将社会类别标签效应扩展到被污名化的群体:女同性恋和男同性恋者对“同性恋”标签的反应

IF 1.8 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL
Jes L. Matsick, M. Kruk, Lindsay Palmer, E. Layland, A. Salomaa
{"title":"将社会类别标签效应扩展到被污名化的群体:女同性恋和男同性恋者对“同性恋”标签的反应","authors":"Jes L. Matsick, M. Kruk, Lindsay Palmer, E. Layland, A. Salomaa","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.","PeriodicalId":16973,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extending the social category label effect to stigmatized groups: Lesbian and gay people’s reactions to “homosexual” as a label\",\"authors\":\"Jes L. Matsick, M. Kruk, Lindsay Palmer, E. Layland, A. Salomaa\",\"doi\":\"10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16973,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social and Political Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social and Political Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social and Political Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/zjhdt","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: 6

摘要

社会类别标签效应描述了标签如何影响人们对社会群体的认知。虽然“同性恋”和“女同性恋”的标签减少了一些异性恋者对性少数群体的支持,但女同性恋和男同性恋(LG)人对被用来描述他们的“同性恋”标签的反应尚不清楚。通过在美国进行的三个实验(N=831),我们研究了“同性恋”一词的使用如何影响人们对心理工具的反应、对人口统计问题的偏好以及对使用“同性恋”一词的个人的评价。在心理测量中使用不同的标签并不影响LG人的反应(研究1)。然而,在人口统计问题和人际交往中,LG人对“同性恋”的反应比“女同性恋/男同性恋”的反应更不积极(研究2-3),而异性恋者的反应基本上不受影响。LG人对“同性恋”的负面反应多于“女同性恋/男同性恋”,部分原因是他们认为“同性恋”标签使用者的文化能力较差(即包容性较低,较少参与LGBTQ活动)。在本文中,我们在新的实证领域(基于性取向的线索研究)中取得了进展,提出了语言异性恋的概念,并讨论了人们语言选择的社会政治含义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extending the social category label effect to stigmatized groups: Lesbian and gay people’s reactions to “homosexual” as a label
The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (N=831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected. LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信