Willingness to speak out about gay law reform: Some cause for optimism

We examined the extent to which people's private attitudes to gay law reform are influenced by the attitudes of others. Ninety-six university students were told that they were either in a minority or in a majority relative to their university group on their attitudes to gay law reform. Contrary to a number of assumptions made in the social psychological literature, participants who supported gay law reform were more prepared to act in line with their attitudes than were those who opposed gay law reform. Furthermore, anti-gay law reform participants appeared to reassess their attitudes when they were told they were in a minority; in contrast, pro-gay law reform participants were Unaffected by the group norm. This suggests that anti-gay law reform attitudes are softer and more easily influenced than are pro-gay law reform attitudes. The implications of these results for activists are discussed. (C) 2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

"What do other people think?" - The role of prejudice and social norms in the expression of opinions against gay men

It is generally acknowledged that it is no longer socially acceptable to espouse prejudiced beliefs, yet prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behaviours still occur. The present study sought to determine when and by whom prejudiced attitudes would be expressed. Specifically, an experiment was conducted to examine the impact of injunctive social norms emanating from a social group with which participants identified and participants' level of homophobia on the expression of opinions about gay men. Participants were presented with information indicating that the majority of group members agreed with a number of prejudiced injunctive statements (pro-prejudice norm), that the majority disagreed with the statements (anti-prejudice norm), or they were given no information about other group members' opinions (control). Participants then reported their own responses to the same injunctive statements. Participants' levels of homophobia were assessed either before or after they were given the normative information. The results indicated that activation of a pro-prejudice injunctive norm for those higher in homophobia resulted in more prejudiced opinions being expressed in comparison to those who received no normative information or those who had a nonprejudiced norm activated. Those lower in homophobia expressed less prejudiced opinions than those higher in homophobia and this did not differ as a function of social norm. The results demonstrate how prejudice can come to be expressed even in the presence of a broad societal norm that suggests that is it wrong to express such opinions.