As demonstrated in past research, institutional sexual stigma negativly affects the well-being of nonheteronormative individuals. In this contribution we investigate the effects that heterosexist legal regulations exert on collective action of LGB (lesbian, gay, and bisexual) people. Building on different theoretical traditions, we propose a model linking institutional sexual stigma (a macrolevel phenomenon) to individual behaviour (a microlevel phenomenon). To verify our assumptions we use data from a cross-cultural study (N = 1,365) conducted in five East European countries (i.e., Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland) differing in the extent to which they grant full civil rights to sexual minorities. In line with our hypotheses we find that, by promoting internalized homophobia and subsequently undermining in-group identification, institutional sexual stigma suppresses collective action of LGB individuals. As weak LGB activism impedes social change towards more progressive legislation, a vicious circle is set in motion.
AllportG. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
2.
BarretoM.EllemersN. (2015). Detecting and experiencing prejudice: New answers to old questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 139–219. doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.02.001
3.
BergR. C.RossM. W.WeatherburnP.SchmidtA. J. (2013). Structural and environmental factors are associated with internalised homonegativity in men who have sex with men: Findings from the European MSM Internet Survey (EMIS) in 38 countries. Social Science & Medicine, 78, 61–69. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.11.033
4.
BettencourtB.CharltonK.DorrN.HumeD. L. (2001). Status differences and in-group bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520–542. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.127.4.520
5.
BilodeauB. L.RennK. A. (2005). Analysis of LGBT identity development models and implications for practice. New Directions for Student Services, 111, 25–39. doi:10.1002/ss.171
6.
BrandtM. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 765–785. doi:10.1037/a0031751
7.
BranscombeN. R.SchmittM. T.HarveyR. D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135–149. doi:10.1037/0022–3514.77.1.135
8.
BudziszewskaM.GórskaP. (2015). Hate no more. Qualitative study of trans- and homophobic hate crime victims. Unpublished research report.
9.
CameronJ. E. (2004). A three-factor model of social identity. Self and Identity, 3, 239–262. doi:10.1080/13576500444000047
10.
CorcoranK. E.PettinicchioD.YoungJ. T. (2011). The context of control: A cross-national investigation of the link between political institutions, efficacy, and collective action. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 575–605. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8309.2011.02076.x
11.
CrispR. J.StoneC. H.HallN. R. (2006). Recategorization and subgroup identification: Predicting and preventing threats from common ingroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 230–243. doi:10.1177/0146167205280908
12.
DuvoldK.AaliaI. (2012). Fear and loathing in Lithuania. Baltic Worlds, 2, 40–47.
13.
FrostD. M.MeyerI. H. (2009). Internalized homophobia and relationship quality among lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 97–109. doi:10.1037/a0012844
14.
GhaiR. (2011). Deciphering motive: Establishing sexual orientation as the one central reason for persecution in asylum claims. Columbia Human Rights Law Review, 43, 521–568.
15.
GórskaP.BilewiczM. (2015). When “a group in itself” becomes “a group for itself”: Overcoming inhibitory effects of superordinate categorization on LGBTQ individuals. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 554–575. doi:10.1111/josi.12128
16.
GórskaP.BilewiczM.WiniewskiM. H. (2016). Hate no more. Quantitative study of LGBTQI individuals. Unpublished research report.
17.
HatzenbuehlerM. L. (2010). Social factors as determinants of mental health disparities in LGB populations: Implications for public policy. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4, 31–62. doi:10.1111/j.1751–2409.2010.01017.x
18.
HatzenbuehlerM. L. (2014). Structural stigma and the health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 127–132. doi:10.1177/0963721414523775
19.
HatzenbuehlerM. L.McLaughlinK. A. (2014). Structural stigma and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenocortical axis reactivity in lesbian, gay, and bisexual young adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 47, 39–47. doi:10.1007/s12160–013–9556–9
20.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
HerekG. M. (2009). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual framework. In HopeD. A. (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 65–111). New York, NY: Springer.
22.
HerekG. M.GillisJ.CoganJ. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56, 32–43. doi:10.1037/a0014672
23.
HolzhackerR. (2012). National and transnational strategies of LGBT civil society organizations in different political environments: Modes of interaction in Western and Eastern Europe for equality. Comparative European Politics, 10, 23–47. doi:10.1057/cep.2010.21
24.
HoxJ. J. (2010). Multilevel analysis. Techniques and applications. Hove, UK: Routledge.
25.
InglehartR.WelzelC. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
JohnsonP. (2015). “Homosexual propaganda” laws in the Russian Federation: Are they in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights?Russian Law Journal, 3, 37–61. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2251005
29.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044–8309.1994.tb01008.x
30.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–919. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9221.2004.00402.x
31.
KuntzA.DavidovE.SchwartzS. H.SchmidtP. (2015). Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 120–134. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2068
32.
MaasC. J.HoxJ. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology, 1, 86–92. doi:10.1027/1614–2241.1.3.86
33.
MeyerD. S. (2004). Protest and political opportunities. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 125–145. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110545
34.
MeyerI. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 674–697. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.129.5.674
35.
MizielińskaJ. (2001). The rest is silence. . . Polish nationalism and the question of lesbian existence. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 8, 281–297. doi:10.1177/135050680100800302
36.
NewcombM. E.MustanskiB. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 1019–1029. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003
37.
NorrisP. (2002). Democratic phoenix: Reinventing political activism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38.
O’DwyerC.SchwartzK. Z. (2010). Minority rights after EU enlargement: A comparison of antigay politics in Poland and Latvia. Comparative European Politics, 8, 220–243. doi:10.1057/cep.2008.31
39.
PacilliM. G.TaurinoA.JostJ. T.van der ToornJ. (2011). System justification, right-wing conservatism, and internalized homophobia: Gay and lesbian attitudes toward same-sex parenting in Italy. Sex Roles, 65, 580–595. doi:10.1007/s11199–011–9969–5
PickettB. L. (2009). Historical dictionary of homosexuality. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
42.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56, 319–331. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.56.4.319
43.
SlootmaeckersK.TouquetH. (2016). The co-evolution of EU’s eastern enlargement and LGBT politics: An ever gayer union? In SlootmaeckersK.TouquetH.VermeerschP. (Eds.), The EU enlargement and gay politics. The impact of eastern enlargement on rights, activism and prejudice (pp. 19–44). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
44.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW. G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
45.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In WorchelS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.
Van ZomerenM. (2016). Building a Tower of Babel? Integrating core motivations and features of social structure into the political psychology of political action. Political Psychology, 37, 87–114. doi:10.1111/pops.12322
48.
Van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. doi:10.1037/0033–2909.134.4.504
49.
WeissM. L.BosiaM. J. (Eds.). (2013). Global homophobia: States, movements, and the politics of oppression. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
