Folk theories of gender and anti-transgender attitudes: Gender differences and policy preferences


Autoři: Mostafa Salari Rad aff001;  Crystal Shackleford aff003;  Kelli Ann Lee aff003;  Kate Jassin aff003;  Jeremy Ginges aff003
Působiště autorů: Kahneman-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science & Public Policy, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America aff001;  Department of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, United States of America aff002;  Department of Psychology, New School for Social Research, The New School, New York City, New York, United States of America aff003
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(12)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226967

Souhrn

Transgender rights and discrimination against transgender people are growing public policy issues. Theorizing from social, cognitive, and evolutionary psychology suggests that beyond attitudes, discrimination against transgender people may derive from folk theories about what gender is and where it comes from. Transgender identity is met with hostility, in part, because it poses a challenge to the lay view that gender is determined at birth, and based on observable physical and behavioral characteristics. Here, in two pre-registered studies (N = 1323), we asked American adults to indicate the gender of a transgender target who either altered their biology through surgical interventions or altered their outward appearance: to what extent is it their birth-assigned gender or their self-identified gender? Responses correlate strongly with affect toward transgender people, measured by feeling thermometers, yet predict views on transgender people’s right to use their preferred bathrooms above and beyond feelings. Compared to male participants, female participants judge the person’s gender more in line with the self-identified gender than the birth-assigned gender. This is consistent with social and psychological theories that posit high status (e.g., men) and low status (e.g., women) members of social classification systems view group hierarchies in more and less essentialist ways respectively. Gender differences in gender category beliefs decrease with religiosity and conservatism, and are smaller in higher age groups. These results suggest that folk theories of gender, or beliefs about what gender is and how it is determined have a unique role in how transgender people are viewed and treated. Moreover, as evident by the demographic variability of gender category beliefs, folk theories are shaped by social and cultural forces and are amenable to interventions. They offer an alternative pathway to measure policy support and possibly change attitude toward transgender people.

Klíčová slova:

Culture – Gender discrimination – Political parties – Religion – Social discrimination – Social theory – Thermometers – Transgender people


Zdroje

1. Kessler SJ, McKenna W. Gender: An Ethnomethodological Approach. University of Chicago Press; 1978.

2. Lucal B. WHAT IT MEANS TO BE GENDERED ME: Life on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender System. Gend Soc. 1999;13: 781–797.

3. Stryker S. Transgender History, second edition: The Roots of Today’s Revolution. Da Capo Press; 2017.

4. James SE, Herman J. The Report of the 2015 US Transgender Survey: Executive Summary. National Center for Transgender Equality; 2017.

5. Broockman D, Kalla J. Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science. 2016;352: 220–224. doi: 10.1126/science.aad9713 27124458

6. Tee N, Hegarty P. Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom. J Community Appl Soc Psychol. 2006;16: 70–80.

7. Bem SL. The Lenses of Gender: Transforming the Debate on Sexual Inequality. Yale University Press; 1993.

8. Hyde JS, Bigler RS, Joel D, Tate CC, van Anders SM. The future of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. Am Psychol. 2018. doi: 10.1037/amp0000307 30024214

9. West C, Zimmerman DH. Doing Gender. Gend Soc. 1987;1: 125–151.

10. Norton AT, Herek GM. Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of US adults. Sex Roles. 2013;68: 738–753.

11. Garfinkel H. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Prentice-Hall; 1967.

12. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. A Continuum of Impression Formation, from Category-Based to Individuating Processes: Influences of Information and Motivation on Attention and Interpretation. In: Zanna Mark P., editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press; 1990. pp. 1–74.

13. Martin CL, Parker S. Folk Theories about Sex and Race Differences. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21: 45–57.

14. Medin D, Atran S. The native mind: biological categorization and reasoning in development and across cultures. Psychol Rev. 2004;111: 960–983. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.111.4.960 15482069

15. Rhodes M, Gelman SA. A developmental examination of the conceptual structure of animal, artifact, and human social categories across two cultural contexts. Cogn Psychol. 2009;59: 244–274. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.05.001 19524886

16. Wood W, Eagly AH. Gender. Handbook of Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2010.

17. Bussey K, Bandura A. Social cognitive theory of gender development and differentiation. Psychol Rev. 1999;106: 676–713. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.106.4.676 10560326

18. Feinberg L. Transgender Warriors: Making History from Joan of Arc to Dennis Rodman. Beacon Press; 1996.

19. Lick DJ, Johnson KL. Fluency of visual processing explains prejudiced evaluations following categorization of concealable identities. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49: 419–425.

20. Stern C, Rule NO. Physical androgyny and categorization difficulty shape political conservatives’ attitudes toward transgender people. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2018;9: 24–31.

21. Stangor C, Lynch L, Duan C, Glas B. Categorization of individuals on the basis of multiple social features. of Personality and Social …. 1992. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.62.2.207

22. Owen HE, Halberstadt J, Carr EW, Winkielman P. Johnny Depp, Reconsidered: How Category-Relative Processing Fluency Determines the Appeal of Gender Ambiguity. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0146328. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0146328 26845341

23. Eagly AH, Karau SJ. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol Rev. 2002;109: 573–598. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.109.3.573 12088246

24. Kurzban R, Tooby J, Cosmides L. Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98: 15387–15392. doi: 10.1073/pnas.251541498 11742078

25. Navarrete CD, Olsson A, Ho AK, Mendes WB, Thomsen L, Sidanius J. Fear extinction to an out-group face: the role of target gender. Psychol Sci. 2009;20: 155–158. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02273.x 19175529

26. Serano J. Excluded: Making Feminist and Queer Movements More Inclusive. Da Capo Press; 2013.

27. Mock J. Redefining Realness: My Path to Womanhood, Identity, Love & So Much More. Simon and Schuster; 2014.

28. Gelman SA, Legare CH. Concepts and folk theories. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2011;40: 379–398. doi: 10.1146/annurev-anthro-081309-145822 23436950

29. Sperber D, Hirschfeld L. Culture, cognition, and evolution. MIT encyclopedia of the cognitive sciences. 1999; 111–132.

30. Medin DL, Atran S. Folkbiology. Mit Press; 1999.

31. Murphy GL, Medin DL. The role of theories in conceptual coherence. Psychol Rev. 1985;92: 289–316. 4023146

32. Miller GA, Johnson-Laird PN. Language and Perception. Cambridge, MA and London, England: Harvard University Press; 1976.

33. Antill JK. Parents’ beliefs and values about sex roles, sex differences, and sexuality: Their sources and implications. 1987. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1987-97424-012

34. Guillamon A, Junque C, Gómez-Gil E. A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism. Arch Sex Behav. 2016;45: 1615–1648. doi: 10.1007/s10508-016-0768-5 27255307

35. AMA Adopts New Policies at 2018 Interim Meeting. In: American Medical Association [Internet]. [cited 1 Nov 2019]. https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-adopts-new-policies-2018-interim-meeting

36. Talaska CA, Fiske ST, Chaiken S. Legitimating Racial Discrimination: Emotions, Not Beliefs, Best Predict Discrimination in a Meta-Analysis. Soc Justice Res. 2008;21: 263–396. doi: 10.1007/s11211-008-0071-2 24052687

37. Sniderman PM, Hagen MG, Tetlock PE, Brady HE. Reasoning Chains: Causal Models of Policy Reasoning in Mass Publics. Br J Polit Sci. 1986;16: 405–430.

38. Carr PB, Dweck CS, Pauker K. “Prejudiced” behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability of prejudice affect interracial interactions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2012;103: 452–471. doi: 10.1037/a0028849 22708626

39. Blinder S, Ford R, Ivarsflaten E. The Better Angels of Our Nature: How the Antiprejudice Norm Affects Policy and Party Preferences in Great Britain and Germany. Am J Pol Sci. 2013;46. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12030

40. Blinder S. Imagined immigration: The impact of different meanings of “immigrants” in public opinion and policy debates in Britain. Polit Stud. 2015;63: 80–100.

41. Fetzer JS. Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in the United States, France, and Germany. Cambridge University Press; 2000.

42. Halperin E, Russell AG, Trzesniewski KH, Gross JJ, Dweck CS. Promoting the Middle East peace process by changing beliefs about group malleability. Science. 2011;333: 1767–1769. doi: 10.1126/science.1202925 21868627

43. Morton TA, Postmes T, Haslam SA, Hornsey MJ. Theorizing gender in the face of social change: is there anything essential about essentialism? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2009;96: 653–664. doi: 10.1037/a0012966 19254110

44. Stoler AL. On Political and Psychological Essentialisms. Ethos. 1997;25: 101–106.

45. Prentice DA, Miller DT. Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychol Sci. 2006;17: 129–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01675.x 16466420

46. Ridgeway CL, Correll SJ. Unpacking the Gender System: A Theoretical Perspective on Gender Beliefs and Social Relations. Gend Soc. 2004;18: 510–531.

47. Lorber J. Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press; 1994.

48. Winter S, Chalungsooth P, Teh YK, Rojanalert N, Maneerat K, Wong YW, et al. Transpeople, Transprejudice and Pathologization: A Seven-Country Factor Analytic Study. Int J Sex Health. 2009;21: 96–118.

49. Nagoshi JL, Adams KA, Terrell HK, Hill ED, Brzuzy S, Nagoshi CT. Gender Differences in Correlates of Homophobia and Transphobia. Sex Roles. 2008;59: 521.

50. Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. The social psychology of intergroup relations. 1979;33: 74.

51. Mahalingam R. Essentialism, culture, and power: Representations of social class. J Soc Issues. 2003;59: 733–749.

52. Lee I-C, Pratto F, Johnson BT. Intergroup consensus/disagreement in support of group-based hierarchy: an examination of socio-structural and psycho-cultural factors. Psychol Bull. 2011;137: 1029–1064. doi: 10.1037/a0025410 22023142

53. Sidanius J, Pratto F. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. Cambridge University Press; 2001.

54. Frye M. The Politics of Reality: Essays in Feminist Theory. Crossing Press; 1983.

55. Medin DL, Lynch EB, Coley JD, Atran S. Categorization and reasoning among tree experts: do all roads lead to Rome? Cogn Psychol. 1997;32: 49–96. doi: 10.1006/cogp.1997.0645 9038245

56. Noyes A, Keil FC, Dunham Y. The emerging causal understanding of institutional objects. Cognition. 2018;170: 83–87. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2017.09.008 28961430

57. Sperber D, Hirschfeld LA. The cognitive foundations of cultural stability and diversity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8: 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.11.002 14697402

58. Rad MS, Ginges J. Folk theories of nationality and anti-immigrant attitudes. Nature Human Behaviour. 2018;2: 343–347. doi: 10.1038/s41562-018-0334-3 30962601

59. Rad MS, Ginges J. Folk Theories of Religious Identity- Evidence from Palestine and the United States. 2019.

60. Hainmueller J, Hangartner D. Who Gets a Swiss Passport? A Natural Experiment in Immigrant Discrimination. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2013;107: 159–187.

61. Hill DB, Willoughby BLB. The Development and Validation of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles. 2005;53: 531–544.

62. US proposal for defining gender has no basis in science. Nature. 2018. p. 5.

63. Tankard ME, Paluck EL. The Effect of a Supreme Court Decision Regarding Gay Marriage on Social Norms and Personal Attitudes. Psychol Sci. 2017;28: 1334–1344. doi: 10.1177/0956797617709594 28758838

64. Costa AB, da Rosa Filho HT, Pase PF, Fontanari AMV, Catelan RF, Mueller A, et al. Healthcare Needs of and Access Barriers for Brazilian Transgender and Gender Diverse People. J Immigr Minor Health. 2018;20: 115–123. doi: 10.1007/s10903-016-0527-7 27804013

65. Toomey RB, Syvertsen AK, Shramko M. Transgender Adolescent Suicide Behavior. Pediatrics. 2018;142. doi: 10.1542/peds.2017-4218 30206149

66. Grant JM, Mottet L, Tanis JE, Harrison J, Herman J, Keisling M. Injustice at every turn: A report of the national transgender discrimination survey: National Center for Transgender Equality. 2011.

67. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL, Newman GE. The effects of system-justifying motives on endorsement of essentialist explanations for gender differences. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;105: 891–908. doi: 10.1037/a0034701 24295379

68. Skewes L, Fine C, Haslam N. Beyond Mars and Venus: The role of gender essentialism in support for gender inequality and backlash. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0200921. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0200921 30040839

69. Wilton LS, Bell AN, Carpinella CM, Young DM, Meyers C, Clapham R. Lay Theories of Gender Influence Support for Women and Transgender People’s Legal Rights. Soc Psychol Personal Sci. 2018; 1948550618803608.

70. Jones PE, Brewer PR. Elite cues and public polarization on transgender rights. Politics, Groups, and Identities. 2018; 1–15.

71. Hong Y-Y, Levy SR, Chiu C-Y. The Contribution of the Lay Theories Approach to the Study of Groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2001. pp. 98–106. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0502_1

72. Yzerbyt VY, Rocher S. Subjective essentialism and the emergence of stereotypes. Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. 2002; 38–66.

73. Levy SR, Plaks JE, Hong Y-Y, Chiu C-Y, Dweck CS. Static Versus Dynamic Theories and the Perception of Groups: Different Routes to Different Destinations. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2001;5: 156–168.

74. Rydell R, Hugenberg K, Ray D, Mackie D. Implicit theories about groups and stereotyping: The role of group entitativity. PsycEXTRA Dataset. 2007.

75. Roberts SO, Ho AK, Rhodes M, Gelman SA. Making Boundaries Great Again: Essentialism and Support for Boundary-Enhancing Initiatives. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2017;43: 1643–1658. doi: 10.1177/0146167217724801 28914160

76. Barbir LA, Vandevender AW, Cohn TJ. Friendship, attitudes, and behavioral intentions of cisgender heterosexuals toward transgender individuals. J Gay Lesbian Ment Health. 2017;21: 154–170.

77. Galupo MP, Davis KS, Grynkiewicz AL, Mitchell RC. Conceptualization of Sexual Orientation Identity Among Sexual Minorities: Patterns Across Sexual and Gender Identity. J Bisex. 2014;14: 433–456.

78. Wright LW, Adams HE, Bernat JA. The homophobia scale: Development and validation. J Psychopathol Behav Assess. 1999;21: 337–347.

79. Flores AR, Brown TNT, Herman J. Race and ethnicity of adults who identify as transgender in the United States. Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law Los Angeles, CA; 2016.

80. Oyěwùmí O. The Invention of Women: Making an African Sense of Western Gender Discourses. U of Minnesota Press; 1997.

81. Rad MS, Martingano AJ, Ginges J. Toward a psychology of Homo sapiens: Making psychological science more representative of the human population. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115: 11401–11405. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1721165115 30397114

82. GG ex rel. Grimm v. Gloucester County School Bd. F. 3d. Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit; 2016. p. 709.

83. Privacy PF. Security Act. HB2 House Bill DRH40005-TC-1B, General Assembly of North Carolina 2nd Extra Session. 2016.

84. Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda. S. Ct. Supreme Court; 2019. p. 1599.

85. Bostock v. Clayton County. S. Ct. Supreme Court; 2019. p. 2049.

86. RG & GR Harris Funeral Homes, Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. S. Ct. Supreme Court; 2019. p. 1599.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 12