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

Introduction 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Discussion 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.