Confronting Sexual Stigma and Prejudice: Theory and Practice

This article explores theoretical and applied questions that are relevant to social scientists’ efforts to understand and confront sexual stigma. A framework is presented for conceptualizing such stigma as a cultural phenomenon with structural and individual manifestations. The latter include enacted stigma and felt stigma, as well as internalized stigma, which encompasses self-stigma among sexual minorities and sexual prejudice among heterosexuals. Insights suggested by the model for reducing sexual prejudice are discussed. At the structural level, the framework highlights processes whereby heterosexism legitimates and perpetuates sexual stigma and the power differentials that it creates. Social and behavioral scientists roles’ in working to eliminate heterosexism are discussed, and psychologists’ contributions to court cases challenging state sodomy laws are described. It is argued that confronting sexual stigma will not only address an important social problem but will also enrich scientific understanding of human behavior. Kurt Lewin is famous for his admonition that theoretically oriented psychologists should “not look toward applied problems with highbrow aversion or with a fear of social problems” and that applied researchers should recognize that “there is nothing so practical as a good theory” (Lewin, 1944/1964, p. 169). As in so many domains of human behavior, this advice has considerable relevance to the contemporary problems of sexual stigma and prejudice and to social scientists’ attempts to understand and confront them. In the Lewinian spirit, the present article addresses some theoretical and applied aspects of this social problem at both the individual and structural levels of analysis. In the realm of application, I highlight some key issues in research addressing the reduction of sexual prejudice and the mitigation of its impact at the individual level, and describe some of my own empirical research in this area. At the structural level, I describe work by the American Psychological Association (APA) to communicate the findings from such research to the courts, and I describe some specific amicus curiae briefs on which I collaborated. Such applications of science are best pursued with theoretical guidance. Toward that end, I describe a conceptual framework that I have been developing for thinking about sexual prejudice and related phenomena in their cultural context (for further elaboration, see Herek, in press-a; Herek, in press-b). I do not label this framework a theory because it does not Pr ep ub lic ati on D raf t 2 offer testable hypotheses. However, it provides a useful vocabulary, points to important parallels and interrelationships among phenomena, and highlights key research questions. Thus, I hope it meets Lewin’s criterion of practicality. And, although it does not yet constitute a true theory, it helps to integrate insights from the psychological study of prejudice as an attitude with insights from sociological theory and research on stigma as a cultural, group-level phenomenon. In that respect, I hope it contributes to the advancement of general theory in this area. To begin, it is important to note two ways in which the stigma and prejudice directed at sexual minorities in the contemporary United States and elsewhere are distinct from parallel phenomena directed at racial, ethnic, and religious minorities (see also Fiske & Taylor, in press). First, under most circumstances, an individual’s sexual orientation is not readily apparent to casual observers, and many sexual minorities attempt to regulate the extent to which others are aware of their minority status. As discussed below, the concealable nature of sexual orientation creates important parallels between heterosexuals and sexual minorities in how sexual stigma is experienced and manifested. Second, in contrast to prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, and many other statuses, sexual prejudice is not generally regarded as undesirable or inappropriate throughout U.S. society. Although the legitimacy of sexual stigma is increasingly contested, condemnation and intolerance of sexual minorities remain strong in many sectors of society. This too has important theoretical and practical ramifications. The Conceptual Framework At the core of the framework is the construct of sexual stigma, defined here as the negative regard, inferior status, and relative powerlessness that society collectively accords to any nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community. Sexual stigma is socially shared knowledge about homosexuality’s devalued status in society. Regardless of their own sexual orientation or personal attitudes, people in the United States and many other societies know that homosexual desires and behaviors are widely regarded in negative terms relative to heterosexuality. They are aware of the malevolent stereotypes routinely attached to individuals whose personal identities are based on same-sex attractions, behaviors, relationships, or membership in a sexual minority community. Thus, sexual stigma is conceptualized here as a cultural phenomenon that exists independently of the attitudes of any one individual. It creates the social context in which such attitudes are formed, maintained, expressed, and changed. Lay accounts of stigma tend to focus on the particular condition or attribute that marks its bearers as diverging in an undesirable way from society’s understanding of normalcy. By contrast, social psychological accounts emphasize the social processes through which a stigmatized condition acquires its meaning in different situations (Goffman, 1963; see also Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Jones et al., 1984). In the case of sexual stigma, these culturally constructed meanings have evolved over time – and currently are changing rapidly – as a product of complex social processes (e.g., Herek, in press-b). As with all types of stigma, they are grounded in society’s power relations, which means that nonheterosexuals have less power than heterosexuals, that is, less access to valued resources, less influence over others, and less control over their own fate (Link & Phelan, 2001). Structural Manifestations of Sexual Stigma Like other forms of stigma, sexual stigma manifests itself both in the institutions of society and in individuals. At the structural level, society’s institutions and ideological systems legitimate and perpetuate sexual stigma and the differentials in status and power that it creates. I label this aspect of sexual stigma heterosexism. Adapting Link and Phelan’s (2001) definition of institutional racism, heterosexism can be understood as a cultural ideology embodied in institutional practices that work to the disadvantage of sexual minority groups even in the absence of individual prejudice or discrimination. Within society’s institutions – including Pr ep ub lic ati on D raf t 3 religion, the law, and medicine – heterosexism has historically legitimized the inferior status of sexual minorities relative to heterosexuals. It continues to justify and perpetuate power differentials between heterosexuals and sexual minority individuals through at least two general processes. First, it promotes a heterosexual assumption (i.e., all people are presumed to be heterosexual) and thereby renders gay, lesbian, and bisexual people invisible in most social situations. Second, when people with a nonheterosexual orientation become visible, heterosexism problematizes them. Nonheterosexuals, homosexual behavior, and same-sex relationships are presumed to be abnormal and unnatural and, therefore, are regarded as inferior, as requiring explanation, and as appropriate targets for hostility, differential treatment and discrimination, and even aggression. By contrast, heterosexuals are regarded as prototypical members of the category people, and heterosexual behavior and different-sex relationships are presumed to be normal and natural (Hegarty & Pratto, 2004; for a more detailed discussion of specific aspects of heterosexism, see Herek, Chopp, & Strohl, 2007). It is noteworthy, however, that as lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have increasingly come to be recognized as a minority group whose members are entitled to recognition not simply as human beings but also as well-functioning members of society who deserve full citizenship and equal rights, discriminatory practices and policies have begun to lose their claims to moral righteousness. In other words, heterosexism’s legitimacy in the United States and elsewhere is increasingly contested (e.g., Kelman, 2001). Psychology has played an important role in this process, a point that is discussed in a later section. Individual Manifestations Of Sexual Stigma The conceptual framework highlights three key manifestations of sexual stigma among individuals. Enacted Stigma Enacted sexual stigma refers to the overt behavioral expression of sexual stigma through actions such as the use of antigay epithets, shunning and ostracism of sexual minority individuals, and overt discrimination and violence. In my own research, I have been especially interested in extreme forms of enacted sexual stigma, such as violent victimization of sexual minorities, property crimes against them, and other forms of overt harassment and abuse. During the 1980s and 1990s, I collected data from several community samples (Herek, 1993; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999; Herek, Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997) which, in combination with other community and campus surveys (e.g., Berrill, 1992; Herek & Sims, 2008), indicated that substantial numbers of sexual minority adults have been the target of harassment and abuse because of their sexual orientation. The main limitation of these data was that they were obtained from convenience samples whose representativeness of the sexual minority population cannot be known. In a 2005 survey, however, I obtained data from a national probability sample of self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. In that sample, about 21% of the respondents had experienced violence or a property crime based on their sexual orientation at least once during their adult life (Herek, in press-c). Gay men were the most likely group to report that they had experienced criminal victimization: About 38% of gay men reported experiencing either antigay violence or property crimes, compared to 11-13% of lesbians, bisexual men, and bisexual women. The survey also yielded data about other forms of harassment and abuse that are commonly experienced by sexual minorities. For example, 13% of respondents reported having objects thrown at them because of their sexual orientation, 23% had been threatened with violence, and 49% had experienced verbal abuse. As with criminal assault and property crimes, gay men were the group most likely to experience such attacks (Herek, in press-c). The same survey also revealed that employment and housing discrimination are widespread. About 11% of the sample reported having been the target of discrimination because of their sexual orientation, with lesbians and gay men more likely to have experienced it (16% and 18%, respectively) than bisexual women and men (7% Pr ep ub lic ati on D raf t 4 and 4%, respectively; Herek, in press-c; see also Badgett, Lau, Sears, & Ho, 2007). Enacted stigma exacts a significant psychological toll from its targets. In addition to inflicting physical injury and property loss, for example, hate crimes are associated with greater psychological trauma for the victims than are other kinds of violent crime. In the first study of its kind, my UC Davis colleagues and I recruited a large community sample of sexual minority adults (N = 2,259) and compared those who had been the victims of a crime against their person based on their sexual orientation with those who had experienced a violent crime that was unrelated to their sexual orientation. Among the gay men and lesbians, those who had experienced antigay violence manifested significantly higher levels of depressive symptoms, traumatic stress symptoms, anxiety, and anger compared to those who had experienced comparable crimes during the same time period that were unrelated to their sexual orientation (Herek et al., 1999). Other studies have similarly found that sexual minority victims of hate crimes have elevated levels of psychological distress (Mills et al., 2004; Szymanski, 2005). The most obvious targets of enacted stigma are sexual minority individuals. Their friends, family, and close associates can also be at risk, experiencing what Goffman (1963) termed a courtesy stigma. Because sexual orientation is concealable, however, anyone can e labeled homosexual or bisexual in a social interaction. Thus, all heterosexuals are potentially vulnerable to enactments of sexual stigma. This has important implications for understanding a second individual manifestation of sexual stigma, felt stigma. Felt Stigma People need not be a target of enacted stigma in order for sexual stigma to affect their lives. Indeed, the knowledge that enacted stigma can occur under certain circumstances often motivates people to modify their behavior in order to avoid such enactments. This is the essence of felt stigma (Scambler & Hopkins, 1986), defined here as an individual’s expectations about the probability that sexual stigma will be enacted in different situations and under various circumstances. Because people generally wish to avoid being the target of stigma enactments, felt stigma often affects behavior. Its manifestations among sexual minorities include high levels of stigma consciousness (Pinel, 1999) and stereotype threat (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004). Felt stigma also motivates sexual minority individuals to use various stigma management strategies, including attempts to pass as heterosexual, to preemptively avoid enactments of stigma (Herek, 1996). Although such coping strategies can reduce one’s risks for discrimination and attack, they can also significantly disrupt the lives of stigmatized individuals, limit their behavioral options, reduce their opportunities for social support, heighten their psychological distress, and increase their risk for physical illness (Cole, 2006; Herek, 1996; Lewis, Derlega, Griffin, & Krowinski, 2003). In my previously cited national survey, I asked sexual minority respondents about their expectations that nonheterosexual individuals will encounter discrimination or differential treatment in various situations. In their responses, most manifested some degree of felt stigma. More than one third agreed with the statement, “Most people where I live think less of a person who is [gay/lesbian/bisexual].” About one fourth disagreed that “Most employers where I live will hire openly [gay/lesbian/bisexual] people if they are qualified for the job.” Roughly 40% agreed that “Most people where I live would not want someone who is openly [gay/lesbian/bisexual] to take care of their children.” Overall, 55% gave at least one response indicating felt stigma (Herek, in press-c). Because a person’s sexual orientation is usually concealable and, consequently, remains ambiguous in many social interactions, heterosexuals also manifest felt stigma. Like sexual minority individuals who attempt to pass as “straight,” some heterosexuals use self1 The item wording matched the respondent’s preferred self-label. Pr ep ub lic ati on D raf t 5 presentation strategies to avoid being labeled homosexual or bisexual. Such strategies include avoiding gender nonconformity (Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Herek, 1986) and refraining from physical contact with samesex friends (Roese, Olson, Borenstein, Martin, & Shores, 1992). Felt stigma sometimes even motivates individuals to enact sexual stigma against others to prove to their peers that they are heterosexual. This pattern is especially common among males, who may enact stigma to establish that they are “real men” (Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997). Internalized Stigma Felt stigma results from the knowledge that homosexuality is stigmatized, regardless of whether or not the individual endorses such stigma or accepts it as legitimate. By contrast, internalized stigma is an individual’s personal acceptance of sexual stigma as a part of her or his own value system and self-concept. Like enacted and felt stigma, it is manifested by both sexual minorities and heterosexuals. I use the term self-stigma to refer to internalized sexual stigma among sexual minorities. With self-stigma, the minority individual’s selfconcept is congruent with the stigmatizing responses of society (e.g., Jones et al., 1984). He or she accepts society’s negative evaluation of homosexuality as warranted and, consequently, harbors negative attitudes toward the self and toward her or his own homosexual desires. Selfstigma also has been labeled internalized homophobia (Weinberg, 1972), internalized heterosexism (Szymanski & Chung, 2003), and internalized homonegativity (Mayfield, 2001). Not surprisingly, self-stigma often has important negative consequences for the physical and psychological well-being of sexual minority individuals (Herek & Garnets, 2007; Meyer,