Jes L. Matsick’s research while affiliated with Pennsylvania State University and other places

How do people from marginalized sociodemographic groups perceive groups who hold structural power? Whereas some people justify existing systems of power to maintain the status quo, others seek to challenge those systems, believing that existing systems distribute power inequitably across social groups. We aimed to establish a new psychological construct that reflects and accounts for how marginalized groups are not merely passive recipients of other people’s prejudice but form attitudes that resist and reconstrue status inequalities. In seven studies (N = 1,973), we developed and validated a measure to assess stigmatized groups’ attitudes toward dominant groups: the Upward Resistance Scale (URS). We examined LGBQ people’s attitudes toward heterosexual people, racial minorities’ attitudes toward white people, women’s attitudes toward men, poor people’s attitudes toward the wealthy, and fat people’s attitudes toward thin people. We found that the extent to which participants acknowledged status discrepancies between their ingroup and the dominant outgroup, they felt greater upward resistance toward the dominant outgroup. Our findings suggest that the 14-item URS is valid and reliable for detecting individual differences in beliefs about dominant groups and the status and privilege that they occupy.

People who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer and other people who are sexual and gender minorities (denoted by the umbrella term LGBTQ+) experience more physical and mental health problems than cisgender or heterosexual people, in part due to excess stress of experiencing stigma. Although it is important to document negative events in LGBTQ+ people’s lives, it is also necessary to identify conditions that provide LGBTQ+ people with the opportunity to thrive. One key psychological factor that can promote prosperity and lessen LGBTQ+ people’s disparate health problems is a sense of belonging. In this Review, we summarize factors identified in the psychological science, public health, and public policy literatures that influence LGBTQ+ people’s belonging. We use a social ecological model to describe factors that enhance and detract from belonging at the individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels. Our multi-pronged approach encourages the flourishing of LGBTQ+ people as individuals while addressing structural forces that shape their psychosocial well-being. This Review is a resource for researchers, health practitioners, and policymakers who seek to understand diverse factors of belonging based on sexual orientation and gender diversity.

In the present study, we aimed to understand bisexual women’s lived experiences and meaning-making with regard to same-sex performativity (SSP)– that is, heterosexual women’s engagement in public same-sex behavior such as kissing. Cisgender bisexual women (N = 187) provided qualitative descriptions of their perceptions of SSP. Two research questions guided this feminist phenomenological study: (a) How do bisexual women perceive and make sense of SSP, including women who engage in SSP? and (b) What factors influence bisexual women’s perceptions and meaning making of SSP? We found that bisexual women made sense of SSP by situating their perceptions and experiences of SSP in a heteropatriarchal context. Bisexual women perceived the link between SSP and the male gaze as challenging bisexual legitimacy and reinforcing negative stereotypes about bisexuality; nevertheless, many bisexual women were resistant to decrying SSP. Our findings reveal bisexual women’s complex interpretive work and negotiation with tensions that underpin their sense of SSP— they perceive heterosexual women’s engagement in male-oriented SSP behavior as potentially harmful, yet are reluctant to condemn this behavior and limit women’s opportunities for sexual expression. These findings highlight the need to recognize the impact of heteronormativity and gendered power dynamics on bisexual and heterosexual women’s experiences, embodiment, and expressions of sexuality.

Same‐sex performativity (SSP), or public performances of sexuality (e.g., kissing) between women who identify as heterosexual, is a relatively common relational experience among college‐aged women. Identifying patterns of women's motivations for engaging in SSP can elucidate the heterogeneity among women's social and sexual behaviors during a critical developmental period (i.e., college). We used latent class analysis to identify classes of heterosexual undergraduate women who engaged in SSP ( N = 282). We identified three classes of motivational patterns: Other‐Motivated (i.e., notably motivated by male attention, wanting to shock others, wanting to bond, and social pressure) , Ambiguously Motivated (i.e., most motivated by alcohol and fun, but minimally motivated overall) , and Sexually Motivated (i.e., notably motivated by sexual desire and sexual experimentation). We then examined how class membership was associated with variables related to participants' evaluation of their SSP experience, self and identity, sexuality, and heterosexism. Classes significantly differed in SSP evaluations, as well as in certain facets of self and identity and sexuality (i.e., sorority membership and same‐sex desire). These data provide evidence of substantial complexity in the characterizations of women who engage in SSP. We discuss the implications of the relationship between motivational patterns and women's evaluations of the SSP experience.

Same-sex performativity (SSP) refers to public performances of sexuality between heterosexual women . SSP is prevalent, yet little is known about the women who engage in SSP. We examined individual differences between women who had and had not engaged in SSP on a number of sociodemographic, personality, and ideological variables. In a sample of heterosexual college women (N = 1444), we found that about twenty percent (n = 282) had engaged in SSP. Women who engaged in SSP were more liberal, more likely to be sorority members, and more likely to be sexually active than women who did not engage in SSP, but did not differ in age, ethnicity, or college year. High sexual permissiveness and communion beliefs, increased body shape dissatisfaction, and decreasing social distance from queer women, were associated with increased likelihood of engagement in SSP, while endorsement of traditional femininity was associated with decreased likelihood of SSP engagement. Our findings diversify understandings of SSP and suggest that contemporary SSP may be less oriented to a male audience and more situated in liberal understandings of gender and sexuality than previous studies suggest.

The heterosexual male gaze is often credited with producing bodily anxieties among women, yet empirical and popular cultural evidence suggest gay men have especially negative views toward women’s bodies, particularly women’s genitalia. Across two studies (N = 6,129; Mage = 27.58; 2,047 women, 4,082 men) we conducted secondary analyses of existing datasets to test the hypotheses that gay men would evaluate labia more negatively than heterosexual men, and that lesbian women would evaluate labia more positively than heterosexual women. We conducted fixed-effects mini meta-analyses to estimate summary effect sizes for perceptions of normalcy and fit with societal ideals; we additionally assessed an outcome of disgust in Study 2. We found support for our hypotheses: For normalcy and societal ideal, we found small summary effects such that gay men evaluated labia more negatively than heterosexual men, and medium summary effects such that lesbian women evaluated labia more positively than heterosexual women. Gay men also rated labia as more disgusting than any other demographic group, and lesbian women rated the stimuli as less disgusting than heterosexual women, supporting our hypotheses. The current findings suggest a pressing need to acknowledge and incorporate gay men’s perceptions of women’s bodies into literatures on misogyny, objectification, and body image more generally.

The social category label effect describes how labels influence people’s perceptions of social groups. Though the label “homosexual” versus “lesbian/gay” decreases some heterosexual people’s support for sexual minorities, it is unknown how lesbian and gay (LG) people respond to “homosexual” as a label used to describe them. Across three experiments in a largely U.S. context (Total N = 831), we examined how use of “homosexual” influenced people’s responses on psychological instruments, preferences for demographic questions, and evaluations of individuals who use “homosexual.” The use of different labels in psychological measures did not influence LG people’s responses (Study 1). However, LG people reacted less positively to “homosexual” compared to “lesbian/gay” in demographic questions and in interpersonal exchanges (Studies 2-3), whereas heterosexual people’s reactions were largely unaffected (Study 2). LG people’s more negative reactions to “homosexual” than “lesbian/gay” were partially explained by them perceiving the “homosexual” label user as less culturally competent (i.e., less inclusive, less engaged in LGBTQ activism). In this article, we make progress in new empirical territory (sexual orientation-based cues research), propose the notion of linguistic heterosexism, and discuss the sociopolitical implications of people’s language choices.