Valerio Pellegrini

Nowadays, the use of conspiratorial narratives targeting marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community, is increasingly pervasive. These narratives depict LGBTQ+ people as a threat to the social order, undermining their rights and social inclusion. Across four studies ( N = 2111), we experimentally investigated whether exposure to an anti-LGBTQ+ conspiratorial narrative affects conspiracy beliefs and civic engagement among cis-heterosexual people. Results showed that exposure to conspiratorial narrative increased the endorsement of anti-LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs, which, in turn, were associated with lower perception of interconnectedness with LGBTQ+ people, lower support for progressive collective action, lower support for inclusive education programs at school, and lower altruistic behavior toward LGBTQ+ individuals. Our findings highlight how conspiratorial narratives might fuel discriminatory beliefs and subtly erode intergroup solidarity and civic engagement. Addressing these processes is crucial to tackling the harmful effects of conspiratorial narratives and designing interventions to counter the spread and impact of conspiracy-driven rhetoric.

In recent years, researchers have investigated the relationship between the tendency to justify the system and the collective action intentions; in particular, justifying the status quo has a detrimental effect on the intentions to undertake progressive collective action. In the present research, we explore this relationship, hypothesizing a possible role of empathic concern and prosocial orientation as key factors in explaining why justifying the system may lead people to avoid participating in collective actions. We explored the role of empathic concern (Studies 1–3) and prosocial orientation (Study 4) in the relationship between system justification and collective action intentions in different social domains (i.e., migrants and LGBTQ+ rights, economic inequalities, and gender pay gap). Results from these studies support our hypothesis: justifying the system seems to be indirectly associated with lower intentions to participate in collective actions by lowering empathic concern and prosocial orientation. Implications, limits, and future directions are discussed.

Introduction: Structural stigma in public policies exacerbates minority stress for LGBTQIA+ individuals. This study explores the impact of Italy’s political climate on perceived stigma and civic engagement within the LGBTQIA+ population, following the inauguration of a conservative government that made a political agenda with explicit negative references to LGBTQIA+ individuals. Grounded in minority stress, social safety, intersectionality, and relative deprivation theories, the research also explores differences in perceived stigma across community subgroups. Methods: Data were collected from 619 LGBTQIA+ individuals via an online questionnaire between November and December 2022. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to identify stigma-related class profiles. Results: LCA identified two main groups: marginalized (mostly cisgender, monosexual, experiencing no or single form of oppression and congruence between gender identity and ID) and intersectionally marginalized (predominantly transgender/nonbinary, plurisexual/asexual, experiencing multiple forms of oppression and incongruence between gender identity and ID). Intersectionally marginalized individuals reported higher levels of perceived stigma and civic engagement than their marginalized counterparts. Conclusions: This study highlights the disparities in stigma experiences within the LGBTQIA+ community and the protective role of civic engagement as a resilience strategy against minority stress. Policy Implications: There is an urgent need for policies and interventions tailored to support Italy’s LGBTQIA+ communities, particularly those intersecting multiple marginalized identities. Comprehensive anti-discrimination laws are needed to protect individuals from hate crimes, and institutions must provide financial support to LGBTQIA+ organizations to empower them in creating community resources that mitigate stigma.

Recent times are characterized by increased participation in collective action that either supports or opposes greater equality for LGBTQ+ individuals. In this research, we focus on the Italian context, where both forms of collective action are highly present, and examine the role of LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs (i.e., beliefs that a powerful LGBTQ+ lobby exist that operates secretly to pursue its plans against cis‐heterosexual people and spread homosexuality in society) in (de)motivating heterosexual cisgender individuals’ mobilization. We conducted two correlational studies (N = 1266) and tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be less motivated to mobilize in support of LGBTQ+ rights, through decreased identification with LGBTQ+ people, lower anger for LGBTQ+ inequality, and lower group efficacy to achieve LGBTQ+ equality (Studies 1 and 2). In addition, we tested whether participants who endorse LGBTQ+ conspiracy beliefs would be more motivated to mobilize against LGBTQ+ rights, through increased identification with heterosexual people, higher anger for LGBTQ+ equality, and higher group efficacy to contrast LGBTQ+ equality (Study 2). Results of mediation analyses supported these predictions, indicating conspiracy beliefs about the LGBTQ+ community as a social‐cognitive obstacle to the achievement of LGBTQ+ equality. Implications, limitations, and future research directions are discussed.

Introduction: Conspiracy theories and beliefs (CTBs) about LGBTQ+ people are often used as arguments in political debate in Italy and across Europe to hinder the passing of protective laws and negatively affect popular consensus regarding the promotion of anti-discrimination policies and the advancement of civil rights. Method: We conducted two correlational studies in Italy starting the data collection at the end of 2022. In Study 1 (N = 589), we investigated which ideological profile was more associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs, between the two profiles identified by Duckitt et al.’s model (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 75–93, 2002): path A) high vision of the world as a competitive jungle and consequent high social dominance orientation; path B) high vision of the world as dangerous and consequent high right-wing authoritarianism. In Study 2 (N = 1581), we have also included three potential outcomes associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs in the model. Results: Through a mediational path model, we found that path B was the strongest associated with LGBTQ+ CTBs. We found that LGBTQ+ CTBs mediated the relationships between the two ideological dispositions and (a) lower support to LGBTQ+ civil rights; (b) lower LGBTQ+ collective action intentions; and (c) higher adherence to economic myths about LGBTQ+ people. Conclusions: Socio-psychological research on LGBTQ+ CTBs may inform social policies that work to lessen the harm these beliefs do and advance a more welcoming and inclusive society. Policy Implications: Such results offer several insights to change and improve the actual debate in political, scientific, and cultural domains, contributing to producing new policies which might increase the self-determination of all LGBTQ+ people.