Humans are continuously making sense of the world. One way we do this is with intuitive frameworks, which are ad-hoc, informal patterns of thinking about natural and social phenomena. However, there is mixed evidence about the utility of intuitive frameworks in formal learning settings, especially in science education. Some research has shown that intuitive frameworks can be helpful for learning, while other studies have shown that they lead to misconceptions--persistent, intuitive misunderstandings of scientific concepts. In this dissertation, I examined this double-edged sword effect on science education through one type of intuitive framework: anthropocentrism, or centering one's understanding of the natural world on humans. Anthropocentric examples are commonly used by biology instructors and textbooks, especially in urban undergraduate courses. Undergraduate students' anthropocentric thinking has been shown to be related to misconceptions about biological concepts. However, anthropocentric examples have also been linked to greater interest and memory for biological information. To date, few studies have simultaneously examined both the positive and negative effects of anthropocentric thinking. In addition, although biology instructors regularly use anthropocentric examples, there has been no research on how to target teaching interventions on misconceptions that might arise from anthropocentric thinking. In this dissertation, I conducted a series of experiments to test how anthropocentric thinking impacts biology learning. In Study 1, I examined how using human examples in instructional biology texts (i.e., anthropocentric condition) impacted undergraduate students' understanding, interest, and endorsement of misconceptions, compared to texts that used generic language and did not mention humans (i.e., control condition). I found that anthropocentric examples had both positive and negative effects on students' understanding of biology concepts, though the effects were indirect. Students who read about humans tended to be more interested in the concept, which in turn was related to more accurate open-ended explanations of the concept. However, students in the anthropocentric condition were also more likely to use anthropocentric language in their open-ended explanations, which was related to greater misconception endorsement. Students who were more anthropocentric prior to reading either text were also more likely to endorse misconceptions. In Study 2, I examined how anthropocentric vs. control texts impacted student memory for biological information, distinct from just an accurate understanding. In this study, I found that participant use of anthropocentric language was related to a positive outcome, i.e., better memory performance, in contrast to Study 1. Finally, in Study 3, I created and tested a reading intervention to refute common anthropocentric misconceptions. I found that participants who read the intervention text had lower misconception endorsement than participants who read the anthropocentric or control texts. Overall, this research showed that anthropocentrism has both potential promises and pitfalls for biology education, suggesting that intuitive frameworks are both helpful and harmful to science learning and that biology instructors should be thoughtful about how they use human examples in the classroom. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com.bibliotheek.ehb.be/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]