Male homosexuality and maternal immune responsivity to the Y-linked protein NLGN4Y.

We conducted a direct test of an immunological explanation of the finding that gay men have a greater number of older brothers than do heterosexual men. This explanation posits that some mothers develop antibodies against a Y-linked protein important in male brain development, and that this effect becomes increasingly likely with each male gestation, altering brain structures underlying sexual orientation in their later-born sons. Immune assays targeting two Y-linked proteins important in brain development-protocadherin 11 Y-linked (PCDH11Y) and neuroligin 4 Y-linked (NLGN4Y; isoforms 1 and 2)-were developed. Plasma from mothers of sons, about half of whom had a gay son, along with additional controls (women with no sons, men) was analyzed for male protein-specific antibodies. Results indicated women had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than men. In addition, after statistically controlling for number of pregnancies, mothers of gay sons, particularly those with older brothers, had significantly higher anti-NLGN4Y levels than did the control samples of women, including mothers of heterosexual sons. The results suggest an association between a maternal immune response to NLGN4Y and subsequent sexual orientation in male offspring.

Ideological asymmetries in online hostility, intimidation, obscenity, and prejudice.

To investigate ideological symmetries and asymmetries in the expression of online prejudice, we used machine-learning methods to estimate the prevalence of extreme hostility in a large dataset of Twitter messages harvested in 2016. We analyzed language contained in 730,000 tweets on the following dimensions of bias: (1) threat and intimidation, (2) obscenity and vulgarity, (3) name-calling and humiliation, (4) hatred and/or racial, ethnic, or religious slurs, (5) stereotypical generalizations, and (6) negative prejudice. Results revealed that conservative social media users were significantly more likely than liberals to use language that involved threat, intimidation, name-calling, humiliation, stereotyping, and negative prejudice. Conservatives were also slightly more likely than liberals to use hateful language, but liberals were slightly more likely than conservatives to use obscenities. These findings are broadly consistent with the view that liberal values of equality and democratic tolerance contribute to ideological asymmetries in the expression of online prejudice, and they are inconsistent with the view that liberals and conservatives are equally prejudiced.

A multilevel analysis of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights support across 77 countries: The role of contact and country laws.

Although intergroup contact reduces prejudice generally, there are growing calls to examine contextual factors in conjunction with contact. Such an approach benefits from more sophisticated analytic approaches, such as multilevel modelling, that take both the individual (Level-1) and their environment (Level-2) into account. Using this approach, we go beyond attitudes to assess both individual and contextual predictors of support for gay/lesbian and transgender rights. Using a sample of participants across 77 countries, results revealed that personal gay/lesbian contact (Level-1) and living in a country with more gay/lesbian rights (Level-2) predicted greater support for gay/lesbian rights (n = 71,991). Likewise, transgender contact and living in a country with more transgender rights predicted more support for transgender rights (n = 70,056). Cross-level interactions are also presented and discussed. Overall, findings highlight the importance of both individual and contextual factors in predicting support for LGBT communities.

When and why is religious attendance associated with antigay bias and gay rights opposition? A justification-suppression model approach.

Even in relatively tolerant countries, antigay bias remains socially divisive, despite being widely viewed as violating social norms of tolerance. From a Justification-Suppression Model (JSM) framework, social norms may generally suppress antigay bias in tolerant countries, yet be "released" by religious justifications among those who resist gay rights progress. Across large, nationally representative US samples (Study 1) and international samples (Study 2, representing a total of 97 different countries), over 215,000 participants, and various indicators of antigay bias (e.g., dislike, moral condemnation, opposing gay rights), individual differences in religious attendance was uniquely associated with greater antigay bias, over and above religious fundamentalism, political ideology, and religious denomination. Moreover, in 4 of 6 multilevel models, religious attendance was associated with antigay bias in countries with greater gay rights recognition, but was unrelated to antigay bias in countries with lower gay rights recognition (Study 2). In Study 3, Google searches for a religious justification ("love the sinner hate the sin") coincided temporally with gay-rights relevant searches. In U.S. (Study 4) and Canadian (Study 5) samples, much of the association between religious attendance and antigay bias was explained by "sinner-sin" religious justification, with religious attendance not associated with antigay bias when respondents reported relatively low familiarity with this justification (Study 5). These findings suggest that social divisions on homosexuality in relatively tolerant social contexts may be in large part due to religious justifications for antigay bias (consistent with the JSM), with important implications for decreasing bias. (PsycINFO Database Record

The future of system justification theory.

In this article, we respond to commentaries by Friesen et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.), Osborne et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.), and Owuamalam et al. (2018, Br. J. Soc. Psychol.) on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of system justification theory. The first two commentaries are highly favourable in their evaluation of the state of theory and research on system justification, and they provide insightful suggestions for new directions. The third commentary is far more critical of system justification theory. We address each objection in some detail, seeking to correct a number of misconceptions about system justification theory and clarify the fact that the theory specifies three - ego, group, and system justification - motives rather than one. Finally, we end by proposing exciting new areas for future research, such as (1) distinguishing between subjective and objective consequences of system justification in a broader array of social and political contexts and (2) developing practical interventions to reduce system justification motivation and strengthen the motivation to improve upon the status quo.