Heterosexual men in Trump's America downplay compassion more for masculine (than for feminine) gay victims of hate crime: Why?

Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Matos, Andrea Soledad

doi:10.1002/ejsp.2787

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 82 publications

(129 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Insofar as the desire for intergroup distinctiveness can be seen as a proxy for investment in the in‐group, our findings do not support this identity‐investment moderation proposition, as did other studies who directly measured variations in in‐group identification as underlying perceived distinctiveness threat (e.g. Owuamalam & Matos, 2022). This lack of support for the moderation proposition could suggests that, consistent with SCT (Turner, 1985; Turner et al., 1987) and with previous research (Ledgerwood & Chaiken, 2007; Ruys et al., 2007; Schubert & Häfner, 2003; Spears et al., 2004), producing contrast from an oppositional out‐group may not necessarily be a motivated process but can also be seen as the mere cognitive and perceptual outcome of in‐group versus out‐group categorization.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

How our ideological out‐group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio‐political reality

Elad‐Strenger,

Goldenberg,

Saguy

et al. 2023

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What shapes our emotional responses to socio‐political events? Following the social identity approach, we suggest that individuals adjust their emotional responses to socio‐political stimuli based on their ideological out‐group's responses, in a manner that preserves the comparative and normative fit of ideological in‐group–out‐group categories. In Study 1 and Study 2 (pre‐registered), Jewish‐Israeli leftists and rightists were exposed to their ideological out‐group's alleged emotional response to a stimulus associated with Israeli‐Palestinian relations, which was either stereotypical (leftists expressing low anger and rightists expressing high anger) or non‐stereotypical (leftists expressing high anger and rightists expressing low anger). Across studies, participants reported more positive affect towards their ideological out‐group when its response to the stimulus was non‐stereotypical versus stereotypical, yet their own response to the stimulus became more “extreme” (towards the low end of the anger scale for leftists, and towards the high end of the anger scale for rightists), shifting farther away from their ideological out‐group norm. Our findings suggest that in highly polarized contexts, where “leftist” and “rightist” identities are largely defined in comparison to one another, the “positioning” of ideological groups relative to one another plays a role in shaping their responses to their shared socio‐political reality.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

How our ideological out‐group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio‐political reality

Elad‐Strenger,

Goldenberg,

Saguy

et al. 2023

British J Social Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Owuamalam and Matos (2022) investigated, across three experimental studies (N tot = 1475), whether heterosexual men downplayed their compassion more (vs. less) when they were cued to the masculinity (vs. femininity) of a male gay victim. Two alternative hypotheses were tested.…”

Section: What We Still Need To Know: the Contributions Of This Specia...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing research into the social psychology of sexual orientations and gender identities: Current research and future directions

Salvati

Koç

2022

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past decades, LGBTQ+ issues have been at the centre of politics, social movements, and human rights discussions across the world. Consistent with these developments, there is a growing interest in social psychological research into sexual orientation and gender identities. The emerging research not only taps recent societal developments and the effects of these on LGBTQ+ people; but also focuses on very old research questions of stereotypes and prejudice that are still relevant today. In this special issue, we bring together nine papers addressing several of these issues using qualitative, correlational, and experimental methods with sexual majority and minority samples across different cultural contexts. We discuss the current state of the field and how further research could enhance our understanding of LGBTQ+ issues. INTRODUCTIONOver the past decades, LGBTQ+ issues have been at the centre of politics, social movements, and human rights discussions, and the site of major transformation across the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that LGBTQ+ people, the social processes that surround them, and the contexts in which they live, are becoming more and more the focus of interest for psychological study (Hegarty & Rutherford; 2019; Nadal, 2019; Salvati et al., 2020). On the one hand, improvements to specific rights, such as same sex marriage legalization in the US, Taiwan, Australia, and Northern Ireland, have been linked to more positive LGBTQ+ attitudes in society and favourable outcomes for the well-being in LGBTQ+ communities. On the other hand, the same progressive trends have elicited backlashes in various contexts. For instance, many areas in Poland have been declared LGBTQ+-free zones; trans-people are no longer allowed to change their names or gender markers in official documents in Bulgaria; pride marches were banned in Georgia and Turkey; transgender people were banned from serving in the military in the US. Social change and resistance inevitably co-occur. The last report on State-Sponsored Homophobia, published by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association (ILGA) in 2020, pointed to the following worrying data: 36% of United Nations (UN) Member States criminalize or de facto criminalize consensual same-sex sexual acts (59% of African and 52% of Asian UN Member States); 22% of UN Member States have laws and regulations that restrict freedom of expression in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity, including criminalizing offences against morality and religion, limiting sex education curricula, prohibiting promotion or propaganda of homosexuality, censorship in media and movies, and so on (37% of African and 40% of Asian UN Member States); only 30% of UN Member States have broad legal protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation, but the high percentage is concentrated in Europe (68%); and finally, only 18% of UN Member States recognize legal equality of relationships for two people of the same gender and/or have extended the definiti...

show abstract

Heterosexual men in Trump's America downplay compassion more for masculine (than for feminine) gay victims of hate crime: Why?

Cited by 2 publications

References 82 publications

How our ideological out‐group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio‐political reality

How our ideological out‐group shapes our emotional response to our shared socio‐political reality

Advancing research into the social psychology of sexual orientations and gender identities: Current research and future directions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About