Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Apr 1:16:1527124.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1527124. eCollection 2025.

The influence of sexual prejudice and gender on trait and state-level empathy

Seth B Winward  1 , Roxane J Itier  1
Affiliations

The influence of sexual prejudice and gender on trait and state-level empathy

Seth B Winward et al. Front Psychol. .

Abstract

A few studies indicate that trait sexual prejudice is negatively related to trait empathy as measured by the Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Whether this association persists at the state level and is modulated by gender remains unknown. Participants read vignettes describing gay/lesbian or straight male and female characters in emotional scenarios and rated their state empathy for each character. Women reported more empathy than men and gay/lesbian targets elicited less empathy than straight targets. In addition, state empathy positively correlated with trait empathy and both negatively correlated with trait sexual prejudice. Results demonstrate that the negative association between empathy and sexual prejudice persists at the state level. We discuss our findings through the lens of social identity theory and gender roles.

Keywords: empathy; gender; prejudice; sexual orientation; sexual prejudice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
(A) Materials and procedure for the Mass Test/Prerequisite Study phase. (B) Materials and procedure for the main study phase, administered a few weeks later. (C) Sample trial in the Negative Male Gay/Lesbian condition; participants moved sliders to a discrete value between 1 and 9 before moving to the next screen with the memory-related questions.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effects of vignette valence, participant gender, target gender, and target orientation. Neg, negatively valenced vignettes. Neu, neutrally valenced vignettes. G/L, gay/lesbian target characters. St, straight target characters. Significant differences between negative conditions are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Figure 3
Figure 3
Significant correlations between MHS and mean state empathy scores. Note MHS scores reflect trait sexual prejudice. Mean state empathy scores averaged across gay/lesbian negative conditions are denoted with black dots, state empathy scores averaged across straight negative conditions are denoted with grey dots.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Significant correlation between TEQ1 and mean state empathy scores. Note TEQ1 refers to TEQ scores obtained during Mass Testing/prerequisite study. Mean state empathy scores were averaged across all negative conditions during the experimental study.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Significant correlation between TEQ1 and MHS scores. Note Scores on both scales were obtained during Mass Testing/prerequisite study. Note TEQ scores were lower in the experiment (TEQ2) than during the Mass Testing/Prerequisite study (TEQ1).
Figure 6
Figure 6
TEQ scores during mass testing/prerequisite study and during main study. Note TEQ scores were lower in the experiment (TEQ2) than during the Mass Testing/Prerequisite study (TEQ1). Significant differences are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Figure 7
Figure 7
Non-significant correlation between TEQ1 and TEQ2 scores. Note TEQ1 refers to TEQ scores obtained during Mass Testing/Prerequisite Study and TEQ2 refers to TEQ scores taken after the experiment.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Ahrold T. K., Meston C. M. (2010). Ethnic differences in sexual attitudes of U.S. college students: gender, acculturation, and religiosity factors. Arch. Sex. Behav. 39, 190–202. doi: 10.1007/s10508-008-9406-1, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Arditte Hall K. A., Joormann J., Siemer M., Timpano K. R. (2018). The impact bias in self and others: affective and empathic forecasting in individuals with social anxiety. Behav. Res. Ther. 106, 37–46. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2018.05.001 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Bäckström M., Björklund F. (2007). Structural modeling of generalized prejudice: the role of social dominance, authoritarianism, and empathy. J. Individ. Differ. 28, 10–17. doi: 10.1027/1614-0001.28.1.10 - DOI
    1. Balconi M., Canavesio Y. (2016). Is empathy necessary to comprehend the emotional faces? The empathic effect on attentional mechanisms (eye movements), cortical correlates (N200 event-related potentials) and facial behaviour (electromyography) in face processing. Cogn. Emot. 30, 210–224. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2014.993306, PMID: - DOI - PubMed
    1. Banissy M. J., Kanai R., Walsh V., Rees G. (2012). Inter-individual differences in empathy are reflected in human brain structure. NeuroImage 62, 2034–2039. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.05.081, PMID: - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources