LGBTQA+: Derogating or Supporting an In-group Member’s Response to Discrimination

RM 216

When people publicly respond to an experience with discrimination, they are open to evaluation from others. Preliminary research has examined these evaluations in intragroup contexts when, for example, women judge a woman who publicly claims discrimination (Garcia et al., 2005). The present research builds on these findings to examine whether people’s judgements about ingroup discrimination claimers depend upon the likely outcome of the complaint. Possibly, people will support rather than derogate ingroup claimers whose complaints might improve circumstances for the ingroup (see Garcia et al., 2010). To test this possibility, participants (N = 268) who identify as LGBTQA+ members and allies, read a news article about a gay couple who considered filing a lawsuit against an adoption agency that refused them the right to adopt. Half the participants read that the couple had a high probability of winning the lawsuit and the other read that the couple had a low probability. In addition, half the participants read that the couple decided to drop the lawsuit and the other read that the couple decided to proceed. The design is a 2(Probability of winning: low versus high) x 2(Decision: drop or proceed with lawsuit) between-group design. We predict that LGBTQA+ individuals will be supportive of the couple, regard their decision as appropriate, and perceive their decision as benefiting the LGB community when 1) there is a high probability of winning and the couple proceeds with the lawsuit, or 2) there is a low probability of winning and the couple drops the lawsuit.