LAUSR

The belief that men and women differ in science ability because of genetics contributes to gender disparities in STEM in complex ways. In this field experiment, we explore how the content of the genetics curriculum affects beliefs about science ability through its impact on a social-cognitive bias called neuro-genetic-essentialism. Students (N = 460, 8th-10th grade) were randomized to read a genetics text that: (i) explained plant sex differences; (ii) explained human sex differences; or (iii) refuted neuro-genetic-essentialism. After reading, students in the two genetics of sex conditions had significantly greater belief in neuro-genetic-essentialism and the innate basis of science ability compared to students who read the text that refuted neuro-genetic-essentialism. Structural equation modeling of the experimental data demonstrated that the effect of the readings on the belief that science ability is innate was mediated by neuro-genetic-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.