Warmth and Competence Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups: A Systematic Review Using the Stereotype Content Model

Warmth and Competence Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups: A Systematic Review Using the Stereotype Content Model | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Warmth and Competence Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups: A Systematic Review Using the Stereotype Content Model Joel Anderson, Marc-Aiden Duggan This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) proposes that social groups are evaluated along the dimensions of perceived warmth and competence. This systematic review synthesised quantitative research applying the SCM to LGBTQIA+ target groups and examined whether perceptions of warmth and competence varied across identities. Searches of major health, psychology, and multidisciplinary databases identified 34 reports across 24 studies (n = 11,876). Findings were synthesised narratively using reported mean ratings of warmth and competence. Warmth and competence evaluations largely reproduced gendered stereotype patterns. Gay men were rated higher on warmth than competence, whereas straight men were rated higher on competence than warmth, with lesbian women showing a parallel reversal relative to straight women. Notably, trans groups were typically positioned lowest on both dimensions, indicating pronounced evaluative disparities within LGBTQIA+ populations. Interpretation of findings is constrained by incomplete reporting and the predominance of female samples. Overall, the review identifies distinct stereotype profiles across LGBTQIA+ identities while highlighting substantial gaps in research on trans, queer, intersex, and asexual groups. Stereotype Content Model Warmth Competence LGBTQIA+ Social perception Figures Figure 1 Introduction Stereotyping is a largely automatic component of social perception that shapes interpersonal judgments and behaviour (Fiske et al., 2002). By reducing complex social information to a limited set of perceived traits, stereotypes organise group evaluations along broad, often evaluative, dimensions. Although stereotypes may sometimes appear neutral or even positive, they can exert powerful effects on how groups are perceived and treated. Experimental evidence demonstrates that stereotypes bias rapid judgments in consequential ways. For example, Jones and Fazio (2010) showed that White participants were more likely to falsely identify Black faces as holding weapons, illustrating how racial stereotypes linking Blackness with threat can distort perception under conditions of uncertainty. These findings highlight how stereotyping contributes to prejudice and discrimination, particularly toward groups that are highly visible or that deviate from dominant social norms. Beyond interpersonal bias, stereotypes can also directly harm members of the stereotyped group. Research on meta-stereotyping indicates that both internalising negative stereotypes and anticipating their endorsement by others are associated with poorer wellbeing outcomes. For instance, Hinton and colleagues (2019) found that Australian gay men who endorsed, or believed others endorsed, stereotypes portraying gay men as more feminine or promiscuous reported lower wellbeing. Against a broader backdrop of increasing hostility toward sexual and gender diversity (Haas & Lannutti, 2023; Hässler et al., 2024), understanding how stereotypes operate remains a critical task. In this review, we examine stereotypes of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, and other non-cisgender or non-heterosexual groups (LGBTQIA+) using the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), which proposes that social groups are evaluated along the dimensions of perceived warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2002). The SCM offers a parsimonious framework for comparing stereotype profiles across groups by locating them within a shared evaluative space. Specifically, we synthesise quantitative evidence on how LGBTQIA+ groups - primarily those defined by sexual orientation and gender identity - have been examined within the SCM and assess whether perceptions of warmth and competence differ across identities. The Stereotype Content Model The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) is a widely used framework in cognitive and social psychology for understanding how social groups are evaluated. The model proposes that perceptions of groups are primarily organised along two dimensions, warmth and competence. Warmth reflects perceived friendliness, trustworthiness, and intentions toward others, whereas competence reflects perceived capability, skill, and social status. The SCM was first empirically demonstrated by Fiske et al. (2002), who asked participants to rate a range of social groups on warmth, competence, status, and competition. These groups spanned occupations, age groups, and racial and ethnic categories. Their findings showed that social groups cluster reliably according to perceived warmth and competence, with lower-status groups often viewed as lower in competence but higher in warmth. For example, older adults and people with disabilities were perceived as warm but low in competence, whereas Asian people and wealthy individuals were perceived as competent but lower in warmth. Subsequent research has demonstrated that warmth and competence perceptions are closely linked to emotional and behavioural responses toward target groups. Cuddy et al. (2007) showed that stereotypes characterised by different combinations of warmth and competence elicited distinct emotional reactions, such as admiration, pity, envy, or contempt, which in turn predicted corresponding behavioural tendencies toward those groups. Groups perceived as low in both warmth and competence were more likely to elicit contempt and to be associated with passive or active forms of harm. Neuroimaging research further supports these findings, showing reduced social cognition–related brain activation and increased disgust responses when participants viewed images of highly stigmatised groups, consistent with dehumanisation processes (Harris & Fiske, 2006). Together, this body of research highlights how warmth and competence perceptions shape not only social judgments, but also emotional reactions and discriminatory behaviours toward marginalised groups. Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups Like racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQIA+ people have historically experienced, and continue to experience, negative stereotyping that contributes to prejudice and harmful social treatment (Hässler, 2024; Zamboni et al., 2007). However, the application of the SCM to LGBTQIA+ populations remains comparatively underdeveloped relative to its use with other marginalised groups. In the original SCM study, gay men were rated near the midpoint of both warmth and competence dimensions, suggesting an ambivalent stereotype profile (Fiske et al., 2002). Dissatisfaction with this treatment of gay men as a homogeneous group led Clausell and Fiske (2005) to examine perceptions of multiple gay male subgroups. Their findings indicated that subgroups characterised by masculine traits or visible markers of subcultural membership were perceived as higher in competence but lower in warmth, whereas more feminine or flamboyant subgroups were perceived as warmer but less competent. These patterns suggest that evaluations of gay men are shaped by normative expectations of gender expression within cisgender male roles. Comparable findings have been reported for lesbian women. Brambilla et al. (2011) examined perceptions of lesbian women and several lesbian subgroups and found that the general category of lesbian women was again rated near the midpoint of warmth and competence. Subgroup analyses revealed that more feminine lesbian subgroups were perceived as warmer, whereas more masculine subgroups, such as butch lesbians, were perceived as more competent. Together, this work indicates that perceptions of both gay men and lesbian women are strongly influenced by gender norms and gender expression, rather than sexual orientation alone. A smaller body of research has extended the SCM to other sexual orientation identities, particularly bisexual people. Vaughn et al. (2017) found that bisexual men and bisexual women were perceived as less warm than gay men, while being rated similarly on competence. Despite comparable competence ratings, bisexual groups elicited higher levels of contempt-related responses, suggesting that bisexuality may be associated with distinct stereotype content not fully explained by gendered expectations alone. Research applying the SCM to gender-diverse populations is more limited and more recent. Gallagher and Bodenhausen (2021) found that trans men and trans women were rated as lower in both warmth and competence than cisgender targets, with no differentiation based on gender. This pattern contrasts with findings for gay men and lesbian women and suggests that trans targets may be evaluated primarily through perceptions of norm violation rather than gendered expectations. To date, few additional studies have applied the SCM to trans populations. Emerging evidence suggests that non-binary individuals may elicit comparatively greater warmth than trans men and women (Clarke, 2019), although this work has not been formally integrated into SCM research. Intersex, asexual, and queer identities remain largely absent from SCM studies, despite evidence that these groups are frequently portrayed as abnormal or deviant relative to dominant bodily, sexual, and gender norms (Astle et al., 2024; Kitzie et al., 2022). Aims of the Systematic Review The objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise quantitative studies that applied the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) to evaluate perceptions of warmth and competence of LGBTQIA+ groups. Specifically, the review aimed to (a) map how LGBTQIA+ groups have been positioned along the dimensions of warmth and competence within the SCM, and (b) examine whether reported perceptions of warmth and competence differ across identities. By systematically collating and synthesising existing research, this review provides an overview of how sexual orientation, gender identity, and specific LGBTQIA+ groups have been evaluated within the SCM, while also identifying gaps in the current literature. Method The protocol for this systematic review was developed in consultation with a librarian trained in Cochrane systematic review methodology, in accordance with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris et al., 2024) and the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool (Shea et al., 2017). The review was conducted using Cochrane methodological principles, and the reporting of methods and results follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021). Search Strategy Database searches were conducted on 17 th April 2025 across CINAHL Complete, LGBTQ+ Source, ProQuest Academic, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, ProQuest Psychology Database, PsycEXTRA, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms were developed to capture two core concepts: the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and LGBTQIA+ identities (see Table 1). Within each concept, terms were combined using the Boolean operator “OR”, and the two concepts were then combined using the operator “AND”. Searches were applied to titles and abstracts in each database. Search results were limited to publications from 2002 onward, corresponding to the first appearance of the SCM in the literature. All records were restricted to English-language publications. In addition to database searching, a call for unpublished or grey literature was circulated to identify relevant studies that may not have been captured through database searches. TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria Studies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) employed a quantitative research design; (2) assessed warmth and/or competence consistent with the dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model; and (3) examined perceptions of at least one LGBTQIA+ target group. Studies were excluded if the full text was not accessible or if the publication was not available in English. Data Screening During the initial screening of titles and abstracts, records were included if they were judged to be relevant to the research question of the systematic review. All records identified through the search strategy were exported from each database into EndNote (2024), merged into a single library, and then uploaded to Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/). Duplicate records were identified and removed using a combination of automated and manual procedures. The remaining records were subjected to two stages of screening. First, titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers for relevance to the research question. Interrater agreement at this stage was moderate, as indicated by Cohen’s kappa (κ = .53), consistent with established interpretation guidelines (Landis & Koch, 1977). Second, full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Agreement at the full-text screening stage was near perfect (κ = .81). Data Extraction A data extraction spreadsheet was developed in Microsoft Excel (2025) to systematically record information from all included full-text studies. Extracted information included authorship, publication year, study design, and country of data collection, as well as sample characteristics (e.g., sample size, age, gender, sexual orientation). Details of the target groups assessed in each study were recorded, along with information on how the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) was operationalised, including the specific measures used to assess warmth and competence (or related constructs such as communion and agency). Key findings were extracted with particular attention to reported warmth and competence ratings, the direction of differences between LGBTQIA+ identity groups, and any moderator variables examined (e.g., ethnicity, presentation style, framing). Where reported, descriptive statistics for warmth and competence (e.g., means and dispersion estimates) were extracted to support comparative interpretation across studies. Descriptive statistics for cisgender or heterosexual comparison groups were also recorded when available to facilitate contextual interpretation. When numerical data were presented only graphically, values were estimated using WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd4/). Quality Assessment All studies meeting the final inclusion criteria were appraised using a quality assessment tool developed by Hawker et al. (2002) and subsequently modified by Deslandes et al. (2024). This tool evaluates multiple aspects of study quality, including the clarity of the title and abstract, the introduction, sampling procedures, methodological rigour, data analysis, presentation of findings, discussion, and consideration of ethics and researcher positioning. Each domain was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 ( very poor ) to 3 ( good ), yielding a total quality score ranging from 0 to 24 for each study. Given the subjective nature of quality appraisal and the mapping focus of this systematic review, no minimum quality threshold was applied to determine study inclusion. All studies that met the eligibility criteria were retained to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence. Quality assessment scores were instead used to inform the interpretation of findings and to contextualise the strength and limitations of the evidence base, rather than to exclude studies from the review. Data Synthesis Due to variation in study designs, target operationalisations, measurement scales, and reporting practices, findings were synthesised narratively rather than quantitatively pooled. Studies were clustered and synthesised according to how they positioned LGBTQIA+ identities on the warmth and competence dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM). This synthesis drew on reported mean scores, comparative findings within studies, and identified moderators (e.g., ethnicity, presentation style, study framing). Where studies directly compared multiple LGBTQIA+ identities, the direction of reported differences (e.g., higher warmth, lower competence) was extracted and summarised. Patterns were organised by identity group to allow structured comparison of warmth and competence both within and across sexual orientation and gender identity categories. Emphasis was placed on identifying consistent directional patterns and contextual moderators across studies. Results The outcomes of the search and screening processes are summarised in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). The search strategy identified 2,483 records, of which 24 studies met the full eligibility criteria. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2025, with one of the earliest appearing shortly after the introduction of the Stereotype Content Model (Clausell & Fiske, 2005). Publication frequency increased over time, with 18 studies (75%) published within the past decade, indicating growing scholarly attention to the application of the SCM to LGBTQIA+ groups. Study Characteristics The characteristics and key findings of included studies are summarised in Table 1. Direct comparisons of warmth and competence across LGBTQIA+ identities are summarised in Table 2. Most studies were conducted in the United States of America ( n = 15, 63%), followed by Germany ( n = 4, 17%), Sweden ( n = 2, 8%), Canada ( n = 1, 4%), Italy ( n = 1) and Turkey ( n = 1). Overall, the evidence base is concentrated in Western contexts. The most common LGBTQIA+ groups assessed were gay men ( n = 18, 75%) and lesbian women ( n = 17, 71%). These were followed by bisexual men ( n = 4, 17%), bisexual women ( n = 4), trans people ( n = 2, 8%) trans women ( n = 2), non-binary individuals ( n = 2) and trans men ( n = 1, 4%). The most common study design was experimental ( n = 16, 67%), followed by cross-sectional ( n = 8, 33%). Warmth and competence dimensions were most commonly rated by participants on a 5-point scale ( n = 11, 46%). However, synonyms for warmth and competence were also found for studies that replaced the adjectives with communion and agency respectively (e.g., Klysing et al., 2021; Macoukji, 2014; Niedlich et al., 2022; Steffens et al., 2019). Furthermore, a majority of studies included group targets representing LGBTQIA+ identities ( n = 12, 50%), followed by individual targets ( n = 11, 46%), and a combined approach ( n = 1, 4%). Three studies met the full-text inclusion criteria but did not report sufficient descriptive detail to allow inclusion in structured comparative analyses (e.g., De Wilde et al., 2021; Bay-Cheng et al., 2018; Gross, 2017). These studies are described narratively in Table 1. FIGURE 1 AND TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE Quality Assessment Results The quality assessment yielded a mean score of 17.7 (out of 24; SD = 2.7). Nineteen studies (79%) scored between 16 and 22, indicating generally moderate to high methodological quality, while five studies (21%) scored below 16. Criteria relating to sampling and study rationale were most consistently met across studies. In contrast, reporting of ethical considerations and researcher positionality was limited. Only two studies explicitly reflected on potential researcher bias, and 14 studies (58%) either made no reference to ethical procedures or addressed them only briefly. Overall, while methodological reporting was generally adequate, transparency regarding ethical and reflexive considerations was inconsistent. Placement of LGBTQIA+ Identities within the SCM Space Warmth and competence evaluations were synthesised narratively to identify how LGBTQIA+ identities were positioned within the SCM’s two-dimensional space. Study-level descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2, and direct identity comparisons are summarised in Table 3. Stereotype Content Model Placement of Gay Men Across the included studies, gay men were evaluated 65 times on the warmth and competence dimensions. Overall, gay men were more frequently perceived as warmer than competent relative to other LGBTQIA+ identities. Direct comparisons with lesbian women indicated that gay men were more often rated higher in warmth but lower in competence (see Table 3), reflecting gender-role–consistent stereotype patterns commonly observed within the SCM, whereby femininity is associated with warmth and masculinity with competence (see implicit inversion theory; Kite & Deaux, 1984, and for its application see Anderson et al., 2024). When gay men were portrayed as masculine or as atypical fictional characters, competence ratings tended to increase and warmth ratings decrease (e.g., Feng, 2018; Sink, 2018), suggesting that gender expression moderates their placement within the SCM space. In comparisons with heterosexual men, gay men were typically rated as warmer, while competence ratings were often similar (e.g., Steffens et al., 2018; Feng, 2018). Taken together, these findings position gay men within a relatively high-warmth, moderate-competence profile, with variation shaped primarily by conformity to or deviation from masculine gender norms. Stereotype Content Model Placement of Lesbian Women Lesbian women were evaluated 58 times across included studies. Overall, lesbian women were typically perceived as moderately warm and competent, though their relative positioning varied depending on comparison groups and gender expression. In direct comparisons with gay men, lesbian women were more frequently rated higher in competence and lower in warmth (see Table 3), mirroring gender-role–consistent patterns observed in SCM research, in which femininity is associated with warmth and masculinity with competence. Subgroup analyses further underscored the role of gender expression. Feminine-presenting lesbian women were often rated as warmer, whereas more masculine-presenting subgroups (e.g., butch lesbians) were rated as more competent (Brambilla et al., 2011). When compared with heterosexual women, competence ratings were frequently similar (e.g., Klysing et al., 2021), though some studies reported lower warmth and competence for lesbian women in specific contexts (Ball et al., 2025). Taken together, findings suggest that lesbian women occupy a relatively balanced position within the SCM space, with evaluations shaped strongly by conformity to or deviation from normative gender expectations. Stereotype Content Model Placement of Bisexual Men and Women Bisexual identities were less frequently examined, with eight ratings of bisexual men and six of bisexual women across studies. Overall, bisexual men and women were typically positioned at moderate levels of both warmth and competence. However, patterns were less consistent than those observed for gay men and lesbian women. In direct comparisons with gay men, bisexual men were often rated lower in warmth (see Table 3) while competence differences were more variable. Comparisons between bisexual men and bisexual women were mixed: some studies found bisexual men rated as warmer, others found no difference, and several reported bisexual women as warmer (e.g., Mize & Manago, 2021; Heiserman, 2023). Competence ratings between bisexual men and women were generally similar. These findings suggest that bisexual stereotype profiles are not structured solely by gender-role expectations. Instead, bisexual identities appear to occupy a less clearly differentiated position within the SCM space, with variability potentially reflecting stereotypes specific to bisexuality (e.g., perceived promiscuity or indecisiveness) rather than masculinity or femininity alone. Stereotype Content Model Placement of Trans Individuals Trans identities were examined in nine ratings across included studies, including trans women ( n = 4), non-binary individuals ( n = 4), and trans men ( n = 1). A single study directly compared trans men and trans women within the SCM framework (TenBrook, 2020). In that study, trans men were rated higher than trans women on both warmth and competence. However, the absence of replication across independent samples limits the generalisability of this finding. Compared with sexual orientation groups, trans targets were more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions (in studies using direct comparisons; k =10). Direct comparisons indicated that gay men were rated higher than trans women in 80% of warmth comparisons and 70% of competence comparisons (see Table 3). Lesbian women were also more frequently rated higher than binary trans targets across both dimensions. Non-binary individuals were sometimes evaluated more favourably than binary trans targets, though evidence was limited to two studies. Overall, trans groups were more frequently located in the low–low quadrant of the SCM space, a placement associated with contempt and social exclusion. Unlike sexual minority identities, trans targets did not consistently follow gender-role–congruent warmth–competence trade-offs. Instead, they were more often evaluated negatively on both dimensions, suggesting that perceptions may be shaped more by category norm violation than by gender-role inversion. Unlike research on gay men and lesbian women, no included studies systematically examined variation in stereotype content based on gender expression within trans groups (e.g., masculine vs feminine presentation). Instead, trans targets were typically operationalised at the identity level (e.g., “transgender woman”) without manipulation of presentation style or subgroup differentiation. This contrasts with the detailed subgroup analyses conducted for gay men and lesbian women and highlights a structural gap in the literature. Stereotype Content Model Placement of Asexual, Queer and Intersex Individuals No studies included an analysis of asexual, queer and intersex groups on the SCM. Consequentially, their warmth and competence could not be reported. Moderators Eighteen studies (72%) examined at least one moderator influencing warmth and competence perceptions of LGBTQIA+ targets (see Table 2). Moderation effects clustered around three broad domains: (1) gender expression and presentation, (2) ethnicity and nationality, and (3) SCM-relevant status and attributional mechanisms. The observed moderation effects were not random but systematically aligned with core SCM mechanisms. Across studies, gender norm conformity reliably shaped stereotype placement. Masculine-presenting targets were rated as more competent and less warm, whereas feminine-presenting targets were rated as warmer but less competent (e.g., Clausell, 2005; Brambilla et al., 2011; Sink et al., 2018). For example, butch lesbian subgroups were rated higher in competence than feminine lesbian subgroups, whereas feminine-presenting gay men were rated higher in warmth but lower in competence than masculine-presenting gay men. In experimental manipulations, valence and presentation style significantly moderated both warmth and competence ratings (e.g., Feng, 2018; TenBrook, 2020), indicating that stereotype placement is sensitive to contextual framing rather than fixed at the identity level. Ethnicity moderated stereotype content in several studies, though effects were more consistent for warmth than competence. For example, Strinić et al. (2021) found significant moderation of warmth but not competence by ethnicity, with majority-group sexual minorities evaluated more warmly than minority-group sexual minorities. Similarly, Choubak and Safdar (2023) reported lower warmth evaluations for some ethnic minority lesbian targets relative to majority-group targets. However, not all studies observed significant interactions (e.g., Turnalar-Çetinkaya & İşiaçık, 2024), suggesting that intersectional moderation may depend on context and sample composition. Consistent with SCM theory, perceived status significantly predicted competence in Clausell (2005), whereas perceived competition did not significantly predict warmth. Controllability beliefs also moderated both warmth and competence (Gungor, 2011), with higher perceived controllability associated with less favourable evaluations. These findings align with the SCM’s proposition that competence derives from perceived status and warmth from perceived competition. A small subset of studies examined mediators. Steffens et al. (2018) found that job suitability mediated warmth but not competence evaluations. Vaughn et al. (2017) reported that admiration and envy mediated associations between stereotype content and behavioural tendencies. These findings align with the extant body of literature in suggesting that warmth and competence perceptions may influence downstream affective and behavioural responses through emotion-based pathways. Discussion This systematic review synthesised quantitative research examining how LGBTQIA+ identities have been evaluated within the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), with particular attention to differences in perceived warmth and competence across identities. Across studies, directional patterns were consistent. Gay men were more frequently positioned higher on warmth than competence, whereas lesbian women more often showed the reverse profile, with relatively higher competence than warmth. Bisexual identities occupied a more ambiguous and less differentiated position within the SCM space. In contrast, trans and non-binary targets were more commonly evaluated lower on both warmth and competence relative to other LGBTQIA+ groups. The patterned contrast between gay men and lesbian women closely mirrors gender-role–consistent stereotype structures. Across direct comparisons, gay men were more frequently rated higher on warmth than lesbian women, bisexual groups, and transgender groups (e.g., Jacques et al., 2022; Niedlich et al., 2022 ), whereas lesbian women were more frequently rated higher on competence than gay men and bisexual groups. When heterosexual comparison groups were included, lesbian women tended to resemble heterosexual men in warmth and competence ratings, while gay men resembled heterosexual women (Klysing et al., 2021 ). These findings are highly consistent with implicit inversion theory (Kite & Deaux, 1987 ), which proposes that gay men are stereotyped as more similar to heterosexual women, and lesbian women as more similar to heterosexual men. Within the SCM framework, this suggests that evaluations of sexual minority groups remain strongly structured by gender norms. Sexual orientation appears to shift the perceived gendered alignment of targets, rather than displacing gender as a primary organising principle of stereotype content. Bisexual men and women were less frequently studied, and their stereotype profiles were correspondingly less stable across studies. Where direct comparisons were available, bisexual men and women were generally positioned at moderate levels of both warmth and competence. Differences between bisexual men and women were small and inconsistent, although some studies suggested bisexual men were perceived as slightly warmer and bisexual women as slightly more competent. Comparisons with gay men and lesbian women indicate that bisexual men and women may also be subject to gendered stereotype alignment (Klysing et al., 2021 ; Kite & Deaux, 1987 ), consistent with research showing that bisexual individuals are often evaluated through the lens of heterosexual gender norms (Galupo et al., 2017 ). However, the relatively small number of studies including bisexual targets limits firm conclusions. It is also possible that stereotypes specific to bisexuality (e.g., promiscuity, indecisiveness) operate somewhat independently of warmth–competence structures, producing the more ambiguous SCM placement observed here (Vaughn et al., 2017). In contrast to sexual minority identities, trans and non-binary targets were more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions (albeit, there were fewer studies exploring trans and non-binary targets). Across studies, gay men and lesbian women were often rated more positively than trans women, and when cisgender comparison groups were included, trans targets were typically evaluated less favourably on both dimensions (e.g., TenBrook, 2020). Unlike gay men and lesbian women, trans groups did not consistently follow gender-role–congruent warmth–competence trade-offs. Instead, they were more often located in the low–low quadrant of the SCM space, a position theoretically associated with contempt and social exclusion (Cuddy et al., 2007 ; Harris & Fiske, 2006 ). This placement suggests that transgender identities may be perceived not merely as gender-atypical, but as violating normative assumptions about sex and gender categories more broadly. The comparatively disadvantaged positioning of transgender targets aligns with broader evidence of disproportionate harassment and discrimination directed toward transgender individuals relative to gay men and lesbian women (Brassel et al., 2019 ). Moderation analyses further reinforce the central role of gender normativity and status in shaping stereotype content. Across studies, masculine-presenting targets were more frequently associated with competence, whereas feminine-presenting targets were associated with warmth (e.g., Clausell & Fiske, 2005 ; Brambilla et al., 2011 ; Sink et al., 2018 ). Ethnicity and nationality also moderated warmth and competence ratings, with ethnic minority or non-Western LGBTQIA+ targets sometimes evaluated less favourably than majority-group targets (Choubak & Safdar, 2023; Turnalar-Çetinkaya & İşiaçık, 2024), and this effect was more consistent for warmth than competence. These findings are consistent with the SCM’s theoretical proposition that perceived status predicts competence and perceived competition predicts warmth (Fiske et al., 2002 ). LGBTQIA+ stereotype content therefore appears to be structured not only by gender norms, but also by intersectional status hierarchies and majority–minority dynamics. Importantly, no studies applied the SCM to asexual, intersex, or queer target groups. Their absence from the SCM literature represents a significant gap. The concentration of research on gay men and lesbian women suggests that the stereotype content of more visible or historically established identities has received disproportionate scholarly attention, while less socially legible identities remain underexamined. Together, these findings indicate that while overt attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women have improved in many Western contexts (Hässler et al., 2024 ), stereotype content remains deeply structured by gender normativity and status-based hierarchies. The SCM provides a useful comparative framework for identifying these patterned differences across LGBTQIA+ identities, but the existing literature remains uneven in scope and representation. Limitations Several limitations constrain interpretation of these findings. Many of these pertained the samples that the data were extracted from – for instance, many studies relied on predominantly female samples. Given established evidence that participant gender influences evaluations of LGBTQIA+ groups (Herek & McLemore, 2013 ), and that women tend to rate LGBTQIA+ groups more positively on warmth (Gungor, 2010), sample composition may have influenced overall placement within the SCM space. In addition, the evidence base was heavily concentrated in Western contexts, particularly the United States and Germany, limiting generalisability to non-Western cultural settings. Finally, the relative absence of bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex, asexual, and queer targets means that conclusions regarding these identities are based on comparatively fewer observations. As with much of the social psychology literature, the SCM literature on LGBTQIA+ identities remains disproportionately focused on gay men and lesbian women. Conclusions This systematic review demonstrates that LGBTQIA+ identities are not positioned uniformly within the Stereotype Content Model. Rather, stereotype content varies systematically across identities in ways that reflect gender normativity, perceived status, and intersectional hierarchies. Gay men and lesbian women tend to occupy relatively higher positions within the warmth–competence space, albeit in gender-role–consistent ways. Bisexual identities show more ambiguous profiles, while transgender and non-binary groups are more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions. Given that SCM placement predicts emotional and behavioural responses toward social groups (Cuddy et al., 2007 ), these patterns have implications for understanding differential prejudice, discrimination, and social inclusion across LGBTQIA+ communities. The absence of research on asexual, intersex, and queer identities further underscores the need for broader and more inclusive applications of the SCM framework. Future research should employ more consistent measurement strategies, include a wider spectrum of sexual and gender identities, and explicitly test how status, competition, and gender normativity mechanisms shape stereotype content. Expanding the SCM literature in this way may clarify why certain LGBTQIA+ groups experience comparatively greater stigma and social penalty despite broader societal shifts toward sexual and gender diversity. Declarations Author Contribution JA designed the protocol and oversaw the execution of the study. JA and MD each conducted searches, screened articles as phases 1 and 2. MD extracted data and prepared Table 2. JA wrote the main article. All authors reviewed and contributed to the editing of the manuscript. References Note . References marked with * were included in the systematic literature review Aromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B. & Jordan, Z. (2024). JBI manual for evidence synthesis . JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01 * Asbrock, F. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. Social Psychology , 41 (2), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000011 Astle, S., Pariera, K., Anders, K. M., Brown-King, B., & Adams, M. (2024). Growing up intersex: A thematic analysis of intersex emerging adults’ key socialization experiences in childhood and adolescence. Sex Roles , 90 (8), 994–1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01489-8 * Ball, E., Pylypiw, P., Prestele, E., & Steffens, M. C. (2025). How do intersections of sexual orientation and race affect impressions of women in a counter-stereotypical job context? A comprehensive test manipulating individuating competence information. Collabra. , 11 (1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.129119 Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Bruns, A. E., & Maguin, E. (2018). Agents, virgins, sluts, and losers: The sexual typecasting of young heterosexual women. Sex Roles , 79 (11–12), 699–714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0907-7 * Bazaz, J. (2016). I-sharing as a mechanism of prejudice reduction toward gay men and lesbians (Publication No. 10241796) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. * Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., & Ravenna, M. (2011). Status and cooperation shape lesbian stereotypes: Testing predictions from the Stereotype Content Model. Social Psychology (Göttingen, Germany) , 42 (2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000054 Brassel, S. T., Settles, I. H., & Buchanan, N. T. (2019). Lay (mis)perceptions of sexual harassment toward transgender, lesbian, and gay employees. Sex Roles , 80 (1–2), 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0914-8 * Choubak, M., & Safdar, S. (2023). Intersectionality of ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation: Intergroup bias towards immigrants in Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 96 , 101854-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101854 Clarke, J. A. (2019). They, them, and theirs. Harvard Law Review , 132 (3), 894–991. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3270298 * Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition , 23 (2), 161–181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.2.161.65626 Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviours from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 92 (4), 631–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631 De Wilde, M., Carrier, A., Casini, A. & Demoulin, S. (2021). The drawback of sexual empowerment: Perceiving women as emancipated but still as sexual objects. Sex Roles , 84 (9-10), 626-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01192-4 Deslandes, C., Kaufmann, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (2024). The relationship between acculturation and relevant correlates for Sub-Saharan and North African-born migrants: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 98 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101928 EndNote. (2024). Clarivate . (Version 21.5) [Computer Software]. https://web.endnote.com/ * Feng, J. (2017). A switch of inquiry from ambivalent sexism to competence and warmth perception (Publication No. 10760549) [Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 11 (2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 (6), 878–902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878 Gallagher, N. M., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2021). Gender essentialism and the mental representation of transgender women and men: A multimethod investigation of stereotype content. Cognition , 217 , 104887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104887 Galupo, M. P., Ramirez, J. L., & Pulice-Farrow, L. (2017). “Regardless of their gender”: Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified individuals. Journal of Bisexuality , 17 (1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1228491 * Ginn, H. G., Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Brown, H. L. P., & Zucker, A. N. (2023). Prohibited by pity: Perceptions of the warmth, competence, and sexual rights of women labelled with intellectual disability. Sexuality Research & Social Policy , 20 (4), 1407–1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00821-3 Gross, R. E. (2017). Warmth and competence traits: Perceptions of female and male nurse stereotypes (Publication No. 10265211) [Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. * Gungor, S. G. (2010). Cultural grounding of perceptions of male homosexuality (Publication No. 3434881) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Haas, S. M., & Lannutti, P. J. (2024). “They are giving folks permission to discriminate and hate”: A 4-year longitudinal analysis of perceived impact of the Trump administration on LGBTQ + individuals and relationships, 2017–2020. Sexuality Research & Social Policy , 21 (1), 62–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00843-x Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science , 17 (10), 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x Hässler, T., Fogwell, N. T., Gonzalez, A., Anderson, J. R., & Atwood, S. (2024). Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research – Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries. Journal of Social Issues , 80 (3), 821–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643 Hawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., & Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. Qualitative Health Research , 12 (9), 1284–1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302238251 * Heiserman, N. (2023). Complex stereotypes: Stereotypes across the intersections of gender, sexuality, age, race/ethnicity, and social class (Publication No. 30250526) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology , 64 (1), 309–333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826 Hinton, J. D. X., Anderson, J. R., & Koc, Y. (2019). Exploring the relationship between gay men’s self- and meta-stereotype endorsement with well-being and self-worth. Psychology and Sexuality , 10 (2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1577013 * Jacques, S. A., Ross, D. E., & McCarty, M. K. (2022). Perceptions of nonbinary identifying individuals: Through the lens of gender and race. Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research , 27 (1), 46–58. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN27.1.46 Jones, C. R., & Fazio, R. H. (2010). Person categorization and automatic racial stereotyping effects on weapon identification. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (8), 1073–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210375817 Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the Implicit Inversion Theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly , 11 (1), 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x Kitzie, V. L., Wagner, T. L., Lookingbill, V., & Vera, N. (2022). Advancing information practices theoretical discourses centered on marginality, community, and embodiment: Learning from the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) communities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology , 73 (4), 494–510. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24594 * Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., & Björklund, F. (2021). Stereotype content at the intersection of gender and sexual orientation. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 , 713839–713839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713839 Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 33 (2), 363-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786 * Macoukji, F. (2014). Gay, straight, or slightly bent? The interaction of leader gender and sexual orientation on leadership evaluations . (Publication No. 1563750) [Master’s thesis, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses * McCarty, M. K., & Burt, A. H. (2024). Understanding perceptions of gender non-binary people: Consensual and unique stereotypes and prejudice. Sex Roles , 90 (3), 392–416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01449-2 Microsoft Corporation. (2025). Excel . [Computer Software]. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel * Mize, T. D., & Manago, B. (2018). The stereotype content of sexual orientation. Social Currents , 5 (5), 458–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496518761999 * Niedlich, C., Kachel, S., & Steffens, M. C. (2022). Sexual orientation information and hiring: Can individualizing information lead to negative stereotyping of sexual minority group members? Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 52 (5), 287–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12859 Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.) , 372 . https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ (Online) , 358 , j4008–j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 * Sink, A. (2018). The role of stereotype content in facilitating positive mediated intergroup contact: An examination of perceptions of gay, lesbian, and transgender television characters (Publication No. 10936848) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. * Sink, A., Mastro, D., & Dragojevic, M. (2018). Competent or warm? A stereotype content model approach to understanding perceptions of masculine and effeminate gay television characters. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly , 95 (3), 588–606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017706483 * Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., Beschorner, R., & Köhler, M. C. (2018). Do positive and negative stereotypes of gay and heterosexual men affect job-related impressions?. Sex Roles , 80 (9–10), 548–564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0963-z * Strinić, A., Carlsson, M., & Agerström, J. (2021). Multiple-group membership: warmth and competence perceptions in the workplace. Journal of Business and Psychology , 36 (5), 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09713-4 * TenBrook, E. M. (2019). The acronym’s forgotten letter: Beliefs about transgender men and women (Publication No. 10981987) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. * Turnalar-Çetinkaya, N., & İşiaçık, S. (2024). An intersectionality perspective of organizational stereotypes and interpersonal dynamics. Current Psychology , 43 (36), 28710–28727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06503-6 * Vaughn, A. A., Teeters, S. A., Sadler, M. S., & Cronan, S. B. (2017). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviours toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. Journal of Homosexuality , 64 (13), 1890–1911. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718 Zamboni, B. D., & Crawford, I. (2007). Minority stress and sexual problems among African-American gay and bisexual men. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 36 (4), 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9081-z Tables Table 1 Concepts and Search Terms for Database Screening Concept 1: Stereotype Content Model Concept 2: LGBTQIA+ (“Stereotype* N2 Content”) OR SCM OR (warm* AND competen*) OR (agen* AND communion) (LGB* OR lesbian* OR gay* OR bisexual* OR queer OR pansexual* OR demisexual* OR asexual* OR aromantic* OR homosexual* OR ‘men who have sex with men’ OR MSM OR ‘women who have sex with women’ OR WSM OR ‘sexual minorit*’ OR ‘sexual fluidity’ OR ‘sexually fluid’ OR ‘non-heterosexual’ OR GLB* OR ‘mostly heterosexual’ OR ‘sexually diverse’ OR ‘sexual diversity’ OR ‘sexual orientation’ OR ‘sexual preference*’ OR ‘same sex attract*’ OR ‘same-sex attract*’ OR ‘sexual identit*’ OR ‘sexuality identit*’ OR ‘same gender attract*’ OR ‘same-gender attract*’ OR transgend* OR transsex* OR ‘assigned female at birth’ OR AFAB OR ‘assigned male at birth’ OR AMAB OR ‘male assigned at birth’ OR MAAB OR ‘female assigned at birth’ OR FAAB OR transma* OR transmen OR transfem* OR transwo* OR transman OR transmen OR transmale OR transmasc* OR transwom?n* OR transfem* OR transperson OR transpeople OR trans-* OR ‘gender diverse’ OR ‘gender varian*’ OR ‘nonbinary’ OR ‘non-binary’ OR ‘gender nonconform*’ OR ‘gender non-conform*’ OR genderqueer OR gender-queer OR ‘gender fluid’ OR bigender OR bi-gender OR ‘third gender’ OR agender OR intersex OR “sex characteristic*”) Note . Search terms were occasionally modified to comply with differences between databases. For instance, terms with commas around them were replaced with quotation marks for Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus. Search term ‘trans-*’ was replaced with “trans” for ProQuest Psychology Database and ProQuest Academic. Search terms for the LGBTQIA+ concept were taken from *BLINDED FOR REVIEW*. Table 2 Characteristics of Studies Included in the Systematic Literature Review Sample Characteristics Study Results Author (year) Country n Age: M ( SD ) Gender Sexuality SCM measure Target Group Major Findings Moderators QA ( /24) Asbrock (2010) Germany 82 university students 23 (2.77) Female: 45 (55%) Male: 33 (40%) Unknown: 4 (5%) N.R. W&C: 3-items per dimension, 5-point scales. GM; LW; HM; HW. GM rated on midpoint for competence and warmth Warmth : GM > HM, LW LW < HM, HW Competence : GM < HM LW < GM, HM, HW N.R. 12 Ball et al., (2025) Germany 212 part-time employees 41.43 (13.32) Female: 108 (51%) Male: 104 (49%) 89.2% heterosexual W&C: 4-items per dimension, 7-point scales. White and black LW; HW job applicants presented as warm, neutral, competent or rather competent. Warmth : White and black LW white and black HW Target race : Significant moderator of competence ( p = .021, η p 2 = .025) and interaction between race and sexual orientation ( p = .016, η p 2 = .027) 20 Bazaz (2016) USA Undergraduate students Study 1 77 Study 2 58 Study 1 18-22 Study 2 N.R. Study 1 Female: 33 (43%) Male: 44 (57%) Study 2 N.R. Heterosexual W&C: 9-items per dimension, 5-point scale and 9-point scale. GM; LW; professor, athlete, Asian, African and Hispanic American, political, businesswoman, fraternity, blind, welfare, sorority, cheerleader HM & HW comparison groups across baseline, posttest and delay. Warmth : GM, professor and blind HM & HW > LW and other HM and HW groups in baseline, delay and posttest LW > athlete, Asian, African and Hispanic American HM and HW at baseline and posttest Competence : GM > HM, LW LW > HM and HW groups; however, often rated similarly Shared subjective experience moderated warmth ( p = .001) but not competence ( p = .390) alongside gender ( p warm = .030; p comp = .460) and existential isolation ( p warm = .140; p comp = .270) 16 Brambilla et al., (2011) Italy 70 university students 21.99 (3.18) Female: 37 (53%) Male: 33 (47%) Heterosexual W&C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scales. LW stereotypes (feminine, butch, outed and closeted). Warmth : Feminine and outed LW > butch and closeted Feminine LW = Outed LW Butch LW outed, closeted and feminine LW Closeted LW < outed, butch and feminine LW Target group : Significant moderator of stereotype warmth and competence ( p = .001, η p 2 = .30) 16 Choubak & Safdar (2023) Canada Study 1 232 Study 2 1,105 Study 1 20 Study 2 21 (3.13) Study 1 Female: 144 (62%) Male: 88 (38%) Study 2 Female: 630 (57%) Male: 88 (42%) Other: 9 (1%) Study 1 Heterosexual: 228 (98%) Other: 88 (2%) Study 2 Heterosexual: 1,066 (96%) Other: 39 (4%) W&C: 4-items per dimension, 6-point scales. British, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM; HW; GM; LW immigrants. Warmth : Iranian LW < British, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM, HW, GM, LW GM, LW < HM, HW Nigerian LW & Chinese GM = Nigerian, British & Iranian GM Competence : GM, LW < HM, HW Iranian LW < British, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM, HW, GM, LW Target ethnicity : Differences were found based on ethnicity, but no interaction statistics reported 18 Clausell (2005) USA 40 university students 20 N.R. 92% heterosexual W&C: 3-items for warmth, 4-items for competence, 5-point scales. Crossdresser, leather, feminine, flamboyant, activist, closeted, straight-acting, hypermasculine, artistic and body-conscious GM. GM rated on midpoint for warmth and competence Warmth : Leather GW rated lowest of all target groups Feminine GM = Flamboyant GM Flamboyant rated warmest of all target groups Competence : Crossdressing GM rated lowest of all target groups Feminine GM = Flamboyant GM Hypermasculine rated most competent of all target groups Perceived status : Significant moderator of competence ( p < .001) Perceived competition : No significant moderation of warmth Gender roles : High competence groups were allegedly masculine, and high warmth were allegedly feminine 14 Feng (2018) USA Study 1 368 Study 2 476 Study 3 417 Study 1 N.R. Study 2 33.88 (10.53) Study 3 35.45 (11.88) Study 1 Female: 210 (57%) Male: 157 (43%) Other: 1 Study 2 Female: 235 (49%) Male: 241 (51%) Study 3 Female: 216 (52%) Male: 201 (48%) Heterosexual W&C: 3-items per dimension, 7-point scale. HM; HW; GM; LW with masculine, feminine and valence presentations. Warmth : LW HM, LW Competence : GM > LW, feminine HW & HM Valence : Significant moderator of warmth ( p = .092, η p 2 = .014) and competence ( p = .079, η p 2 = .016) Gender : Significant moderator of warmth ( p < .001, η p 2 = .183) and competence ( p < .001, η p 2 = .070) 17 Ginn et al., (2023) USA 307 38.9 (13.39) Female Heterosexual W&C: 6-items per dimension, 5-point scale. LW; HW with intellectual disabilities. LW rated on midpoint for warmth and competence Warmth : LW HM N.R. 20 Gungor (2011) USA 259 university students 20 Female: 122 (47%) Male: 140 (53%) Heterosexual W&C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale. GM perceived by female, male, Christians and non-Christians. GM rated on midpoint for warmth and competence Warmth : GM perceived by Christians > female, male and non-Christians Competence : GM perceived by female > Christian, male and non-Christians Controllability : Significant moderator of warmth and competence (p < .05) 13 Heiserman (2023) USA 1,572 45.2 (16.6) Female: 819 (52%) Male: 753 (48%) N.R. W&C: 4-items per dimension, 9-point scale. HM; HW; GM; LW; BM; BW. GM, LW, BM, BW LW, BM, BW BM ≈ BW Competence : LW = BW LW, BW > BM, GM N.R. 19 Jacques et al., (2022) USA 333 37.97 Female: 171 (51%) Male: 162 (49%) N.R. W&C: 7-items per dimension, 5-point scale. HM; HW; NB. NB < HM, HW for warmth and competence NB rated on midpoint for warmth and competence N.R. 21 Klysing et al., (2021) Sweden 824 44.29 (13.54) Female: 509 (61.77%) Male: 280 (33.98%) Other: 13 (1.58%) DNR: 22 (2.67%) Heterosexual: 638 (77.4%) Homosexual: 25 (3%) Bisexual: 87 (10.6%) Asexual: 9 (1.1%) Other: 13 (1.6%) DNR: 58 (7%) Communion (warmth) & agency (competence): 13-items for warmth, 12-items for competence, 5-point scale. HM; HW; GM; GW; BM; BW. Warmth : GM > HM, LW, BM, BW GM HW, GM, BM, BW LW < HM N.R. 20 Macoukji (2014) USA 333 35 Female: 145 (48%) Male: 153 (46%) Other: 18 (6%) N.R. Communion (warmth, 4 items) & agency (competence, 6 items): 100-point scale. HM; HW; GM: LW bosses. Warmth : GM, LW > HM, HW GM > LW Competence : GM HW HM > HW, LW Gender : Moderator of warmth ( p = .480) and competence ( p = .420) 18 McCarty & Burt (2024) USA Study 1 404 Study 2 415 Study 3 489 Study 1 37.57 (11.96) Study 2 38.01 (13.12) Study 3 40.3 (12.36) Study 1 Female: 238 (59%) Male: 156 (39%) Other: 7 (2%) Study 2 Female: 264 (64%) Male: 151 (36%) Study 3 Female: 283 (58%) Male: 206 (42%) N.R. W&C: 4-items for warmth, 3- items for competence, 7-point scale. HM; HW; NB; TG. Warmth : NB, TG > HM NB, TG TG Competence : NB, TG NB N.R. 22 Mize & Manago (2021) USA Study 1 157 undergraduate students Study 2 192 Study 1 N.R. Study 2 35 Study 1 Female: 106 (68%) Male: 51 (32%) Study 2 Female: 87 (45%) Male: 105 (55%) N.R. W&C: 4-items for warmth, 5- items for competence, 7-point scale. HM; HW; GM: LW; BM; BW. Warmth : HM GM, BM Competence : HM > HW, GM, LW, BM, BW LW > HW, GM, BM, BW Stereotypes : Negative stereotypes for bimen and women (immature, decisive, promiscuous) explained warmth and competence ( p < .05) 19 Niedlich et al., (2022) Germany Study 1 314 Study 2 413 Study 1 26.12 (9.87) Study 2 28.86 (10.24) Study 1 Female: 215 (68%) Male: 99 (32%) Study 2 Female: 270 (64.4%) Male: 148 (35.3%) Other: 1 (0.2%) Study 1 N.R. Study 2 Heterosexual: 323 (77%) Lesbian or gay men: 13 (3%) ‘In-between’: 84 (20%) Communion (warmth) & agency (competence): 4-items per dimension, 6-point scale. HM; HW; GM; LW; BM with non-individualising and individualising information. Warmth : GM, LW > HM, HW, BM BM HW Individualising information : Significant moderator of warmth ( p = .04, η p 2 = .01) and competence interacting with sexuality and gender 17 Shin (2022) USA 567 managers 39.32 Female: 335 (59.1%) Male: 230 (40.5%) Other: 2 (0.4%) N.R. W&C: 6-items per dimension, 7-point scale. LGBTQ+; HW ex-offender job applicants. HW > LGBTQ+ for warmth and competence Admiration and pity: Significantly different for groups based on warmth and competence ( p < .001) 15 Sink et al., (2018) USA 169 university students 19.34 Female: 138 (82%) Other: 37 (22%) Heterosexual W&C: 6-items per dimension, 5-point scale. GM masculine and feminine portrayals. Warmth : Feminine GM > Masculine GM Competence : Masculine GM > Feminine GM Positivity : Significant moderator of warmth and competence ( p < .05) 18 Sink, (2018) USA Study 1 125 students Study 2 238 students Study 3 200 students Study 1 19.19 Study 2 19.72 Study 3 19.79 Study 1 Female: 95 (76%) Other: 30 (24%) Study 2 Female: 175 (74%) Other: 63 (26%) Study 3 Female: 166 (83%) Other: 34 (17%) Heterosexual W&C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale. GM; LW; TG; TW groups, characters and typical or atypical presentations measured before and after exposure. Warmth : GM > LW, TG, TW TG, TW = LW Competence : GM characters = LW, TW characters GM, LW > TG pre-exposure GM, LW > TW typical presentations Typicality : Significant moderator of warmth and competence (p < .001) Pre-post exposure: Significant moderator of warmth and competence (p < .001) 14 Steffens et al., (2018) Germany 255 university students 25 (12) Female: 148 (58%) Male: 107 (42%) N.R. Communion (warmth, 4 items) & agency (competence, 5 items): 6-point scale. HM; GM work applicants. Warmth : GM > HM Competence : GM = HM Suitability : Significant mediator for warmth ( p ≤ .20) but not competence ( p ≤ .80) 19 Strinić et al., (2021) Sweden 128 employers involved in hiring 41 (12.49) Female: 87 (68%) Male: 41 (32%) N.R. W&C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale. Arab and Swedish HM; HW; GM; LW. Warmth : Swedish GM > HM, LW Arab GM, LW > HW, HW Swedish GM > Arab GM, Arab and Swedish LW Competence : Swedish GM, LW HW, HM, GM Swedish GM > Arab GM, Arab and Swedish LW Arab LW = Swedish LW Ethnicity : Was a significant moderator for warmth ( p < .001) but not competence ( p = .275) 20 TenBrook (2020) USA 412 undergraduate students 19.17 (2.58) Female: 270 (66%) Male: 142 (34%) Heterosexual W&C: Items identified to relate to each group out of 64 in total, 7-point scale. HM; HW; TM; TW. Warmth : TM > TW, HM, HW TW > HM Competence : TM > TW, HM, HW TW > HM, HW Significant main effects of valence and gender (ps < .001) 20 Turnalar-Çetinkaya & İşiaçık (2024) Turkey 451 university students 23.06 (2.5) Female: 371 (82%) Male: 80 (18%) Heterosexual: 155 (34.3%) Homosexual: 294 (65.2%) Other: 2 (0.4%) W&C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale. Turkish and Kurdish HM; HW; GM; LW. Warmth : LW < HW Turkish GM < Turkish HM, Kurdish GM Kurdish GM < HM Turkish LW = Kurdish LW Competence : GM, LW Turkish GM Kurdish LW > Kurdish GM Ethnicity: Main effects on warmth ( p = .22) and competence ( p = .48) 17 Vaughn et al., (2017) USA 176 with LGBTQIA+ friends 36.37 Cisgender Heterosexual W&C: 2-items per dimension, 5-point scale. GM; LW; BM; BW. Warmth : GM > LW, BM, BW LW < BM, BW Competence : LW = BW BM < GM, LW, BW Admiration : Significant mediation for warmth and competence ( pI ≤.05) Envy : Significant mediation for W&C ( p s ≤ .05) 20 Note. SCM = stereotype content model; W&C = warmth and competence; HM = heterosexual men; HW = heterosexual women; GM = gay men; LW = lesbian women; BM = bisexual men; BW = bisexual women; NB = non-binary; TG = transgender groups; TM = transgender men; TW = transgender women; QA = quality assessment; N.R. = not reported. DNR = did not respond. Table 3 Summary of Studies included in the Systematic Review that reported Differences in Warmth and Competence between LGBTQIA+ Identities Group comparisons k % Group comparisons k % Gay men – lesbian women 39 Gay men – lesbian women 39 Gay > lesbian 30 77% Gay > lesbian 14 36% Gay = lesbian 3 8% Gay = lesbian 3 8% Gay < lesbian 6 15% Gay bisexual men 6 75% Gay > bisexual men 4 50% Gay = bisexual men 1 12.5% Gay = bisexual men 1 12.5% Gay < bisexual men 1 12.5% Gay bisexual women 5 100% Gay > bisexual women 1 20% Gay = bisexual women 1 20% Gay trans women 8 80% Gay > trans women 7 70% Gay = trans women 1 10% Gay = trans women 1 10% Gay < trans women 1 10% Gay bisexual women 3 50% Lesbian > bisexual women 4 60% Lesbian bisexual men 2 20% Lesbian > bisexual men 6 100% Lesbian trans women 1 33% Lesbian > trans women 3 100% Lesbian trans (binary) 7 100% Lesbian > trans (binary) 6 86% Lesbian bisexual women 2 33% Bisexual men > bisexual women 1 17% Bisexual men = bisexual women 2 33% Bisexual men < bisexual women 2 33% Bisexual men trans (binary) 2 - Non-binary > trans (binary) 2 - Trans men > trans women 1 - Trans men > trans women 1 - Note . k = number of ratings; * = studies with more than one target rating. All studies that directly compared LGBTQIA+ target groups within the narrative synthesis are included in this table except for those that measured a single LGBTQIA+ target group (e.g., Clausell, 2005; Gungor, 2011; Brambilla et al., 2011; Ball et al., 2025; Shin, 2022) and thus did not provide comparisons, or provided ratings for an aggregated LGBTQIA+ group rather than each identity (e.g., Choubak & Safdar, 2023). Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8997304","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":637466762,"identity":"ae8cb0d3-e486-49d8-a35e-03f5eb206b87","order_by":0,"name":"Joel Anderson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joel","middleName":"","lastName":"Anderson","suffix":""},{"id":637466763,"identity":"2b29ee18-94de-40f0-9fcf-398a438be203","order_by":1,"name":"Marc-Aiden Duggan","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Australian Catholic University, Australia","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Marc-Aiden","middleName":"","lastName":"Duggan","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-28 18:09:05","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":109477840,"identity":"18f8808f-f79c-44bd-abe3-baa306820654","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-18 14:28:04","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":100991,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy Selection Process Represented by a PRISMA Flowchart\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8997304/v1/a490d1a719f1e499e99180a3.jpg"},{"id":109760643,"identity":"c14d6f34-c36d-433a-8376-eb58172b4981","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-05-22 07:28:56","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":703382,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8997304/v1/9ea07ab4-5375-4d99-abdb-0f2a8ee32ce5.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Warmth and Competence Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups: A Systematic Review Using the Stereotype Content Model","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eStereotyping is a largely automatic component of social perception that shapes interpersonal judgments and behaviour (Fiske et al., 2002). By reducing complex social information to a limited set of perceived traits, stereotypes organise group evaluations along broad, often evaluative, dimensions. Although stereotypes may sometimes appear neutral or even positive, they can exert powerful effects on how groups are perceived and treated. Experimental evidence demonstrates that stereotypes bias rapid judgments in consequential ways. For example, Jones and Fazio (2010) showed that White participants were more likely to falsely identify Black faces as holding weapons, illustrating how racial stereotypes linking Blackness with threat can distort perception under conditions of uncertainty. These findings highlight how stereotyping contributes to prejudice and discrimination, particularly toward groups that are highly visible or that deviate from dominant social norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBeyond interpersonal bias, stereotypes can also directly harm members of the stereotyped group. Research on meta-stereotyping indicates that both internalising negative stereotypes and anticipating their endorsement by others are associated with poorer wellbeing outcomes. For instance, Hinton and colleagues (2019) found that Australian gay men who endorsed, or believed others endorsed, stereotypes portraying gay men as more feminine or promiscuous reported lower wellbeing. Against a broader backdrop of increasing hostility toward sexual and gender diversity (Haas \u0026amp; Lannutti, 2023; H\u0026auml;ssler et al., 2024), understanding how stereotypes operate remains a critical task.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this review, we examine stereotypes of lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, and other non-cisgender or non-heterosexual groups (LGBTQIA+) using the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), which proposes that social groups are evaluated along the dimensions of perceived warmth and competence (Fiske et al., 2002). The SCM offers a parsimonious framework for comparing stereotype profiles across groups by locating them within a shared evaluative space. Specifically, we synthesise quantitative evidence on how LGBTQIA+ groups - primarily those defined by sexual orientation and gender identity - have been examined within the SCM and assess whether perceptions of warmth and competence differ across identities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Stereotype Content Model\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) is a widely used framework in cognitive and social psychology for understanding how social groups are evaluated. The model proposes that perceptions of groups are primarily organised along two dimensions, warmth and competence. \u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e reflects perceived friendliness, trustworthiness, and intentions toward others, whereas \u003cem\u003ecompetence\u003c/em\u003e reflects perceived capability, skill, and social status. The SCM was first empirically demonstrated by Fiske et al. (2002), who asked participants to rate a range of social groups on warmth, competence, status, and competition. These groups spanned occupations, age groups, and racial and ethnic categories. Their findings showed that social groups cluster reliably according to perceived warmth and competence, with lower-status groups often viewed as lower in competence but higher in warmth. For example, older adults and people with disabilities were perceived as warm but low in competence, whereas Asian people and wealthy individuals were perceived as competent but lower in warmth.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubsequent research has demonstrated that warmth and competence perceptions are closely linked to emotional and behavioural responses toward target groups. Cuddy et al. (2007) showed that stereotypes characterised by different combinations of warmth and competence elicited distinct emotional reactions, such as admiration, pity, envy, or contempt, which in turn predicted corresponding behavioural tendencies toward those groups. Groups perceived as low in both warmth and competence were more likely to elicit contempt and to be associated with passive or active forms of harm. Neuroimaging research further supports these findings, showing reduced social cognition\u0026ndash;related brain activation and increased disgust responses when participants viewed images of highly stigmatised groups, consistent with dehumanisation processes (Harris \u0026amp; Fiske, 2006). Together, this body of research highlights how warmth and competence perceptions shape not only social judgments, but also emotional reactions and discriminatory behaviours toward marginalised groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePerceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLike racial and ethnic minorities, LGBTQIA+ people have historically experienced, and continue to experience, negative stereotyping that contributes to prejudice and harmful social treatment (H\u0026auml;ssler, 2024; Zamboni et al., 2007). However, the application of the SCM to LGBTQIA+ populations remains comparatively underdeveloped relative to its use with other marginalised groups. In the original SCM study, gay men were rated near the midpoint of both warmth and competence dimensions, suggesting an ambivalent stereotype profile (Fiske et al., 2002). Dissatisfaction with this treatment of gay men as a homogeneous group led Clausell and Fiske (2005) to examine perceptions of multiple gay male subgroups. Their findings indicated that subgroups characterised by masculine traits or visible markers of subcultural membership were perceived as higher in competence but lower in warmth, whereas more feminine or flamboyant subgroups were perceived as warmer but less competent. These patterns suggest that evaluations of gay men are shaped by normative expectations of gender expression within cisgender male roles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eComparable findings have been reported for lesbian women. Brambilla et al. (2011) examined perceptions of lesbian women and several lesbian subgroups and found that the general category of lesbian women was again rated near the midpoint of warmth and competence. Subgroup analyses revealed that more feminine lesbian subgroups were perceived as warmer, whereas more masculine subgroups, such as butch lesbians, were perceived as more competent. Together, this work indicates that perceptions of both gay men and lesbian women are strongly influenced by gender norms and gender expression, rather than sexual orientation alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA smaller body of research has extended the SCM to other sexual orientation identities, particularly bisexual people. Vaughn et al. (2017) found that bisexual men and bisexual women were perceived as less warm than gay men, while being rated similarly on competence. Despite comparable competence ratings, bisexual groups elicited higher levels of contempt-related responses, suggesting that bisexuality may be associated with distinct stereotype content not fully explained by gendered expectations alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResearch applying the SCM to gender-diverse populations is more limited and more recent. Gallagher and Bodenhausen (2021) found that trans men and trans women were rated as lower in both warmth and competence than cisgender targets, with no differentiation based on gender. This pattern contrasts with findings for gay men and lesbian women and suggests that trans targets may be evaluated primarily through perceptions of norm violation rather than gendered expectations. To date, few additional studies have applied the SCM to trans populations. Emerging evidence suggests that non-binary individuals may elicit comparatively greater warmth than trans men and women (Clarke, 2019), although this work has not been formally integrated into SCM research. Intersex, asexual, and queer identities remain largely absent from SCM studies, despite evidence that these groups are frequently portrayed as abnormal or deviant relative to dominant bodily, sexual, and gender norms (Astle et al., 2024; Kitzie et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAims of the Systematic Review\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe objective of this systematic review was to identify and synthesise quantitative studies that applied the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) to evaluate perceptions of warmth and competence of LGBTQIA+ groups. Specifically, the review aimed to (a) map how LGBTQIA+ groups have been positioned along the dimensions of warmth and competence within the SCM, and (b) examine whether reported perceptions of warmth and competence differ across identities. By systematically collating and synthesising existing research, this review provides an overview of how sexual orientation, gender identity, and specific LGBTQIA+ groups have been evaluated within the SCM, while also identifying gaps in the current literature.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe protocol for this systematic review was developed in consultation with a librarian trained in Cochrane systematic review methodology, in accordance with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Manual for Evidence Synthesis (Aromataris et al., 2024) and the AMSTAR 2 critical appraisal tool (Shea et al., 2017). The review was conducted using Cochrane methodological principles, and the reporting of methods and results follows the \u003cem\u003ePreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses\u003c/em\u003e (PRISMA) guidelines (Page et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSearch Strategy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDatabase searches were conducted on 17\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e April 2025 across CINAHL Complete, LGBTQ+ Source, ProQuest Academic, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, ProQuest Psychology Database, PsycEXTRA, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science. Search terms were developed to capture two core concepts: the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) and LGBTQIA+ identities (see Table 1). Within each concept, terms were combined using the Boolean operator \u0026ldquo;OR\u0026rdquo;, and the two concepts were then combined using the operator \u0026ldquo;AND\u0026rdquo;. Searches were applied to titles and abstracts in each database.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSearch results were limited to publications from 2002 onward, corresponding to the first appearance of the SCM in the literature. All records were restricted to English-language publications. In addition to database searching, a call for unpublished or grey literature was circulated to identify relevant studies that may not have been captured through database searches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTABLE 1 ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInclusion and Exclusion Criteria\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStudies were eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) employed a quantitative research design; (2) assessed warmth and/or competence consistent with the dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model; and (3) examined perceptions of at least one LGBTQIA+ target group. Studies were excluded if the full text was not accessible or if the publication was not available in English.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Screening\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;During the initial screening of titles and abstracts, records were included if they were judged to be relevant to the research question of the systematic review. All records identified through the search strategy were exported from each database into EndNote (2024), merged into a single library, and then uploaded to Covidence (https://www.covidence.org/). Duplicate records were identified and removed using a combination of automated and manual procedures. The remaining records were subjected to two stages of screening.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst, titles and abstracts were independently screened by two reviewers for relevance to the research question. Interrater agreement at this stage was moderate, as indicated by Cohen\u0026rsquo;s kappa (\u0026kappa; = .53), consistent with established interpretation guidelines (Landis \u0026amp; Koch, 1977). Second, full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers against the inclusion criteria. Agreement at the full-text screening stage was near perfect (\u0026kappa; = .81).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Extraction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA data extraction spreadsheet was developed in Microsoft Excel (2025) to systematically record information from all included full-text studies. Extracted information included authorship, publication year, study design, and country of data collection, as well as sample characteristics (e.g., sample size, age, gender, sexual orientation).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDetails of the target groups assessed in each study were recorded, along with information on how the Stereotype Content Model (SCM) was operationalised, including the specific measures used to assess warmth and competence (or related constructs such as communion and agency). Key findings were extracted with particular attention to reported warmth and competence ratings, the direction of differences between LGBTQIA+ identity groups, and any moderator variables examined (e.g., ethnicity, presentation style, framing).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhere reported, descriptive statistics for warmth and competence (e.g., means and dispersion estimates) were extracted to support comparative interpretation across studies. Descriptive statistics for cisgender or heterosexual comparison groups were also recorded when available to facilitate contextual interpretation. When numerical data were presented only graphically, values were estimated using WebPlotDigitizer (https://apps.automeris.io/wpd4/).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuality Assessment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;All studies meeting the final inclusion criteria were appraised using a quality assessment tool developed by Hawker et al. (2002) and subsequently modified by Deslandes et al. (2024). This tool evaluates multiple aspects of study quality, including the clarity of the title and abstract, the introduction, sampling procedures, methodological rigour, data analysis, presentation of findings, discussion, and consideration of ethics and researcher positioning. Each domain was rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 0 (\u003cem\u003every poor\u003c/em\u003e) to 3 (\u003cem\u003egood\u003c/em\u003e), yielding a total quality score ranging from 0 to 24 for each study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the subjective nature of quality appraisal and the mapping focus of this systematic review, no minimum quality threshold was applied to determine study inclusion. All studies that met the eligibility criteria were retained to ensure a comprehensive synthesis of the available evidence. Quality assessment scores were instead used to inform the interpretation of findings and to contextualise the strength and limitations of the evidence base, rather than to exclude studies from the review.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Synthesis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDue to variation in study designs, target operationalisations, measurement scales, and reporting practices, findings were synthesised narratively rather than quantitatively pooled. Studies were clustered and synthesised according to how they positioned LGBTQIA+ identities on the warmth and competence dimensions of the Stereotype Content Model (SCM). This synthesis drew on reported mean scores, comparative findings within studies, and identified moderators (e.g., ethnicity, presentation style, study framing). Where studies directly compared multiple LGBTQIA+ identities, the direction of reported differences (e.g., higher warmth, lower competence) was extracted and summarised. Patterns were organised by identity group to allow structured comparison of warmth and competence both within and across sexual orientation and gender identity categories. Emphasis was placed on identifying consistent directional patterns and contextual moderators across studies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe outcomes of the search and screening processes are summarised in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1). The search strategy identified 2,483 records, of which 24 studies met the full eligibility criteria. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2025, with one of the earliest appearing shortly after the introduction of the Stereotype Content Model (Clausell \u0026amp; Fiske, 2005). Publication frequency increased over time, with 18 studies (75%) published within the past decade, indicating growing scholarly attention to the application of the SCM to LGBTQIA+ groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Characteristics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe characteristics and key findings of included studies are summarised in Table 1. Direct comparisons of warmth and competence across LGBTQIA+ identities are summarised in Table 2. Most studies were conducted in the United States of America (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 15, 63%), followed by Germany (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4, 17%), Sweden (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 2, 8%), Canada (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1, 4%), Italy (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1) and Turkey (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1). Overall, the evidence base is concentrated in Western contexts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most common LGBTQIA+ groups assessed were gay men (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 18, 75%) and lesbian women (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 17, 71%). These were followed by bisexual men (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4, 17%), bisexual women (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4), trans people (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 2, 8%) trans women (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 2), non-binary individuals (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 2) and trans men (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1, 4%).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most common study design was experimental (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 16, 67%), followed by cross-sectional (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 8, 33%). Warmth and competence dimensions were most commonly rated by participants on a 5-point scale (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 11, 46%). However, synonyms for warmth and competence were also found for studies that replaced the adjectives with communion and agency respectively (e.g., Klysing et al., 2021; Macoukji, 2014; Niedlich et al., 2022; Steffens et al., 2019). Furthermore, a majority of studies included group targets representing LGBTQIA+ identities (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 12, 50%), followed by individual targets (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 11, 46%), and a combined approach (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 1, 4%).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Three studies met the full-text inclusion criteria but did not report sufficient descriptive detail to allow inclusion in structured comparative analyses (e.g., De Wilde et al., 2021; Bay-Cheng et al., 2018; Gross, 2017). These studies are described narratively in Table 1.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFIGURE 1 AND TABLE 2 ABOUT HERE\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQuality Assessment Results\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe quality assessment yielded a mean score of 17.7 (out of 24; \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 2.7). Nineteen studies (79%) scored between 16 and 22, indicating generally moderate to high methodological quality, while five studies (21%) scored below 16. Criteria relating to sampling and study rationale were most consistently met across studies. In contrast, reporting of ethical considerations and researcher positionality was limited. Only two studies explicitly reflected on potential researcher bias, and 14 studies (58%) either made no reference to ethical procedures or addressed them only briefly. Overall, while methodological reporting was generally adequate, transparency regarding ethical and reflexive considerations was inconsistent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlacement of LGBTQIA+ Identities within the SCM Space\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWarmth and competence evaluations were synthesised narratively to identify how LGBTQIA+ identities were positioned within the SCM\u0026rsquo;s two-dimensional space. Study-level descriptive statistics are reported in Table 2, and direct identity comparisons are summarised in Table 3.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Content Model Placement of Gay Men\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Across the included studies, gay men were evaluated 65 times on the warmth and competence dimensions. Overall, gay men were more frequently perceived as warmer than competent relative to other LGBTQIA+ identities. Direct comparisons with lesbian women indicated that gay men were more often rated higher in warmth but lower in competence (see Table 3), reflecting gender-role\u0026ndash;consistent stereotype patterns commonly observed within the SCM, whereby femininity is associated with warmth and masculinity with competence (see implicit inversion theory; Kite \u0026amp; Deaux, 1984, and for its application see Anderson et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen gay men were portrayed as masculine or as atypical fictional characters, competence ratings tended to increase and warmth ratings decrease (e.g., Feng, 2018; Sink, 2018), suggesting that gender expression moderates their placement within the SCM space. In comparisons with heterosexual men, gay men were typically rated as warmer, while competence ratings were often similar (e.g., Steffens et al., 2018; Feng, 2018). Taken together, these findings position gay men within a relatively high-warmth, moderate-competence profile, with variation shaped primarily by conformity to or deviation from masculine gender norms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Content Model Placement of Lesbian Women\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Lesbian women were evaluated 58 times across included studies. Overall, lesbian women were typically perceived as moderately warm and competent, though their relative positioning varied depending on comparison groups and gender expression. In direct comparisons with gay men, lesbian women were more frequently rated higher in competence and lower in warmth (see Table 3), mirroring gender-role\u0026ndash;consistent patterns observed in SCM research, in which femininity is associated with warmth and masculinity with competence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSubgroup analyses further underscored the role of gender expression. Feminine-presenting lesbian women were often rated as warmer, whereas more masculine-presenting subgroups (e.g., butch lesbians) were rated as more competent (Brambilla et al., 2011). When compared with heterosexual women, competence ratings were frequently similar (e.g., Klysing et al., 2021), though some studies reported lower warmth and competence for lesbian women in specific contexts (Ball et al., 2025). Taken together, findings suggest that lesbian women occupy a relatively balanced position within the SCM space, with evaluations shaped strongly by conformity to or deviation from normative gender expectations.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Content Model Placement of Bisexual Men and Women\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBisexual identities were less frequently examined, with eight ratings of bisexual men and six of bisexual women across studies. Overall, bisexual men and women were typically positioned at moderate levels of both warmth and competence. However, patterns were less consistent than those observed for gay men and lesbian women. In direct comparisons with gay men, bisexual men were often rated lower in warmth (see Table 3) while competence differences were more variable. Comparisons between bisexual men and bisexual women were mixed: some studies found bisexual men rated as warmer, others found no difference, and several reported bisexual women as warmer (e.g., Mize \u0026amp; Manago, 2021; Heiserman, 2023). Competence ratings between bisexual men and women were generally similar.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings suggest that bisexual stereotype profiles are not structured solely by gender-role expectations. Instead, bisexual identities appear to occupy a less clearly differentiated position within the SCM space, with variability potentially reflecting stereotypes specific to bisexuality (e.g., perceived promiscuity or indecisiveness) rather than masculinity or femininity alone.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Content Model Placement of Trans Individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTrans identities were examined in nine ratings across included studies, including trans women (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4), non-binary individuals (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 4), and trans men (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 1). A single study directly compared trans men and trans women within the SCM framework (TenBrook, 2020). In that study, trans men were rated higher than trans women on both warmth and competence. However, the absence of replication across independent samples limits the generalisability of this finding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCompared with sexual orientation groups, trans targets were more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions (in studies using direct comparisons; \u003cem\u003ek\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e=10). Direct comparisons indicated that gay men were rated higher than trans women in 80% of warmth comparisons and 70% of competence comparisons (see Table 3). Lesbian women were also more frequently rated higher than binary trans targets across both dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNon-binary individuals were sometimes evaluated more favourably than binary trans targets, though evidence was limited to two studies. Overall, trans groups were more frequently located in the low\u0026ndash;low quadrant of the SCM space, a placement associated with contempt and social exclusion. Unlike sexual minority identities, trans targets did not consistently follow gender-role\u0026ndash;congruent warmth\u0026ndash;competence trade-offs. Instead, they were more often evaluated negatively on both dimensions, suggesting that perceptions may be shaped more by category norm violation than by gender-role inversion.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUnlike research on gay men and lesbian women, no included studies systematically examined variation in stereotype content based on gender expression within trans groups (e.g., masculine vs feminine presentation). Instead, trans targets were typically operationalised at the identity level (e.g., \u0026ldquo;transgender woman\u0026rdquo;) without manipulation of presentation style or subgroup differentiation. This contrasts with the detailed subgroup analyses conducted for gay men and lesbian women and highlights a structural gap in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStereotype Content Model Placement of Asexual, Queer and Intersex Individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;No studies included an analysis of asexual, queer and intersex groups on the SCM. Consequentially, their warmth and competence could not be reported.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eModerators\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Eighteen studies (72%) examined at least one moderator influencing warmth and competence perceptions of LGBTQIA+ targets (see Table 2). Moderation effects clustered around three broad domains: (1) gender expression and presentation, (2) ethnicity and nationality, and (3) SCM-relevant status and attributional mechanisms. The observed moderation effects were not random but systematically aligned with core SCM mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAcross studies, gender norm conformity reliably shaped stereotype placement. Masculine-presenting targets were rated as more competent and less warm, whereas feminine-presenting targets were rated as warmer but less competent (e.g., Clausell, 2005; Brambilla et al., 2011; Sink et al., 2018). For example, butch lesbian subgroups were rated higher in competence than feminine lesbian subgroups, whereas feminine-presenting gay men were rated higher in warmth but lower in competence than masculine-presenting gay men. In experimental manipulations, valence and presentation style significantly moderated both warmth and competence ratings (e.g., Feng, 2018; TenBrook, 2020), indicating that stereotype placement is sensitive to contextual framing rather than fixed at the identity level.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEthnicity moderated stereotype content in several studies, though effects were more consistent for warmth than competence. For example, Strinić et al. (2021) found significant moderation of warmth but not competence by ethnicity, with majority-group sexual minorities evaluated more warmly than minority-group sexual minorities. Similarly, Choubak and Safdar (2023) reported lower warmth evaluations for some ethnic minority lesbian targets relative to majority-group targets. However, not all studies observed significant interactions (e.g., Turnalar-\u0026Ccedil;etinkaya \u0026amp; İşia\u0026ccedil;ık, 2024), suggesting that intersectional moderation may depend on context and sample composition.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with SCM theory, perceived status significantly predicted competence in Clausell (2005), whereas perceived competition did not significantly predict warmth. Controllability beliefs also moderated both warmth and competence (Gungor, 2011), with higher perceived controllability associated with less favourable evaluations. These findings align with the SCM\u0026rsquo;s proposition that competence derives from perceived status and warmth from perceived competition.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA small subset of studies examined mediators. Steffens et al. (2018) found that job suitability mediated warmth but not competence evaluations. Vaughn et al. (2017) reported that admiration and envy mediated associations between stereotype content and behavioural tendencies. These findings align with the extant body of literature in suggesting that warmth and competence perceptions may influence downstream affective and behavioural responses through emotion-based pathways.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review synthesised quantitative research examining how LGBTQIA+ identities have been evaluated within the Stereotype Content Model (SCM), with particular attention to differences in perceived warmth and competence across identities. Across studies, directional patterns were consistent. Gay men were more frequently positioned higher on warmth than competence, whereas lesbian women more often showed the reverse profile, with relatively higher competence than warmth. Bisexual identities occupied a more ambiguous and less differentiated position within the SCM space. In contrast, trans and non-binary targets were more commonly evaluated lower on both warmth and competence relative to other LGBTQIA+ groups.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe patterned contrast between gay men and lesbian women closely mirrors gender-role\u0026ndash;consistent stereotype structures. Across direct comparisons, gay men were more frequently rated higher on warmth than lesbian women, bisexual groups, and transgender groups (e.g., Jacques et al., 2022; Niedlich et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), whereas lesbian women were more frequently rated higher on competence than gay men and bisexual groups. When heterosexual comparison groups were included, lesbian women tended to resemble heterosexual men in warmth and competence ratings, while gay men resembled heterosexual women (Klysing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). These findings are highly consistent with implicit inversion theory (Kite \u0026amp; Deaux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), which proposes that gay men are stereotyped as more similar to heterosexual women, and lesbian women as more similar to heterosexual men. Within the SCM framework, this suggests that evaluations of sexual minority groups remain strongly structured by gender norms. Sexual orientation appears to shift the perceived gendered alignment of targets, rather than displacing gender as a primary organising principle of stereotype content.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eBisexual men and women were less frequently studied, and their stereotype profiles were correspondingly less stable across studies. Where direct comparisons were available, bisexual men and women were generally positioned at moderate levels of both warmth and competence. Differences between bisexual men and women were small and inconsistent, although some studies suggested bisexual men were perceived as slightly warmer and bisexual women as slightly more competent. Comparisons with gay men and lesbian women indicate that bisexual men and women may also be subject to gendered stereotype alignment (Klysing et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Kite \u0026amp; Deaux, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1987\u003c/span\u003e), consistent with research showing that bisexual individuals are often evaluated through the lens of heterosexual gender norms (Galupo et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). However, the relatively small number of studies including bisexual targets limits firm conclusions. It is also possible that stereotypes specific to bisexuality (e.g., promiscuity, indecisiveness) operate somewhat independently of warmth\u0026ndash;competence structures, producing the more ambiguous SCM placement observed here (Vaughn et al., 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to sexual minority identities, trans and non-binary targets were more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions (albeit, there were fewer studies exploring trans and non-binary targets). Across studies, gay men and lesbian women were often rated more positively than trans women, and when cisgender comparison groups were included, trans targets were typically evaluated less favourably on both dimensions (e.g., TenBrook, 2020). Unlike gay men and lesbian women, trans groups did not consistently follow gender-role\u0026ndash;congruent warmth\u0026ndash;competence trade-offs. Instead, they were more often located in the low\u0026ndash;low quadrant of the SCM space, a position theoretically associated with contempt and social exclusion (Cuddy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e; Harris \u0026amp; Fiske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). This placement suggests that transgender identities may be perceived not merely as gender-atypical, but as violating normative assumptions about sex and gender categories more broadly. The comparatively disadvantaged positioning of transgender targets aligns with broader evidence of disproportionate harassment and discrimination directed toward transgender individuals relative to gay men and lesbian women (Brassel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eModeration analyses further reinforce the central role of gender normativity and status in shaping stereotype content. Across studies, masculine-presenting targets were more frequently associated with competence, whereas feminine-presenting targets were associated with warmth (e.g., Clausell \u0026amp; Fiske, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Brambilla et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Sink et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). Ethnicity and nationality also moderated warmth and competence ratings, with ethnic minority or non-Western LGBTQIA+ targets sometimes evaluated less favourably than majority-group targets (Choubak \u0026amp; Safdar, 2023; Turnalar-\u0026Ccedil;etinkaya \u0026amp; İşia\u0026ccedil;ık, 2024), and this effect was more consistent for warmth than competence. These findings are consistent with the SCM\u0026rsquo;s theoretical proposition that perceived status predicts competence and perceived competition predicts warmth (Fiske et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). LGBTQIA+ stereotype content therefore appears to be structured not only by gender norms, but also by intersectional status hierarchies and majority\u0026ndash;minority dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, no studies applied the SCM to asexual, intersex, or queer target groups. Their absence from the SCM literature represents a significant gap. The concentration of research on gay men and lesbian women suggests that the stereotype content of more visible or historically established identities has received disproportionate scholarly attention, while less socially legible identities remain underexamined.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTogether, these findings indicate that while overt attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women have improved in many Western contexts (H\u0026auml;ssler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e), stereotype content remains deeply structured by gender normativity and status-based hierarchies. The SCM provides a useful comparative framework for identifying these patterned differences across LGBTQIA+ identities, but the existing literature remains uneven in scope and representation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eLimitations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eSeveral limitations constrain interpretation of these findings. Many of these pertained the samples that the data were extracted from \u0026ndash; for instance, many studies relied on predominantly female samples. Given established evidence that participant gender influences evaluations of LGBTQIA+ groups (Herek \u0026amp; McLemore, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e), and that women tend to rate LGBTQIA+ groups more positively on warmth (Gungor, 2010), sample composition may have influenced overall placement within the SCM space. In addition, the evidence base was heavily concentrated in Western contexts, particularly the United States and Germany, limiting generalisability to non-Western cultural settings.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the relative absence of bisexual, transgender, non-binary, intersex, asexual, and queer targets means that conclusions regarding these identities are based on comparatively fewer observations. As with much of the social psychology literature, the SCM literature on LGBTQIA+ identities remains disproportionately focused on gay men and lesbian women.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis systematic review demonstrates that LGBTQIA+ identities are not positioned uniformly within the Stereotype Content Model. Rather, stereotype content varies systematically across identities in ways that reflect gender normativity, perceived status, and intersectional hierarchies. Gay men and lesbian women tend to occupy relatively higher positions within the warmth\u0026ndash;competence space, albeit in gender-role\u0026ndash;consistent ways. Bisexual identities show more ambiguous profiles, while transgender and non-binary groups are more frequently positioned lower on both warmth and competence dimensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven that SCM placement predicts emotional and behavioural responses toward social groups (Cuddy et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e), these patterns have implications for understanding differential prejudice, discrimination, and social inclusion across LGBTQIA+ communities. The absence of research on asexual, intersex, and queer identities further underscores the need for broader and more inclusive applications of the SCM framework.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture research should employ more consistent measurement strategies, include a wider spectrum of sexual and gender identities, and explicitly test how status, competition, and gender normativity mechanisms shape stereotype content. Expanding the SCM literature in this way may clarify why certain LGBTQIA+ groups experience comparatively greater stigma and social penalty despite broader societal shifts toward sexual and gender diversity.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eJA designed the protocol and oversaw the execution of the study. JA and MD each conducted searches, screened articles as phases 1 and 2. MD extracted data and prepared Table 2. JA wrote the main article. All authors reviewed and contributed to the editing of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. References marked with * were included in the systematic literature review\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAromataris, E., Lockwood, C., Porritt, K., Pilla, B. \u0026amp; Jordan, Z. (2024). \u003cem\u003eJBI manual for evidence synthesis\u003c/em\u003e. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Asbrock, F. (2010). Stereotypes of social groups in Germany in terms of warmth and competence. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e41\u003c/em\u003e(2), 76\u0026ndash;81. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000011\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAstle, S., Pariera, K., Anders, K. M., Brown-King, B., \u0026amp; Adams, M. (2024). Growing up intersex: A thematic analysis of intersex emerging adults\u0026rsquo; key socialization experiences in childhood and adolescence. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(8), 994\u0026ndash;1017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01489-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Ball, E., Pylypiw, P., Prestele, E., \u0026amp; Steffens, M. C. (2025). How do intersections of sexual orientation and race affect impressions of women in a counter-stereotypical job context? A comprehensive test manipulating individuating competence information. \u003cem\u003eCollabra.\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.129119\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBay-Cheng, L. Y., Bruns, A. E., \u0026amp; Maguin, E. (2018). Agents, virgins, sluts, and losers: The sexual typecasting of young heterosexual women. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e79\u003c/em\u003e(11\u0026ndash;12), 699\u0026ndash;714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0907-7\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Bazaz, J. (2016). \u003cem\u003eI-sharing as a mechanism of prejudice reduction toward gay men and lesbians\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 10241796) [Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., \u0026amp; Ravenna, M. (2011). Status and cooperation shape lesbian stereotypes: Testing predictions from the Stereotype Content Model. \u003cem\u003eSocial Psychology (Göttingen, Germany)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(2), 101\u0026ndash;110. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000054\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrassel, S. T., Settles, I. H., \u0026amp; Buchanan, N. T. (2019). Lay (mis)perceptions of sexual harassment toward transgender, lesbian, and gay employees. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(1\u0026ndash;2), 76\u0026ndash;90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0914-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Choubak, M., \u0026amp; Safdar, S. (2023). Intersectionality of ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation: Intergroup bias towards immigrants in Canada. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e96\u003c/em\u003e, 101854-. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101854\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClarke, J. A. (2019). They, them, and theirs. \u003cem\u003eHarvard Law Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e132\u003c/em\u003e(3), 894\u0026ndash;991. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3270298\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Clausell, E., \u0026amp; Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. \u003cem\u003eSocial Cognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(2), 161\u0026ndash;181. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.23.2.161.65626\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., \u0026amp; Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviours from intergroup affect and stereotypes. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e92\u003c/em\u003e(4), 631\u0026ndash;648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDe Wilde, M., Carrier, A., Casini, A. \u0026amp; Demoulin, S. (2021). The drawback of sexual empowerment: Perceiving women as emancipated but still as sexual objects. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e84\u003c/em\u003e(9-10), 626-643. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01192-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeslandes, C., Kaufmann, L. M., \u0026amp; Anderson, J. R. (2024). The relationship between acculturation and relevant correlates for Sub-Saharan and North African-born migrants: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Intercultural Relations\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101928\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEndNote. (2024). \u003cem\u003eClarivate\u003c/em\u003e. (Version 21.5) [Computer Software]. https://web.endnote.com/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Feng, J. (2017). \u003cem\u003eA switch of inquiry from ambivalent sexism to competence and warmth perception \u003c/em\u003e(Publication No. 10760549) [Doctoral dissertation, New Mexico State University]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., \u0026amp; Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Cognitive Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 77\u0026ndash;83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., \u0026amp; Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e82\u003c/em\u003e(6), 878\u0026ndash;902. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.878\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGallagher, N. M., \u0026amp; Bodenhausen, G. V. (2021). Gender essentialism and the mental representation of transgender women and men: A multimethod investigation of stereotype content. \u003cem\u003eCognition\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e217\u003c/em\u003e, 104887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104887\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGalupo, M. P., Ramirez, J. L., \u0026amp; Pulice-Farrow, L. (2017). \u0026ldquo;Regardless of their gender\u0026rdquo;: Descriptions of sexual identity among bisexual, pansexual, and queer identified individuals. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Bisexuality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 108\u0026ndash;124. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2016.1228491\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Ginn, H. G., Bay-Cheng, L. Y., Brown, H. L. P., \u0026amp; Zucker, A. N. (2023). Prohibited by pity: Perceptions of the warmth, competence, and sexual rights of women labelled with intellectual disability. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research \u0026amp; Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e20\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1407\u0026ndash;1418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00821-3\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGross, R. E. (2017). \u003cem\u003eWarmth and competence traits: Perceptions of female and male nurse stereotypes \u003c/em\u003e(Publication No. 10265211) [Doctoral dissertation, City University of New York]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Gungor, S. G. (2010). \u003cem\u003eCultural grounding of perceptions of male homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 3434881) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHaas, S. M., \u0026amp; Lannutti, P. J. (2024). \u0026ldquo;They are giving folks permission to discriminate and hate\u0026rdquo;: A 4-year longitudinal analysis of perceived impact of the Trump administration on LGBTQ\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;individuals and relationships, 2017\u0026ndash;2020. \u003cem\u003eSexuality Research \u0026amp; Social Policy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 62\u0026ndash;75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-023-00843-x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHarris, L. T., \u0026amp; Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(10), 847\u0026ndash;853. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026auml;ssler, T., Fogwell, N. T., Gonzalez, A., Anderson, J. R., \u0026amp; Atwood, S. (2024). Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research \u0026ndash; Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(3), 821\u0026ndash;842. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHawker, S., Payne, S., Kerr, C., Hardey, M., \u0026amp; Powell, J. (2002). Appraising the evidence: Reviewing disparate data systematically. \u003cem\u003eQualitative Health Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1284\u0026ndash;1299. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732302238251\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Heiserman, N. (2023). \u003cem\u003eComplex stereotypes: Stereotypes across the intersections of gender, sexuality, age, race/ethnicity, and social class \u003c/em\u003e(Publication No. 30250526) [Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerek, G. M., \u0026amp; McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(1), 309\u0026ndash;333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHinton, J. D. X., Anderson, J. R., \u0026amp; Koc, Y. (2019). Exploring the relationship between gay men\u0026rsquo;s self- and meta-stereotype endorsement with well-being and self-worth. \u003cem\u003ePsychology and Sexuality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(2), 169\u0026ndash;182. https://doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2019.1577013\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Jacques, S. A., Ross, D. E., \u0026amp; McCarty, M. K. (2022). Perceptions of nonbinary identifying individuals: Through the lens of gender and race. \u003cem\u003ePsi Chi Journal of Psychological Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e27\u003c/em\u003e(1), 46\u0026ndash;58. https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN27.1.46\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, C. R., \u0026amp; Fazio, R. H. (2010). Person categorization and automatic racial stereotyping effects on weapon identification. \u003cem\u003ePersonality \u0026amp; Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1073\u0026ndash;1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210375817\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKite, M. E., \u0026amp; Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the Implicit Inversion Theory. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Women Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKitzie, V. L., Wagner, T. L., Lookingbill, V., \u0026amp; Vera, N. (2022). Advancing information practices theoretical discourses centered on marginality, community, and embodiment: Learning from the experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual (LGBTQIA+) communities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Association for Information Science and Technology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e73\u003c/em\u003e(4), 494\u0026ndash;510. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24594\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Klysing, A., Lindqvist, A., \u0026amp; Bj\u0026ouml;rklund, F. (2021). Stereotype content at the intersection of gender and sexual orientation. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e, 713839\u0026ndash;713839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.713839\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLandis, J. R., \u0026amp; Koch, G. G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. \u003cem\u003eBiometrics, 33\u003c/em\u003e(2), 363-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Macoukji, F. (2014). \u003cem\u003eGay, straight, or slightly bent? The interaction of leader gender and sexual orientation on leadership evaluations\u003c/em\u003e. (Publication No. 1563750) [Master\u0026rsquo;s thesis, University of South Florida]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* McCarty, M. K., \u0026amp; Burt, A. H. (2024). Understanding perceptions of gender non-binary people: Consensual and unique stereotypes and prejudice. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e90\u003c/em\u003e(3), 392\u0026ndash;416. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-024-01449-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMicrosoft Corporation. (2025). \u003cem\u003eExcel\u003c/em\u003e. [Computer Software]. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/excel\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Mize, T. D., \u0026amp; Manago, B. (2018). The stereotype content of sexual orientation. \u003cem\u003eSocial Currents\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e5\u003c/em\u003e(5), 458\u0026ndash;478. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329496518761999\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Niedlich, C., Kachel, S., \u0026amp; Steffens, M. C. (2022). Sexual orientation information and hiring: Can individualizing information lead to negative stereotyping of sexual minority group members? \u003cem\u003eJournal of Applied Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(5), 287\u0026ndash;304. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12859\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePage, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., \u0026hellip; Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. \u003cem\u003eBMJ. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e372\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., \u0026amp; Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. \u003cem\u003eBMJ (Online)\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e358\u003c/em\u003e, j4008\u0026ndash;j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Sink, A. (2018). \u003cem\u003eThe role of stereotype content in facilitating positive mediated intergroup contact: An examination of perceptions of gay, lesbian, and transgender television characters\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 10936848) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Sink, A., Mastro, D., \u0026amp; Dragojevic, M. (2018). Competent or warm? A stereotype content model approach to understanding perceptions of masculine and effeminate gay television characters. \u003cem\u003eJournalism \u0026amp; Mass Communication Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(3), 588\u0026ndash;606. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699017706483\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Steffens, M. C., Niedlich, C., Beschorner, R., \u0026amp; K\u0026ouml;hler, M. C. (2018). Do positive and negative stereotypes of gay and heterosexual men affect job-related impressions?. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(9\u0026ndash;10), 548\u0026ndash;564. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0963-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Strinić, A., Carlsson, M., \u0026amp; Agerstr\u0026ouml;m, J. (2021). Multiple-group membership: warmth and competence perceptions in the workplace. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business and Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(5), 903\u0026ndash;920. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-020-09713-4\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* TenBrook, E. M. (2019). \u003cem\u003eThe acronym\u0026rsquo;s forgotten letter: Beliefs about transgender men and women \u003c/em\u003e(Publication No. 10981987) [Doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University]. ProQuest Dissertations \u0026amp; Theses.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Turnalar-\u0026Ccedil;etinkaya, N., \u0026amp; İşia\u0026ccedil;ık, S. (2024). An intersectionality perspective of organizational stereotypes and interpersonal dynamics. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(36), 28710\u0026ndash;28727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-024-06503-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e* Vaughn, A. A., Teeters, S. A., Sadler, M. S., \u0026amp; Cronan, S. B. (2017). Stereotypes, emotions, and behaviours toward lesbians, gay men, bisexual women, and bisexual men. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e64\u003c/em\u003e(13), 1890\u0026ndash;1911. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1273718\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZamboni, B. D., \u0026amp; Crawford, I. (2007). Minority stress and sexual problems among African-American gay and bisexual men. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 569\u0026ndash;578. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9081-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConcepts and Search Terms for Database Screening\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"100%\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcept 1:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStereotype Content Model\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConcept 2:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLGBTQIA+\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(\u0026ldquo;Stereotype* N2 Content\u0026rdquo;) OR SCM OR (warm* AND competen*) OR (agen* AND communion)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 70px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(LGB* OR lesbian* OR gay* OR bisexual* OR queer OR pansexual* OR demisexual* OR asexual* OR aromantic* OR homosexual* OR \u0026lsquo;men who have sex with men\u0026rsquo; OR MSM OR \u0026lsquo;women who have sex with women\u0026rsquo; OR WSM OR \u0026lsquo;sexual minorit*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexual fluidity\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexually fluid\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;non-heterosexual\u0026rsquo; OR GLB* OR \u0026lsquo;mostly heterosexual\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexually diverse\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexual diversity\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexual orientation\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexual preference*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;same sex attract*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;same-sex attract*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexual identit*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;sexuality identit*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;same gender attract*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;same-gender attract*\u0026rsquo; OR transgend* OR transsex* OR \u0026lsquo;assigned female at birth\u0026rsquo; OR AFAB OR \u0026lsquo;assigned male at birth\u0026rsquo; OR AMAB OR \u0026lsquo;male assigned at birth\u0026rsquo; OR MAAB OR \u0026lsquo;female assigned at birth\u0026rsquo; OR FAAB OR transma* OR transmen OR transfem* OR transwo* OR transman OR transmen OR transmale OR transmasc* OR transwom?n* OR transfem* OR transperson OR transpeople OR trans-* OR \u0026lsquo;gender diverse\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;gender varian*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;nonbinary\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;non-binary\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;gender nonconform*\u0026rsquo; OR \u0026lsquo;gender non-conform*\u0026rsquo; OR genderqueer OR gender-queer OR \u0026lsquo;gender fluid\u0026rsquo; OR bigender OR bi-gender OR \u0026lsquo;third gender\u0026rsquo; OR agender OR intersex OR \u0026ldquo;sex characteristic*\u0026rdquo;)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. Search terms were occasionally modified to comply with differences between databases. For instance, terms with commas around them were replaced with quotation marks for Web of Science, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, Scopus. Search term \u0026lsquo;trans-*\u0026rsquo; was replaced with \u0026ldquo;trans\u0026rdquo; for ProQuest Psychology Database and ProQuest Academic. Search terms for the LGBTQIA+ concept were taken from *BLINDED FOR REVIEW*.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCharacteristics of Studies Included in the Systematic Literature Review\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"1058\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"8\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 346px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSample Characteristics\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"6\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 495px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy Results\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAuthor (year)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCountry\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAge: \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e(\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSexuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSCM measure\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 108px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTarget Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMajor Findings\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerators\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eQA\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;( /24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsbrock (2010)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e82 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23 (2.77)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;45 (55%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;33 (40%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUnknown:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;4 (5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 3-items per dimension, 5-point scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM; LW; HM; HW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM rated on midpoint for competence and warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; HM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026lt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; GM, HM, HW\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBall et al., (2025)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e212 part-time employees\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41.43 (13.32)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;108 (51%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;104 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e89.2% heterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 7-point scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWhite and black LW; HW job applicants presented as warm, neutral, competent or rather competent.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhite and black LW \u0026lt; white and black HW for competent conditions, but no differences when manipulated as warm\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eWhite LW \u0026gt; white and black HW\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTarget race\u003c/em\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .021, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .025) and interaction between race and sexual orientation (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .016, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .027)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBazaz\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2016)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUndergraduate students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e58\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18-22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;33 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;44 (57%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 9-items per dimension, 5-point scale and 9-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM; LW; professor, athlete, Asian, African and Hispanic American, political, businesswoman, fraternity, blind, welfare, sorority, cheerleader HM \u0026amp; HW comparison groups across baseline, posttest and delay.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, professor and blind HM \u0026amp; HW \u0026gt; LW and other HM and HW groups in baseline, delay and posttest\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; athlete, Asian, African and Hispanic American HM and HW at baseline and posttest\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; HM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HM and HW groups; however, often rated similarly\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShared subjective experience moderated warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001) but not competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .390) alongside gender (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ewarm\u003c/sub\u003e = .030; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ecomp\u003c/sub\u003e = .460) and existential isolation (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ewarm\u003c/sub\u003e = .140; \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003ecomp\u003c/sub\u003e = .270)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBrambilla et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2011)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eItaly\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21.99 (3.18)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;37 (53%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;33 (47%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLW stereotypes (feminine, butch, outed and closeted).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeminine and outed LW \u0026gt; butch and closeted\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeminine LW = Outed LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButch LW \u0026lt; feminine, closeted and outed LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eButch LW \u0026gt; outed, closeted and \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; feminine LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCloseted LW \u0026lt; outed, butch and feminine LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTarget group\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of stereotype warmth and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .30)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eChoubak \u0026amp; Safdar\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCanada\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e232\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,105\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21 (3.13)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;144 (62%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;88 (38%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;630 (57%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;88 (42%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;9 (1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual: 228 (98%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther: 88 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual: 1,066 (96%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther: 39 (4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 6-point scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBritish, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM; HW; GM; LW immigrants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIranian LW \u0026lt; British, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM, HW, GM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNigerian LW \u0026amp; Chinese GM = Nigerian, British \u0026amp; Iranian GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eIranian LW \u0026lt; British, Chinese, Nigerian and Iranian HM, HW, GM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTarget ethnicity\u003c/em\u003e: Differences were found based on ethnicity, but no interaction statistics reported\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eClausell\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2005)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;N.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e92% heterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 3-items for warmth, 4-items for competence, 5-point scales.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCrossdresser, leather, feminine, flamboyant, activist, closeted, straight-acting, hypermasculine, artistic and body-conscious GM.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM rated on midpoint for warmth and competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLeather GW rated lowest of all target groups\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeminine GM = Flamboyant GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFlamboyant rated warmest of all target groups\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eCrossdressing GM rated lowest of all target groups\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeminine GM = Flamboyant GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHypermasculine rated most competent of all target groups\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived status\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerceived competition\u003c/em\u003e: No significant moderation of warmth\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender roles\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh competence groups were allegedly masculine, and high warmth were allegedly feminine\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeng\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e368\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e476\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e417\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.88 (10.53)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35.45 (11.88)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;210 (57%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;157 (43%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;235 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;241 (51%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;216 (52%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;201 (48%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 3-items per dimension, 7-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM; LW with masculine, feminine and valence presentations.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; HM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; LW, feminine HW \u0026amp; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eValence\u003c/em\u003e: Significant moderator of warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .092, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .014) and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .079, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .016)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender\u003c/em\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .183) and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .070)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGinn et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e307\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.9 (13.39)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 6-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLW; HW with intellectual disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLW rated on midpoint for warmth and competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGungor\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2011)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e259 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;122 (47%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;140 (53%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM perceived by female, male, Christians and non-Christians.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM rated on midpoint for warmth and competence\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM perceived by Christians \u0026gt; female, male and non-Christians\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM perceived by female \u0026gt; Christian, male and non-Christians\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eControllability\u003c/em\u003e: Significant moderator of warmth and competence (p \u0026lt; .05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeiserman\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2023)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1,572\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.2 (16.6)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;819 (52%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;753 (48%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 9-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM; LW; BM; BW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW, BM, BW \u0026lt; HM, HW for warmth and competence\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; LW, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBM \u0026asymp; BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW = BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW, BW \u0026gt; BM, GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eJacques et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e333\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;171 (51%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;162 (49%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 7-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; NB.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB \u0026lt; HM, HW for warmth and competence\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB rated on midpoint for warmth and competence\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e21\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKlysing et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e824\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.29 (13.54)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;509 (61.77%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;280 (33.98%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;13 (1.58%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNR:\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;22 (2.67%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual: 638 (77.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHomosexual: 25 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;87 (10.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eAsexual:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;9 (1.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;13 (1.6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDNR:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;58 (7%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunion (warmth) \u0026amp; agency (competence): 13-items for warmth, 12-items for competence, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM; GW; BM; BW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; HM, LW, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026lt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HW, GM, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMacoukji\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2014)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e333\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;145 (48%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;153 (46%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;18 (6%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunion (warmth, 4 items) \u0026amp; agency (competence, 6 items): 100-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM: LW bosses.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026gt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026lt; HM, HW, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHM \u0026gt; HW, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGender\u003c/em\u003e: Moderator of warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .480) and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .420)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMcCarty \u0026amp; Burt\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e404\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e415\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e489\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.57 (11.96)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e38.01 (13.12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.3 (12.36)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;238 (59%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;156 (39%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;7 (2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;264 (64%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;151 (36%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;283 (58%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;206 (42%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items for warmth, 3- items for competence, 7-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; NB; TG.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB, TG \u0026gt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB, TG \u0026lt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB \u0026gt; TG\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eNB, TG \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTG \u0026gt; NB\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMize \u0026amp; Manago\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e157 undergraduate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003estudents\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e192\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;106 (68%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;51 (32%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;87 (45%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;105 (55%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items for warmth, 5- items for competence, 7-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM: LW; BM; BW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHM \u0026lt; GM, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW = HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHW \u0026gt; GM, BM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHM \u0026gt; HW, GM, LW, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HW, GM, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStereotypes\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative stereotypes for bimen and women (immature, decisive, promiscuous) explained warmth and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026lt; .05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNiedlich et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e314\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e413\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e26.12 (9.87)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e28.86 (10.24)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;215 (68%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;99 (32%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;270 (64.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;148 (35.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;1 (0.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual: 323 (77%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian or gay men: 13 (3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lsquo;In-between\u0026rsquo;: 84 (20%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunion (warmth) \u0026amp; agency (competence): 4-items per dimension, 6-point scale.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; GM; LW; BM with non-individualising and individualising information.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026gt; HM, HW, BM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBM \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, BM = HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026gt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIndividualising information\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .04, \u0026eta;\u003csub\u003ep\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .01) and competence interacting with sexuality and gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShin\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2022)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e567 managers\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e39.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale: 335 (59.1%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale: 230 (40.5%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther: 2 (0.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 6-items per dimension, 7-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLGBTQ+; HW ex-offender job applicants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eHW \u0026gt; LGBTQ+ for warmth and competence\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdmiration and pity:\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificantly different for groups based on warmth and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSink et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e169 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;138 (82%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;37 (22%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 6-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM masculine and feminine portrayals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eFeminine GM \u0026gt; Masculine GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eMasculine GM \u0026gt; Feminine GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePositivity\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of warmth and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSink,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e125 students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e238 students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e200 students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStudy 1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.72\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 1\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;95 (76%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;30 (24%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 2\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;175 (74%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;63 (26%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStudy 3\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;166 (83%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;34 (17%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM; LW; TG; TW groups, characters and typical or atypical presentations measured before and after exposure.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; LW, TG, TW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTG, TW = LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM characters = LW, TW characters\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026gt; TG pre-exposure\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026gt; TW typical presentations\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTypicality\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of warmth and competence (p \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-post exposure:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant moderator of warmth and competence (p \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSteffens et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGermany\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e255 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25 (12)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;148 (58%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;107 (42%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCommunion (warmth, 4 items) \u0026amp; agency (competence, 5 items): 6-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; GM work applicants.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM = HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSuitability\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant mediator for warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le; .20) but not competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le; .80)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStrinić et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2021)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSweden\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e128 employers involved in hiring\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e41 (12.49)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;87 (68%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;41 (32%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eN.R.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eArab and Swedish HM; HW; GM; LW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwedish GM \u0026gt; HM, LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArab GM, LW \u0026gt; HW, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwedish GM \u0026gt; Arab GM, Arab and Swedish LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwedish GM, LW \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArab LW \u0026gt; HW, HM, GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eSwedish GM \u0026gt; Arab GM, Arab and Swedish LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eArab LW = Swedish LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthnicity\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWas a significant moderator for warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) but not competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .275)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTenBrook\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2020)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e412 undergraduate students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.17 (2.58)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;270 (66%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;142 (34%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: Items identified to relate to each group out of 64 in total, 7-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHM; HW; TM; TW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTM \u0026gt; TW, HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTW \u0026gt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTM \u0026gt; TW, HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTW \u0026gt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant main effects of valence and gender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ps \u0026lt; .001)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurnalar-\u0026Ccedil;etinkaya \u0026amp; İşia\u0026ccedil;ık\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2024)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurkey\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e451 university students\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23.06 (2.5)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFemale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;371 (82%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMale:\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;80 (18%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual: 155 (34.3%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHomosexual: 294 (65.2%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOther: 2 (0.4%)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 4-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTurkish and Kurdish HM; HW; GM; LW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurkish GM \u0026lt; Turkish HM, Kurdish GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKurdish GM \u0026lt; HM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurkish LW = Kurdish LW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM, LW \u0026lt; HM, HW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eTurkish LW \u0026gt; Turkish GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eKurdish LW \u0026gt; Kurdish GM\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthnicity:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003eMain effects on warmth (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .22) and competence (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .48)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVaughn et al.,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(2017)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUSA\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e176 with LGBTQIA+ friends\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.37\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 95px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCisgender\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHeterosexual\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"2\" valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 92px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eW\u0026amp;C: 2-items per dimension, 5-point scale.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGM; LW; BM; BW.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWarmth\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eGM \u0026gt; LW, BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW \u0026lt; BM, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCompetence\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eLW = BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003eBM \u0026lt; GM, LW, BW\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003c/ul\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdmiration\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant mediation for warmth and competence (\u003cem\u003epI\u003c/em\u003e \u0026le;.05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnvy\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant mediation for W\u0026amp;C (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es \u0026le; .05)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 73px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 72px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 93px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 68px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 1px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 94px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 89px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 15px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 91px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 0px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 107px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 190px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 106px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd style=\"width: 57px;\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e SCM = stereotype content model; W\u0026amp;C = warmth and competence; HM = heterosexual men; HW = heterosexual women; GM = gay men; LW = lesbian women; BM = bisexual men; BW = bisexual women; NB = non-binary; TG = transgender groups; TM = transgender men; TW = transgender women; QA = quality assessment; N.R. = not reported. DNR = did not respond.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSummary of Studies included in the Systematic Review that reported Differences in Warmth and Competence between LGBTQIA+ Identities\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"973\"\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup comparisons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup comparisons\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; lesbian women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; lesbian women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e39\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; lesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e77%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; lesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = lesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = lesbian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; lesbian\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; lesbian\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e56%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; bisexual men\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; bisexual men\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e75%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = bisexual men\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.5%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; trans women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGay men \u0026ndash; trans women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e70%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay = trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e10%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGay \u0026lt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e60%\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026lt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e50%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian = bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; bisexual men\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; bisexual men\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026lt; bisexual men\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e80%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; trans women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; trans women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lesbian \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;Lesbian \u0026lt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e67%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; trans (binary)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLesbian women \u0026ndash; trans (binary)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; trans (binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e100%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026gt; trans (binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e86%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLesbian \u0026lt; trans (binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBisexual men \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBisexual men \u0026ndash; bisexual women\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual men \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual men \u0026gt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual men = bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual men \u0026lt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBisexual men \u0026lt; bisexual women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e83%\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiverse gender comparisons\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDiverse gender comparisons\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-binary \u0026gt; trans (binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNon-binary \u0026gt; trans (binary)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 264px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrans men \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 38px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 180px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 273px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTrans men \u0026gt; trans women\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 29px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 189px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cem\u003ek\u003c/em\u003e = number of ratings; * = studies with more than one target rating. All studies that directly compared LGBTQIA+ target groups within the narrative synthesis are included in this table except for those that measured a single LGBTQIA+ target group (e.g., Clausell, 2005; Gungor, 2011; Brambilla et al., 2011; Ball et al., 2025; Shin, 2022) and thus did not provide comparisons, or provided ratings for an aggregated LGBTQIA+ group rather than each identity (e.g., Choubak \u0026amp; Safdar, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Stereotype Content Model, Warmth, Competence, LGBTQIA+, Social perception","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"The Stereotype Content Model (SCM) proposes that social groups are evaluated along the dimensions of perceived warmth and competence. This systematic review synthesised quantitative research applying the SCM to LGBTQIA+ target groups and examined whether perceptions of warmth and competence varied across identities. Searches of major health, psychology, and multidisciplinary databases identified 34 reports across 24 studies (n = 11,876). Findings were synthesised narratively using reported mean ratings of warmth and competence. Warmth and competence evaluations largely reproduced gendered stereotype patterns. Gay men were rated higher on warmth than competence, whereas straight men were rated higher on competence than warmth, with lesbian women showing a parallel reversal relative to straight women. Notably, trans groups were typically positioned lowest on both dimensions, indicating pronounced evaluative disparities within LGBTQIA+ populations. Interpretation of findings is constrained by incomplete reporting and the predominance of female samples. Overall, the review identifies distinct stereotype profiles across LGBTQIA+ identities while highlighting substantial gaps in research on trans, queer, intersex, and asexual groups.","manuscriptTitle":"Warmth and Competence Perceptions of LGBTQIA+ Groups: A Systematic Review Using the Stereotype Content Model","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-05-18 14:28:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8997304/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"a81ef152-a5c2-4c1a-b8f1-2da34f88292e","owner":[],"postedDate":"May 18th, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"3","date":"2026-05-07T18:59:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-05-18T14:28:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-05-18 14:28:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8997304","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8997304","identity":"rs-8997304","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}