Advertisement

Measuring racial essentialism in the genomic era: The genetic essentialism scale for race (GESR)

  • Şule YaylacıEmail author
  • Wendy D. Roth
  • Kaitlyn Jaffe
Article
  • 38 Downloads

Abstract

Racial essentialism is the belief that races are biologically distinct groups with defining core “essences,” a notion associated with increased social distance and racial bias. While there are different kinds of racial essentialism, understanding and measuring genetic essentialism – the belief that racial groups and their defining core essences are determined by genes – is increasingly important in the wake of the Human Genome Project and the genomic revolution that it spurred. Many have questioned whether such genomic advances will reinforce genetic essentialist beliefs about race, but scholarly research is limited by measures that do not specify the role of genes in these beliefs or allow for distinct theoretical sub-components. In this paper, we develop and validate the Genetic Essentialism Scale for Race (GESR) using a sequential transformative mixed methods approach. Data for analysis come from an original survey-based study with a sample of 1069 White native-born Americans. We employ both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory analysis to derive and confirm a three-factor model of genetic essentialism (category determinism, core determinism, and polygenism). Due to the high correlation between these factors, we also test for a second-order measurement model with three first-order factors. After conducting additional reliability, validity, and construct validity testing, we propose the GESR— a second-order construct with three first-order dimensions— as a reliable measure of genetic essentialism. The GESR will allow researchers to determine the impact of new genetic developments like race-based medicines and genetic ancestry testing on genetic essentialist beliefs about race.

Keywords

Genetic essentialism Racial essentialism Scale Race Racial conceptualization Second-order factor model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Qiang Fu, Steven Heine, Catherine Lee, Ann Morning, Nathan Roberson, Brian O’Connor, and Charmaine Royal. This research was funded by grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#435-2014-0467), the Canada Foundation for Innovation (#23744), and the UBC Killam Faculty Research Fellowship.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

12144_2019_311_MOESM1_ESM.docx (407 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 407 kb)

References

  1. Akaike, H. (1987). Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika, 52(3), 317–332.Google Scholar
  2. American Anthropological Association. (1997). Response to OMB directive 15: Race and ethnic standards for Federal Statistics and administrative reporting. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  3. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.Google Scholar
  4. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 228–235.Google Scholar
  5. Birmingham, P. (Ed) (2018). Special symposium: Rebecca Tuvel and her interlocutors. Philosophy Today, 62(1).Google Scholar
  6. Black, R. A., Yang, Y., Beitra, D., & McCaffrey, S. (2015). Comparing fit and reliability estimates of a psychological instrument using second-order CFA, bifactor, and essentially tau-equivalent (coefficient alpha) models via AMOS 22. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(5), 451–472.Google Scholar
  7. Bliss, C. (2012). Race decoded: The genomic fight for social justice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bolnick, D. A. (2008). Individual ancestry inference and the reification of race as a biological phenomenon. In S. S. Lee (Ed.). B. A. Koenig, & S. S. Richardson. Revisiting race in a genomic age (studies in medical anthropology) (pp. 70–88). New Brunswick, N.J: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bolnick, D. A., Fullwiley, D., Duster, T., Cooper, R. S., Fujimura, J. H., Kahn, J., . . . TallBear, K. (2007). The science and business of genetic ancestry testing. Science, 318(5849), 399–400.Google Scholar
  10. Brubaker, R. (2016). Trans: Gender and race in an age of unsettled identities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Byrd, C. W., & Hughey, M. W. (2015). Biological determinism and racial essentialism: The ideological double helix of racial inequality. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661(1), 8–22.Google Scholar
  12. Byrd, C. W., & Ray, V. E. (2015). Ultimate attribution in the genetic era: White support for genetic explanations of racial difference and policies. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 661(1), 212–235.Google Scholar
  13. Byrne, B. M. (2005). Factor analytic models: Viewing the structure of an assessment instrument from three perspectives. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(1), 17–32.Google Scholar
  14. Cerny, B. A., & Kaiser, H. F. (1977). A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 12(1), 43–47.Google Scholar
  15. Chao, M. M., Hong, Y.-y., & Chiu, C.-y. (2013). Essentializing race: Its implications on racial categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), 619–634.Google Scholar
  16. Cornell, S. E., & Hartmann, D. (1998). Ethnicity and race: Making identities in a changing world. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
  17. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.Google Scholar
  18. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137(5), 800–818.Google Scholar
  19. DeYoung, C. G., Hasher, L., Djikic, M., Criger, B., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Morning people are stable people: Circadian rhythm and the higher-order factors of the big five. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(2), 267–276.Google Scholar
  20. Duster, T. (2015). A post-genomic surprise: The molecular reinscription of race in science, law and medicine. The British Journal of Sociology, 66(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  21. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.Google Scholar
  22. Fullilove, M. T. (1998). Comment: Abandoning ‘race’ as a variable in public health research – An idea whose time has come. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1297–1298.Google Scholar
  23. Fullwiley, D. (2007). Race and genetics: Attempts to define the relationship. BioSocieties, 2(2), 221–237.Google Scholar
  24. Fullwiley, D. (2008). The biologistical construction of race: ‘Admixture’ technology and the new genetic medicine. Social Studies of Science, 38(5), 695–735.Google Scholar
  25. Gerbing, D. W., Hamilton, J. G., & Freeman, E. B. (1994). A large-scale second-order structural equation model of the influence of management participation on organizational planning benefits. Journal of Management, 20(4), 859–885.Google Scholar
  26. Gotay, C. C., Blaine, D., Haynes, S. N., Holup, J., & Pagano, I. S. (2002). Assessment of quality of life in a multicultural cancer patient population. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 439–450.Google Scholar
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Uppersaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education International.Google Scholar
  28. Harrell, F. E. (2015). Regression modeling strategies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  29. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113–127.Google Scholar
  30. Heine, S. J., Dar-Nimrod, I., Cheung, B. Y., & Proulx, T. (2017). Essentially biased: Why people are fatalistic about genes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55(3), 137–192.Google Scholar
  31. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.Google Scholar
  32. Jackson, J. P., & Weidman, N. M. (Eds.) (2005). Race, racism, and science: Social impact and interaction. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39(1), 31–36.Google Scholar
  34. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(4), 686–702.Google Scholar
  35. Kimel, S. Y., Rowell, H., Kunst, J. R., & Halperin, E. (2016). Living in a genetic world: How learning about interethnic genetic similarities and differences affects peace and conflict. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(5), 688–700.Google Scholar
  36. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  37. Koufteros, X., Babbar, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120(2), 633–652.Google Scholar
  38. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99.Google Scholar
  39. Mehmetoglu, M. (2015). CONDISC: Stata module to perform convergent and discriminant validity assessment in CFA. Statistical software components S458003. Boston College Department of economics.Google Scholar
  40. Morning, A. (2009). Toward a sociology of racial conceptualization for the 21st century. Social Forces, 87(3), 1167–1192.Google Scholar
  41. Morning, A. (2011). The nature of race: How scientists think and teach about human difference. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. Morton, T. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Postmes, T. (2009). Shifting ground: The variable use of essentialism in contexts of inclusion and exclusion. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48(1), 35–59.Google Scholar
  43. Nelson, A. (2016). The social life of DNA: Race, reparations, and reconciliation after the genome (1st ed.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  44. No, S., Hong, Y., Liao, H., Lee, K., Wood, D., & Chao, M. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans' responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 991–1004.Google Scholar
  45. Ossorio, P., & Duster, T. (2005). Race and genetics: Controversies in biomedical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. American Psychologist, 60(1), 115–128.Google Scholar
  46. Outram, S., Graves, J. L., Powell, J., Wolpert, C., Haynie, K. L., Foster, M. W., . . . Royal, C. D. (2018). Genes, race, and causation: US public perspectives about racial difference. Race and Social Problems, 10(2), 79–90.Google Scholar
  47. Panofsky, A., & Bliss, C. (2017). Ambiguity and scientific authority: Population classification in genomic science. American Sociological Review, 82(1), 59–87.Google Scholar
  48. Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., & Feldman, N. M. (2013). The genomic revolution and beliefs about essential racial differences: A backdoor to eugenics? American Sociological Review, 78(2), 167–191.Google Scholar
  49. Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., Zelner, S., & Yang, L. H. (2014). Direct-to-consumer racial admixture tests and beliefs about essential racial differences. Social Psychology Quarterly, 77(3), 296–318.Google Scholar
  50. Polites, G. L., Roberts, N., & Thatcher, J. (2012). Conceptualizing models using multidimensional constructs: A review and guidelines for their use. European Journal of Information Systems, 21(1), 22–48.Google Scholar
  51. Raubenheimer, J. (2004). An item selection procedure to maximize scale reliability and validity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 30(4), 59–64.Google Scholar
  52. Revilla, M. A., Saris, W. E., & Krosnick, J. A. (2014). Choosing the number of categories in agree–disagree scales. Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1), 73–97.Google Scholar
  53. Roberts, D. (2011). Fatal invention: How science, politics, and big business re-create race in the twenty-first century. New York: New Press.Google Scholar
  54. Roth, W. D. (2013). “Genetic ancestry testing and the reification of race.” Presented at the Reconsidering Race: Interdisciplinary Perspectives Workshop, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.Google Scholar
  55. Roth, W. D., & Ivemark, B. (2018). Genetic options: The impact of genetic ancestry testing on consumers’ racial and ethnic identities. American Journal of Sociology, 124(1), 150–184.Google Scholar
  56. Roth, W. D., & Lyon, K. (2018). Genetic ancestry tests and race: Who takes them, why, and how do they affect racial identities? In K. Suzuki & von Vacano, Diego (Eds.), Reconsidering race: Social science perspectives on racial categories in the age of genomics (pp. 133–169). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Rothbart, M., & Taylor, M. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G. R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). London, UK: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  58. Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.Google Scholar
  59. Simon, P. (2008). The choice of ignorance: The debate on ethnic and racial statistics in France. French Politics, Culture and Society, 26(1), 7–31.Google Scholar
  60. Soylu Yalcinkaya, N., Estrada-Villalta, S., & Adams, G. (2017). The (biological or cultural) essence of essentialism: Implications for policy support among dominant and subordinated groups. Frontiers in Psychology, 8 Article 900.Google Scholar
  61. Taku, K., Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Tedeschi, R. G. (2008). The factor structure of the posttraumatic growth inventory: A comparison of five models using confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 21(2), 158–164.Google Scholar
  62. Tawa, J. (2016). Belief in race as biological: Early life influences, intergroup outcomes, and the process of ‘unlearning’. Race and Social Problems, 8(3), 244–255.Google Scholar
  63. Tawa, J. (2017). The beliefs about race scale (BARS): Dimensions of racial essentialism and their psychometric properties. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23(4), 516–526.Google Scholar
  64. Tawa, J. (2018). Dimensions of racial essentialism and racial nominalism: A mixed-methods study of beliefs about race. Race and Social Problems, 10(2), 145–157.Google Scholar
  65. Tran, U. S., Glück, T. M., & Nader, I. W. (2013). Investigating the five facet mindfulness questionnaire (FFMQ): Construction of a short form and evidence of a two-factor higher order structure of mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(9), 951–965.Google Scholar
  66. Tuvel, R. (2017). In defense of transracialism. Hypatia, 32(2), 263–278.Google Scholar
  67. Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(6), 1033–1047.Google Scholar
  68. Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838.Google Scholar
  69. Yale, R. N., Jensen, J. D., Carcioppolo, N., Sun, Y., & Liu, M. (2015). Examining first-and second-order factor structures for news credibility. Communication Methods and Measures, 9(3), 152–169.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  2. 2.Institute for European StudiesUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of SociologyUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUnited States

Personalised recommendations