In two studies, lesbians, gay men and bisexuals were queried concerning mistakes that well-meaning heterosexual people have made when interacting with them. In qualitative, open-ended research, we determined that the most common mistakes concerned heterosexuals' pointing out that they know someone who is gay, emphasizing their lack of prejudice, and relying on stereotypes about gays. Following up with a quantitative, close-ended questionnaire, we determined that the mistakes respondents experienced most often involved heterosexuals (a) relying on stereotypes and (b) ignoring gay issues; the most annoying mistakes were heterosexuals (a) using subtle prejudicial language and (b) not owning up to their discomfort with gay issues. We used two theoretical perspectives, shared reality theory and the contact hypothesis, to analyze the quantitative responses. Implications for intergroup relationships between heterosexual people and gay people are discussed.

No abstract

We analyzed 97 gay men's and lesbians' experiences with and expectations for interactions with majority group members. Respondents described reactions to previous or imagined future interactions with an unfamiliar heterosexual person who had just become aware that the respondent was lesbian or gay. Results indicated that respondents are more proactive than reactive (in contrast to expectation states theories), that the contact hypothesis can be appropriately applied to this group, even though the formulation of the theory was based upon negative attitudes in the absence of extensive contact, and that they have different reactions for people of different prejudice levels, rather than being globally suspicious, as is predicted by many intergroup theories. Future research should direct more attention to the stigmatized group members' attitudes about and reactions toward the majority group.

Consumer discrimination occurs when sales clerks and other store employees, including security personnel, treat customers differently because of their race or ethnicity. The goal of the present research was to examine how participants perceived a case of consumer discrimination and what actions they felt the victim should take. Based on Robinson's theory of perceptual segregation, we examined whether the perceptions and responses of white participants differed from those of people of color. We also drew on the liberation psychology tenets of conscientization and de-ideologization with particular emphasis on taking the perspective of the oppressed, by measuring participants' level of perceived societal discrimination. These two individual difference variables (participant race and perceived societal discrimination) significantly predicted participants' perceptions of the situation and their emotional responses, which, in turn, mediated how they thought the customer should respond.When New Yorker Denise Simon goes shopping, she is always on guard. She carries a small bag, keeps her hands visible whenever possible, and makes an effort to be overly friendly to sales clerks. She doesn't have any reason to be wary except for one thing-she happens

No abstract

Across four studies, we assessed the relationship between participants' attitudes toward gay men and their experiences during either imagined or actual interpersonal encounters with gay men. In the first three studies, participants imagined interactions with gay men and either responded in an open-ended or a closed-ended fashion. In these imagined interactions, participants reported that they expected to have considerable agreement between their attitudes and their subjective experiences during the intergroup encounter. However, during actual interactions, there were no differences between members of different prejudice levels in their responses to the gay confederate. A comparison of the actual and imagined interactions demonstrated that high prejudice people are particularly unlikely to have subjective experiences that match their negative attitudes concerning actual interpersonal encounters.

The primary goal of this research was to determine whether the racial composition of a jury impacts the outcome and deliberation in a civil retail discrimination lawsuit. We presented a retail discrimination trial video to 30 separate mock juries. Of the 30 juries, 15 juries had 2 Black jurors, while the remaining 15 had no Black jurors (i.e., only White or White and Latinx participants). After watching the video, each mock jury was given 1 h to deliberate as if they were jurors deciding an actual case. Contrary to previous research, juries with Black jurors were no more likely to deliberate longer or consider more case facts. However, they were more likely to find for the plaintiff and award higher compensation. In addition, content analysis of the deliberation racial discourse revealed that some jurors espoused colorblind racial attitudes, minimizing the significance of race in this case and in society in general, and accusing the plaintiff of playing the “race card.” Other jurors encouraged understanding of the plaintiff and espoused non‐colorblind racial attitudes, recognizing the importance and damaging role of racism in American society. Implications for civil trials, jury selection, and racial discourse are discussed.