Interchanges: Gender, sexuality and heterosexuality

Jackson, Stevi

doi:10.1177/1464700106061462

Cited by 413 publications

(276 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

231

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…2). Taken together, these findings may be consistent with (1) perceptions of heteronormativity in psychology research (Jackson, 2006), (2) the fact that social psychology is seen as a socially and politically progressive field (Jussim 2012;Jussim et al 2015), and (3) certain methodological and epistemological differences may underpin some of the objections to the use of evolutionary theory in reference to humans. In a larger sense, this may mean that not only do the types of criticisms vary as noted in the factor analyses but also do the people who hold those criticisms.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

“…Third, those engaging in heterosexual relationships may better conform to and, therefore, endorse conventional sex roles and mate preferences as part of their agenda toward reproducing (Cunningham and Russell 2004;Penke et al 2007). Fourth, homosexuals and bisexuals, relative heterosexuals, as sexual minorities, may be personally concerned with the implications of evolutionary psychology for its apparent heternormativity (Jackson 2006). Therefore, we predict that homosexuals will have the most critical views of evolutionary psychology (H4a), and as evolutionary psychology is often mistakenly seen as sexist against women (Schmitt 2015), women may be more critical of the field (H4b).…”

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Quantifying Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology

Jonason

Schmitt

2016

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sample of academics (N = 111), we quantified the dimensions underlying criticisms of evolutionary psychology in relation to criticisms of its parent fields (i.e., general psychology and evolutionary biology) and examined how various demographic and sociopolitical individual differences were related to these criticism dimensions. The five primary criticisms of evolutionary psychology reflected conceptual concerns, concerns over political implications, concerns over sampling, concerns about the validity of findings, and religious concerns. Evolutionary psychology suffered the worst selective skepticism relative to its parent fields. In a general sense, political liberalism was associated with more intense criticisms toward evolutionary psychology, but these associations were weak and differed across three measures of political personality (i.e., Right-Wing Authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and religiousness). Homosexuals and qualitative researchers were especially critical of evolutionary psychology. We offer these limited findings as insights into the motivated resistance to the theory of evolution as a unifying meta-theory in psychology, and we hope to provide a future framework for reducing unmerited and selective resistance to an evolutionary-informed psychological science.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 58%

Section: The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 96%

Quantifying Common Criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology

Jonason

Schmitt

2016

Evolutionary Psychological Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, the means by which gender and heterosexuality sustain themselves as both structural concepts and individually lived identities (Jackson, 2006) was evident in the orientation and description of lesbian sex within a heterosexual, male-dominant model of sexual relationships. The cultural pervasiveness and legitimacy of this model directed the types and kinds of sexual messages that individuals received about sexuality from institutions and individuals, whether in the form of Anthony's assertion that women's sexual pleasure need not involve climax, or, for women such as Kelly who spoke about their sexual desires for other women, an invalidation of those desires by parents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Limits of Heteronormative Sexual Scripting: College Student Development of Individual Sexual Scripts and Descriptions of Lesbian Sexual Behavior

Pham

2016

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Simon and Gagnon's sexual script theory identifies multitiered influences, which shape individual ideas about sexual relationships. The cultural celebration of heterosexuality as the accepted standard dominates major social institutions and permeates cultural sexual messages. The reception of these heteronormative messages influences the formation of individualized sexual scripts; however, how individuals apply these individualized scripts to understanding the sexual lives of others is little understood. More specifically, what are the effects of heteronormative sexual scripting for imagining a sexual scenario not marked by a male-female partnership? This study asked a sample of heterosexual, bisexual, and non-identified college students at a 4-year private institution in the northeastern United States to define lesbian sex. Results suggest the influence of culturally heteronormative sexual messages for orienting one's initial understanding of what sex is, though participants described various levels of acceptance, rejection, and/or revision of these messages as they formed their own scripts. However, when asked to define lesbian sex, participants drew from the more rigid heteronormative cultural script to form their definitions. The association of lesbian sex with vaginal penetration by a phallic substitute, such as a dildo, affirmed the overarching influence of the heterosexual, male-centric sexual standard for shaping the individual sexual imaginary.

show abstract

“…Though the terms lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) refer to sexual identities, transgender (T) denotes a gender identity, and queer (Q) can refer to both gender and sexuality, we included these identities together based on their societal subjugation in reference to heterosexuality and gender conformity (Jackson, 2006). To promote inclusivity, we welcomed additional sexual and gender minority identities to participate, such as genderqueer, questioning, and pansexual, and we use the acronym LGBTQ+ to capture the diversity of participants' identities.…”

Section: Recruitmentmentioning

confidence: 99%