Asexuality (Summary of that new study (heterosexual views of asexuals))

Summary of that new study (heterosexual views of asexuals)

Accessed via my school’s VPN. I won’t be making it available, but I can summarize it!

“Intergroup bias toward “Group X”: Evidence of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination against asexuals”
Cara C. MacInnis and Gordon Hodson

Will write in this as I go along (issues/important points).

Background/hypotheses:

First definition of asexuality they gave was correct, but state later that asexuality is defined by a lack of sexuality, rather than as a possession of “socially deviant sexual desires” (in relation to wondering whether heterosexuals would treat asexuals more like homosexual or bisexual people, who have the latter characteristic).

They note immediately after the former point that asexuals don’t engage in “taboo sexual activity”, which as we know is not necessarily correct.

The authors suggest that asexuals may be treated even more negatively by heterosexuals than are homosexual or bisexual people, because we may be seen as “particularly deviant”.

It is also thought that the more individuals relate to their heterosexual in-group, the more they are expected to discriminate against asexuals. Similar for religious fundamentalists.

Heterosexual individuals, the study suggests, will view other heterosexual people as the most “human”, and asexuals as the least “human” and most “mechanical” of all groups observed, due to sexuality being closely related to nearly all aspects of human social life. (It should be noted that here they incorrectly define asexuality again, this time as a “lack of sexual desire”, which we also know is untrue.)

It is suggested that heterosexuals may actively avoid contact with sexual minorities, including asexuals, and even express intent to discriminate against asexuals in terms of employment or housing.

The authors want to distinguish between discrimination for being single and for being asexual. ***VERY INCORRECT WARNING: They state, with utmost assuredness, that asexuals “do not and will not have sex of their own volition, nor desire to”***

Results:

1. Heterosexuals were rated the most positively, and asexuals the least positively. “[A]ntiasexual prejudice is the most pronounced of all”.

2. Individuals who scored highly on a scale of prejudice had attitudes toward asexuals similar to their attitudes to homosexuals and bisexuals (these seem to be prejudiced toward sexuality minority status rather than perceived sexual activities).

3. Those who like homosexuals and bisexuals tend to also like asexuals. The same correlation occurs when homosexuals and bisexuals are disliked.

4. Heterosexuals were considered the ‘most human’ while asexuals were significantly considered the ‘least human’.

5. In the study on contact and avoidance, heterosexuals preferred contact with heterosexuals. Then, they would rather contact homosexuals than bisexuals or asexuals. Contact with asexuals was desired significantly less than with homosexuals.

6. In the study on housing/employment discrimination, heterosexuals were least likely to be discriminated against. Homosexuals and asexuals were the least discriminated against of the remaining. Bisexuals experienced the most prejudice in this category.

7. It was found that bias against asexuals is not the product of discrimination against singledom. After controlling for the effects of singlism, asexuals were still significantly discriminated against by religious fundamentalists, those high on the prejudice scale, and those who strongly identify with heterosexuality.

Limitations:

This university sample contained few men, which did not allow for “examination of participant sex as a factor”.

Students’ views may not reflect the general populace (really, if students think this way about us, what does it say about the rest of society?). The authors note that sexual activity is valued amongst university students.

STUDY 2

Conducted within a larger online community to determine whether the previously observed results could be replicated. Larger proportion of males, smaller proportion of students. Furthermore, sought to discover potential biases against sapiosexuals — the thought being that if sapiosexuals (a “relatively uncommon and objectively harmless” group similar to asexuals) are not discriminated against in the same fashion as asexuals, then mere out-group discrimination based on familiarity is not to blame.

Results:

1. Heterosexuals were viewed most postively, followed by relatively equivalent views of homosexuals and bisexuals, followed by asexuals. Attitudes toward each group are more positive in this online sample than in the original study.

2. Religious fundamentalism, and high levels on a scale of prejudice again correctly predicted negative views of sexual minorities. When controlled for said position of the scale of prejudice, however, it was found that identification with heterosexuality did not lead to higher bias against asexuals.

3. Those who like/dislike sexual minorities are again found to like/dislike asexuals, respectively.

4. “Uniquely human traits” were prescribed least to bisexuals, and “human nature traits” least to asexuals. Asexuals, as indicated by this study, are seen as least likely to experience “human” emotions, where heterosexuals, homosexuals, and bisexuals are equivalent.

5. Contact with heterosexuals was again the most desired, and asexuals the least desired. Desire for contact with bisexuals and homosexuals was equal.

6. Singlism was again shown to not be responsible for heterosexual views of asexuals.

7. Attitudes toward asexuals, despite being more known than the sapiosexual orientation, were more negative than toward sapiosexuals. Indicates that familiarity does not correlate with attitudes.

In study 2, positivity associated with each group was higher. Men were shown to view asexuals as more animalistic than did women.

(Source)

(Source: toseefeelingly)

@1 year ago with 207 notes