Set in their ways: the role of cognitive flexibility in LGBTQ+ stigma

Background: Despite progress in recent decades, growing stigmatisation presents increasing issues for minority groups. Through its negative effects on the mental and physical health of those affected it also presents a growing issue of public health[1]. Recent literature demonstrates a role of cognitive inflexibility, the rigid adherence to internally driven states and beliefs, in underpinning extremes of individuals’ attitudes and ideologies[2]. This raises the question as to whether similar patterns of inflexibility underpin nascent social stigmatisation. Ideological and social cognition are ontologically distinct, however, with social judgements known to be mediated by individual traits; factors including empathy, compulsivity, tendency to stigmatise, and familiarity to affected groups all naturally affect interpersonal social judgements. The aim of this study was to measure cognitive inflexibility using a set-shifting task in an LGBTQ+-related context. We hypothesise that cognitive inflexibility in socially polarising LGBTQ+ contexts is significantly predicted by individual level factors related to social prejudices; this is reflective of a role of cognitive inflexibility in underpinning polarised social views towards LGBTQ+ groups. Methods: Our final sample (n=115) had a mean age of 50.1 (SD±13.0) and was predominantly White British (95.7%). Cognitive inflexibility was measured in an extra-dimensional set-shifting task. Participants were required to learn sorting rules by trial-and-error for LGBTQ+/ heterosexual contexts and four coloured gift stimuli, where sorting rules changed across three phases. Behavioural data were collected to assess participant inflexibility across their responses. Participants completed independent questionnaires on empathy, compulsivity, and tendency to stigmatise. Data were collected online via Prolific Academic, with inclusion criteria of British residency and a minimum age of 18 years old. Participants were carefully selected for their familiarity to LGBTQ+ people, being either non-familiar (n=41), familiar (n=33), or LGBTQ+ themselves (n=41). Behavioural data were computationally modelled for parameter extraction, identifying two suitable parameters; an applied measure of inflexible perseverative errors made specifically in LGBTQ+ contexts, and a neutral measure of latent participant response ‘stickiness’[3]. Data were analysed initially using group comparisons, and then via regression analysis on each of our extracted inflexibility parameters, using measures of our trait-level correlates of stigmatisation as predictors. Results: Non-parametric group comparisons showed that LGBTQ+ participants were significantly younger and held lower tendencies to stigmatise others, and that non-familiar participants had significantly lower empathy scores. There were no significant group differences in either of our computationally extracted parameters of cognitive inflexibility. Contrary to our hypothesis, neither our model of inflexible perseverative errors [F(5,109)=0.78 p=0.63] or participant ‘stickiness’ [F(5,109)=2.60, p