Heterosexist system justification: Identity and ideology explain variability in sexual minorities’ opposition to homophobia and support for LGBTQ+ rights

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Journal of Social and Political Psychology Pub Date : 2023-12-22 DOI:10.5964/jspp.11515
M. Hoffarth, Usman Liaquat, John T. Jost
{"title":"Heterosexist system justification: Identity and ideology explain variability in sexual minorities’ opposition to homophobia and support for LGBTQ+ rights","authors":"M. Hoffarth, Usman Liaquat, John T. Jost","doi":"10.5964/jspp.11515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We hypothesized that because politically conservative ideology legitimizes the status quo—including heteronormative institutions and arrangements—it should be negatively associated with in-group identification, opposition to homophobia, and support for LGBTQ+ rights among sexual minorities. These hypotheses, which were derived from system justification theory, were assessed in large US samples of sexual minority respondents. In Study 1 (N = 4,530) and Study 2 (N = 1,107), we observed that more conservative sexual minorities expressed weaker sexual identification, and, relatedly, less support for same-sex marriage and adoption and other rights and privileges, as well as less participation in collective action in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. In Study 3 (N = 446), heterosexist system justification was associated with decreased sexual identification and support for LGBTQ+ rights. In all studies, identity and ideology accounted for unique variance in support for vs. opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. Implications for the politics of sexual identity and collective action among disadvantaged groups are discussed.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":"5 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.11515","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We hypothesized that because politically conservative ideology legitimizes the status quo—including heteronormative institutions and arrangements—it should be negatively associated with in-group identification, opposition to homophobia, and support for LGBTQ+ rights among sexual minorities. These hypotheses, which were derived from system justification theory, were assessed in large US samples of sexual minority respondents. In Study 1 (N = 4,530) and Study 2 (N = 1,107), we observed that more conservative sexual minorities expressed weaker sexual identification, and, relatedly, less support for same-sex marriage and adoption and other rights and privileges, as well as less participation in collective action in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. In Study 3 (N = 446), heterosexist system justification was associated with decreased sexual identification and support for LGBTQ+ rights. In all studies, identity and ideology accounted for unique variance in support for vs. opposition to LGBTQ+ rights. Implications for the politics of sexual identity and collective action among disadvantaged groups are discussed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
异性恋制度的合理性:身份和意识形态解释了性少数群体反对仇视同性恋和支持 LGBTQ+ 权利的差异
我们假设,由于政治保守的意识形态使现状--包括异性恋体制和安排--合法化,它应该与性少数群体的群体内认同、反对仇视同性恋以及支持 LGBTQ+ 权利负相关。这些假设源于系统合理性理论,并在美国性少数群体受访者的大型样本中进行了评估。在研究 1(样本数=4,530)和研究 2(样本数=1,107)中,我们观察到较为保守的性少数群体对性的认同感较弱,因此对同性婚姻、领养以及其他权利和特权的支持度较低,对支持 LGBTQ+ 权利的集体行动的参与度也较低。在研究 3(N = 446)中,异性恋制度的合理性与性认同和对 LGBTQ+ 权利支持的减少有关。在所有研究中,身份认同和意识形态是支持与反对 LGBTQ+ 权利的独特差异因素。本文讨论了性认同政治和弱势群体集体行动的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Journal of Social and Political Psychology Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
43
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social and Political Psychology (JSPP) is a peer-reviewed open-access journal (without author fees), published online. It publishes articles at the intersection of social and political psychology that substantially advance the understanding of social problems, their reduction, and the promotion of social justice. It also welcomes work that focuses on socio-political issues from related fields of psychology (e.g., peace psychology, community psychology, cultural psychology, environmental psychology, media psychology, economic psychology) and encourages submissions with interdisciplinary perspectives. JSPP is comprehensive and integrative in its approach. It publishes high-quality work from different epistemological, methodological, theoretical, and cultural perspectives and from different regions across the globe. It provides a forum for innovation, questioning of assumptions, and controversy and debate. JSPP aims to give creative impetuses for academic scholarship and for applications in education, policymaking, professional practice, and advocacy and social action. It intends to transcend the methodological and meta-theoretical divisions and paradigm clashes that characterize the field of social and political psychology, and to counterbalance the current overreliance on the hypothetico-deductive model of science, quantitative methodology, and individualistic explanations by also publishing work following alternative traditions (e.g., qualitative and mixed-methods research, participatory action research, critical psychology, social representations, narrative, and discursive approaches). Because it is published online, JSPP can avoid a bias against research that requires more space to be presented adequately.
期刊最新文献
Heterosexist system justification: Identity and ideology explain variability in sexual minorities’ opposition to homophobia and support for LGBTQ+ rights Predicting radicalism after perceived injustice: The role of separatist identity, sacred values, and police violence Gender inequality discourse as a tool to express attitudes towards Islam Colonial mechanisms for repudiating indigenous sovereignties in Australia: A Foucauldian-genealogical exploration of Australia day ‘Warming up’ to populist leaders: A comparative analysis of Argentina and Spain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1