Cited by 19Genetic Associations and EpidemiologyRace, Genetics, and SocietyCognitive Abilities and Testing

No support for the hereditarian hypothesis of the Black–White achievement gap using polygenic scores and tests for divergent selection

Bird, Kevin A.·2021·American Journal of Physical Anthropology

Abstract

Objectives: Debate about the cause of IQ score gaps between Black and White populations has persisted within genetics, anthropology, and psychology. Recently, authors claimed polygenic scores provide evidence that a significant portion of differences in cognitive performance between Black and White populations are caused by genetic differences due to natural selection, the “hereditarian hypothesis.” This study aims to show conceptual and methodological flaws of past studies supporting the hereditarian hypothesis. Materials and methods: Polygenic scores for educational attainment were constructed for African and European samples of the 1000 Genomes Project. Evidence for selection was evaluated using an excess variance test. Education associated variants were further evaluated for signals of selection by testing for excess genetic differentiation (F st). Expected mean difference in IQ for populations was calculated under a neutral evolutionary scenario and contrasted to hereditarian claims. Results: Tests for selection using polygenic scores failed to find evidence of natural selection when the less biased within‐family GWAS effect sizes were used. Tests for selection using F st values did not find evidence of natural selection. Expected mean difference in IQ was substantially smaller than postulated by hereditarians, even under unrealistic assumptions that overestimate genetic contribution. Conclusion: Given these results, hereditarian claims are not supported in the least. Cognitive performance does not appear to have been under diversifying selection in Europeans and Africans. In the absence of diversifying selection, the best case estimate for genetic contributions to group differences in cognitive performance is substantially smaller than hereditarians claim and is consistent with genetic differences contributing little to the Black–White gap.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ajpa.24216

Cites

92 of 92 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Coop G.(2019)Reading tea leaves? Polygenic scores and differences in traits among groups.Preprint aXxivarXiv:1909.00892
  2. Saini A.Superior: the return of race science. (2019). Boston MA: Beacon Press.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Authors
Bird, K. A.
Affiliations
Michigan State University (US)
Corresponding author
Bird, Kevin A.
Venue
American Journal of Physical Anthropology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2021-02-02
Volume
175
Issue
2
Pages
465-476
ISSN
  • 0002-9483 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-8644
OpenAlex
W3128420966
Cited by
19
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Physical Anthropology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Race, Genetics, and Society
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
Black-White achievement gap, polygenic risk score, educational attainment, natural selection, diversifying selection, FST, genetic differentiation, IQ differences, 1000 Genomes Project
MeSH terms
Anthropology, Physical, Educational Status, Humans, Phenotype, Selection, Genetic, Multifactorial Inheritance, Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide, Black People, White People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review