Stereotyping to infer group membership creates plausible deniability for prejudice-based aggression

Proxemic Behaviors During Gay/Straight Interactions: An Automated Analysis Through Kinect Depth-Sensing Camera

Through two experimental studies (N = 150), we investigated proxemic behaviors featuring gay/straight dyadic interactions. In doing so, for the first time, we relied on an IR depth camera and considered the interpersonal volume between the interactants, a novel feature that exhaustively captures interactants' proxemic behaviors. Study 1 revealed that the straight participants' implicit sexual bias - but not the explicit prejudice - significantly predicted their volume while interacting with a study accomplice who was presented as gay (vs. straight). However, unlike previous research, mixed-model analyses revealed the higher their implicit bias was, the smaller the interpersonal volume that they maintained with the gay study accomplice, especially when the conversation focused on an intergroup-related (vs. neutral) topic. Study 2 was mainly designed to deepen this main finding. Results documented that highly implicitly biased participants who maintained a smaller interpersonal volume with a gay (vs. straight) study accomplice were more cognitively depleted after the interaction than low-biased participants, possibly suggesting that highly implicitly biased straight people can control this nonverbal behavior to appear as nonprejudiced in the gay interactant's eyes. Implications for research on sexual prejudice and intergroup nonverbal behaviors are discussed.

Untested assumptions perpetuate stereotyping: Learning in the absence of evidence

In the present work, we set out to assess whether and how much people learn in response to their stereotypic assumptions being confirmed, being disconfirmed, or remaining untested. In Study 1, participants made a series of judgments that could be influenced by stereotypes and received feedback that confirmed stereotypes the majority of the time, feedback that disconfirmed stereotypes the majority of the time, or no feedback on their judgments. Replicating past work on confirmation bias, patterns in the conditions with feedback indicated that pieces of stereotype-confirming evidence exerted more influence than stereotype-disconfirming evidence. Participants in the Stereotype-Confirming condition stereotyped more over time, but rates of stereotyping for participants in the Stereotype-Disconfirming condition remained unchanged. Participants who received no feedback, and thus no evidence, stereotyped more over time, indicating that, matching our core hypothesis, they learned from their own untested assumptions. Study 2 provided a direct replication of Study 1. In Study 3, we extended our assessment to memory. Participants made judgments and received a mix of confirmatory, disconfirmatory, and no feedback and were subsequently asked to remember the feedback they received on each trial, if any. Memory tests for the no feedback trials revealed that participants often misremembered that their untested assumptions were confirmed. Supplementing null hypothesis significance testing, Bayes Factor analyses indicated the data in Studies 1, 2, and 3 provided moderate-to-extreme evidence in favor of our hypotheses. Discussion focuses on the challenges these learning patterns create for efforts to reduce stereotyping.

Ecological Invalidity of Existing Gaydar Research: In-Lab Accuracy Translates to Real-World Inaccuracy: Response to Rule, Johnson, & Freeman (2016)

In recent years, several empirical studies have claimed to provide evidence in support of the popular folk notion that people possess "gaydar" that enables them to accurately identify who is gay or lesbian (Rule, Johnson, & Freeman, 2016). This conclusion is limited to artificial lab settings, however, and when translated to real-world settings this work itself provides evidence that people's judgments about who is gay/lesbian are not pragmatically accurate. We also briefly review evidence related to the consequences of perpetuating the idea of gaydar (i.e., "the gaydar myth"). Although past claims about accurate orientation perception are misleading, the work that gave rise to those claims can nevertheless inform the literature in meaningful ways. We offer some recommendations for how the evidence in past "gaydar" research can be reappraised to inform our understanding of social perception and group similarities/differences.

The motivation to express prejudice

Contemporary prejudice research focuses primarily on people who are motivated to respond without prejudice and the ways in which unintentional bias can cause these people to act in a manner inconsistent with this motivation. However, some real-world phenomena (e.g., hate speech, hate crimes) and experimental findings (e.g., Plant & Devine, 2001, 2009) suggest that some prejudice is intentional. These phenomena and findings are difficult to explain solely from the motivations to respond without prejudice. We argue that some people are motivated to express prejudice, and we develop the Motivation to Express Prejudice Scale (MP) to measure this motivation. In 7 studies involving more than 6,000 participants, we demonstrate that, across scale versions targeted at Black people and gay men, the MP has good reliability and convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. In normative climates that prohibit prejudice, the internal and external motivations to express prejudice are functionally nonindependent, but they become more independent when normative climates permit more prejudice toward a target group. People high in the motivation to express prejudice are relatively likely to resist pressure to support programs promoting intergroup contact and to vote for political candidates who support oppressive policies. The motivation to express prejudice predicted these outcomes even when controlling for attitudes and the motivations to respond without prejudice. This work encourages contemporary prejudice researchers to give greater consideration to the intentional aspects of negative intergroup behavior and to broaden the range of phenomena, target groups, and samples that they study.

Inferences About Sexual Orientation: The Roles of Stereotypes, Faces, and The Gaydar Myth

In the present work, we investigated the pop cultural idea that people have a sixth sense, called "gaydar," to detect who is gay. We propose that "gaydar" is an alternate label for using stereotypes to infer orientation (e.g., inferring that fashionable men are gay). Another account, however, argues that people possess a facial perception process that enables them to identify sexual orientation from facial structure. We report five experiments testing these accounts. Participants made gay-or-straight judgments about fictional targets that were constructed using experimentally manipulated stereotypic cues and real gay/straight people's face cues. These studies revealed that orientation is not visible from the face-purportedly "face-based" gaydar arises from a third-variable confound. People do, however, readily infer orientation from stereotypic attributes (e.g., fashion, career). Furthermore, the folk concept of gaydar serves as a legitimizing myth: Compared to a control group, people stereotyped more often when led to believe in gaydar, whereas people stereotyped less when told gaydar is an alternate label for stereotyping. Discussion focuses on the implications of the gaydar myth and why, contrary to some prior claims, stereotyping is highly unlikely to result in accurate judgments about orientation.

Stereotypes possess heterogeneous directionality: a theoretical and empirical exploration of stereotype structure and content

We advance a theory-driven approach to stereotype structure, informed by connectionist theories of cognition. Whereas traditional models define or tacitly assume that stereotypes possess inherently Group → Attribute activation directionality (e.g., Black activates criminal), our model predicts heterogeneous stereotype directionality. Alongside the classically studied Group → Attribute stereotypes, some stereotypes should be bidirectional (i.e., Group ⇄ Attribute) and others should have Attribute → Group unidirectionality (e.g., fashionable activates gay). We tested this prediction in several large-scale studies with human participants (N_Combined = 4,817), assessing stereotypic inferences among various groups and attributes. Supporting predictions, we found heterogeneous directionality both among the stereotype links related to a given social group and also between the links of different social groups. These efforts yield rich datasets that map the networks of stereotype links related to several social groups. We make these datasets publicly available, enabling other researchers to explore a number of questions related to stereotypes and stereotyping. Stereotype directionality is an understudied feature of stereotypes and stereotyping with widespread implications for the development, measurement, maintenance, expression, and change of stereotypes, stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination.

Male Role Endorsement Explains Negative Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Among Students in Mexico More Than in Germany

Anti-gay attitudes vary across cultures because the larger social context plays a role in attitude formation. Psychological correlates of these attitudes have been investigated in the United States and Europe. Endorsement of traditional gender roles has emerged from that research as a central correlate, next to religiosity and personal contact with lesbians/gay men. In a cross-sectional study, we tested whether these correlates are relevant in Mexico, characterized as an androcentric culture in which both gender-role traditionalism and religiosity are high, using a college-age student sample (N = 63). Because we relied on self-reports, the motivation to appear nonprejudiced was also assessed. We found typical gender differences in attitudes toward gay men. In bivariate tests, anti-gay attitudes were related to male role endorsement, contact with lesbians/gay men, and religiosity. In a multivariate analysis, variance in attitudes was explained by male role endorsement; personal contact or religiosity did not explain additional variance. In a German comparison sample (N = 112), male role endorsement played a smaller role. Variance in anti-gay attitudes in the German sample was also related to personal contact, religiosity, and the motivation to appear nonprejudiced. We discuss the centrality of (male) gender-role endorsement in cultures with high gender-role traditionalism.