Literature DB >> 31863317

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

Chuma Kevin Owuamalam1, Andrea Soledad Matos2.   

Abstract

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

Entities:  

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

Year:  2019        PMID: 31863317     DOI: 10.1007/s10508-019-01592-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Sex Behav        ISSN: 0004-0002


  21 in total

Review 1.  Compassion: an evolutionary analysis and empirical review.

Authors:  Jennifer L Goetz; Dacher Keltner; Emiliana Simon-Thomas
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Helping to improve the group stereotype: on the strategic dimension of prosocial behavior.

Authors:  Nick Hopkins; Steve Reicher; Kate Harrison; Clare Cassidy; Rebecca Bull; Mark Levine
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2007-05-04

3.  A power primer.

Authors:  J Cohen
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 17.737

4.  Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses.

Authors:  Franz Faul; Edgar Erdfelder; Axel Buchner; Albert-Georg Lang
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2009-11

5.  Standing up for a change: reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation.

Authors:  Alexander M Czopp; Margo J Monteith; Aimee Y Mark
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  2006-05

6.  Bystander intervention in emergencies: diffusion of responsibility.

Authors:  J M Darley; B Latané
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1968-04

Review 7.  Effects of mindfulness on psychological health: a review of empirical studies.

Authors:  Shian-Ling Keng; Moria J Smoski; Clive J Robins
Journal:  Clin Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-05-13

8.  Depression and causal attributions for success and failure.

Authors:  N A Kuiper
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1978-03

9.  "I'm not gay. . . . I'm a real man!": Heterosexual Men's Gender Self-Esteem and Sexual Prejudice.

Authors:  Juan Manuel Falomir-Pichastor; Gabriel Mugny
Journal:  Pers Soc Psychol Bull       Date:  2009-07-01

Review 10.  Are Manipulation Checks Necessary?

Authors:  David J Hauser; Phoebe C Ellsworth; Richard Gonzalez
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2018-06-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.