Expectations of middle school children's academic performance in STEM and the Humanities: The effects of genetic and environmental frameworks

This research investigated how genetic versus environmental explanatory frameworks influence adults' expectations about children's development of skills in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and Humanities domains when both frameworks are cognitively available. Across four studies (N = 1835), we employed a novel paradigm using gestational surrogacy scenarios to manipulate the salience of genetic (donors' educational background) and environmental (parents' educational background) frameworks. After reading the scenarios, participants evaluated the expected academic performance in middle school subjects related to STEM and Humanities for hypothetical children born via surrogacy. Participants' endorsement of essentialist beliefs (i.e., the extent to which they attribute abilities to predisposition) was also measured. Studies 1–3 employed within-subjects designs. Studies 1 and 2 tested the robustness of the paradigm using alternative versions of the material. Study 3 examined whether the effects were moderated by the gender of the child. Study 4 introduced a between-subjects design to test the relative influence of each framework. Across all studies, expectations about children's academic performance were shaped by both frameworks, but the environmental framework consistently exerted greater influence than the genetic in both STEM and Humanities domains and regardless of the gender of the child. Moreover, stronger endorsement of essentialist beliefs selectively enhanced the impact of the genetic framework, while leaving the influence of the environmental framework unchanged. The results are discussed in relation to the literature on genetic and essentialist beliefs about abilities relevant to STEM and the Humanities, with consideration of their practical implications.