Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 78, Issue 3–4, pp 228–241 | Cite as

The Effects of Gender Neuroessentialism on Transprejudice: An Experimental Study

  • Boby Ho-Hong Ching
  • Jason Teng Xu
Original Article

Abstract

This experimental study examined the impacts of gender neuroessentialism on stereotyping and prejudice against transgender people. We randomly assigned 132 Chinese, mostly heterosexual college students to read one of three fictitious articles in which the first article explained sex differences in personality and social behavior by neurological factors (biological determinist), a second article questioned this deterministic claim (interactionist), and a third article was unrelated to gender (neutral baseline). The biological determinist condition aimed to foster essentialist beliefs by priming the deterministic ways that the brain relates to personality and behavior, whereas the interactionist condition highlighted the interactive roles of the brain and environments on people’s personality and behavior. We found that participants in the biological determinist condition showed more negative stereotypes and stronger prejudicial attitudes toward transgender people compared with participants in the interactionist condition and those in the control condition. There were no significant differences in transprejudice between the interactionist and control conditions. The present study represents one of the few studies that examined the connection between gender essentialism and transprejudice. The findings suggest that essentialist claims that ground the male/female binary in biology may lead to more transprejudice.

Keywords

Transgender Prejudice Gender essentialism Neuroessentialism Biological determinism 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

All participants of the present study consented to take part on a voluntary basis. After completing all measures, participants were debriefed to check for suspicions about the aims of the study. We used process debriefing (Ross et al. 1975) to discuss the goals and design of the study. Participants were presented with the alternative versions of the text and were encouraged to consider its plausibility. Participants were thanked and dismissed.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11199_2017_786_MOESM1_ESM.docx (57 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 56 kb)

References

  1. Ansari, D., Smedt, B. D., & Grabner, R. H. (2012). Neuroeducation – A critical overview of an emerging field. Neuroethics, 5, 105–117. doi: 10.1007/s12152-011-9119-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brescoll, V., & LaFrance, M. (2004). The correlates and consequences of newspaper reports of research on sex differences. Psychological Science, 15, 515–520. doi: 10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00712.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bubela, T. M., & Caulfield, T. A. (2004). Do the print media “hype” genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 170, 1399–1407.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, A. (1971). White attitudes toward Black people. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
  5. Chancellor, B., & Chatterjee, A. (2011). Brain branding: When neuroscience and commerce collide. AJOB Neuroscience, 2, 18–27. doi: 10.1080/21507740.2011.611123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Coleman, J., & Hong, Y. (2008). Beyond nature and nurture: The influence of lay gender theories on self-stereotyping. Self & Identity, 7, 34–53. doi: 10.1080/15298860600980185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2006). Exposure to scientific theories affects women’s math performance. Science, 314, 435. doi: 10.1126/science.1131100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dar-Nimrod, I., & Heine, S. J. (2011). Genetic essentialism: On the deceptive determinism of DNA. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 800–818. doi: 10.1037/a0021860.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Davidson, M., & Czopp, A. M. (2014). Too close for comfort: The moderating role of essentialism in transgender bias. Poster presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Austin, TX.Google Scholar
  11. Eagly, A. H., Mladinic, A., & Otto, S. (1991). Are women evaluated more favorably than men? An analysis of attitudes, beliefs, and emotions. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 203–216. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1991.tb00792.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1994). The role of mood in the expression of intergroup stereotypes. In M. P. Zanna & J. M. Olson (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 7, pp. 77–101). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  13. Fernandez-Duque, D., Evans, J., Christian, C., & Hodges, S. D. (2015). Superfluous neuroscience information makes explanations of psychological phenomena more appealing. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 27(5), 926–944. doi: 10.1162/jocn\_a\_00750.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fine, C. (2010). From scanner to sound bites: Issues in interpreting and reporting sex differences in the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 19, 280–283. doi: 10.1177/0963721410383248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fine, C., Jordan-Young, R. M., Kaiser, A., & Rippon, G. (2013). Plasticity, plasticity, plasticity… and the rigid problem of sex. Trends in Cognitive Science, 17, 550–551. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2013.08.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gelman, S. A., & Wellman, H. M. (1991). Insides and essences: Early understandings of the nonobvious. Cognition, 38, 213–244.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Goldman, A. I. (1993). The psychology of folk psychology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 15–28. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X00028648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Greely, H. T., & Illes, J. (2009). Neuroscience-based lie detection: The urgent need for regulation. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 33, 377–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). On the use of open-ended measures to assess attitude components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 129–149. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01161.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Haslam, N. (1998). Natural kinds, human kinds and essentialism. Social Research, 65, 291–314.Google Scholar
  22. Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 471–485. doi: 10.1177/0146167205276516.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. doi: 10.1348/014466600164363.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100. doi: 10.1348/014466602165072.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2004). Essentialism and entitativity: Structure of beliefs about the ontology of social categories. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M., Judd, & O. Corneille (Eds.), The psychology of group perception (pp. 61–78). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  27. Hegarty, P., & Golden, A. M. (2008). Attributional beliefs about the controllability of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of prejudice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1023–1044. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00337.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hettinger, V. (2014). Reconceptualizing the roAustinle of essentialism in attitudes towards gays and lesbians: The intersection of gender and sexual orientation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of South Florida, FL.Google Scholar
  30. Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the genderism and transphobia scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531–544. doi: 10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jayaratne, T. E., Ybarra, O., Sheldon, J. P., Brown, T. N., Feldbaum, M., Pfeffer, C. A., & Petty, E. M. (2006). White Americans’ genetic lay theories of race differences and sexual orientation: Their relationship with prejudice toward blacks and gay men and lesbians. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 77–94. doi: 10.1177/1368430206059863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Keehner, M., Mayberry, L., & Fischer, M. (2011). Different clues from different views: The role of image format in public perceptions of neuroimaging results. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 422–428. doi: 10.3758/s13423-010-0048-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Keil, F. C. (1989). Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Keil, F. C. (2006). Explanation and understanding. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 227–254. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Keller, J. (2005). In genes we trust: The biological component of psychological essentialism and its relationship to mechanisms of motivated social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 686–702. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.4.686.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Kikas, E. (2003). University students’ conceptions of different physical phenomena. Journal of Adult Development, 10, 139–150. doi: 10.1023/A:1023410212892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. King, M. E. (2008). Transprejudice in Hong Kong: Chinese attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  38. King, M. E., Winter, S., & Webster, B. (2009). Contact reduces transprejudice: A study on attitudes towards transgenderism and transgender civil rights in Hong Kong. International Journal of Sexual Health, 21, 17–34. doi: 10.1080/19317610802434609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in Cognitive Science, 10, 464–470. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mahalingam, R. (2003). Essentialism, culture, and power: Representations of social classes. Journal of Social Issues, 59, 733–749. doi: 10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00087.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., & Bell, D. W. (2000). Examining conflict between components of attitudes: Ambivalence and inconsistency are distinct constructs. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 32, 71–83. doi: 10.1037/h0087102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Malt, B. C. (1994). Water is not H2O. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Martin, C. L., & Parker, S. (1995). Folk theories about sex and race differences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 45–57. doi: 10.1177/0146167295211006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McCabe, D. P., & Castel, A. D. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2007.07.017.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. McFarland, C., Cheam, A., & Buehler, R. (2007). The perseverance effect in the debriefing paradigm: Replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 233–240. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2006.01.010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Medin, D. L., & Ortony, A. (1989). Psychological essentialism. In S. Vosniadou & A. Ortony (Eds.), Similarity and analogical reasoning (pp. 179–195). New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michael, R. B., Newman, E. J., Vuorre, M., Cumming, G., & Garry, M. (2013). On the (non)persuasive power of a brain image. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20, 720–725.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Miller, D. T., & Prentice, D. A. (1999). Some consequences of a belief in group essence: The category divide hypothesis. In D. A. Prentice & D. T. Miller (Eds.), Cultural divides: Understanding and overcoming group conflict (pp. 213–236). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Morton, T. A., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., & Hornsey, M. J. (2009). Theorizing gender in the face of social change: Is there anything essential about essentialism? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 653–664. doi: 10.1037/a0012966.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. doi: 10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. O’Connell, C., & Joffe, H. (2013). How has neuroscience affected lay understandings of personhood? A review of the evidence. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 254–268. doi: 10.1177/0963662513476812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. O’Connell, G., De Wilde, J., Haley, J., Shuler, K., Schafer, B., Sandercock, P., et al. (2011). The brain, the science and the media. EMBO Reports, 12, 630–636.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. O’Connor, C., & Joffe, H. (2013). Media representations of early human development: Protecting, feeding and loving the developing brain. Social Science & Medicine, 97, 297–306. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.048.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ortega, F., & Vidal, S. (2007). Mapping the cerebral subject in contemporary culture. Electronic Journal of Communication, Information & Innovation in Health, 1, 255–259. doi: 10.3395/reciis.v1i2.90en.Google Scholar
  55. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2006). Essentializing differences between women and men. Psychological Science, 17, 129–135. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01675.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Psychological essentialism of human categories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 202–206. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00504.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Racine, E., Waldman, S., Rosenberg, J., & Illes, J. (2010). Contemporary neuroscience in the media. Social Science and Medicine, 71, 725–733. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.05.017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. Rangel, U., & Keller, J. (2011). Essentialism goes social: Belief in social determinism as a component of psychological essentialism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1056–1078. doi: 10.1037/a0022401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Reiner, P. B. (2011). The rise of neuroessentialism. In J. Illes & B. Sahakian (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of Neuroethics (pp. 1–16). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Rips, L. J. (2002). Circular reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, 767–795. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2606_3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ross, L., Lepper, M. R., & Hubbard, M. (1975). Perseverance in self perception and social perception: Biased attributional processes in the debriefing paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 880–892. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.32.5.880.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Rozenblit, L., & Keil, F. (2002). The misunderstood limits of folk science: An illusion of explanatory depth. Cognitive Science, 92, 1–42. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1.Google Scholar
  63. Sakalli, N. (2002). Application of the attribution–value model of prejudice toward homosexuality. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 264–271. doi: 10.1080/00224540209603899.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Schüll, N. D., & Zaloom, C. (2011). The shortsighted brain: Neuroeconomics and the governance of choice in time. Social Studies of Science, 41, 515–538. doi: 10.1177/0306312710397689.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Sousa, P. (2006). On folk conceptions of mind, agency and morality. Journal of Cognition & Culture, 6, 1–25. doi: 10.1163/156853706776931286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A., & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9, 359–380. doi: 10.1521/soco.1991.9.4.359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tebbe, E. N., & Moradi, B. (2012). Anti-transgender prejudice: A structural equation model of associated constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 251–261. doi: 10.1037/a0026990.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of transpersons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 16, 70–80. doi: 10.1002/casp.851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Vrecko, D. M. (2006). Folk neurology and the remaking of identity. Molecular Interventions, 6, 300–303. doi: 10.1124/mi.6.6.2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Walch, S. E., Ngamake, S. T., Francisco, J., Stitt, R. L., & Shingler, K. A. (2012). The attitudes toward transgendered individuals scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 1283–1291. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9995-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Walker, I., & Read, J. (2002). The differential effectiveness of psychosocial and biogenetic causal explanations in reducing negative attitudes toward mental illness. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 65, 313–325. doi: 10.1521/psyc.65.4.313.20238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Walsh, C. (2011). Youth justice and neuroscience: A dual-use dilemma. British Journal of Criminology, 51, 21–39. doi: 10.1093/bjc/azq061.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20, 470–477. doi: 10.1162/jocn.2008.20040.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. Weisberg, D. S., Taylor, J. C., & Hopkins, E. J. (2015). Deconstructing the seductive allure of neuroscience explanations. Judgment and Decision Making, 10(5), 429–441.Google Scholar
  75. Williams, M. J., & Eberhardt, J. (2008). Biological conceptions of race and the motivation to cross racial boundaries. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 1033–1047. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.94.6.1033.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Yzerbyt, V., Rocher, S., & Schadron, G. (1997). Stereotypes as explanations: A subjective essentialistic view of group perception. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Ellemers, & S. A. Haslam (Eds.), The social psychology of stereotyping and group life (pp. 20–50). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
  2. 2.Department of East Asian Languages and Cultural StudiesUniversity of California, Santa BarbaraSanta BarbaraUSA

Personalised recommendations