Social constructionist beliefs posit that sociocultural forces shape power-stratified social categories, whereas essentialist beliefs posit that social categories are defined by an immutable, natural essence shared by category members. Across three studies, we developed and validated the Social Constructionist and Essentialist Beliefs Scale (SCEBS) to assess the latent structure of ontological beliefs about two social categories: gender and race. In Study 1 (N = 598), we found a three-factor structure for SCEBS-Gender and SCEBS-Race, consisting of Social Constructionism, Essentialism, and Realism. In Study 2a (N = 300), we examined factor structure stability and criterion-related validity. We found incremental validity of SCEBS, and social constructionist beliefs particularly, for predicting modern sexism and symbolic racism beyond extant, essentialism-focused measures. In Study 2b (N = 218), we established 4-week test–retest reliability of SCEBS. Our research demonstrates the value of assessing both social constructionist and essentialist beliefs in the study of prejudice.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.
2.
ArseneauJ. R.GrzankaP. R.MilesJ. R.FassingerR. E. (2013). Development and initial validation of the Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale (SOBS). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60, 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032799
3.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003
4.
BergerP. L.LuckmannT. (1966). The social construction of reality. Doubleday.
5.
BhaskarR. (2008). A realist theory of science. Routledge.
6.
BrescollV. L.UhlmannE. L.NewmanG. E. (2013). The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 891–908. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034701
7.
BurrV. (2006). An introduction to social constructionism (1st ed.). Routledge.
8.
CeliousA.OysermanD. (2001). Race from the inside: An emerging heterogeneous race model. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00206
9.
ChaoM. M.HongY.ChiuC. (2013). Essentializing race: Its implications on racial categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 619–634. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031332
10.
CliffordS.JewellR. M.WaggonerP. D. (2015). Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology?Research & Politics. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168015622072
11.
ColeE. R.JayaratneT. E.CecchiL. A.FeldbaumM.PettyE. M. (2007). Vive la difference? Genetic explanations for perceived gender differences in nurturance. Sex Roles, 57, 211–222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9248-7
12.
CostelloA. B.OsborneJ. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.
13.
DeLamaterJ. D.HydeJ. S. (1998). Essentialism vs. social constructionism in the study of human sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 10–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499809551913
14.
DemerittD. (2002). What is the “social construction of nature”? A typology and sympathetic critique. Progress in Human Geography, 26, 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1191/0309132502ph402oa
15.
DeVellisR. F. (2016). Scale development: Theory and applications. SAGE Publications.
16.
FestingerL. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
17.
FoucaultM. (1978). The history of sexuality, Volume 1: An introduction (HurleyR., Trans.). Vintage Books.
18.
GelmanS. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford University Press.
19.
GergenK. (2015). An invitation to social construction (3rd ed.). SAGE.
20.
GergenK. (2019). Constructionism vs. essentialism. In RyanJ. M. (Ed.), Core concepts in sociology (pp. 43–45). John Wiley & Sons.
21.
GrzankaP. R.ZeidersK. H.MilesJ. R. (2016). Beyond “born this way?” Reconsidering sexual orientation beliefs and attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63, 67–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000124
22.
HartC. M.RitchieT. D.HepperE. G.GebauerJ. E. (2015). The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding short form (BIDR-16). SAGE Open. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113
23.
HaslamN.LevyS. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205276516
24.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466600164363
25.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice?British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602165072
26.
HegartyP. (2010). A stone in the soup? Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology. Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419891003634356
27.
HegartyP.PrattoF. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–135. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v41n01_04
HoA. K.RobertsS. O.GelmanS. A. (2015). Essentialism and racial bias jointly contribute to the categorization of multiracial individuals. Psychological Science, 26, 1639–1645. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615596436
30.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
31.
HydeJ. S.BiglerR. S.JoelD.TateC. C.van AndersS. M. (2019). The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. American Psychologist, 74, 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307
32.
JayaratneT. E.GelmanS. A.FeldbaumM.SheldonJ. P.PettyE. M.KardiaS. L. R. (2009). The perennial debate: Nature, nurture, or choice? Black and White Americans’ explanations for individual differences. Review of General Psychology, 13, 24–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014227
33.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430206059863
34.
KalishC. W. (2002). Essentialist to some degree: Beliefs about the structure of natural kind categories. Memory & Cognition, 30, 340–352. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194935
35.
KlineR. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Publications.
36.
KoenigA. M.RichesonJ. A. (2010). The contextual endorsement of sexblind versus sexaware ideologies. Social Psychology, 41, 186–191. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000026
37.
LeeK. Y.ReisH. T.RoggeR. D. (2020). Seeing the world in pink and blue: Developing and exploring a new measure of essentialistic thinking about gender. Sex Roles, 83, 685–705. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01141-1
38.
LitmanL.RobinsonJ.AbberbockT. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49, 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
39.
MahalingamR. (2007). Essentialism, power, and the representation of social categories: A folk sociology perspective. Human Development, 50, 300–319. https://doi.org/10.1159/000109832
40.
MedinD.OrtonyA. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In VosniadouS.OrtonyA. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). Cambridge University Press.
41.
MeyerM.GelmanS.A.HoA.K. (2014). Essentialism scale [unpublished raw data].
42.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012966
43.
NoS.HongY.LiaoH.-Y.LeeK.WoodD.ChaoM. M. (2008). Lay theory of race affects and moderates Asian Americans’ responses toward American culture. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 991–1004. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012978
O’ConnorB. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396–402. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200807
46.
PaulhusD. L. (1991). Measurement of control and response bias. In RobinsonJ. P.ShaverP. R.WrightsmanL. S. (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17–59). Academic Press.
47.
PolitD. F. (2014). Getting serious about test–retest reliability: A critique of retest research and some recommendations. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1713–1720. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0632-9
RangelU.KellerJ. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056–1078. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022401
50.
RhodesM.GelmanS. A. (2009). A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cognitive Psychology, 59, 244–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.05.001
51.
RosenthalL.LevyS. R. (2012). The relation between polyculturalism and intergroup attitudes among racially and ethnically diverse adults. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 18, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026490
52.
RosenthalL.LevyS. R.MilitanoM. (2014). Polyculturalism and sexist attitudes: Believing cultures are dynamic relates to lower sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 519–534. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684313510152
53.
RosenthalL.LevyS. R.MossI. (2012). Polyculturalism and openness about criticizing one’s culture: Implications for sexual prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 149–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211412801
54.
RothbartM.TaylorM. (1992). Category labels and social reality: Do we view social categories as natural kinds? In G.R. Semin & K. Fiedler (Eds.), Language, interaction and social cognition (pp. 11–36). SAGE Publications.
55.
RyanC. S.HuntJ. S.WeibleJ. A.PetersonC. R.CasasJ. F. (2007). Multicultural and colorblind ideology, stereotypes, and ethnocentrism among Black and White Americans. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 617–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207084105
56.
RyazanovA. A.ChristenfeldN. J. S. (2018). The strategic value of essentialism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12, Article e12370. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12370
57.
SakalukJ. K.ShortS. D. (2017). A methodological review of exploratory factor analysis in sexuality research: Used practices, best practices, and data analysis resources. The Journal of Sex Research, 54, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2015.1137538
58.
Schermelleh-EngelK.MoosbruggerH.MüllerH. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research, 8, 23–74.
59.
SchudsonZ. C.van AndersS. M. (2021). Gender/sex diversity beliefs: Scale construction, validation, and links to prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220987595
60.
ShihM.BonamC.SanchezD.PeckC. (2007). The social construction of race: Biracial identity and vulnerability to stereotypes. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.13.2.125
61.
SkewesL.FineC.HaslamN. (2018). Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS ONE, 13, Article e0200921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0200921
SpivakG. C. (1996). The Spivak reader (LandryD.MacleanG., Eds.). Routledge.
64.
SwannW. B. (2011). Self-verification theory. In van LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 2) (pp. 23–42). SAGE.
65.
SwimJ. K.AikinK. J.HallW. S.HunterB. A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
66.
TabachnickB. G.FidellL. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Ed). Pearson.
67.
TawaJ. (2016). Belief in race as biological: Early life influences, intergroup outcomes, and the process of “unlearning.”Race and Social Problems, 8, 244–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-016-9176-7
68.
TawaJ. (2017). The Beliefs About Race Scale (BARS): Dimensions of racial essentialism and their psychometric properties. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 23, 516–526. https://doi.org/10.1037/cdp0000151
69.
TawaJ. (2018). Dimensions of racial essentialism and racial nominalism: A mixed-methods study of beliefs about race. Race and Social Problems, 10, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-018-9228-2
70.
TawaJ. (2020). Does social constructionist curricula both decrease essentialist and increase nominalist beliefs about race?Science & Education, 29, 1513–1540. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11191-020-00125-7
71.
TawaJ.MontoyaA. K. (2019). Construals of self and group: How racial nominalism can promote adaptive intergroup outcomes for interdependent selves. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 1002–1020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218784652
72.
TerweeC. B.MokkinkL. B.KnolD. L.OsteloR. W. J. G.BouterL. M.de VetH. C. W. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: A scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21, 651–657. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1
73.
TierneyD.SpenglerE. S.SchuchE.GrzankaP. R. (2021). Sexual orientation beliefs and identity development: A person-centered analysis among sexual minorities. The Journal of Sex Research, 58, 625–637. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2021.1878344
74.
Van AndersS. M. (2015). Beyond sexual orientation: Integrating gender/sex and diverse sexualities via sexual configurations theory. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44, 1177–1213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-015-0490-8
75.
Van AndersS. M.SchudsonZ. C.AbedE. C.BeischelW. J.DibbleE. R.GuntherO. D.KutchkoV. J.SilverE. R. (2017). Biological sex, gender, and public policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 4, 194–201. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732217720700
76.
VasilyevaN.GopnikA.LombrozoT. (2018). The development of structural thinking about social categories. Developmental Psychology, 54, 1735–1744. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000555
77.
Watson-JonesR. E.BuschJ. T. A.LegareC. H. (2015). Interdisciplinary and cross-cultural perspectives on explanatory coexistence. Topics in Cognitive Science, 7, 611–623. https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12162
78.
WaxmanS.MedinD.RossN. (2007). Folkbiological reasoning from a cross-cultural developmental perspective: Early essentialist notions are shaped by cultural beliefs. Developmental Psychology, 43, 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.2.294
WestS. G.TaylorA. B.WuW. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR.H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–231). Guilford.
82.
WilliamsM. J.EberhardtJ. L. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033
83.
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). Blackwell Publishing.
Supplementary Material
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.
