Living in a Genetic World

Abstract

Information about the degree of one's genetic overlap with ethnic outgroups has been emphasized in genocides, is frequently learned about through media reporting, and is increasingly being accessed via personal genetic testing services. However, the consequence of learning about whether your own ethnic group is either genetically related to or genetically distinct from a disliked ethnic group remains unknown. Across four experiments, using diverse samples, measures and contexts, we demonstrate that altering perceptions of genetic overlap between groups in conflict--in this case Arabs and Jews--impacts factors that are directly related to interethnic hostility (e.g., aggressive behaviors, support of conflict-related policies). Our findings indicate that learning about the genetic difference between oneself and an ethnic outgroup may contribute to the promotion of violence, whereas learning about the similarities may be a vital step toward fostering peace in some contexts. Possible interventions and implications are discussed.

Meat eaters by dissociation: How we present, prepare and talk about meat increases willingness to eat meat by reducing empathy and disgust

“…Gender did not moderate the effects (0.105 < ps < 0.138). As the killed and slaughtered conditions did not differ from each other (p ¼ 0.769), both were merged and compared to the harvest condition in consecutive analyses similar to analytic procedures in previous research (Kimel, Huesmann, Kunst, & Halperin, 2016;Kunst, Thomsen, Sam, & Berry, 2015).…”

Can Abraham bring peace? The relationship between acknowledging shared religious roots and intergroup conflict.

“…A 9-item scale (α = .95) developed by Vail and Motyl (2010) and adapted to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Kimel et al (2016) measured support for Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking. The scale measured the extent to which participants believed that Israel should pursue diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians CAN ABRAHAM BRING PEACE?…”

“…rooted in theological issues. Indeed, the current work only addresses one component of a very complex and multifaceted conflict and, thus, our approach may be most useful in combination with other promising approaches such as emphasizing common victimhood and loss (Gayer, Landman, Halperin, & Bar-Tal, 2009;Shnabel, Halabi, & Noor, 2013), stressing emotional similarities (McDonald et al, 2015), nurturing positive emotions such as hope and empathy (Rosler et al, 2015), satisfying the different conflict parts' specific social needs Shnabel & Nadler, 2008;Shnabel, Nadler, Ullrich, Dovidio, & Carmi, 2009), emphasizing intergroup genetic similarity (Kimel et al, 2016), cognitive reappraisals (Halperin et al, 2014), third-party mediation (Schrodt & Gerner, 2004) or contact workshops (Malhotra & Liyanage, 2005;Shani & Boehnke, in press). Future research may benefit from comparing the strength of Abrahamic categorization to these other conflict reduction approaches and also test its effects in combination with them.…”

Do genetic ancestry tests increase racial essentialism? Findings from a randomized controlled trial

“…The few studies seeking to adjudicate between these outcomes have focused on the effect of reading media articles about GATs and found that reading articles depicting the tests as able to reveal a person's race, or emphasizing the degree of overall genetic difference between groups, increases belief in essential racial and ethnic differences [17,32,33]. However, the media articles in these studies included clear statements supporting or opposing a genetic basis to race; by contrast, the experience of taking a GAT requires the test-taker to actively interpret complex, personalized results.…”