Malvina N. Skorska, Ph.D.
***will be updated Summer 2024***
My research fits into several broad areas:
Brain Structure and Function in Relation to Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Gender
Examining the brain bases of sexual orientation and gender could provide insight regarding the sites of action and mechanisms underlying the development of these traits. As part of my postdoctoral training, my colleagues and I are examining the brain structure and function of adolescents who experience gender dysphoria (GD) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Ed.) characterizes GD as distress due to an incongruence between sex assigned at birth and experienced gender identity. GD adolescents are sometimes prescribed puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones as part of their treatment. Neurohormonal theory suggests that exposure to androgens during fetal development organizes the brain as relatively male- or female-typical. During puberty, the surge in sex hormones promotes sex-differentiated brain development based on the prenatal brain organization. A popular explanation of GD is that brain development is shifted along the male-female dimension toward the experienced gender. In addition to examining sex and gender differences in several aspects of brain development (e.g., surface area, cortical thickness, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), resting state fMRI, task-based fMRI), we will examine the role that sexual orientation plays in the association between GD and brain development.
Our team has published and is currently working on the following publications in a sample of hormonally untreated GD adolescents assigned female at birth, cisgender girls, and cisgender boys: 1) surface area, cortical thickness, and T1 relaxation (see Skorska et al., 2021); 2) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI); and 3) resting state fMRI (see Skorska et al., 2022). We are gathering additional data as part of a prospective longitudinal study in which GD adolescents participate at three time points: prior to puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, after the start of puberty blockers but prior to the start of gender-affirming hormones, and after the start of gender-affirming hormones. Cisgender adolescents participate at roughly similar time intervals. I will focus on specific parts of this neuroimaging data: surface area, cortical thickness, and T1 relaxation time; emotion processing task; and brain function related to experiences of suicidality.
Further reading:
Guillamon, A., Junque, C., & Gomez-Gil, E. (2016). A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1615-1648.
Hines, M. (2011). Gender development and the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 69-88.
Hoekzema, E., Schagen, S. E. E., Kreukels, B. P. C., Veltman, D. J., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Delemarre-van de Waal, H., & Bakker, J. (2015). Regional volumes and spatial volumetric distribution of gray matter in the gender dysphoric brain. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 55, 59-71.
Kaczkurkin, A. N., Raznahan, A., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2019). Sex differences in the developing brain: Insights from multimodal neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology Reviews, 44, 71-85.
Patel, S., Patel, R., Park, M. T. M., Masellis, M., Knight, J., & Chakravarty, M. M. (2018). Heritability estimates of cortical anatomy: The influence and reliability of different estimation strategies. NeuroImage, 178, 78-91.
My research fits into several broad areas:
Brain Structure and Function in Relation to Sex, Sexual Orientation, and Gender
Examining the brain bases of sexual orientation and gender could provide insight regarding the sites of action and mechanisms underlying the development of these traits. As part of my postdoctoral training, my colleagues and I are examining the brain structure and function of adolescents who experience gender dysphoria (GD) using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th Ed.) characterizes GD as distress due to an incongruence between sex assigned at birth and experienced gender identity. GD adolescents are sometimes prescribed puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones as part of their treatment. Neurohormonal theory suggests that exposure to androgens during fetal development organizes the brain as relatively male- or female-typical. During puberty, the surge in sex hormones promotes sex-differentiated brain development based on the prenatal brain organization. A popular explanation of GD is that brain development is shifted along the male-female dimension toward the experienced gender. In addition to examining sex and gender differences in several aspects of brain development (e.g., surface area, cortical thickness, diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), resting state fMRI, task-based fMRI), we will examine the role that sexual orientation plays in the association between GD and brain development.
Our team has published and is currently working on the following publications in a sample of hormonally untreated GD adolescents assigned female at birth, cisgender girls, and cisgender boys: 1) surface area, cortical thickness, and T1 relaxation (see Skorska et al., 2021); 2) diffusion tensor imaging (DTI); and 3) resting state fMRI (see Skorska et al., 2022). We are gathering additional data as part of a prospective longitudinal study in which GD adolescents participate at three time points: prior to puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones, after the start of puberty blockers but prior to the start of gender-affirming hormones, and after the start of gender-affirming hormones. Cisgender adolescents participate at roughly similar time intervals. I will focus on specific parts of this neuroimaging data: surface area, cortical thickness, and T1 relaxation time; emotion processing task; and brain function related to experiences of suicidality.
Further reading:
Guillamon, A., Junque, C., & Gomez-Gil, E. (2016). A review of the status of brain structure research in transsexualism. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 45, 1615-1648.
Hines, M. (2011). Gender development and the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 34, 69-88.
Hoekzema, E., Schagen, S. E. E., Kreukels, B. P. C., Veltman, D. J., Cohen-Kettenis, P. T., Delemarre-van de Waal, H., & Bakker, J. (2015). Regional volumes and spatial volumetric distribution of gray matter in the gender dysphoric brain. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 55, 59-71.
Kaczkurkin, A. N., Raznahan, A., & Satterthwaite, T. D. (2019). Sex differences in the developing brain: Insights from multimodal neuroimaging. Neuropsychopharmacology Reviews, 44, 71-85.
Patel, S., Patel, R., Park, M. T. M., Masellis, M., Knight, J., & Chakravarty, M. M. (2018). Heritability estimates of cortical anatomy: The influence and reliability of different estimation strategies. NeuroImage, 178, 78-91.
Biomarkers and the Development of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
Neurohormonal theory provides a commonly cited explanation regarding the development of sexual orientation and gender identity. This theory suggests that variation in exposure to androgens (and likely other mechanisms that are involved in sexual differentiation) during fetal development impacts brain development. In addition to influencing the development of sexual orientation and gender identity, these prenatal mechanisms are posited to influence the development of various physical characteristics such as digit ratio (i.e., the ratio of the length of the second-to-fourth digit), height, handedness, facial structure, long bone length in the arms and legs, and hand size. Given these mechanisms are difficult to measure directly, researchers measure the physical characteristics, or biomarkers, as indirect indices of the prenatal mechanisms.
Part of my research examines associations between biomarkers and sexual orientation and/or gender identity. For example, in Skorska et al. (2015) we found associations between facial structure and sexual orientation, and in Skorska & Bogaert (2017a, 2017b) we found associations between height and sexual orientation in cisgender men (but not in cisgender women). We further showed the difference in height in men was not explained by self-reports, nutrition, or stress. In Skorska et al. (2020), we found associations between extreme left- and right-handedness, sexual orientation, and gender identity in individuals assigned male at birth. The mechanisms underlying the development of these various biomarkers are argued to underlie the development of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. (Check out the Publications section for more research involving biomarkers!)
Future work will involve examining multiple biomarkers simultaneously (e.g., Skorska et al., 2021) to further understand their mechanistic underpinnings and associations with sexual orientation and gender identity, and examining diverse sexual orientation sub-populations (e.g., bisexual individuals).
Further reading:
Balthazart, J. (2020). Sexual partner preference in animals and humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 115, 34-47.
Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. N. (2020). A short review of biological research on the development of sexual orientation. Hormones and Behavior, 119, 104659.
Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233-258.
Hines, M. (2011). Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 170-182.
Martin, J. T., & Nguyen, D. H. (2004). Anthropometric analysis of homosexuals and heterosexuals: Implications for early hormone exposure. Hormones and Behavior, 45, 31-39.
Swift-Gallant, A., Coome, L. A., Aitken, M., Monks, D. A., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2019). Evidence for distinct biodevelopmental influences on male sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 12787-12792.
Neurohormonal theory provides a commonly cited explanation regarding the development of sexual orientation and gender identity. This theory suggests that variation in exposure to androgens (and likely other mechanisms that are involved in sexual differentiation) during fetal development impacts brain development. In addition to influencing the development of sexual orientation and gender identity, these prenatal mechanisms are posited to influence the development of various physical characteristics such as digit ratio (i.e., the ratio of the length of the second-to-fourth digit), height, handedness, facial structure, long bone length in the arms and legs, and hand size. Given these mechanisms are difficult to measure directly, researchers measure the physical characteristics, or biomarkers, as indirect indices of the prenatal mechanisms.
Part of my research examines associations between biomarkers and sexual orientation and/or gender identity. For example, in Skorska et al. (2015) we found associations between facial structure and sexual orientation, and in Skorska & Bogaert (2017a, 2017b) we found associations between height and sexual orientation in cisgender men (but not in cisgender women). We further showed the difference in height in men was not explained by self-reports, nutrition, or stress. In Skorska et al. (2020), we found associations between extreme left- and right-handedness, sexual orientation, and gender identity in individuals assigned male at birth. The mechanisms underlying the development of these various biomarkers are argued to underlie the development of sexual orientation and/or gender identity. (Check out the Publications section for more research involving biomarkers!)
Future work will involve examining multiple biomarkers simultaneously (e.g., Skorska et al., 2021) to further understand their mechanistic underpinnings and associations with sexual orientation and gender identity, and examining diverse sexual orientation sub-populations (e.g., bisexual individuals).
Further reading:
Balthazart, J. (2020). Sexual partner preference in animals and humans. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 115, 34-47.
Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. N. (2020). A short review of biological research on the development of sexual orientation. Hormones and Behavior, 119, 104659.
Ellis, L., & Ames, M. A. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233-258.
Hines, M. (2011). Prenatal endocrine influences on sexual orientation and on sexually differentiated childhood behavior. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 170-182.
Martin, J. T., & Nguyen, D. H. (2004). Anthropometric analysis of homosexuals and heterosexuals: Implications for early hormone exposure. Hormones and Behavior, 45, 31-39.
Swift-Gallant, A., Coome, L. A., Aitken, M., Monks, D. A., & VanderLaan, D. P. (2019). Evidence for distinct biodevelopmental influences on male sexual orientation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116, 12787-12792.
Perception of Facial Characteristics in Relation to Sexuality and Gender
We make snap judgments about people every day based on facial characteristics, and some of these snap judgments are about characteristics that are perceptually obvious, such as age, race, and gender. However, we also make snap judgments about characteristics that are more ambiguous, such as sexual orientation. Additionally, we use facial expressions to infer others' states via our perceptions of their emotions.
I am interested in examining whether facial structure differences drive perception of sexual orientation. We showed that sex-related (i.e., facial metrics that differed between heterosexual men and women) and non-sex-related aspects of facial structure differed between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women (Skorska et al., 2015). Using facial models with facial characteristics manipulated to mimic the structural sexual orientation differences observed in Skorska et al. (2015), participants’ accuracy in perception of sexual orientation was greater than chance in one study (i.e., 74%; Gonzalez-Alvarez, 2017). We have conducted an expanded perception of sexual orientation study by including facial models with manipulated facial characteristics that reflect additional controls (e.g., masculinity-femininity of the face that is independent of sexual orientation) and by adding an eye-tracking component (Skorska et al., in preparation). This study will help us to better understand how people investigate faces to judge sexual orientation and the characteristics that drive these judgments.
I am also interested in examining whether there are gender identity differences in facial emotion perception. Within-sex variation in gender identity is thought to result from variation in exposure to biological mechanisms related to sex differentiation. There are several brain areas implicated in the processing of emotion in faces (e.g., amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, parahippocampal gyrus, fusiform gyrus). Many of these areas may be influenced by sex-differentiated processes given there are sex differences in brain function in these brain regions when viewing stimuli varying in facial emotional expression. I am taking the lead on a portion of our MRI project examining the brain function of adolescents who experience gender dysphoria (GD; see above section for definition) and cisgender adolescents while engaging in a behavioural facial emotion identification task and while engaging in a facial emotion processing task while undergoing fMRI. If brain development is shifted along the male-female dimension toward the experienced gender, then before starting gender-affirming hormone therapy, the brain function of GD youth on the facial emotion processing task should reflect the experienced gender to some extent.
Future work consists of examining whether facial structure based on physical differences related to sexual orientation is associated with attraction and mate choice. I have published one study on facial attraction in a cross-cultural Thai sample (Skorska et al., 2021). Also, given within-sex variation in sexual orientation is also thought to result from sex differentiation related mechanisms, I am interested to examine whether there are also sexual orientation differences in facial emotion processing in a cisgender sample.
Further reading:
Filkowski, M. M., Olsen, R. M., Duda, B., Wanger, T. J., & Sabatinelli, D. (2017). Sex differences in emotional perception: Meta analysis of divergent activation. NeuroImage, 147, 925–933.
Gonzalez-Alvarez, J. (2017). Perception of sexual orientation from facial structure: A study with artificial face models. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1251–1260.
Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.
We make snap judgments about people every day based on facial characteristics, and some of these snap judgments are about characteristics that are perceptually obvious, such as age, race, and gender. However, we also make snap judgments about characteristics that are more ambiguous, such as sexual orientation. Additionally, we use facial expressions to infer others' states via our perceptions of their emotions.
I am interested in examining whether facial structure differences drive perception of sexual orientation. We showed that sex-related (i.e., facial metrics that differed between heterosexual men and women) and non-sex-related aspects of facial structure differed between gay and heterosexual men, and between lesbian and heterosexual women (Skorska et al., 2015). Using facial models with facial characteristics manipulated to mimic the structural sexual orientation differences observed in Skorska et al. (2015), participants’ accuracy in perception of sexual orientation was greater than chance in one study (i.e., 74%; Gonzalez-Alvarez, 2017). We have conducted an expanded perception of sexual orientation study by including facial models with manipulated facial characteristics that reflect additional controls (e.g., masculinity-femininity of the face that is independent of sexual orientation) and by adding an eye-tracking component (Skorska et al., in preparation). This study will help us to better understand how people investigate faces to judge sexual orientation and the characteristics that drive these judgments.
I am also interested in examining whether there are gender identity differences in facial emotion perception. Within-sex variation in gender identity is thought to result from variation in exposure to biological mechanisms related to sex differentiation. There are several brain areas implicated in the processing of emotion in faces (e.g., amygdala, hippocampus, thalamus, parahippocampal gyrus, fusiform gyrus). Many of these areas may be influenced by sex-differentiated processes given there are sex differences in brain function in these brain regions when viewing stimuli varying in facial emotional expression. I am taking the lead on a portion of our MRI project examining the brain function of adolescents who experience gender dysphoria (GD; see above section for definition) and cisgender adolescents while engaging in a behavioural facial emotion identification task and while engaging in a facial emotion processing task while undergoing fMRI. If brain development is shifted along the male-female dimension toward the experienced gender, then before starting gender-affirming hormone therapy, the brain function of GD youth on the facial emotion processing task should reflect the experienced gender to some extent.
Future work consists of examining whether facial structure based on physical differences related to sexual orientation is associated with attraction and mate choice. I have published one study on facial attraction in a cross-cultural Thai sample (Skorska et al., 2021). Also, given within-sex variation in sexual orientation is also thought to result from sex differentiation related mechanisms, I am interested to examine whether there are also sexual orientation differences in facial emotion processing in a cisgender sample.
Further reading:
Filkowski, M. M., Olsen, R. M., Duda, B., Wanger, T. J., & Sabatinelli, D. (2017). Sex differences in emotional perception: Meta analysis of divergent activation. NeuroImage, 147, 925–933.
Gonzalez-Alvarez, J. (2017). Perception of sexual orientation from facial structure: A study with artificial face models. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46, 1251–1260.
Tskhay, K. O., & Rule, N. O. (2013). Accuracy in categorizing perceptually ambiguous groups: A review and meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 17, 72–86.
The Immunological Basis of Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Development
A well-replicated finding related to sexual orientation development in men is that gay individuals (including more masculine cisgender gay men and more feminine transgender individuals assigned male at birth) tend to have more older brothers than cisgender heterosexual men. The maternal immune hypothesis is the most well-developed explanation of this fraternal birth order effect. Specifically, during successive male pregnancies, it is posited that there is an increase in a mother's immune response to male-specific protein(s) that a male fetus would have but a female fetus would generally not have. This immune response includes a build-up of antibodies to these protein(s), and the increasing amounts of antibodies are hypothesized to affect sites in the brain responsible for sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the developing fetus.
Several of my studies examined the fraternal birth order effect and the maternal immune hypothesis. For example, my colleagues and I provided the first evidence to directly support the maternal immune hypothesis (Bogaert et al., 2018). In this study we found that mothers of gay men with older brothers had the highest antibody concentrations to NLGN4Y, a cell-surface protein expressed in male brains, compared with mothers of gay men with no older brothers, mothers of heterosexual men, and cisgender women with no sons. In Skorska & Bogaert (2020), we found evidence for the fraternal birth order effect in cisgender gay men in the Add Health data. My work has also explored the fraternal birth order effect in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity cross-culturally in Thailand (Skorska et al., 2020).
Some of my work has also investigated the possibility that only-child status reflects a second type of maternal immune response that might influence sexual orientation and gender identity. Some studies have found an only-child effect related to sexual orientation and/or gender identity in females (e.g., Skorska & Bogaert, 2020). It is hypothesized that an antibody response separate from the one underlying the fraternal birth order effect is responsible for this only-child effect, given previous studies have found that only-child status is related to lower birth weight, and lower birth weight is related to maternal immune responses. Interestingly, some studies of only-child status and birth weight also found an association between these variables in males, suggesting this separate maternal immune response underlying the only-child effect may apply to both males and females. For example, we found that gay men who were only children had lower birth weights and their mothers had more miscarriages than men with other sibship compositions (Skorska et al., 2017). How the separate maternal immune response proposed to underlie the only-child effect operates in females and males is currently unknown.
Future work will involve providing more evidence for the maternal immune hypothesis by replicating our previous study of antibody concentrations to NGLN4Y and including diverse sexual orientations (e.g., bisexual individuals), as well as furthering our understanding of the only-child effect and its immunological underpinnings.
Further reading:
Blanchard, R. (2018). Fraternal birth order, family size, and male homosexuality: Meta-analysis of studies spanning 25 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1-15.
Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. N. (2011). Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 247-254.
VanderLaan, D. P., Blanchard, R., Wood, H., Garzon, L. C., & Zucker, K. J. (2015). Birth weight and two possible types of maternal effects on male sexual orientation: A clinical study of children and adolescents referred to a gender identity service. Developmental Psychobiology, 57, 25-34.
A well-replicated finding related to sexual orientation development in men is that gay individuals (including more masculine cisgender gay men and more feminine transgender individuals assigned male at birth) tend to have more older brothers than cisgender heterosexual men. The maternal immune hypothesis is the most well-developed explanation of this fraternal birth order effect. Specifically, during successive male pregnancies, it is posited that there is an increase in a mother's immune response to male-specific protein(s) that a male fetus would have but a female fetus would generally not have. This immune response includes a build-up of antibodies to these protein(s), and the increasing amounts of antibodies are hypothesized to affect sites in the brain responsible for sexual orientation and/or gender identity in the developing fetus.
Several of my studies examined the fraternal birth order effect and the maternal immune hypothesis. For example, my colleagues and I provided the first evidence to directly support the maternal immune hypothesis (Bogaert et al., 2018). In this study we found that mothers of gay men with older brothers had the highest antibody concentrations to NLGN4Y, a cell-surface protein expressed in male brains, compared with mothers of gay men with no older brothers, mothers of heterosexual men, and cisgender women with no sons. In Skorska & Bogaert (2020), we found evidence for the fraternal birth order effect in cisgender gay men in the Add Health data. My work has also explored the fraternal birth order effect in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity cross-culturally in Thailand (Skorska et al., 2020).
Some of my work has also investigated the possibility that only-child status reflects a second type of maternal immune response that might influence sexual orientation and gender identity. Some studies have found an only-child effect related to sexual orientation and/or gender identity in females (e.g., Skorska & Bogaert, 2020). It is hypothesized that an antibody response separate from the one underlying the fraternal birth order effect is responsible for this only-child effect, given previous studies have found that only-child status is related to lower birth weight, and lower birth weight is related to maternal immune responses. Interestingly, some studies of only-child status and birth weight also found an association between these variables in males, suggesting this separate maternal immune response underlying the only-child effect may apply to both males and females. For example, we found that gay men who were only children had lower birth weights and their mothers had more miscarriages than men with other sibship compositions (Skorska et al., 2017). How the separate maternal immune response proposed to underlie the only-child effect operates in females and males is currently unknown.
Future work will involve providing more evidence for the maternal immune hypothesis by replicating our previous study of antibody concentrations to NGLN4Y and including diverse sexual orientations (e.g., bisexual individuals), as well as furthering our understanding of the only-child effect and its immunological underpinnings.
Further reading:
Blanchard, R. (2018). Fraternal birth order, family size, and male homosexuality: Meta-analysis of studies spanning 25 years. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 47, 1-15.
Bogaert, A. F., & Skorska, M. N. (2011). Sexual orientation, fraternal birth order, and the maternal immune hypothesis: A review. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 32, 247-254.
VanderLaan, D. P., Blanchard, R., Wood, H., Garzon, L. C., & Zucker, K. J. (2015). Birth weight and two possible types of maternal effects on male sexual orientation: A clinical study of children and adolescents referred to a gender identity service. Developmental Psychobiology, 57, 25-34.
Prejudice Toward Sexual Minorities and Women
I am broadly interested in the attitudes people hold toward sexual minorities and women. Regarding sexual minorities, essentialist attitudes reflect the belief that members of groups are discrete and homogenous (i.e., the dimension of entitativity) and can be characterized by an immutable or biological and unchanging aspect (i.e., the dimension of naturalness). These attitudes are predictive of prejudice. In one study, we showed that entitativity is particularly predictive of anti-gay and anti-schizophrenia prejudice whereas the covariance between naturalness and entitativity was more predictive of racism compared with either dimension alone (Hodson & Skorska, 2015). However, not all research has found that the “born that way” narrative associated with naturalness beliefs leads to less anti-gay prejudice. There is evidence of a biological basis to the development of sexual orientation (Bogaert & Skorska, 2020) and the “born that way” narrative is often invoked in an attempt to change attitudes about sexual minorities. Given the mixed evidence for the “born that way” narrative leading to a reduction in anti-gay prejudice, I am interested in further understanding why the “born that way” narrative is still invoked to challenge anti-gay attitudes.
I am also interested in the relationship between pornography and sexism. In an experimental study in undergraduate cisgender men, we found that exposure to erotica (a less degrading form of pornography) compared with degrading but non-violent pornography resulted in less objectification of the pornography actress but the greatest discrimination toward a fictitious woman (compared with a control news clip). Exposure to degrading pornography (compared with erotica or control clips) influenced the strongest hostile sexist beliefs and the greatest amount of objectification of the pornography actress. Benevolent sexism and essentialist beliefs about women were not affected (Skorska et al., 2018). Future work involves examining longitudinal effects of pornography exposure in cisgender men, and examining effects of pornography exposure in cisgender women.
Further reading:
Fry, K. M., Grzanka, P. R., Miles, J. R., & DeVore, E. N. (2020). Is essentialism essential? Reducing homonegative prejudice by targeting diverse sexual orientation beliefs. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 1725–1739.
Hald, G. M., Malamuth, N. N., & Lange, T. (2013). Pornography and sexist attitudes among heterosexuals. Journal of Communication, 63, 638–660.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100.
Haslam, N., & Whelan, J. (2008). Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2/3, 1297–1312.
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression
in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66, 183–205.
I am broadly interested in the attitudes people hold toward sexual minorities and women. Regarding sexual minorities, essentialist attitudes reflect the belief that members of groups are discrete and homogenous (i.e., the dimension of entitativity) and can be characterized by an immutable or biological and unchanging aspect (i.e., the dimension of naturalness). These attitudes are predictive of prejudice. In one study, we showed that entitativity is particularly predictive of anti-gay and anti-schizophrenia prejudice whereas the covariance between naturalness and entitativity was more predictive of racism compared with either dimension alone (Hodson & Skorska, 2015). However, not all research has found that the “born that way” narrative associated with naturalness beliefs leads to less anti-gay prejudice. There is evidence of a biological basis to the development of sexual orientation (Bogaert & Skorska, 2020) and the “born that way” narrative is often invoked in an attempt to change attitudes about sexual minorities. Given the mixed evidence for the “born that way” narrative leading to a reduction in anti-gay prejudice, I am interested in further understanding why the “born that way” narrative is still invoked to challenge anti-gay attitudes.
I am also interested in the relationship between pornography and sexism. In an experimental study in undergraduate cisgender men, we found that exposure to erotica (a less degrading form of pornography) compared with degrading but non-violent pornography resulted in less objectification of the pornography actress but the greatest discrimination toward a fictitious woman (compared with a control news clip). Exposure to degrading pornography (compared with erotica or control clips) influenced the strongest hostile sexist beliefs and the greatest amount of objectification of the pornography actress. Benevolent sexism and essentialist beliefs about women were not affected (Skorska et al., 2018). Future work involves examining longitudinal effects of pornography exposure in cisgender men, and examining effects of pornography exposure in cisgender women.
Further reading:
Fry, K. M., Grzanka, P. R., Miles, J. R., & DeVore, E. N. (2020). Is essentialism essential? Reducing homonegative prejudice by targeting diverse sexual orientation beliefs. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49, 1725–1739.
Hald, G. M., Malamuth, N. N., & Lange, T. (2013). Pornography and sexist attitudes among heterosexuals. Journal of Communication, 63, 638–660.
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2002). Are essentialist beliefs associated with prejudice? British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 87–100.
Haslam, N., & Whelan, J. (2008). Human natures: Psychological essentialism in thinking about differences between people. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2/3, 1297–1312.
Wright, P. J., Tokunaga, R. S., & Kraus, A. (2016). A meta-analysis of pornography consumption and actual acts of sexual aggression
in general population studies. Journal of Communication, 66, 183–205.