Professor Peter Hegarty

Professor of Psychology
BSc (Hons). TCD, Ireland. PhD, Stanford, USA
+44 (0)1483 686898
14 AC 05
2-5 Thursday during teaching weeks or by appointment



Research interests

Research projects

Research collaborations

Research grants

Wellcome Trust University Award in Medical Humanities, 2015-2020. Intersex UK: A History for the Age of Consensus. (2015). Principal Investigator: Peter Hegarty, University Research Fellow: David A. Griffiths.

European Union, Marie Sklodowska Curie Award, 2016-2018. Beyond ‘Straight Talking’: The Consequences of Vocal Cues to Sexual Identity for Modern Prejudice. Principal Investigator: Peter Hegarty, Research Fellow: Fabio Fasoli.

British Academy Small Grant, 2017. Heroes Against Homophobia. Principal Investigator: Peter Hegarty, Co-Investigator: Sophie Russell, Named Researcher: Sebastian E. Bartos.

British Psychological Society Public Engagement Grant, 2017. Enabling Public Engagement with Intersex/DSD through Psychology and Mobile Technology. Principal Investigator: Peter Hegarty.

Santander Fellowship Grant, 2017. The Social Cognition of Heteronormativity and Homonormativity. Principal Investigator: Andrea Carnaghi. Co-Investigator and Host: Peter Hegarty.

Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada Postdoctoral Fellowship Award, 2015-2017. The Nature of Social Relations: Mid-Century Psychologists and Work Towards World Peace. Principal Investigator: Peter Hegarty. Research Fellow: Jacy Young.


Postgraduate research supervision

Completed postgraduate research projects I have supervised

My teaching

Courses I teach on

Postgraduate taught

My publications



  1. Hegarty, P. (2017). A recent history of LGBT psychology: From homophobia to LGBT. London, UK: Routledge.
  2. Hegarty, P. (2013). Gentlemen’s disagreement: Alfred Kinsey, Lewis Terman, and the sexual politics of smart men. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.

Edited works

  1. Rutherford, A., & Hegarty, P. (2019). 50 years since Stonewall: The science and politics of sexual orientation and gender diversity.  American Psychologist, 74, 857-986.
  2. Klein, O., & Hegarty, P. (2017). Historical cognition: Recent advances. Memory Studies, 10, 243-362.
  3. Hegarty, P., Hubbard, K., & Nyatanga, L. (2015). Innovative approaches to teaching Conceptual and Historical Issues in Psychology (CHIP). History and Philosophy of Psychology, 16, 1-68.
  4. Hegarty, P. (2012). Beyond Kinsey: The Committee for Research on Problems of Sex and American psychology. History of Psychology, 15,197-232.
  5. Curtain, N., Hegarty, P., & Stewart, A.J. (2012). Expanding the research community in LGBT psychology: Collaborative studies from the International Institute. Psychology & Sexuality, 3,187-296.
  6. Hegarty, P., Barker, M., & Langdridge, D. (2011). Queer theory and psychology. Psychology and Sexuality, 2 (1), 1-107
  7. Hegarty, P. (2007). The history of power.  History of Psychology. 10 (2), 75-226.
  8. Hegarty, P. & Coyle, A. (2005). Special Feature on ‘Masculinity-Femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?’ by Anne Constantinople (1973). Feminism & Psychology, 15, 379-440. 

Journal articles

  1. Young, J., & Hegarty, P. (in press). Psychology’s history of sexual harassment persists into the present. The Psychologist.
  2. Bartoş, S.E., Russell, P.S., & Hegarty, P. (2020). Heroes against homophobia: Does elevation uniquely block homophobia by inhibiting disgust? Cognition and Emotion.
  3. AlSheddi, M., Russell, S., & Hegarty, P. (2020). How does culture shape our moral identity? Moral foundations in Saudi Arabia and Britain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 97-110.
  4. Hegarty, P. (2020). Strangers and states: Situating accentism in a world of nations.  Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 39, 172-179.
  5. Bartoş, S.E., & Hegarty, P. (2019). Negotiating theory when doing practice: A systematic review of qualitative research on interventions to reduce homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 66, 1262-1286. 
  6. Bartoş, S., Fife-Schaw, C., & Hegarty, P. (2019). Is homonationalism influencing public opinion? Experimental and survey evidence from the UK and Romania.  Psychology of Sexualities Review, 10 (1), 20-35
  7. Fasoli, F., & Hegarty, P. (2019). A leader doesn’t sound lesbian! The impact of auditory gaydar on first impression and hiring decision. Psychology of Women Quarterly. DOI: 10.1177/0361684319891168
  8. Fasoli, F., Hegarty, P., & Carnaghi, A. (2019). Sounding gay, speaking as a “fag”: Auditory gaydar and the perception of reclaimed homophobic language. Journal of Language and Social Psychology.
  9. Hegarty, P. (2019). How do we ‘other’? The Psychologist, 32 (4), 48-51.
  10. Hegarty P. (2019). Inequality brokered. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
  11. Hegarty, P., & Rutherford, A. (2019). Histories of psychology after Stonewall: An introduction to the special issue. American Psychologist, 74, 857-867.
  12. Hegarty, P., Sczerba, A., & Skelton, R. (2019). How has cultural heterosexism affected thinking about divorce? Asymmetric framing of same-gender and mixed-gender divorces in news media and in minds. Journal of Homosexuality. DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2019.1603495
  13. Hegarty, P., Smith, A.M., & Bogan-Carey, T. (2019). Stigma as framed on YouTube: Effects of personal experience videos on students’ beliefs about medicalizing intersex. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 49, 133-144.
  14. Lundberg, T., Dønåsen, I., Hegarty. P., & Roen, K. (2019). Moving intersex/DSD rights and care forward: Lay understandings of common dilemmas. Journal of Social and Political Psychology 7, 354-377.
  15. Liao, L.-M., Hegarty, P., Creighton, S., Lundberg, T., & Roen, K. (2019). Clitoral surgery on minors: An interview study with clinical experts of differences of sex development. BJM Open, 9, e025821. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025821
  16. Salamat, S., Hegarty, P., & Patton, R. (2019). Same clinic, different conceptions: Drug users and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of how stigma affects clinical care. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 49, 534-545.
  17. Thorne, S.R., Hegarty, P., & Hepper, E.G. (2019). Equality in theory: From a heteronormative to an inclusive psychology of romantic love. Theory & Psychology, 29, 240-257.
  18. Young, J., & Hegarty, P. (2019). Reasonable men: Sexual harassment and social psychologists’ norms for conduct. Feminism & Psychology, 29, 453-474.  
  19. Fasoli, F., & Hegarty, P., Maass, A., & Aquino, R. (2018). Who wants to sound straight? Sexual majority and minority stereotypes, beliefs and desires about auditory gaydar. Personality and Individual Differences, 130, 59-64.
  20. Gkinopoulis, T., & Hegarty, P. (2018). Commemoration in crisis: A discursive analysis of who ‘we’ and ‘they’ have been and become in ceremonial political speeches before and during the Greek financial downturn. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57, 591-609.
  21. Hegarty, P., Stewart, A.L., Blockmans, I., & Horvath, M.A.H. (2018). The influence of magazines on men: Normalizing and challenging young men’s prejudice with lads’ mags. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 19, 131-144.
  22. Lundberg, T., Hegarty, P., & Roen, K. (2018). Making sense of ‘Intersex’ and ‘DSD’: How laypeople with varying experience of intersex/DSD understand and use terminology. Psychology & Sexuality, 9, 161-173
  23. Roen, K., Creighton, S.M., & Hegarty, P., & Liao, L.-M. (2018). Vaginal construction and treatment providers’ experiences: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Pediatric & Adolescent Gynecology, 31, 247-251.
  24. Roen, K., & Hegarty, P.  (2018). Shaping parents, shaping penises: How medical teams frame parents' decisions in response to hypospadias. British Journal of Health Psychology, 23, 967-981.
  25. Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., Tiegen, K.H., Boehm, G., & Luminet, O. (2017). When do past events require explanation? Insights from social psychology. Memory Studies, 10, 261-276.
  26. Fasoli, F., & Hegarty, P. (2017). Straight talk about gaydar: How do individuals guess others’ sexual orientation?  InMind 7 (34);
  27. Hegarty, P. (2017). On the failure to notice that White people are White: Generating and testing hypotheses with the celebrity guessing game. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 41-62.
  28. Hegarty, P., & Klein, O. (2017). Historical cognition’s dilemmas: Introduction to the special issue: Recent Advances in Historical Cognition. Memory Studies, 10, 243-248 
  29. Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2017). Rorschach tests and Rorschach vigilantes: Queering the history of psychology in Watchmen. History of the Human Sciences, 30 (4), 75-99.
  30. Klein, O., Hegarty, P. & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Hindsight forty years on: An interview with Baruch Fischhoff. Memory Studies, 10, 249-260.
  31. Lundberg, T., Lindström, A., Roen, K., & Hegarty, P. (2017).  From knowing nothing to knowing now: Parents experiences of caring for their children with Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42, 520-529.
  32. Tiegen, K.N., Bohm, G., Bruckmuller, S., Hegarty, P., & Luminet, O. (2017).  Long live the King! Beginnings loom larger than endings of past and recurrent events. Cognition, 163, 26-41.
  33. Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2016).  Blots and all: A British history of the Rorschach. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 52, 146-166.
  34. Hegarty, P. (2016). Brains, variability and inheritance: The continued relevance of Shields’ Functionalism in 21st century times. Feminism & Psychology, 26, 346-352.
  35. Bharj, N., & Hegarty, P. (2015). A postcolonial feminist critique of harem analogies in psychological science. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 3, 257-275.
  36. Hayter, D., & Hegarty, P. (2015). A genealogy of postmodern subjects: Discourse analysis and late capitalism. Theory & Psychology, 25, 369-287.
  37. Hayter, D., & Hegarty, P. (2015). Insisting on the unthinkable: A reply to Wetherell and Potter.  Theory & Psychology, 25, 396-402.
  38. Hegarty, P., Hubbard, K., & Nyatanga, L. (2015). Innovative approaches to teaching CHIP: An introduction to the Special Issue.  History and Philosophy of Psychology, 16 (1), 1-3.
  39. Thorne, S., Hegarty, P., & Catmur, C. (2015). Is the left hemisphere androcentric?  Evidence of the learned categorical perception of gender. Laterality, 20, 571-584.
  40. Ansara, Y.G., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research. Feminism & Psychology, 24, 259-270.
  41. Bartoș, S.E., Berger, I., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Can psychological interventions reduce homophobia?  A study-space analysis and meta-analytic review. Annual Review of Sex Research, 51, 363-382.
  42. Falomir-Pichastor, J.M., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Maintaining distinctions under threat: Why heterosexual men endorse the biological theory of sexuality when equality is the norm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 731-751.
  43. Hegarty, P. (2014). The need for historical understanding in the psychology of peace and conflict.  Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 20, 337-340.
  44. Hubbard, K., & Hegarty, P. (2014). Why is the history of heterosexuality essential?  Beliefs about the history of heterosexuality and homosexuality and their relationship to sexual prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 61, 471-490.
  45. Ansara, Y.G., & Hegarty, P. (2013). Masculine genetics as misgendering in English language contexts: Applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 7, 160-177.
  46. Hagger-Johnson, G.E., Hegarty, P., Barker, M., & Richards, C. (2013). Public engagement, knowledge transfer and impact validity. Journal of Social Issues, 69, 664-683.
  47. Hegarty, P. (2013). Essential differences? Constructing frames of reference in spontaneous explanations of differences between the British and the Irish. Irish Journal of Psychology, 34, 35-48.
  48. Hegarty, P. (2013). Deconstructing the ideal of fidelity: A view from LGB psychology. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 13, 31-33.
  49. Hegarty, P., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Asymmetric explanations of group differences: Experimental evidence of Foucault’s disciplinary power in social psychology. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 176-186. 
  50. Hegarty, P., & Bruckmüller, S. (2013). Teaching and learning guide for asymmetric explanations of group differences: Experimental evidence of Foucault’s disciplinary power in social psychology.   Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 701-705. 
  51. Parslow, O., & Hegarty, P. (2013). Who cares? UK lesbian caregivers in a heterosexual world.  Women’s Studies International Forum, 40, 78-86.
  52. Ansara, Y.G., & Hegarty, P. (2012). Cisgenderism in psychology: Pathologizing and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008. Psychology and Sexuality, 3, 137-160.
  53. Brennan, T., & Hegarty, P. (2012). Charlotte Wolff’s contribution to bisexual history and to (sexuality) theory and research: A reappraisal.  Journal of the History of Sexuality, 21, 141-161.
  54. Bruckmüller, S., Hegarty, P., & Abele, A.E. (2012). Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of gendered power and gender stereotypes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 210-218.
  55. Curtain, N., Hegarty, P., & Stewart, A.J. (2012). Fostering research collaborations in LGBT psychology: An introduction to the special issue. Psychology & Sexuality, 3, 187-194.
  56. Hegarty, P. (2012). Beyond Kinsey: The Committee for Research on Problems of Sex and American Psychology. History of Psychology, 15, 197-200.
  57. Hegarty, P. (2012). Getting Miles away from Terman: Did the CRPS fund Catharine Cox Miles’s Unsilenced Psychology of Sex? History of Psychology, 15, 201-208.
  58. Hegarty, P., & Walton, Z. (2012). The consequences of predicting scientific impact in psychology using journal impact factors. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 72-78.
  59. Horvath, M.A.H., Hegarty, P., Tyler, S., & Mansfield, S. (2012). “Lights on at the end of the party:” Are lads’ mags mainstreaming dangerous sexism? British Journal of Psychology, 103, 454-471. 
  60. Hegarty, P. (2011). Becoming curious: An introduction to the special issue on queer theory and psychology. Psychology and Sexuality, 2, 1-3. 
  61. Hegarty, P. (2011). Sexuality, normality, intelligence. What is queer theory up against?  Psychology and Sexuality, 2, 45-57.
  62. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2011). “What Blokes Want Lesbians to be”: On FHM and the socialization of pro-lesbian attitudes among heterosexual-identified men. Feminism & Psychology, 21, 240-247.
  63. Hegarty, P., Watson, N., Fletcher, K., & McQueen, G. (2011). When gentlemen are first and ladies are last.  Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners’ names. British Journal of Social Psychology, 50, 21-35.
  64. Adams, J., Blair, K.L., Borrero-Bracero, N.I., Espin, O., Hayfield, N.J., Hegarty, P., Herrman-Green, L.K., Hsu, M.-H., D., Maurer, O., Manalastas, E.J., McDermott, D.T., Shepperd, D. (2010).  Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender psychology: An international conversation among researchers.  Psychology & Sexuality, 1, 76-91.
  65. Brennan, T., & Hegarty, P. (2010). Charlotte Wolff and lesbian history: Reconfiguring liminality in exile.  Journal of Lesbian Studies, 14, 338-358.
  66. Brennan, T., & Hegarty, P. (2010). Man seeks man: Gay men’s profiles on a website as subject production. Psychology of Sexualities Review, 1, 5-18.
  67. Hegarty, P. (2010). A stone in the soup?  Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology. Psychology and Sexuality, 1, 3-20.
  68. Hegarty, P., Lemieux, A., & McQueen, G. (2010). Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 375-391 
  69. Shepperd, D., Coyle, A., & Hegarty, P. (2010). Discourses of friendship between heterosexual women and gay men: Mythical norms and an absence of desire.  Feminism & Psychology, 20, 205-224.
  70. Brennan, T., & Hegarty, P. (2009). Magnus Hirschfeld, his biographies, and the possibilities and boundaries of ‘biography’ as ‘doing history.’ History of the Human Sciences 22 (5), 24-46.
  71. Hegarty, P. (2009). Toward an LGBT-affirmative informed paradigm for children who break gender norms: A comment on Drummond et al. (2008) and Rieger et al. (2008). Developmental Psychology, 45, 895-900.
  72. Hegarty, P., & Golden, A.M. (2008). Attributions about the controllability of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of prejudice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1023-1044.
  73. Barker, M., Hagger-Johnson, G., Hegarty, P., Hutchinson, C., & Riggs, D.W. (2007). Responses from the Lesbian & Gay Psychology Section to Crossley’s Making sense of ‘barebacking.’ British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 667-677.
  74. Brennan, T., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Who was Magnus Hirshfeld and why do we need to know? History and Philosophy of Psychology 9 (1), 12-28.
  75. Buechel, C., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Modern prejudice at work: Effects of homonegativity and perceived erotic value of lesbians and gay men on heterosexuals’ reactions to explicit and discrete couples.  Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 8, 71-82.
  76. Hegarty, P. (2007). Getting dirty: Psychology’s history of power. History of Psychology, 10, 75-91.
  77. Hegarty, P. (2007). From genius inverts to gendered intelligence: Lewis Terman and the power of the norm. History of Psychology, 10, 132-155.
  78. Marcu, A., Lyons, E., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Dilemmatic human-animal boundaries in Britain and Romania: Post-materialist and materialist dehumanization. British Journal of Social Psychology,46, 875-893.
  79. McAlpine, C., Gill, A., & Hegarty, P. (2007). Why criminalize forced marriage? Islamophobia and assimilation-based justifications. Psychology of Women Section Review 9 (2), 15-28.
  80. Pratto, F., Korchmaros, J. N., & Hegarty, P. (2007). When race and gender go without saying. Social Cognition, 25, 221-247 
  81. Hegarty, P. (2006). Undoing androcentric explanations of gender differences: Explaining ‘the effect to be predicted.’ Sex Roles, 55, 861-867.
  82. Hegarty, P. (2006). Where’s the sex in sexual prejudice? Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 7, 264-275.
  83. Hegarty, P. (2006). Prejudice against lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, and trans people: A matter of identity, behaviour, or both?  Sexual Health Matters, 7, 37-40. 
  84. Hegarty, P., & Buechel, C. (2006). Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA articles, 1965-2004.  Review of General Psychology, 10, 377-389.
  85. Hegarty, P., & Massey, S. (2006). Anti-homosexual prejudice . . . as opposed to what? Queer theory and the social psychology of anti-homosexual prejudice.  Journal of Homosexuality, 52, 47-71.
  86. Pratto, F., Glasford, D., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Weighing the prospects of war.  Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 219-233.
  87. Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom.  Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 16, 70-80.
  88. Brown, N., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Attributing primary and secondary emotions to lesbians and gay men: Denying a human essence or gender stereotyping? Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 6, 14-20.
  89. Hegarty, P. (2005). Harry Stack Sullivan and his chums: Archive fever in American psychiatry? History of the Human Sciences, 18 (3), 35-53.
  90. Hegarty, P. (2005). Kitzinger’s irony: Then and now. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review,6, 114-116.
  91. Hegarty, P., & Chryssocchoou, X. (2005). Why our policies set the standard more than theirs: Category norms and the generalization of policies between EU countries. Social Cognition, 23, 491-529.
  92. Hegarty, P., & Coyle, A. (2005). An undervalued part of the psychology of gender canon? Reappraising Anne Constantinople’s ‘Masculinity-femininity: An exception to a famous dictum?’  Feminism & Psychology, 15, 379-383. 
  93. Robinson, E., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Premise-based category norms and the explanation of age differences. New Review of Social Psychology, 4,138-143.
  94. Hegarty, P. (2004). Was he Queer… or just Irish?  Reading the Life of Harry Stack Sullivan. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 5, 103-108.
  95. Hegarty, P., Pratto, F., & Lemieux, A. (2004). Heterocentric norms and heterosexist ambivalences: Drinking in intergroup discomfort. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 7, 119-130 
  96. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2004). The differences that norms make: Empiricism, social constructionism and the interpretation of group differences.  Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 50, 445-453.
  97. Hegarty, P. (2003). Homosexual signs and heterosexual silences: Rorschach studies of male homosexuality from 1921 to 1967. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12, 400-423.
  98. Hegarty, P. (2003). Pointing to a crisis: What finger-length ratios tell us about the construction of sexuality. Radical Statistics, Issue 83, 16-30.
  99. Hegarty, P. (2003). Contingent Differences: An historical note on Evelyn Hooker’s use of significance testing. Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review, 4, 3-7.    
  100. Hegarty, P. (2002). "It's not a choice, it's the way we're built:" Symbolic beliefs about sexual orientation in the United States and in Britain. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 153-166.
  101. Hegarty, P. (2001). ‘Real science’, deception experiments and the gender of my lab coat: Toward a new laboratory manual for lesbian and gay psychology. International Journal of Critical Psychology, 1 (4) 91-108.
  102. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). The effects of category norms and stereotypes on explanations of intergroup differences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 723-735.
  103. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2001). Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments. Journal of Homosexuality, 41, 121-135.
  104. Hegarty, P., & Chase, C.  (2000). Intersexed activism, feminism, and psychology: Opening a dialogue on theory, research, and practice.  Feminism & Psychology, 10, 107-122.
  105. Pratto, F., & Hegarty, P. (2000). The political psychology of reproductive strategies.  Psychological Science, 11, 57-62.
  106. Pratto, F., Liu, J.H., Levin, S., Sidanius, J., Shih, M., Bachrach, H., & Hegarty, P. (2000). Social dominance and the legitimation of inequality across cultures.  Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 31, 369-409.
  107. Hegarty, P. (1999). Taking intersexuality seriously: A new challenge for lesbian and gay psychology.  Newsletter of the British Psychological Society Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section, Issue 3, 6-8.
  108. Hegarty, P. (1999). Opening the black box: A reply to Rahman. Newsletter of the British Psychological Society Lesbian and Gay Section.  Issue 2, 11-14.
  109. Hegarty, P. (1997). Materializing the hypothalamus: A performative account of the ‘gay brain.’  Feminism & Psychology, 7, 355-372.

Book chapters and published conference precedings

  1. Hegarty, P., & Lundberg, T. (2020). Beyond choosing umbrella terms: An orientation to sense-making about ‘intersex’ for gender and sexuality studies from two psychologists. In A. Keilhauer (Ed.) Interdisciplinary Centre Gender Difference Diversity. Ehrlangen (p. 203-223). Germany: FAU Press.  
  2. Thorne, S., & Hegarty, P. A meeting of minds: Can cognitive psychology meet the demands of queer theory? In K. O’ Doherty, L.M. Osbeck, E. Schraube, & J. Yen (Eds.). Psychological Studies of Science and Technology (pp. 257-278). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Hegarty, P., Ansara, Y.G., & Barker, M.J. (2018). Non-binary gender. In N. Dess, J. Marecek, D. Best, & L. Bell (Eds). Psychology of Gender, Sex, and Sexualities (pp. 53-78). New York: Oxford University Press.
  4. Hegarty, P., Mollin, S., & Foels, R. (2016). Binomial word order and social status. In H. Giles and A. Maass (Eds.), Advances in Intergroup Communication (pp. 119-135). Peter Lang Publishing.
  5. Bartoș, S.E., & Hegarty, P. (2014).  Gender, race, and ethnic relations.  To In P. Nesbitt-Larking, && T. Capelos, with H. Dekker, (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology (pp. 204-219). Houndsmill, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
  6. Pettit, M., & Hegarty, P. (2013). Psychology and sexuality in historical time.  In D. Tolman, L. Diamond, J.A. Baumeister, W.H. George, J.G. Pfaus, & M.L.Ward (Eds.), APA Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology Volume 1: Person-Based Approaches (pp. 63-78). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
  7. Hegarty, P. (2013). Ladies and gentlemen: Gender and order in English. In G. C. Corbett (ed.) The Expression of Gender (pp. 69-86). Berlin: De Gruyter. 
  8. Hegarty, P., Parslow, O., Ansara, Y.G., & Quick, F. (2013). Androcentrism: Changing the landscape without leveling the playing field. In M. Ryan and N. Branscombe (Eds.), The Sage Handbook on Gender and Psychology (pp. 29-44). London: Sage.
  9. Hegarty, P., & Lemieux, A. (2011). Who is the second (graphed) sex and why?  The meaning of order in graphs of gender differences. In T. W. Schubert. & A. Maass (Eds).  Spatial Dimensions of Social Thought (pp. 325-349). Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin.
  10. Hegarty, P., & Pratto, F. (2010). Interpreting and communicating the results of gender-related research.  In J. C. Chisler & D.R. McCreary (Eds.). Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 191-211). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  11. Hegarty, P. (2009). Queerying lesbian and gay psychology’s coming of age: Was history just kid stuff?  In M O’Rourke and N. Giffney (Eds.) The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theory (514-544). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
  12. Hegarty, P. (2008). Queer methodologies. In L.T. Moon (Ed.) Feeling Queer or Queer Feelings: Radical Approaches to Counseling Sex, Sexualities and Genders (pp.125-140). London: Routledge.
  13. Hegarty, P. (2007). What comes after discourse analysis for LGBTQ psychology?  In E.A. Peel and V.C. Clarke (Eds.) Out in Psychology: LGBTQ Perspectives (pp. 41-57). Chichester: Wiley and Sons. 
  14. Pratto, F., Hegarty, P., & Korchmairos, J. (2007). Who gets stereotyped?  How communication practices and category norms lead people to stereotype particular people and groups. In Y. Kashima, K. Fiedler, & P. Freytag (Eds.), Stereotype Dynamics: Language-Based Approaches to Stereotype Formation, Maintenance, and Change (pp. 299-319). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Durham, NH.  
  15. Hegarty, P., Buechel, C., & Ungar, S. (2006). Androcentric preferences for visuospatial representations of gender differences. In D. Barker-Plummer, R. Cox, & N. Swoboda (Eds.). Diagrammatic Representation and Inference: 4th International Conference, Diagrams 2006 (pp. 263-266). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
  16. Hegarty, P. (2003). ‘More feminine than 999 men out of 1,000:’ The construction of sex roles  in psychology. In T. Lester (Ed.), Gender Nonconformity, Race and Sexuality: Charting the Connections (pp. 62-83). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
  17. Hegarty, P. (2003). Interpreting the Rorschach test: Poststructuralist histories of psychology and the production of knowledge about sexuality [Extended Abstract].  Proceedings of the 35th Annual Meeting of Cheiron: The International Society for the History of Behavioral and Social Sciences (pp. 105-113). University of New Hampshire.
  18. Hegarty, P. (1996). Paradoxes of AIDS education: “Sex panic” and public health.  In R.R. Linden & C. Laub (Eds.), AIDS on the Ground: Service Learning in a Global Epidemic (pp. 89-97). Stanford, CA: Haas Center for Public Service. 

Published interviews

  1. Lampalzer, U., Hegarty, P., Grover, S. & Schweizer, K. (2018). On beauty and the benefits of ambiguity: Current controversies in intersex care. A discussion between gynecologist Sonia Grover and social psychologist Peter Hegarty. In: K. Schweizer & F. Vogler (Eds.). Die Schönheiten des Geschlechts. Intersex im Dialog. Frankfurt/M.: Campus.
  2. THE News (2016). Is it time to take PhD supervison out of the classroom?
  3. Young, J.L., & Rutherford, A. (Nov 19, 2012). Oral history: Peter Hegarty.  Psychology’s Feminist Voices.
  4. Stemwedel, J. (Jan 12, 2012). Lads’ mags, sexism and research in psychology: An interview with Dr. Peter Hegarty.  Scientific American Doing Good Science Blog.
  5. Hegarty, P., & Hardman, D. (2006). Speaking of sexual politics in psychology. The Psychologist, 19, 27-29.
  6. Barker, M., & Hegarty, P. (2005). Queer politics: Queer science. Psychology of Women Section Review, 7 (2), 71-79.

Encyclopedia entries

  1. Hegarty, P. (2020). Attitudes toward homosexuality and LGBT people: Causal attributions for sexual orientation. In D. Haider-Markel (Ed.), Oxford Research Encyclopedia of LGBT Politics and Policy  doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.ORE_POL-01173.R1
  2. Hegarty, P., Bartoș, S.E., & Hubbard, K. (2015). History of social psychological theory. In James D. Wright (editor in chief).  International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Science, 2nd Edition, Volume 22, 525-531. Elsevier: Oxford.
  3. Hegarty, P. (2005). Evelyn Hooker. In D. A. Gerstner (Ed.) Routledge International Encyclopedia of Queer Culture. New York: Routledge.
  4. Hegarty, P. (2003). Harry Stack Sullivan. In M. Stein (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender History in America. New York: Charles Scribner and Sons.


Sapphira Thorne, Peter Hegarty, Erica Hepper (2019)Equality in Theory: From a Heteronormative to an Inclusive Psychology of Romantic Love, In: THEORY & PSYCHOLOGY29(1)pp. 240-257 SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD

Since 1970, research on romantic relationships has burgeoned, but its theories and methods were shaped by a heteronormative cultural context. Heteronormativity is an ideology that implicitly holds that heterosexuality is, and should be, the only, dominant, or taken-for-granted sexuality for all. The movement towards sexual equality, particularly legal recognition of equal marriage, now allows psychologists to investigate romantic love in a more equal manner than ever before. To orient psychology towards less heteronormative theories of love, we make explicit how researchers in the past have (1) defined love and relationships as heterosexual; (2) presumed heterosexual patterns of love to generalize to all; (3) used methodologies that introduce heterosexual bias; and (4) located differences in same-sex couples rather than between same-sex and opposite-sex couples. We conclude with recommendations of how critical thinking at all stages of research can make the difference between heteronormative and inclusive research on romantic love and relationships.

S Thorne, P Hegarty, C Catmur (2015)Is the left hemisphere androcentric? Evidence of the learned categorical perception of gender., In: Laterality20(5)pp. 571-584

Effects of language learning on categorical perception have been detected in multiple domains. We extended the methods of these studies to gender and pitted the predictions of androcentrism theory and the spatial agency bias against each other. Androcentrism is the tendency to take men as the default gender and is socialized through language learning. The spatial agency bias is a tendency to imagine men before women in the left-right axis in the direction of one's written language. We examined how gender-ambiguous faces were categorized as female or male when presented in the left visual fields (LVFs) and right visual fields (RVFs) to 42 native speakers of English. When stimuli were presented in the RVF rather than the LVF, participants (1) applied a lower threshold to categorize stimuli as male and (2) categorized clearly male faces as male more quickly. Both findings support androcentrism theory suggesting that the left hemisphere, which is specialized for language, processes face stimuli as male-by-default more readily than the right hemisphere. Neither finding evidences an effect of writing direction predicted by the spatial agency bias on the categorization of gender-ambiguous faces.

N Curtin, PJ Hegarty, AJ Stewart (2012)Fostering research collaborations in LGBT psychology: An introduction to the special issue, In: Psychology and Sexuality3(3)pp. 187-194 Taylor & Francis

We introduce the special issue by providing an overview of the 2008 and 2010 International Summer Institutes in lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) psychology at the University of Michigan. Using the literature on stigmatization of LGBT peoples, minority stress, and the demonstrated under-representation of LGBT issues (including heterosexism) in psychology, we argue that the Institutes served a necessary and timely – if not overdue – intervention to establish an ‘invisible college’ that allowed emerging scholars to connect with eminent senior scholars. This was the starting point for systematic and sustained collaborations among the scholars in attendance, and some of the fruits of those collaborations are included in this issue. Post-institute participant surveys from both sessions revealed that the Institutes not only facilitated the formation of an ‘invisible college’, but that participants also reported individual shifts in perspective associated with an increased commitment to social change: the development of new networks, critical perspectives on the inclusion of LGBT people/and issues, shifts in identity, and new possibilities for reaching (and changing) other people through research and teaching. We discuss these findings and their implications for the future directions of LGBT Psychology.

PJ Hegarty, O Parslow (2013)Who cares? UK lesbian caregivers in a heterosexual world, In: Women's Studies International Forum40pp. 78-86 Elsevier

Women undertake most caring responsibilities for older family members and models of family caregiving implicitly position women carers as heterosexual-by-default. This UK-based study examined the impact of eldercare responsibility on the “outness,” socialisation, and personal relationships of seven lesbians (aged 48–62) who provided care to elderly relatives. The women were interviewed and the resulting transcripts were analysed using the method of constant comparative analysis yielding four themes: 1) duty and obligation, 2) loss of lesbian identity, 3) connections with lesbian communities, and 4) boundary setting. Lesbians incorporate elder caring into the framework of their lives in diverse ways, demonstrating “normative creativity” (Brown, 1989) in the absence of clear models of lesbian familial caregiving. These lesbians highlight new understandings of caregiving that wrestle with hegemonic discourses, and extend understanding of the normative creativity of lesbian lives to the domain of elder care.

P Hegarty (2002)'It's not a choice, it's the way we're built': Symbolic beliefs about sexual orientation in the US and Britain, In: Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology12(3)pp. 153-166 Wiley

Heterosexual-identified Americans who believe that sexual orientation is immutable typically express more tolerant attitudes towards lesbians and gay men. Attribution theorists argue that this is because immutability beliefs reduce stigmatization. In two studies, 97 American and 72 British heterosexual-identified students reported their beliefs about the immutability and fundamentality of sexual orientation, their attitudes towards lesbians and gay men and their judgments about the values that those beliefs expressed. In both samples, tolerant attitudes and immutability beliefs were correlated only among participants who consistently judged that immutability beliefs would be expressed by more tolerant heterosexual persons. More condemning participants judged lesbian and gay people and heterosexual people to be more fundamentally different in both samples. I argue that links between immutability and tolerance depend more on social constructions of immutability beliefs as expression,; of tolerance and less on the attributional content of such beliefs than previous theorists have acknowledged. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wiley Sons, Ltd.

P Hegarty (2007)Getting dirty - Psychology's history of power, In: History of Psychology10(2)pp. 75-91

This introduction to the special issue on the history of power forwards the anthropological concept of "purification" as a means of drawing together disparate histories of psychology that invoke notions of power. Drawing on the work of Mary Douglas, Bruno Latour, Michel Foucault, and Donna Haraway, I argue for a history of psychology that links the carving up of people up into their properly natural and enculturated parts with keeping people in their place, the purification of interpretation by scientific representation, the maintenance of the body politic of the discipline, and the role of psychology in making up power in modern nation states.

D Uzzell, R Muckle, T Jackson, J Ogden, J Barnett, B Gatersleben, P Hegarty, E Papathanasopoulou (2006)Choice Matters: Alternative Approaches to Encourage Sustainable Consumption and Production Report to Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
PJ Hegarty, N Watson, L Fletcher, G McQueen (2011)When gentlemen are first and ladies are last: Effects of gender stereotypes on the order of romantic partners' names, In: British Journal of Social Psychology50(1)pp. 21-35 British Psychological Society

A preference to name stereotypically masculine before stereotypically feminine individuals explains why men are typically named before women, as on the Internet, for example (Study 1). Heterosexual couples are named with men's names first more often when such couples are imagined to conform to gender stereotypes (Studies 2 and 3). First-named partners of imaginary same-sex couples are attributed more stereotypically masculine attributes (Study 4). Familiarity bounds these effects of stereotypes on name order. People name couples they know well with closer people first (Study 5), and consequently name familiar heterosexual couples with members of their own gender first (Study 6). These studies evidence a previously unknown effect of the semantics of gender stereotypes on sentence structure in the everyday use of English.

N Bharj, PJ Hegarty (2015)A postcolonial feminist critique of harem analogies in psychological science, In: Journal of Social and Political Psychology3(1)pp. 257-275 PsychOpen

Since the 1930s, psychologists have used the term harem as an analogy for social relations among animals. In doing so they draw upon gendered and racial stereotypes located in the history of colonialism. We present an experimental study on the harem analogy as a means of confronting and challenging colonial undercurrents in psychological science. We investigated whether the use of this colonialist image in studies of animal societies could subtly affect thinking about Middle Eastern Muslim people. Two-hundred and forty-nine participants read about animal societies; in the experimental condition these were described as “harems” and accompanied by the analogy of harems in Middle Eastern Muslim societies. In the two control conditions, animal societies were either described as “groups” or “harems”, with no mention of the analogy. In the experimental condition, participants falsely remembered descriptions of Muslim people of the Middle East as applying to animals. This finding replicates the “resistance is futile” effect (Blanchette & Dunbar, 2002; Perrott, Gentner, & Bodenhausen, 2005) by which false remembering of analogical statements as previously seen literal descriptions is taken as suggestive of analogical mapping between two disparate concepts. As such, the study contributes to debate between feminist and evolutionary psychology about the value-neutrality of psychology, and to postcolonial critique of the partiality of mainstream psychological accounts of the universality of nature and society.

PJ Hegarty (2011)Sexuality, normality, intelligence. What is queer theory up against?, In: Psychology and Sexuality2(1)Speciapp. 45-57 Taylor & Francis

I engage queer theory and the history of the intelligence quotient (IQ) movement in the United States here to re-imagine the critical nature of both projects. Early IQ researchers, such as Terman and Goddard, hypothesised that IQ was necessary for sexual morality and tested the hypothesis that prostitutes had lower IQ than other women. Terman was further concerned that gifted children not be ‘queer’ and appealed to a Freudian logic of sublimation to explain why children whom he deemed gifted sometimes engaged in homosexual acts. Intelligence testing is not simply a ‘disciplinary’ form of power/knowledge of the sort described by Foucault in Discipline and Punish; it is not oriented towards normalising ‘gifted’ people that it individualises. Rather, gifted people are made visible within a strategy of changing government to accommodate their difference from typical intelligence. This analysis of power suggests new ways of thinking about the intersectional politics of conservative rhetoric that relies on IQ testing, such as the book The Bell Curve.

GE Hagger-Johnson, P Hegarty, M Barker, C Richards (2013)Public engagement, knowledge transfer and impact validity, In: Journal of Social Issues69(4)pp. 664-683 Wiley

Public engagement and knowledge transfer are now necessary supplements to academic research and teaching activity for university-based psychologists in the United Kingdom. However, a “deficit model” of public understanding is often assumed by national policies. We argue that bidirectional approaches between researchers and concerned communities are necessary, and that bidirectional transfer recognizes different kinds of expertise and experience. We argue further that researchers working in the field of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) psychology have routinely been engaged in bidirectional translational work, by drawing on historical and recent examples. Bidirectional models of knowledge transfer do not resolve all of the potential problems that arise during public engagement. For example, it is not clear how academics should respond when end users do not accept their findings. However, involving concerned communities is clearly necessary to achieving, and maximizing, impact validity and LGBT psychologists have long been at the forefront of so doing.

M Pettit, P Hegarty (2013)Psychology and sexuality in historical time, In: The Handbook of Sexuality and Psychology American Psychological Association

Sex and sexuality are inconceivable outside of time. Like all living things, humans are fundamentally entities that unfold over time in a unidirectional fashion. We think, feel, and behave in time. To explain human conduct, psychologists have looked to at least four different kinds of temporality. These are (1) the very slow evolutionary time which has shaped the species, (2) the considerably less slow historical time within which cultural change happens, (3) the developmental time within which individual lives are lived, and (4) the immediate situational time which can be captured by experiments and studies of interventions, lasting anywhere from milliseconds to a few weeks. These are not mutually exclusive kinds of time, as time is continuous. These temporalities are nested within each other. Historically, when it comes to sexuality, psychology’s methods and theories have tended to privilege lines of debates between evolutionary time versus developmental time or ‘nature versus nurture.’ Such dichotomies (and even discussions of their interaction) particularly neglect the relationship between psychology and events that unfold in Type 2 time courses that vary in length between the span of human history to a single generation. This chapter explains why psychologists ought not to let historical time (or Type 2 time) slip from their view. This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council standard research grant to Michael Pettit. Please address correspondence to Michael Pettit, Department of Psychology, York University, 4700 Keele St, Toronto, ON, Canada, M3J 1P3, or Peter Hegarty, Department of Psychology, University of Surrey, Guildford, GU2 7XH, UK,

Samantha Salamat, Peter Hegarty, Robert Patton (2019)Same clinic, different conceptions: Drug users’ and healthcare professionals’ perceptions of how stigma may affect clinical care, In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology49(8)pp. 534-545 Wiley

Stigma experienced by drug users by their healthcare professionals can be a barrier to treatment engagement, which in turn affects mortality and morbidity rates. Attribution theory suggests that stigma will be greatest whenever drug use is attributed to factors within personal control. Here, clients (n = 76) and healthcare professionals (n = 62) identified features that characterize good and bad clinical interactions, and responded to a vignette about a drug user who attributed his use to personal control or situational factors. Healthcare professionals completed the vignette and drug users gave their best guess of how healthcare professionals would react to this vignette. Clients and professionals held overlapping prototypes of clinical interactions. Clients overestimated both how negative healthcare professionals’ reactions would be, and the extent to which healthcare professionals’ reactions would accord with attribution theory. Despite healthcare professionals’ believing they are acting in nonstigmatizing ways, they may engender stigma in clinical situations more than they realize. Discrepancies between professionals’ hypothetical responses and clients’ anticipation of these responses are discussed in terms of the influence of self‐stigma and societal understandings of drug use and control. Attribution theory only offers a limited explanation for these discrepancies, because professionals’ beliefs about drug users are complex. Implications for theories of stigma and engagement with services are discussed, and the importance of clients’ anticipation of stigma is highlighted as a primary target for addressing treatment disengagement. Anti‐stigma campaigns may also benefit from changing their focus from individuals’ attributions to holistically addressing discrepant conceptions of treatment.

SE Bartoş, I Berger, P Hegarty (2014)Interventions to reduce sexual prejudice: a study-space analysis and meta-analytic review., In: Journal of Sex Research51(4)pp. 363-382

Sexual prejudice is an important threat to the physical and mental well-being of lesbians, gay men, and bisexual people. Therefore, we reviewed the effectiveness of interventions designed to reduce such prejudice. A study-space analysis was performed on published and unpublished papers from all over the world to identify well-studied and underexplored issues. Most studies were conducted with North American undergraduates and were educational in nature. Dissertations were often innovative and well designed but were rarely published. We then performed meta-analyses on sets of comparable studies. Education, contact with gay people, and combining contact with education had a medium-size effect on several measures of sexual prejudice. The manipulation of social norms was effective in reducing antigay behavior. Other promising interventions, such as the use of entertainment media to promote tolerance, need further investigation. More research is also needed on populations other than American students, particularly groups who may have higher levels of sexual prejudice.

Fabio Fasoli, Peter Hegarty, David M Frost (2021)Stigmatization of 'gay-sounding' voices: The role of heterosexual, lesbian, and gay individuals' essentialist beliefs, In: British Journal of Social Psychology

Voice-based sexual orientation (SO) judgements can prompt group-based discrimination. However, the relationships between stigmatization and essentialist beliefs about vocal cues to SO have not been researched. Two studies examined heterosexuals' and gay men's and lesbian women's essentialist beliefs about voice as a cue of SO to uncover essentialist beliefs' role in the perpetration and experience of stigma. In Study 1 (N = 363), heterosexual participants believed voice was a better cue to SO for men than for women, and participants' belief in the discreteness, immutability, and controllability of 'gay-sounding' voices was correlated with higher avoidant discrimination towards gay-sounding men. In Study 2 (N = 147), endorsement of essentialist beliefs about voice as a SO cue was associated with self-perceptions of sounding gay amongst gay men and lesbians. Sexual minority participants, especially gay men, who believed that they sounded gay reported more anticipation of rejection and engaged in vigilance in response. Essentialist beliefs about vocal cues to SO are relevant to explaining both the perpetration of stigma by heterosexuals and the experience of stigma for lesbians and gay men.

PJ Hegarty (2010)A stone in the soup? Changes in sexual prejudice and essentialist beliefs among British students in a class on LGBT psychology, In: Psychology and Sexuality1(1)pp. 3-20 Routledge, Taylor & Francis

Biological theories of sexual orientation, typically presented in human sexuality classes, are considered by many social psychologists to cause reductions in students' sexual prejudice. Yet when biological theories were not presented to 36 psychology students in a 10-week seminar on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) psychology, both sexual prejudice and two forms of essentialist thinking reduced significantly. Prejudice reduction was causally related to decreased essentialist belief in clear boundaries between sexual orientation categories but not to decreased belief in the immutability of sexual orientation categories. Students characterised belief in the fluidity of sexual orientation categories as enlightened and empowering in their own words. This cross-lagged study confirms earlier cross-sectional studies showing that sexual prejudice is causally related to ‘natural kind’ beliefs about sexual orientation. It further shows that the typical practice of teaching human sexuality courses from a biological perspective is not the cause of prejudice reduction in this educational context.

P Hegarty (2007)Queer methodologies, In: Feeling queer or queer feelings: Radical approaches to counseling sex, sexualities and genderspp. 125-140 Routledge
PJ Hegarty (1997)Materializing the hypothalamus: A performative account of the ‘gay brain.’, In: Feminism and Psychology7(3)pp. 355-372

Simon LeVay's research on neuroscience and sexuality has been reiterated in popular media, scientific communities and legal debates. A close reading of this work, drawing on performativity theory (Butler, 1990, 1993), reveals that this popular success is the result of citing and reiterating a number of heterosexist, sexist and culturally imperialist norms. LeVay's work excludes women and ethnic minorities and denies the political, cultural and historical nature of sexuality. Performativity theory suggests the limits of empiricism for feminists, and the importance of postmodern readings of the subject of psychology and neuroscience.

Peter Hegarty, A Stewart, IGE Blockmans, MAH Horvath (2018)The Influence of Magazines on Men: Normalizing and Challenging Young Men’s Prejudice with ‘Lads’ Mags’, In: Psychology of Men & Masculinity19(1)pp. 131-144 American Psychological Association

Social psychologists have argued that popular U.K. and U.S. men’s magazines known as “lads’ mags” have normalized hostile sexism among young men. Three studies develop this argument. First, a survey of 423 young U.K. men found that ambivalent sexism predicted attitudes toward the consumption of lads’ mags, but not other forms of direct sexual consumption (paying for sex or patronizing strip clubs). Second, Study 2 (N 81) found that young men low in sexism rated sexist jokes as less hostile toward women, but not as either funnier nor more ironic, when those jokes were presented within a lads’ mags context. These findings refute the idea that young men readily read lads’ mags’ sexism as ironic or “harmless fun.” They show instead that placing sexist jokes in lads’ mags contexts makes them appear less hostile. The third study (N 275) demonstrated that young men perceived lads’ mags as less legitimate after attempting to distinguish the contents of lads’ mags from rapists’ legitimations of their crimes. Implications for contemporary studies of masculinities and consumption are discussed.

MAH Horvath, P Hegarty, S Typer, S Mansfield (2011)"Lights on at the end of the party": Are lads' mags mainstreaming dangerous sexism?, In: British Journal of Psychology Wiley-Blacwell

Research has suggested that some magazines targeted at young men – lads’ mags – are normalizing extreme sexist views by presenting those views in a mainstream context. Consistent with this view, young men in Study 1 (n=90) identified more with derogatory quotes about women drawn from recent lads’ mags, and from interviews with convicted rapists, when those quotes were attributed to lads’mags, than when they were attributed to convicted rapists. In Study 2, 40 young women and men could not reliably judge the source of those same quotes. While these participants sometimes voiced the belief that the content of lads’ mags was ‘normal’ while rapists’ talk was ‘extreme’, they categorized quotes from both sources as derogatory with equal frequency. Jointly, the two studies show an overlap in the content of convicted rapists’ talk and the contents of contemporary lads’ mags, and suggest that the framing of such content within lads’ mags may normalize it for young men.

Heterosexual people with more positive attitudes to lesbians and gay men generally believe that homosexuality is immutable, is not a discrete social category, and that homosexuality exists in all cultures and time periods. Equivalent beliefs about heterosexuality and beliefs about components of sexuality have been less-often researched. 136 people with diverse sexualities described heterosexuality as more universal across history and culture than homosexuality (Study 1). 69 heterosexual-identified participants similarly believed that love, identity, behaviour and desire were more historically invariant aspects of heterosexuality than of homosexuality (Study 2). Less prejudiced participants thought all components of homosexuality – except for identity – were more historically invariant. Teasing apart beliefs about the history of components of heterosexuality and homosexuality suggests that there is no “essential” relationship between sexual prejudice and the tension between ‘essentialist’ and ‘constructivist’ views about the history of sexual identity.

A Marcu, E Lyons, P Hegarty (2007)Dilemmatic human-animal boundaries in Britain and Romania: Post-materialist and materialist dehumanization, In: British Journal of Social Psychology46pp. 875-893

Theories of dehumanization generally assume a single clear-cut, value-free and non-dilemmatic boundary between the categories 'human' and 'animal'. The present study highlights the relevance of dilemmas involved in drawing that boundary. In six focus groups carried out in Romania and Britain, 42 participants were challenged to think about dilemmas pertaining to animal and human life. Four themes were identified: rational autonomy, sentience, speciesism and maintaining materialist and post-materialist values. Sentience made animals resemble humans, while humans' rational autonomy made them distinctive. Speciesism underlay the human participants' prioritization of their own interests over those of animals, and a conservative consensus that the existing social system could not change supported this speciesism when it was challenged. Romanian participants appealed to Romania's lack of modernity and British participants to Britain's modernity to justify such conservatism. The findings suggest that the human-animal boundary is not essentialized; rather it seems that such boundary is constructed in a dilemmatic and post hoc way. Implications for theories of dehumanization are discussed.

Clitorectomies performed on the genitals of infants identified as female and as intersex have been described both as similar procedures and as different procedures. The former types of surgery have been recognised more consistently as human rights abuses than the latter in recent decades. We tested social psychological explanations of why human rights are differently recognised when infants are described as 'intersex' or 'female'; 122 laypeople in the UK read one of two near-identical descriptions of clitorectomies performed on intersex or female infants and reported their agreement with 22 items about the human rights of such infants. Clitorectomies were perceived as violating human rights more by women than by men, and more so when infants were described as female than intersex. Endorsement of human rights was better predicted by several psychological variables when infants were described as female than as intersex. Less politically conservative participants, as assessed by a Right-Wing Authoritarianism measure, and participants who trusted medical authority more recognised human rights violations of female infants more than intersex infants. Results are discussed with respect to human rights efforts to protect infants from medically non-necessary genital surgery on the basis of membership in identity categories or possession of sex characteristics.

S Bruckmüller, P Hegarty, AE Abele (2012)Framing gender differences: Linguistic normativity affects perceptions of power and gender stereotypes, In: European Journal of Social Psychology42(2)pp. 210-218 Wiley

When unknown groups and equal status groups are compared by contrasting one group (“the effect to be explained”) against another (“the linguistic norm”), the group positioned as the norm is sometimes perceived as more powerful, more agentic, and as less communal. Such perceptions may contribute to status-linked stereotypes, as group differences are spontaneously described by positioning higher-status groups as the linguistic norm. Here, 103 participants considered gender differences in status to be larger and more legitimate and applied gender stereotypes more readily upon reading about gender differences in leadership that were framed around a male rather than a female linguistic norm. These effects did not generalize to 113 participants who read about gender differences in leisure time preferences framed around either norm. Jointly, these results suggest that the effects of linguistic framing on perceived group status and power and on group stereotypes generalize to domains where there are real differences in status, and contexts in which higher-status groups are the default standard for comparison.

YG Ansara, P Hegarty (2014)Methodologies of misgendering: Recommendations for reducing cisgenderism in psychological research, In: FEMINISM & PSYCHOLOGY24(2)pp. 259-270 SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
D Hayter, P Hegarty (2015)Insisting on the unthinkable: A reply to Wetherell and Potter, In: THEORY & PSYCHOLOGY25(3)pp. 396-402 SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
PJ Hegarty (1999)Taking intersexuality seriously: A new challenge for lesbian and gay psychology., In: newsletter of the BPS Lesbian and Gay Psychology Section(3)pp. 6-8
KH Teigen, G Böhm, S Bruckmüller, Peter Hegarty, O Luminet (2017)Long Live the King! Beginnings Loom Larger than Endings of Past and Recurrent Events, In: Cognition163pp. 26-41 Elsevier

Events are temporal “figures”, which can be defined as identifiable segments in time, bounded by beginnings and endings. But the functions and importance of these two boundaries differ. We argue that beginnings loom larger than endings by attracting more attention, being judged as more important and interesting, warranting more explanation, and having more causal power. This difference follows from a lay notion that additions (the introduction of something new) imply more change and demand more effort than do subtractions (returning to a previous state of affairs). This “beginning advantage” is demonstrated in eight studies of people’s representations of epochs and events on a historical timeline as well as in cyclical change in the annual seasons. People think it is more important to know when wars and reigns started than when they ended, and are more interested in reading about beginnings than endings of historical movements. Transitional events (such as elections and passages from one season to the next) claim more interest and grow in importance when framed as beginnings of what follows than as conclusions of what came before. As beginnings are often identified in retrospect, the beginning advantage may distort and exaggerate their actual historical importance.

PJ Hegarty, K Hubbard, L Nyatanga (2015)Innovative approaches to teaching CHIP: An introduction to the Special Issue, In: History and Philosophy of Psychology16(1)pp. 1-3 British Psychological Society
T Brennan, PJ Hegarty (2009)Magnus Hirschfeld, his biographies, and the possibilities and boundaries of ‘biography’ as ‘doing history, In: History of the Human Sciences22(5)pp. 24-46 Sage Publications

This article considers the two major biographies of sexologist Magnus Hirschfeld, MD (1868–1935), an early campaigner for ‘gay rights’ avant la lettre. Like him, his first biographerCharlotte Wolff (1897–1986) was a Jewish doctor who lived and worked in Weimar Republic Berlin and fled Germany when the Nazi regime came to power. When research- ing Hirschfeld’s biography (published in English in 1986) Wolff met a librarian and gay activist, Manfred Herzer, who would eventually be a cofounder of the Gay Museum in Berlin and publish (in German, in 1992) the other major Hirschfeld biography currently available. Using, inter alia, the correspondence between Wolff and Herzer, the article aims to explore and interrogate the boundaries and possibilities of ‘biog- raphy’ as a form of ‘doing history’.

F Pratto, P Hegarty (2000)The political psychology of reproductive strategies., In: Psychological Science11(1)pp. 57-62
P Hegarty (2006)Where's the sex in sexual prejudice?, In: Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review7pp. 264-275
PJ Hegarty, S Bruckmueller (2013)Asymmetric explanations of group differences: Experimental evidence of Foucault's disciplinary power in social psychology., In: Social and Personality Psychology Compass7(3)pp. 176-186 Wiley

Whilst the same group differences can be explained in many ways, explanations of group differences tend to spontaneously figure the distinctive attributes of lower-status groups against a background norm of high-status groups’ attributes. We suggest that this asymmetry occurs in the explanations of scientists and laypeople because of ‘disciplinary power’ and works to disempower lower-status people by making them visible to the human sciences. We argue that social groups who are habitually studied first in research programs, more commonly encountered social groups, and prototypical social groups are all less likely than their counterparts to be marked in spontaneous explanations of empirical group differences. We present evidence that groups who are explicitly mentioned in such explanations are assumed to be lower in power. We describe some limitations to current knowledge about such asymmetric explanations and suggest some directions for further research, including our thoughts about how to integrate existing findings with the possibility of formulating cognitive alternatives to the status quo among minority groups.

Sapphira R Thorne, Peter Hegarty (2019)A Meeting of Minds: Can Cognitive Psychology Meet the Demands of Queer Theory? Palgrave MacmIllan

How can cognitive psychology make a contribution to critical psychologies of science and technology? Here, we read cognitive experimental research on categorization diffractively (Barad, 2007), cutting between the commitment to positivist-empiricist ontology in any given experimental set up, and the empirical conclusions that human categorization practices are inherently hybrid. In so doing, we mean to exemplify the difference made by reading cognitive psychology as either non-critical (on the grounds of its positivist-empiricist ontology) or reparatively (on the basis of its conclusions) as a resource for critical psychology. We aim this intervention to normalize the idea that humans think queerly, and particularly to engage long-standing discussion of the relationship between criticality and positivist-empiricist methods in LGBTQ+ psychology. We aim to exemplify the difference that this diffractive reading can make, by drawing out its relevance for contemporary psychosocial research in intersex studies.

This article uses Sedgwick's distinction between minoritizing and universalizing theories of sexuality to analyze variability in social psychologists' studies of anti-homosexual prejudice, focusing on studies of attitudes. Anti-homosexual prejudice was initially defined in conversation With gay liberationists and presumed, among other things, that fear of homoerotic potential was present in all persons. Later social psychologists theorized anti-homosexual prejudice in strict minoritizing terms: as prejudice towards a distinct out-group. In the first section of this paper we discuss corresponding shifts in the conceptualization of anti-homosexual attitudes. Next, using a universalizing framework, we re-interpret experiments on behavioral aspects of anti-homosexual attitudes which were originally conceptualized using a minoritizing framework, and suggest avenues for future research. Finally, we examine how queer theory might enrich this area of social psychological inquiry by challenging assumptions about the politics of doing scientific work and the utility of identity-based sexual politics.

Drawing together social psychologists’ concerns with equality and cognitive psychologists’ concerns with scientific inference, six studies (n = 841) showed how implicit category norms make the generation and test of hypothesis about race highly asymmetric. Having shown that Whiteness is the default race of celebrity actors (Study 1), Study 2 used a variant of Wason’s (1960) rule discovery task to demonstrate greater difficulty in discovering rules that require specifying that race is shared by White celebrity actors than by Black celebrity actors. Clues to the Whiteness of White actors from analogous problems had little effect on hypothesis formation or rule discovery (Studies 3-4). Rather, across Studies 2-4 feedback about negative cases - non-White celebrities’ - facilitated the discovery that White actors shared a race, whether participants or experimenters generated the negative cases. These category norms were little affected by making White actors’ Whiteness more informative (Study 5). Whilst participants understood that discovering that White actors are White would be harder than discovering that Black actors are Black, they showed limited insight into the information contained in negative cases (Study 6). Category norms render some identities as implicit defaults, making hypothesis formation and generalization about real social groups asymmetric in ways that have implications for scientific reasoning and social equality.

P Hegarty, C Buechel (2006)Androcentric reporting of gender differences in APA journals: 1965-2004, In: Review of General Psychology10(4)pp. 377-389

Androcentric thinking assumes maleness to be normative and attributes gender differences to females. A content analysis of articles reporting gender differences published between 1965 and 2004 in four American Psychological Association journals examined androcentric pronouns, explanations, and tables and graphs. Few articles used generic masculine pronouns to refer to both women and men. However, explanations of gender differences within articles that mentioned such differences in their abstracts and titles referenced attributes of women significantly more often than attributes of men. Most tables and graphs depicting gender differences positioned males' data before females' data, except when gender differences among parents were concerned. Psychologists have ceased to use male-centered pronouns, but female and male psychologists continue to report, explain, and depict gender differences in androcentric ways.

M Barker, P Hegarty (2005)Queer politics: Queer science, In: Psychology of Women Section Review7(2)pp. 71-79
PJ Hegarty (2013)Can Biology Make You Gay (Friendly)?, In: PsycCRITIQUES

Even if a social category contain women and men, men are often considered the default category members. Such androcentric thinking leads people to explain gender differences in such categories as being 'about women' rather than being 'about men.' In two experiments (N=102) this bias was reversed within the category 'voters.' Participants generalized data about women voters to men and data about men voters to women, and explained the resulting gender differences. Explanations always focused on the group whose attributes were predicted, whether such predictions were unconstrained (Experiment 1) or constrained by forced-choice items (Experiment 2). People can reason about gender differences by taking women as the default gender, even within categories that are traditionally normed on men. Implications for the communication of gender differences and the bases of androcentric thinking are discussed.

K Hubbard, PJ Hegarty (2016)Blots and all: A British history of the Rorschach, In: Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences52(2)pp. 146-166 Wiley

Despite the easily recognizable nature of the Rorschach ink blot test very little is known about the history of the test in Britain. We attend to the oft-ignored history of the Rorschach test in Britain and compare it to its history in the US. Prior to the Second World War, Rorschach testing in Britain had attracted advocates and critiques. Afterward, the British Rorschach Forum, a network with a high proportion of women, developed around the Tavistock Institute in London and The Rorschach Newsletter. In 1968, the International Rorschach Congress was held in London but soon after the group became less exclusive, and fell into decline. A comparative account of the Rorschach in Britain demonstrates how different national institutions invested in the ‘projective hypothesis’ according to the influence of psychoanalysis, the adoption of a nationalized health system, and the social positioning of ‘others’ throughout the twentieth century. In comparing and contrasting the history of the Rorschach in Britain and the US, we decentralize and particularize the history of North American Psychology.

T Brennan, PJ Hegarty (2012)Charlotte Wolff’s Contribution to Bisexual History and to (Sexuality) Theory and Research: A Reappraisal for Queer Times, In: Journal of the History of Sexuality21(1)pp. 141-161 University of Texas Press

I first met Stephanie Shields at the meetings of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology in 1998. I was in the midst of PhD research in social psychology, but it was also becoming clear to me that I had emerging interests in the history of psychology. In my early career, Stephanie was my existence proof that you could work on gender, do original historical work, be an experimental social psychologist, and be welcoming and encouraging to junior colleagues at major conferences. This retrospective allows me to repay debts I owe to her for support and inspiration, and I will try to do that by arguing for the continued relevance of Shields (1975) for 21st century times and its influence on my own work in particular.

P Hegarty (2001)Sciences of the flesh: Representing body and subject in psychoanalysis, In: Journal of the History of Sexuality10(1)pp. 140-143 University of Texas Press
F Pratto, DE Glasford, P Hegarty (2006)Weighing the prospects of war, In: Group Processes & Intergroup Relations9(2)pp. 219-233

Prospect theory (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979) predictions were examined in light of ethnocentrism and intergroup conflict. An experiment conducted at the outset of the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US, UK and their allies explored American and British participants' preferences for certain versus uncertain gains and losses concerning Iraqi, American, and British lives. In four conditions, participants showed the usual loss-aversion when deciding between options that only affected Iraqi lives. Six other conditions examined choices between the lives of Americans, Britons, or Iraqis. Strong ethnocentric biases rather than risk-aversion occurred. Participants preferred policies that prioritized their own nationals' and allies' lives over Iraqi lives. War-related and other attitudes corresponded to participants' decisions. The need to expand prospect theory to address intergroup relations is discussed.

Sapphira R. Thorne, Peter Hegarty, Erica G. Hepper (2020)Love is heterosexual‐by‐default: Cultural heterosexism in default prototypes of romantic love, In: British Journal of Social Psychology John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Cultural heterosexist ideologies assume heterosexuality to be the default norm. Four studies investigated when concepts of romantic love are heterosexual‐by‐default (N = 685). In Studies 1–2, participants generated features of romantic love, in general (i.e., the default prototype) or among one of three sexual orientation‐specific couples (lesbian, gay, or heterosexual). Heterosexual‐identified participants’ default prototypes were more similar to heterosexual than same‐gender prototypes (Study 1). Lesbian‐ and gay‐identified participants’ default prototypes were more similar to both heterosexual and gay male than lesbian prototypes, whereas bisexual‐identified participants’ sexual orientation‐specific prototypes were equivalently similar to the default (Study 2). However, heterosexual‐identified participants rated presented features of love similarly across sexual orientation‐specific conditions (Study 3). In a timed feature‐verification task (Study 4), participants categorized fewer peripheral features of romantic love as relevant to same‐gender than mixed‐gender couples. Activating sexual orientation‐specific representations affected subsequent default concepts of romantic love. We discuss implications for heterosexism theories and intervention.

PJ Hegarty, A Lemieux (2011)Who is the (second) graphed sex and why? The meaning of order in graphs of gender differences., In: Spatial Dimensions of Social Thoughtpp. 325-350 Mouton de Gruyter

In this chapter, we propose that the study of graphs from a social psychological perspective is both warranted and necessary. We review the literatures on both cognitive studies of graphing, as well as the relativist theory of scientific visualization. Extending on these frameworks, we provide a detailed review of our research on graphs that shows (a) a widespread preference to graph men before women, (b) that this preference is influenced by social thought, (c) that this social thought is not easily deciphered when people assess graphs for evidence of bias, and (d) that preferences for graph order change when people draw on different social beliefs about the groups that are represented. We conclude by recommending that these initial empirical studies of what graphs mean should be the impetus for developing a social psychology of graphs.

P Hegarty (2007)From genius inverts to gendered intelligence: Lewis Terman and the power of the norm, In: History of Psychology10(2)pp. 132-155

The histories of "intelligence" and "sexuality" have largely been narrated separately. In Lewis Terman's work on individual differences, they intersect. Influenced by G. Stanley Hall, Terman initially described atypically accelerated development as problematic. Borrowing from Galton, Terman later positioned gifted children as nonaverage but ideal. Attention to the gifted effeminate subjects used to exemplify giftedness and gender nonconformity in Terman's work shows the selective instantiation of nonaverageness as pathological a propos of effeminacy, and as ideal a propos of high intelligence. Throughout, high intelligence is conflated with health, masculinity, and heterosexuality. Terman's research located marital sexual problems in women's bodies, further undoing possibilities for evaluating heterosexual men's practices as different from a normative position. Terman's research modemized Galton's imperialist vision of a society lead by a male cognitive elite. Psychologists continue to traffic in his logic that values and inculcates intelligence only in the service of sexual and gender conformity.

P Hegarty, F Pratto (2001)Sexual orientation beliefs: Their relationship to anti-gay attitudes and biological determinist arguments, In: Journal of Homosexuality41(1)pp. 121-135 Taylor & Francis

Previous studies which have measured beliefs about sexual orientation with either a Single item, or a one-dimensional scale are discussed. In the present study beliefs were observed to vary along two dimensions: the "immutability" of sexual orientation and the "fundamentality" of a categorization of persons as heterosexuals and homosexuals. While conceptually related, these two dimensions were empirically distinct on several counts. They were negatively correlated with each other. Condemning attitudes toward lesbians and gay men were correlated positively with fundamentality hut negatively with immutability, Immutability, but not fundamentality, affected the assimilation of a biological determinist argument. The relationship between sexual orientation belief's and anti-gay prejudice is discussed and suggestions fur empirical studies of sexual orientation beliefs are presented. (C) 2001 by the Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

P Hegarty, AM Golden (2008)Attributional Beliefs About the Controllability of Stigmatized Traits: Antecedents or Justifications of Prejudice?, In: Journal of Applied Social Psychology38(4)pp. 1023-1044 Wiley & Blackwell

Correlational studies show that prejudiced people attribute stigmatized traits to controllable causes, and blame stigmatized groups for their own fate. Attribution theory argues that causal attributions cause prejudice, and that changes in attributional beliefs produce changes in attitudes. In contrast, the justification-suppression model describes attributions to controllable causes as justifications of pre-existing prejudices. Study participants reported their attitudes toward 1 of 4 stigmatized groups, read information that manipulated their attributional beliefs, listed their thoughts, and reported their attitudes again. Supporting the suppression-justification model, initially prejudiced participants spontaneously produced more thoughts about the controllability of stigmatized identities. Refuting attribution theory, manipulating attributional beliefs had no effect on attitudes. Implications for applications of attribution theory to reduce prejudice are discussed.

P Hegarty, A Smith, T Bogan-Carey (2018)Stigma as framed on YouTube : Effects of personal experiences videos on students’ beliefs about medicalizing intersex, In: JOURNAL OF APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY49(3)pp. 133-144 WILEY-BLACKWELL

People with physical intersex characteristics can be subject to medical interventions that risk human rights to bodily integrity and self-determination. Proponents and opponents of medicalization use personal narrative videos on YouTube to frame intersex as a stigma best understood through a medical or social identity frame. 99 psychology students watched one of two YouTube videos with either a medical or social identity frame, or participated in a comparison group who watched no video. Participants extracted the videos’ medical or social identity framing in their own words. The social identity video increased participants’ sense that medicine was more harmful and less beneficial, and the medical video decreased participants’ sense that medicine was harmful. Although the videos aimed at bringing about social understanding of intersex people, neither video impacted stigmatizing beliefs about intersex people as a group. Rather, effects of the videos on beliefs about harms of medicalization were moderated by two stigma measures; social distance and gender binary beliefs. Medical intervention on intersex has been justified, in part, on grounds that stigma is inevitable. Whilst intersex stigma has rarely been empirically examined, the present study shows that people with less propensity to stigmatize see less benefit from medicalizing intersex traits and are more open to learning few framings from personal experience videos.

P Hegarty (2014)The need for historical understanding in the psychology of peace and conflict, In: Peace and Conflict: journal of peace psychology20(3)pp. 337-340

Psychologists know that peace and conflict form the conditions within which psychological lives are actually lived, and that those lives make up social contexts of peace and conflict. Psychologists also share an understanding that peace and conflict are anything but simple. These little words “peace” and “conflict” are used to name very different and determining configurations of events in different places and times, and the naming of such configurations as peaceful or warlike is itself a social action that affects the social contexts so described. In his term as associate editor of Peace and Conflict, P. Hegarty aims to encourage new research that incorporates a reflexive understanding of psychologists’ work in naming, explaining, and intervening in peace and conflict. As a historian of psychology, he wants to insist on recognition that the peace and conflict that we study and our ways of studying them are historical. He urges new empirical research to examine contemporary peace and conflict as part of an “eventful psychology” that will be all the more impactful for the recognition that it is situated in history.

S Thorne, P Hegarty, C Catmur (2015)Is the left hemisphere androcentric? Evidence of the learned categorical perception of gender, In: Laterality20(5)pp. 571-584

© 2015 Taylor & Francis. Effects of language learning on categorical perception have been detected in multiple domains. We extended the methods of these studies to gender and pitted the predictions of androcentrism theory and the spatial agency bias against each other. Androcentrism is the tendency to take men as the default gender and is socialized through language learning. The spatial agency bias is a tendency to imagine men before women in the left–right axis in the direction of one's written language. We examined how gender-ambiguous faces were categorized as female or male when presented in the left visual fields (LVFs) and right visual fields (RVFs) to 42 native speakers of English. When stimuli were presented in the RVF rather than the LVF, participants (1) applied a lower threshold to categorize stimuli as male and (2) categorized clearly male faces as male more quickly. Both findings support androcentrism theory suggesting that the left hemisphere, which is specialized for language, processes face stimuli as male-by-default more readily than the right hemisphere. Neither finding evidences an effect of writing direction predicted by the spatial agency bias on the categorization of gender-ambiguous faces.

Katrina Roen, Peter Hegarty (2018)Shaping parents, shaping penises: How medical teams frame parents’ decisions in response to hypospadias, In: British Journal of Health Psychology23(4)pp. 967-981 Wiley

Introduction Psychological research provides insights into how parents approach medical decisions on behalf of children. The medical decision of concern here is the surgical alteration of a hypospadic penis, whose urethral opening does not appear at the tip. Hypospadias surgery is routinely carried out in infancy, despite criticism by international organizations concerned about children’s rights. The focus of this study is on the framing of hypospadias surgery. Objectives The objective is to examine how health professionals frame hypospadias and hypospadias surgery in medical and non-medical ways. Design This is a qualitative study designed to build on the experimental research of Streuli et al who investigated how medical versus non-medical information affects decision-making about non-essential childhood genital surgery. Methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 32 health professionals. Theoretically informed thematic analysis was used to examine how health professionals talk about hypospadias surgery and about supporting parents to make treatment decisions. Results The analysis suggests that medical professionals’ engagement with parents underestimates the effect of framing in influencing parental decisions about hypospadias surgery. Some psychological specialists in this area are actively framing hypospadias in ways that enable some parents to choose a non-medical pathway. Psychologically informed ways of talking about a child’s genital difference focus on psychological qualities, including affect, well-being, and unconditional positive regard. Conclusions The best interests of children with hypospadias may well be served when psychological pathways are highlighted, providing opportunities to support the flourishing of children whose genital appearance raises the question of medical intervention.

F Pratto, P Hegarty, J Korchmairos (2008)Who gets stereotyped? How communication practices and category norms lead people to stereotype particular people and groups., In: Stereotype dynamics: Language-based approaches to the formation, maintenance, and transformation of stereotypes.pp. 299-319 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
PJ Hegarty (2012)Getting Miles away from Terman: Did the CRPS found Catharine Cox Milex Unsilenced Psychology of Sex?, In: History of Psychology15(3)pp. 201-208 American Psychological Association

Psychologist Catharine Cox Miles (1890–1984) is often remembered as the junior author, with Lewis Terman, of Sex and Personality. Written with support from the Committee for Research on the Problems of Sex (CRPS), Sex and Personality introduced the “masculinity-femininity” personality measure to psychology in 1936. Miles has been overlooked by some historians and constructed as a silent, indirect feminist by others. Private letters show that Terman and Miles had different assumptions about the need for library research work to precede the empirical work for Sex and Personality. Miles's 1935 chapter on the “Social Psychology of Sex” shows that her theoretical formulation of sex differed from Terman's in its emphasis on female embodiment, respect for the emerging tradition of the sex survey, and its opinions about the determinants of marital happiness, and the variability of intelligence. Ironically, CRPS monies wired to Terman may have funded Miles to develop this early formulation of the psychology of sex. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)

M Barker, G Hagger-Johnson, P Hegarty, C Hutchison, D Riggs (2007)Responses from the lesbian & gay psychology section to crossley's 'Making sense of 'barebacking", In: British Journal of Social Psychology46pp. 667-677

The aim of the present study is to summarize key responses to Crossley's (2004) article 'Making sense of barebacking' from members of the British Psychological Society's Lesbian & Gay Psychology Section. These responses are assembled into four main themes: (I) terminology, including descriptions of sexual behaviour that are inaccurate and pejorative; (2) representations that endorse culturally dominant and stigmatizing stereotypes of gay men as hedonistic, promiscuous, morally irresponsible and interested in sex rather than relationships; (3) methodology, particularly the use of autobiographical and fictional accounts as reliable sources of data about HIV risk; (4) ethics, especially the infringement of the dignity and the worth of those researched or represented. We welcome attempts to address the continuing problems of HIV/AIDS but recommend that authors and editors enter into dialogue with colleagues who are members of sexual minority communities as part of the research process.

Between 1956 and 1958, 22-year-old French psychologist Jean-Pierre Deconchy taught the youngest students at a primary school in the Lebanon. That school, whose students were largely Arabic Maronite Christians, was twinned with a training centre of the United Nations Relief and Work Agency “in an attempt to heal some of the wounds inflicted by the events in Palestine” (p. vii). Deconchy made a series of observations and conducted several investigations about the schoolchildren’s cognition in regard to the left-right axis in space. Their thinking was influenced by their first language, Arabic, which is written right to left. Deconchy was concerned that this first language complicated the children’s task of learning in French, a language written left-to-right. These studies were presented as part of Deconchy’s postgraduate diploma in philosophy with psychology. His research is translated into English and presented here as this book’s first three substantive chapters. It is accompanied by his foreword; and a short introduction, some commentary, and two chapters authored by Anna Maass and Caterina Suitner. These two psychologists describe current understanding of processing of information in the left-right axis, and of changes in research practices from Deconchy’s time to their own.

PJ Hegarty (2011)“Private Practices: Harry Stack Sullivan, the Science of Homosexuality and American Liberalism” by Naoko Wake., In: Teachers College Record Teachers College, Columbia University
PJ Hegarty (2010)“Bodies in Doubt: An American History of Intersex” by Elizabeth Reis., In: History and Philosophy of Psychology12(2)pp. 90-92 The British Psychological Society
P Hegarty, F Pratto (2001)The effects of social category norms and stereotypes on explanations for intergroup differences, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology80(5)pp. 723-735 American Psychological Association

A 2-stage model of the construction of explanations for differences between groups is presented. Category norms affect which of 2 groups becomes "the effect to be explained," and stereotypes shape attributions about that group. In 3 experiments, 288 participants wrote explanations for differences between gay and straight men. Explanations focused on gay men who were also judged to have more mutable attributes. However, these effects were not correlated. Participants focused explanations on straight men when explicitly instructed to do so (Experiment 1), Explanations focused on both groups equally when the gay men constituted the numerically larger sample, when gay men were more typical of the overarching category (i.e., people with AIDS) than straight men, or when more straight men were described as performing the behavior (Experiment 2). Stereotype-consistent information prompted more essentialist references and fewer reconstructive references to gay men than did stereotype-inconsistent information (Experiment 3). The relevance of this model for theories of norms, stereotypes, and for the conduct of social science is discussed.

P Hegarty (2005)Harry Stack Sullivan and his chums: Archive fever in American psychiatry?, In: History of the Human Sciences18(3)pp. 35-53
JM Falomir-Pichastor, P Hegarty (2013)Maintaining distinctions under threat: Heterosexual men endorse the biological theory of sexuality when equality is the norm, In: British Journal of Social Psychology Wiley

According to social identity theory, group members sometimes react to threats to their group's distinctiveness by asserting the distinctiveness of their group. In four studies (n = 261) we tested the hypothesis that heterosexual men with a greater propensity to be threatened by homosexuality would react to egalitarian norms by endorsing biological theories of sexuality. Heterosexual men, but not women, with narrow prototypes of their gender in-group endorsed biological theories the most (Study 1). Heterosexual men with higher gender self-esteem, with heterosexist attitudes, who endorsed traditional gender roles, and with narrow prototypes of their gender in-group, endorsed the biological theories more when egalitarian norms rather than anti-egalitarian norms (Studies 2 and 3) or pro-minority ideologies that emphasized group differences (Study 4) were made salient. These findings show group-level reactive distinctiveness among members of a high-status group in a context of threat to the unique privileges that they once enjoyed. © 2013 The British Psychological Society.

Katrina Roen, Sarah M. Creighton, Peter Hegarty, Lih-Mei Liao (2018)Vaginal construction and treatment providers’ experiences: a qualitative analysis, In: Journal of Pediatric and Adolescent Gynecology31(3)pp. 247-251 Elsevier

Objective To investigate specialist clinicians’ experiences of treating vaginal agenesis. Design Semi-structured interviews. Setting 12 hospitals in Sweden and the UK. Sample 32 health professionals connected to multidisciplinary teams including medical specialists and psychologists. Methods Theoretical thematic analysis of recorded verbatim data. Results The gynecologist and psychologist interviewees share certain observations including the importance of psychological readiness for and appropriate timing of treatment. Three overlapping themes are identified in our theoretical analysis of the MDT clinicians’ talk: 1) The stigma of vaginal agenesis and the pressure to be ‘normal’ can lead patients to minimize the time, effort, physical discomfort and emotional cost inherent in treatment. 2) Under pressure, treatment may be presented to patients with insufficient attention to the potential psychological impact of the language used. Furthermore, the opportunity to question what is ‘normal’ in sex is generally not take up. It can be challenging to help the women to transcend their medicalized experiences to come to experiencing their bodies as sexual and enjoyable. 3) The reality of treatment demands, which is not always adequately processed prior to treatment, can lead to discontinuation with treatment and even disengagement with services. Conclusions Whilst the MDT clinicians in this study emphasized the importance of psychological input in vaginal construction, such input may need to proactively question social norms about how women’s genital should appear and function. Furthermore, rather than steering patients (back) to treatment, the entire MDT could more explicitly question social norms and help the women to do the same. By shifting the definition of success from anatomy to personal agency, the clinical focus is transformed from treatment to women.

P Hegarty (2005)More clarity, please, In: Psychologist18(4)pp. 200-200
C McAlpine, A Gill, P Hegarty (2007)Why criminalize forced marriage? Islamophobia and assimilation-based justifications., In: Psychology of Women Section Review9(2)pp. 15-28
PJ Hegarty (2013)Deconstructing the ideal of fidelity: A view from LGB psychology., In: Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy13(1)pp. 31-33 Wiley

This commentary on The Fewer The Merrier (TFTM) adopts a lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) lens. Although LGB people commonly construct successful consensual nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships, the focus on opposite-sex relationships obscured some aspects of U.S. society that are actively resisting the stigmatization of CNM relationships. I call attention to the historic ways that “adultery” has been legally defined in gendered terms, and argue for an analysis of social stigma that engages substantively with qualitative research about how CNM is lived among people of diverse sexualities.

P Hegarty (2003)‘More feminine than 999 men out of 1,000:’ The construction of sex roles in psychology., In: Gender nonconformity, race and sexuality: Charting the connections. (pp. 62-83).pp. 62-83 University of Wisconsin Press.
F Pratto, JH Liu, S Levin, J Sidanius, M Shih, H Bachrach, P Hegarty (2000)Social dominance and the legitimation of inequality across cultures., In: Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology31pp. 369-409
P Hegarty (2001)‘Real science’, deception experiments and the gender of my lab coat: Toward a new laboratory manual for lesbian and gay psychology., In: Subjectivity: international journal of critical psychology1(4)pp. 91-108
PJ Hegarty (2005)Kitzinger's irony: Then and now, In: Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review6pp. 114-116
T Lundberg, Peter Hegarty, K Roen (2018)Making sense of ‘Intersex’ and ‘DSD’: how laypeople understand and use terminology, In: Psychology and Sexuality9(2)pp. 161-173 Taylor & Francis

Various umbrella terms refer to sex characteristics that do not fit typical binary notions of somatic sex. Key terms include Intersex, reclaimed by 1990s activists, and Disorders of Sex Development (DSD) used in medicine since 2006. Professionals across diverse disciplines express strong preferences for specific terms, making assumptions about what those terms do. Here, we draw on 10 focus group-interviews (41 participants without particular knowledge of Intersex/DSD), and semi-structured face-to-face interviews with 33 parents and 22 young people with personal experience of Intersex/DSD to examine how diverse laypeople understand and use these two umbrella terms and their alternatives. Most participants agreed that ‘DSD’ was problematic. Most young people and parents used ‘descriptive explanations’ of how the body looked or worked. Many parents and young people also found ‘Intersex’ problematic, whilst a majority of focus group participants did not. We conclude that as ‘experts by experience’, young people and their parents use language pragmatically and flexibly in everyday life to a degree that people unfamiliar with their experiences can easily underestimate. We further conclude that prescriptive discussions on terminology in this area may be needlessly constraining for people with such personal experience.

PJ Hegarty (1999)“Engendering AIDS:” Deconstructing sex, text, and epidemic” by Tamsin Wilton., In: Journal of Lesbian Studies4(3)pp. 152-156

In three studies (N = 340), we tested whether vocal cues to a person’s sexual orientation prompted sexual orientation discrimination in heterosexual individuals when hiring leaders. Our results inform how gender and sexual orientation intersect to produce discriminatory effects in the hiring context. Heterosexual participants listened to short clips of voices that sounded like job candidate was a lesbian or heterosexual woman, or a gay or heterosexual man, and rated all for job suitability and employability. Candidates applied for jobs as leaders (Study 1), as leaders or assistants (Study 2), and for leadership roles that varied in both gender role and status (Study 3). Sexual orientation discrimination occurred in all three studies and was greater among women job candidates. Refuting role congruity theory, several findings disconfirmed the prediction that lesbian-sounding women would be advantaged when stereotyped as masculine and when applying for leadership roles. Rather, in line with status-beliefs theory, lesbian-sounding women and gay-sounding men were rated and ranked poorly to the extent that they were perceived as less competent than heterosexual candidates. Findings suggest that hiring discrimination occurs in subtle ways, such as when individuals sound gay/lesbian. This has implications for recruitment as well as sexual-orientation discrimination court cases

PJ Hegarty (2007)“Internationalizing the history of psychology” Edited by Adrian Brock., In: History and Philosophy of Psychology9(1)pp. 73-76
YG Ansara, PJ Hegarty (2012)Cisgenderism in psychology: Pathologizing and misgendering children from 1999 to 2008, In: Psychology and Sexuality3(2)pp. 137-160 Routledge, Taylor & Francis

We assessed whether recent psychological literature on children reflects or contrasts with the zeitgeist of American Psychological Association's recent non-discrimination statement on ‘transgender’ and ‘gender variant’ individuals. Article records (N = 94) on childhood ‘gender identity’ and ‘expression’ published between 1999 and 2008 inclusive were evaluated for two kinds of cisgenderism, the ideology that invalidates or pathologises self-designated genders that contrast with external designations. Misgendering language contradicts children's own gender assignations and was less frequent than pathologising language which constructs children's own gender assignations and expression as disordered. Articles on children's gender identity/expression are increasingly impactful within psychology. Cisgenderism is neither increasing nor decreasing overall. Mental health professionals are more cisgenderist than other authors. Articles by members of an ‘invisible college’ structured around the most prolific author in this area are more cisgenderist and impactful than other articles. We suggest how authors and editors can implement American Psychological Association policy and change scientific discourse about children's genders.

PJ Hegarty (2003)Contingent Differences: An historical note on Evelyn Hooker’s use of significance testing., In: Lesbian and Gay Psychology Review4pp. 3-7
P Hegarty (2007)The history of power, In: History of Psychology10(2)pp. 75-226
T Brennan, PJ Hegarty (2010)Man seeks man: Gay men’s profiles on a website as subject production, In: Psychology of Sexualities Review1(1)pp. 5-18 British Psychological Society

In this study, informed by social constructionist approaches to self and identity and LGBTQ psychology, 300 profiles posted by gay men on the dating website were analysed in terms of the narrative and interpretative resources used to construct an online gay identity. The analysis found evidence of a very active engagement with communication technology, with several profiles inviting the viewer to chat or send a message or photographs. Many profile owners professed to be ‘genuine’. Distancing themselves from the alleged shallowness of the majority of other website members. A widely used discursive strategy for constructing the self and the type of person(s) sought was the expression ‘straight acting,’ with an attendant rejection of camp and derogation of a ‘visibly gay’ style – a concerning finding that points to the policing of (self) presentation along exclusionary lines. While many profiles celebrated the site as a locus of new possibilities for sexual expression, website users mainly looking for a relationship constructed the website’s perceived emphasis on sex as commodification. As this was an exploratory study, future research could consider more websites, specialized (e.g., fetish) sites and emphasise their photographic/multimedia and interactive possibilities.

P Hegarty, C Buechel, S Ungar (2006)Androcentric preferences for visuospatial representations of gender differences, In: Diagrammatic Representation and Inference, Proceedingspp. 263-266
PJ Hegarty, Z Walton (2012)The consequences of predicting scientific impact in psychology using journal impact factors., In: Perspectives on Psychological Science7(1)pp. 72-78 Sage

An academic journal’s impact factor (hereafter JIFs) is an average measure of the citation count of individual articles published in that journal. JIF is used to assess merit, predict impact, and allocate resources, but the actual number of citations to individual articles is only modestly correlated with the JIFs of the journals in which they are published. We counted Psycinfo citations to 1,134 papers published in nine leading psychology journals (1996-2005). Both article length, r =.31, and reference list length, r = .41, predicted log-transformed citation counts better than JIF, r = .27. Articles with fewer graphs and more structural equation models were more frequently cited. Citation count was better predicted by a model based on article length and citation count rather than JIF. When JIF was used to predict citation count, the impact of women authors and social science research was underestimated. These findings distinguish impact in science, as measured by JIF, from actual impact in psychology, and show the unintended consequences of using a measure of the former to predict the latter.

Fabio Fasoli, Peter Hegarty, Andrea Carnaghi (2019)Sounding Gay, Speaking as a “Fag”: Auditory Gaydar and the Perception of Reclaimed Homophobic Language, In: Journal of Language and Social Psychology38(5-6)pp. 798-808 SAGE Publications

Reclaiming implies that homophobic labels used by gay individuals are perceived as less offensive and their use as empowering speakers. We examined whether listeners in Italy and Britain perceived homophobic labels as “reclaimed” when men’s voices implied their homosexuality. Gay and straight male speakers used neutral or homophobic labels referring to themselves or another. Homophobic labels were offensive when used by straight speakers and when labelling others. Gay speakers self-labelling with homophobic labels were not perceived as more powerful.

P Hegarty, S Bruckmüller (2013)Teaching & learning guide for asymmetric explanations of group differences: Experimental evidence of foucault's disciplinary power, In: Social and Personality Psychology Compass7(9)pp. 701-705 Wiley

This Guide accompanies the following article "Hegarty P, Bruckmüller S (2013). Asymmetric Explanations of Group Differences: Experimental Evidence of Foucault's Disciplinary Power. Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7(3):176-186. Available online at:

P Hegarty (2007)Slaying the Witch King: Androcentrism in psychology, and the seven habits of anti-normative people., In: Dialogue: The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology22(1)pp. 6-30

Past research has found that explanations of group differences focus attention on lower status and less prototypical social groups, whilst positioning higher status and more prototypical groups as the norm for comparison. The present experiment examined attention in explanations of national group differences. Two hundred and thirty-nine Irish and British students read vignettes that attributed either relatively more overconsumption of alcohol, or of fatty foods, to either Irish or British people, and wrote explanations of these group differences in their own words. As predicted, the explanations focused more on the group described as over-consumers. Participants did not explain the national out-group more than the national in-group and did not explain the Irish or the British more. Rather, explanations focused particularly on the Irish only when they were described as over-consumers of alcohol. These findings show flexibility in the setting of norms for comparison, and an influence of essentialist stereotypes, rather than ethnocentrism or historical power differences, on the spontaneous framing of explanations of group differences.

D Shepperd, A Coyle, P Hegarty (2010)Discourses of friendship between heterosexual women and gay men: mythical norms and an absence of desire, In: Feminism & Psychology20(2)pp. 205-224 Sage

Gay men and heterosexual women may share some common interests in critiquing hetero-patriarchy. However feminism and gay liberationist politics do not always coincide and the role of individual subjectivities in recognising oppressive discourses of normativity remains debated. Interviews were conducted with seven friendship dyads of heterosexual women and gay men. Transcripts were subjected to discourse analysis, which suggested extensive management of heterosexist norms in the friends’ accounts of friendship. The analysis highlighted ambiguity over the ‘male’ status of gay men, a concern with constructing the friendships as legitimately asexual, and the use of parody in the face of homophobia to disrupt normative assumptions. Although we primarily considered the role of heterosexist discourses, there is also evidence that other dimensions of non-normativity (for example, gender and ethnicity) are implicated in friendships constructed around shared otherness and mutual non-normativity.

PJ Hegarty (2009)Queerying lesbian and gay psychology’s coming of age: Was the past just kid stuff?, In: The Ashgate Research Companion to Queer Theorypp. 311-328 Ashgate Pub Co

This interdisciplinary volume of thirty original essays engages with four key concerns of queer theoretical work: identity, discourse, normativity and ...

P Lenihan, P Hegarty (2007)Exploring transsexualism, In: Archives of Sexual Behavior36(1)pp. 117-118

In this commentary, the author reviews methodological and conceptual shortcomings of recent articles by K. D. Drummond, S. J. Bradley, M. Peterson-Badali, and K. J. Zucker (2008) as well as G. Rieger, J. A. W. Linsenmeier, L. Gygax, and J. M. Bailey (2008), which sought to predict adult sexual identity from childhood gender identity. The author argues that such research needs to incorporate a greater awareness of how stigmatization affects identity processes. Multidimensional models of gender identity that describe variation in children’s responses to pressure to conform to gender norms are particularly useful in this regard (S. K. Egan & D. G. Perry, 2001). Experiments on the interpretation of developmental data are reviewed to evidence how cultural assumptions about sexuality can impact theories of sexual identity development in unintended ways. The author concludes that understanding the development of children presumed most likely to grow up with sexual minority identities requires a consideration of the cultural contexts in which identities develop and in which psychologists theorize.

D Hayter, P Hegarty (2015)A genealogy of postmodern subjects: Discourse analysis and late capitalism, In: THEORY & PSYCHOLOGY25(3)pp. 369-387 SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
N Tee, P Hegarty (2006)Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans persons in the United Kingdom, In: Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology16(1)pp. 70-80

Although there is considerable evidence that trans persons are victims of discrimination, social psychologists have rarely explored prejudice against this minority group. We extrapolated from models of heterosexism to test hypotheses about support for and opposition to trans persons' civil fights. Opposition to trans persons civil rights among 151 participants was correlated with heterosexism, authoritarianism, a belief that there are only two sexes, beliefs that gender is biologically based and several demographic variables. Linear regression showed that heterosexism, authoritarianism, contact with sexual minorities and beliefs in biological gender predicted unique variance in opposition to trans persons' civil fights. Differences and similarities between prejudice towards sexual and gender minorities are discussed. Copyright (c) 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

P Hegarty, F Pratto, M Crawford (2002)An unconventional family, In: Feminism & Psychology12(1)pp. 120-124
PJ Hegarty, S Mollin, R Foels (2016)Binomial word order and social status, In: Advances in Intergroup Communicationpp. 119-135 Peter Lang Publishing

Advances in Intergroup Communication is a timely contribution to the field. It reflects developments in older, more established intergroup settings (e.g., gender, sexual orientation, organizations) whilst introducing newer studies such as the military and political parties. It also pays attention to emerging trends in new media and social networks and considers the developing field of neuroscience of communication. The volume brings together authors from different geographical areas (North America, Europe, and Australia) and from different disciplines (particularly communication, linguistics, and psychology). Contributions are organized around five themes, corresponding to the five sections of the book: defining features and constraints; tools of intergroup communication; social groups in their context; intergroup communication in organizations; and future directions.

J Adams, KL Blair, NI Borrero-Bracero, O Espin, NJ Hayfield, PJ Hegarty, LK Herrman-Green, MH Hsu, O Maurer, EJ Manalastas, DT McDermott, D Shepperd (2010)Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender psychology: An international conversation among researchers, In: Psychology and Sexuality1(1)pp. 75-90 Routledge, Taylor & Francis

This paper reports on a conversation between 12 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) psychologists at the first international LGBT Psychology Summer Institute at the University of Michigan in August 2009. Participants discuss how their work in LGBT psychology is affected by national policy, funding, and academic contexts and the transnational influence of the US-based stigma model of LGBT psychology. The challenges and possibilities posed by internationalism are discussed with reference to the dominance of the United States, the cultural limits of terms such as “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender”, intergenerational communication between researchers, and the role of events such as the Summer Institute in creating an international community of LGBT psychologists.

T Brennan, P Hegarty (2010)Charlotte Wolff and lesbian history: reconfiguring liminality in exile., In: Journal of Lesbian Studies14(4)pp. 338-358 Taylor & Francis

This article considers the "liminality" of the psychologist Charlotte Wolff, MD (1897-1986). Always living openly as a lesbian since her school days in Danzig, Wolff trained as a doctor-also pursuing a parallel interest in poetry and in philosophy. As a Jewish person, she was forced to leave the Berlin Health Service and flee Germany when the Nazi regime came to power. Having moved to Great Britain in 1936 after three years in France, Wolff reconfigured "exile" beyond the literal experience of emigration and immigration, as a form of "marginality" or "liminality" always involved in artistic and scientific endeavors. In her life and work she negotiated several liminal areas-from her gender presentation to her standing in the academic and scientific community (she was a Fellow of the British Psychological Society, to which she bequeathed her papers and the copyright to her work, but at the same time she was not an eminent psychologist), to her membership of sexual minority organizations (she conducted pioneering research on lesbianism and bisexuality, but some resented her connection with the psy-professions). In the spirit of Wolff's "liminality" as a strategy and creative zone, and along the lines indicated by Morawski (1994) as regards the transformative possibilities of feminist psychology as a liminal science, we argue for a reappraisal of Wolff's life and work that, in negotiating the borderlands between lesbian history and history of psychology, could enrich both disciplines.

T Brennan, P Hegarty (2007)Who was Magnus Hirshfeld and why do we need to know?, In: History and Philosophy of Psychology9(1)pp. 12-28
Katherine Hubbard, Peter Hegarty (2017)Rorschach tests and Rorschach vigilantes: Queering the history of Psychology in Watchmen, In: History of the Human Sciences30(4)pp. 75-99 Sage

One of the clearest signs that Psychology has impacted popular culture is the public’s familiarity with the Rorschach ink blot test. An excellent example of the Rorschach in popular culture can be found in Watchmen, the comic/graphic novel written by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons (1987). In the mid-20th century Psychology had an especially contentious relationship with comics; some psychologists were very anxious about the impact on comics on young people, whereas others wrote comics to subvert dominant norms about gender and sexuality. Yet historians of Psychology have had almost nothing to say about this popular and critically acclaimed novel. We read Watchmen here for its narratives that most concern the history of Psychology. We focus on such themes as anti-psychiatry, sexual violence, homophobia, lesbian erasure, and social psychological research on bystander intervention. We argue it is possible to more closely align Psychology and comics despite their sometimes contentious history. In doing so we demonstrate the active role of the public in the history of the Rorschach, public engagement of Psychology via comics, and also reveal what is possible when historians consider comics within their histories.

This paper analyses the discourse of statements of the leaders of two Greek political parties commemorating the restoration of Greek democracy on 24th July 1974; the ruling party New Democracy and the opposition, Coalition of the Radical Left. We focus on how these leaders act as entrepreneurs of their identities by constructing their in-groups in broad or narrow terms and their outgroups in vague or specific terms. These constructions were ventured during a period of relative political stability (2008) and instability (2012), and we focus on how in-group prototypes and group boundaries are narrated across Greece’s past, present and future in ambiguous or concrete terms. The study aligns the social identity approach to political leadership with studies on political discourse and ‘the rhetoric of we’. We view commemorative statements as historical charters and respond to calls for discourse analysis to take greater account of historical context. The findings suggest concrete hypotheses about how leaders with different amounts of political support might define, as identity entrepreneurs, who ‘we’ are, and who ‘we’ are not in democratic contexts marked by stability or crisis.

PJ Hegarty, C Buechel (2011)"What Blokes Want Lesbians to be”: On FHM and the socialization of pro-lesbian attitudes among heterosexual-identified men, In: Feminism & Psychology21(2)pp. 240-247 Sage Publications

We develop a critique of the social psychological hypothesis that media images of women engaged in same-sex activity have a positive effect on heterosexual men’s general attitudes to lesbians. A content analysis suggests that British print media usually represent lesbians either in news stories that also include gay men, or in entertainment stories. In focus groups, both gay and straight men were presented with photographs of ‘heteroflexible’ representations from the ‘lad mag’ FHMand photographs of ‘real’ lesbians from Gay Times. Men were asked to define what made a woman a real lesbian. Straight men rejected the formulation that there was a single ‘stereotype’ of lesbians in favor of the claim that the FHM images did not represent real lesbians. Gay men came to agree that the heteroflexible women were not identified as lesbian. Our analysis suggests that both gay and straight men perform bounded sexual identities in response to heteroflexible images which are scripted to be attractive to heterosexual men.

Fabio Fasoli, Peter Hegarty, Anne Maass, Raquel Antonio (2018)Who Wants to Sound Straight? Sexual Majority and Minority Stereotypes, Beliefs and Desires About Auditory Gaydar, In: Personality and Individual Differences130pp. 59-64 Elsevier

Research on the accuracy of ‘gaydar’ judgments has burgeoned but rarely considered targets’ perspectives on cues that signal a person’s sexual orientation to others. We examined sexual majority and minority speakers (N = 241) beliefs about the extent to which their voices act as a ‘gaydar’ clue to others, and speakers’ desire to be so disclosed. Men believed their voices were more revealing of their sexual orientation than women did. Moreover, sexual majority participants, particularly masculine-sounding heterosexual men, desired to be disclosed the most of all. Sexual majority participants perceived their voices as gender typical and sexual minority participants perceived their voices as gender atypical, and participants whose beliefs were most consistent with this pattern also believed most that their voices acted as gaydar cues. The findings suggested that group differences in beliefs about gaydar may complicate individuals’ attempts to judge each other’s sexual orientations from minimal cues.

PJ Hegarty (2016)The machines of sex research: Technology and the politics of identity, 1945-1985, by Donna Drucker, In: Isis: a journal of The History of Science Society107(2)pp. 433-435 University of Chicago Press
PJ Hegarty (2012)Beyond Kinsey: The Committee for Research on Problems of Sex and American Psychology., In: History of Psychology American Psychological Association

Kinsey’s midcentury surveys of male and female sexual behaviour are unquestionably pivots in the ‘modernization of sex;’ that shift from religious to psycho-medical authority over norms of human sexual conduct. A quarter century later, sex became ‘postmodernized’ through mass consumption in late capitalist societies. In that later moment, scholars increasingly began to think about ‘sex’ as a historical category, to be understood as something produced in discourse rather than a natural or psychological drive battling repression for its liberated expression. Such histories have prompted further attention to the ways that accounts of the ‘naturalness’ of sex have been funded, organized, written and received in earlier modern moments.

OBJECTIVE:   This study investigates various kinds of knowing that European parents use when caring for their children with congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH).  METHODS:  Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 20 parents of 22 children with CAH.  RESULTS:  Parents emphasized the importance of knowing what CAH is and what support their child needs, but also knowing how to cope and make sense of the new situation, how to attend to their child's medical needs as well as how to talk to their child. Parents also reported challenges related to connecting with their social network, experiences of emergency care, and how to help their children become independent. These challenges require knowing now: being able to respond appropriately to unique circumstances.  CONCLUSIONS:  Parents experience diverse challenges that may moderate the effects of the diagnosis on children's well-being. Parenting children with CAH requires the development of knowing that goes beyond medical information.

PJ Hegarty, SE Bartos (2014)Gender, race, and ethnic relations, In: The Palgrave Handbook of Global Political Psychology(11)pp. 187-187 Palgrave Macmillan
YG Ansara, P Hegarty (2013)Misgendering in english language contexts: Applying non-cisgenderist methods to feminist research, In: International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches7(2)pp. 160-177

The American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual (2010) cautions authors against generic masculine language, which uses 'he' and 'man' for all people. This misgendering designates people as members of a gender category with which they do not identify. Misgendering may occur to anyone, but is a particularly common experience of people typically labelled as 'trans'. Misgendering is a form of cisgenderism, the discriminatory ideology that delegitimises people's own designations of their bodies and genders. We analysed four empirical papers with the highest current impact factors in English sexist language research: Moulton, Robinson, and Elias (1978); Hyde (1984); Gastil (1990); and Gannon, Luchetta, Rhodes, Pardie, and Segrist (1992). We applied a cisgenderism framework to identify limitations of defi ning sexist language chiefl y as masculine generics. We then discuss actual experiences of misgendering that current sexist language research overlooks. We explore how the adoption of non-cisgenderist research methods can reduce misgendering and benefi t Feminist research. © eContent Management Pty Ltd.

PJ Hegarty, F Pratto (2010)Interpreting and communicating the results of gender-related research, In: Handbook of Gender Research in Psychology1pp. 191-211 Springer Verlag

In this chapter we argue that people (including psychologists) communicate about gender-relevant findings in active interpretive ways that are characterized by precisely these kinds of revisable implicit assumptions. Often these assumptions work to reify gender stereotypes and to communicate implicitly that men are more important kinds of people than women are. However, these assumptions can also be challenged in ways that lead to less obvious, less sexist, and more thoughtful, considered, and open-minded ways of thinking about difference. Psychologists have often offered each other advice about how we ought to communicate about gender-related findings. In this chapter, we focus on implicit meanings of gender-related research to argue that we often communicate much more than we intend when we communicate about gender-related findings. We assume that "gender-relatedness" does not reside in particular attributes, behaviors, preferences, or body parts.

PJ Hegarty, A Lemieux, G McQueen (2010)Graphing the order of the sexes: Constructing, recalling, interpreting, and putting the self in gender difference graphs, In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98(3)pp. 375-391 American Psychological Association

Graphs seem to connote facts more than words or tables do. Consequently, they seem unlikely places to spot implicit sexism at work. Yet, in 6 studies (N _ 741), women and men constructed (Study 1) and recalled (Study 2) gender difference graphs with men’s data first, and graphed powerful groups (Study 3) and individuals (Study 4) ahead of weaker ones. Participants who interpreted graph order as evidence of author “bias” inferred that the author graphed his or her own gender group first (Study 5). Women’s, but not men’s, preferences to graph men first were mitigated when participants graphed a difference between themselves and an opposite-sex friend prior to graphing gender differences (Study 6). Graph production and comprehension are affected by beliefs and suppositions about the groups represented in graphs to a greater degree than cognitive models of graph comprehension or realist models of scientific thinking have yet acknowledged

PJ Hegarty (2011)Becoming curious: An invitation to the special issue on Queer Theory and Psychology, In: Psychology and Sexuality2(1)Speciapp. 1-3 Taylor & Francis