PONE-D-20-30825

Exploring people’s thoughts about the causes of ethnic stereotypes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Heine,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 01 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Heming Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for including your ethics statement:  "University of British Columbia Behavioral Research Ethics Board H13-01354".   

Please amend your current ethics statement to confirm that your named institutional review board or ethics committee specifically approved this study.

Once you have amended this/these statement(s) in the Methods section of the manuscript, please add the same text to the “Ethics Statement” field of the submission form (via “Edit Submission”).

For additional information about PLOS ONE ethical requirements for human subjects research, please refer to http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-human-subjects-research.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section: 

"No."

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

5. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Review of "Exploring people’s thoughts about the causes of ethnic stereotypes"

The authors present two studies in which they manipulated (via reading materials) participants’ beliefs about human genetic homogeneity versus heterogeneity and then measured participants’ endorsement of various ethnic stereotypes and attributions of these stereotypes of genetic and experiential causes. In both studies, participants in the Genetic Difference condition (compared to those in the Genetic Similarity condition) displayed a stronger tendency to attribute ethnic stereotypes to genetic causes.

I appreciate the authors’ well-executed studies with high statistical power. I also appreciate the authors’ clear and thorough presentation of the relevant literature. I do, however, have a number of suggestions that I feel would improve the paper.

1. The authors provide a nice review of the existing literature on beliefs about biology/genetics and ethnic stereotyping. Indeed, a good deal of studies by researchers like Keller, Chao, Plaks, Eberhard, Halperin all point in the same direction: When people place more weight on biology/genetics, they are more likely to invoke ethnic stereotypes and more likely to endorse the accuracy of such stereotypes. For this reason, the authors could stand to articulate more explicitly how their studies are different from - and add something significant to - the existing literature.

2. I looked closely at the articles the authors used in the manipulation and noticed that there is no material about cultural variation. This is important because the authors seem keenly interested in pitting genetics against experience/culture in participants’ attributions. The fact that the manipulation is only on the genetic side of the equation means that this is not an ideal way to test which type of causation (genetic vs. experiential/cultural) looms larger in people’s minds. A more complete design would have included four articles that would have conformed to a 2x2 design: Genetic Similarity / Cultural Similarity, Genetic Similarity / Cultural Difference, Genetic Difference / Cultural Similarity, Genetic Difference / Cultural Difference. This would have allowed for a fairer assessment of participants’relative weighing of genetic vs cultural causes. In other words, if participants’ ratings were to show a greater difference (i.e., more persuasion) between the Difference vs. Similarity conditions on the Genetic dimension than on the Cultural Dimension, this would provide stronger evidence for the authors’ claims. But with a full 2 X 2 design, the data *could* turn out differently. It could reveal some interesting Gene X Culture interactions in laypeople’s minds on at least some of the stereotype items. For example, people might believe that Indians like spicy food for a combination of genetic *and* cultural reasons.

Indeed, many (most?) people likely hold some version of a simple hybrid model that involves combining both genetic and experiential/cultural components in an additive fashion. What differs between individuals is merely the percentages they assign to genes and culture.

Another thing I notice about the articles is that there are several, if not *confounds*, at least ways in which the two are not directly comparable. For example, although the Genetic Difference article discusses how human genetic variation could occur, it never actually mentions in an absolute sense how much of the entire genome varies from person to person or region to region. In contrast, the Genetic Similarity article *does* feature prominently material about how much overall genetic variation there is (i.e., very little). Thus, the manipulation is not really ‘little overall variation’ vs. ‘lots of overall variation’ - it’s more like ‘little variation’ vs. ‘silent’. Other differences between the articles: The Similarity article introduces two concepts (exponential growth and the relative recentness of homo sapiens as a distinct species) that are not mentioned at all in the Difference article. In other words, there is more being manipulated here than simply genetic sameness/difference. As such, we don’t know exactly what is causing the effect.

3. Regarding the data analyses, it would have been extremely helpful and informative if the authors had gone beyond reporting a few t-tests / correlation matrices. For example, they could have tested at least a few of the numerous potentially fascinating mediational models that are there in the data waiting to be tested. For example: genetic essentialism tendencies -> attribution to genetic causes -> stereotypes are accurate. Or: SDO->genetic essentialism tendencies -> attribution to genetic causes -> stereotypes are accurate. There are any number of additional mediational tests and moderated mediation tests that would provide additional insight into why the authors obtain their pattern they obtain.

In a related vein, I would have liked to see more discussion of the cognitive versus motivational origins of genetic essentialism. By ‘cognitive’ I mean the innocuous (but incorrect) beliefs that contribute to genetic essentialism. But ‘motivational’ I’m referring to the ideological/value systems that rely on genetic essentialism being true. One example of that is SDO. Another is probably Just World beliefs. In other words, well-meaning people with genuinely egalitarian aspirations may believe that people on different continents are genetically different simply because that’s the message they’ve received from their culture (media, education, family) and they’ve had no reason to dispute that. Thus, these people would be more likely to believe in some version of ‘separate but equal’. Others, however, may have a more ideologically-driven investment in believing that people from different parts of the world are genetically different. They may be more likely to believe in ‘separate and UNequal’.

This question of where the genetic beliefs come from has important implications for how easily people might be persuaded by articles like the ones the authors present. I suspect that people with a more ideologically-driven belief in either Genetic Difference or Genetic Similarity would be less persuadable by the opposing article than those who acquired their beliefs simply by passively absorbing messages from their culture.

Finally, I had a bit of an issue with how the authors used the word ‘stereotype’. I’ve just done a quick search and it turns out that Japan *is* at or near the top of the world in life expectancy and the Netherlands *is* at or near the top in average height. I raise this because the definition of the word ‘stereotype’ according to Webster’s dictionary is: “a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing.” In other words, the ‘stereotype’ component only enters once you add in the genetic component - that’s what gives it the “fixed” and “oversimplified” aspect. But before you do that, (at least in the case of Japanese longevity, Dutch height, and several others on the list), it’s not so much a ‘stereotype’ as it is a correlation. Put differently, genetics takes a correlation (being Dutch - height) and turns it into causation (being Dutch *causes* height) - and THAT’S when it becomes a ‘stereotype’ in the true sense of the word.

On the whole, however, these are all fairly addressable concerns. I can see a future version of this paper being published in PLOSONE.

Reviewer #2: Summary and General Impression:

Across two studies, the researchers examined how ideas of genetic essentialism impact the perceived causes of ethnic stereotypes. In Study 1, participants read one of two articles which described the ability to estimate ancestry through genetics or the homogeneity of the human genome, or read a control article discussing an unrelated topic. They were then asked to describe the extent to which ethnic stereotypes were caused by genetic and environmental factors on a numerical scale. Among participants who believed ethnic stereotypes were accurate, those in the control condition and the ancestry via genetics condition viewed stereotypes as being more related to genetics and less related to environmental factors than those in the homogenous genome condition. Across conditions, however, participants rated environmental factors as the majority influence on ethnic stereotypes. Genetic essentialist beliefs were also associated with greater attribution of genetics to stereotypes.

In Study 2, the authors replicated Study 1 with some additions. They expanded their list of stereotypes, included a measure of knowledge about genetics, and measured attitudes towards the ethnic groups described in the list of stereotypes. The finding that those in the genetic ancestry condition were more likely to attribute stereotypes to genetic causes was replicated; however, those in the control condition were most similar to the homogenous genome condition, unlike Study 1.

Overall, the manuscript is well-written and well-organized. It provides an interesting extension to past research on genetic essentialism and racial attitudes by examining the influence of genetic information on perceptions of the origins of stereotypical behavior. Both studies use large sample sizes and the procedures for excluding participants are well-explained. The statistics used are appropriate and corrections for multiple comparisons and effect sizes are clearly present. The authors present interesting ideas on the real-world implications of this research given the popularity of ancestry-related genomic testing and the ability for increased knowledge about genes as a means of reducing essentialist attitudes.

Suggestions for Improvement

1. The general discussion discusses three major findings: that reading about genetic differences used to determine ancestry increases essentialist views of stereotypes, that people have essentialist views of genetics in general, and that overall genetic knowledge is low. In my read, the support for the first conclusion is strong. However, the scores for the first genetic essentialism scale are just above the midpoint in both studies. I would appreciate more explanation of how this finding is interpreted as generally more essentialist views.

2. Similarly, the authors state that overall genetic knowledge is low. This was measured only in Study 2, with a score of just over 6 / 9 correct. While this does not indicate a high level of knowledge about genes, I don’t know that I would characterize this as a low level of knowledge.

3. Overall, the discussion is quite short. I’d like to see some discussion of how the results of this research build upon and/or replicate previous work in this area.

4. Both studies include an analysis of the effects of social dominance orientation. However, it is not explained why this variable is included and social dominance orientation is not discussed in the introduction.

5. Information about participants’ racial/ethnic backgrounds is not provided. If this is available, it should be included in the participants section.

6. I would appreciate more information about the development of the stereotypes for both studies. How were these stereotypes selected? Was there any consideration of differential interpretations for stereotypes related to physical appearance compared to stereotypes about habits, personality, etc. It seems it would be easier to mentally link some of these stereotypes to genes compared to others.

7. Minor – There are numerous issues with APA format, particularly in the References section

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PLOS ONE Article Review 11-2020.docx

Exploring people’s thoughts about the causes of ethnic stereotypes

PONE-D-20-30825R1

Dear Dr. Heine,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Heming Wang, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I am satisfied with the authors' responses to my suggestions in the previous round of review. I believe this article would make a good addition to PLOS ONE.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No