What’s New in Psychology
Cognitive Bias Responsible for Anti-Trans Legislation
Jim Windell
The rights of transgender people – those who present gender characteristics that differ from what has historically been expected of someone based on their biological sex traits – are under political attack across the U.S. There are now hundreds of anti-trans bills at various stages in the legislative process.
Of course, the ostensible reason for this is the current administration in Washington, D.C., but what are the reasons given by those sponsoring and supporting anti-trans legislation?
Typically, the reasons that are used to justify these bills usually center on protecting children, protecting cisgender women’s rights in bathrooms and sports competition, and on removing funding for gender-affirming care. However, underlying these stated reasons are both fear and bias.
Those who are biased against trans people deny they are biased and often state a truth as they see it: There can only be biological men who identify as men and there can only be biological women who identify as women. This is fact to them. But research says something different. Research shows that gender is a spectrum that is separate from biological sex. Gender and gender identity are much more complex than the supposed male-female binary.
In a blog recently published online in The Conversation, two social psychologists from Iowa State University write about how research reveals psychological processes that bias people in ways they usually aren’t aware of. These common human tendencies can influence what we think about a particular group, influence how we act toward them, and prompt legislators to pass biased laws.
What are the roots of negative views of transgender people? The authors, Julia Standefer, a Ph.D. student in Psychology, and L. Allison Phillips, a Professor of Psychology, both at Iowa State University, state that social psychology theory and research point to several possible sources of negative views of transgender people.
In explaining the sources of negative views of trans people, Standefer and Phillips write that part of forming your own identity is defining yourself by the traits that make you unique. To do this, you categorize others as belonging to your group – based on characteristics that matter to you, such as race, age, culture or gender – or not. Psychologists call these categories in-groups and out-groups.
They go on to say that there is a natural human tendency to have inherent negative feelings toward people who aren’t part of your in-group. The bias you might feel against fans of a rival sports team is an example. This tendency may be rooted deep in evolutionary history, when favoring your own safe group over unknown outsiders would have been a survival advantage.
A trans person’s status as transgender may be the most salient thing about them to an observer, overshadowing other characteristics such as their height, race, profession, parental status and so on. As a small minority, transgender people are an out-group from the mainstream – making it likely that out-group bias will be directed their way.
Anti-trans feeling may also result from fear that transgender people pose threats to one’s personal or group identity. Gender is part of everyone’s identity. If someone perceives their own gender to be determined by their biological sex, they may perceive other people who violate that “rule” as a threat to their own gender identity. Part of identity formation is not just out-group derogation but in-group favoritism. A cisgender person may engage in “in-group boundary protection” by making sure the parameters of “gender” are well defined and match their own beliefs.
Once you hold negative feelings about someone in an out-group, there are other social psychological processes that may solidify and amplify them in your mind. For example, there is illusory correlations. People tend to form illusory correlations between objects, people, occurrences or behaviors, particularly when those things are infrequently encountered. Two distinctive things happening at the same time makes people believe that one is causing the other.
If you only ever hear about negative events when they see or hear about a transgender person, for instance, then an illusory correlation can form between the negative events and the minority group. That connection, then, becomes the starting point for prejudice.
Also, write Standefer and Phillips, the human mind is biased to confirm the beliefs they already hold. That includes stereotypes about trans people. This has to do with confirmation bias.
In confirmation bias, first, there is a natural tendency to seek out information that fits with what we already believe. If we think transgender people are dangerous, then we are more likely to conduct an internet search for “transgender people who are dangerous” – rather than “transgender people are victims of crime.”
Secondly, rather than actively seeking out confirming information, we simply tend to pay attention to information that confirms what we think in the first place. As part of this, we ignore contradictory information.
Standefer and Phillips conclude by stating that awareness of biases is the first step in avoiding them. However, this is not an easy task, especially if people only talk and listen to others who hold the same beliefs they do. A more hopeful point, they mention, is the social psychological research that indicates that forming close contracts with individuals from the “other” group is a way of overcoming bias.
As the authors conclude, “Having a friend, loved one or trusted and valued colleague who belongs to the out-group can help you recognize their humanity and overcome the biases you hold against that out-group as a whole.”
To read the original article, find it with this link:
