Abstract
Many studies have investigated heterosexuals’ prejudices toward nonheterosexuals, yet LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals remain largely unexplored. Therefore, we sought to determine the threats and opportunities (i.e., affordances) LGB perceive heterosexuals to pose and whether those affordances explain their sexual prejudices toward heterosexuals. Study 1 analyzed LGB’s reasons for liking and disliking heterosexuals, which determined whether the threats predicted to be salient for LGB mirrored the affordances they generated. Study 2 measured these perceived affordances and examined the extent to which they drove LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals. Generally, perceptions of discrimination and unreciprocated sexual interest threats drove anger, physical safety and sexual autonomy threats drove fear, and values threats drove moral disgust toward heterosexuals, although results varied slightly by perceiver and target groups. Goals to alleviate the tensions between heterosexuals and LGB require an understanding of the dynamics between these groups. This research provides preliminary insights into understanding those dynamics.
Despite recent progress in the legal rights afforded to gay and bisexual men and women (hereafter referred to as LGB), these groups still experience prejudice and discrimination. For example, in 2014, 1,014 individuals in the United States experienced a hate crime based on their sexual orientation (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2015). Although a plethora of research exists regarding heterosexuals’ prejudices toward LGB, little research examines the reverse relationship—LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals. Accordingly, this research seeks to understand LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexual men and women by applying a threat-based approach to prejudice (e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
The Affordance Management Approach
The affordance management perspective (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Gibson, 1979; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2011) suggests that human cognitions, emotions, and behaviors evolved to manage the perceived threats and opportunities to survival and reproduction, including those posed by other people (i.e., affordances). What threats and opportunities are particularly important? The fundamental motives theory (Kenrick, Neuberg, Griskevicius, Becker, & Schaller, 2010) suggests that recurrent threats and opportunities to survival and reproduction (e.g., physical safety, mating) serve as the primary threats and opportunities exerting evolutionary pressures, and therefore should be particularly strong drivers of cognition, emotion, and behavior.
Functional accounts of emotions (Keltner & Gross, 1999; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990) suggest that emotions evolved to help humans respond effectively to threats and opportunities related to survival and reproduction and are specific, efficient responses designed to bring about function-related consequences to promote survival and reproduction. Different stimuli (e.g., threats or opportunities) elicit specific emotions that engage a functional behavioral reaction intended to act upon the particular threat or opportunity. Anger arises from the presence of obstacles blocking a desired outcome (Gutierrez, Giner-Sorolla, & Vasiljevic, 2012), which leads to behaviors purposed to remove the obstacle (e.g., change another person’s behavior; Fischer & Roseman, 2007) and reacquire the desired outcome (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). An imminent threat to physical safety elicits fear, which leads to escape, fleeing, and avoidance of the threat in order to preserve safety (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009). Moral disgust arises from moral transgressions and threats to values and, like physical disgust, elicits an avoidance or rejection response to avoid or expel the disgusting stimulus (Chapman & Anderson, 2013; Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Gutierrez et al., 2012; Tybur, Lieberman, & Griskevicius, 2009).
The Sociofunctional Threat-Based Approach to Prejudice
Applying an affordance management approach to prejudice and stereotyping, the sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) suggests that prejudices between groups are the affective reactions which arise due to specific threats perceived as posed by an outgroup. These perceived threats elicit specific, distinct emotions that constitute the prejudices against the groups, which then engage specific behavioral reactions intended to respond effectively to those threats. For example, intergroup anger arises when outgroup members are perceived to limit the freedoms and rights of the ingroup or fail to conform to ingroup norms (Fischer & Roseman, 2007), which leads to behaviors meant to remove these threats or enforce ingroup norms. Outgroups perceived to pose physical safety threats elicit fear, which leads to avoidance and fleeing from the outgroup to facilitate safety (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009). Moral disgust arises when outgroup members are perceived to hold values opposing those of the ingroup, which elicits avoidance and rejection (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
Understanding the Dynamic Between LGB and Heterosexuals
LGB individuals live in a heterosexual world, and more aptly, a heterosexist world—a cultural ideology of heterosexuality embodied within society (Herek, 2007). A heterosexist world assumes all people are heterosexual, thereby ignoring nonheterosexual behavior, which can institutionally disenfranchise LGB individuals (Herek, 2007). If acknowledged, cultural heterosexism further accords nonheterosexual behavior, identity, relationship, or community negatively and as possessing an inferior, devalued status—that is, sexual stigma (Herek, 2007). Sexual stigma plays out on the societal level in institutional discrimination (e.g., certain rights afforded only to married couples and marriage afforded only to heterosexual couples) as well as interpersonal behavioral discrimination, felt stigma (expectations about the probability of being a target of sexual stigma), and internalized stigma (acknowledgment of the stigmatization of nonheterosexuality; Herek, 2007). Given that LGB individuals live in a heterosexist world, they likely perceive heterosexuals to pose a variety of threats, including discriminating against LGB, posing physical safety threats, undermining their sexual autonomy, and threatening their values. We expect these specific threats to drive the prejudices of LGB toward heterosexual men and women.
Discrimination Threats
Throughout history and the present, heterosexuals discriminate against LGB in a wide variety of ways. Homosexuality remains illegal in 79 countries and punishable by death in seven (Erasing 76 Crimes, 2014). In 2013, Russian President Vladimir Putin enacted a law preventing gay couples and people from countries with marriage equality laws from adopting Russian children (Fierstein, 2013). Eighteen U.S. states currently refuse to acknowledge same-sex marriage despite recognition by the U.S. federal government (Freedom to Marry, n.d.), four states forbid adoption by same-sex couples (“LGBT Adoption,” n.d.), and eight states currently possess laws known as “No Promo Homo” which forbid educators from discussing LGBT issues in the classroom, and in some states, same-sex sexual behavior can only be discussed in the context of sexually transmitted infections (Gay, Lesbian, & Straight Education Network, n.d.). Beyond formal discrimination, LGB face interpersonal discrimination as well. For example, they experience discrimination in hiring and promotions (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002; Herek, Chopp, & Strohl, 2007), harassment in the workplace (Herek et al., 2007; Waldo, 1999), and gay and bisexual men earn lower salaries than heterosexual men in similar professions with similar education levels (Carpenter, 2007; Hatzenbuehler, 2010; Herek et al., 2007).
As a consequence of heterosexuals’ prejudices and discrimination, LGB experience increased mental and physical health problems (see Hatzenbuehler, 2014, for a review). For example, linking cultural discrimination to LGB health revealed that LGB living in nongay friendly states experience mental health problems at higher rates than LGB in gay-friendly states (Hatzenbuehler, Keyes, & Hasin, 2009) and community-level hostility toward LGB predicts increased mortality among LGB (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2014). In all, this demonstrates overwhelmingly the effects of sociocultural and interpersonal discrimination against LGB.
Accordingly, we predict that LGB men and women perceive heterosexual men and women to pose discrimination threats, which drive their anger toward both heterosexual men and women (Hypothesis 1). Table 1 summarizes hypotheses and results for all predictions raised, including in subsequent sections.
Summary of Predictions and Mediation Results of Prejudices toward Heterosexuals.
Note. a = the unstandardized regression coefficient representing the effect of the target on the particular mediator; b = the unstandardized regression coefficient representing the statistical effect of the particular mediator on the emotion, controlling for the target; c = the unstandardized regression coefficient representing the direct effect of the target on emotion; c’ = the unstandardized regression coefficient representing the indirect effect of the target on emotion, controlling for the mediator(s); ΔR2 = the change in the proportion of variance accounted for in emotion for the model including the mediator(s) and target as predictors, relative to the model including only the target as a predictor of emotion.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Physical Safety Threats
By most accounts, men are the perpetrators of physical aggression. Sex differences in physical aggression emerge robustly across ages, cultures, and types of measurement (e.g., self-report, observation, peer-report, teacher-report; Archer, 2004; Archer & Mehdikhani, 2003). Although contextual and sociocultural variables attenuate the magnitude of sex differences in aggression (e.g., provocation, cues of violence, cultural gender equality; Archer, 2006; Bettencourt & Kernahan, 1997; Bettencourt & Miller, 1996), male perpetrators are nonetheless particularly likely to cause physical injury (Archer, 2000).
In 2014, hate crimes based on sexual orientation trailed only race as the second most common documented form in the United States (FBI, 2015). Furthermore, aggression characterizes sexual orientation-based hate crimes more than other types of hate crimes: Murder, aggravated assault, simple assault, and intimidation comprised 76% of hate crimes based on sexual orientation as opposed to 66% and 36% based on race and religion, respectively (FBI, 2014). A report of hate crimes against LGB, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) individuals identified male perpetrators as the most common perpetrator (64% of perpetrators) and female perpetrators as substantially lower (21%; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2015). Furthermore, physical violence, injury, and the need for medical attention more commonly characterizes the hate crimes against LGBTQ men than women (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2015), which suggests the felt magnitude of the physical safety threat might be greater for gay and bisexual men. Accordingly, we predict LGB men and women perceive heterosexual men to pose physical safety threats, which explains their fear of heterosexual men (Hypothesis 2; see Table 1).
Sexual Threats
LGB also face sexual victimization at higher rates than heterosexuals. A review of 75 studies investigating the lifetime prevalence of sexual assault against LGB found prevalence estimates ranging from 12% to 54% for gay and bisexual men and 16% to 85% for lesbian and bisexual women, compared with 2% to 3% for heterosexual men and 11% to 17% for heterosexual women (Rothman, Exner, & Baughman, 2011). In addition, men perpetuate sexual assault at greater rates than women, with men representing 66% to 88% of perpetrators against LGB. Specifically, men comprised 88% of perpetrators against bisexual women, 85% against lesbians, 79% against gay men, and 66% against bisexual men, although, interestingly, female perpetrators were more common against male targets than female targets (Walters, Chen, & Breiding, 2013; see also National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2015).
Although the sexual orientation of the perpetrator frequently remains unknown, the available evidence suggests that men pose greater threats of sexual coercion to all LGB groups relative to women. However, the aforementioned statistics fail to specify the sexual orientation of the perpetrator, and given heterosexual men generally report greater sexual interest in female targets than male targets (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), one might suspect that gay and bisexual men actually pose greater sexual threats to gay and bisexual men than do heterosexual men or women.
We further consider the interaction between perceiver sexual interests and target sexual interests as well as perceiver sex to be important clarifications of our predictions. Heterosexual men report sexual interest in lesbians (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), which lesbians generally do not reciprocate (Young & Pirlott, 2014). Therefore, we predict lesbians perceive heterosexual men to pose sexual threats, which should contribute to their fear of heterosexual men. Although bisexual women report sexual interest in heterosexual men (Young & Pirlott, 2014), which might minimize their perception of sexual threats posed by heterosexual men, sexual aggression nonetheless poses a greater cost to women relative to men, given the possibility of pregnancy (Trivers, 1972). Therefore, both bisexual women and lesbians might perceive heterosexual men to pose sexual threats to a greater extent than gay and bisexual men, and this perception might be a stronger force in explaining their fear of heterosexual men.
On the other hand, gay and bisexual men report sexual interest in heterosexual men (Young & Pirlott, 2014) and men bear lesser costs of sexual activity than women (Trivers, 1972). Therefore, although stereotypes of heterosexual men portray them as sexually aggressive, gay and bisexual men’s sexual interest in heterosexual men (Young & Pirlott, 2014) might minimize the perception that heterosexual men pose sexual threats. However, given heterosexual men report minimal sexual interest in men (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), gay and bisexual men might instead feel resentment toward heterosexual men for not reciprocating their sexual interests.
Perceptions of heterosexual women posing sexual threats also depend on the interaction between the sexual interests of the target and perceiver. Although heterosexual women report minimal interest in mating with gay men (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), heterosexual women might misidentify a gay man as heterosexual and direct sexual attention toward him, given the potential concealability of sexual orientation. Furthermore, gay men perceive heterosexual women to direct unwanted sexual interest (Young & Pirlott, 2014), and women comprised 21% of the sexual assault perpetrators against gay men, according to one study (Walters et al., 2013). Consequently, we expect that gay men perceive heterosexual women to pose threats to sexual autonomy, which contributes to their fear of heterosexual women. On the other hand, lesbians and bisexuals report sexual interest in heterosexual women (Young & Pirlott, 2014), and given heterosexual women’s lesser likelihood of sexual aggression, lesbians and bisexuals probably do not perceive them to pose sexual threats. In contrast, lesbians and bisexuals direct sexual interest in heterosexual women which heterosexual women generally do not reciprocate (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), which might create perceptions of unreciprocated sexual interest from heterosexual women and fuel their anger and resentment toward heterosexual women.
Therefore, given heterosexual men’s greater levels of sexual coercion (relative to heterosexual women), we predict that all LGB perceiver groups perceive heterosexual men to pose sexual threats, but this should be especially salient for female perceivers (lesbians and bisexual women), and should be a strong driver of lesbians’ and bisexual women’s fear of heterosexual men (Hypothesis 3). Given gay men’s sexual disinterest in heterosexual women, we predict they perceive heterosexual women to pose sexual threats that elicit fear of heterosexual women (Hypothesis 3; see Table 1).
In contrast, given gay and bisexual men’s sexual interest in heterosexual men, we predict that they perceive unreciprocated sexual interest from heterosexual men, which fuels their anger and resentment toward heterosexual men (Hypothesis 4). In addition, we predict that lesbians and bisexuals perceive unreciprocated sexual interest from heterosexual women, which drives their anger and resentment toward heterosexual women (Hypothesis 4; see Table 1).
Values Threats
Various theoretical perspectives highlight the importance of perceived values threats driving prejudices (e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Evidence documents that heterosexuals believe LGB hold different values; violate traditional values of family, parenting, romantic relationships, gender roles, and religion; and threaten or undermine traditional values (e.g., Brambilla & Butz, 2013; Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Henry & Reyna, 2007; Herek, 1984, 2000; Madon, 1997; Vescio & Biernat, 2003). Valuing traditional roles and experimentally activating traditional roles predicts increased prejudices against LGB (e.g., Callahan & Vescio, 2011; Nierman, Thompson, Bryan, & Mahaffey, 2007; Vescio & Biernat, 2003). In addition, perceptions of violating traditional norms and undermining traditional values predicts aggression against LGB—physical aggression, aggression to block the social influence of LGB, and aggression to change LGB’s nonconforming behaviors, such as conversion therapy (e.g., Filip-Crawford & Neuberg, 2015; Morrison & Morrison, 2011; Parrott, 2009; Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002). In all, a large body of literature suggests that heterosexuals perceive that LGB hold opposing values.
Given heterosexuals’ perceptions that LGB hold opposing values and heterosexuals’ aggressive attempts at social control, we presume that LGB reciprocate these sentiments. Specifically, we expect that LGB perceive heterosexuals to hold opposing values and pose values threats, to the extent that they perceive heterosexuals as trying to change or impose their values upon LGB. Therefore, we predict that LGB men and women perceive heterosexual men and women to pose threats to values, which drive their moral disgust toward both heterosexual men and women (Hypothesis 5; see Table 1).
Despite the contentious nature of the relationships between heterosexuals and LGB, positive interactions also arise (e.g., friendship and romantic relationships). Therefore, LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals might not all be negative, to the extent that they perceive some heterosexual groups to provide positive affordances. However, given this research seeks to understand LGB’s negative prejudices, we focus our examination on the perceived threats afforded by heterosexuals driving specific negative prejudices.
Overview of Studies
To test our predictions aimed at understanding LGB’s sexual prejudices toward heterosexuals, we first examined LGB’s perceptions of heterosexuals to discern whether our expectations of the threats and opportunities LGB perceive heterosexuals to pose map onto the affordances independently generated by LGB. Accordingly, in Study 1, LGB men and women generated reasons why they like and dislike heterosexuals. We then coded their responses and analyzed the frequencies of the affordances to determine whether the threats and opportunities we expected to be salient for LGB mirrored the affordances they generated. Then, in Study 2, we measured these perceived affordances and examined the extent to which these perceptions statistically drove LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals.
Study 1
Study 1 sought to determine all the potential reasons for LGB’s prejudices against heterosexuals, and to compare those qualitative responses with our theoretically derived predictions for which perceived threats drove prejudices.
Method
Participants and sampling
We sought to recruit 50 participants in each sexual orientation group (e.g., 50 gay men, 50 lesbians) and asked them to provide up to 20 responses describing their perceived affordances of different sexual orientation groups, potentially yielding up to 4,000 responses for each target. A response set totaling up to 4,000 comments per target enabled us to examine consensus in responses and compare those with our predictions, while still enabling a feasible set of responses to code. Accordingly, to recruit equal numbers of participants, we advertised four separate surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk administered via Qualtrics with 50 timeslots in each: “Survey for Gay Men,” “Survey for Bisexual Men,” “Survey for Lesbian Women,” and “Survey for Bisexual Women.”
We excluded those who did not report sex or sexual orientation; whose sex and sexual orientation, as reported twice throughout the study, failed to converge; and self-identified heterosexuals, leaving 216 participants (64 bisexual women, 54 bisexual men, 46 lesbians, and 52 gay men), 1 M age = 30.15, SD = 9.39, range = 18-65. The majority of participants reported being single/dating casually (55%), identified as White (79%), with a median social class of middle class, median income of US$30,000 to US$39,999, and median education level of some college.
Design and procedure
Using a 2 (target sex; within-subject) × 3 (target sexual orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian; within-subject) × 4 (perceiver group; between-subjects) design, participants reported their perceptions of each of the six target groups. Given that this article focuses on understanding LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals and in the interest of simplicity, we do not further report analyses examining LGB’s perceptions of LGB targets. We first asked participants to think about the target group in general (as in Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) and then to list “all the reasons you potentially like [target.] For example, [target] make good friends, or [target] are desirable romantic partners” and, separately, “all the reasons you potentially dislike [target]. For example, [target] hold views that oppose mine, or [target] are physically dangerous to people like me.” We provided 10 response boxes for each question, thus yielding up to 20 comments for each target per participant. We randomized the order of targets, and within targets, we randomized the order of like and dislike question blocks. Participants then provided basic demographics, were debriefed, and received a payment of US$1.00 via Amazon Mechanical Turk (see supplemental materials for full survey).
Coding
We adopted the coding methodology from Heyman, Lorber, Eddy, and West (2014). We first transposed the dataset so each response was on its own line. After individually reading all the responses, five researchers independently generated lists of potential affordances. We next compiled the lists and eliminated the affordances not agreed upon, which left 89 affordances. Using this list of 89 affordances, two researchers coded the responses independently, blind to target and perceiver group and study predictions. These researchers coded 75% of the responses identically; they then discussed and resolved discrepancies. We then quantified each coded response for each of the 89 affordances as 0 = missing or 1 = present, with the possibility that some responses might be coded as present on multiple affordances. We then transposed the dataset back to its original form, so each participant had up to 20 responses per target, each coded by the 89 affordances. Within each target, we summed the codes across the 20 responses so each participant had one score on each of the 89 affordances for each target. Any affordance which summed greater than 1 (i.e., if a participant generated more than one response that corresponded with that particular affordance) was recoded to 1 to reflect a 1 = present, 0 = absent coding of that affordance.
We then combined similar affordances specific to our predictions: prejudiced and discriminatory included sexist, homophobic, heterosexist, bigoted, and racist; values threat included judgmental, closed-minded, push unwanted beliefs, and oppose my views; physically aggressive included dangerous, violent, scary, and intimidating; sexual threat included rapist, sexually aggressive, and unwanted sexual interest; unreciprocated sexual interest included I want them but I cannot have them; and mating interest included good in bed, good long- and/or short-term partner, and mating opportunity.
Results
We analyzed the frequencies of each affordance within target and perceiver groups by examining what percentage of each perceiver group independently generated that particular affordance for each target. We then conducted chi-square goodness of fit tests within each perceiver group testing whether the proportion of participants generating a particular affordance significantly differed from .01 to reflect testing against the null hypothesis that no perceivers generated that particular affordance. We also conducted chi-square goodness of fit tests to determine whether the proportions of participants generating a particular affordance for heterosexual male targets differed from heterosexual female targets. Table 2 summarizes the percentages of perceivers generating each affordance central to our predictions and the corresponding chi-square significance values.
Percentage of Perceiver Group Generating Each Affordance.
Note. Percentages reflect the percent of that particular perceiver group that generated that particular affordance. N/A indicates that the chi-square test could not run because no participants generated that affordance.
p < .05. ***p < .001 (for chi-square goodness-of-fit test).
Discrimination threats
As predicted, a significant proportion of participants in each perceiver group generated comments suggesting they perceive both heterosexual men and women as being prejudiced/discriminatory, although a greater proportion of perceivers generated that threat for heterosexual male targets (35%-60%) relative to heterosexual female targets (8%-16%).
Physical safety threats
Also as predicted, a significant portion of each perceiver group commented that heterosexual men are physically aggressive (23%-29%), but not heterosexual women (0%-2%).
Mating opportunity
Implicit in our predictions were assumptions about LGB men and women’s sexual interest in heterosexual men and women. Consistent with predictions, bisexuals and gay men reported mating interest in heterosexual men (4%-29%), although inconsistent with predictions lesbians also did (5%); and bisexuals and lesbians reported mating interest in heterosexual women (7%-35%) and gay men did not (2%).
Sexual threats
As expected, a significant percent of bisexual women and lesbians commented that heterosexual men pose sexual threats (7%-10%), and gay and bisexual men did not (0%-2%). Also as predicted, only gay men perceived heterosexual women to pose sexual threats (4%).
Unreciprocated sexual interest
Again as predicted, gay and bisexual men perceived heterosexual men as not reciprocating sexual interest (6%-8%) and bisexual women and lesbians did not (0%). In contrast to predictions, however, gay men perceived unreciprocated sexual interest from heterosexual women (4%) but bisexuals and lesbians did not (0%-2%).
Values threats
Finally, as predicted, all perceiver groups viewed heterosexual men and women as posing values threats: 19% to 41% of perceivers perceived heterosexual men and 20% to 49% perceived heterosexual women to pose a threat to values.
Discussion
Results from Study 1 largely support our predictions. LGB perceive heterosexual men and women to pose discrimination and values threats and heterosexual men to pose physical safety threats. Perceptions of sexual threats and opportunities varied, also as expected, as a function of the interaction between perceiver and target sexual interests. Groups sexually interested in heterosexual men viewed them as mating opportunities; groups sexually interested in heterosexual men for whom heterosexual men are not sexually interested (i.e., other men) believed that heterosexual men pose unreciprocated sexual interest threats; and groups for whom heterosexual men are sexually interested (i.e., women) believed them to pose sexual threats. Groups sexually interested in heterosexual women viewed them as mating opportunities and groups generally not interested in mating with heterosexual women (i.e., gay men) perceived them as posing sexual threats.
A few unexpected findings arose. A small number of lesbians (5%) reported mating interest in heterosexual men and a small number of gay men (4%) perceived heterosexual women as not reciprocating their sexual interests. This could be due, in part, to the possibility that some gay men and lesbians report opposite-sex sexual attraction and experiences. In addition, lesbians and bisexuals did not perceive heterosexual women as not reciprocating their sexual interests. We speculate, however, that unreciprocated sexual interest may be difficult for individuals to articulate because it reflects a combination of two perceptions—one’s own sexual interest and one’s perception of the sexual interests of the target. These findings warrant further examination, which we address in Study 2. Therefore, in Study 2, we sought to replicate our findings quantitatively and examine whether participants endorse the unreciprocated and unwanted sexual interest items.
Study 2
In Study 2, we sought to replicate Study 1’s findings of LGB’s perceptions of heterosexuals quantitatively, and examine the extent to which the perceived threats drove specific affective prejudices. To evaluate which affordances LGB perceive heterosexual individuals to pose, we used the affordances generated by participants in Study 1 to create items reflecting these threats. We then examined which affordances drove the specific emotional reactions toward each target for each perceiver group.
Method
Participants and sampling
Again, to recruit equal numbers of gay and bisexual male and female participants, we advertised four separate surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk using the same method as in Study 1 with 100 participant slots in each study, with the goal of obtaining 100 participants in each group. We excluded those who did not report sex or sexual orientation; whose sex and sexual orientation, as reported twice throughout the study, failed to converge; and self-identified heterosexuals, leaving 409 participants (109 bisexual men, 108 bisexual women, 96 gay men, and 96 lesbians), M age = 30.78, SD = 10.11, range = 18-71. The majority of participants reported being single/dating casually (54%), identified as White (76%), with a median social class of middle class, median income of US$30,000 to US$39,999, and median education level of some college.
Design and procedure
Using a 2 (target sex; within-subjects) × 3 (target sexual orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, gay/lesbian; within-subjects) × 4 (perceiver group; between-subjects) design, participants rated their perceptions of the affordances of and affective prejudices toward the six target groups (similar methods and items as those used by Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005 and Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014). We randomized the order of targets; within targets, we randomized the order of affordance and emotion surveys; and within surveys, we randomized items. Participants also completed demographic and individual differences questionnaires before debriefing and electronic payment. Participants received a payment of US$2.00 via Amazon Mechanical Turk. Again, we focus our analyses on heterosexual targets given the scope of the current investigation.
Perceived affordances
We used the qualitative responses generated in Study 1 to create items reflecting 24 threat and opportunity affordances. Participants rated their endorsement of each item on a 9-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree). Each affordance was comprised of at least two separate items averaged together, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .78 to .97. Among others not relevant to the current investigation, the affordances included perceptions that members of the target group are discriminatory, threaten one’s values, are physically aggressive, create uncomfortable sexual situations, and whose sexual interests are discrepant from the perceiver’s (ranging from unreciprocated sexual interest to unwanted sexual interest). See the online supplemental materials for a list of the specific items and reliabilities.
Affective prejudices
Participants rated the extent to which each target elicited specific emotions (anger/resentment, fear, and moral disgust, among others not relevant to the current study) on a scale of (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely). Each emotion was comprised of a mean of at least two items; Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .90 to .95. See the online supplemental materials for a list of the specific items and reliabilities.
Results and Discussion
To test our predictions about the patterns of findings for emotions and affordances, that is, which targets would elicit specific emotions and affordances, we first conducted ANOVAs. To then test our predictions about which affordance mediated the relationship between heterosexual targets and affective prejudices, we next ran regression mediation analyses.
ANOVAs
We first performed a 3 (target: heterosexual men, heterosexual women, self-group; within-subjects) × 4 (perceiver group; between-subjects) mixed ANOVA on each emotion and affordance. We followed up significant main effects of target with planned comparisons comparing targets, and when perceiver group interacted with target, we conducted simple main effect tests of target within perceiver group. 2 Figure 1 presents the pattern of emotion findings and Figure 2 presents the pattern of affordance findings. For simplicity, both figures depict the Cohen’s d effect size of difference between the heterosexual target and the self-group; positive scores indicate ratings greater toward the heterosexual target relative to the self-group and negative scores indicate ratings greater toward the self-group than the heterosexual target.
Perceivers’ anger/resentment (Panel A), fear (Panel B), and moral disgust (Panel C) toward heterosexual male and female targets, as represented by the Cohen’s d effect size depicting the magnitude of the difference between the target and the self-group.
Perceivers’ perceptions of heterosexual male and female targets’ discrimination threat (Panel A), physical safety threat (Panel B), sexual threat (Panel C), sexual interest discrepancy (Panel D), and values threat (Panel E), as represented by the Cohen’s d effect size depicting the magnitude of the difference between the target and the self-group.
Anger and resentment
Consistent with predictions, heterosexual targets elicited greater anger/resentment relative to the self-group—main effect of target: F(2, 726) = 66.27, p < .001,
Fear
Consistent with predictions, heterosexual men elicited the greatest amount of fear, although heterosexual women also elicited greater fear than the self-group, which was only predicted for gay men—main effect of target: F(2, 726) = 89.24, p < .001,
Moral disgust
Moral disgust ratings differed by target, F(2, 722) = 30.27, p < .001,
Discrimination threats
Consistent with our predictions and paralleling our findings from Study 1, heterosexuals were perceived to pose greater discrimination threats relative to the self-group, and heterosexual men greater than heterosexual women—main effect of target: F(2, 726) = 210.80, p < .001,
Physical safety threats
Consistent with predictions and replicating Study 1, heterosexual men were perceived to pose the greatest physical safety threat relative to heterosexual women and the self-group, which did not differ—main effect of target: F(2, 724) = 129.50, p < .001,
Sexual threats
The effect of target on perceptions of sexual threats differed by perceiver group, F(6, 724) = 3.39, p = .003,
Sexual interest discrepancies
The effect of target on perceptions of sexual interest discrepancies differed by perceiver group, F(6, 698) = 64.96, p < .001,
Values threats
Also confirming predictions and mirroring Study 1, heterosexuals were perceived to pose greater values threats relative to the self-group, with heterosexual men perceived to pose greater values threats than heterosexual women—main effect of target: F(2, 726) = 238.24, p < .001,
Interim summary
The results supported a large majority of our predictions about affective prejudices: Heterosexuals elicited greater levels of anger and resentment, heterosexual men elicited greater levels of fear, and heterosexuals elicited greater levels of moral disgust for gay men and lesbians, and for bisexual women toward heterosexual men.
Unexpectedly, however, lesbians and bisexuals reported elevated fear of heterosexual women relative to the self-group, although the magnitude of these effects were moderate (
Interestingly, bisexual men felt no more moral disgust toward heterosexuals than toward their self-group, nor did bisexual women toward heterosexual women. Perhaps due to their somewhat overlapping mating interests with heterosexuals and somewhat concealable sexual orientation, bisexuals might “blend in” socially with heterosexuals more than gay men and lesbians. This greater ease of affiliating and interacting with heterosexuals potentially minimizes some of the moral disgust toward heterosexuals, which typically stems from intragroup dynamics.
The perception of affordance results also supported a large majority of our predictions, replicated Study 1, and clarified the few unexpected findings from Study 1. All LGB groups perceived heterosexuals to pose discrimination and values threats and heterosexual men to pose physical safety and sexual threats. Perceptions of sexual interest discrepancies also confirmed predictions for all perceiver groups. Gay men perceived unwanted sexual interest from heterosexual women and lesbians from heterosexual men; gay men perceived unreciprocated sexual interest from heterosexual men, lesbians from heterosexual women, bisexual men from heterosexual men and women, and bisexual women from heterosexual women; and bisexual women perceived mutual sexual interest from heterosexual men.
In contrast to our predictions and the findings of Study 1, bisexual women perceived heterosexual women to also pose physical safety and sexual threats. Bisexual and heterosexual women compete in the same mating pool (for male partners), so perhaps intrasexual competition between heterosexual and bisexual women elevates the perception of physical safety threats.
These few unexpected findings certainly warrant further examination. However, within-subject designs reduce error variance due to individual differences, sharpen contrasts between targets, and facilitate the detection of small effects. In addition, bisexual women’s perceived threats ran counter to Study 1’s findings. Considering the small to moderate magnitude of these effects and their unpredicted nature, we hesitate to accept these findings as stable, although they certainly warrant replication and future consideration.
Mediation analyses
Given the repeated measures nature of the data, we analyzed the data using multilevel regression techniques. We first dichotomized the targets and recoded each target (= 1) relative to the self-ingroup (= 0; for example, for bisexual female perceivers: heterosexual men = 1, bisexual women = 0). Based on the predictions generated in the introduction (see Table 1) and patterns of findings from Studies 1 and 2 (see Table 2, Figures 1 & 2), we entered the predicted mediators into a regression mediation analysis to determine whether the affordances mediated the relationship between sexual orientation target and emotion, separately for each perceiver group, using the causal steps approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986). We centered target and affordances within person within each pair of targets (Enders & Tofighi, 2007). This enabled a comparison of which mediators emerged as the strongest mediators, minimized the likelihood of violating the no omitted variables assumption, and reduced the chances of unmeasured confounds being responsible for the M to Y relationship (MacKinnon & Pirlott, 2015). We report ΔR2, which reflects the decrease in residual variance from the baseline model predicting affective prejudice from target alone to the final model including mediators, as well as Sobel’s Z testing the significance of each individual mediator. We present a summary of the results in Table 1. A correlation matrix table reporting the correlations among variables, for each perceiver group, is available in the online supplemental materials (Table S1a-d).
Explaining anger and resentment
We predicted perceived discrimination threats drive LGB’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual men and women. Consistent with predictions, perceived discrimination threats contributed to all LGB groups’ anger and resentment toward heterosexual men, and gay men’s, bisexual women’s, and lesbians’ anger and resentment toward heterosexual women (marginal for lesbians). We also predicted that perceptions of unreciprocated sexual interest drive anger and resentment toward heterosexual men for gay and bisexual men and toward heterosexual women for bisexuals and lesbians. Unreciprocated sexual interest perceptions drove bisexual men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual women, and marginally drove gay men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual men. See Table 1 for a summary of statistics.
Interestingly, perceptions of discrimination threats explained bisexual men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual men but not women, and perceptions of unreciprocated sexual interest drove their anger and resentment toward heterosexual women but not men. Although bisexual men perceived both heterosexual men and women to pose discrimination and unreciprocated sexual interest threats relative to bisexual men, heterosexual men were perceived to pose greater discrimination threats than heterosexual women. Bisexual men’s interpersonal interactions with heterosexual men and heterosexual women likely differ. Although low, heterosexual women nonetheless report greater romantic interest in bisexual men than do heterosexual men (e.g., Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014). Therefore, perhaps mating goals were more salient for bisexual men when thinking about heterosexual women than heterosexual men, given the potential greater likelihood of bisexual men obtaining a heterosexual female mate than a heterosexual male partner, 3 whereas discrimination was more salient when thinking about interactions with heterosexual men, given the lesser likelihood of obtaining a heterosexual male romantic partner.
Also interesting, perceptions of unreciprocated sexual interest did not predict lesbian and bisexual women’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual women, or gay and bisexual men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual men. This possibly occurred because resentment due to missed mating opportunities, although an evolved fundamental motive, falls secondary to threats to basic human rights like freedom from oppression.
Across Studies 1 and 2, results largely confirmed that LGB perceived heterosexual men and women to pose discrimination threats, and this perception drove their anger and resentment toward heterosexual men. Furthermore, perceptions that heterosexual men posed discrimination threats explained a large proportion of variance in LGB’s anger toward heterosexual men (ΔR2 = .42 for bisexual women, .28 for lesbians, .25 for bisexual men, and .12 for gay men). For gay men, bisexual women, and lesbians (marginal), perceptions that heterosexual women pose discrimination threats drove their anger and resentment toward them, although the magnitude was smaller than that toward heterosexual men (ΔR2 = .10 for gay men, .13 for bisexual women, .04 for lesbians). Statistically, this potentially shows the effect of cultural and societal discrimination against LGB on their anger directed back toward heterosexuals and its effect on these interpersonal tensions.
Explaining fear
We predicted the perception of physical safety threats drives LGB fear of heterosexual men, which results confirmed for all perceiver groups. We also predicted that perceived threats to sexual autonomy contribute to female perceivers’ fear of heterosexual men, and gay men’s fear of heterosexual women, which results again confirmed.
We did not have any theoretically derived predictions about lesbian’s and bisexuals’ fear of heterosexual women, which warrants future research, given our findings of their elevated, although small in magnitude, fear of heterosexual women. However, because bisexual women perceived heterosexual women to pose physical safety and sexual autonomy threats in Study 2 (but not Study 1), we explored whether these threats explained their elevated fear of heterosexual women. Results of the mediation analyses revealed that the perceived threats explained ΔR2 = .19, but the Sobel’s Z test revealed that perceived threats to physical safety emerged as a significant mediator (Z = 2.55, p = .01) but not threats to sexual autonomy (Z = 1.90, p = .06). Given the powerful nature of within-subjects designs, the small effects of heterosexual female targets on fear, the divergent findings from Study 1, and the unpredicted nature of the relationship, we again hesitate to place too much confidence in this relationship. A future study examining lesbians’ and bisexuals’ fear of heterosexual women, perhaps using a between-subjects design, is certainly warranted.
For female perceivers, perceptions that heterosexual men pose sexual threats also contributed to their fear of heterosexual men, as it did for gay men’s fear of heterosexual women. The interaction between target’s and perceiver’s sexual interests predicting fear based on threats to sexual autonomy (e.g., lesbian and bisexual women’s fear of heterosexual men, gay men’s fear of heterosexual women) further demonstrate the importance of taking an affordance management approach to understanding intergroup dynamics—one that considers both the perceiver’s and perceptions of the target’s goals. It also highlights the importance of utilizing an evolutionary fundamental motives approach to understanding human behavior—particularly when considering threats to mating autonomy.
Furthermore, perceived threats to physical safety and sexual autonomy accounted for a large proportion of variance in LGB’s fear toward heterosexual men (ΔR2 = .68 for bisexual women, .44 for lesbians, .31 for bisexual men, and .23 for gay men), as well as gay men’s fear of heterosexual women, although to a smaller magnitude (ΔR2 = .13). These results speak clearly to evolved reactions—fear—stemming from targets posing threats to physical safety and sexual autonomy.
Explaining moral disgust
We predicted the perception of values threats drives the moral disgust toward heterosexual men and women for all perceiver groups. As predicted, perceived values threats drove lesbians’ and bisexual women’s moral disgust toward heterosexual men, and lesbians’ moral disgust toward heterosexual women (marginal).
However, perceived values threats did not explain gay men’s moral disgust toward heterosexuals. Although gay men perceived heterosexual men and women to undermine their values and felt moderate levels of moral disgust toward them, an examination of the correlations (Online Supplemental Table S1a) between gay men’s moral disgust toward and values threat perceived posed by heterosexual men and women reveals only a weak correlation between the variables: r = .09 and .12, respectively. Given that moral disgust tends to arise from perceptions of immorality (Gutierrez et al., 2012), perhaps gay men’s moral disgust toward heterosexuals might arise from perceptions of heterosexuals as immoral in general, as opposed to heterosexuals’ behaviors specifically directed toward gay men in an intergroup relations context. This finding warrants further exploration.
Overall, the proportions of variance in moral disgust accounted for by values threats (ΔR2 ranging from .03 to .26) were small compared with those accounted for in fear and anger/resentment (ΔR2 ranging from .04 to .68). In addition, the mean levels of moral disgust relative to the self-group were lower than fear and anger/resentment. These findings likely highlight the importance of key emotions like fear and anger, whereas threats to values might take a backseat relative to physical safety, sexual autonomy, and human freedoms.
In all, our results largely confirmed predictions about the relationships among target, threat perception, and affective prejudices. Perceived discrimination threats fueled all LGB groups’ anger and resentment toward heterosexual men, and gay men’s, lesbian’s, and bisexual women’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual women. Perceptions of unreciprocated sexual interest also contributed to gay men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual men, and bisexual men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual women. Perceived threats to physical safety predicted all LGB groups’ fear of heterosexual men, and perceived threats to sexual autonomy impelled gay men’s fear of heterosexual women, and lesbian’s and bisexual women’s fear of heterosexual men. Finally, perceived threats to values explained lesbian’s moral disgust toward heterosexuals, and bisexual women’s moral disgust toward heterosexual men. Potentially, other threat and opportunity affordances exist which went unmeasured and therefore not included in the mediation analyses. However, we relied upon theoretically derived threats in addition to qualitative data derived directly from LGB men and women. The content analysis of the qualitative responses revealed responses that mapped clearly onto our theory-driven threat affordances. Given the general replication of our predictions in qualitative Study 1 and reaffirmed in quantitative Study 2, we find it less plausible that some other, unmeasured perceived threat mediates the found pattern of findings.
Importantly, this study demonstrates largely that perceived threats—not the targets themselves—drive prejudices. The fact that heterosexual targets, once controlling for the mediators, no longer predicted prejudices in a large majority of the mediation analyses reveals that prejudices arise from perceived threats, not the actual targets themselves (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Furthermore, the large reduction in variance produced by the perceived threat, especially for fear and anger, demonstrates the strength of these perceived threats driving prejudices. This also suggests that minimizing LGB’s prejudices toward heterosexuals depends on a change in those perceived threats. Threats that stem from interpersonal dynamics rather than stereotypes—like perceived sexual threats—are likely to nonetheless remain strong predictors of fear prejudices. However, as cultures shift toward acceptance of LGB individuals, LGB’s anger/resentment and moral disgust, to the extent they are elicited by perceptions of discrimination threats and values clashes, should also subside.
General Discussion
Across Studies 1 and 2, our expectations of LGB’s perceptions of the threats posed by heterosexuals were largely confirmed, and map cleanly onto our predictions generated based on the heterosexist cultural dynamics between heterosexuals and LGB (e.g., Herek, 2007), the affordance management approach (e.g., Gibson, 1979; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Neuberg et al., 2011), the sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), and functional theories of emotions (e.g., Keltner & Gross, 1999; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009; Tooby & Cosmides, 1990).
Heterosexuals have infringed upon the rights of LGB across a variety of domains—they actively sought to block LGB from being school teachers, soldiers, parents, and spouses, among other roles, as well as limited their basic rights and freedoms, including freedom from imprisonment, physical harm, and death, and freedom to marry, adopt children, practice certain religions, and speak freely about sexual orientation. As expected, across Studies 1 and 2, all LGB perceiver groups believe heterosexual men and women limit their rights and discriminate against them. As predicted by functional perspectives of emotions and intergroup relations, anger should arise reliably from attempts to limit freedoms and rights (Fischer & Roseman, 2007), which explains LGB’s anger toward heterosexuals in Study 2 and confirms Hypothesis 1.
Anger should also arise reliably from blocked obstacles (Gutierrez et al., 2012), such as obstacles to mating goals. Bisexual men direct sexual interest in heterosexual women, which, consistent with heterosexual women’s general mating interests (Pirlott & Neuberg, 2014), they perceive women not to reciprocate in Studies 1 and 2. This perceived unreciprocated sexual interest explains bisexual men’s anger and resentment toward heterosexual women in Study 2, thus providing support for Hypothesis 4.
Hate crimes against LGB remains high (20% of reported hate crimes; FBI, 2014), with 21% of self-identified LGB adults from a national probability sample reporting physical violence against them due to their sexual orientation (Herek, 2008). Furthermore, perpetrators of violence against LGB are three times more likely to be male than female, according to one study (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, 2015), and male perpetrators are more likely than females to cause physical injury (Archer, 2000). Unsurprisingly, across Studies 1 and 2, all LGB perceiver groups believed heterosexual men (but not necessarily heterosexual women) to pose threats to physical safety, and threats to physical safety should reliably predict fear (e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Nesse & Ellsworth, 2009), which, as expected, explained LGB’s fear of heterosexual men in Study 2 in support of Hypothesis 2.
LGB endure sexual aggression at higher rates than heterosexuals, with male perpetrators especially likely, and especially likely against women, although female perpetrators are more likely to sexually aggress against men than women (Rothman et al., 2011; Walters et al., 2013). The interaction between sexual interests of the perceiver and target further specifies which LGB groups might perceive sexual threats from heterosexual men or women. Any sexual interest mismatch between perceiver and target indicating perceived unwanted sexual interest should predict perception of sexual threat. As expected, in Studies 1 and 2, gay men perceive heterosexual women to direct unwanted sexual interest and to pose sexual threats. Likewise, in Studies 1 and 2, lesbians perceive heterosexual men to direct unwanted sexual interest and to pose sexual threats. This perception, coupled with women’s greater minimal parental investment, helps explain why all female perceiver groups, regardless of mutual sexual interest, might perceive heterosexual men as posing sexual threats (e.g., Navarrete, McDonald, Molina, & Sidanius, 2010; Trivers, 1972). Indeed, despite their mutual sexual interest, in Studies 1 and 2, bisexual women also perceive heterosexual men to pose sexual threats. Thus, in support of Hypothesis 3, gay men’s perception of sexual threats drives their fear of heterosexual women, and lesbian’s and bisexual women’s perception of sexual threat drives their fear of heterosexual men in Study 2.
Heterosexuals believe LGB hold opposing values, violate traditional values, and actually undermine traditional heterosexual values (e.g., Brambilla & Butz, 2013; Haddock et al., 1993; Henry & Reyna, 2007; Herek, 1984, 2000; Madon, 1997; Vescio & Biernat, 2003). Furthermore, heterosexuals actively try to influence or forcibly change LGB’s behaviors into conventional heterosexual behaviors (e.g., Filip-Crawford & Neuberg, 2015; Morrison & Morrison, 2011; Parrott, 2009; Parrott et al., 2002). Likely stemming from these values clashes, in Studies 1 and 2, LGB (particularly gay men and lesbians) perceive heterosexuals as being closed-minded and judgmental, holding oppositional values, and trying to force their values onto them. Moral disgust should reliably emerge from threats to values (Chapman & Anderson, 2013; Tybur, Lieberman, Kurzban, & DeScioli, 2013), which explains LGB’s moral disgust toward heterosexuals in Study 2 and provides support for Hypothesis 5.
Limitations and Future Directions
An interesting direction to take the current research is to examine whether previous experiences with discrimination, physical and sexual aggression, unreciprocated sexual interest, and values clashes magnify these perceptions and emotions, and/or magnify the relationship between perceptions and emotions, or whether the perceptions nonetheless predict prejudices, even in the absence of previous experiences. Herek’s (2007) concept of felt stigma suggests that LGB individuals probably know the cultural devaluation of LGB orientations and do not need to have personally experienced sexual stigma for it to affect their lives. Accordingly, we predict previous experiences might magnify the perception of these threats, intensify the magnitude of the prejudices, and strengthen the relationship between perceived threat and emotion, but nonetheless, the overall patterns should not necessarily change.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to examine whether and under what circumstances these prejudices map onto functional behaviors meant to mitigate these threats. For example, during what interactions with a heterosexual man or woman does an LGB person try to conceal his or her sexual orientation (e.g., to attract an opposite-sex heterosexual or to avoid sexual orientation-based physical aggression from a heterosexual man) as opposed to try to change perceptions of LGB (e.g., demonstrate LGB hold similar values as heterosexuals)? This research provides a novel starting point for future research examining the behavioral responses of targets of discrimination (here, LGB) to try to minimize others’ stereotypes, stereotyping, and/or discriminatory behavioral responses.
Expanding the Affordance Management Approach
These findings extend the affordance management (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Gibson, 1979; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Neuberg et al., 2011) and sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) perspectives. The ability of the affordance management approach to extend to intergroup relations highlights its explanatory power. This research also pushes the boundaries of the affordance management and sociofunctional threat-based approach to prejudice perspectives by outspreading to intergroup dynamics not typically examined—the relationship between heterosexuals and LGB. Much intergroup relations literature examines intergroup relations along traditional ingroup/outgroup lines (e.g., race and ethnicity). The coupled ability of these approaches to extend to a set of groups not marked by traditional ingroup/outgroup distinctions demonstrates their broader applicability, generalizability, and overall strength.
In conclusion, this research marks one of the first to investigate the attitudes and feelings of this underexamined group and provides insights into the prejudices of LGB men and women toward heterosexuals. Perceptions of discrimination and unreciprocated sexual interest threat drove anger and resentment, physical safety and sexual autonomy threats drove fear, and values threats drove moral disgust toward heterosexuals. It also reveals the negative consequences of heterosexuals’ attitudes, prejudices, and discrimination toward LGB men and women vis-à-vis attitudes and prejudices directed back at heterosexuals. Any goals to alleviate the tensions between heterosexual men and women and LGB men and women depend on a clear understanding of the dynamic between these groups and what drives those tensions. This research provides preliminary insights into understanding those dynamics.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
We thank Andrea Ruder, Mike Kosiak, Tara Young, and Taylor Vossen for their assistance generating codes, collecting data, and performing preliminary analyses.
Authors’ Note
Marta L. Rusten is now at the School of Education at Colorado State University and Reese M. Butterfuss is now at the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. Portions of this research were presented at the 2013 and 2014 University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire Celebration of Excellence in Research and Creative Activity, the 2014 National Conference on Undergraduate Research, the 2014 Midwestern Psychological Association Conference, the 2014 UW System Symposium for Undergraduate Research and Creative Activity, and the 2015 Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire Office of Research and Sponsored Programs.
Notes
References
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
