Search

LGBTQ individuals have increased in number in the United States, but do heterosexualindividuals feel threatened by these changes? I examined whether demographic increasesof a group traditionally associated with symbolic threat (the LGBTQ community)increased realistic threat, symbolic threat, and/or prejudice. I demonstrated in a PilotStudy that demographic increases of LGBTQ individuals elicited symbolic threat andrealistic threat, which in turn predicted anti-LGBTQ prejudice. Study 1 (preregistered)replicated the symbolic threat effect, but the realistic threat effect did not emerge. Study 2demonstrated that growth of LGBT individuals (and not just LGBTQ individuals beingmentioned) elicits this threat. Study 3 found no differences between current increases inthe LGBTQ community and hypothetical future increases in the LGBTQ communityeliciting threat. Finally, Studies 4a-4b tested brief interventions designed to assuagethreat from these demographic changes, but found no significant differences on threat,prejudice, or support for anti-LGBTQ legislation. However, Christian Nationalism andheteronormativity beliefs moderated the condition-prejudice relationship across Studies3-4b. Theoretical implications about demographic shift research and practicalimplications for designing demographics-based interventions are discussed.

The thesis examined associations regarding COVID-19 realistic threats (i.e., concerns about physical health and material well-being) and symbolic threat (i.e., sociocultural concerns) with the likelihood of voting for Joe Biden or Donald Trump in the 2020 Presidential Election. Political ideology and attitudes about racism, sexism, and right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) were considered as well. It was hypothesized that realistic threat concerns would be positively associated with the likelihood of voting for Biden, but this association would be modified by political ideology, with more liberal ideologies strengthening the association between realistic threat and the likelihood of voting for Biden. It was also hypothesized that symbolic threat would be positively associated with the likelihood of voting for Trump, but that this association would be qualified by a significant interaction between political ideology and symbolic threat, showing that more conservative ideologies strengthen the predicted association. Both hypotheses controlled for racism, hostile and benevolent sexism, and RWA. The study was a cross-sectional, correlational design and the hypotheses were tested in two separate regressions, one examining the likelihood of voting for Biden and the other examining the likelihood of voting for Trump. Broadly, the hypotheses were not supported; it was found that political ideology and symbolic racism accounted for most of the variance within the sample. Exploratory regression analyses examined the unique contributions of threat, sex differences, and tested interactions between threat perceptions and sex. In these models, the likelihood of voting for Biden was positively associated with realistic threat and the likelihood of voting for Trump was positively associated with symbolic threat. Results showed that sex did not moderate realistic threat but did moderated the association between symbolic threat and the likelihood of voting for each candidate. Specifically, in men, symbolic threat was positively associated with the likelihood of voting for Trump and negatively associated with the likelihood of voting for Biden. However, for women, symbolic threats had no effects on voting for either candidate. This work showed that University of Dayton students with realistic threat perceptions related to COVID-19 were likely to vote for Biden, regardless of sex. However, symbolic threat effects were only associated with how men said they would vote in the election, thus, sex and gender differences should be considered in future research regarding threat perceptions.

Americans have debated the appropriateness of displaying statues of Confederate soldiers since the monuments were popularized in the early 20th century. Only a few research studies have investigated predictors of attitudes toward these controversial statues. In four studies, I establish a causal relationship between White privilege beliefs and attitudes toward Confederate statues. Participants who are induced to experienced increased belief in White privilege report more negative attitudes toward Confederate statues. I also identify both symbolic threat (i.e., feelings of threat related to a group’s culture, values, or identity) and outgroup empathy (i.e., an understanding of an outgroup’s feelings) as parallel mediators of the relationship between White privilege and Confederate statue attitudes.

As attention on undocumented immigration from Latin America continues to increase in the U.S., the conflation of Latinos (as an ethnic group) and undocumented immigrants may play an essential role in shaping the attitudes and behaviors of Latino-Americans (i.e., Latinos who are citizens or legal residents). The conflation of the two groups can be a source of both symbolic and realistic threats. As a symbolic threat (represented by Latino-Undocumented association beliefs), the conflation of the two groups can lead to concerns for Latino-Americans about how their ethnic group is viewed by the general public. As a realistic threat (measured by perceived linked fate with undocumented immigrants), Latino-Americans may come to believe that they are personally vulnerable to actions taken against undocumented immigrants. Moreover, anger on behalf of undocumented immigrants and fear about future risks to themselves may help explain the effects of both threats on Latino-Americans’ attitudes and behaviors. Across three studies, I find evidence that the conflation of both groups increases Latino-Americans’ willingness to mobilize politically for a pathway to citizenship policies and increases how much they identify with undocumented immigrants. Furthermore, the conflation of the two groups may harm Latino-Americans by decreasing their feelings of belonging in America. These effects appear to be mediated by both feelings of anger and fear. The present findings suggest that, although the conflation of the two groups may increase doubts about their place in America, it may motivate Latino-Americans to seek social change.