Children's Judgments and Reasoning About Same‐Sex Romantic Relationships

Abstract

Children's (5-, 7- to 8-, and 10- to 11-year-olds), and adolescents' (13- to 14-year-olds) judgments and reasoning about same-sex romantic relationships were examined (N = 128). Participants' beliefs about the acceptability and legal regulation of these relationships were assessed, along with their judgments and beliefs about excluding someone because of his or her sexual orientation and the origins of same-sex attraction. Older participants evaluated same-sex romantic relationships more positively and used more references to personal choice and justice/discrimination reasoning to support their judgments. Younger participants were less critical of a law prohibiting same-sex relationships and were more likely to believe it was not acceptable to violate this law. Beliefs about origins of same-sex attraction showed age-specific patterns in their associations with evaluations.

Why does social essentialism sometimes promote, and other times mitigate, prejudice development? A causal discounting perspective

“…In these domains, inferences of blame promote prejudice, and this is why inferences of biological determinism mitigate prejudice. By the same logic, inferences of structural determinism also often mitigate prejudice toward these identities ; though see Spence et al, 2018 for evidence that upbringing-related explanations for homosexuality do not effectively mitigate anti-gay attitudes).…”

“…Emerging research also suggests that children's essentialist views of homosexuality predict reduced prejudice toward LGBTQ people. Spence, Helwig and Cosentino (2018) assessed seven-to fourteen-year-old children's essentialist conceptions of same-sex attraction by asking them about the likelihood of various explanations for same-sex attraction and about whether a person could change their mind and decide to prefer other-sex partners. They also assessed children's anti-gay judgments, such as their views of whether same-sex relationships are "okay" and whether it is acceptable to socially exclude gays and lesbians.…”

“…Indeed, research suggests that in domains where essentialism promotes prejudice, structural explanations reduce prejudice (e.g., Hussak & Cimpian, 2015;Peretz-Lange et al, 2021). In domains where essentialism mitigates prejudice, agentic explanations promote prejudice (e.g., Carvalho, Peretz-Lange, & Muentener, 2021;Spence, Helwig, & Cosentino, 2018).…”

The rich get richer? Children’s reasoning about socioeconomic status predicts inclusion and resource bias.

“…This pattern of results is in contrast to previous research of essentialism of categories like race and gender wherein higher essentialism is related to bias against low-status groups (e.g., Rhodes & Mandalaywala, 2017). However, recent work has found that essentialism can actually reduce children’s prejudice around body weight (Carvalho et al, 2021), sexual orientation (Spence et al, 2018), and incarceration status (Dunlea & Heiphetz, 2020). These studies suggests that particularly for stigmatized groups, essentialized thinking may lead to discounting agentic explanations of group differences, making an individual appear less “blame-worthy” (because they were “born that way”) for their stigmatized status (e.g., Peretz-Lange, 2021).…”

Human beings in a theatre made for them: the child�s voice in contemporary theatre for young audiences

“…This is particularly problematic here since some adult decision-makers appeared to be working from their own heteronormative values. These adults did not recognise that individual children may already have queer identities, denied to them within heteronormative family contexts; that individual children's own home backgrounds may not conform to dominant heteronormativity; or indeed that individual children may be well-able to negotiate the experience of difference on their own terms (Spence et al 2018).…”