Intersectionality in a sociogenomic world: How do race, disability, socioeconomic status, and polygenic prediction interact to affect perceptions of educational trajectories?

Abstract

Purpose

Education is important for lifelong skills and economic growth; however, student placement decisions may be shaped by social biases. As genomic information captured via polygenic scores becomes more available, it may also inform student placement decisions. We assessed the intersectional effects of polygenic scores, race, disability, and socioeconomic status on US adults’ views of educational trajectories using an online experimental survey design.

Methods

A total of 1367 US adults were randomized to one of 16 conditions and prompted to read a short vignette about a boy named Michael, also depicted in an image. Each condition varied Michael’s race (Black/White), disability (wheelchair user/no), socioeconomic status (high/low), and polygenic score (high/low) for educational attainment (EA-PGS). After reading the vignette, the respondents were asked to answer multichoice questions about Michael’s immediate and long-term educational trajectories.

Results

Variation in Michael’s EA-PGS strongly influenced participants’ expectations regarding (1) the most appropriate immediate educational program for Michael (ie, general, special, or gifted education), (2) whether he would graduate high school, and, if so, (3) the highest educational degree he would complete in his lifetime (associate, bachelor, master, or PhD). Across these responses, high EA-PGS was associated with more socially desirable outcomes, whereas the opposite was true for low EA-PGS. Depicting Michael in a wheelchair significantly influenced respondents’ expectations that his most appropriate immediate educational trajectory would be special. There were significant interactions between Michael’s race, disability, socioeconomic status, and the EA-PGS.

Conclusion

Information about children’s EA-PGS may affect their views about their immediate and long-term educational trajectories. The negative effects of low EA-PGS were comparable to those of high EA-PGS. The EA-PGS may be interpreted in ways that compound the existing stereotypes related to a child’s race, disability, and socioeconomic status.