In the context of sexual prejudice, in which group distinctiveness motivation is particularly strong for men, three studies tested the hypothesis that egalitarian norms can intensify reactive distinctiveness motives, and then paradoxically increase intergroup differentiation and prejudice. Depending on the studies, the egalitarian norm was experimentally manipulated or induced and kept constant. Group distinctiveness was manipulated through scientific support for the theory that a person’s sexual orientation is determined by biological factors in terms of the extant biological differences (high distinctiveness) versus biological similarities (low distinctiveness) between heterosexual and gay people. Egalitarian norms increased men’s (but not women’s) intergroup differentiation (Study 1) and prejudice (Study 2) when group distinctiveness was low (as compared to high). This pattern was specific to men with high gender self-esteem, and appeared when the biological theory was framed in terms of intergroup differences rather than the uncontrollability of sexual orientation (Study 3).
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
BemS. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
BossonJ. K.MichniewiczK. S. (2013). Gender dichotomization at the level of ingroup identity: What it is, and why men use it more than women. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 425–442. doi:10.1037/a0033126.
4.
BossonJ. K.Prewitt-FreilinoJ. L.TaylorJ. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.89.4.552
5.
BrewerM. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?Journal of Social Issues, 55, 429–444. doi:10.1111/0022–4537.00126
6.
ByrneD. (1971). The attraction paradigm. New York, NY: Academic Press.
7.
ConnellR. W. (1995). Masculinities. Berkeley: University of California Press.
8.
CrandallC. S.EshlemanA.O’BrienL. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 359–378. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.82.3.359
9.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N.HewstoneM. (2010). Common ingroups and complex identities: Routes to reducing bias in multiple category contexts. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 14, 32–46. doi:10.1037/a0017303
10.
DoiseW. (1986). Levels of explanation in social psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11.
DusterT. (2003). Backdoor to eugenics. New York, NY: Routledge.
12.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.ChatardA.SelimbegovicL.KonanP.MugnyG. (2013). Conformity and counter-conformity to anti-discrimination norms: The moderating effect of attitudes towards foreigners and perceived ingroup threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, E206–E215. doi:10.1111/jasp.12024
13.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.GabarrotF.MugnyG. (2009). Group motives in threatening contexts: When a loyalty conflict paradoxically reduces the influence of an antidiscrimination ingroup norm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 196–206. doi:10.1002/ejsp.520
14.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.HegartyP. (2014). Maintaining distinctions under threat: Heterosexual men endorse the biological theory of sexuality when equality is the norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 731–751. doi:10.1111/bjso.12051
15.
Falomir-PichastorJ. M.MugnyG. (2009). “I’m not gay… I’m a real man!”: Heterosexual men’s gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1233–1243. doi:10.1177/0146167209338072
16.
GabarrotF.Falomir-PichastorJ. M.MugnyG. (2009). Being similar versus being equal: Intergroup similarity moderates the influence of in-group norms on discrimination and prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 253–273. doi:10.1348/014466608X342943
17.
GaertnerS. L.DovidioJ. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
18.
GalD.WilkieJ. (2010). Real men don’t eat quiche: Regulation of gender-expressive choices by men. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 291–301. doi:10.1177/1948550610365003
19.
GlickP.GanglC.GibbS.KlumpnerS.WeinbergE. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55–59. doi:10.1007/s11199–007–9195–3
20.
GuimondS.CrispR. J.De OliveiraP.KamiejskiR.KteilyN.KüpperB.… ZickA. (2013). Diversity policy, social dominance, and intergroup relations: Predicting prejudice in changing social and political contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 941–958. doi:10.1037/a0032069
21.
HaslamN.LevyS. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi:10.1177/0146167205276516
22.
HegartyP. (2002). “It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re built”: Symbolic beliefs about sexual orientation in the US and Britain. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 153–166. doi:10.1002/casp.669
23.
HegartyP.GoldenA. M. (2008). Attributional beliefs about the controllability of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of prejudice?Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1023–1044. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2008.00337.x
24.
HerekG. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563–577. doi:10.1177/000276486029005005
25.
HerekG. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451–477. doi:10.1080/00224498809551476
26.
HerekG. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6–24. doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6
HornseyM. J.HoggM. A. (2000). Assimilation and diversity: An integrative model of subgroup relations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 143–156. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_03
29.
HornseyM. J.MajkutL.TerryD. J.McKimmieB. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319–335. doi:10.1348/014466603322438189
30.
JayaratneT. E.YbarraO.SheldonJ. P.BrownT. N.FeldbaumM.PfefferC. A.PettyE. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward Blacks, and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94. doi:10.1177/1368430206059863
31.
JettenJ.SpearsR. (2003). The divisive potential of differences and similarities: The role of intergroup distinctiveness in intergroup differentiation. European Review of Social Psychology, 14, 203–241. doi:10.1080/10463280340000063
32.
KellerJ. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.88.4.686
33.
KnowlesE. D.LoweryB. S.HoganC. M.ChowR. M. (2009). On the malleability of ideology: Motivated construals of color blindness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 857–869. doi:10.1037/a0013595
34.
LevyS. R.WestT. L.RamirezL. (2005). Lay theories and intergroup relations: A social-developmental perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 189–220. doi:10.1080/10463280500397234
35.
MasserB.PhillipsL. (2003) “What do other people think?” – The role of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay men. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 184–190. doi:10.1080/0004953042000298652
36.
MortonT. A.PostmesT.HaslamS. A.HornseyM. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664. doi:10.1037/a0012966
37.
ParrottD. J. (2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforcement: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77, 1137–1166. doi:10.1111/j.1467–6494.2009.00577.x
38.
PereiraA.MonteiroM. B.CaminoL. (2009). Social norms and prejudice against homosexuals. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 12, 576–584. doi:10.1017/S1138741600001943
39.
PhelanJ. C. (2005). Geneticization of deviant behavior and consequences for stigma: The case of mental illness. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46, 307–322. doi:10.1177/002214650504600401
40.
PilkingtonN. W.LydonJ. E. (1997). The relative effect of attitude similarity and attitude dissimilarity on interpersonal attraction: Investigating the moderating roles of prejudice and group membership. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 107–122. doi:10.1177/0146167297232001
41.
PiskurJ.DegelmanD. (1992). Effect of reading a summary of research about biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals. Psychological Reports, 71, 1219–1225. doi:10.2466/PR0.71.8.1219–1225
42.
PlaksJ. E.MalahyL. W.SedinsM.ShodaY. (2012). Folk beliefs about human genetic variation predict discrete versus continuous racial categorization and evaluative bias. Social Psychological and Personality, 3, 31–39. doi:10.1177/1948550611408118
43.
PlanteC. N.RobertsS. E.SniderJ. S.SchroyC.ReysenS.GerbasiK. (2015). “More than skin-deep”: Biological essentialism in response to a distinctiveness threat in a stigmatized fan community. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54, 359–370. doi:10.1111/bjso.12079
44.
RosenthalL.LevyS. R.MossI. (2011). Polyculturalism and openness about criticizing one’s culture: Implications for sexual prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 149–165. doi:10.1177/1368430211412801
45.
Sanchez-MazasM.RouxP.MugnyG. (1994). When the outgroup becomes ingroup and when the ingroup becomes outgroup: Xenophobia and social categorization in a resource allocation task. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 417–423. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240309
46.
SasakiS. J.VorauerJ. D. (2013). Ignoring versus exploring differences between groups: Effects of salient color-blindness and multiculturalism on intergroup attitudes and behavior. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 246–259. doi:10.1111/spc3.12021
47.
SherifM.SherifC. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York, NY: Harper.
48.
ShostakS.FreeseJ.LinkB. G.PhelanJ. C. (2009). The politics of the gene: Social status and beliefs about genetics for individual outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 77–93. doi:10.1177/019027250907200107
49.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
50.
StolerA. L. (1997). On political and psychological essentialisms. Ethos, 25, 101–106. doi:10.1525/eth.1997.25.1.101
51.
Streiff-FénartJ. (2012). A French dilemma: Anti-discrimination policies and minority claims in contemporary France. Comparative European Politics, 10, 283–300. doi:10.1057/cep.2012.14
52.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
53.
TalleyA. E.BettencourtA. B. (2008). Evaluations and aggression directed at a gay male target: The role of threat and antigay prejudice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 647–683. doi:10.1111/j.1559–1816.2007.00321.x
54.
TurnerJ. C.HoggM. A.OakesP. J.ReicherS. D.WetherellM. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Cambridge, UK: Basil Blackwell.
55.
TygartC. E. (2000). Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 259–275. doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.3.259
56.
VandelloJ. A.BossonJ. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 14, 101–113. doi:10.1037/a0029826
57.
VerkuytenM. (2003). Discourses about ethnic group (de-)essentialism: Oppressive and progressive aspects. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 371–391. doi:10.1348/014466603322438215
58.
VerkuytenM. (2006). Multicultural recognition and ethnic minority rights: A social identity perspective. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 148–184. doi:10.1080/10463280600937418
59.
WeinerB. (1995). Judgements of responsibility: Foundations for a theory of social conduct. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
60.
WhitleyB. E. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’ attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377. doi:10.1177/0146167290162016
61.
WhitleyB. E.Jr.(2002). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691–721. doi:10.1023/A:1015640318045
62.
WohlM. J. A.GiguèreB.BranscombeN. R.McVicarD. N. (2011). One day we might be no more: Collective angst and protective action from potential distinctiveness loss. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 289–300. doi:10.1002/ejsp.773
63.
WolskoC.ParkB.JuddC. M.WittenbrinkB. (2000). Framing interethnic ideology: Effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 635–654. doi:10.1037//0022–35I4.78.4.635
64.
YzerbytV.RocherS.SchadronG. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In SpearsR.OakesP. J.EllemersN.HaslamS. A. (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
