scholarly journals Intergroup Threat and Heterosexual Cisgender Women’s Support for Policies Regarding the Admittance of Trans Women at a Women’s College

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. 208
Author(s):  
H. Outten ◽  
Marcella Lawrence

Although spaces once reserved for cisgender women are becoming increasingly accessible to trans women, few studies have examined cisgender women’s responses to such changes. Informed by social identity perspectives, we examined if heterosexual cisgender women’s reactions to two types of women’s college admissions policies pertaining to trans women depended on their appraisals of intergroup threat—or the degree to which they perceived trans women as a threat to cisgender women. Four-hundred-and-forty heterosexual cisgender women completed a measure of intergroup threat and then read 1 of 2 articles about a women’s college’s admissions policy (accept trans women vs. reject trans women). Following the article, they indicated their support for the policy they read about. Overall, participants were significantly more supportive of the admissions policy when it was framed as being inclusive of trans women. The effect of policy type on policy support was moderated by intergroup threat. Specifically, women who were not particularly threatened by trans women expressed significantly more policy support when the policy was described as being inclusive of trans women, rather than as exclusionary. Alternatively, highly threatened women were significantly more likely to show support when the policy was described in terms of excluding trans women.

2019 ◽  
Vol 22 (8) ◽  
pp. 1094-1108 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Robert Outten ◽  
Timothy Lee ◽  
Marcella E. Lawrence

Drawing on social identity perspectives and theories concerning intergroup threat, we examined if heterosexual women’s support for two types of trans-inclusive bathroom legislation depended on whether they perceived trans women as a threat to women as a whole. Participants read about a hypothetical trans-inclusive bathroom bill that was either described as increasing public gender-neutral bathrooms or allowing trans women to access public women-only bathrooms. Surprisingly, bill support did not significantly differ across conditions. Consistent with predictions, intergroup threat was negatively associated with bill support and moderated the effect of bathroom bill type on bill support. Highly threatened women were significantly more supportive when the legislation was described as increasing gender-neutral bathrooms versus allowing trans women to use women-only bathrooms. Conversely, women who were not particularly threatened were significantly more supportive of the hypothetical legislation when it was described as allowing trans women to use women-only bathrooms.


2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 260-286 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arnold K. Ho ◽  
Nour S. Kteily ◽  
Jacqueline M. Chen

Researchers have used social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories to understand how monoracial perceivers’ sociopolitical motives influence their categorization of multiracial people. The result has been a growing understanding of how particular sociopolitical motives and contexts affect categorization, without a unifying perspective to integrate these insights. We review evidence supporting each theory’s predictions concerning how monoracial perceivers categorize multiracial people who combine their ingroup with an outgroup, with attention to the moderating role of perceiver group status. We find most studies cannot arbitrate between theories of categorization and reveal additional gaps in the literature. To advance this research area, we introduce the sociopolitical motive × intergroup threat model of racial categorization that (a) clarifies which sociopolitical motives interact with which intergroup threats to predict categorization and (b) highlights the role of perceiver group status. Furthermore, we consider how our model can help understand phenomena beyond multiracial categorization.


Author(s):  
Eric K Furstenberg

Abstract This article develops a theoretical model of college admissions to investigate the effects of banning affirmative action admissions policies on the efficiency of the admissions process. Previous work in this area has shown that prohibiting affirmative action causes inefficiency when college quality is an increasing function of diversity. This article identifies an additional reason why colleges and universities use racial preferences in admissions, setting aside explicit demands for diversity. In the theoretical model, the racial identity of the applicants is relevant information for making inferences about an applicant's true academic ability. Preventing admissions officers from using this information results in inefficient selection of applicants, even if diversity does not explicitly enter the objective of the university. Thus, affirmative action is justified solely on informational grounds.


2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
REBECCA ZWICK

In this essay, Rebecca Zwick confronts the controversy surrounding the use of standardized tests in college admissions. She examines the degree to which the SAT and its lesser known cousin, the ACT, limit access to college, particularly for racial and ethnic minorities, and considers two alternative admissions policies that do not involve tests: class rank admissions systems and admissions lotteries. She finds that these initiatives carry their own controversies and have little impact on campus diversity. Zwick notes that some small liberal arts colleges have deemphasized tests and have achieved some success in increasing campus diversity while maintaining high academic standards, but highlights the difficulty of replicating these policies at large institutions. Her analysis sheds light on the ongoing tension between maintaining college selectivity and promoting equal opportunity.


1984 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 80-80
Author(s):  
James Crouse ◽  
Marvin Brams

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document