Essentialism—the belief that differences between groups of people are biologically based and unchangeable—is strongly associated with prejudice toward a variety of social groups. The present work examines how gender essentialism shapes support for the rights of two marginalized gender groups: women and transgender people. Study 1 provides correlational evidence that endorsement of gender essentialism is a robust predictor of people’s opposition to both women’s and transgender people’s rights, over and above other individual difference measures. Studies 2 and 3 provide evidence that exposure to anti-essentialist messages about gender indirectly increases the support for women’s and transgender people’s rights. Study 4 examines the underlying psychological process, showing that gender essentialism reduction indirectly increases the support for women’s and transgender people’s rights through prejudice. Implications for research on lay theories and transgender people are discussed.
BastianB.HaslamN. (2006). Psychological essentialism and stereotype endorsement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 228–235. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.03.003
2.
BrescollV.LaFranceM. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x
3.
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. doi:10.1037/a0034701
4.
ChenJ. M.RatliffK. A. (2018). Psychological essentialism predicts intergroup bias. Social Cognition, 36, 301–323. doi:10.1521/soco.2018.36.3.301
5.
ChingB. H. H.XuJ. T. (2018). The effects of gender neuroessentialism on transprejudice: An experimental study. Sex Roles, 78, 228–241. doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0786-3
6.
ColemanJ. M.HongY. Y. (2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self and Identity, 7, 34–53. doi:10.1080/15298860600980185
7.
DavidsonM. R. (2014). Development and validation of the transgender prejudice scale (Unpublished master's thesis).
8.
DonnellyK.TwengeJ. M.ClarkM. A.ShaikhS. K.Beiler-MayA.CarterN. T. (2016). Attitudes toward women’s work and family roles in the United States, 1976–2013. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40, 41–54. doi:10.1177/0361684315590774
9.
FassingerR. E.ArseneauJ. R. (2007). “I’d rather get wet than be under that umbrella”: Differentiating the experiences and identities of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people. In BieschkeK. J.PerezR. M.DeBordK. A. (Eds.), Handbook of counseling and psychotherapy with lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender clients (2nd ed., pp. 19–49). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11482-001
FloresA. R. (2015). Attitudes toward transgender rights: Perceived knowledge and secondary interpersonal contact. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3, 398–416. doi:10.1080/21565503.2015.1050414
12.
GelmanS. A. (2004). Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 404–409. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.07.001
13.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justification for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.56.2.109
14.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.…LópezW. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763–775. doi:10.10J7/10022-JS I4.79.5.763
15.
HahnA.BanchefskyS.ParkB.JuddC. M. (2015). Measuring intergroup ideologies: Positive and negative aspects of emphasizing versus looking beyond group differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1646–1664. doi:10.1177/0146167215607351
16.
HaslamN.LevyS. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi:10.1177/0146167205276516
17.
HaslamN.RothschildL.ErnstD. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. doi:10.1348/014466600164363
18.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
19.
JamesS. E.HermanJ. L.RankinS.KeislingM.MottetL.AnafiM. (2016). The report of the 2015 U.S. transgender survey. Washington, DC.
20.
KeesJ.BerryC.BurtonS.SheehanK. (2017). An analysis of data quality: Professional panels, student subject pools, and amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Journal of Advertising, 46, 141–155. doi:10.1080/00913367.2016.1269304
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1, 173. doi:10.1023/A:1026595011371
23.
MandalaywalaT. M.AmodioD. M.RhodesM. (2017). Essentialism promotes racial prejudice by increasing endorsement of social hierarchies. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 461–469. doi:10.1177/1948550617707020
24.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1982). Self-concept and the stability of personality: Cross-sectional comparisons of self-reports and ratings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 1282. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1282
25.
MedinD. L.OrtonyA. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In VosniadouS.OrtonyA. (Eds.), Similarity and analogical learning (pp. 179–195). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ CBO9780511529863.009
26.
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
27.
NagoshiJ. L.AdamsK. A.TerrellH. K.HillE. D.BrzuzyS.NagoshiC. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
28.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
29.
RattanA.DweckC. S. (2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21, 952–959. doi:10.1177/0956797610374740
30.
RobertsS. O.HoA. K.RhodesM.GelmanS. A. (2017). Making boundaries great again: Essentialism and support for boundary-enhancing initiatives. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43, 1643–1658. doi:10.1177/0146167217724801
31.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
32.
TeeN.HegartyP. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 70–80. doi:10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
33.
WestfallJ.YarkoniT. (2016). Statistically controlling for confounding constructs is harder than you think. PLoS ONE, 11, 1–22. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0152719
34.
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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033
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.
