Abstract
Voice-based sexual orientation (SO) judgements can prompt group-based discrimination. However, the relationships between stigmatization and essentialist beliefs about vocal cues to SO have not been researched. Two studies examined heterosexuals' and gay men's and lesbian women's essentialist beliefs about voice as a cue of SO to uncover essentialist beliefs' role in the perpetration and experience of stigma. In Study 1 (N=363), heterosexual participants believed voice was a better cue to SO for men than for women, and participants' belief in the discreteness, immutability, and controllability of 'gay-sounding' voices was correlated with higher avoidant discrimination towards gay-sounding men. In Study 2 (N=147), endorsement of essentialist beliefs about voice as a SO cue was associated with self-perceptions of sounding gay amongst gay men and lesbians. Sexual minority participants, especially gay men, who believed that they sounded gay reported more anticipation of rejection and engaged in vigilance in response. Essentialist beliefs about vocal cues to SO are relevant to explaining both the perpetration of stigma by heterosexuals and the experience of stigma for lesbians and gay men.
Highlights
In modern societies, like the UK, discrimination on the basis of perceived sexual orientation (SO) is considered wrong (i.e., Equality & Human Right Commission, 2020) but still occurs, and contributes to diminished quality of life and wellbeing for lesbian and gay (LG) people (Jackson, Hackett, Grabovac, Smith, & Steptoe, 2019)
We used SEM in AMOS 23 to analyze the associations between voice essentialist beliefs and LG-sounding voice and gender-typical voice and whether LG-sounding voice and gender-typical voice were associated with expectations of rejection and vigilance
Study 1 showed that heterosexuals endorsed voice essentialist beliefs that are strongly related with avoidant discrimination towards LG-sounding individuals
Summary
Like the UK, discrimination on the basis of perceived SO is considered wrong (i.e., Equality & Human Right Commission, 2020) but still occurs, and contributes to diminished quality of life and wellbeing for LG people (Jackson, Hackett, Grabovac, Smith, & Steptoe, 2019). The anti-essentialist belief that SO is a personal choice has been presented as justification for historical attempts to change gay men’s and lesbians’ SO in unethical ways In this historical context, SO immutability beliefs seem affirming of LG identity, but they risk hardening the boundaries between SO categories, increasing the risk of group-based discrimination (see Morton & Postmes, 2009; Prentice & Miller, 2007). SO immutability beliefs seem affirming of LG identity, but they risk hardening the boundaries between SO categories, increasing the risk of group-based discrimination (see Morton & Postmes, 2009; Prentice & Miller, 2007) Because of this complexity, essentialist beliefs can function as vehicles for expressing both gay-affirmative and prejudicial values and the social identities associated with those values amongst both minorities and majorities (see Hegarty, 2020; Whisman, 1996).
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
