From portrayals of black women in Hollywood to our collection of thoughts walking down a street, stereotypes exist within most facets of the human experience; as such, stereotyping plays a predominant role in how we categorize others into meaningful social groups, inherently influencing behavior (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Macrae et al., 1997; Macrae & Bodenhausen, 2000). This process of conceptualization may be a psychological adaptation which aids our propensity to assess the world around us (Hamilton & Trolier, 1986; Taylor, 1981), but it has the danger of morphing into discrimination against individuals in society based on seemingly arbitrary identifiers such as immigrant status or sexual orientation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015; Tajfel et al., 1971). For example, lesbians are generally perceived as more masculine or aggressive than straight women (Cunningham, 2019), and immigrants from Hispanic/Latin American countries are often regarded as less intelligent when compared to immigrants from East Asian countries in Western contexts (Appel et al., 2015). Because individuals might view stereotypes as unique, streamlined entities, they may be socially reduced to align with one dimension of categorization; however, personal analyses toward a target are not always limited to a single axis of activation, and are often fluid (Fiske, 2017; Stolier & Freeman, 2016).

Individuals commonly hold multiple (sometimes, contrasting) group memberships which change depending on contextual or temporal factors (e.g., location or time of day), complicating the stereotyping process and adding new levels required for conceptualization (Nicolas et al., 2017; Song & Zuo, 2016). For instance, a foreign student may simultaneously belong to the groups of women, immigrants, students, and within the classroom, a member of the class – thus, creating a unique identity to which general stereotypes may be attributed, based on relevancy (e.g., Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2022). Moreover, the saliency of personal identifiers (and, the implied activation of stereotypes) has been examined to be a product of intersectional experiences in the confounds of the context, or societal lens, in which they exist, suggesting stereotypical perceptions may be altered by the simultaneous conceptualization of discrete categories (e.g., Cole, 2009; Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2022; Ryan et al., 2011; Wittenbrink et al., 2001).

For example, Wilson et al. (2017) found participants perceived gay black men as more masculine than both gay and straight white men in a neutral setting; simultaneously, gay black men were perceived as better leaders in a workplace setting when compared to gay white men. As workplaces are often male-dominated institutions, and black men have historically been perceived as more domineering than white men (Calabrese et al., 2018; Crenshaw, 1989), masculinity showed greater saliency than gayness; activation of stereotypes related to gayness was not prevalent in this specific context. Furthermore, in comparison to white Western women, stereotypes attributed to womanhood are often more salient for Muslim women with the latter portrayed as more oppressed (van Es, 2019) perhaps due to Western conceptions of androcentrism in Muslim-majority nations, although contradictorily, white Western women have historically been assigned to housewifery roles which only perpetuate patriarchal structures (de Lemus et al., 2013; Ghani et al., 2023; van Es, 2019). Here, clear effects of intergroup relations have materialized, in which individuals emphasize their own group’s positive traits although the outgroup may be more similar than originally perceived (e.g., Sherif et al., 1988; Tajfel et al., 1971; Tajfel & Turner, 1986).

Therefore, stereotypes cannot be described as “one size fits all”, even to the same individuals passing through different contexts; experiences faced by an individual or group may not align with other individuals or groups in the same context, despite a shared overlap of stereotypes or tendencies (Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2019; Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2022; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Remedios & Snyder, 2018), again, complicating the stereotyping process. Furthermore, the theory of intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008) states that individuals belonging to multiple minority groups may be rendered “invisible”, since the intersection of multiple groups negates the prototypicalities of their constituent groups. For instance, the existence of heterocentrism, and, categorical assumptions of whiteness as related to heteronormativity, may cause individuals to perceive certain groups (e.g., Hispanic gay men) as prototypical of neither Hispanic, nor gay men (e.g., Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Remedios & Snyder, 2018; Sykes, 2015). Of course, this creates suitable environments for prejudice to be perpetuated by those considered prototypical of the majority group (e.g., Crenshaw, 1989).

The case of the intersection between sexual orientation and immigrant status

Unfortunately, inequality is apparent in research regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender (LGBT) individuals; namely, it is common to focus on gay white men, excluding narratives from other LGBT members (Rehman et al., 2020; Wright, 2016). Moreover, although some research has found decreases in negative perceptions toward LGBT members upon engaging in parasocial interactions with LGBT characters in media (Hoffarth & Hodson, 2018; Riggle et al., 1996; Schiappa et al., 2006), most characters are white (GLAAD, 2021) and generally portray behaviors which accentuate negative stereotypes (Sink & Mastro, 2017). As such, negative, and unique, consequences may arise in social and academic spheres for people belonging to underrepresented LGBT categories (e.g., Hispanic lesbians, black transgender men) who do not align with prototypical gayness (Levy et al., 2017). For instance, perceived incompatibility of these social categories may require more effort for cognitive conceptualization, resulting in states of confusion for those previously unfamiliar with the group (Roth et al., 2018).

Before considering immigrant status, it is necessary to first acknowledge lexical disparities when describing mobile individuals to calibrate readers for future sections of this paper. Most commonly, the terms ‘expatriate’, ‘[im]migrant’, and ‘refugee’ are found within social, political, and academic settings, but are understood to signify differentiated individuals. However, policymakers tend to combine refugees and immigrants into a single group under the assumption that both groups share work-related intentions of movement, although migrants are not involuntarily forced to move (Long, 2015). Interestingly, expatriates are often left out of policy debates and media coverage, perhaps because this group self-administers their status in an attempt to subconsciously differentiate themselves from immigrants, generally based on race and/or privilege (Benson, 2015; Kunz, 2019). For the purposes of this article, the terms ‘expatriate’ and ‘immigrant’ are combined as ‘immigrant’, meaning an individual that has moved from one location to another.

Perhaps the contested denotations of terminologies has, combined with the status of emergent group, led to a scarcity of experimental quantitative research which focuses on LGBT immigrants as a whole. Instead, prior research on this group tends to fall into one of three categories [generally] along the post-migration axis (Fournier et al., 2018; Sadika et al., 2020) such as: qualitative interpersonal experiences (e.g., McPhail et al., 2014; Oren & Gorshkov, 2021); mental and physical health (e.g., Keuroghlian et al., 2017; Organista et al., 2004); or asylum/refugee statuses as related to policymaking (e.g., DeFilippis, 2016; Ruckstuhl, 2016). To our knowledge, there is not a prior study examining the specific stereotypes attributed to gay and lesbian immigrants, quantitatively. Similar to the current research, Savaş et al. (2021) recently published a work regarding the intersectionality of immigrant groups in the United States. Their methodology utilized a characteristic ranking system (based on applicable stereotypes for each group) and were able to conclude that LGBT immigrants were, overall, perceived as more vulnerable than straight immigrants; contrastingly, LGBT immigrants were also perceived as a greater asset than straight immigrants. Nonetheless, the report ultimately did not include specific stereotypes attributed to LGBT immigrants, nor did they differentiate between subordinate LGBT groups.

Furthermore, some research has examined assumed immigration status by including ethnic or racial groups. For instance, Petsko and Bodenhausen (2019) found evidence of de-racialization when participants chose stereotypical attributes for gay men of certain minorities. Results indicated underlying assumptions of femininity and affluency among gay men; all groups (i.e., white, black, Hispanic, Asian) experienced a de-racialization effect, but it was weakest for gay white men, followed by gay Asian men. As Sykes (2015) notes, the notion of heteronormativity is centered around whiteness and masculinity and therefore, simply being white, or an ethnicity which hold similar stereotypes to white people, may also account for the weaker de-racialization effect among gay men of differing backgrounds. In a similar vein, prior research has focused on specific regions or countries from which LGBT immigrants have arrived, rather than their status as an immigrant. For example, in a Western context, Asian gay men have been stereotyped as submissive (Giwa & Greensmith, 2012), Brazilian gay men may be sought out for their perceived sexuality, while simultaneously barred as less intelligent (Jarrin & Pitts, 2020), and as Chen and Vollick (2013) argue, LGBT immigrants may often face conflicting internal and external identities and must select the most prevalent one, particularly those immigrating from collectivist cultures – a topic central to the theme of this paper.

While the majority of research has focused on gay immigrants, there are some papers which touch on the experiences of lesbian immigrants, usually in a post-migratory manner and/or a focus on policy (Acosta, 2008; Fuks et al., 2018; Giwa & Chaze, 2018; Vargas, 2020). These papers generally do not provide in-depth psychological analysis, but rather highlight the struggles of lesbian immigrants in their destination country and provide valuable information about their experiences; for example, Acosta (2008) detailed the fluid lifestyle of lesbian Latina immigrants in the United States in a series of interviews which may be useful for the current hypotheses. The author highlights the existence of the borderland – a safe space in which lesbian immigrants may be their true self, while hiding aspects (e.g., sexual orientation) when outside of the borderland. Additionally, lesbian Latina immigrants gain membership into a new category they were previously not (people of color) which may facilitate the competition of identities.

The current studies

The studies presented in this paper draw inspiration from Petsko and Bodenhausen (2019), in which de-racialization effects were found for gay men of certain minorities. First, as immigrants are perceived as different than expats to the general public (e.g., Benson, 2015; Kunz, 2019; Long, 2015), we investigated whether participants could conceptualize this generalized group, attributing common stereotypes to immigrants. Furthermore, as gay or lesbian immigrants may not be perceived as prototypically immigrant, potential differences in stereotype attributions between straight and gay or lesbian immigrants were analyzed. Finally, the attribution of stereotypes toward straight, gay, and lesbian immigrants from specific nations was examined to provide a deeper understanding of stereotype salience when belonging to multiple categories. Our findings bring important knowledge regarding intersectional stereotypes to a Portuguese context; however, results are equally valuable for general social psychology, providing evidence supporting the conceptualization of multiple minority groups. Data and experimental materials can be found on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/bg2um/?view_only=4b3ffd03e41d4dbc84654250b8ad751e). All data measures and ethical guidelines are thoroughly reported in this manuscript and supplemental materials. Data was analyzed using JASP v0.16.4.0 software.

Experiment 1a

In Experiment 1a, we examined potential differences in trait attributions between generalized groups in Portuguese society (e.g., Portuguese men, gay Portuguese men, immigrant men, and gay immigrant men). Generally, Portuguese men are expected to take on stereotypically masculine roles such as workers, leaders, and metaphorical rocks – reminiscent of stereotypical expectations of men in Western society (e.g., Fernandes and Cabral-Cardoso, 2006; Johnson & Repta, 2012; Thompson & Pleck, 1986; Wall et al., 2017), although this ideation of gender has recently been challenged in Portugal (Wall et al., 2017). Similarly, stereotypes regarding gay men in Portugal may be similar to those commonly found in other Western contexts, stemming from perceived femininity and counter-existence with straight men (e.g., Garrido et al., 2009; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997; Nascimento & Bianchi, 2021).

Due in part to complex post-colonial attitudes, immigrants to Portugal are viewed as dangerous, uneducated, or socioeconomic drains, although, they are simultaneously regarded as indispensable to the economy (Casquilo-Martins et al., 2022; Eaton, 1998; Guerra et al., 2015); however, this assumption only concerns immigrants from nations with lower socioeconomic statuses than Portugal (e.g., Brazil or Angola). In contrast, immigrants from northern European nations (e.g., France or Sweden) generally relocate to Portugal for a cheaper cost of living and do not make substantial effort to integrate into Portuguese society which contributes to overall negativity or discomfort, but not necessarily xenophobia (Rauhut & Esteves, 2020; Sardinha, 2013). Not much research has been developed on the general category of gay immigrant men (e.g., Savaş et al., 2021), although there has been substantial research on gay immigrant men from specific regions (e.g., Fournier et al., 2018; Jarrin & Pitts, 2020; Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2019). Nonetheless, findings suggest gay immigrant men may not be attributed the same stereotypes as immigrant men, comparable to gay and straight minority men.

To examine the generalization of stereotypes, participants were asked to evaluate one group on a list of pre-defined personal traits, which were then descriptively rank-ordered and analyzed across the four groups for any similarities, or dissimilarities. Particularly, we were interested in the de-immigrantization effect, in which gay immigrants might be perceived as less prototypically immigrant than straight immigrants. To test this, we developed anchors based on each group’s most prototypical attributes. From prior literature and theoretical assumptions, we developed several hypotheses. First, Hypothesis 1 theorized straight target groups (Portuguese and immigrant men) will be rated similar on the anchors of Portugueseness and gayness, but not immigrantness; in this case, it was expected that shared sexual orientation (i.e., shared perceived masculinity) will influence alikeness on the first two anchors, but not on the anchor of immigrantness, as Portuguese men were ingroup members. Hypothesis 2 stated both gay target groups (gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men) will be perceived similarly on the anchors of Portugueseness, gayness, and immigrantness. Finally, Hypothesis 3 expected straight target groups to not be rated similarly to gay target groups; it was expected that straight target groups will be rated higher in Portugueseness and lower in gayness than gay groups (but, differently on immigrantness), while gay target groups will be rated higher in gayness and lower in both Portugueseness and immigrantness when compared to straight target groups.

Method

Participants

In total, 353 participants from a large university partook in this study in exchange for a voucher to a local retailer. A priori power analysis was not conducted to determine sample size; rather, we intended to recruit as many participants as possible over the course of one academic semester. After data was cleaned for incomplete or repetitive response (n = 33), and inclusion criteria were met, 250 responses were validated. All participants that were below the age of 18 (n = 6) and answered “No” to: “Did you answer this questionnaire truthfully?” (n = 12) or “Were you born in Portugal, having Portuguese citizenship?” (n = 52) were excluded. Of the analyzed responses, 178 were women, 62 were men, and 10 did not specify their gender. Ages of participants ranged from 18 to 65 (M = 21.82, SD = 7.74), but an explicit demographics question regarding job status (i.e., student or worker) was not asked. All participants were Portuguese nationals, so the sample was not assumed to be culturally diverse. This study was approved by the ethics committee of the author’s institution, and all participants gave their informed consent before participation. Finally, none of the studies included within this project were pre-registered.

Materials

Participants viewed a list of 128 pre-determined personal characteristics which may be applicable toward individuals from each condition. Of these attributes, 99 were adapted from Petsko and Bodenhausen (2019), and 29 attributes were taken from Garrido et al. (2009) to increase relevance within the Portuguese context. One trait, ignorante/ignorant, was duplicated upon translation to English, and was therefore averaged in the final score; as such, 127 traits were included in the final analyses. For a list of all attributes used (English and Portuguese), please refer to the online supplemental materials.

To translate the 99 English traits from Petsko and Bodenhausen (2019) to Portuguese, four Portuguese natives with English fluency were asked to provide translations for each of the traits. Translations were not accepted if the group did not reach a majority consensus, and if this occurred, the traits were then examined by the authors. There was a full group consensus on 81 traits, a 75% agreement on 9 traits, and a 50% agreement on the final 9 traits (which were subsequently reviewed and accepted by the authors). All remaining traits used in Experiments 1a and 2a were previously translated into Portuguese by Garrido et al. (2009).

Procedure

After viewing the project’s information and their rights to participate, participants then gave their full, informed consent and provided demographic details. The following prompt was then presented: “In this study, we are interested in understanding the cultural stereotypes that are shared within Portuguese society about these groups. Following, there will be a list of personality traits and you will be asked to rate each trait as typical of [condition], on a scale ranging from 1 = Not at all typical to 7 = Very typical. For example, if you consider [condition] to be very joyful, please select ‘7’. Please note we are not interested in your personal beliefs; rather, we would like you to tell us how stereotypical, people, in general, consider these traits to be for this group.” Importantly, in the original Portuguese document, emphasis was put on a generalized point of view; participants were asked to give their opinion about Portuguese society’s point of view regarding each target group. After reading the prompt, participants were then randomly assigned to one of the four main conditions for Experiment 1a (Portuguese men, gay Portuguese men, immigrant men, and gay immigrant men). Because participants completed more than one study in each session, the list of traits for each group was halved to avoid fatigue resulting in eight total conditions. Upon evaluating one target group on Likert-type scales for each attribute, participants were then given the option to report any concerns or questions before being rewarded for their effort.

Results 1a

Descriptive results

Trait averages were calculated and rank-ordered to provide an insight into the most prevalent stereotypes of the four target groups. Table A shows the correlations between ratings (see supplemental materials), while Table 1 highlights the five most and least stereotypical traits attributed to each group (see supplemental materials for a full list of attributes). Notably, trait attributions followed societal assumptions of gendered norms in Western contexts; for instance, Portuguese and immigrant men were conceptualized as masculine (e.g., traditional, stubborn, industrious), and both gay target groups were perceived as feminine (e.g., creative, emotional, talkative), although all groups received unique traits which painted a deeper picture of independent prototypicalities.

Table 1 Most and Least Stereotypical Attributes for Portuguese Men, Gay Portuguese Men, Immigrant Men, and Gay Immigrant Men
Full size table

Testing the hypotheses

To create the anchors used in subsequent analyses, the 10 most stereotypic traits for all groups were selected; importantly, traits were selected based on overall ratings and did not receive manipulations. For instance, tradition-loving, humane, humane, and humane were the top traits for Portuguese men, gay Portuguese men, immigrant men, and gay immigrant men, respectively. Although humane was the top-selected attribute for three of the target groups, each target group received different values for this trait: 6.05 (gay Portuguese men), 5.80 (immigrant men), and 5.93 (gay immigrant men), meaning this term was most strongly related to gay Portuguese men even though it was considered highly prototypical of the three groups. After reviewing the top 10 traits for each group, the values of the same 10 traits were examined across the remaining groups. Specifically, tradition-loving, the most prototypical Portuguese male trait, was given a rating of 5.66 for Portuguese men, 2.10 for gay Portuguese men, 4.71 for immigrant men, and 1.83 for gay immigrant men. In this case, a clear distinction between groups appeared; that is, the attribute tradition-loving was much less prototypical of gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men than Portuguese and immigrant men. This logic was applied for the remaining 9 traits for Portuguese men, followed by the top 10 traits of the remaining three target groups resulting in 40 trait anchors of which quantitative comparisons could be analyzed.

A one-way ANOVA on the Portuguese anchor was performed to test Hypothesis 1; results showed significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese men (M = 5.43, SD = 0.17), gay Portuguese men (M = 4.10, SD = 1.20), immigrant men (M = 4.59, SD = 0.50), and gay immigrant men (M = 4.12, SD = 1.33), F(3, 36) = 4.45, p = .009, η² = 0.27. First, to test potential differences between overall groups, a planned contrast was conducted. It was revealed that, when combined, straight target groups were evaluated as more prototypically Portuguese than gay target groups, t(36) = -3.10, p = .004, as expected. A post-hoc Tukey’s comparison was implemented to further identify differences across individual target groups. When comparing sexual orientation, post-hoc testing indicated no significant differences between Portuguese and immigrant men (pTukey = 0.205, d = − 0.90), or between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men (pTukey = 1.000, d = 0.02). Finally, when comparing national or foreign pairs, post-hoc comparisons revealed Portuguese men were perceived as significantly more Portuguese than gay Portuguese men (pTukey = 0.015, d = -1.43), but no differences between immigrant and gay immigrant men were found (pTukey = 0.673, d = − 0.51).

A second one-way ANOVA was conducted on the anchor of immigrant men to further test Hypothesis 1. Results indicated significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese men (M = 4.81, SD = 0.49), gay Portuguese men (M = 4.76, SD = 0.55), immigrant men (M = 5.30, SD = 0.35), and gay immigrant men (M = 4.66, SD = 0.55), F(3, 36) = 3.35, p = .030, η² = 0.22. A planned contrast revealed differences between target pairings, with straight targets receiving higher ratings of immigrantness than gay targets, t(36) = -2.20, p = .034. Considering sexual orientation, a post-hoc Tukey’s comparison found no significant differences between Portuguese and immigrant men (pTukey = 0.132, d = 1.00), or between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men (pTukey = 0.973, d = − 0.19). In the final post-hoc comparison, the opposite of the first ANOVA occurred: no significant differences were found between Portuguese and gay Portuguese men (pTukey = 0.996, d = − 0.10), but it was revealed that immigrant men were perceived higher in immigrantness than gay immigrant men (pTukey = 0.031, d = -1.30).

Next, a one-way ANOVA on the anchor of gay Portuguese men was performed to test Hypothesis 2. Results revealed significant differences in ratings between Portuguese men (M = 4.23, SD = 0.84), gay Portuguese men (M = 5.67, SD = 0.16), immigrant men (M = 4.23, SD = 0.68), and gay immigrant men (M = 5.42, SD = 0.29), F(3, 36) = 18.38, p < .001, η² = 0.61. A planned contrast suggested gay target groups were rated higher in gayness than straight target groups, t(36) = -7.36, p < .001. Moreover, a post-hoc Tukey’s test regarding sexual orientation indicated no significant differences between Portuguese and immigrant men (pTukey = 1.000, d = 0.01), or between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men (pTukey = 0.753, d = − 0.45). When considering national or foreign targets, it was revealed gay Portuguese men were perceived as more prototypically gay than Portuguese men (pTukey < 0.001, d = 2.55), while the same effect was found for gay immigrant versus immigrant men (pTukey < 0.001, d = 2.10).

A final one-way ANOVA conducted on the anchor of gay immigrant men revealed significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese men (M = 4.17, SD = 0.85), gay Portuguese men (M = 5.38, SD = 0.37), immigrant men (M = 4.10, SD = 0.79), and gay immigrant men (M = 5.70, SD = 0.17), F(3, 36) = 17.90, p < .001, η² = 0.60. Again, a planned contrast suggested gay target groups were perceived higher in gayness (gay immigrantness) than straight target groups, t(36) = -7.23, p < .001. Furthermore, a post-hoc Tukey’s comparison on sexual orientation found no significant differences between Portuguese and immigrant men (pTukey = 0.994, d = − 0.11), or between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men (pTukey = 0.656, d = 0.52). Finally, it was suggested gay Portuguese men were viewed as more prototypically gay [immigrant] than Portuguese men (pTukey < 0.001, d = 1.97), while the same effect was found for gay immigrant versus immigrant men (pTukey < 0.001, d = 2.60).

Discussion 1a

Results largely supported the first two hypotheses which focused on shared conceptualizations across sexual orientation. Specifically, Portuguese and immigrant men were perceived similarly in Portugueseness and on both gayness anchors, as expected; unexpectedly, Portuguese men and immigrant men were not evaluated significantly different on the anchor of immigrantness, but this may be explained by the perceived heterosexuality of each group. That is, prototypical traits of heterosexuality were shared across these two groups, perhaps muddling conceptualizations. Additionally, no differences in ratings were found between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men across all anchors, further suggesting targets’ implied or explicit sexual orientation status may have influenced participants’ ratings. Additionally, Hypothesis 3 was supported by planned contrasts which revealed that, in fact, straight target groups were rated higher in prototypical Portugueseness and immigrantness, and lower in prototypical gayness, than gay target groups. Most importantly, it was found in separate post-hoc Tukey’s tests that gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men were viewed as less prototypical of Portuguese and immigrant men, respectively. Here, explicit gayness shifted the ideation of what is prototypical of the constituent, straight group, exemplifying past literature regarding intersectionality and minorities (e.g., Hall et al., 2015; Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2019; Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008; Savaş et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2017).

Experiment 1b

While Experiment 1a explored generality, Experiment 1b examined the conceptualizations of individuals from specific nations. Brazil, France, India, and Japan were chosen based on their prevalence in Portuguese society and the perceived percentages of gay or lesbian individuals in their populations. To determine percentages, a pretest (n = 43) conducted by the authors regarding the perceptions of nationalities on three scales was conducted prior to Experiment 1b; data from this pretest will be published in a forthcoming paper. In the pretest, participants were asked to move a slider scale to represent the estimated proportion of each nationality’s population that was either gay or lesbian. From this procedure, Brazil and France were considered “high gay” and “high lesbian” countries, while India and Japan were considered “low gay” and “low lesbian” countries.

Coi

ncidentally, a cultural divide appeared in the national pairings whereas culturally Western nations received high estimates of gays or lesbians, and culturally Eastern nations received low estimates of gays or lesbians, which may be explained by the acceptance of LGBT members in Western and Eastern societies. In fact, only one Eastern nation has legalized same-sex marriage as of 2023, and both high gay/lesbian nations selected in this project have legalized same-sex marriage (HRC, 2023). Because [inter]national stereotypes are commonly attributed to the most prevalent members in society (Eagly & Kite, 1987), it is plausible that individuals may conflate national-level LGBT acceptance with the number of LGBT individuals present in each country’s population. In turn, nationalities with a higher perceived percentage of gays or lesbians could be viewed as more feminine, considering gay men are the stereotypical face of LGBT groups worldwide (e.g., Rehman et al., 2020; Wright, 2016) and gay men are conceptualized as more feminine than straight men (e.g., Garrido et al., 2009; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997; Nascimento & Bianchi, 2021). However, past findings may complicate assumptions as, for instance, Hall et al. (2015) found that perceived femininity of Asian men correlated with the attribution of feminine-coded jobs, while Schug and colleagues, (2015) demonstrated that perceived femininity of Asian men deemed them less prototypical of men in general. Nonetheless, this discrepancy deserves further examination and participant ratings of individuals from certain nationalities may very likely be influenced by the overall perceived level of gayness, or lesbianness, in a nationality given the nature of intergroup relations.

Each of the nationalities has unique stereotypes in Portuguese society, with Brazilians being the largest immigrant group in the country. This results in perpetuated stereotypes from colonial times, typically perceiving Brazilians as less educated, poorer, more sexual, or beneath Portuguese citizens (Carvalho & Duarte, 2020; Guerra et al., 2015; Santos, 2013). Similarly, a large number of Indians live in Portugal, but unlike Brazilians, have an entirely different culture than that of Portuguese people. Because of this, Indian diaspora has been categorized in Portugal by unique foods, religions, and clothing, resulting in strong ethnic identities (Lourenço, 2011, 2017; Neto & Neto, 2023) which may inadvertently increase negative disparities between cultures. Individuals from Japan experience similar disparities, but a less xenophobic experience – perhaps due to a higher perceived economic status than India (World Bank, 2023), or because of the historical fascination with orientalism in Portugal (da Câmara, 2007). Finally, France is a more socioeconomically powerful country than Portugal and French people commonly view Portugal as less-developed; this causes negative sentiment from the Portuguese who may subsequently view the French with jealousy and contempt (Koven, 2004).

In the current experiment, we asked participants to evaluate how accurate certain personality traits were of straight and gay men from each nationality. Traits were taken from the most stereotypical attributes of gay Portuguese men and immigrant men in Experiment 1a to provide accurate comparisons across categories. Based on assumptions generated from prior literature, we developed several hypotheses. Hypothesis 1 expected gay men will be rated higher on the gay anchor when compared to straight men from the same nation. Next, Hypothesis 2 theorized gay men will experience de-immigrantization, in which they will be perceived as prototypically less immigrant than straight men from the same country. Finally, Hypothesis 3 stated the cultural divide will influence ratings; specifically, individuals from [perceived] high gay nations will be rated higher in gayness and lower in immigrantness when compared to individuals from [perceived] low gay nations, given the LGBT acceptance in each national group and the assumptions of masculine or feminine demographics groups.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through a large university in exchange for course credit, with 153 online responses recorded and 141 deemed appropriate upon data checks. Again, a priori analysis was not conducted to determine sample size. When checking the data, 5 participants were excluded from analyses for incomplete responses, 4 were not Portuguese, and 2 answered “No” to the question, “Did you answer this questionnaire truthfully?”. From the 141 responses, there were 122 women, 16 men, and 3 who did not specify their gender (M = 20.75, SD = 5.72) but an explicit demographics question regarding job status (i.e., student or worker) was not asked. Of these, 99 participants were straight, 10 were gay or lesbian, 33 marked ‘other sexual orientation’ and 5 did not specify their sexual orientation. Participants gave their full, informed consent to participate and the study was approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ institution.

Procedure & materials

After agreeing to partake in the study, participants were randomly assigned to either the straight or gay condition in which male targets from the four nationalities were randomly presented. Importantly, each nationality was presented as immigrant [nationality] men to increase the probability participants conceptualized each target as an immigrant. Similar to Petsko and Bodenhausen (2019), participants were asked to select all applicable attributes for the assigned target from a shortened version of the traits presented in Experiment 1a. The shortened list (n = 77) was developed by selecting the 15 most and least stereotypical attributes of gay Portuguese men and immigrant men (n = 60), and the 15 most neutral characteristics for both groups (n = 30); duplicated traits were removed, resulting in 77 final traits. Participants were required to select at least 10 traits to continue the experiment. Once participants selected 10 or more prototypical traits for each target group, they were then asked to rank the traits from 1 to 10, with 1 being the most stereotypical of the group. Importantly, only 10 traits were ordered; any extra traits were discarded from final analyses. After this process was completed for individuals from all four nationalities, participants were presented with demographic questions and rewarded for their participation.

Results 1b

Descriptive results

Selected traits were rank-ordered across groups, providing an understanding of the stereotypes attributed to each target nationality based on sexual orientation. To calculate frequency, traits were counted and averaged by the total number of respondents; therefore, frequency equals the percentage of participants which selected a specific trait, respective of condition (see Table 2). Notably, high gay nationalities (Brazil and France) were more likely to be attributed with prototypical gay [Portuguese] traits (45%) than low gay nationalities (India and Japan) (15%), while low gay nationalities were more likely to be attributed prototypically immigrant traits (45%) than high gay nationalities (15%). Coincidentally, the same number of traits was selected across cultural groups, but, the specific traits differed. Furthermore, the number of selected prototypic traits does not necessarily mean a target group is, or is not, prototypically similar to the anchor group. For instance, flirtatious, talkative, and eccentric were commonly selected for gay Brazilian men; although these traits were not in the top 15 for gay men, they were present upon examining the top 20. Therefore, statistical analyses using the same theoretical principles as Experiment 1a were performed to identify trends in anchored ratings.

Table 2 Frequencies of Selected Attributes for Brazilian, French, Indian, and Japanese Men
Full size table

Testing the hypotheses

To organize and analyze the data, anchors were created for each nationality group based on ratings from Experiment 1a for the same traits. For instance, sociable was the most prototypical trait of straight and gay Brazilians; in Experiment 1a, sociable was rated 5.56 for gay Portuguese men and 4.54 for immigrant men, suggesting higher prototypicality for gay men compared to immigrant men. Therefore, each rank-ordered value from Experiment 1b was given a numerical value based on perceived gayness and immigrantness which could be quantitatively analyzed. It should be noted that general gayness was not explicitly tested for in Experiment 1a, but evidence of overlapping conceptualizations between gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men appeared, indicating a sense of general gayness. As such, gay Portuguese men were used as the anchor for gayness.

A 2 (sexual orientation) x 4 (nationality) mixed ANOVA on the anchor of gayness was conducted to test Hypothesis 1. A mixed ANOVA was deemed appropriate as nationalities was a within-subjects factor, while sexual orientation was a between-subjects factor. Results indicated a main effect of nationalitiesFootnote 1, F(3, 54) = 8.24, p < .001, η² = 0.23 and sexual orientation, F(1, 18) = 12.35, p = .002, η² = 0.10, but no significant interaction was found between variables, F(3, 54) = 0.96, p = .420, η² = 0.03. Moreover, post-hoc Tukey’s test found no significant differences in ratings for all nationality pairingsFootnote 2; thus, although straight and gay targets were evaluated differently on the anchor of gayness, nationality did not appear to substantially impact those perceptions. Results did not support Hypothesis 1.

A second 2 (sexual orientation) x 4 (nationality) mixed ANOVA on the anchor of immigrantness was performed to test Hypothesis 2. Results revealed a main effect of nationality, F(3, 54) = 7.113, p < .001, η² = 0.22, but a nonsignificant difference between sexual orientation, F(1, 18) = 2.45, p = .135, η² = 0.02 and no significant interaction between variables, F(3, 54) = 0.44, p = .725, η² = 0.01. Additionally, no significant differences of within-nationality groupings were found in post-hoc comparisonsFootnote 3, suggesting nationality was the only variable which exerted influence on immigrantness anchor, and rejecting Hypothesis 2.

To test Hypothesis 3, nationalities were grouped according to the perceived percentage of gay individuals in each country (i.e., high or low). A 2 (percentage of gay individuals) x 2 (sexual orientation) mixed ANOVA on the anchor of gayness was conducted, with sexual orientation being the only between-subjects factor. Results indicated a main effect of percentage, F(1,38) = 25.741, p < .001, η² = 0.19 and sexual orientation, F(1, 38) = 9.09, p = .005, η² = 0.10, as expected, but no interaction between variables was found, F(1, 38) = 2.87, p = .099, η² = 0.02 (see Fig. 1). A planned contrast qualified the findings, which revealed individuals from high gay nations were rated higher in gayness compared to individuals from low gay nations, t(38) = 5.07, p < .001. A post-hoc Tukey’s test indicated no significant difference between straight or gay individuals from high gay nations (pTukey = 0.603, d = 0.39), but did indicate a significant difference between straight or gay men from low gay nations (pTukey = 0.006, d = 1.10). Moreover, gay individuals from low gay nationalities were perceived similar in gayness to both straight (pTukey = 0.797, d = 0.29), and gay individuals (pTukey = 0.096, d = 0.68), from high gay nationalities.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Prototypical Gayness of Individuals from High or Low Gay Nations

Note. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

A second 2 (percentage of gay individuals) x 2 (sexual orientation) mixed ANOVA on the immigrantness anchor was performed to further test Hypothesis 3. Results revealed a significant main effect between perceived gayness, F(1, 38) = 17.87, p < .001, η² = 0.20, but no significant difference between sexual orientation, F(1, 38) = 2.52, p = .120, η² = 0.02 and no interaction between variables, F(1,38) = 0.14, p = .710, η² < 0.01, as expected (see Fig. 2). First, a planned contrast on nationality suggested individuals from high gay nations were rated lower in immigrantness than individuals from low gay nations, t(38) = -4.23, p < .001. Moreover, a post-hoc Tukey’s test found no significant differences between straight or gay individuals from high gay nations (pTukey = 0.535, d = − 0.43), and straight or gay individuals from low gay nations (pTukey = 0.856, d = − 0.25). Unexpectedly however, nonsignificant differences between straight men from high gay nations and gay men from low gay nations were revealed (pTukey = 0.180, d = − 0.65).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Prototypical Immigrantness of Individuals from High or Low Gay Nations

Note. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Discussion 1b

Although we largely rejected the first two hypotheses, Hypothesis 3 was supported. Specifically, straight and gay men from the same nationality did not differ on the anchors of gayness or immigrantness and unexpectedly, participants conceptualized each nationality as a whole, although this may be explained by the nature of national stereotyping which dictates national stereotypes are driven by the most prevalent group in each country (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987). Nevertheless, cultural differences between nations appeared in which individuals from high gay nations were perceived as more prototypically gay, and less prototypically immigrant, than individuals from low gay nations – supporting suspicions regarding the perceived femininity of high gay countries. Importantly, however, gay individuals from low gay countries were perceived similar in gayness to individuals from high gay countries, and similar in immigrantness to straight men from high gay nations. Therefore, gay men from low gay nationalities may experience de-immigrantization, because stereotypical assumptions of gayness alter, and decrease, the stereotypical assumptions of immigrants.

Experiment 2a

Experiments 2a and 2b extended the methodologies of Experiments 1a and 1b to include women and further understand the process of de-immigrantization. Experiment 2a utilized the same methodology and hypotheses as Experiment 1a, including the groups of Portuguese women, lesbian Portuguese women, immigrant women, and lesbian immigrant women. In Portugal, the stereotypes regarding straight and lesbian women are comparable to stereotypes of women in Western contexts, where straight and immigrant women may be expected to partake in gendered norms and roles (e.g., housewifery), and lesbian women may be viewed as exceptions to this (e.g., Cunningham, 2019; Fernandes and Cabral-Cardoso, 2006; Nascimento & Bianchi, 2021; Wall et al., 2017). Based on prior literature and findings from Experiment 1a, hypotheses were updated accordingly. Specifically, Hypothesis 1 theorized straight target groups (Portuguese and immigrant women) will be rated similar on the anchors of Portugueseness, lesbianness, and immigrantness; that is, perceived heterosexuality will influence alikeness across all anchors, including immigrantness. Moreover, Hypothesis 2 stated lesbian target groups (lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women) will be evaluated similarly on the anchors of Portugueseness, lesbianness, and immigrantness, with explicit lesbianness driving participants’ ideations of the targets. Hypothesis 3 did not expect straight and lesbian target groups to be perceived similarly; rather, we expected that straight target groups will be rated higher in Portugueseness and immigrantness than lesbian target groups, while lesbian target groups were expected to be rated higher in lesbianness than straight targets.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through a large university in exchange for either course credit or a voucher to a local retailer. In all, 260 online responses were recorded; again, a priori analysis was not conducted to determine sample size. Of the responses, 217 were deemed valid after data was cleaned for repetitive responses (n = 14) and all participants that answered “No” to “Were you born in Portugal, having Portuguese citizenship?” (n = 9) or “Did you answer this questionnaire truthfully?” (n = 20) were excluded. In total, 159 participants were women, 57 were men, and 1 did not specify their gender. Ages ranged between 18 and 72 (M = 26.66, SD = 7.95), but an explicit demographics question regarding job status (i.e., student or worker) was not asked. Participants gave their informed consent to partake, and this study was approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ institution.

Materials & procedure

The materials and procedure used in Experiment 2a were nearly identical to those of Experiment 1a; notably, traits were not halved, meaning participants saw all of the traits for one of the four main conditions. Additionally, as Portuguese is a gendered language, traits were adapted to the feminine versions of each word. For instance, criativo was changed to criativa to account for masculine and feminine wordage. For more information on the materials and procedure, please refer to Experiment 1a.

Results 2a

Descriptive results

To accurately determine stereotype attribution, averages from all traits were calculated, providing a rank-ordered list of the most to least representative stereotypes for each condition. Table B indicates the correlation between these ratings (in supplemental materials), while Table 3 highlights the most and least stereotypical traits for each target group. As space is limited, a full list of attributes may be found in the supplemental materials. Again, results appeared to follow general assumptions of straight and lesbian women in Western society, where both straight target groups were prototypically loyal to their family or industrious, while lesbian target groups were prototypically liberal and progressive.

Table 3 Most and Least Stereotypical Attributes for Portuguese Women, Lesbian Portuguese Women, Immigrant Women, and Lesbian Immigrant Women
Full size table

Testing the hypotheses

The same analytical procedure from Experiment 1a was implemented in Experiment 2a. For information on the analysis conducted, please refer to the methodology of Experiment 1a. To test Hypothesis 1, a one-way ANOVA on the Portuguese anchor was performed; significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese women (M = 5.73, SD = 0.24), lesbian Portuguese women (M = 4.74, SD = 0.55), immigrant women (M = 4.84, SD = 0.58), and lesbian immigrant women (M = 4.83, SD = 0.55) were found, F(3, 36) = 8.83, p < .001, η² = 0.42. A planned contrast testing overall differences between target groups suggested straight target groups were rated as more prototypically Portuguese than lesbian target groups, t(36) = 3.20, p = .003. Unexpectedly, a post-hoc Tukey’s test indicated Portuguese women were rated more prototypically Portuguese than immigrant women (pTukey = 0.002, d = -1.79); as expected however, no differences were found between lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women (pTukey = 0.979, d = 0.18). When considering national and foreign groups, post-hoc Tukey’s comparison indicated Portuguese women were viewed as more Portuguese than lesbian Portuguese women (pTukey < 0.001, d = -2.00), while no differences were found between immigrant and lesbian immigrant women (pTukey = 1.000, d = 0.03).

Following the same logic, a second one-way ANOVA on the immigrantness anchor was performed. Significant differences between Portuguese women (M = 5.15, SD = 0.72), lesbian Portuguese women (M = 4.09, SD = 1.25), immigrant women (M = 5.04, SD = 0.38), and lesbian immigrant women (M = 4.23, SD = 1.24) were revealed, F(3, 36) = 3.14, p = .037, η² = 0.21. An initial planned contrast indicated that, again, straight target groups were considered more prototypically immigrant than lesbian target groups, t(36) = 3.04, p = .004. As expected, a post-hoc Tukey’s test suggested no significant differences between Portuguese and immigrant women (pTukey = 0.994, d = − 0.12), or between lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women (pTukey = 0.990, d = 0.14). However, the comparison also found no significant differences between Portuguese and lesbian Portuguese women (pTukey = 0.088, d = -1.09), or between immigrant and lesbian immigrant women (pTukey = 0.260, d = 0.84), suggesting minimal overall differences on the immigrantness anchor.

To test Hypothesis 2, a one-way ANOVA was performed on the lesbianness anchor, which revealed significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese women (M = 4.90, SD = 0.76), lesbian Portuguese women (M = 5.37, SD = 0.17), immigrant women (M = 4.24, SD = 0.62), and lesbian immigrant women (M = 5.31, SD = 0.25), F(3, 36) = 10.42, p < .001, η² = 0.47. Again, a planned contrast suggested lesbian target groups were, generally, rated as more prototypically lesbian than straight target groups, t(36) = -4.78, p < .001. A post-hoc Tukey’s comparison found that Portuguese women were unexpectedly rated higher in lesbianness than immigrant women (pTukey = 0.032, d = -2.61), while no differences were found between lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women (pTukey = 0.993, d = − 0.12). Finally, it was suggested that there were no differences in trait ratings between Portuguese and lesbian Portuguese women (pTukey = 0.180, d = 0.93), but lesbian immigrant women were perceived as higher in lesbianness than immigrant women (pTukey < 0.001, d = -2.10).

A final one-way ANOVA on the anchor of lesbian immigrant women revealed significant differences in trait ratings between Portuguese women (M = 5.07, SD = 0.69), lesbian Portuguese women (M = 5.30, SD = 0.26), immigrant women (M = 4.43, SD = 0.60), and lesbian immigrant women (M = 5.39, SD = 0.11), F(3, 36) = 8.32, p < .001, η² = 0.41. As with former results, a planned contrast suggested that lesbian target groups were rated higher in lesbianness (lesbian immigrantness) than straight target groups, t(36) = -3.97, p < .001. A post-hoc Tukey’s test found Portuguese women were perceived as prototypically more lesbian [immigrant] than immigrant women (pTukey = 0.024, d = -1.34), while no differences between lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women were indicated (pTukey = 0.979, d = 0.18). Finally, no significant differences between Portuguese and lesbian Portuguese women were found (pTukey = 0.684, d = 0.50), but lesbian immigrant women were rated higher in lesbianness (lesbian immigrantness) than immigrant women (pTukey < 0.001, d = -2.02).

Discussion 2a

Unexpectedly, results largely did not support Hypothesis 1 which expected Portuguese and immigrant women to be evaluated similarly on the anchors of Portugueseness, immigrantness, and lesbianness. Instead, Portuguese women were rated higher in Portugueseness and lesbianness, but not immigrantness, when compared to immigrant women. However, Hypothesis 2 was fully supported as lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women received statistically similar ratings across all four anchors. Importantly, findings again suggested lesbians were not seen as prototypically different although their nationality or immigrant status was explicitly different. Hypothesis 3 was also supported, suggesting that when combined, straight target groups are perceived higher in prototypical Portugueseness and immigrantness than lesbian groups, while lesbian target groups are perceived higher in lesbianness than straight target groups.

Experiment 2b

Experiment 2b extended themes from Experiment 1b, considering straight and lesbian women from the same four target nationalities (Brazil, France, India, and Japan). The materials and procedure were nearly identical to Experiment 1b, save for the adaptation of traits from masculine to feminine. However, we updated the hypotheses according to the findings from Experiment 1b; specifically, Hypothesis 1 expected that straight and lesbian women from the same nationality will not be evaluated differently on the lesbianness or immigrantness anchor. As with Experiment 1b, Hypothesis 2 stated that individuals from high lesbian nations will be rated higher in lesbianness and lower in immigrantness when compared to individuals from low lesbian nations.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through a large university in exchange for course credit. In total, 98 responses were recorded, with 23 not meeting inclusion criteria; again, a priori analysis was not conducted. Of the exclusions, 3 participants were under the age of 18, 12 had incomplete data, 5 were not Portuguese, and 3 answered “No” to “Did you answer this questionnaire truthfully?”. Of the 75 included responses, 63 were women, 10 were men, and 2 did not specify their gender. Ages ranged from 18 to 50 (M = 19.68, SD = 4.62), but an explicit demographics question regarding job status (i.e., student or worker) was not asked. Of these, 49 were straight, 5 were gay or lesbian, 20 selected ‘other LGBT’, and 1 did not specify their sexual orientation. Participants gave their informed consent to participate, and this study was approved by the ethics committee of the authors’ institution.

Materials & procedure

Experiment 2b utilized the same methodology and materials as Experiment 1b. Again, minor changes in wordage were implemented to account for masculine and feminine adjectives in the Portuguese language. Using the same trait selection process, 71 final traits were used for the female target groups; that is, some traits were shared across categories and were omitted to avoid redundancy. For the full procedure, please refer to Experiment 1b, and for the full list of traits, please refer to supplemental materials.

Results 2b

Descriptive results

Traits were rank-ordered across groups, highlighting the most prototypical attributes of each target group based on sexual orientation (see Table 2). Importantly, high lesbian nationalities (Brazil and France) were more likely to be attributed with prototypical lesbian traits (48%) than low lesbian nationalities (India and Japan) (20%), and low lesbian nationalities were more likely to be attributed with prototypical immigrant traits (50%) than high lesbian nationalities (5%). While distinct differences emerged, the number of selected traits does not necessarily mean a target group is, or is not, prototypically similar to the anchor. To accurately test prototypicality, statistical tests were performed using the same analytical procedures from Experiment 1a.

Table 4 Frequencies of Selected Attributes for Brazilian, French, Indian, and Japanese Women
Full size table

Testing the hypotheses

To analyze the data, anchors were created for each nationality group based on the ratings from Experiment 2a for the same traits. For instance, industrious was the most prototypical trait of Japanese women; in Experiment 2a, industrious was rated 4.38 for lesbian Portuguese women and 5.42, suggesting this trait was higher in prototypicality for immigrant women than lesbian women. With this procedure, each rank-ordered value in Experiment 2b was given a numerical value based on perceived lesbianness and immigrantness which could be quantitatively analyzed. General lesbianness was not explicitly tested in Experiment 2a, but, findings suggested overall shared conceptualizations between lesbian Portuguese and lesbian immigrant women. Therefore, the anchor of lesbianness was defined by lesbian Portuguese women.

To test Hypothesis 1, a 2 (sexual orientation) x 4 (nationality) mixed ANOVA was performed, albeit, on the anchor of lesbianness. Again, the ANOVA indicated a main effect between nationalitiesFootnote 4, F(3, 54) = 3.79, p = .015, η² = 0.13 and sexual orientation, F(1, 18) = 21.99, p < .001, η² = 0.12, but no interaction was found, F(3, 54) = 1.96, p = .132, η² = 0.07. A post-hoc Tukey’s test revealed nonsignificant differences for within-nationality pairingsFootnote 5, excluding straight and lesbian Indian women (pTukey = 0.008, d = 0.1.69). Unexpectedly, participants evaluated Indian women differently on sexual orientation, whereas lesbian Indian women were perceived as higher in lesbianness than straight Indian women. Nonetheless, results generally supported Hypothesis 1.

A second 2 (sexual orientation) x 4 (nationality) mixed ANOVA on the anchor of immigrantness was conducted to test Hypothesis 2. The test revealed a main effect of nationality, F(3, 54) = 5.25, p = .003, η² = 0.18, but no effect of sexual orientation, F(1, 18) = 1.52, p = .233, η² = 0.01 and no interaction between variables, F(3, 54) = 0.19, p = .903, η² < 0.01. Moreover, no significant differences of within-nationality groupings were found in post-hoc comparisonsFootnote 6, suggesting nationality was the only variable which influenced ratings of immigrantness and thus supporting Hypothesis 2.

To test Hypothesis 2, nationalities were again grouped by their perceived percentage of lesbian individuals in each country. First, a 2 (percentage of lesbian individuals) x 2 (sexual orientation) mixed ANOVA was performed on the anchor of lesbianness and indicated a main effect of percentage, F(1, 38) = 10.07, p = .003, η² = 0.12 and sexual orientation, F(1, 38) = 17.65, p < .001, η² = 0.12, but did not indicate an interaction between variables, F(1, 38) = 3.88, p = .056, η² = 0.05 (see Fig. 3). First, a planned contrast suggested individuals from high lesbian nations were perceived as more prototypically lesbian than individuals from low lesbian nations, t(38) = 3.17, p = .003. A post-hoc Tukey’s test revealed no significant differences between straight or lesbian individuals from high lesbian nationalities (pTukey = 0.798, d = 0.29), but did find significant differences between straight and lesbian individuals from low lesbian nationalities (pTukey < 0.001, d = 1.29), whereas lesbian individuals from low lesbian nations were evaluated similar in lesbianness when compared to both straight (pTukey = 0.830, d = 0.31) and lesbian individuals (pTukey = 1.000, d = 0.02) from high lesbian nations.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Prototypical Lesbianness of Individuals from High or Low Lesbian Nations

Note. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

A final 2 (percentage of lesbian individuals) x 2 (sexual orientation) mixed ANOVA on the immigrantness anchor was performed to further test Hypothesis 3. Results revealed a significant main effect of nationality, F(1, 38) = 15.61, p < .001, η² = 0.17, but no main effect of sexual orientation, F(1, 38) = 1.37, p = .249, η² = 0.01 and no interaction between variables, F(1, 38) = 0.07, p = .801, η² < 0.01 (see Fig. 4). A planned contrast suggested individuals from high lesbian nations were rated as less prototypically immigrant than individuals from low lesbian nations, t(38) = -3.95, p < .001. Moreover, a post-hoc Tukey’s comparison found nonsignificant differences between straight or lesbian women from high lesbian nations (pTukey = 0.749 d = − 0.32), and separately, nonsignificant differences between straight or lesbian women from low lesbian nations (pTukey = 0.919, d = − 0.20). However, significant differences were also found between lesbians from high lesbian nations and lesbians from low lesbian nations (pTukey = 0.025, d = − 0.95).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Prototypical Immigrantness of Individuals from High or Low Lesbian Nations

Note. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals

Full size image

Discussion 2b

Findings generally supported the hypotheses, which updated and extended those from Experiment 1b. Straight and lesbian women from each nationality did not receive different ratings on the lesbianness and immigrantness anchors, as expected, except for the case of Indian women. Specifically, lesbian Indian women were perceived as more prototypically lesbian than straight Indian women, going against past findings and assumptions. Here, perhaps an increase in implied traditionalism influenced participants’ ratings of straight and lesbian Indian women, although this statement requires further testing. Nonetheless, the other hypotheses were supported which expected individuals from high lesbian nations to be evaluated as more prototypically lesbian and less prototypically immigrant than individuals from low lesbian nations. Importantly, lesbians from low lesbian nations were perceived as prototypically similar to individuals from high lesbian nations in lesbianness, and similar to straight women from high lesbian nations on immigrantness, replicating the findings from Experiment 1b and again suggesting de-immigrantization effects.

General discussion

We hypothesized gay and lesbian individuals will be perceived as less prototypically Portuguese or immigrant when considering stereotypical personality traits attributed to each group. Moreover, we expected that gay men from specific nationalities would follow suit in which they will be perceived as more gay and less immigrant than straight men, but unexpectedly, straight and gay men from the same nationality were conceptualized similarly and only an effect of perceived national gayness appeared. This effect was extended to female target groups in which straight and lesbian women from the same nationality received similar trait ratings on the anchors of lesbianness and immigrantness, and again, an effect of the perceived percentage of lesbians in the population was found.

In Experiment 1a, gay Portuguese and gay immigrant men were similarly considered as less prototypically Portuguese or immigrant than straight Portuguese and immigrant men, implying participants conceptualized each target group according to explicit or assumed sexual orientation. That is, participants created new conceptualizations of groups when the identifier of sexual orientation was added to nationality or immigrant status, attributing different traits based on sexual orientation. Importantly, assumed sexual orientation appeared to drive the conceptualizations of Portuguese and immigrant men, whereas both straight target groups were evaluated similarly on the anchors of Portugueseness, gayness, and unexpectedly, immigrantness. It was expected that outgroup membership will result in immigrant men being rated as more prototypically immigrant; however, an underlying assumption of heterosexuality and/or masculinity could explain similarities in trait ratings between these two target groups (e.g., Garrido et al., 2009; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997; Nascimento & Bianchi, 2021; Schug et al., 2015). Experiment 2a attempted to replicate findings from Experiment 1a, but in fact, suggested that women did not follow the same trends as men. While lesbian women were perceived as generally less prototypically Portuguese and immigrant, differentiations between straight Portuguese and immigrant women arose. Specifically, straight Portuguese women were perceived as more prototypically Portuguese and lesbian than immigrant women were, rejecting the same theoretical assumptions of implied sexual orientation.

Nonetheless, it is uncertain to us as to why this effect differs across genders, but answers may be explained by ambiguous social categories; for instance, individuals may draw conclusions about others based on their own stereotypical perception of the other’s group, even when the group or context may be ambiguous (Dunning & Sherman, 1997; Remedios et al., 2011; Thayer & Pronko, 1959). Here, stereotypes of women could have been diluted, given the fact that national stereotypes may be driven by men (Eagly & Kite, 1987), resulting in differences in conceptualizations between men and women on the anchor of immigrantness. This difference nevertheless brings more questions to the issue at hand and requires further experimentation.

To shift conclusions from generic to specific, four nationalities (Brazil, France, India, and Japan) were introduced in Experiments 1b and 2b. Originally, we hypothesized that national conceptualizations will be differentiated by sexual orientation, but gay men will be perceived differently due to perceived femininity (e.g., Nascimento & Bianchi, 2021; Petsko & Bodenhausen, 2019; Savaş et al., 2021). However, this effect was not found across all nationalities regarding gayness or immigrantness anchors and was replicated by the female target groups (except for Indian women). Instead, national conceptualizations seem to dominate, in which participants conceptualized individuals from the same nationality as largely similar, independent of sexual orientation; undoubtedly, this harkens back to Eagly and Kite’s (1987) work on the nature of national stereotypes. The authors argue that, as nations are viewed as inherently androcentric, the stereotypes of nations may be anchored to the men within the population. As such, there may not be much differentiation between the men and women from a certain nationality, disregarding the sexual orientation of the targets if it is not explicitly primed (see Petsko & Bodenhausen’s (2022) lens theory). Furthermore, individuals from high gay or lesbian nations were perceived as prototypically more gay or lesbian and prototypically less immigrant than individuals from low gay or lesbian nations, suggesting that the national identities themselves may be a product of [inter]national perceptions. That is, heightened LGBT acceptance may influence international perceptions of liberalism or femininity within the nation itself, resulting in de-immigrantization effects (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987; Hall et al., 2015; Rehman et al., 2020; Schug et al., 2015; Wright, 2016). Importantly, gays and lesbians from low gay nations were also de-immigrantized, suggesting positive attributes of sexual orientation may actually outweigh negative attributes of immigration (see Savaş et al., 2021).

Herein lies the importance of exploring perceptions of groups which may have been previously overlooked. It is imperative, as researchers, to include and incorporate marginalized and/or vulnerable groups so their unique experiences may become better realized. Intersectional research must go beyond common group memberships and begin to examine underrepresented or complex categories which not only increase inclusivity in the literature, but also aids future research on stereotype function. Moreover, as results strayed from hypotheses derived from prior theoretical considerations, it appears that intersectional research may, itself, be contradictory in nature, begging for the contextualization of effects across societies and structures.

Beyond the theoretical implications of the findings, it is equally important to note the limitations. First, although the goal of the project was to gather a generalized viewpoint from Portuguese society, a substantially diverse sample was not produced. Instructions presented to participants attempted to generalize results from individual to societal, but, some of the instructions may have been misinterpreted by the participants (who gave their own perceptions). Nonetheless, as Portugal is an ethnically homogenous country with a large middle class, it is plausible that results could be replicated when using a more diverse sample.

Second, the studies did not account for potential ambiguities in the design. Specifically, most of the translated terms were undisputed, but for instance, humano was contested by the translators; in Portuguese, this term could be understood as being humane (empathetic) toward others, or that they are human (i.e., all humans are equal). As such, it is unclear which connotation of this word was more applied by participants, and it remains unclear if other terms experienced similar ambiguities. Furthermore, sexual orientation was not explicitly stated for straight target groups, increasing the probability that participants may have not been able to accurately categorize these target groups. However, we argue that, as Sykes (2015) notes, heteronormativity is focused on the perceived masculinity of individuals and therefore, the absence of explicit sexual orientation should not substantially influence results. Nonetheless, further testing is required to test a potential difference in conceptualization between straight Portuguese men and Portuguese men, for instance.

Finally, it is debatable whether or not participants understood the meaning of all presented attributes, as some are more common than others. A mixed methodological design utilizing both top-down and bottom-up processing in which participants both selected and generated attributes for each target group could have alleviated this concern. While the closed design of the studies has certain advantages, an open-ended design may have led to a more diverse dataset, highlighting terms which were previously unaware to the researchers – particularly since the same traits were used for different groups in society (see Ghavami & Peplau, 2013 for an example).

Future researchers in this line could benefit from the strengths and limitations of this project, creating works which further encompass various intersectional target groups while reducing limitations. For example, bisexual or transgender men and women were not included in this project; as two underrepresented LGBT groups in media and research, their inclusion is increasingly important. Based on the findings of the current studies, it is plausible that sexual orientation would still be a more salient social category than immigrant status, but this statement undoubtedly requires testing to be concretely assumed. Moreover, it is unclear to what extent sexual orientation or nationality is a dominant identifier for intersectional target groups and there remains work to be done in the line of intersectional stereotypes.

Conclusion

This project built upon findings and assumptions related to intersectional target groups and stereotype attribution in a unique manner. Specifically, a quantitative methodology including individuals at the intersection of nationality, immigrant status, and sexual orientation suggested sexual orientation remained a salient social category, generally surpassing nationality or immigrant status. That is, straight Portuguese and immigrant men and women were typically conceptualized similarly across the anchors of Portugueseness, immigrantness, and gayness, with a few notable exceptions. Simultaneously, gay or lesbian Portuguese and immigrant individuals were evaluated similarly across all anchors with no exceptions. Furthermore, individuals from high gay and lesbian nationalities were, overall, perceived as less prototypically immigrant than individuals from low gay and lesbian nationalities presenting important considerations for the diversification of individuals from certain nations. Findings from this research extend the diversification of psychological research, while simultaneously building upon the ideas of stereotype saliency and intersectionality, particularly of gay or lesbian immigrants. We, the authors, look forward to the continuous development of this line of research, as well as the future of diversified intersectional studies.