Generalized Prejudice: Lessons about social power, ideological conflict, and levels of abstraction

Differential Evaluation of Straight and Gay Men for Nonverbal Effeminate Behavior

The purpose of this study was to determine how violation of gender-based expectancies might influence straight men's attitudes toward men who differ by sexual orientation (i.e., straight or gay). This study was specifically designed to avoid methodological issues that may have been present in similar research. Hypotheses were informed by Expectancy-Violation Theory (EVT) and the Black Sheep Effect (BSE), which together suggest that an effeminate straight man should be evaluated by other straight men more negatively than an effeminate gay man because the former target negatively violated expectations. Additionally, EVT suggests that a masculine gay man should be evaluated more positively than a masculine straight man because the former positively violates expectations, while the BSE instead suggests the latter should be evaluated more positively than the former due to ingroup bias. Self-identified straight men evaluated a male target whose sexual orientation and gender conformity were manipulated through a photo and vignette. A moderated mediation analysis was performed to determine if perceived expectancy violation mediated the relationship between sexual orientation and evaluations for both effeminate and masculine men. Straight effeminate targets were evaluated more negatively than gay effeminate targets; however, straight masculine targets were evaluated more favorably than gay masculine targets, a finding more consistent with the BSE. In addition, perceived expectancy violation did not mediate the relationship between sexual orientation and evaluations regardless of gender expression. More research should be conducted to identify the mechanisms through which evaluations of straight and gay targets differ based on gender expression.

Prejudice towards people with mental illness, schizophrenia, and depression among mental health professionals and the general population

The aim of the study was to measure and compare prejudice towards people with specific mental illnesses between mental health professionals and the general population, and examine personality, ideological, and attitudinal antecedents of prejudice. To do so, we also aimed to validate three shortened scales of prejudice. A sample of mental health professionals (N = 299) and a sample from the general population (N = 427) completed shortened versions of the Prejudice towards People with Mental Illness, Prejudice towards People with Schizophrenia, and Prejudice towards People with Depression scales. They also completed measures of validity criteria and demographics. The scales demonstrated construct validity in both samples. Although prejudice was highest towards people with schizophrenia and lowest towards people with depression, mental health professionals demonstrated significantly less prejudice overall than the general population. Prejudice was associated with higher social dominance orientation, right wing authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, conservatism, and generalized prejudice, and lower agreeableness, openness to experience, and contact. These antecedents of prejudice were better predictors than any demographic or profession-related variables examined. This study contributes increased knowledge of the structure and correlates of prejudice towards people with mental disorders. This knowledge should inform more nuanced and effective interventions, therapy, and training.