Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale

Hoffarth, Mark R.; Drolet, Caroline E.; Hodson, Gordon; Hafer, Carolyn L.

doi:10.1080/19419899.2015.1050446

Cited by 30 publications

(29 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Future research can also examine whether moderation-by-previous-contact effects generalize to other samples and other marginalized targets (in addition to gays). Imagined contact may be particularly effective when little/no direct contact is common culturally (West et al, 2015), or with marginalized groups not associated with high threat and anxiety, such as contact with asexuals (Hoffarth, Drolet, Hodson, & Hafer, 2015). Mixed-result replications of imagined contact highlight the importance of understanding when imagined contact works (Crisp & Birtel, 2014; Crisp et al, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

Hoffarth

Hodson

2016

Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Imagined contact is a widely-used methodology for decreasing prejudice. Recently, however, the effectiveness and replicability of imagined contact have been debated. To the extent that imagined contact is theoretically a valuable intervention when actual contact is absent or less feasible, previous intergroup contact experiences presumably moderate the efficacy of imagined contact. The present investigation found that imagined contact effects were stronger among heterosexuals with infrequent (vs. frequent) previous contact with gays, improving their intergroup emotions and attitudes (Study 1, N = 261). In contrast, there were no such effects of imagined contact with Muslims among non-Muslims (Study 2, N = 320). These findings highlight the potential for moderators to impact the efficacy of experimental contact simulations. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

Hoffarth

Hodson

2016

Social Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other recent work on bias toward groups who abstain from mainstream behaviors are informative here. Asexuals, those who do not experience sexual attraction and do not engage in sexual behavior, are targets of strong bias (Hoffarth, Drolet, Hodson, & Hafer, 2015; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). Asexuals’ defining lack of desire to engage in behaviors often considered fundamental to human life (i.e., sexuality) renders them targets of prejudice, dehumanization, avoidance, and discrimination (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012).…”

Section: Bias Toward Those Resisting Mainstream Ideologies and Practicesmentioning

confidence: 99%

It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target

MacInnis

Hodson

2015

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations

Self Cite

194

185

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vegetarianism and veganism are increasingly prevalent in Western countries, yet anecdotal expressions of negativity toward vegetarians and vegans are common. We empirically tested whether bias exists toward vegetarians and vegans. In Study 1 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans equivalently or more negatively than several common prejudice target groups (e.g., Blacks). Bias was heightened among those higher in right-wing ideologies, explained by heightened perceptions of vegetarian/vegan threat. Vegans (vs. vegetarians) and male (vs. female) vegetarians/vegans were evaluated more negatively overall. In Study 2 omnivores evaluated vegetarians and vegans more negatively than several nutritional outgroups (e.g., gluten intolerants) and evaluated vegan/vegetarians motivated by animal rights or environmental concerns (vs. health) especially negatively. In Study 3, vegetarians and especially vegans reported experiencing negativity stemming from their diets. Empirically documenting antivegetarian/vegan bias adds to a growing literature finding bias toward benign yet social norm-challenging others.

show abstract

“…Another variable associated with antiasexual bias is having a social dominance orientation (Hoffarth et al, 2016; MacInnis & Hodson, 2012; Thorpe & Arbeau, 2020). Social dominance orientation refers to beliefs about group dominance and that certain groups of people are inferior to other groups and, consequently, those inferior groups should be viewed and treated negatively (Pratto et al, 1994).…”

Section: Asexualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

As human as anybody else: Attitudes toward asexual people.

Bittle,

Anderson

2023

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research on asexual people has increased over the last two decades, but there is still much to learn about asexual people and predictors of antiasexual bias. We extended the work of MacInnis and Hodson (2012) and Hoffarth et al. (2016) by examining factors that predict attitudes toward asexual people. Additionally, we investigated participants' dehumanization ratings of a hypothetical character that varied in their sexual identity (asexual, celibate, or straight) and gender (woman or man). Most of our participants (N = 324) were college students from the Midwestern United States. A greater social dominance orientation, more social distance from asexual people, less familiarity with asexuality, not knowing an asexual person, being a cisgender man, and having a heterosexual orientation significantly predicted antiasexual bias. Contrary to predictions, the straight male character was rated as having fewer positive human traits than the asexual or celibate male characters. Furthermore, regardless of character gender, the straight character was rated as having more negative human traits than the asexual and celibate characters. This study contributes to a better understanding of factors associated with antiasexual bias, as well as provides initial evidence of attitudes toward celibate people who may be viewed similarly to asexual people and more positively than straight people. Additional research is needed to investigate similarities and differences in people's attitudes toward asexual and celibate people, as well as the contexts in which asexual people are viewed as more or less human than heterosexual people. Public Significance StatementThe present study examined bias against asexual people. Antiasexual bias was associated with a social dominance orientation, maintaining social distance from asexual people, and not knowing an asexual person. Asexual people were not viewed as less human than heterosexual people. Knowledge of predictors of antiasexual bias may help health practitioners who work with asexual clients.

show abstract

Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale

Cited by 30 publications

References 35 publications

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

Who Needs Imagined Contact?

It ain’t easy eating greens: Evidence of bias toward vegetarians and vegans from both source and target

As human as anybody else: Attitudes toward asexual people.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About