentialism. After reading, students in the two genetics of sex conditions had significantly greater belief in neurogenetic essentialism and the innate basis of science ability compared with students who read the text that refuted neurogenetic essentialism. Structural equation modeling (SEM) of the experimental data demonstrated that the effect of the readings on the belief that science ability is innate was mediated by neurogenetic essentialism and this indirect effect was significant for girls but not boys. In turn, the belief that science ability is innate predicted lower future interest in STEM for girls, but not for boys. These findings suggest that learning about human genetic difference is not a socially neutral endeavor. Implications for mitigating gender disparities in STEM are discussed.

show abstract

“…Consumers of mass mediated messages may or may not attend to particular messages. Research shows that consumers of texts will read them in their own ways, drawing on their own social experience and any alternative discourses to which they may have access (e.g., Condit et al, 2003;Radway, 1984). Yet, as Murray Edelman (1988) has said, the media serve an agenda-setting function, not telling readers what to think but rather shaping and limiting what they may think about (cf.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research and reporting on the development of sex in fetuses: gendered from the start

Dingel

Sprague

2009

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into human genetics has been expanding rapidly and most people learn about that research from mass media. Because prior research finds gender bias in aspects of both science and the media, we investigate the messages presented to the public concerning the relationship between biology and gender, taking as a case research on the genetic development of sexual difference before birth. We examine both the science that is getting media attention and the form that coverage takes. We find that gendered assumptions direct the science but also that scholarly discourse makes gender biases in method and interpretation accessible to scientific critique. On the other hand, mass media reporting ignores feminist critiques, marginalizes women and dramatically reinscribes gendered beliefs about the inherent superiority of men and the biological basis for gender differences in personality and behavior.

show abstract

Lay Understandings of Sex/Gender and Genetics: A Methodology That Preserves Polyvocal Coder Input

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior

A Role for Biology in Gender-Related Behavior

Gendered genetics: How reading about the genetic basis of sex differences in biology textbooks could affect beliefs associated with science gender disparities

Research and reporting on the development of sex in fetuses: gendered from the start

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About