When Might Heterosexual Men Be Passive or Compassionate Toward Gay Victims of Hate Crime? Integrating the Bystander and Social Loafing Explanations

Owuamalam, Chuma Kevin; Matos, Andrea Soledad

doi:10.1007/s10508-019-01592-y

Original Paper
Published: 20 December 2019

When Might Heterosexual Men Be Passive or Compassionate Toward Gay Victims of Hate Crime? Integrating the Bystander and Social Loafing Explanations

Archives of Sexual Behavior volume 49, pages 1693–1709 (2020)Cite this article

693 Accesses
2 Citations
2 Altmetric
Metrics details

A Correction to this article was published on 04 April 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

Compassionate feelings for people who are victimized because of their perceived sexual deviance (e.g., gay men) may be incompatible with support for heterosexual norms among heterosexual men. But, indifference (or passivity) toward such victims could raise concern over heterosexual men’s gay-tolerance attitude. Two classic social psychological theories offer competing explanations on when heterosexual men might be passive or compassionate toward gay victims of hate crime. The bystander model proposes passivity toward victims in an emergency situation if other bystanders are similarly passive, but compassionate reactions if bystanders are responsive to the victims. Conversely, the social loafing model proposes compassionate reactions toward victims when bystanders are passive, but passivity when other bystanders are already responsive toward the victims’ predicament. We tested and found supportive evidence for both models across two experiments (N_total = 501) in which passivity and compassionate reactions to gay victims of a purported hate crime were recorded after heterosexual men’s concern for social evaluation was either accentuated or relaxed. We found that the bystander explanation was visible only when the potential for social evaluation was strong, while the social loafing account occurred only when the potential for social evaluation was relaxed. Hence, we unite both models by showing that the bystander explanation prevails in situations where cues to social evaluation are strong, whereas the social loafing effect operates when concern over social judgement is somewhat muted.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Change history

04 April 2020
The following errors were present in this article as originally published:

Notes

See Table 1 for other demographic information across the research program.
The other social groups included: Europeans, Africans, wealthy people, poor people, laborers, and professors.

References

Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,50(2), 179–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T.
Article Google Scholar
Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28(12), 1656–1666. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616702237647.
Article Google Scholar
Bosson, J., Weaver, J. R., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2012). Concealing to belong, revealing to be known: Classification expectations and self-threats among persons with concealable stigmas. Self and Identity,11(1), 114–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.513508.
Article Google Scholar
Coaston, J. (2018). New evidence shows the Pulse nightclub shooting wasn’t about anti-LGBTQ hate. Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/5/17202026/pulse-shooting-lgbtq-trump-terror-hate.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin,112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., & Latané, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,8(4), 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Ellis, R., Fantz, A., Karimi, F., & McLaughlin, E. C. (2016). Orlando shooting: 49 killed, shooter pledged ISIS allegiance. CNN. Retrieved June 17, 2019, from https://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html.
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Mugny, G. (2009). “I’m not gay…I’m a real man!”: Heterosexual men’s gender self-esteem and sexual prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35(9), 1233–1243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209338072.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Fasoli, F., Hegarty, P., Maass, A., & Antonio, R. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and Individual Differences,130, 59–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.03.046.
Article Google Scholar
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analysis. Behavior Research Methods,41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.41.4.1149.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Fischer, P., Krueger, J. I., Greitemeyer, T., Vogrincic, C., Kastenmüller, A., Frey, D., & Kainbacher, M. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin,137(4), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023304.
Article Google Scholar
Gallo, M. M. (2014). The parable of Kitty Genovese, The New York Times, and the erasure of lesbianism. Journal of the History of Sexuality,23(2), 273–294. https://doi.org/10.7560/JHS23206.
Article Google Scholar
Garcia, S. M., Weaver, K., Darley, J. M., & Spence, B. T. (2009). Dual effects of implicit bystanders: Inhibiting vs. facilitating helping behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,19(2), 215–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2009.02.013.
Article Google Scholar
Gillmor, K., Bernstein, M. J., & Benfield, J. A. (2014). Have you no shame? Infrahumanization of promiscuous sexual assault victims as moderated by dispositional and situational Just World orientation. Journal of Student Research,3(1), 34–45.
Google Scholar
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles,57(1–2), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3.
Article Google Scholar
Goetz, J. L., Keltner, D., & Simon-Thomas, E. (2010). Compassion: An evolutionary analysis and empirical review. Psychological Bulletin,136(3), 351–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018807.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Hauser, D. J., Ellsworth, P. C., & Gonzalez, R. (2018). Are manipulation checks necessary? Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00998.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Herek, G. M. (1998). The attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (ATLG) scale. In C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 392–394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Google Scholar
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22(4), 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224007.
Article Google Scholar
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research,36(4), 348–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499909552007.
Article Google Scholar
Hopkins, N., Reicher, S., Harrison, K., Cassidy, C., Bull, R., & Levine, M. (2007). Helping to improve the group stereotype: On the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,33(6), 776–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301023.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Jetten, J., & Spears, R. (2003). The divisive potential of differences and similarities: The role of intergroup distinctiveness in intergroup differentiation. European Review of Social Psychology,14(1), 203–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280340000063.
Article Google Scholar
Keng, S. L., Smoski, M. J., & Robins, C. J. (2011). Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: A review of empirical studies. Clinical Psychology Review,31(6), 1041–1056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2011.04.006.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Kuiper, N. A. (1978). Depression and causal attributions for success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36(3), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.236.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Google Scholar
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: How social group membership and group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(6), 1429–1439. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012634.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Liebst, L. S., Philpot, R., Bernasco, W., Lykke Dausel, K., Ejbye-Ernst, P., Nicolaisen, M. H., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Social relations and presence of others affect bystander intervention: Evidence from violent incidents captured on CCTV. Aggressive Behavior,45(6), 598–609. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21853.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2015). Mindfulness meditation reduces implicit age and race bias: The role of reduced automaticity of responding. Social Psychological and Personality Science,6(3), 284–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614559651.
Article Google Scholar
Manning, R., Levine, M., & Collins, A. (2007). The Kitty Genovese murder and the social psychology of helping: The parable of the 38 witnesses. American Psychologist,62(6), 555–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.6.555.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Nickell, G. (1998). The Helping Attitudes Scale. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Oakes, P. J., Turner, J. C., & Haslam, S. A. (1991). Perceiving people as group members: The role of fit in the salience of social categorizations. British Journal of Social Psychology,30, 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1991.tb00930.x.
Article Google Scholar
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716.
Owuamalam, C. K., & Rubin, M. (2014). When do low status groups help high status groups? The moderating effects of in-group identification, audience group membership, and perceived reputational benefit. Journal of Social and Political Psychology,2(1), 289–312. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v2i1.33.
Article Google Scholar
Pew Research Center, (2015). Americans are still divided on why people are gay. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/06/americans-are-still-divided-on-why-people-are-gay/.
Philpot, R., Liebst, L. S., Levine, M., Bernasco, W., & Lindegaard, M. R. (2019). Would I be helped? Cross-national CCTV footage shows that intervention is the norm in public conflicts. American Psychologist. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000469.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Pinsof, D., & Haselton, M. (2016). The political divide over same-sex marriage: Mating strategies in conflict? Psychological Science,27, 435–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615621719.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(3), 811–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811.
Article Google Scholar
Pommier, E. A. (2010). The Compassion Scale. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Ringelmann, M. (1913). Research on animate sources of power: The work of man. Annales de I’lnstitut National Agronomique,12(2), 1–40.
Google Scholar
Robins, C. J. (1988). Attributions and depression: Why is the literature so inconsistent? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54(5), 880–889. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.5.880.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Rosenthal, A. M. (1999). Thirty-eight witnesses: The Kitty Genovese case. Brooklyn, NY: Melville House Publishing.
Google Scholar
Sheldon, J. P., Pfeffer, C. A., Jayaratne, T. E., Feldbaum, M., & Petty, E. M. (2007). Beliefs about the etiology of homosexuality and about the ramifications of discovering its possible genetic origin. Journal of Homosexuality,52, 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v52n03_06.
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Simons, D. J., & Holcombe, A. O. (2014). Registered replication reports. Observer, 27(3). Retrieved from https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/registered-replication-reports.
Täuber, S., & van Leeuwen, E. (2012). When high group status becomes a burden: Requesting outgroup help and spying by members of high and low status groups. Social Psychology,43(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000088.
Article Google Scholar
Templeton, G. F. (2011). A two-step approach for transforming continuous variables to normal: Implications and recommendations for IS research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems,28(1), 41–58.
Google Scholar
Tice, D. M., & Baumeister, R. F. (1985). Masculinity inhibits helping in emergencies: Personality does predict the bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.2.420.
Article Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1999). Some current issues in research on social identity and self-categorization theories. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 6–34). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Google Scholar
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Google Scholar
van Bommel, M., van Prooijen, J. W., Elffers, H., & van Lange, P. A. (2014). Intervene to be seen: The power of a camera in attenuating the bystander effect. Social Psychological and Personality Science,5(4), 459–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550613507958.
Article Google Scholar
van Leeuwen, E., Oostenbrink, J.-J., & Twilt, A. (2014). The combined effects of meta-stereotypes and audience on outgroup and in-group helping. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,18(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/gdn0000005.
Article Google Scholar
Vandello, J. A., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Hard won and easily lost: A review and synthesis of theory and research on precarious manhood. Psychology of Men & Masculinity,14, 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029826.
Article Google Scholar
Voelpel, S. C., Eckhoff, R. A., & Förster, J. (2008). David against Goliath? Group size and bystander effects in virtual knowledge sharing. Human Relations,61(2), 271–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707087787.
Article Google Scholar
Vorauer, J. D., Hunter, A. J., Main, K. J., & Roys, S. A. (2000). Meta-stereotype activation: Evidence from indirect measures for specific evaluative concerns experienced by members of dominant groups in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78(4), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.690.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Vorauer, J. D., Main, K. J., & O’Connell, G. B. (1998). How do individuals expect to be viewed by members of lower status groups? Content and implications of meta-stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(4), 917–937. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.917.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wakefield, J. R., Hopkins, N., & Greenwood, R. M. (2012). Thanks, but no thanks: Women’s avoidance of help-seeking in the context of a dependency-related stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly,36(4), 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312457659.
Article Google Scholar
Weiner, B. (1995). Judgments of responsibility: A foundation for a theory of social conduct. New York: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. S., DeHaan, C. R., Przybylski, A. K., Legate, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,102(4), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026854.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Wellman, H. M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: The truth about false belief. Child Development,72(3), 655–684. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00304.
Article PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education for a grant to the first author (grant #: FRGS/1/2016/SS05/UNIM/02/2). All opinions expressed in the article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily represent the views of the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Division of Organizational and Applied Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Jalan Broga, 43500, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia
Chuma Kevin Owuamalam
School of Psychology, University of Nottingham Malaysia, Semenyih, Selangor, Malaysia
Andrea Soledad Matos

Authors

Chuma Kevin Owuamalam
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Andrea Soledad Matos
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chuma Kevin Owuamalam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest in the conduct of the research presented in this article.

Ethical Approval

The research received ethical approval from the university of Nottingham Malaysia’s Faculty of Science and Engineering Ethics Committee, and meets the ethical requirements set by the British Psychological Society for the conduct of research on human participants.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained electronically for all the cases that we analyzed for this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original version of this article was revised: The following errors were present in this article as originally published:

A question mark was missing from the end of the 1st sentence under the heading General Discussion.

The 5th sentence in the Theoretical Opportunities section read (incorrectly):

This is because (1) the common-in-group bond is likely weakened as a result of the of lesbian women who are so inclined…

Instead of (correctly) as:

This is because (1) the common-in-group bond is likely weakened as a result of lesbian women who are so inclined…

In the last sentence in the Theoretical Opportunities section read (incorrectly):

So, although the current findings provide a promising start, future studies could aim to test the derived assumptions directly, by, for example, extending our propositions to reactions toward lesbians and transgendered victims of hate crime such studies could also examine reactions toward norm-conforming versus norm-deviating heterosexual victims.

Instead of (correctly):

So, although the current findings provide a promising start, future studies could aim to test the derived assumptions directly, by, for example, extending our propositions to reactions toward lesbians and transgendered victims of hate crime. Such studies could also examine reactions toward norm-conforming versus norm-deviating heterosexual victims.

Appendices

Appendix A

Full list of items for the compassion toward the victimized LGBT community (COMP) scale.

Active compassion items:

1.
COMP1 If the LGBT community needs my help, I want to offer it.
2.
COMP2 I feel at peace with myself knowing that I have the capacity to help LGBT individuals fight hatred and discrimination against them, if called upon to serve in this way.

Passive compassion items:

1.
COMP3 I pity the LGBT community, but do not think it is my place to help them.
2.
COMP4 I feel sorry for the LGBT community, but I cannot pretend that I understand all the fuss.
3.
COMP5 I don’t get emotionally wrapped up with the LGBT community’s problems even though I do care.
4.
COMP6 I feel sorry for bad things happening to the LGBT community but It’s probably not worth the effort to try to get involved.
5.
COMP7 Aiding the LGBT community is such a losing battle that only a collective effort can solve.
6.
COMP8 I feel sorry for the LGBT community, but I do not know that any amount I offer to charities on their behalf can help to solve their problems.

Appendix B

See Tables 7 and 8.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Owuamalam, C.K., Matos, A.S. When Might Heterosexual Men Be Passive or Compassionate Toward Gay Victims of Hate Crime? Integrating the Bystander and Social Loafing Explanations. Arch Sex Behav 49, 1693–1709 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01592-y

Download citation

Received: 07 August 2018
Revised: 12 November 2019
Accepted: 22 November 2019
Published: 20 December 2019
Issue Date: July 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-01592-y

Keywords

Sexual preference
Passive and active compassion
Bystander reactions
Social loafing
Hate crimes
Sexual orientation