Abstract
AbstractWhy would heterosexual men downplay their compassion for masculine (vs. feminine) gay victims of hate crime? Two social identity‐inspired explanations provide contrasting answers to this question. The reactive distinctiveness thesis (RD) assumes that heterosexual men would downplay their compassion more, when cued to a gay victim's masculinity than to their femininity, provided evaluative concerns are strong. In contrast, the feminization‐threat thesis (FT) assumes that compassion downplays would be more visible when heterosexual men are cued to a gay victim's femininity (not to the victim's masculinity), provided evaluative concerns are strong too. Consistent with RD, three experiments (Ntotal = 1,475) revealed that heterosexual men who read news about (gay) victims at a hate crime scene downplayed their compassion to a greater degree when cued to the masculinity rather than to the femininity of such targets (Studies 1–3). Meanwhile FT's prediction received partial support when considering feminine (vs. masculine) heterosexual victims, rather than homosexual victims (Study 3).
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
