How and for whom can genetics education reduce beliefs in genetic essentialism?

Despite advancements in genomics, misconceptions about the extent to which genetics contributes to observable differences across racial groups persist. These misconceptions are often rooted in genetic essentialism, a social-cognitive bias that leads individuals to believe that most complex traits are primarily determined by genetics. This scientifically inaccurate belief overlooks the environmental and social influences on complex human outcomes, reinforcing deterministic views about human diversity. Our study examines how and for whom genetics education can reduce genetic essentialist beliefs using targeted interventions. We use data from a randomized control trial collected at a large US west coast public university in 2023, including 2,061 undergraduate students. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four curriculum-based interventions, ensuring balanced characteristics across conditions. Three interventions were compared: population thinking (PT); multifactorial causation (MC); and a curriculum where we combined both approaches, which we call full Humane Genetics Curriculum (HGC). Results are reported relative to a control group that taught students about climate change. Using structural equation modeling, we explore the effectiveness of these interventions with our data. We find that all three interventions reduce genetic essentialist beliefs by decreasing the perception of between-group racial variation and by reducing genetic attributions for complex human traits. We also find that the three intervention curricula are highly effective across sociodemographic group characteristics such as self-reported gender, self-reported race, and cultural/political belief systems. Yet the interventions were more effective among students who possessed greater baseline genetics knowledge. Using these findings, we offer evidence-based strategies for curriculum development.