In response to the first research question, a five-factor solution for the genetic discrimination instrument (GDI) emerged as the most parsimonious structure, including 20 items that accounted for 50.11% of the variance (Table 2). The five dimensions of genetic discrimination included: 1) a seven-item individual reproductive rights factor (M=2.21, SD=1.14; S2=26.47%, a=0.91); 2) three-item social reproductive rights factor (M=2.83, SD=1.32; S2=8.09%, oc=0.78); 3) three-item employer rights factor (M=1.64, SD=0.95; S2=6.82%, oc=0.72); 4) five-item insurance company rights factor (M=4.23, SD=0.85; S2=5.07%, oc=0.63); and 5) a two-item criminal control rights factor (M=3.26, SD=1.57; S2=3.18%, a=0.81). The statement, “Insurance companies should not treat those who have genetic flaws differently than other people,” was retained to increase reliability of the fourth factor (oc=0.63). Some factors were weakly correlated, but only two exceeded the standard criterion of 0.32 (Table 4), with logic supporting the connectedness of these dimensions. One might expect, for example, that perceptions of individual reproductive rights would be related to social reproductive rights, but personal, organizational and policy implications would be diminished if only a reproductive rights factor were retained. The model’s parsimony, minimal evidence of high correlation and theoretical significance of the extracted fac­tors contributed to retention of the factor solution. A separate unidimensional 12-item scale was formed demarcating the genetically based racism instrument (GBRI) (M=1.98, SD=0.99; S2=49.90%, oc=0.92) (Table 3).

Table 2. Factor Loadings for Genetic Discrimination Scale

Factor

EMP

CRM INS

SOC

IND
Employers should have the option to not hire someone with a genetic disease.

0.57

0.05 -0.13

0.11

0.18
Employers should be permitted by law to use genetic information when making hiring decisions.

0.54

0.09 -0.14

0.09

0.21
Employers should have the option to not hire someone who is more likely than average to get a genetic disease.

0.78

0.003 -0.18

0.09

0.21
All persons who are arrested should have their DNA put on file in police departments.

0.06

0.81 -0.03

0.05

0.07
All persons who are convicted of crimes should have their DNA put on file in police departments.

0.07

0.82 0.02

0.07

0.02
Insurance companies should not treat those who have genetic flaws differently from other people.

-0.08

-0.01 0.37

0.04

-0.07
Insurance companies should not discriminate against those who have a genetic defect.

-0.06

-0.02 0.51

-0.02

0.01
Insurance companies should not be able to discriminate against those who have genetic flaws.

-0.09

0.05 0.53

-0.01

0.01
Insurance companies should not refuse coverage to people who are more likely than average to get a genetic disease.

-0.02

0.02 0.51

-0.04

-0.01
Insurance companies should not discriminate against those who have genetic diseases.

-0.10

-0.06 0.61

-0.01

0.02
Physicians should advise all prospective parents who have genetic flaws against having children.

0.12

0.05 -0.04

0.67

0.27
Physicians should be permitted to advise all prospective parents who have genetic defects against having their own children.

0.13

0.04 0.01

0.66

0.22
Physicians should advise all prospective parents who have genetic defects against conceiving children.

0.06

0.07 0.004

0.73

0.21
1 would not want a child of mine to marry someone with a genetic flaw.

0.12

0.01 -0.02

0.18

0.71
1 would not marry someone who has a higher than average risk of getting a genetic disease.

. 0.17

0.03 -0.02

0.09

0.75
1 would not marry someone who has a high risk of getting a genetic disease.

0.19

0.02 -0.08

0.14

0.79
1 would not marry someone with a genetic flaw.

0.17

0.04 0.02

0.15

0.75
1 would not want my child to marry someone with a genetic disease.

0.09

0.01 -0.02

0.21

0.77
1 would not marry someone with a genetic disease.

0.09

0.06 0.002

0.10

0.78
1 would not want my child to marry someone with a higher than average risk of getting a genetic disease.

0.12

0.01 -0.004

0.18

0.69
EMP: employer rights; CRM: criminal control rights; INS: insurance company rights; SOC: social reproductive rights; IND: individual reproductive rights

The participants who provided contact information were compared with those who declined to provide such information to consider the possibility of systematic differences in responses. When comparing participants who provided contact information for the cash incentive drawing with those participants who declined to provide contact information, only one significant difference was found. Those who did not provide contact information had more negative attitudes (M=3.12, SD=1.58) about granting police access to DNA relating to the criminal control rights than those who provided contact (M=3.58, SD=1.51) information (t(503)=3.15, pO.Ol). cheap cialis professional

Table 3. Factor Loadings for Genetically Based Racism Scale

Racial differences in academic ability are caused by genetics……………………………………………………………. .0.71
Members of one racial group are more artistic than members of another racial group
because of genetics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .0.75
Members of one racial group have more mental illness than another racial group because
of genetics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… . 0.64
One race may be stronger than another because of genetics……………………………………………………………… .0.75
Members of one racial group are stronger than members of another racial group because
of genetics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… .0.69
Members of some races may not be able to do some things as well as other races because
of their genetic makeup…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. .0.68
Genetics can cause members of one race to be better at certain things compared with
those of another race…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. .0.71
Members of one racial group are more musical than members of another racial group
because of genetics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… . 0.70
Members of one racial group are more ambitious than another racial group because of genetics. .0.74
God gave some races genes that make them better at some things than other races……………………… .0.59
Members of one racial group have more scientific ability than another racial group because
of genetics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… . 0.78
Genetics causes differences in intelligence……………………………………………………………………………………………. .0.72

Figure 1. Comparison of the distribution

Figure 1. Comparison of the distribution of blacks and whites within groups who report low (n=290) or high (n=295) levels of agreement on the criminal rights dimension of the GDI; median= 2.00 on a five-point Likert-type scale.

Concurrent and discriminant validity. At the conceptual level, attitudes about genetic discrimination and genetically based racism should relate to attitudes about racism in general. The employer rights and criminal control rights factors correlated weakly with the MRS (r=-0.11, p=0.02; r=-0.14; p<0.01), respectively supporting the concurrent validity of those two factors. The insurance company rights, individual reproductive rights and social reproductive rights factors were not correlated with the MRS, supporting the discriminant validity of the GDI. The GBRI also did not correlate with the MRS, indicating that genetically based racism is not isomorphic with racism. All factors of the GDI and the GBRI correlated weakly (r=0.10, p=0.05) to moderately (r=0.27, pO.OOl) with the RDS, supporting concurrent validity. The criminal control rights and insurance company rights factors were weakly correlated with MCPS (r=0.08, p=0.04; r=0.15; pO.OOl). In total, these standardized tools thus afford a broader conception of lay perceptions of genetic discrimination than past instruments. They include insurance discrimination but reveal several related grounds on which discriminatory judgments linked to genes may rest. cheap viagra professional

Table 4. Correlations between Factors

EMP CRIM INS IND SOC GEN
Employer rights (ORG) 1.0 0.13** -0.23** 0.39** 0.27** 0.24**
Criminal control rights (CRM) 1.0 -0.01 0.10* 0.13* 0.11**
Insurance company rights (INS) 1.0 -0.05 -0.04 0.09*
Individual reproductive rights (IND) 1.0 0.44** 0.21**
Social reproductive rights (SOC) 1.0 0.20**
Genetically based racism (GEN) 1.0
*p<0.05. ** pO.Ol.

In response to the second research question, we found significant differences for levels of income between black and white participants (t(583)=4.24, pO.OOl) and nonsignificant differences for education (t(583)=1.70, p=0.09). Both income and education may contribute to perceptions associated with GDI and GBRI. Thus, we controlled for the possible effects of income and education on participant views before assessing a role for participants’ self-identification as black (n=276) or white (n=309) on perceptions. As illustrated in Figure 1, findings supported differences for criminal control rights (t(583)=2.27, p<0.05), with blacks (M=3.11, SD=1.61) evidencing more concern about the collection and use of DNA for police use than were whites (M=3.40, SD=1.50) after controlling for the significant effect of education (r=-0.20, pO.OOl); more education was associated with less support for granting police access to criminals’ DNA. Findings supported the significant effect of income (r=-0.13, p=0.001) and education (r=-0.11, p=0.004) on perceptions of social reproductive rights. After controlling for these variables, a significant effect for race was found (t=3.11, p=0.002), with blacks (M=2.68, SD=1.31) registering more concern than whites (M=2.95, SD=1.32). Figure 2 illustrates these results, with the creation of three groups illustrating the findings. Blacks were less likely to believe that physicians should advise against having children based on genetic tests results than were whites; a substantial number of black and white participants also had relatively unformed attitudes about this issue; and whites were more likely than blacks to believe that physicians should advise patients to avoid having children based on genetic test results. While participants in general did not believe employers should be able to make hiring decisions based on genetic information, differences were observed for employer rights (t(583)=2.27, pO.05), with blacks (M=1.54, SD=0.85) in less agreement with employer use of genetic information than whites (M=1.72, SD=1.03); education and income did not have significant relationships with views about employer rights. No significant differences were observed between participants self-identifying as black compared to white for attitudes about insurance company rights or individual reproductive rights. Significant differences in genetically based racism were found (t(583)=2.88, p<0.01), with blacks (M=1.86, SD=0.94) holding less polarized beliefs associating abilities with genes and race than do whites (M=2.09, SD=1.02) after controlling for the significant role of education on these perceptions (r=-0.10, p=0.008). cheap levitra professional

Figure 2. Comparison of the distribution

Figure 2. Comparison of the distribution of blacks and whites within groups who report low (n=204), medium (n=177) or high (n=204) levels of agreement on the social reproductive rights dimension of the GDI. The distribution of responses revealed three nearly equal groups, with a neutral range from 2.33 to 3.33 for the middle group, a range in responses from 1 to 2 the low group, and a range in responses from 3.67 to 5 for the high group.

Category: Diseases / Tags: genetic discrimination, health communication, instrument development, racism, racism and genetics

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA image
*