Skip to content
Frontiers
Search

Original Research

Frontiers in Social Psychology ·

Volume 3 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/frsps.2025.1567720

Hate the sin, not the sinner: the differential effects of prejudice and system-justifying beliefs on subjective well-being

  • Alexandra Suppes1*corresponding author
  • Maria Laura Bettinsoli2
  • Jaime L. Napier1
  1. 1Department of Psychology, New York University Abu Dhabi, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
  2. 2Departments of Developmental and Social Psychology (DPSS) and Political Science, Law and International Studies (SPGI), University of Padova, Padua, Italy
Article metrics0 viewsView details
PDFCiteMetrics

Abstract

While system-legitimizing beliefs (e.g., “hating the sin”) and prejudice (e.g., “hating the sinner”) are typically associated with one another, research has shown that these two constructs differentially relate to subjective wellbeing. Drawing from research on system justification theory and prejudice, this paper examines attitudes toward gender and sexual minorities (GSMs) across 22 countries, focusing on the subjective wellbeing implications of the “hate the sin, not the sinner” doctrine. Data from 13,973 respondents across 22 countries were collected through IPSOS's Global Advisory Panel in December 2018. Participants rated their feelings toward four GSM groups (gay men, lesbian women, transgender men, transgender women) and endorsed system-legitimizing beliefs about these groups (threat to society, committing a sin). Subjective wellbeing was assessed through self-reported happiness and health. Social conservatism and demographic variables (age, gender, education, income, religiosity) were included as covariates. Prejudice toward GSMs was linked to worse subjective wellbeing. In contrast, holding system-legitimizing beliefs that reinforce the heteronormative status quo was associated with better subjective wellbeing. This positive association between system-legitimizing beliefs and wellbeing was explained by a more general tendency toward social conservatism. Specifically, individuals who adopt the “hate the sin, not the sinner” stance experience better wellbeing. This study sheds light on how and why two related constructs—system justification and prejudice—may differentially impact people's subjective wellbeing, demonstrating that endorsing status quo beliefs can buffer wellbeing even when distinct from explicit prejudice.

Keywords

Introduction

“Cum dilectione hominum et odio vitiorum/With love for the persons and hatred for their vices.”

Augustine of Hippo Saint, 424/2018

“Hate the sin and not the sinner is a precept which though easy enough to understand is rarely practiced, and that is why the poison of hatred spreads in the world.”

Gandhi (1929)/(1993).

Both St. Augustine and Gandhi capture a central tension in moral thought: the separation of moral judgment from interpersonal attitudes. While Augustine advocates for this separation, Gandhi suggests its practical difficulty. In this paper, we explore reactions to gender and sexual minorities—specifically, lesbian women, gay men, and transgender people—through two psychological lenses. First, system-legitimizing beliefs, or how individuals support societal norms and inequalities by rationalizing the low status of gender and sexual minority (GSM) individuals (such as whether they “hate the sin”), and second, prejudice, or how positively or negatively people feel toward GSM (such as whether they “hate the sinner”). Across 22 countries, our findings reveal two key outcomes: (1) system-legitimatizing beliefs about GSM often correspond to anti-GSM prejudice—i.e., those who hate the sin also tend to hate the sinner; and yet (2) there are psychological benefits associated with anti-GSM beliefs, on the one hand, and being less prejudice toward GSM, on the other. Surprisingly, both being less prejudice and holding anti-GSM beliefs are associated with better subjective wellbeing for the individual holding these views.

We draw on two bodies of research to explain the apparently contrasting mechanisms. First, we draw on research in system justification theory to show why holding system-legitimizing beliefs about gender and sexual minorities may be associated with positive subjective wellbeing. Second, we turn to research on prejudice to explain why greater anti-GSM prejudice may be associated with worse subjective wellbeing. Together, these two bodies of research allow us to explore how anti-GSM prejudice and anti-GSM beliefs function independently in shaping subjective wellbeing for the perceivers.

System justification theory and the palliative effect of “hating the sin”

According to system justification theory, people are motivated to believe that extant inequalities between people and social groups are fair and legitimate. This is because such beliefs, even if wrong, provide believers with a sense of order, meaning and certainty (Jost, 2019; Jost and Banaji, 1994). In turn, these beliefs have been shown to serve a palliative function—that is, holding system-legitimizing beliefs is associated with better physical and psychological wellbeing (for review see Napier et al., 2020a). Indeed, research has shown that conservatives are happier than liberals, and this ideological gap in subjective wellbeing is explained by conservatives' relatively higher acceptance of societal inequality compared to liberals (Napier and Jost, 2008). Research on the palliative effect has shown that holding more system-legitimizing beliefs that explain and rationalize the societal position of low-status groups is associated with better physical and psychological wellbeing for both low- and high-status group members (e.g., Bahamondes et al., 2019; Napier et al., 2020b; Suppes et al., 2019). This work suggests that “hating the sin”—or holding system-legitimizing, heteronormative cognitive evaluations about why people are gender or sexual minorities (or what threats GSM individuals pose) can serve a palliative function by allowing for a perception that the world—and especially the lower status that sexual and gender minorities hold in it—is just.

Prejudice

While the majority of research on the health and wellbeing consequences of prejudice has rightly focused on targets of prejudice, a small body of research has examined the association between prejudice and subjective wellbeing among high status group members. This work consistently finds that prejudice toward low-status groups is associated with worse physical and subjective wellbeing (Dinh et al., 2014; Garriott et al., 2008; Hightower, 1997; Pettigrew, 1981). One proposition for this is that racism is an indicator of maladjustment, and this explains why racist people have relatively worse mental health, including lower subjective wellbeing (Pettigrew, 1981; Prati, 2024).

Other work suggests that prejudice should negatively affect subjective wellbeing by focusing on how it manifests in intergroup interactions, especially in terms of anxiety. For instance, prejudiced individuals are known to experience heightened anxiety when interacting with the targets of their prejudice, compared to unprejudiced individuals (e.g., Dovidio et al., 2002; Gaertner and Dovidio, 2005). These elevated rates of anxiety take their toll in the long run on the health of prejudiced individuals. For example, when compared to those with less racial prejudice, White participants with higher implicit prejudice showed elevated rates of the stress hormone cortisol during a cross-race interaction (Page-Gould et al., 2008), which has been long linked to poor health (Staufenbiel et al., 2013). These high-stress interactions likely add up over time with potentially meaningful long-term consequences in health and wellbeing. An analysis of a nationally-representative sample of Americans found that both individual and community-level racism was associated with elevated mortality risks for both White and Black respondents (Lee et al., 2015), suggesting that prejudice comes at the expense of wellbeing for both the person and the group.

Current research

Taken together, it appears as though two seemingly related constructs—beliefs that legitimize groups relatively low status, on the one hand, and prejudice toward those low status group members, on the other hand—have differential effects on subjective wellbeing. More specifically, in terms of GSM, those who legitimize the relatively low status of members of GSM groups should enjoy better physical and psychological wellbeing compared to those whose beliefs challenge the status quo, whereas those who harbor prejudice toward members of the GSM community should have worse wellbeing compared to those who feel positively toward this group.

Here, we propose a model that bridges prejudiced feelings (“hate the sinner”) and the cognitive beliefs (“hate the sin”) routes when thinking about GSM to explain how system-justifying beliefs and prejudice differentially related to subjective wellbeing. Specifically, if system-justifying beliefs that allow for the perception that a fair and just world are associated with higher subjective wellbeing, so too should beliefs that justify GSM low status. At the same time, insofar as prejudice is negatively associated with wellbeing, those who eschew prejudice toward GSM should be better off compared to those who do not (e.g., Dinh et al., 2014).

A critical difference between these two mechanisms is that they are differently motivated. According to system justification theory, better subjective wellbeing will be associated with “hating the sin” in part because it is a system-legitimizing ideology about GSM that is palliative. That is, beliefs that frame existing inequalities and hardships faced by GSM as justified make the heteronormative status quo seem fair and legitimate. Therefore, the association between system-supporting beliefs about GSM and subjective wellbeing should be explained by a more general tendency to perceive other existing inequalities as fair. Put another way, those who hold relatively high (vs. low) levels of system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM will also hold conservative beliefs that rationalize and maintain other existing social hierarchies, and resist change toward more equality more generally (Jost et al., 2009) and this conservativism will be associated with better wellbeing (Napier and Jost, 2008; Napier et al., 2020a). On the other hand, the association between prejudice (e.g., holding negative affect) and subjective wellbeing should not necessarily be explained by conservative beliefs.

We make four key predictions (see Figure 1):

  • There will be a positive association between anti-GSM system legitimizing beliefs and subjective wellbeing.
  • There will be a negative association between anti-GSM prejudice and subjective wellbeing.
  • The association between anti-GSM system-legitimizing beliefs and subjective wellbeing will be mediated by social conservatism, in so far as social conservatism is a reflection of acceptance of societal inequality.
  • Whereas, the association between anti-GSM prejudice and subjective wellbeing will not be mediated by social conservatism.
Proposed model explaining the differential effects of anti-GSM prejudice and system legitimizing beliefs on subjective wellbeing. Top of the model represents the “hate the sinner” path toward wellbeing; bottom of the model represents the “hate the sin” path toward wellbeing.
Figure 1. Proposed model explaining the differential effects of anti-GSM prejudice and system legitimizing beliefs on subjective wellbeing. Top of the model represents the “hate the sinner” path toward wellbeing; bottom of the model represents the “hate the sin” path toward wellbeing.

Method

Participants

The variables examined here were part of a larger survey, which has been used in previous research (see Bettinsoli et al., 2020; Napier, 2024, 2025; Napier et al., 2020b). Data from respondents residing in 22 different countries (Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Peru, Poland, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, Türkiye, USA) was collected through IPSOS, a marketing company that runs a Global Advisory Panel every month. Samples are representative of the national population, except for those from countries with lower internet penetration (Brazil, India, Mexico, Peru, Russia, South Africa, and Türkiye). In these cases, the respondents tend to be more urban, educated, and have higher income than the average citizen (for more detail on sample collection, see Ipsos, 2018). According to IPSOS, their online polls have Bayesian credibility intervals of +/−3.1% percentage points for N~ = 1,000 and 4.5% of N~ = 500 (see Ipsos, 2021). Respondents with all available data were used in the analysis, resulting in a sample of 13,973. Demographics for each country can be found in Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic and descriptive statistics among focal variables, by country.

CountryFemaleAgeSubjective wellbeingAnti-GSM prejudice**a**Anti-GSM beliefs
*N*%*M**SD**M**SD**M**SD**M**SD*
Argentina42239.336.5712.283.660.834.362.223.172.17
Australia87248.345.5312.553.280.774.432.003.182.19
Belgium37853.243.4711.583.420.804.231.682.631.93
Brazil86256.637.8112.763.660.884.762.474.062.45
Canada83250.445.5811.563.420.754.341.862.772.04
France83656.143.4912.323.550.784.551.732.912.05
Germany81147.543.5412.593.400.804.641.692.952.11
Hungary41142.343.4613.583.200.775.881.653.362.17
India52446.636.0112.553.780.804.512.064.712.36
Italy77044.043.1012.763.090.754.551.812.982.09
Japan94345.143.6812.243.010.854.851.163.581.65
Mexico45945.134.9611.683.830.774.612.113.602.13
Poland42348.042.4912.573.460.735.041.993.882.14
Russia46049.841.9912.153.170.756.881.705.242.33
South Africa58156.637.9412.913.510.825.302.274.312.39
South Korea49542.242.9010.863.060.815.671.544.311.90
Spain80747.041.3511.833.640.783.931.832.501.99
Sweden38442.447.0011.983.210.754.231.962.361.88
Türkiye47849.033.1710.073.290.865.502.374.602.40
Great Britain85446.043.2512.443.340.804.271.842.962.08
USA97349.143.7313.413.620.794.742.243.692.39
Peru44842.431.4310.193.800.815.562.004.012.13
Total14,02348.141.5312.843.420.834.772.023.472.25

aSummary reflects reverse coding of items, so higher values represent greater anti-GSM prejudice.

Procedure

The following procedure, including IPSOS's Global Advisory Panel recruitment procedure, was approved by the New York University Abu Dhabi Institutional Review Board.

IPSOS panelists are referred through various online suppliers and received an invitation to take a survey, which included our items. The questions were written in English by the research team and translated by professional translators from IPSOS. IPSOS does not publicly share their compensation rate; they served as our vendor, and we paid them directly. Prior to the commencement of our survey, panelists provided informed consent to complete our items. All data were collected over 2 weeks in December, 2018.

Measures

Subjective wellbeing

The survey assessed subjective wellbeing with only two items: Participants were asked to report how happy, and how healthy they were these days on a scale from 1 to 5 (range across each country for happy was M = 3.90 to 2.96, SD = 0.88 to 1.06; for healthy was M = 3.79 to 3.05, SD = 0.82 to 0.98). The overall correlation between the two measures of subjective wellbeing was r = 0.525 (country range r = 0.368 to 0.563). We computed the mean of these two items to use as our measure of subjective wellbeing, which is summarized by country in Table 1. No other items were assessed in this survey about subjective wellbeing or mental health.

Anti-GSM prejudice

Participants were asked to report their feelings toward gender and sexual minorities. To avoid culturally specific association with the term “gay” or “transgender”, participants were asked to rate how they feel toward four groups, on a scale from 1 (“extremely negative”) to 9 (“extremely positive”). Ratings were reverse coded so that higher values reflect greater prejudice. For gay men and lesbian women, the description was, “a man/women who is romantically or sexually attracted to other men/women”) and for transgender men and women the description was, “Someone who was considered male/female at birth who feels they are actually female/male and so dresses and lives as a woman/man.” While lesbian women were rated more positive than gay men across all countries (Bettinsoli et al., 2020), the correlation between the two ratings was high r = 0.838 (country range r = 0.551 to 0.893). Similarly, the correlation between the two rating for transgender men and women was high r = 0.901 (country range r = 0.761 to 0.951). To measure anti-GSM prejudice, we computed the average of the four responses (gay men, gay women, transgender men, transgender women, range of Cronbach's α = 0.88 to 0.96). A country level descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1.

System legitimizing beliefs

Participants were asked to rate their agreement on a scale that ranged from 1 to 9 toward two beliefs about gay men and lesbian women, and the same two beliefs toward transgender men and women (where targets were described using the descriptions above). The statements were: “Is a threat to society;” “Is committing a sin;”. Beliefs about gay men and lesbian women and transgender men and women formed a reliable measure in all 22 countries (Cronbach's α = 0.86 to 0.94). Thus, we computed a score of the average system-legitimizing beliefs toward gay men, lesbian women, transgender men, and transgender women. Country level descriptive statistics can be found in Table 1.

Conservatism

Participants responded to the question, “These days, how would you rate yourself on the following? Socially conservative” on a 5-point scale, with a range across each country of M = 3.36 to 2.55, SD = 0.86 to 1.26. General conservatism, economic conservatism, and political orientation were not measured in this survey. We address the use of a proxy measure as a limitation in our discussion.

Adjustment variables

In addition to our focal variables, we included adjustments for demographic characteristics that have been shown to relate to sexual prejudice and subjective wellbeing in previous work (Suppes et al., 2019; Bahamondes et al., 2019), including age, gender (where 1 = female; 0 = male), education and income (both measured on a 3-point scale), and religiosity (measured on a 5-point scale). IPSOS does not collect data on participants' race/ethnicity. Data on participants' marital status was only available in twelve (of the 22) countries, and thus we did not include this in the models. No other covariates were considered for this paper. We ran all models with adjustments variables (Step 1a and Step 2a) and without adjustment variables (Step 1b and Step 2b). to ensure our findings were not an artifact of overcorrection. All continuous individual-level variables were grand-mean centered.

Country-level tolerance

We also included a country-level measure of tolerance toward sexual minorities (taken from Henry and Wetherell, 2017), which captures each country's level of recognition of rights for sexual minorities, where 0 = complete absence of rights and 1 = complete recognition of rights.

Results

Several bivariate correlations among the focal variables, summarized in Table 2, are worth noting. As expected, anti-GSM prejudice showed a significant positive correlation with system-legitimizing beliefs toward GSM (r = 0.419, p < 0.001; see Figure 2). As predicted, while these are positively correlated, they had differential associations with our dependent variable, subjective wellbeing: system-legitimizing beliefs were positively correlated (r = 0.106, p < 0.001), whereas anti-GSM prejudice was negatively correlated with subjective wellbeing (r = −0.041, p < 0.001).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for focal variables.

Focal variable**M (SD)**1.2.3.
1. SWB3.42 (0.83)
2. Anti-GSM beliefs3.47 (2.25)0.11
3. Anti-GSM prejudice4.77 (2.02)−0.040.42
4. Social conservatism2.89 (1.09)0.200.380.25

All correlations, p < 0.001.

Anti Gender and Sexual Minority Prejudice and Beliefs, by Country. Anti-GSM beliefs and prejudice were rated on a 1–9 scale. High values indicate greater levels of anti-GSM prejudice or beliefs. Countries are sorted by lowest level of anti-GSM prejudice.
Figure 2. Anti Gender and Sexual Minority Prejudice and Beliefs, by Country. Anti-GSM beliefs and prejudice were rated on a 1–9 scale. High values indicate greater levels of anti-GSM prejudice or beliefs. Countries are sorted by lowest level of anti-GSM prejudice.

To examine the role of beliefs and prejudice toward GSM on subjective wellbeing, we conducted a multilevel model (MLM), with respondents nested within countries which allows for random variation on each country's intercept (Raudenbush and Bryk, 2002). The MLM was conducted in two steps, predicting respondents' subjective wellbeing as a function of their system-legitimizing beliefs about, and prejudice toward, GSM. In Step 1a, we included anti-GSM prejudice and system-legitimizing beliefs, adjusting for demographic variables (age, income, education, and religiosity) on the individual-level, and LGBT rights on the country-level. In Step 2a, we added our proposed mediator: social conservatism. All continuous individual-level variables were grand-mean centered. The same statistical models were run without covariates, labeled Step 1b and Step 2b. Results for all model steps are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Simple slope coefficients (and standard errors) for a two-step multilevel model (with and without covariates), with respondents nested in country, predicting subjective wellbeing by anti-gay prejudice, and system-legitimizing beliefs.

Step 1aStep2aStep 1bStep 2b
*b (SE)**p**b (SE)**p**b (SE)**p**b (SE)**p*
Individual fixed effects
Intercept3.36 (0.04)0.0003.36 (0.04)0.0003.43 (0.05)0.0003.43 (0.05)0.000
Female−0.01 (0.01)0.4460.00 (0.01)0.960
Age−0.01 (0.00)0.000−0.01 (0.00)0.000
Religious0.16 (0.01)0.0000.13 (0.01)0.000
Education0.06 (0.01)0.0000.06 (0.01)0.000
Income0.22 (0.01)0.0000.21 (0.01)0.000
Anti-GSM beliefs0.02 (0.00)0.0000.01 (0.00)0.0220.05 (0.00)0.0000.03 (0.00)0.000
Anti-GSM prejudice−0.03 (0.00)0.000−0.04 (0.00)0.000−0.03 (0.00)0.000−0.04 (0.00)0.000
Individual level mediator
Social conservatism0.11 (0.01)0.0000.16 (0.01)0.000
Country level fixed effects
LGB rights index0.48 (0.17)0.0090.41 (0.17)0.0220.317 (0.21)0.1380.23 (0.21)0.275
Random effects
Residuals0.57 (0.01)0.0000.56 (0.00)0.0000.62 (0.01)0.0000.60 (0.01)0.000
Country0.03 (0.00)0.0020.03 (0.00)0.0020.05 (0.02)0.0020.05 (0.02)0.002

Continuous variables are grand mean centered.

As shown in Step 1a of Table 3, we found that both anti-GSM system-legitimizing beliefs and prejudice independently predicted subjective wellbeing. Greater system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM was associated with greater subjective wellbeing, b = 0.023, SE = 0.003, p < 0.001, 95% CI (0.016, 0.03). At the same time, anti-GSM prejudice was associated with worse subjective wellbeing, b = −0.027, SE = 0.004, p < 0.001, 95% CI (−0.035, −0.0200).

To further investigate the ideological underpinnings of these relationships, we introduced social conservatism as a potential mediator in Step 2a. To account for the nested data structure, we used the MLMed macro for SPSS to test these mediations (Hayes and Rockwood, 2020). In addition to being positively associated with subjective wellbeing in Step 2a, b = 0.113, SE = 0.007, p < 0.001, 95% CI (0.100, 0.126), we find that adding social conservatism partially mediates the relationship between system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM (“hating the sin”) and subjective wellbeing, b = 0.014, SE = 0.001, z = 14.233, p < 0.001, 95% CI (0.012, 0.016). Including social conservatism in Step 2a did not alter the association between anti-GSM prejudice and subjective wellbeing. Finally, results remain consistent if covariates are not included, as shown in Step 1b and Step 2b of Table 3. As with Step 2a, adding social conservatism in Step 2b partially mediated the association between system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM (“hating the sin”) and subjective wellbeing, b = 0.029, SE = 0.001, z = 19.962, p < 0.001, 95% CI (0.026, 0.032).

Discussion

In a large-scale study of respondents in 22 countries, with varying attitudes toward sexual and gender minorities, we find that “hating the sin and not the sinner” is consistent with a palliative function. Specifically, feeling prejudice toward sexual and gender minority individuals (“hating the sinner”) is associated with worse subjective wellbeing, while applying system-legitimizing beliefs that serve to marginalize their status (“hating the sin”), are associated with greater subjective wellbeing.

By looking for ideological underpinnings of this epitaph, we find that social conservatism, which we are using as a proxy for a tendency to perceive the system as fair, partially mediates the association of system-legitimizing beliefs, but not the association of anti-GSM prejudice, with subjective wellbeing. This is consistent with the idea that system-legitimizing beliefs about sexual orientation and gender identity are part of a constellation of ideas that comprise a general tendency to want to support the existing system. On the other hand, the association between greater anti-gay prejudice and worse wellbeing is consistent with research thinking that prejudice can have a negative effect not only on the targets of prejudice, but also on those who harbor the prejudice. This work folds nicely into previous literature reporting that holding prejudicial attitudes has a negative effect on subjective wellbeing and health (Dinh et al., 2014), and work that shows that people who hold system-legitimizing beliefs enjoy a palliative association from those beliefs (Napier et al., 2020a). Taken together, it is likely that the stance to “hate the sin but not the sinner” functions as a justification for discrimination, while allowing a person to maintain a moral self-image.

While there are many strengths to this paper, including a large sample size and representation among non-Western countries, it is worth noting that the effects reported are small. That is, there is a lot happening between the phenomenon our study can captures, which warrants future research. An important point to better understand the role of prejudicial feelings is that there may be substantial variation in how much contact respondents have with gender and sexual minorities. So, for example, if interpersonal and intergroup anxiety is driving the link between higher prejudicial feelings and lower subjective wellbeing, it will be important to understand the threshold at which anxiety-provoking interaction cross over to become positive intergroup contact with gender and sexual minorities (see MacInnis and Page-Gould, 2015). More so, there may be short term “costs” to having infrequent interaction with gender and sexual minorities that one holds prejudicial feelings toward, but long-term advantages, such as lowered prejudice and less social isolation (Spanierman et al., 2009).

Another limitation is that these data are correlational. For example, we hypothesized and found that social conservatism partially mediated the relationship between system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM and subjective wellbeing. Thus, our results are consistent with the proposition that holding system-legitimizing beliefs leads to perceptions of system fairness, which, in turn, promotes subjective wellbeing. These data, however, do not lend themselves to making any claims about the causal pathways. It is also conceivable—and indeed, we would predict— that people who are motivated to justify the system would be more likely to hold system-legitimizing beliefs. Thus, we expect that this relationship goes both ways, such that people who are motivated to see the system as fair tend to hold system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM, and people who hold system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM tend to see the system as fair. Experimental work is needed, however, to illuminate the motivational pathway.

The correlational nature of our data is further limited by our use of social conservatism as a proxy for the tendency to system-justify and perceive existing hierarchies as fair. While the system justification scale is the best measure for assessing perceptions of fairness in existing systems, conservatism is considered an acceptable proxy when this scale is not available (Jost, 2020). We used a measure of social conservatism because these were the available data, but there is reason to believe this approach is appropriate. First, social conservatism correlates moderately with system justification (r = 0.38; Everett, 2013). Second, social (or “cultural”) conservatism is considered the component of political ideology most closely related to preferences for preserving traditional social arrangements, including attitudes toward whether “homosexuality can be justified” (Malka et al., 2014). In contrast, “economic” conservatives often resent “social” conservatives' emphasis on what is and how to properly order society through issues such as gay marriage (Busch, 2012), suggesting this is key component of conservatism to measure. We acknowledge that future research (ideally experimental) should directly examine mediation by perceived fairness of existing hierarchies in the relationship between system-legitimizing beliefs about GSM and subjective wellbeing using the system justification scale. We hope that our work can provide a theoretical starting point for such investigations.

Additionally, these data come from 2018, and there has been much change in the global landscape regarding LGBTQ attitudes. Some positive changes, including the passing of Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act in India in 2019 (Bhattacharya et al., 2022) and the Prevention and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech Bill in South Africa in 2023 (Nel and Venter, 2024), lead to greater freedom and safety for GSM. On the other hand, there have been many backslides, with sweeping moves by right-wing governments that endanger GSM. In the USA, the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 to limit LGBTQ protection (303 Creative v. Elenis, 2023), while in Russia, President Putin signed into law a total ban on gender-affirming care in 2024 (Kirey-Sitnikova, 2024). Given the ever-moving rights of gender and sexual minorities around the world, it will be important for researchers to continue to focus on how attitudes about these groups impact the lives of all affected.

Importantly, by no means are we prescribing system-legitimizing beliefs as a fix for poor subjective wellbeing. On the contrary, we see system-legitimizing beliefs as a Band-Aid—masking over real and legitimate inequalities that ultimately hurt everyone. It is worth noting that regardless of individual prejudice or beliefs, people reported better subjective wellbeing in countries with less prejudicial feelings and less system-legitimizing beliefs overall. Furthermore, research has shown the palliative effect of system-justifying ideologies to be stronger in countries with greater inequalities, further enforcing why the wellbeing “benefit” of system justification is considered palliative, not curative (Napier et al., 2020b; Suppes et al., 2019). The real fix for how to ensure everyone benefits from a just system—regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity—is not to legitimize an unjust system, but to change the systems that fostered injustice in the first place.

The focus of our research has been on the subjective wellbeing of those that hold prejudicial feelings and system-legitimizing beliefs about gender and sexual minorities. However, we must emphasize that the greatest threat to subjective wellbeing, health and safety posed by these feelings and beliefs is to the targets themselves: those gender and sexual minorities who experience severe discrimination globally (Bettinsoli et al., 2020). We don't aim to minimize the struggle of the estimated 1.8 billion people living in countries where either “cross-dressing” or same sex intimacy is criminalized (Mignot, 2022). What our work aims to show is that no one escapes the damage of hate.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Footnotes

Edited by: Scott Eidelman, University of Arkansas, United States

Reviewed by: Cristina O. Mosso, University of Turin, Italy

Emily Balcetis, New York University, United States

Statements

Conflict of interest

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

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Data availability

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics approval

The studies involving humans were approved by New York University Abu Dhabi IRB. The studies were conducted in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author contributions

AS: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. MB: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. JN: Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

References

  1. 303 Creative v. Elenis (2023). 600 U.S. 570.
  2. Augustine of Hippo Saint (424/2018). The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century. Ed. B. Ramsey Trans. R. Teske. New York, NY: New City Press.
  3. Bahamondes J., Sibley C. G., Osborne D. (2019). “We look (and feel) better through system-justifying lenses”: system-justifying beliefs attenuate the well-being gap between the advantaged and disadvantaged by reducing perceptions of discrimination. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45, 1391 – 1408. doi: doi:10.1177/0146167219829178
  4. Bettinsoli M. L., Suppes A., Napier J. L. (2020). Predictors of attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women in 23 countries. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 11, 697 – 708. doi: doi:10.1177/1948550619887785
  5. Bhattacharya S., Ghosh D., Purkayastha B. (2022). 'Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act' of India: an analysis of substantive access to rights of a transgender community. J. Hum. Rights Pract. 14, 676 – 697. doi: doi:10.1093/jhuman/huac004
  6. Busch A. E. (2012). Social conservatives and economic conservatives. Society 49, 13 – 23. doi: doi:10.1007/s12115-011-9498-4
  7. Dinh K. T., Holmberg M. D., Ho I. K., Haynes M. C. (2014). The relationship of prejudicial attitudes to psychological, social, and physical well-being within a sample of college students in the United States. J. Cult. Divers. 21, 56 – 66.
  8. Dovidio J. F., Kawakami K., Gaertner S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 62 – 68. doi: doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.62
  9. Everett J. A. C. (2013). The 12 item Social and Economic Conservatism Scale (SECS). PLoS One 8:e82131. doi: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0082131
  10. Gaertner S. L., Dovidio J. F. (2005). Understanding and addressing contemporary racism: from aversive racism to the common ingroup identity model. J. Soc. Issues 61, 615 – 639. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00424.x
  11. Gandhi M. K. (1929/1993). An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments With Truth. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
  12. Garriott P. O., Love K. M., Tyler K. M. (2008). Anti-Black racism, self-esteem, and the adjustment of White students in higher education. J. Divers. High. Educ. 1, 45 – 58. doi: doi:10.1037/1938-8926.1.1.45
  13. Hayes A. F., Rockwood N. J. (2020). Conditional process analysis: concepts, computation, and advances in the modeling of the contingencies of mechanisms. Am. Behav. Sci. 64, 19 – 54. doi: doi:10.1177/0002764219859633
  14. Henry P. J., Wetherell G. (2017). Countries with greater gender equality have more positive attitudes and laws concerning lesbians and gay men. Sex Roles 77, 523 – 532. doi: doi:10.1007/s11199-017-0744-0
  15. Hightower E. (1997). Psychosocial characteristics of subtle and blatant racists as compared to tolerant individuals. J. Clin. Psychol. 53, 369 – 374. doi: doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4679(199706)53:4<369::aid-jclp10>3.0.co;2-e
  16. Ipsos (2018). ESOMAR 28: Ipsos Answers to ESOMAR 28 Questions to Help Online Research Buyers. France: Ipsos.
  17. Ipsos (2021). Credibility Intervals for Online Polling. Available online at: (Accessed November 3, 2025).
  18. Jost J. T. (2019). A quarter century of system justification theory: questions, answers, criticisms, and societal applications. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 58, 263 – 314. doi: doi:10.1111/bjso.12297
  19. Jost J. T. (2020). A Theory of System Justification. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  20. Jost J. T., Banaji M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. Br. J. Soc. Psychol. 33, 1 – 27. doi: doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
  21. Jost J. T., Federico C. M., Napier J. L. (2009). Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 307 – 337. doi: doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
  22. Kirey-Sitnikova Y. (2024). “You should care by prohibiting all this obscenity”: a public policy analysis of the Russian law banning medical and legal transition for transgender people. Post-Soviet Aff. 40, 452 – 471. doi: doi:10.1080/1060586X.2024.2377933
  23. Lee Y., Muennig P., Kawachi I., Hatzenbuehler M. L. (2015). Effects of racial prejudice on the health of communities: a multilevel survival analysis. Am. J. Public Health 105, 2349 – 2355. doi: doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302776
  24. MacInnis C. C., Page-Gould E. (2015). How can intergroup interaction be bad if intergroup contact is good? Exploring and reconciling an apparent paradox in the science of intergroup relations. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 307 – 327. doi: doi:10.1177/1745691614568482
  25. Malka A., Soto C. J., Inzlicht M., Lelkes Y. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 106, 1031 – 1051. doi: doi:10.1037/a0036170
  26. Mignot (2022). Legal Status of Homosexuality. Available online at: (Accessed September 27, 2024).
  27. Napier J. L. (2024). A cross-cultural investigation of prejudice against transgender people. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 16, 599 – 609. doi: doi:10.1177/19485506241289638
  28. Napier J. L. (2025). Greater bias toward transgender people compared to gay men and lesbian women is WEIRD. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. doi: doi:10.1177/19485506251352242
  29. Napier J. L., Bettinsoli M. L., Suppes A. (2020a). The palliative function of system-justifying ideologies. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 34, 129 – 134. doi: doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.002
  30. Napier J. L., Jost J. T. (2008). Why are conservatives happier than liberals? Psychol. Sci. 19, 565 – 572. doi: doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02124.x
  31. Napier J. L., Suppes A., Bettinsoli M. L. (2020b). Denial of gender discrimination is associated with better subjective well-being among women: a system justification account. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 50, 1191 – 1209. doi: doi:10.1002/ejsp.2702
  32. Nel J. A., Venter Z. S. (2024). (South) African perspectives on the prevention, monitoring and combating of hate victimization. Safer Communities 23, 192 – 206. doi: doi:10.1108/SC-12-2023-0053
  33. Page-Gould E., Mendoza-Denton R., Tropp L. R. (2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 95, 1080 – 1094. doi: doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080
  34. Pettigrew T. F. (1981). “The mental health impact of racism on White Americans,” in Impacts of Racism on White Americans, Eds. B. P. Bowser and R. G. Hunt (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications) 97 – 118.
  35. Prati G. (2024). Subjective well-being and attitudes toward outgroup members. Int. J. Intercult. Relat. 103, 1 – 11. doi: doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2024.102055
  36. Raudenbush S. W., Bryk A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  37. Spanierman L. B., Todd N. R., Anderson C. J. (2009). Psychosocial costs of racism to Whites: understanding patterns among university students. J. Couns. Psychol. 56, 239 – 252. doi: doi:10.1037/a0015432
  38. Staufenbiel S. M., Penninx B. W., Spijker A. T., Elzinga B. M., van Rossum E. F. (2013). Hair cortisol, stress exposure, and mental health in humans: a systematic review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 38, 1220 – 1235. doi: doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.11.015
  39. Suppes A., Napier J. L., van der Toorn J. (2019). The palliative effects of system justification on the health and happiness of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals. Person. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 45, 372 – 388. doi: doi:10.1177/0146167218785156

Citation

Suppes, A., et al. (2025). Hate the sin, not the sinner: the differential effects of prejudice and system-justifying beliefs on subjective well-being. Frontiers in Social Psychology, Volume 3. https://doi.org/
Received
Accepted
Published
Volume
3 - 2025

Copyright

Copyright © 2025 Suppes, Bettinsoli and Napier.

License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

*Correspondence: Alexandra Suppes

Article metrics

Views
0
Downloads
0
Citations
0
Shares
0

Related articles

Original ResearchHow does belief in conspiracy theories affect loneliness and connectedness? A longitudinal investigationMatt N. Williams, John R. Kerr, Mathew D. Marques, Haneen Abu-Obeid, Stephen R. HillOriginal Research“They got what they deserved”: situational justification and schadenfreude toward an LGBTQIA+ organizationIvan Giuseppe Cammarata, Costanza Scaffidi Abbate, Martina Macrillò, Stefano BocaOriginal ResearchAnother one bites the dust? Threatened meat-eater identity and veg * n conspiracy beliefsDominika Adamczyk, Natalia Korczak, Marta Marchlewska