Article summary with Interventions to reduce blatant and subtle sexual orientation- and gender identity prejudice (SOGIP): Current knowledge and future directions by Cramwinckel a.o. - 2018

What is SOGIP?

SOGIP is an abbreviation for Sexual Orientation- and Gender Identity Prejudice. It is defined as a negative attitude towards certain behaviors, individuals or groups based on - or related to - their (perceived) sexual orientation, (perceived) gender identity, gender role or gender expression.

What are determinants of SOGIP?

There are several determinants of SOGIP, but some of them, like age or religious affiliation, may be difficult to change and to target with interventions. Discomfort with variations in gender roles and traditional beliefs about gender roles explain much of SOGIP. The acceptance of gender nonconformity mediates the link between contact with sexual minorities and prejudices about sexual orientation. More contact with sexual minorities leads to greater acceptance of gender nonconformity, which in turn leads to less prejudice about sexual orientation. Threats to one's gender identity also directly predict prejudice about sexual orientation.

What are some demographic characteristics of SOGIP?

• Men show higher levels of SOGIP than women.
• Being older versus younger predicts higher levels of SOGIP.
• Lower education levels versus higher levels predicts SOGIP.
• Lower levels of income/social status predicts SOGIP.
• Being married versus single predicts SOGIP.
• Religious people have higher levels of SOGIP (Muslims more than Catholics and Protestants, and they more than people who adhere to Eastern religions or non-religious people.

How has SOGIP changed from blatant to subtle?

SOGIP can be expressed in different forms and this has implications for interventions and their effectiveness. Prejudice has changed from more blatant to more subtle forms, because social norms and legislation have made blatant prejudice less acceptable or even illegal. Different types of SOGIP can be identified that vary in the degree to which they are blatant versus subtle.

What is blatant SOGIP?

Blatant SOGIP is characterized by explicit hostile attitudes and emotions towards sexual and gender minorities. It is often rooted in moral beliefs based on religion or other ideologies and is behaviorally expressed in explicit negative behavior or aggression. Examples are old-fashioned prejudice (¨homosexuality is a perversion¨), moral condemnation (¨homosexuality is wrong¨), negative behaviors (threatening verbally) and aggression (physical violence).

What is subtle SOGIP?

Subtle prejudice is characterized by implicit negative associations, mild negative emotions (e.g. discomfort rather than hate) and nonverbal behavioral expressions (e.g. avoiding physical contact). It can also be the absence of positive behaviors or attitudes or denial that sexual orientation prejudice is still a problem. It’s also very ambivalent. People often have positive and negative beliefs about sexual and gender minorities at the same time. Examples are modern homonegativity (¨gays use their sexual orientation to get special priviliges¨), microaggression (low-intensity events that convey negative messages about LGBTQ people; ¨that´s so gay!¨), beliefs about gender roles (¨it is disrespectful for a man to swear in front of a lady¨), male role norms (¨it bothers me when a man does something I consider feminine¨).

How does the shift from blatant to subtle SOGIP influence interventions?

The shift from blatant to subtle forms of bias has implications for interventions. Because subtle bias is less explicit than the strong moral beliefs that characterize blatant prejudice, and because subtle prejudice is characterized by uncertainty, avoidance, and ambivalence, it is not enough to change people's beliefs in order to reduce subtle SOGIP. It is necessary to change people's underlying affective responses and behaviors in relation to LGBTQs.

Which types of SOGIP interventions can be identified?

• Watching videos, plays and reading books. These can be successful, but more active and immersive interventions (such as video games) are more promising. Exposure to art or actively playing games involving cooperation or perspective taking can reduce SOGIP, but more research is needed to address the underlying mechanisms and measure the duration of these effects.

• Knowledge transfer and/or sexual diversity training. Mixed effects. These interventions aim to raise awareness about the stigma and negative treatment experienced by LGBTQs and the (unconscious) prejudices that many people have. Though some studies seemed successful, others suggested that providing information and raising awareness alone may not be enough to reduce SOGIP in a sustainable way.

• Perspective taking interventions aim to reduce prejudice by encouraging people to imagine the world from the point of view of a stigmatized group. Promising, but little empirical research. Humanization significantly reduced prejudice and increased contact intentions compared to education.

• Contact interventions where people interact with members of a stigmatized group were relatively successful, but their effectiveness depends on several factors. Some activities can backfire and increase SOGIP. One important factor is evoking empathy. Research should focus on what the requirements are for a successful contact intervention and how the effectiveness of existing interventions can be increased.

• Developing alliances where majority members show active behavioral support for minority members seems to be able to reduce SOGIP long-term and create more positive behavioral responses.

Why should sexual orientation prejudice and gender identity prejudice be studied together?

Researchers tend to treat sexual orientation prejudice and gender identity prejudice as separate theoretical phenomena, but there is evidence for a strong and causal relationship between the two. Research should at the very least take gender identity prejudice into account when researching sexual orientation prejudice and vice versa. If prejudice about sexual orientation has its roots in gender identity prejudice, then research should explore why gender nonconformity is such a threat to people.

Can decreasing people´s focus on gender differences and gender roles also decrease SOGIP?

There are schools where gender-neutral pronouns are used, traditional gender roles and family structures are counteracted through songs and stories, and behaviors traditionally directed at a specific gender are avoided. The children of these schools scored lower on gender stereotyping and were more interested in playing with unfamiliar children of the opposite gender. However, more research is needed to investigate the robustness of positive outcomes of gender-neutrality on gender identity prejudice and to assess whether gender neutrality can also reduce sexual orientation bias.

Why might low-intensity interventions be good for blatant SOGIP and high-intensity interventions good for subtle SOGIP?

For people who score high on blatant SOGIP, immersive interventions, such as actual contact, may be too threatening at first and lead to defensive responses. More passive intervention methods can be a good first step to address these people´s convictions. For people who score high on subtler forms of SOGIP, immersive interventions based on actual contact with the aim of increasing empathy may be useful to further reduce the uncertainty during actual intergroup interactions that are so typical for those high in subtle prejudice.

What aspects of SOGIP should be measured when assessing the effectiveness of a certain intervention?

It is recommended to measure both blatant and subtle SOGIP when it comes to rejection of sexual and gender minorities, same-sex couple rejection, rejection of nonconformity and prejudice against bisexuals. Combining these aspects should give a more representative and generalizable overview of the effect of a certain intervention on the different facets of SOGIP.

What is the importance of actual behavioral outcomes with regard to the effectiveness of interventions?

Effective interventions should not only reduce prejudice, but also encourage positive behavior toward targeted minority groups. The ultimate measure of the effectiveness of an intervention may be the extent to which an intervention is successful in creating alliances. This could be researched by examining real-life contact interventions and evaluating how participants behave toward LGBTQ people. Policymakers may be able to keep track of and/or reward positive efforts to reduce SOGIP in society.

Why should there be more focus on the experience of the minority members?

Most research that looks at reducing prejudice focuses on majority members. However, now that SOGIP is expressed in more subtle forms, it can be hard to detect when focusing only on the majority members. People are often unaware of or unwilling to admit their own prejudicial beliefs. That is why it is important to also assess the experiences of targets of SOGIP. Actively reaching out to minority members to assess how they experience the impact of efforts to reduce SOGIP can examine whether interventions were successful.

What is the importance of measuring the effectiveness of existing interventions?

Interventions are often implemented with the idea there is no harm in trying, but there are examples of interventions that ironically have the opposite effect of what was intended. Some attempts to reduce prejudice by enforcing anti-prejudice standards can lead to more prejudice compared to not intervening at all, for example because the intervention threatens the participants´ sense of autonomy and leads to reactance. It is therefore important not to just implement interventions, but also really investigate their effectiveness, because if the intervention is going to have the opposite effect, it may be better not to intervene at all.

What is the role of selection bias in evaluating the effectiveness of existing interventions?

There are several types of selection bias that are problematic in many studies. First, in correlational contact studies it is often not clear whether contact with minority members reduces prejudice, or whether less prejudiced people are more likely to seek contact with minority members. Secondly, strongly prejudiced people may decide not to participate in studies and training programs that are obviously aimed at reducing SOGIP.

Why should lab work and field work collaborate to improve existing interventions?

Contact interventions can be a mix of different elements and some of them may be more effective than others. When evaluating the effectiveness of such interventions, it is not possible to isolate the specific elements that drive their effects. Laboratory research makes it possible to systematically study a specific factor and compare certain types of intervention activities and see which is most effective. Combinations of different intervention techniques have not yet been studied. A combination of methods is recommended so that active ingredients from different techniques are first distilled through laboratory research and then it is examined how they may best work together in the field.

What is the role of empathy in SOGIP reducing interventions?

Literature research suggests that empathy may play an important role, as positive effects of various interventions seem to occur mainly when empathy is elicited. It may be so that actual interpersonal contact is not necessary to reduce SOGIP. Instead, other interventions, such as perspective taking training, may be sufficient. This is important because contact interventions can be very time and money consuming or difficult to implement on a large scale. 

Which are two potential boundary conditions that are important for examining effectiveness of interventions?

Two potential boundary conditions warrant additional research:

• The longevity of effects (i.e. the extent to which an intervention has long-term effects).
• The generalizability of effects to different populations (i.e. are the effects that are found on students the same for the elderly or employees).