Home
Resource
"It’s best not to discuss sexual orientation": an examination of strategic sexuality blindfolding beliefs
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(866.14 kb)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Cipollina, Rebecca. "It’s best not to discuss sexual orientation": an examination of strategic sexuality blindfolding beliefs. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-e92m-z217

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

Title"It’s best not to discuss sexual orientation": an examination of strategic sexuality blindfolding beliefs
NameCipollina, Rebecca (author); Sanchez, Diana (chair); Hoggard, Lori S. (member); Nicolas, Gandalf (member); Wang, Katie (member); Rutgers University; School of Graduate Studies
Date Created2022
Other Date2022-05 (degree)
SubjectSocial psychology, Psychology, Allyship, Difference-blind ideologies, Identity concealment, LGBTQ, Stigma
Extent88 pages : illustrations
DescriptionA vast literature has examined difference-blind ideologies in the domain of race (i.e., beliefs that to promote intergroup harmony, society should reduce discussion of race and racial differences), but a parallel ideology regarding beliefs about discussing sexual orientation has yet to be explored. Across three studies, the present dissertation documents correlates of difference-blind sexual orientation beliefs (i.e., referred to in this dissertation as Strategic Sexuality Blindfolding; SSB), and explored perceptions of SSB endorsement among LGBTQ (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) and heterosexual participants. Results indicated two dimensions of SSB (i.e., label evasion and discussion avoidance) which have their own distinct predictive power on beliefs about LGBQ equality and in predicting LGBQ attitudes. Specifically, across two samples of cisgender heterosexual respondents (Study 1) label evasion endorsement (i.e., desires to reduce sexual orientation categorization) were associated with more support of LGBQ equity and positive LGBQ attitudes, while discussion avoidance endorsement predicted the opposite. In Study 2, perceiver sexual orientation effects emerged in ratings of targets who espouse the different SSB ideologies, suggesting that heterosexual respondents perceive the ideologies as less indicative of threat when compared to LGBTQ participants. Study 3 highlights that both SSB ideologies in organizational settings are perceived as indicating discomfort with LGBTQ people and low support for LGBTQ employees when compared to a control. Importantly, both SSB dimensions promoted low feelings of anticipated belonging among LGBTQ participants and increased desires to keep one’s sexual orientation concealed. In sum, the present dissertation critiques the seemingly egalitarian nature of SSB beliefs and provides evidence that LGBTQ participants view SSB ideologies as indicating poor LGBTQ allyship and hostile settings for LGBTQ people to be out about their identities with implications on LGBTQ populations’ health and well-being.
NotePh.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Genretheses
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/t3-e92m-z217
LanguageEnglish
CollectionSchool of Graduate Studies Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024