Understanding the complex manifestations of sexual stigma is crucial in helping to prevent discrimination toward sexual minorities. In this research, we examined the role of heterosexism within political ideology systems and the process through which these systems promote discrimination by focusing on sexual prejudice. Across four studies, we tested the predictions that more conservative political ideologies and greater levels of sexual prejudice will be associated with more negative evaluations of an applicant with a sexual stigma, and that prejudice will mediate the link between ideology and evaluation. We employed an experimental paradigm such that participants were presented nearly identical information in an intern applicant evaluation context, however, cues to sexual stigma were either present or absent. Overall, conservative ideology negatively predicted evaluation in the stigma, but not the control, condition and greater levels of sexual prejudice more strongly negatively predicted evaluations in the stigma, relative to control, condition. Finally, whereas ideology indirectly predicted candidate evaluation through prejudice generally, the effect was stronger for the applicant with the sexual stigma. This research extends the scholarship linking ideology to sexual stigma by examining employment discrimination and testing the mediating role of prejudice linking ideology to discrimination. By examining the role of ideology, it also broadens the research on bias in employment contexts. Understanding the role of both political ideology as well as individual sexual prejudice in discrimination may facilitate efforts to dismantle discrimination.
Understanding the complex manifestations of and contributions to sexual stigma is crucial in helping to prevent discrimination, harassment, and violence toward sexual minorities. In recent years, there has been a rapid and dramatic shift in policies and public opinion regarding sexual minorities in the United States (
When people possess characteristics that might lead others to consider them deviant, limited, or otherwise undesirable, they are said to carry a stigma.
At the individual level, sexual minorities are often the target of negative stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination. According to
Beyond individuals, sexual stigma also manifests in institutions, such as religious institutions and the law, and structural systems including ideological systems. The sexual stigma embedded within society’s institutions and structures is termed heterosexism (
Political ideology plays an important role in guiding people’s responses to and justifications of social and political matters. Ideology encompasses both attributional processes and belief systems that can promote the justification of stigma. Conservatives are more likely than liberals to justify the way things are, to believe that existing social, economic, and political arrangements are fair and legitimate, and to accept inequality (
Although both liberals and conservatives have been shown to demonstrate prejudice and discrimination (
Discrimination against sexual minorities and the associated claims of moral righteousness has decreased in the United States (
In this work, we aim to extend the literature in important ways. Whereas extant work looking at the link between political ideology and sexual stigma has focused on the association between conservatism and both prejudicial and policy attitudes (
In this research, we examine the role of political conservatism and sexual prejudice in predicting discriminatory evaluations of applicants that are presented with a sexual stigma or not. We test our predictions by employing a modified
The conceptual second stage and direct effect moderated mediational model. (Process Model 15)
We recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (
Participants were asked to imagine that they are a staff member of a Division 1 university football program tasked with evaluating applications for an internship position (all intern evaluation materials can be found in
Using a 7-point scale (
Using 7-point scales, participants evaluated the applicants using a 10-item measure assessing the applicants in terms of their competence, hireability, fit, and willingness to mentor the applicant. Sample items included “How likely is it that the applicant has the necessary skills for this job?” and “How likely would you be to invite the applicant to interview for the player operations internship?” (see
We assessed participants’ heterosexism with two scales: the 5-item Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale (
Participants were asked to indicate which organization the applicant volunteered for: Play 60, Campus Pride’s Out to Play, or Upward Sports. Additionally, they were asked to identify the applicant’s sexual orientation: Gay, Straight, or I don’t know.
Attention check. Participants were asked to give a particular response (e.g., “Please respond strongly agree”) at two points during the survey.
Twenty-seven participants either failed the manipulation check by failing to correctly identify whether the applicant volunteered for Out to Play or Play 60 (
Dependent Variable | 1 | 2 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Study 1 | ||||
1. Political ideology | 3.34 | 1.60 | ||
2. Applicant evaluation | 6.09 | .87 | -.25*** | |
3. Sexual prejudice | 1.93 | 1.18 | .51*** | -.37*** |
Study 2 | ||||
1. Political ideology | 3.17 | 1.63 | ||
2. Applicant evaluation | 5.76 | 1.07 | -.25*** | |
3. Sexual prejudice | 2.02 | 1.24 | .50** | -.40*** |
Study 3 | ||||
1. Political ideology | 3.37 | 1.61 | ||
2. Applicant evaluation | 6.02 | .83 | -.17* | |
3. Sexual prejudice | 1.97 | 1.20 | .58*** | -.39*** |
Study 4 | ||||
1. Political ideology | 3.60 | 1.71 | ||
2. Applicant evaluation | 5.74 | 1.11 | -.23*** | |
3. Sexual prejudice | 2.68 | 1.68 | .55*** | -.41*** |
*
We conducted our analyses using
Study 1: Applicant evaluation as a function of political ideology and sexual stigma condition.
We conducted a similar analysis to test the hypothesis that sexual prejudice will moderate the relationship between sexual stigma and applicant evaluation; We employed Model 1, mean centering the variables and regressing applicant evaluation on sexual prejudice, sexual stigma, and their interaction (1 = Stigma, -1 = Control). First, although prejudice significantly predicted applicant evaluation [
Study 1: Applicant evaluation as a function of sexual prejudice and sexual stigma condition.
Next, we tested the proposed second stage and direct effect moderated mediational model; this model allows the effect of the mediator, prejudice, on the outcome, applicant evaluation, to be moderated by cues to sexual stigma and includes the moderation of condition on the direct effect of ideology on evaluation (PROCESS Model 15,
Finally, we conducted exploratory analyses examining a second stage moderated mediational analyses that does not control for the moderated direct effect (Process Model 14; see
Interestingly, the majority of participants in the stigma (95%) and control (93%) conditions responded
The second stage moderated mediational model without the moderated direct effect. (Process Model 14).
Factor | Study 1 |
Study 2 |
Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideology—Prejudice | UD | .37 | < .001 | .38 | < .001 | .43 | < .001 |
TD | .09 | < .001 | .08 | < .001 | .09 | < .001 | |
Prejudice—Evaluation | UD | -.22 | < .001 | -.28 | < .001 | -.31 | < .001 |
TD | .36 | .006 | .54 | < .001 | .65 | .002 | |
Ideology—Evaluation | UD | -.05 | .281 | -.06 | .227 | .06 | .146 |
TD | .03 | .144 | .02 | .462 | -.03 | .164 | |
Condition—Evaluation | UD | .01 | .867 | -.29 | < .001 | -.20 | < .001 |
TD | -.02 | .487 | .12 | < .001 | .08 | .003 | |
PrejudicexCond—Evaluation | UD | -.07 | .251 | -.19 | .006 | -.13 | .029 |
TD | .09 | .498 | .14 | .330 | .13 | .279 | |
IdeologyxCond—Evaluation | UD | -.07 | .148 | -.08 | .169 | -.02 | .721 |
TD | .03 | .183 | .04 | .069 | .02 | .383 | |
Conditional Direct effects | |||||||
Stigma condition | UD | -.11 | .064 | -.15 | .098 | .05 | .471 |
TD | .06 | .039 | .07 | .089 | -.01 | .774 | |
Control condition | UD | .03 | .712 | -.00 | .970 | .08 | .194 |
TD | -.00 | .965 | -.02 | .475 | -.04 | .113 | |
Conditional Indirect effects | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
Stigma condition | UD | -.11 | [-.23, -.02] | -.19 | [-.29, -.11] | -.19 | [-.32, -.10] |
TD | .04 | [.00, .08] | .06 | [.03, .09] | .07 | [.04, .12] | |
Control Condition | UD | -.05 | [-.12, .01] | -.05 | [-.14, .02] | -.08 | [-.14, -.02] |
TD | .02 | [-.01, .07] | .03 | [.00, .07] | .05 | [.02, .08] | |
Index of Moderated Mediation | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
UD | -.06 | [-.18, .05] | -.14 | [-.27, -.04] | -.11 | [-.24, -.00] | |
TD | .02 | [-.03, .07] | .02 | [-.02, .07] | .02 | [-.02, .07] |
Factor | Study 1 |
Study 2 |
Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideology—Prejudice | UD | .37 | < .001 | .18 | < .001 | .44 | < .001 |
TD | .09 | < .001 | .08 | < .001 | .09 | < .001 | |
Prejudice—Evaluation | UD | -.21 | < .001 | -.29 | < .001 | -.30 | < .001 |
TD | .35 | .007 | .59 | < .001 | .65 | < .001 | |
Ideology—Evaluation | UD | -.06 | .223 | -.05 | .357 | .06 | .149 |
TD | .03 | .115 | .01 | .764 | -.03 | .176 | |
Condition—Evaluation | UD | .01 | .843 | -.29 | < .001 | -.20 | < .001 |
TD | -.02 | .465 | .12 | < .001 | .08 | .003 | |
PrejudicexCond—Evaluation | UD | -.12 | .029 | -.24 | < .001 | -.14 | .003 |
TD | .19 | .091 | .29 | .018 | .19 | .058 | |
Ideology—Evaluation (Direct effect) | UD | -.06 | .223 | -.05 | .357 | .06 | .149 |
TD | .03 | .115 | .01 | .764 | -.03 | .176 | |
Conditional Indirect effects | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
Stigma Condition | UD | -.12 | [-.23, -.03] | -.22 | [-.32, -.14] | -.20 | [-.32, -.11] |
TD | .05 | [.02, .09] | .07 | [.05, .11] | .08 | [.05, .12] | |
Control Condition | UD | -.03 | [-.08, .03] | -.04 | [-.12, .03] | .08 | [-.14, -.02] |
TD | .01 | [-.02, .04] | .03 | [-.00, .06] | .04 | [.02, .07] | |
Index of Moderated Mediation | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
UD | -.09 | [-.20, -.00] | -.18 | [-.30, -.08] | -.12 | [-.25, -.02] | |
TD | .03 | [-.01, .08] | .05 | [.01, .09] | .04 | [.00, .08] |
Study 1 provided initial support for the predictions that those who score relatively higher (vs. lower) on conservative political ideology will more negatively evaluate the applicant with sexual stigma and that those who score relatively higher (vs. lower) on sexual prejudice will more negatively evaluate the applicant with sexual stigma. It also provided limited initial support for the mediation predictions. With Model 15, although the indirect effect was significant in the stigma condition and not significant in the control condition, the confidence interval of the index of moderated mediation encompassed zero. Similar results were found with Model 14, although the index was significant with the untransformed data. In Study 2, we sought to again test our hypotheses using a different signal of sexual stigma. In addition to volunteering for an LGBTQ program, the applicant self-identifies as a gay athlete.
Once again, we recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to voluntarily participate in a study examining evaluations of athletic internship applicants. One hundred eighty-two participants completed the studyv with 17 participants failing the attention checks and/or the manipulation check leaving a final sample size of 165 (50.3% female; 49.1% male; 0.6% other gender; median age = 31; 78.2% White; 6.7% African American; 9.1% Asian American; 5.5% Latino/a; and 0.6% other).
The procedure for this study was similar to Study 1. This time, however, resumes were not shown and the cover letters differed from Study 1 in that they included information about prior work experience, volunteer experience, and education (see
Ten participants failed the manipulation check by either not identifying the applicant in the stigma condition as gay (
Once again, to test the hypothesis that sexual stigma condition will moderate the relationship between political ideology and applicant evaluation, we used Hayes’ PROCESS macro Model 1 with mean centered variables, regressing applicant evaluation on political ideologies, sexual stigma, and their interaction (1 = Stigma, -1 = Control). First, both political ideology [
Study 2: Applicant evaluation as a function of political ideology and sexual stigma condition.
Next, we tested the hypothesis that sexual prejudice will moderate the relationship between sexual stigma and applicant evaluation. First, both prejudice [
Study 2: Applicant evaluation as a function of sexual prejudice and sexual stigma condition.
Next, we tested the proposed moderated mediational model with Process Model 15. When results from the transformed and untransformed data differ, we interpret the most conservative, relative to our predictions, result (see
As in Study 1, we then explored the second stage moderated mediational analyses that does not control for the moderated direct effect (Process Model 14; see
The results from Study 2 provide additional support for our predictions that those who score higher (vs. lower) on conservative political ideology and sexual prejudice more negatively evaluate the applicant with sexual stigma. It also provided support for the second stage moderated mediation model (
We recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk to voluntarily participate in a study examining evaluations of athletic internship applicants. One hundred eighty-three participants completed the studyvii with 14 participants failing the attention checks and/or the manipulation check leaving a final sample size of 169 (53.8% female; 45.6% male; 0.6% other gender; median age = 32; 74.6% White; 5.3% African American; 1.2% Native American; 9.5% Asian American; 8.9% Latino/a; and 0.6% other).
The procedure for this study was the same as Study 2. However, this time both of the cover letters described the applicant as having volunteered for Play 60. Thus, in this study the only signal to sexual stigma was the applicant’s self-identification of being gay (gay athlete) or not (student athlete). After reading the cover letter, participants once again responded to the manipulation check as well as the measures of applicant evaluation (α = .92), sexual prejudice (α = .97), and political ideology (α = .91).
Seven participants failed the manipulation check by either not identifying the applicant in the stigma condition as gay (
Using
Study 3: Applicant evaluation as a function of political ideology and sexual stigma condition.
Next, Using
Study 3: Applicant evaluation as a function of sexual prejudice and sexual stigma condition.
Next, we tested the proposed second stage and direct effect moderated mediational model with Process Model 15 (see
In this final study, we sought to replicate the past three studies by manipulating the nature of the signaling across the first three studies in a single study: volunteering for an LGBTQ program, self-identifying as a gay athlete, or both.
Once again, we recruited participants from Amazon’s Mechanical Turk; three hundred ninety-one participants completed the studyix with 57 participants failing the attention checks and/or the manipulation check leaving a final sample size of 334 (53.3% female; 46.7% male; median age = 35.5; 77.8% White; 8.7% African American; 0.9% Native American; 7.5% Asian American; 3.3% Latino/a; and 1.8% other).
The procedure for this study was similar to that of Studies 1-3. Participants were instructed to imagine that they were evaluating applicants for a Division I College Football Operations Intern position. After reading a position description, participants read one of four cover letters from an applicant. These cover letters were identical in every way except for whether the applicant self-identified as gay or not, and whether they volunteered for the LGBTQ organization or the neutral organization. We fully crossed self-identification of sexual stigma (identification stigma, IS) or not (identification control, IC) with volunteer work with stigma-related organization (volunteer stigma, VS) or not (volunteer control, VC). After reading the cover letter, participants answered the same manipulation check questions, applicant evaluation (α = .94), sexual prejudice (α = .96), and political ideology (α = .94) measures used in Studies 1-3.
Forty-four participants failed the manipulation check by either not identifying the self-identified gay applicant as gay (
First, we sought to replicate the conditions tested in the previous studies. We conducted similar analyses comparing the conditions akin to those tested in the first three studies. Results are reported in
Factor | Replicating Study 1 |
Replicating Study 2 |
Replicating Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Political Ideology | UD | -.08 | .070 | -.11 | .024 | -.13 | .010 |
TD | .03 | .075 | .04 | .033 | .05 | .019 | |
Condition | UD | -.04 | .550 | -.19 | .018 | -.14 | .106 |
TD | .00 | .903 | .07 | .031 | .03 | .393 | |
Interaction | UD | -.07 | .119 | -.10 | .039 | -.12 | .017 |
TD | .03 | .088 | .04 | .033 | .05 | .019 | |
Conditional effects | |||||||
Stigma Condition | UD | -.14 | .022 | -.20 | .003 | -.24 | < .001 |
TD | .06 | .012 | .08 | .004 | .09 | < .001 | |
Control Condition | UD | -.01 | .936 | -.01 | .939 | -.01 | .945 |
TD | -.00 | .948 | -.00 | .946 | -.00 | .951 | |
Liberal Participants | UD | .07 | .494 | -.02 | .830 | .07 | .579 |
TD | -.05 | .259 | .00 | .988 | -.05 | .282 | |
Cons. Participants | UD | -.16 | .129 | -.36 | .002 | -.35 | .005 |
TD | .06 | .197 | .14 | .003 | .11 | .024 |
Factor | Replicating Study 1 |
Replicating Study 2 |
Replicating Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Political Ideology | UD | -.38 | < .001 | -.36 | < .001 | -.45 | < .001 |
TD | .74 | < .001 | .58 | < .001 | .71 | .008 | |
Condition | UD | -.03 | .601 | -.34 | .021 | -.15 | .055 |
TD | -.00 | .977 | .13 | .033 | .04 | .247 | |
Interaction | UD | -.15 | .008 | -.28 | .028 | -.22 | < .001 |
TD | .32 | .003 | .36 | .112 | .31 | .013 | |
Conditional effects | |||||||
Stigma Condition | UD | -.51 | < .001 | -.50 | < .001 | -.66 | < .001 |
TD | 1.02 | < .001 | .75 | < .001 | 1.00 | < .001 | |
Control Condition | UD | -.22 | .011 | -.22 | .022 | -.22 | .026 |
TD | .39 | .015 | .39 | .020 | .39 | .029 | |
Low Prej Participants | UD | .13 | .141 | -.02 | .936 | .09 | .364 |
TD | -.08 | .033 | .03 | .700 | -.04 | .337 | |
High Prej Participants | UD | -.20 | .027 | -.67 | .002 | -.41 | < .001 |
TD | .08 | .039 | .23 | .009 | .12 | .010 |
Testing the hypothesis that sexual stigma condition will moderate the relationship between political ideology and applicant evaluation, two of the three comparisons revealed significant interactions (see
Study 4: Applicant evaluation as a function of political ideology and stigma condition comparing conditions to replicate Study 1 (top; stigma from volunteer work vs. control), Study 2 (middle; stigma from both volunteer work and self-identification vs. control), and Study 3 (bottom; stigma from self-identification vs. control).
Next, testing the hypothesis that sexual stigma condition will moderate the relationship between prejudice and applicant evaluation, two of the three comparisons revealed significant interactions (see
Study 4: Applicant evaluation as a function of prejudice and stigma condition comparing conditions to replicate Study 1 (top; stigma from volunteer work vs. control), Study 2 (middle; stigma from both volunteer work and self-identification vs. control), and Study 3 (bottom; stigma from self-identification vs. control).
Next, we tested the proposed second stage and direct effect moderated mediational model with Process Model 15 (see
Finally, we examined the second stage moderated mediational analyses that does not control for the moderated direct effect (Process Model 14; see
Factor | Replicating Study 1 |
Replicating Study 2 |
Replicating Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideology—Prejudice | UD | .33 | < .001 | .35 | < .001 | .35 | < .001 |
TD | .07 | <.001 | .08 | < .001 | .08 | < .001 | |
Prejudice—Evaluation | UD | -.42 | < .001 | -.39 | < .001 | -.49 | < .001 |
TD | .81 | < .001 | .61 | < .001 | .74 | < .001 | |
Ideology—Evaluation | UD | .06 | .194 | .03 | .488 | .05 | .303 |
TD | -.02 | .273 | -.01 | .629 | -.01 | .595 | |
Condition—Evaluation | UD | -.04 | .546 | -.17 | .019 | -.15 | .053 |
TD | .00 | .966 | .07 | .030 | .04 | .239 | |
PrejudicexCond—Evaluation | UD | -.12 | .062 | -.10 | .193 | -.19 | .011 |
TD | .26 | .029 | .09 | .494 | .22 | .128 | |
IdeologyxCond—Evaluation | UD | -.03 | .476 | -.05 | .279 | -.04 | .447 |
TD | .02 | .376 | .03 | .179 | .03 | .211 | |
Conditional Direct effects | |||||||
Stigma condition | UD | .03 | .632 | -.02 | .811 | .02 | .829 |
TD | -.01 | .828 | .02 | .579 | .01 | .630 | |
Control condition | UD | .09 | .152 | .09 | .195 | .09 | .209 |
TD | -.04 | .153 | -.04 | .172 | -.04 | .200 | |
Conditional Indirect effects | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
Stigma condition | UD | -.17 | [-.27, -.10] | -.17 | [-.28, -.00] | -.24 | [-.38, -.12] |
TD | .07 | [.04, .11] | .06 | [.02, .10] | .07 | [.03, .12] | |
Control Condition | UD | -.09 | [-.18, .03] | -.10 | [-.19, -.04] | -.10 | [-.19, -.04] |
TD | .04 | [.01, .06] | .04 | [.02, .07] | .04 | [.01, .07] | |
Index of Moderated Mediation | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
UD | -.08 | [-.19, .01] | -.07 | [-.20, .05] | -.14 | [-.29, -.02] | |
TD | .02 | [.01, .08] | .01 | [-.03, .06] | .03 | [-.01, .08] |
Factor | Replicating Study 1 |
Replicating Study 2 |
Replicating Study 3 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ideology—Prejudice | UD | .33 | < .001 | .35 | < .001 | .35 | < .001 |
TD | .07 | <.001 | .08 | < .001 | .08 | < .001 | |
Prejudice—Evaluation | UD | -.42 | < .001 | -.39 | < .001 | -.49 | < .001 |
TD | .80 | < .001 | .62 | < .001 | .75 | < .001 | |
Ideology—Evaluation | UD | .06 | .182 | .04 | .449 | .05 | .304 |
TD | -.02 | .252 | -.01 | .544 | -.01 | .579 | |
Condition—Evaluation | UD | -.04 | .548 | -.17 | .018 | -.15 | .053 |
TD | .00 | .970 | .07 | .030 | .04 | .241 | |
PrejudicexCond—Evaluation | UD | -.14 | .012 | -.14 | .030 | -.22 | < .001 |
TD | .31 | .004 | .18 | .113 | .31 | .012 | |
Ideology—Evaluation (Direct effect) | UD | .06 | .182 | .04 | .449 | .05 | .304 |
TD | -.02 | .252 | -.01 | .544 | -.01 | .579 | |
Conditional Indirect effects | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
Stigma condition | UD | -.18 | [-.27, -.11] | -.19 | [-.29, -.09] | -.25 | [-.38, -.15] |
TD | .07 | [.05, .11] | .06 | [.03, .10] | .08 | [.05, .12] | |
Control Condition | UD | -.09 | [-.16, -.03] | -.09 | [-.16, -.02] | -.09 | [-.18, -.02] |
TD | .03 | [.01, .06] | .03 | [.01, .06] | .03 | [.01, .06] | |
Index of Moderated Mediation | |||||||
95% CI | 95% CI | 95% CI | |||||
UD | -.09 | [-.18, -.01] | -.10 | [-.21, .01] | -.16 | [-.28, -.05] | |
TD | .04 | [.02, .08] | .03 | [-.01, .07] | .05 | [-.01, .09] |
In sum, in this study we tested all three approaches to signaling sexual stigma employed across the first three studies: self-identifying as a gay athlete, volunteering for an LGBTQ program, and both. In our analyses, we tested each stigma condition compared to the control condition (mimicking the previous studies). Conditional effects analyses revealed that political ideology predicted internship applicant evaluation, but only when evaluating an applicant who had a sexual stigma; the interaction reached significance in two of the three comparisons. Also, in two of the comparisons prejudice predicted applicant evaluation more strongly in the sexual stigma relative to control condition. Moreover, the moderated mediation analyses using both Model 15 and Model 14 revealed that prejudice mediated both conditions. Although the indirect effect was larger in the stigma condition, the indices of moderated mediation reveal that these indirect effects are not significantly different across all comparisons. Finally, like in Study 1, the majority of participants in both conditions where the applicant does not self-identify as gay, the volunteer stigma condition (78%) and the control (96%) condition, responded
Finally, we conducted a mini-meta-analysis across all four of our studies (see
Overall, political ideology predicted applicant evaluation in the stigma condition such that more conservative ideologies predicted lower evaluations [
Finally, we meta-analyzed the indirect effects using the same approach of examining the indirect effect by condition. Given that we were meta-analyzing the same indirect models using the same measures of variables across datasets, we computed our mini meta-analysis using the estimates of the ab path and used inverse variance weighting from the standard errors of the indirect effects. For Model 15, the effect was significant across both condition, albeit stronger in the stigma condition [
In this research, we sought to examine the role of heterosexism within political ideology systems and demonstrate the process through which these ideological systems promote discrimination by focusing on sexual prejudice. Across four studies, we tested the predictions that political ideology and sexual prejudice will predict the evaluation of an applicant with a sexual stigma and we tested a moderated mediational model such that conservative ideology negatively predicts the evaluation of those with a sexual stigma indirectly through prejudice. We varied the nature of the sexual stigma signal across the studies, from volunteering for an LGBTQ program, self-identifying as a gay athlete, or both. In the first three studies, we tested one of these stigma signals, and in the final study we examined all three. Although there were differences in results across studiesxi, the fact that consistent patterns were obtained bolsters our confidence in our theorizing. We followed up with a mini meta-analysis to determine the overall effects across the studies. Overall, the moderation hypotheses were supported. Political ideology predicted applicant evaluation in the stigma, but not control, condition such that more conservative ideologies predicted lower evaluations. Additionally, prejudice predicted applicant evaluation such that greater levels of prejudice predicted lower evaluations in both conditions, but the effect was stronger in the stigma condition. This suggests that our measure of sexual prejudice is also predicting a general tendency to make more negative, or more positive, evaluations. Finally, there was limited support for the moderated mediation predictions. In general, across both the second stage and direct effect moderated mediational model and the second stage model not including the moderated direct effect (the results were substantively similar across models), ideology indirectly predicted applicant evaluation through prejudice in both conditions but the effect of conservative political ideology indirectly predicting lower evaluations was stronger for the applicant with the sexual stigma.
The current research makes theoretical and practical contributions to our understanding of discrimination against sexual minorities. This is the first paper, to our knowledge, to directly explore the process through which political ideology predicts discrimination against those with a sexual stigma. This work shows the critical interplay of both sociocultural (ideology) and individual (prejudice) manifestations of sexual stigma in discrimination against sexual minorities. According to the theoretical work of
Beyond theoretical contributions, this research has important implications for approaches to promoting social justice by lessening prejudice and discrimination against sexual minorities. Sexual minorities face significant discrimination-based barriers in many contexts including employment (
Our work suggests that political ideology serves as an important foundation for internalized sexual prejudice and in turn discrimination against minorities, thus, pointing to the important role of intervening at both the ideological and individual levels. Attempts to reduce sexual prejudice often, unsurprisingly, focus on the individual level. For example, one dominant approach is to promote personal contact with sexual minorities (
Despite the theoretical advances and practical implications of this work, there are limitations and significant opportunities for future research. First, there are other potential explanations for why political ideology might predict discrimination; for example, people might have assumed the applicant with the stigma has more politically liberal attitudes and this assumption may have led more conservative individuals to evaluate the applicant less favorably. However, the results showing modest support for the role of sexual prejudice in mediating the link between ideology and discrimination lends support to our explanatory framework that ideological systems promote discrimination at least in part by legitimizing anti-gay prejudice. Second, although we relied on a non-student sample to help generalize beyond a college population, it is not clear whether these findings will generalize to those who make internship decisions in athletic contexts. Additionally, this work focused on the evaluation of a gay man and it is not clear whether the findings will generalize to other sexual minorities. Research shows that the likelihood of experiencing discrimination based on sexual orientation, from violence to employment or housing discrimination, is not uniform among sexual minorities and that gay men report experiencing the most discrimination (
Future research should also investigate these processes in contexts other than athletic internships. For example, the research showing that employment discrimination against gay men is strongest amongst employers searching for applicants with stereotypically masculine traits (
In examining our questions about the critical interplay of sociocultural and individual manifestations of sexual stigma, we focused on political ideologies in the United States largely because this ideology blends the two components of justification ideologies (
Finally, our use of Mechanical Turk workers, or Turkers, is not without its limitations. For example, there are concerns that many Turkers participate in multiple similar studies which may lead to participant nonnaïveté (
In this research, we examined the role of both sociocultural and individual manifestations of sexual stigma in discrimination against sexual minorities. Specifically, we examined political ideology as the backdrop to sexual prejudice and ultimately discrimination. The pattern of results from four experimental studies show that conservative political ideology negatively predicted the evaluation of an internship applicant with a sexual stigma but not a similar applicant without the stigma. Additionally, higher, relative to lower, levels of sexual prejudice more strongly negatively predicted the evaluation of the applicant with the stigma relative to the control applicant. Finally, whereas ideology indirectly predicted applicant evaluation through prejudice generally, the effect was stronger for the applicant with the sexual stigma. Understanding the role of both political ideology as well as individual sexual prejudice in discrimination may facilitate efforts to dismantle discrimination and promote equitable public policies.
Did the applicant strike you as competent?
How likely is it that the applicant has the necessary skills for this job?
How qualified do you think the applicant is?
How likely would you be to invite the applicant to interview for the player operations internship?
How likely would you be to hire the applicant for the player operations internship?
If you encountered the applicant at your workplace how likely would you be to
Encourage the applicant to continue within the field of athletics if he was considering changing professional interest?
Offer to serve as a mentor for this applicant
Give the applicant extra help if he was having trouble mastering the position?
Given your overall impression of this applicant, how good a ‘fit’ do you think there is between the candidate and the organization?
Given your overall impression of this candidate, how ‘employable’ do you think this applicant is?
I think male homosexuals are disgusting.
Male homosexuality is a perversion.
Male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in men. (Reverse-scored)
Sex between two men is just plain wrong.
Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be condemned. (Reverse-scored)
Sexual preference should not be a factor in employment opportunity. (R)
Homosexuals are just like everyone else, they simply chose an alternative lifestyle. (R)
Homosexuals should be isolated from heterosexuals.
Homosexuals should not be discriminated against because of their sexual preferences. (R)
Homosexual acts should be illegal.
Homosexuals are a danger to our young people.
I would not like to work with a homosexual.
Homosexuals should not hold high government offices.
Job discrimination against homosexuals is wrong. (R)
Homosexuals should not hold leadership positions.
Homosexuals do not corrupt the youth of America. (R)
I would not want a homosexual to live in the house (apartment) next to mine.
If I found out one of my friends was a homosexual, our friendship would be severely damaged.
I would never have anything to do with a person if I knew he/she was a homosexual.
Apartment complexes should not accept homosexuals as renters.
This research was funded in part by a summer research fellowship granted to the second author from the School of Arts and Sciences at the University of Richmond.
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
The authors have no support to report.
Across studies some participants completed the same study twice or completed more than one of the studies; the first response was retained for analyses. In this study we removed 7 repeat respondents.
Across studies, we selected sample sizes (ranging from 165-188 per two-group comparison) that yielded adequate power to test our predictions using moderation and bootstrap-based moderated mediation analyses (
Across studies, both social and fiscal political ideology predicted both applicant evaluation and prejudice, with social ideology being a somewhat stronger predictor.
A multivariate analysis of variance with participant exclusion and condition predicting ideology, applicant evaluation, and prejudice revealed that the excluded participants were significantly more conservative (
Two responses from participants who already completed the study were removed.
A multivariate analysis of variance with participant exclusion and condition predicting ideology, applicant evaluation, and prejudice revealed that the excluded participants reported higher prejudice scores (
Six participants already completed this or another study; the first response was retained.
A multivariate analysis of variance with participant exclusion and condition predicting ideology, applicant evaluation, and prejudice revealed no differences between participants who were excluded and there were no interactions with condition on any variable. Moreover, results from analyses retaining participants who failed the manipulation checks reveal results similar to those reported using the exclusion standards.
Forty-one responses were from participants who already completed this or another of the studies.
A multivariate analysis of variance with participant exclusion and condition predicting ideology, applicant evaluation, and prejudice revealed that the excluded participants reported higher levels of conservatism (
It is unclear why there were these slight differences across studies; for example, it could be due to random noise effects or more systematic effects, such as responses to the slightly varying stimuli.