Advertisement

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

, Volume 15, Issue 4, pp 504–515 | Cite as

Which Partners Are More Human? Monogamy Matters More than Sexual Orientation for Dehumanization in Three European Countries

  • David RodriguesEmail author
  • Fabio Fasoli
  • Aleksandra Huic
  • Diniz Lopes
Article

Abstract

Compared to monogamous relationships, consensual non-monogamous (CNM) relationships are stigmatized. Similarly, compared to heterosexual individuals, gay men are perceived to have more promiscuous and less committed romantic relationships. Hence, CNM and same-sex male relationships are potential targets of dehumanization (i.e., denied traits considered unique of human beings). We tested the impact of monogamy and sexual orientation on dehumanization, and examined if CNM (vs. monogamous) and same-sex (vs. heterosexual) partners are dehumanized through the attribution of primary (non-uniquely human) and secondary (uniquely human) emotions. A sample of heterosexual young adults (N = 585, 455 women; M age = 25.55, SD = 7.48) in three European countries—Croatia, Italy, and Portugal—attributed primary and secondary emotions to four groups: (a) CNM same-sex male partners, (b) CNM heterosexual partners, (c) monogamous same-sex male partners, and (d) monogamous heterosexual partners. Results showed that uniquely human emotions were attributed less to CNM than to monogamous partners, and this happened regardless of sexual orientation. Furthermore, CNM same-sex and CNM heterosexual partners were evaluated similarly. This pattern of results was consistent across countries. The implication of these findings for social policies and sexual rights is discussed.

Keywords

Consensual non-monogamy Sexual orientation Dehumanization Stigmatization Cross-national 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Funding

This research was funded by the grant SFRH/BPD/73528/2010, awarded by Fundação para a Ciência e Tecnologia (FCT) to the first author.

References

  1. Andrighetto, L., Baldissarri, C., Lattanzio, S., Loughnan, S., & Volpato, C. (2014). Human-itarian aid? Two forms of dehumanization and willingness to help after natural disasters. Br J Soc Psychol, 53, 573–584. doi: 10.1111/bjso.12066.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2010). Whatever happened to non-monogamies? Critical reflections on recent research and theory. Sexualities, 13, 748–772. doi: 10.1177/1363460710384645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barnett, J. P. (2014). Polyamory and criminalization of plural conjugal unions in Canada: Competing narratives in the s.293 reference. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 11, 63–75. doi: 10.1007/s13178-013-0137-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian, B., & Haslam, N. (2010). Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism. J Exp Soc Psychol, 46, 107–113. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bharj, N., & Hegarty, P. (2015). A postcolonial feminist critique of harem analogies in psychological science. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 257–275. doi: 10.5964/jspp.v3i1.133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blaney, A. D., & Sinclair, H. C. (2013). Defining concepts and new directions: A commentary on “The fewer the merrier? Assessing stigma surrounding nonnormative romantic relationships”. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 38–41. doi: 10.1111/asap.12000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boysen, G., Vogel, D., Madon, S., & Wester, S. (2006). Mental health stereotypes about gay men. Sex Roles, 54, 69–82. doi: 10.1007/s11199-006-8870-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brandon, M. (2016). Monogamy and nonmonogamy: Evolutionary considerations and treatment challenges. Sexual Medicine Reviews, 4, 343–352. doi: 10.1016/j.sxmr.2016.05.005.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt, M., & Reyna, C. (2011). The chain of being: A hierarchy of morality. Perspect Psychol Sci, 6, 428–446. doi: 10.1177/1745691611414587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Brown, M., & Groscup, J. (2009). Perceptions of same-sex domestic violence among crisis center staff. J Fam Violence, 24, 87–93. doi: 10.1007/s10896-008-9212-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown, N., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Attributing primary and secondary emotions to lesbians and gay men: Denying a human essence or gender stereotyping? Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 6, 14–20.Google Scholar
  12. Burris, C. (2014). Torn between two lovers? Lay perceptions of polyamorous individuals. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 258–267. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.779311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Callahan, M., & Vescio, T. (2011). Core American values and the structure of antigay prejudice. J Homosex, 58, 248–262. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2011.540180.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Capozza, D., Falvo, R., Trifiletti, E., & Pagani, A. (2014). Cross-group friendships, extended contact, and humanity attributions to homosexuals. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 114, 276–282. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Capozza, D., Trifiletti, E., Vezzali, L., & Favara, I. (2013). Can intergroup contact improve humanity attributions? Int J Psychol, 48, 527–541. doi: 10.1080/00207594.2012.688132.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Castano, E., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2006). Not quite human: Infrahumanization in response to collective responsibility for intergroup killing. J Pers Soc Psychol, 90, 804–818. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Cohen, M. (2016). An exploratory study of individuals in non-traditional, alternative relationships: How “open” are we? Sexuality & Culture, 20, 295–315. doi: 10.1007/s12119-015-9324-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conley, T., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Ziegler, A. (2013a). The fewer the merrier?: Assessing stigma surrounding consensually non-monogamous romantic relationships. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 1–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01286.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conley, T., Moors, A., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to practice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. J Sex Med, 9, 1559–1565. doi: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2012.02712.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Valentine, B. (2013b). A critical examination of popular assumptions about the benefits and outcomes of monogamous relationships. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 17, 124–141. doi: 10.1177/1088868312467087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cortes, B., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez, R., Rodriguez, A., & Leyens, J.-P. (2005). Infrahumanization or familiarity? Attribution of uniquely human emotions to the self, the ingroup, and the outgroup. Personal Soc Psychol Bull, 31, 243–253. doi: 10.1177/0146167204271421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Crawford, M., & Popp, D. (2003). Sexual double standards: A review and methodological critique of two decades of research. Journal of Sex Research, 40, 13–26. doi: 10.1080/00224490309552163.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Demoulin, S., Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, M.-P., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Dovidio, J. (2004). Dimensions of “uniquely” and “non-uniquely” human emotions. Cognit Emot, 18, 71–96. doi: 10.1080/02699930244000444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Doan, L., Miller, L., & Loehr, A. (2015). The power of love: The role of emotional attributions and standards in heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbian and gay couples. Social Forces, 94, 401–425. doi: 10.1093/sf/sov047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eurobarometer. (2015). Discrimination in the UE in 2015. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/ResultDoc/download/DocumentKy/68004
  26. European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2009). Homophobia and discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity in the EU member states. Part II: The social situation. Retrieved from http://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/397-FRA_hdgso_report_part2_en.pdf
  27. EVS. (2011). European Values Study 2008: Integrated dataset (EVS 2008). GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA4800 Data file version 3.0.0. doi: 10.4232/1.11004
  28. Fasoli, F., Maass, A., Paladino, M. P., & Sulpizio, S. (2017). Gay- and lesbian-sounding voice elicits stereotyping and discrimination. Arch Sex Behav. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1007/s10508-017-0962-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fasoli, F., Paladino, M. P., Carnaghi, A., Jetten, J., Bastian, B., & Bain, P. G. (2016). Not “just words”: Exposure to homophobic epithets leads to dehumanizing and physical distancing from gay men. Eur J Soc Psychol, 46, 237–248. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gillmor, K., Bernstein, M., & Benfield, J. (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, 34–45.Google Scholar
  31. Grunt-Mejer, K., & Campbell, C. (2016). Around consensual nonmonogamies: Assessing attitudes toward nonexclusive relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 45–53. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2015.1010193.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 10, 252–264. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1003_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Laham, S., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Humanness, dehumanization, and moral psychology. In M. Mikulincer & P. Shaver (Eds.), The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 203–218). Washington, DC: APA Press.Google Scholar
  34. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2012). Dehumanization and prejudice. In J. Dixon & M. Levine (Eds.), Beyond prejudice: Extending the social psychology of conflict, inequality and social change (pp. 89–104). London: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  35. Haslam, N., & Loughnan, S. (2014). Dehumanization and infrahumanization. Annu Rev Psychol, 65, 399–423. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115045.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Haslam, N., & Stratemeyer, M. (2016). Recent research on dehumanization. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 25–29. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hegarty, P. (2013). Deconstructing the ideal of fidelity: A view from LGB psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 31–33. doi: 10.1111/j.1530-2415.2012.01298.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hosking, W. (2013). Agreements about extra-dyadic sex in gay men’s relationships: Exploring differences in relationship quality by agreement type and rule-breaking behavior. J Homosex, 60, 711–733. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2013.773819.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Hutzler, K., Giuliano, T., Herselman, J., & Johnson, S. (2016). Three’s a crowd: Public awareness and (mis)perceptions of polyamory. Psychology & Sexuality, 7, 69–87. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2015.1004102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kertzner, R. M. (2012). A mental health research perspective on marital rights and civil marriage for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Mental Health, 16, 136–145. doi: 10.1080/19359705.2012.652577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Kite, M., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychol Women Q, 11, 83–96. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kteily, N., Bruneau, E., Waytz, A., & Cotterill, S. (2015). The ascent of man: Theoretical and empirical evidence for blatant dehumanization. J Pers Soc Psychol, 109, 901–931. doi: 10.1037/pspp0000048.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Kuntz, A., Davidov, E., Schwartz, S., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Human values, legal regulation, and approval of homosexuality in Europe: A cross-country comparison. Eur J Soc Psychol, 45, 120–134. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levitt, E., & Klassen, A. (1976). Public attitudes toward homosexuality: Part of the 1970 national survey by the Institute for Sex Research. J Homosex, 1, 29–43. doi: 10.1300/J082v01n01_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Levy, B. L., & Levy, D. L. (2017). When love meets hate: The relationship between state policies on gay and lesbian rights and hate crime incidence. Soc Sci Res, 61, 142–159. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.06.008.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Leyens, J.-P., Demoulin, S., Vaes, J., Gaunt, R., & Paladino, M. P. (2007). Infra-humanization: The wall of group differences. Social Issues and Policy Review, 1, 139–172. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2007.00006.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personal Soc Psychol Rev, 4, 186–197. doi: 10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M.-P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Eur J Soc Psychol, 31, 395–411. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lopes, D., de Oliveira, J., Nogueira, C., & Grave, R. (2016). The social determinants of polymorphous prejudice against lesbian and gay individuals: The case of Portugal. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 14, 56–70. doi: 10.1007/s13178-016-0230-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. MacInnis, C., & Hodson, G. (2012). Intergroup bias toward “group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 725–743. doi: 10.1177/1368430212442419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mak, H., & Tsang, J.-A. (2008). Separating the “sinner” from the “sin”: Religious orientation and prejudiced behavior toward sexual orientation and promiscuous sex. J Sci Study Relig, 47, 379–392. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-5906.2008.00416.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Marcu, A., & Chryssochoou, X. (2005). Exclusion of ethnic groups from the realm of humanity: Prejudice against the gypsies in Britain and in Romania. Psicología Politica, 30, 41–56.Google Scholar
  54. Matsick, J., Conley, T., Ziegler, A., Moors, A., & Rubin, J. (2014). Love and sex: Polyamorous relationships are perceived more favourably than swinging and open relationships. Psychology & Sexuality, 5, 339–348. doi: 10.1080/19419899.2013.832934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull, 129, 674–697. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  56. Mogilski, J., Memering, S., Welling, L., & Shackelford, T. (2017). Monogamy versus consensual non-monogamy: Alternative approaches to pursuing a strategically pluralistic mating strategy. Arch Sex Behav, 46, 407–417. doi: 10.1007/s10508-015-0658-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Moors, A., Matsick, J., & Schechinger, H. (2017). Unique and shared relationship benefits of consensually non-monogamous and monogamous relationships. Eur Psychol, 22, 55–71. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moors, A., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., Rubin, J., & Conley, T. (2013). Stigma toward individuals engaged in consensual nonmonogamy: Robust and worthy of additional research. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 52–69. doi: 10.1111/asap.12020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Moors, A., Rubin, J., Matsick, J., Ziegler, A., & Conley, T. (2014). It’s not just a gay male thing: Sexual minority women and men are equally attracted to consensual non-monogamy. Journal Für Psychologie, 22, 38–51.Google Scholar
  60. Nadal, K. L., Whitman, C. N., Davis, L. S., Erazo, T., & Davidoff, K. C. (2016). Microaggressions toward lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and genderqueer people: A review of the literature. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 488–508. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1142495.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Oliver, M., & Sedikides, C. (1992). Effects of sexual permissiveness on desirability of partner as a function of low and high commitment to relationship. Soc Psychol Q, 55, 321–333. doi: 10.2307/2786800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Paladino, M.-P., Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez, R., Rodriguez, A., Gaunt, R., & Demoulin, S. (2002). Differential association of uniquely and non uniquely human emotions with the ingroup and the outgroup. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 5, 105–117. doi: 10.1177/1368430202005002539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Peplau, L., & Fingerhut, A. (2007). The close relationships of lesbians and gay men. Annu Rev Psychol, 58, 405–424. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Pieper, M., & Bauer, R. (2005). Polyamory und mono-normativität: Ergebnisse einer empirischen studie über nicht-monogame lebensformen. [Polyamory and mono-normativity: Results of an empirical study in non-monogamous ways of life]. In L. Merritt, T. Bührmann, & N. Schefzig (Eds.), Mehr als eine liebe. Polyamouröse beziehungen. [more loves than one. Polyamorous relationships] (pp. 59–70). Berlin: Orlanda.Google Scholar
  65. Plasek, J., & Allard, J. (1984). Misconceptions of homophobia. J Homosex, 10, 23–37. doi: 10.1300/J082v10n01_02.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Risman, B., & Schwartz, P. (1988). Sociological research on male and female homosexuality. Annu Rev Sociol, 14, 125–147. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.14.080188.001013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Pereira, M. (2016). “We agree and now everything goes my way”: Consensual sexual nonmonogamy, extradyadic sex, and relationship satisfaction. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 19, 373–379. doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Rodrigues, D., Lopes, D., & Smith, C. V. (2016). Caught in a “bad romance”?, Reconsidering the negative association between sociosexuality and relationship functioning. Journal of Sex Research. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1252308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rohmann, A., Niedenthal, P. M., Brauer, M., Castano, E., & Leyens, J.-P. (2009). The attribution of primary and secondary emotions to the in-group and to the out-group: The case of equal status countries. J Soc Psychol, 149, 709–730. doi: 10.1080/00224540903348253.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Rubel, A., & Bogaert, A. (2015). Consensual nonmonogamy: Psychological well-being and relationship quality correlates. Journal of Sex Research, 52, 961–982. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2014.942722.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Rule, N. O., Bjornsdottir, R. T., Tskhay, K. O., & Ambady, N. (2016). Subtle perceptions of male sexual orientation influence occupational opportunities. J Appl Psychol, 101, 1687–1704. doi: 10.1037/apl0000148.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Schwartz, J. (2010). Investigating differences in public support for gay rights issues. J Homosex, 57, 748–759. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2010.485875.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Schwartz, S., & Struch, N. (1989). Values, stereotypes, and inter-group antagonism. In D. Bar-Tal, C. Grauman, A. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Changing conceptions (pp. 151–167). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Shaw, A., Rhoades, G., Allen, E., Stanley, S., & Markman, H. (2013). Predictors of extradyadic sexual involvement in unmarried opposite-sex relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 50, 598–610. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2012.666816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sizemore, K. M., & Olmstead, S. B. (2016). Willingness to engage in consensual nonmonogamy among emerging adults: A structural equation analysis of sexual identity, casual sex attitudes, and gender. Journal of Sex Research. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/00224499.2016.1243200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Testa, R., Kinder, B., & Ironson, G. (1987). Heterosexual bias in the perception of loving relationships of gay males and lesbians. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 163–172. doi: 10.1080/00224498709551355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting americans. J Marriage Fam, 62, 48–60. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00048.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vaes, J., Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, M., & Miranda, M. (2012). We are human, they are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of the ingroup. Eur Rev Soc Psychol, 23, 64–106. doi: 10.1080/10463283.2012.665250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vaughn, A. A., Teeters, S. A., Sadler, M. S., & Cronan, S. B. (2016). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviors towards lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. J Homosex. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Viki, G. T., & Calitri, R. (2008). Infrahuman outgroup or suprahuman ingroup: The role of nationalism and patriotism in the infrahumanization of outgroups. Eur J Soc Psychol, 38, 1054–1061. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Viki, G. T., Osgood, D., & Phillips, S. (2013). Dehumanization and self-reported proclivity to torture prisoners of war. J Exp Soc Psychol, 49, 325–328. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.11.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Volpato, C., & Andrighetto, L. (2015). Dehumanization. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 31–37). Oxford: Elsevier. doi: 10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.24035-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vrangalova, Z., Bukberg, R., & Rieger, G. (2014). Birds of a feather? Not when it comes to sexual permissiveness. J Soc Pers Relat, 31, 93–113. doi: 10.1177/0265407513487638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Whitley, B. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol, 77, 126–134. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Whitley, B. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691–721. doi: 10.1023/A:1015640318045.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Whitley, B. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A meta-analysis. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 21–38. doi: 10.1080/10508610802471104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wilkinson, W., & Roys, A. (2005). The components of sexual orientation, religiosity, and heterosexuals’ impressions of gay men and lesbians. J Soc Psychol, 145, 65–84. doi: 10.3200/SOCP.145.1.65-84.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Organizational PsychologyInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, GoldsmithsUniversity of LondonLondonUK
  3. 3.School of PsychologyUniversity of SurreyGuildfordUK
  4. 4.Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations