Sexual orientation is believed to result from complex processes that are still widely debated. But for several years, research also sought to identify potential biological factors to show that sexual preferences are merely natural variations, seeing this as an approach that could help combat stigmatization, particularly against homosexual individuals.
Now… heterosexual individuals actually interpret this scientific data through the lens of their own frame of reference. And this can reinforce both negative and positive attitudes toward homosexuality.
These are the findings of a study — “Perceived Biological Bases of Sexual Orientation and Sexual Prejudice: The Moderating Role of Gender and Religious Beliefs” by Juan M. Falomir-Pichastor, Dan Confino, Joel R. Anderson & Yasin Koc — that was published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior.
For this study, the researchers carried out a survey involving 300 volunteers: heterosexual men and women, believers (of the Christian faith) and non-believers, with gender and religiosity recognized as important interpretative factors. They were exposed to scientific data suggesting biological differences between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.
The researchers found:
- that the positive perception — already present among non-believers — increased among the least religious men, while remaining stable among the least religious women
- the negative perception — already present among believers — followed the opposite pattern for the most religious men (it increased), but remained unchanged among their female counterparts
‘‘The difference in the impact of the experiment on the men and women who took part can be explained by heterosexual men’s strong need for differentiation,’’ said Falomir-Pichastor. ‘‘These people directly associate masculinity with heterosexuality. So they ‘take advantage’ of any element that reinforces this association, while distancing themselves from homosexuality.’’
While this need for differentiation was generally identified among men, it did not lead to the same result among the believers as among the non-believers in the sample.
The believers interpreted the scientific data as ‘proof’ of anomaly, and their negative attitude was reinforced. The non-believers interpreted the scientific data as ‘proof’ of the diversity of possible expressions of human sexuality. Their positive attitude towards homosexuality was therefore reinforced.
‘‘Our study shows the extent to which the interpretation of information, even when presented as scientific, is strongly influenced by our values and beliefs. It also demonstrates that by ‘essentializing’ a segment of the population, this type of discourse can be dangerous. It is therefore crucial to reassess arguments for minority inclusion that rely on this form of biological determinism,’’ Falomir-Pichastor ended.
