Extending the social category label effect to stigmatized groups: Lesbian and gay people’s reactions to “homosexual” as a label

Abstract

The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.

A taxonomy of identity safety cues based on gender and race: From a promising past to an intersectional and translational future.

“…Although some identity safety cues may be initiated by well-intentioned individuals or organizations (e.g., as deliberate effort or intervention; Albuja et al, 2019; Howansky et al, 2021), other cues are more naturally occurring and spontaneous (e.g., demographic ratios of workplaces; Murphy et al, 2007; Purdie-Vaughns et al, 2008). Some identity safety cues are explicit, such as information countering gender stereotypes (e.g., Davies et al, 2005; McIntyre et al, 2003), whereas other cues are relatively implied, such as subtle characteristics of situations (e.g., a poster on a wall or language used in demographic questionnaires; Cheryan et al, 2009; Matsick et al, under review). We thus infer that identity safety cues encompass a diverse set of situational cues (e.g., information, visible features, verbal and nonverbal signals) and that they reduce threat, enhance psychological outcomes, and communicate a commitment to social inclusion and diversity.…”

Ten simple rules for socially responsible science

“…As such, it is possible that a single term can never satisfy everyone. This problem is compounded by the ever-changing nature of language and its shared understanding (e.g., Matsick et al, 2022;Merolla et al, 2013). Nevertheless, researchers should strive to understand the connotations that others associate with their used terminology to make educated decisions and minimize harm.…”