Witnessing Microaggressions on Campus: Effective and Ineffective Ally Behaviors

Microaggressions are common, intentional or unintentional everyday insults towards a minority group (Sue et al., 2007). Despite the everyday occurrences of microaggressions and links with low well-being and academic performance (Keels et al., 2017), there is limited research on effective behaviors to combat microaggressions. This study examined ways students respond to microaggressions based on gender, sexuality, and ethnicity. Building on previous research (Toomey & McGeorge, 2018), we hypothesized that women, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities will show more effective allyship behaviors than those who do not identify as a minority.We recruited 218 first year college students (74% women, 24% men, 2% trans/non-binary; Mage = 18) to take a three part online study about campus climate. Participants were asked questions about their campus experiences, knowledge about microaggression, and ally behaviors. Questions regarding ally behaviors asked participants their typical reaction to a microaggression, using a scale from 1 (does not describe my typical response) to 5 (describes my typical response extremely well). Questions in this section ranged from ineffective (“laugh”), neutral (“wait to hear/see what the victim does”), to effective (“ask the victim if they are okay”) behaviors. Inconsistent with our hypotheses, we found no effect of gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity on effective or ineffective ally behaviors (B range .06 to .43, p \u3e .05). As for neutral ally behaviors, a statistically significant effect was found for the variable of gender on the use of neutral strategies ( B = 0.39, p \u3c 0.05). Hence, cis-gendered women reported to be more likely to use neutral strategies than cis-gendered men. No significant effect was found for sexuality (B range = -0.0080 to 0.29, p \u3e 0.05). Although our hypotheses were not supported, interesting insights can be drawn from this study. Participants may have felt pressure to answer in socially desirable ways by reporting more allyship behaviors. Furthermore, there were little participants who identified as part of a majority group compared to participants who identified as minorities, which suggests a lack of willingness from more privileged individuals to participate in a study studying micro-aggressions

Surface and Complex Representation of Diverse Intimate Relationships: Insights from a Content Analysis of Marriage and Family Therapy Resources

Searching online for health information plays a vital role in the decision-making process to seek mental healthcare for relationship and sexual issues, especially among people with marginalized identities. The landscape of intimate arrangements in the U.S. is rapidly changing, yet it is unclear whether diverse intimate relationships are discussed in popular relationship-focused mental health resources. In the present research, we sought to understand how six diverse intimate relationships were represented in a set of online mental health resources focused on relationship and sexuality issues. We conducted a content analysis of 23 mental health articles; articles were coded for surface-level (1) and complex (2 through 5) representation: (1) the frequency at which six diverse relationship types were mentioned, (2) awareness of stigma (prejudicial experiences based on relationship type), (3) unique situations (experiences that are specific to a relationship type), (4) clinical recommendations (suggestions made for a specific relationship type) and (5) inclusive language. Overall, the frequency at which relationships were mentioned (surface-level representation) greatly varied: monogamous relationships (82.61%), singles (39.13%), blended families/stepfamilies (26.09%), same-sex/queer relationships (21.74%), multi-racial/cultural relationships (21.74%), and consensually non-monogamous relationships (0%). Complex representations, including stigma, unique situations, and recommendations for each diverse relationship type were infrequently mentioned (\u3c 14% and, in many cases, never mentioned). These results illustrate that relationships other than monogamy were infrequently mentioned and, if mentioned, content related to diverse relationships lacked relevant and inclusive details, including clinical recommendations

Traditional Sexual Script and Double Standard Adherence: Predictors of Heterosexually Identified Women’s and Men’s Previous Engagement in Consensual Non-Monogamy

With respect to consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationships (e.g., open relationships, polyamory), a consistent gender difference emerges: heterosexual men report greater desire and engagement in CNM than heterosexual women (Haupert et al., 2017; Moors et al., 2015). This gender difference raises the question: Why do women and men differ in their CNM behaviors? In the present study, we suggest that this may be due to women’s stronger adherence to the traditional sexual script, which is rooted in gendered dating norms, punishes women who engage in non-committed sexual behaviors, and glorifies monogamy (Fritz & Kitzinger, 2001). We examined how heterosexual men’s and women’s adherence to the traditional sexual script affects their previous engagement in CNM using data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults (n = 3,438). Participants completed three measures relevant to this study: 1) endorsement of the sexual script (attitudes towards sex and love; (S. S. Hendrick & Hendrick, 2002), 2) level of permissiveness towards casual sex; (C. Hendrick, Hendrick, & Reich, 2006), and 3) previous engagement in CNM.Binary logistic regressions revealed that gender moderated the relationship between endorsement of traditional sexual scripts as well as attitudes toward casual sex for previous engagement in CNM. That is, heterosexual women were more likely than heterosexual men to endorsement the sexual script and hold less positive attitudes toward casual sex which, in turn predicted a lower likelihood of previously engaging in CNM, B = -0.31, p = .03 and B = -.49, p = .01. While one in five American adults have engaged in CNM at some point in their lives, these relationships continued to be stigmatized and understudied (Haupert et al., 2017). To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine why gender differences related to CNM exist, thus expanding the current research on CNM relationships in order to demystify relationships that challenge the monogamous ideal. It appears that traditional norms and disinterest play an important role in predicting women’s and men’s behavior related to CNM