WHY DO WE STILL CALL IT HOMOPHOBIA?
EXPLORING THE EVIDENCE FOR A STATE-TRAIT MODEL OF SEXUAL PREJUDICE
By
Brooke M. Bluestein

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Psychology – Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
WHY DO WE STILL CALL IT HOMOPHOBIA?
EXPLORING THE EVIDENCE FOR A STATE-TRAIT MODEL OF SEXUAL PREJUDICE
By
Brooke M. Bluestein
Sexual prejudice occurs when one makes automatic or intentional negative evaluations of
sexual minority (i.e., non-heterosexual) individuals due to their actual or perceived sexual
orientation. The current study sought to extend the extant literature on sexual prejudice by using
an experimental design to concurrently examine factors associated with two of the most
prominent models of sexual prejudice: the personality model of homophobia and the negative
affective response model of homophobia. Although the extant literature often portrays them as
competing models, this study examined whether integrating elements from both models would
create a more comprehensive, state-trait model of sexual prejudice that would better predict
endorsement of anti-gay attitudes and negative reactions to lesbian, gay, or bisexual (LGB)
stimuli.
Participants (n = 350) were invited to participate in a two-part online study that examined
the relationships among two individual-level personality factors (i.e., right-wing authoritarianism
[RWA] and social dominance orientation [SDO]), negative affect (i.e., fear, hostility, guilt, and
cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety), and exposure to gay male video stimuli. This study
utilized video clips drawn from mainstream news media stories about gay men; the videos were
empirically selected during a pilot study that examined the reactions of participants (n = 147)
who were high on either RWA or SDO to six potential videos about gay men. Results from the
full study indicated that double high participants (i.e., individuals who were simultaneously high
on RWA and SDO) and participants who were high on RWA alone endorsed greater levels of

sexual prejudice than participants low on both RWA and SDO; participants who were high on
SDO alone did not endorse more sexually prejudiced attitudes. However, neither sexual
prejudice nor emotion regulation significantly moderated the relationship between exposure to
gay male material and negative affective response. Finally, although the results indicated that
the relationship between personality and sexual prejudice was significant in the integrated statetrait model, the simplified model (i.e., the model that did not include the categorical personality
variable as a predictor) was an overall better fit for the data. Nonetheless, because sexual
prejudice can have negative implications for both sexual minority individuals and those who
hold these prejudiced attitudes, it is imperative that research continues to explore which factors
contribute to stigma, prejudiced attitudes, and discrimination against sexual minority individuals.

For Dr. Bertram Cohler,
who asked me the question,
“But why should I care about that?”
and changed my life.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Hillary Clinton said that it takes a village to successfully raise a child. Well, I guess that
would make this project like my first child, because it absolutely took a village for it to be a
success!
First, I would like to thank my advisor, NiCole Buchanan, who continued to believe in
me even when I stopped believing in myself. There have been so many times when I may have
made things more difficult than they needed to be, but NiCole always saw my potential and
helped me persevere. I would also like to thank my committee members – Isis Settles, Emily
Durbin, and Anne Hughes – for their support and insightful commentary throughout this long
process. In addition, I am grateful for the friendship and support of my lab mates –Ivan Wu,
Krystle Woods, and Angelina Rogers.
Likewise, I will always be indebted to my professors at Denison University for instilling
me with a general sense of curiosity and a passion for research. In particular, I would like to
thank Sarah Hutson-Comeaux for her support and mentorship on my first independent research
project; Susan Kennedy, who taught me that I could feel an enormous sense of accomplishment
from the one-and-only “B” I received in college; and Nestor Matthews, who showed me what
could be achieved from diligence, long hours, and plenty of hard work. I am also eternally
grateful for Fred Porcheddu, who allowed a persistent sophomore to enroll in his already
overfilled Queer Studies course where his vibrant stories and contagious enthusiasm sent me
down a path of inquiry that has shaped my entire career.
Graduate school is rarely an easy road to travel, and I am therefore so grateful for the
support and encouragement of my friends on this journey. I would like to thank Lisa Vroman,
Zori Kalibatseva, and Katey Smagur in particular for all of their inspiration, reassurance, and the

v

countless hours working at Panera. I would also like to thank my dear friends Parker and Dana
Huston for encouraging me to find a semblance of balance between work and life, and Jessica
VanHuysse for being a good friend and a fantastic listener over the years.
Finally, I would not be in this position without the unwavering support of my family, and
I am incredibly grateful to be surrounded by so much unconditional love and support. In
particular, I would like to thank my parents for always encouraging me to pursue happiness no
matter where it might be found. And last (but never least), I am so appreciative for my brilliant,
unfailingly optimistic husband, Jeff Nibert, who has been my partner on this journey from the
very beginning. You are now – as you always have been – my greatest inspiration!

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................... ix
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... x
CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
The Current Study ......................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 6
PREJUDICE .............................................................................................................................. 6
Sexual Prejudice ............................................................................................................ 6
Tripartite Models of Prejudice..................................................................................... 10
Models of Sexual Prejudice ......................................................................................... 11
CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 13
THE PERSONALITY MODEL OF HOMOPHOBIA............................................................ 13
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) ......................................................................... 13
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) ....................................................................... 15
The Association between RWA and SDO................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 20
THE NEGATIVE AFFECTIVE RESPONSE MODEL OF HOMOPHOBIA ....................... 20
Emotion Regulation ..................................................................................................... 26
CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 29
RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES ...................................................................................... 29
Question 1 .................................................................................................................... 30
Hypothesis 1a. ................................................................................................. 30
Hypothesis 1b. ................................................................................................. 31
Question 2 .................................................................................................................... 31
Hypothesis 2a (main effect of exposure on negative affect). .......................... 32
Hypothesis 2b (moderation). ........................................................................... 32
Hypothesis 2c (moderated moderation)........................................................... 33
Question 3 .................................................................................................................... 33
Hypothesis 3. ................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................ 35
PILOT STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 35
Method ......................................................................................................................... 35
Participants. ..................................................................................................... 35
Procedure. ........................................................................................................ 36
Measures. ......................................................................................................... 37
Right-wing authoritarianism. ............................................................... 37

vii

Social dominance orientation. ............................................................. 37
Sexually prejudiced attitudes (Homophobia). ..................................... 38
Results ......................................................................................................................... 39
CHAPTER 7 ........................................................................................................................... 43
METHOD – FULL STUDY .................................................................................................... 43
Participants .................................................................................................................. 43
Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 45
Measures ...................................................................................................................... 47
Criterion Variables ...................................................................................................... 47
Right-wing authoritarianism. ........................................................................... 47
Social dominance orientation. ......................................................................... 47
Outcome Variables ...................................................................................................... 48
Sexually prejudiced attitudes (Homophobia). ................................................. 48
Anxiety. ........................................................................................................... 49
Positive and negative affect. ............................................................................ 49
Moderating Variables .................................................................................................. 50
Emotion regulation. ......................................................................................... 50
Control and Covariant Variables ................................................................................. 50
Social desirability. ........................................................................................... 50
Traditional gender role ideology. .................................................................... 51
Demographic information. .............................................................................. 51
CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................ 53
RESULTS - FULL STUDY .................................................................................................... 53
Demographic Information ........................................................................................... 53
Hypothesis 1 ................................................................................................................ 58
Hypothesis 1a. ................................................................................................. 59
Hypothesis 1b. ................................................................................................. 60
Hypothesis 2 ................................................................................................................ 62
Hypothesis 2a. ................................................................................................. 64
Hypothesis 2b. ................................................................................................. 64
Hypothesis 2c. ................................................................................................. 64
Hypothesis 3 ................................................................................................................ 66
Comparison of Model Goodness of Fit ....................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................ 72
DISCUSSION.......................................................................................................................... 72
Limitations and Future Directions ............................................................................... 78
Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 80
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................. 82
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 94

viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for All Scales Used in the
Pilot Study ...................................................................................................................... 39
Table 2 Ratings of Negative or Positive Valence and Overall Enjoyment of Videos Used in
the Pilot Study ................................................................................................................ 40
Table 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for All Scales Used in
Part I and Part II of the Full Study ................................................................................. 52
Table 4 Demographic Variables by Participant Source (HPR or mTurk) ................................... 54
Table 5 Video Condition Differences for Potential Covariates and Demographic Variables ..... 56
Table 6 Correlations between All Study Variables Included in Data Analysis........................... 57
Table 7 Model 1: Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Sexually
Prejudiced Attitudes from Personality Category Moderated by Exposure to Gay
Male Content .................................................................................................................. 61
Table 8 Model 2: Hierarchical Moderated Moderation Regression Analyses Predicting
Negative Affective Response from Exposure to Gay Male Content, Sexually
Prejudiced Attitudes, and Emotion Regulation .............................................................. 65
Table 9 Model 3: Latent Variable Regression Model for the “State-Trait” Model of
Homophobia ................................................................................................................... 70
Table 10 Goodness of Fit Indicators for Model 2 and Model 3 .................................................... 71

ix

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. The modal model of emotion. ....................................................................................... 27
Figure 2. The five categories of the process model of emotion regulation overlaid on the
modal model of emotions. ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 3. Moderation model in which exposure to gay male video content moderates the
relationship between personality style and sexually prejudiced attitudes. RWA =
Right-Wing Authoritarianism. SDO = Social Dominance Orientation. ....................... 31
Figure 4. Moderated moderation model (i.e., three-way interaction model) in which the two
indicators of emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression)
moderate the moderating effect of sexually prejudiced attitudes on the relationship
between negative affective response (a latent variable with five manifest
indicators) and exposure to gay male content. .............................................................. 32
Figure 5. “State-trait” model of homophobia: an integrated model of sexual prejudice that
includes facets of both the personality and negative affective response models of
sexual prejudice. ........................................................................................................... 34
Figure 6. Estimated effect of the predictor variable (i.e. personality category) for both
conditions of the moderator (i.e., video condition). Simple indicator coding was
used to represent the personality category groups. ....................................................... 60
Figure 7. Statistical diagram for the moderated moderation model (i.e., three-way interaction
model) in which the two indicators of emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal
and expressive suppression) moderate the moderating effect of sexually prejudiced
attitudes on the relationship between negative affective response (a latent variable
with five manifest indicators) and exposure to gay male content................................. 63
Figure 8. Statistical diagram for the “state-trait” model of homophobia, an integrated model
of sexual prejudice that includes facets of both the personality and negative
affective response models of sexual prejudice. ............................................................ 68

x

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Although there has been an increased awareness of homosexuality in mainstream U.S.
culture over the past few decades, it remains a controversial issue in the U.S. For example, a
2016 survey by the Pew Research Center found that despite significant changes in the number of
people endorsing the idea that “homosexuality should be accepted by society” (from 47% in
2003 to 63% in 2013; Pew Research Center, 2015), 28 percent of adults in the U.S. continue to
believe that “homosexuality should be discouraged by society” (Fingerhut, 2016). Furthermore,
there are segments of the population in which the majority of individuals believe that
homosexuality should be discouraged (e.g., 61% of white evangelical Protestants and 63% of
conservative republicans expressed this view; Pew Research Center, 2015).
Sexual prejudice refers to the specific form of prejudice that occurs when one makes
automatic or intentional negative evaluations of sexual minority (i.e., non-heterosexual)
individuals due to their actual or perceived sexual orientation (Herek, 2000a). Sexual prejudice
can generally be conceptualized as a complex system in which concepts such as heterosexism,
heteronormativity, sexism, and male dominance interact with one another to predict a number of
negative psychosocial problems for lesbians and gay men (Fraïssé & Barrientos, 2016; Herek,
2009a; Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). Numerous terms have been used in the extant literature
to describe these negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (e.g., homophobia,
heterosexism, sexual prejudice, sexual stigma; Herek, 2004; Herek, 2009b; Lingiardi & Nardelli,
2014), but despite subtle distinctions between these terms they all refer to the same general
multidimensional construct (Adolfsen, Iedema, & Keuzenkamp, 2010; Walls, 2008).

1

Sexual prejudice can have negative implications for both sexual minority individuals and
those who hold these prejudiced attitudes. Sexually prejudiced, heterosexist environments have
been associated with an array of negative psychosocial outcomes for lesbians and gay men (e.g.,
depression and other mood disorders, anxiety disorders, suicidality, eating disorders, and
substance abuse) compared to heterosexual individuals (Austin et al., 2009; Feinstein, Goldfried,
& Davila, 2012; Meyer, 2003; Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010; Russell, 2003). While
comparatively little research has focused on the negative consequences of homophobia on those
who hold sexually prejudiced beliefs, extant literature suggests that possessing sexually
prejudiced attitudes may be associated with an increase in negative affect (e.g., anxiety, anger,
defensiveness) upon encountering sexual minorities or LGB-themed stimuli (Ciocca et al., 2015;
Dasgupta, DeSteno, Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009; Zeichner & Reidy, 2009). Furthermore,
research on racial prejudice indicates that intergroup anxiety, which refers to anxiety that
majority group members may experience in interactions with outgroup members, can have a
negative effect on cognitions, behavioral reactions, and emotional responses (Stephan &
Stephan, 1985). Intergroup anxiety can also negatively impact both the quality and quantity of
intergroup contact (Turner, Hewstone, & Voci, 2007; Voci & Hewstone, 2003), and nonverbal
expressions of anxiety by majority group members can be interpreted as signs of prejudice by
members of marginalized outgroups (Dovidio, Penner, Albrecht, Norton, Gaertner, & Shelton,
2008). Thus, intergroup anxiety can potentially cause harm for members of both majority and
marginalized groups.
Acknowledging the elevated risks born by sexual minority individuals and the potential
costs to those who hold prejudiced attitudes, it is important to identify which factors contribute to
stigma, prejudiced attitudes, and discrimination against sexual minority individuals. Change at

2

the societal level can be slow to take hold and difficult to measure; nevertheless, even subtle
positive changes in the level of sexual prejudice could lead to noticeably better outcomes for
sexual minority individuals. Given that social changes often reflect changes across individuals,
researchers tend to investigate individual-level factors that may be associated with sexual
prejudice as proxies for larger social constructs. The current study followed in this tradition by
integrating two prominent models of sexual prejudice that are focused on individual-level
personality factors and negative affective responses to LGB-related stimuli.
Specifically, this study sought to extend the extant literature on sexual prejudice by using
an experimental design to concurrently examine factors associated with two of the most
prominent models of sexual prejudice: the personality model of homophobia and the negative
affective response model of homophobia. The personality model of homophobia proposes that
two individual-level personality factors, right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social
dominance orientation (SDO), have a robust association with sexual prejudice (Case, Fishbein, &
Ritchey, 2008; Goodman & Moradi, 2008; Stones, 2006; Whitley & Lee, 2000; Wilkinson,
2004a). The negative affective response model of homophobia posits that some sexually
prejudiced individuals experience a negative affective response (e.g., anxiety, anger, disgust)
after exposure to an LGB-themed stimulus (Shields & Harriman, 1984; Terrizzi, Shook, &
Ventis, 2010; Zeichner & Reidy, 2009).
Although these two models of sexual prejudice are often presented as conflicting and
contradictory models in the extant literature (Herek, 2004; Herek, 2015; Herek, 2016), it is
possible that these two models are actually complementary. Specifically, the personality model
of homophobia (which is often used to predict which individuals are more likely to endorse antigay attitudes; e.g., Poteat, Horn, & Armstrong, 2016) may explain sexual prejudice at a trait

3

level, whereas the negative affective response model (which is often used to predict how
individuals might respond upon encountering an LGB-related stimulus; e.g., Zeichner & Reidy,
2009) may account for sexual prejudice at the episodic, state level. Thus, taken together, these
two models of sexual prejudice may be able to predict which individuals are most likely to
endorse anti-gay attitudes and how these individuals will react when confronted with LGBrelated stimuli.
The majority of the research on the construct of sexual prejudice has implicitly or
explicitly focused on negative attitudes towards gay men (Keiller, 2010; Stones, 2006; Worthen,
2013). Moreover, the research that has addressed sexual prejudice directed toward lesbians has
found that in general, people are significantly more accepting of lesbians than gay men (Herek,
2000b; Stoever & Morena, 2007; Whitley & Kite, 1995). Because sexual prejudice is more
strongly directed against gay men, the current study operationalized homophobia as negative
attitudes toward gay men and drew upon video images depicting only gay male couples.
The Current Study
The current study expands the extant literature on sexually prejudiced attitudes by
concurrently exploring the relationship between the personality model of homophobia and the
negative affective response model of homophobia. Utilizing video clips taken from mainstream
news media stories about gay men, this study examined whether an integrated model of sexual
prejudice that incorporated elements from these two previously discrete and disparate models of
homophobia was able to adequately account for the variance in sexually prejudiced attitudes and
negative affect following exposure to gay male stimuli.
There were three primary objectives of the current study. First, this study examined the
personality model of homophobia by exploring whether two individual-level personality factors

4

(i.e., RWA and SDO) were associated with a greater endorsement of sexually prejudiced
attitudes. Second, the current study examined the negative affective response model of
homophobia by investigating whether watching videos of mainstream news media stories about
gay men was associated with increased negative affect (i.e., fear, hostility, guilt, sadness, and
cognitive and somatic symptoms of anxiety), particularly for the participants who initially
endorsed more sexually prejudiced attitudes. Finally, by integrating elements from both the
personality model of homophobia and the negative affective response model of homophobia, this
study examined whether an integrated, state-trait model of sexual prejudice was able to better
explain why some individuals have a strong, negative affective reaction when exposed to gay
male video stimuli.

5

CHAPTER 2
PREJUDICE
Prejudice is a hostile emotional or affective state that is activated when a person
experiences thoughts about or interactions with outgroup members (i.e., members of a social
group to which the individual does not belong; Aronson, 1984). Prejudice can also be
conceptualized as an attitude that one adopts toward an outgroup or its members (Perreault &
Bourhis, 1999). While attitudes toward other groups can be positive or negative, social scientists
have focused primarily on people’s negative impressions of other outgroups and outgroup
members (Haddock & Zanna, 1998). Thus, prejudice not only reflects a negative evaluation of a
social group but also a negative perception of an individual based on his or her group
membership (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003).
Sexual Prejudice
Sexual prejudice is a specific form of prejudice in which one makes automatic or
intentional negative evaluations of sexual minority (i.e., non-heterosexual) individuals due to
their actual or perceived sexual orientation (Herek, 2000a). Sexual prejudice operates similarly
to other forms of prejudice (e.g., racism, sexism). Accordingly, sexual prejudice can be
described as negative attitudes (i.e., cognitions, affects, and behaviors) that are directed at a
particular minority group (i.e., lesbians and gay men). Additionally, because the cognitive and
affective elements of intergroup attitudes can be related to biased behavior, sexual minority
individuals have to deal with discrimination in similar ways as members of other marginalized
outgroups (Herek, 2009a).
There have been numerous terms used to describe negative attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men, and although all of these terms generally relate to the same construct (i.e., negative

6

evaluations of sexual minorities), there are subtle distinctions between these terms (Schiffman,
DeLucia-Waack, & Gerrity, 2006). The term homophobia was first introduced in the 1970s and
was originally defined as “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals” (Weinberg,
1973, p. 4). Homophobia continues to be a commonly used term by both the general public and
researchers, and it is generally used when describing anti-gay attitudes at the individual level
(particularly when the source of one’s negative attitudes toward lesbians and/or gay men is based
in fear; Rye & Meaney, 2010). On the other hand, heterosexism is used to describe the
oppression of non-heterosexual persons at a societal level, and can be defined as social customs
or institutions that deny or disparage any non-heterosexual identities or romantic relationships
(Alden & Parker, 2005). As such, heterosexism can fuel homophobia because of the pervasive
belief that immoral and objectionable phenomena like homosexuality should not be allowed to
peacefully exist in society (Cowan, Heiple, Marquez, Khatchadourian, & McNevin, 2005). The
more general term sexual prejudice can be used to highlight the idea that individual-level antigay attitudes often stem from societal-level sexual stigma, which is the stigma ascribed to the
identity, behaviors, or relationships of members of the sexual minority community (Herek,
2009a).
The majority of models of sexual prejudice view it as a multidimensional construct with
elements related to one’s response to homosexuality in general, modern societal and civil rights
implications for sexual minorities, and one’s cognitive and/or affective response to homosexual
behavior (Adolfsen et al., 2010; Walls, 2008). First, models of sexual prejudice often include a
dimension that assesses the extent to which an individual accepts homosexuality as a valid,
natural phenomenon (Rye & Meany, 2010); this facet is at times referred to as the
“condemnation-tolerance” factor because it represents one’s general thoughts or moral

7

convictions about lesbians and gay men (Arseneau, Grzanka, Miles, & Fassinger, 2013; LaMar
& Kite, 1998). Second, these models often incorporate a dimension of “modern homophobia”
that moves away from overt prejudice and instead focuses on more subtle nuances of prejudice,
such as discomfort or opposition to issues related to lesbians and gay men, establishing equal
rights for sexual minorities, or concern with the representation of lesbians and gay men in
popular media (Adolfsen et al., 2010; Morrison & Morrison, 2002). Third, models generally
incorporate a dimension centered on the cognitive and/or affective responses people have to
being around sexual minorities, such as negative emotional reactions to expressions of samegender intimacy and sexual behavior (Herek, 2009a; Monto & Supinski, 2014). Finally, a subset
of models includes the willingness to engage in prejudiced, discriminatory, or violent behavior
against lesbians and gay men (Stotzer & Shih, 2012).
Research has found that sexual prejudice is related to numerous factors, including gender,
adherence to traditional gender role ideology, age (i.e., generational effects), and religiosity. For
example, research indicates that heterosexual women express less reproachful attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men compared to heterosexual men (Gormley & Lopez, 2010; Herek, 2000b;
Kite & Whitley, 1996; Kite & Whitley, 1998; Ratcliff, Lassiter, Markman, & Snyder, 2006;
Roderick, McCammon, Long, & Allred, 1998; Schellenberg, Hirt, & Sears, 1999) and are more
likely to support employment protection, adoption rights, and civil recognition of same-sex
couples than were men (Herek, 2002).
Furthermore, traditional gender role attitudes (i.e., beliefs about normative, appropriate,
and distinct roles for men and women) significantly predict anti-gay and lesbian attitudes
(Callahan & Vescio, 2011; Jellison, McConnell, & Gabriel, 2004; Whitley, 2001; Wilkinson,
2004a) and anti-gay violence (Parrott, 2008). The extant literature suggests that for heterosexual

8

males, a strict adherence to the traditional male gender role is associated with negative attitudes
about gay men, women, and femininity more generally (Kilianski, 2003; Kimmel & Mahler,
2003; Patel, Long, McCammon, & Wuensch, 1995). For instance, Davies (2004) examined
whether affective reactions to homosexuality in men were related to hostile sexism (e.g.,
domination of and hostility towards women), male toughness (e.g., being physically and
emotionally resilient), and male sexuality (e.g., always prepared to initiate sex). The results
indicated that negative feelings about gay men were related to attitudes about traditional gender
roles such that individuals who endorsed stronger feelings about the importance of traditional
gender roles were more likely to endorse negative responses about gay men. Moreover, a similar
study found that a single dimension of masculinity (i.e. fear of appearing feminine) was able to
account for 11% of the variance in anti-gay attitudes (Wilkinson, 2004a). Likewise, in a study
that investigated heterosexual women’s attitudes about lesbians, sexual prejudice was associated
with conservative, patriarchal gender-role values (Wilkinson, 2006).
In general, open endorsement of sexually prejudiced attitudes has decreased over time
(Fingerhut, 2016), and there is a distinct cohort or generational effect with younger adults
endorsing more positive and accepting views of homosexuality than older generations
(Altemeyer, 2002; Herek, 2000a; Pew Research Center, 2015; Shackelford & Besser, 2007;
Smith, Son, & Kim, 2014). For instance, a 14-year cross-sectional study found that both
undergraduate students and their parents have become more accepting of homosexuality over
time (Altemeyer, 2002), and similar trends have been observed across more than a dozen
countries (Smith et al., 2014).
Sexual prejudice is also strongly correlated with religiosity (Balkin, Schlosser, & Levitt,
2009; Herek, 2009a; Whitley, 2009), particularly among people whose religion condemns

9

homosexuality (Whitley, 2009). However, research indicates that the acceptance of
homosexuality has been steadily increasing across many U.S. Christian denominations in recent
years (Fingerhut, 2016); for instance, a 2014 survey by the Pew Research Center found that 54%
of Christians in the U.S. now believe that homosexuality should be accepted by society (as
compared to only 44% of U.S. Christians in 2007; Murphy, 2015). Researchers have proposed
that this increased acceptance of homosexuality among religious individuals in the U.S. is driven
in part by younger church members (Murphy, 2015).
Tripartite Models of Prejudice
Tripartite models are often used to conceptualize attitudes in general (Breckler, 1984;
Eagly & Chaiken, 1993) and prejudiced attitudes specifically (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007;
Esses & Dovidio, 2002), positing that attitudes are comprised of three distinct, yet interrelated,
components: cognition, affect, and behavior. The cognitive element of prejudiced attitudes
includes an individual’s thoughts or beliefs about a person or object (e.g., stereotypes), the
affective element consists of the feelings or emotions associated with a person or object (e.g.,
disgust, fear, anger), and the behavioral element presumes how an individual might act in an
encounter with a person or object (e.g., discrimination). Contemporary models of prejudiced
attitudes suggest that there is a bidirectional relationship among these components that accounts
for the structure and formation of attitudes (Dalege et al., 2016; Fazio & Olson, 2003; Monroe &
Read, 2008). Specifically, evaluative reactions to an attitude object are derived from cognitive,
affective, and/or behavioral information, and subsequent interactions between these reactions can
in turn influence ensuing cognitions, affect, and behavior.
Despite the cognitive and affective elements of intergroup attitudes being highly
correlated, they are each able to explain a unique amount of the variance in prejudiced attitudes

10

and are differentially able to predict prejudiced or discriminatory behavior (Esses & Dovidio,
2002). In general, previous research has found that the affective facet of intergroup attitudes is
the strongest predictor of an individual’s discriminatory behavior toward a broad assortment of
outgroups (Cuddy et al., 2007; Esses & Dovidio, 2002), and the affective element may in fact
mediate the relationship between cognitions and behavior (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). For
example, in a study of the negative affective states of anger and fear, willingness to engage in
active harm against an outgroup member (e.g., a propensity for actively bullying or harassing
members of the outgroup) was predicted by the perception that the outgroup was a competitor
(Mackie et al., 2000). Specifically, social outgroups who pose a threat to the well-being of one’s
ingroup are likely to elicit negative affective states (e.g., fear, anxiety, or hostility), which may in
turn predict a willingness to engage in discriminatory behavior against that outgroup (Mackie et
al., 2000).
Models of Sexual Prejudice
Overall, the tripartite model of prejudiced attitudes offers a foundation for understanding
how the cognitive and affective elements of intergroup attitudes may be related to sexual
prejudice or discriminatory behavior. The extant literature has primarily focused on two models
of sexual prejudice: the personality model of homophobia and the negative affective response
model of homophobia. The personality model of homophobia posits that two personality factors,
namely right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO), have a
robust and meaningful association with anti-gay prejudice (Case et al., 2008; Goodman &
Moradi, 2008; Stones, 2006; Whitley & Lee, 2000; Wilkinson, 2004b). On the other hand, the
negative affective response model of homophobia proposes that when a homophobic individual
is required to confront an LGB-themed stimulus (e.g., male-on-male erotica), some homophobic

11

individuals appear to experience an anxious, fearful response (e.g., heart rate acceleration;
Shields & Harriman, 1984).
Although these models are often presented as competing with one another, they may be
better conceptualized as two complimentary constructs, with the personality model of
homophobia explaining sexual prejudice at the individual, trait level and the negative affective
response model accounting for sexual prejudice at the episodic, state level. Taken together, these
two models may be able to predict which individuals are most likely to endorse antigay attitudes
in general, and how they are likely to respond upon encountering an LGB-related environmental
stimulus.

12

CHAPTER 3
THE PERSONALITY MODEL OF HOMOPHOBIA
Allport (1954) suggested that people acquire one of two universal styles: generalized
prejudice or generalized tolerance. While individuals who are generally tolerant have a sense of
internal security and are capable of thinking in “shades of gray,” those who are generally
prejudiced are more likely to be insecure, anxious, and unable to cope with internal conflicts
(Duckitt, 2005; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007). According to Allport (1954), generalized prejudice,
which he referred to as the authoritarian personality, is associated with seven surface-level traits:
emotional ambivalence, rigid convention, dichotomization (e.g., good or bad), need for
definiteness, externalization, institutionalization, and authoritarianism. Thus, generally
prejudiced individuals are thought to perceive the social world as threatening and dangerous, and
their actions against an assortment of outgroups are based on the apprehension that these
outgroups are attempting to disrupt social order (Duckitt, 2005). There are also robust and
meaningful relationships between prejudiced attitudes and two individual-level personality
factors: right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation (SDO).
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA)
Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) is a personality factor used to describe individuals
who value conventionalism (i.e., a strict adherence to traditional middle class values) and have a
tendency to condemn, reject, or punish people who violate conventional values (Adorno,
Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950). Individuals who are high in RWA often exhibit
a submissive attitude toward “moral authority” figures (e.g., religious leaders and/or politicians
who espouse support for “traditional family values”). Furthermore, these individuals are prone
to engaging in maladaptive psychosocial practices such as stereotypy (i.e., a tendency to think in

13

rigid categories) and projectivity (i.e., a tendency to attribute one’s own negative characteristics
to members of outgroups; Adorno et al., 1950).
RWA is a strong predictor of prejudice. More than 50 years of research has shown that
high RWA individuals tend to exhibit an elevated degree of prejudice across a wide variety of
outgroups (Laythe, Finkel, & Kirkpatrick, 2001), including feminists (Duncan, Peterson, &
Winter, 1997), lesbians and gay men (Whitley & Lee, 2000), Native Americans (Altemeyer,
1998), and Jews (Frindte, Wettig, & Wammetsberger, 2005).
One possible explanation for this relationship may be grounded in three specific
components of RWA (Childs, 2011). The first component, authoritarian submission, posits that
individuals high on RWA tend to submit to authority figures that they deem legitimate
(Altemeyer, 1981). This authoritarian submission guides high RWA individuals toward
unquestioningly adopting established authority figures’ positions on a variety of issues. The
second component, authoritarian aggression, guides high RWA individuals to act aggressively
toward outgroups that authority figures have condemned using symbolic aggression (e.g., verbal
expressions of prejudicial attitudes) or physical violence (e.g., attacks on outgroup members;
Altemeyer, 1981). Consequently, individuals high on RWA typically hold positive attitudes
toward war, corporal punishment, and penal code violence (Benjamin, 2006). The third
component, conventionalism, guides high RWA individuals to closely identify with the current
social norms and look down upon individuals or groups who do not adhere to those norms
(Altemeyer, 1981; Childs, 2011). These components lead high RWA individuals to partition
society into groupings of “us” versus “them,” which may help to clarify why RWA has been so
frequently associated with prejudice. That is, because outgroups often challenge or jeopardize
the traditional values that high RWA individuals fiercely protect, degrading and demeaning the

14

members of threatening outgroups serves to diffuse the outgroup’s ability to threaten social
stability (Whitley & Ægisdóttir, 2000).
There is a strong association between sexual prejudice and RWA in the extant literature,
demonstrating that RWA exerts both direct and indirect effects on sexual prejudice (Keiller,
2010). In particular, while modeling authority figures’ prejudiced behavior accounts for the
direct relationship between RWA and sexual prejudice, high RWA individuals’ support of
traditional gender role beliefs exerts an indirect effect on sexual prejudice (Whitley &
Ægisdóttir, 2000). Altemeyer (2002) posits that social learning theory is best able to describe the
relationship between sexual prejudice and RWA. Specifically, aversive stimuli elicit the
tendency to aggress, but social norms dictate that it is inappropriate to act on one’s aggressive
instincts. Because homosexuality is thought to elicit a strong, fearful reaction in high RWA
individuals, Altemeyer (2002) speculates that this reaction instigates feelings of aggression and
the negative stereotypes they hold about homosexuality lessens the social pressure to avoid
aggression. Thus, high RWA individuals are able to justify acting on their aggressive impulses
when confronted with homosexual stimuli because they perceive others as holding similar
negative stereotypes of lesbians and gay men and believe it as their responsibility to defend
traditional values.
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO)
Social dominance orientation (SDO) is a personality factor characterized by the desire to
have one’s own group be superior and dominate over other groups (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth,
& Malle, 1994) and is comprised of two basic components, namely group-based dominance and
opposition to equality (Jost & Thompson, 2000; Kugler, Cooper, & Nosek, 2010). Group-based
dominance is the belief that social groups should be positioned hierarchically and that one’s own

15

social group should be ranked at the top of the hierarchy (Kugler et al., 2010). As such, those
high in SDO often experience hostility toward outgroups, perceive competition between their
group and other groups, and generally view the world as competitive by nature with rewards for
ruthlessness and amorality (Duckitt, 2005; Wilson, 2003). Following these beliefs, opposition to
equality reflects the conviction that socially inferior outgroups should not receive assistance to
improve their circumstances because they rightfully belong on the lower rungs in the social
hierarchy. Moreover, people high in SDO tend to perceive resources as being scarce and believe
that an equitable allocation of these resources across social groups will place an undue burden on
their ingroup. Therefore, high SDO individuals will often deny resources to members of
outgroups, keep outgroup members from gaining any authority that could force them to share
resources, and then justify these behaviors by denigrating others as undeserving (Whitley, 1999).
In accordance with social dominance theory, those who belong to a powerful group often
have higher scores on measures of SDO, because high SDO scores correspond to a desire to
preserve the level of social dominance they have already attained (Crawford & Pilanski, 2014).
As such, SDO is often higher in men than in women (Sidanius, Sinclair, & Pratto, 2006) and
predicts men’s prejudice toward women (Bates & Heaven, 2001). SDO’s emphasis on the
inequality between social strata may lead high SDO individuals to denigrate outgroup members
in order to maintain their ingroup's standing at the top of the social hierarchy. Thus, by opposing
social programs that would be of assistance to members of marginalized groups and engaging in
discriminatory practices, high SDO individuals are better able to ensure that the social hierarchy
will remain unchanged (Whitley & Ægisdóttir, 2000).
SDO is often associated with approval of racially insensitive jokes (Hodson, Rush, &
MacInnis, 2010), political conservatism, and a lack of humanitarian compassion for the

16

disadvantaged (Kugler et al., 2010). Similar to RWA, individuals high in SDO possess negative
attitudes toward an assortment of social outgroups and tend to be prejudiced against social
groups who question the legitimacy of social inequality, including African Americans and Asian
Americans (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001), Native Americans (Altemeyer, 1998), and lesbians and
gay men (Whitley & Lee, 2000).
The Association between RWA and SDO
Although both RWA and SDO are related to prejudiced attitudes, they are derived from
independent constructs (Altemeyer, 1998) and therefore make independent contributions to
intergroup attitudes (Crawford, Jussim, Cain, & Cohen, 2013; Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Wilson &
Sibley, 2013). RWA tends to focus on the maintenance and defense of ingroup norms and
values, whereas SDO promotes the maintenance of existing social hierarchies (Altemeyer, 1988).
Because the world is perceive as threatening and dangerous, individuals high on RWA are driven
by the goal of maintaining social cohesion and stability. On the other hand, individuals high on
SDO are motivated by goals of dominance and superiority because they view the world as a
competition in which only the strong will thrive (Duckitt, 2005).
The existing literature suggests that an individual’s scores on measures of RWA and
SDO can predict a large segment of the variance in prejudiced attitudes toward a variety of
outgroups (approximately 50%; Altemeyer, 1998). However, RWA and SDO are only mildly
correlated with one another (r = .20), which implies that these two constructs reflect distinct
categories of prejudiced individuals (Altemeyer, 2004). Thus, because these personality facets
are thought to sanction prejudice for unrelated reasons, studies often find differences between
individuals high on RWA, SDO, or both (Duckitt & Sibley, 2007; Heaven & Quintin, 2003; Hiel
& Mervielde, 2005; Sibley, Wilson, & Duckitt, 2007b).

17

Consequently, double highs (i.e., individuals who score in the top quartile on measures of
both RWA and SDO) pose a particularly alarming problem for marginalized populations
(Altemeyer, 2004). Previous research has discovered that double highs appear to be the result of
an additive, rather than interactive, association between the constructs of RWA and SDO (Sibley,
Robertson, & Wilson, 2006). The additive nature of the relationship between the constructs of
RWA and SDO seems to be consistent with Altemeyer’s finding that double high individuals
express elevated levels of prejudice when compared with individuals who are classified as high
in only RWA or SDO (2004). Although double high individuals are rare, accounting for only 510% of participants in studies on RWA and SDO, they may significantly affect public opinion
regarding prejudice when allowed to advance to positions of power (Altemeyer, 2004).
While double highs are as likely as individuals high on only SDO to crave power,
domination, and inequality, double highs are also as likely as individuals high on only RWA to
be religious. This differentiates individuals who are only high on RWA (who do not desire to be
the ones with power) from individuals who are only high on SDO (who generally are not
religious). Similar to high RWA individuals, double highs are likely to discriminate against
outgroups on the basis of religion and endorse dogmatic views (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).
However, unlike highly religious RWA individuals, double highs are also inclined to lie, cheat,
and manipulate others. In general, Altemeyer (2004) suggests that double high individuals
“alloy the least attractive qualities of each trait” (p. 441).
Previous research has found that sexual prejudice related to RWA and SDO is
significantly associated with discrimination (Case et al., 2008; Goodman & Moradi, 2008;
Stones, 2006; Whitley & Lee, 2000; Wilkinson, 2004b). For instance, Goodman and Moradi
(2008) found that RWA was not only correlated with anti-gay and lesbian attitudes, but also with

18

an escalation in rejecting behaviors (e.g., changing seats after finding out someone is gay,
gossiping about someone because they are gay). Overall, the combination of RWA, SDO, and
traditional gender role beliefs was able to account for 72% of the variance in anti-gay and lesbian
attitudes and 42% of the variance in gay and lesbian rejecting behavior.
Overall, the extant literature on prejudice supports the concept that prejudice toward
outgroup members can in principle be predicted by a small number of personality characteristics
(i.e., RWA and SDO). Furthermore, the relationship between RWA and SDO and sexually
prejudiced attitudes has been observed in a variety of populations by a number of different
researchers, and one meta-analysis that examined the association of RWA and SDO with sexual
prejudice over time found an average effect size of d = 1.26 for RWA and d = .72 for SDO
(Childs, 2011).

19

CHAPTER 4
THE NEGATIVE AFFECTIVE RESPONSE MODEL OF HOMOPHOBIA
A great deal of what is known about the construct of sexual prejudice has drawn from
the extant literature on other categories of prejudiced attitudes (e.g., racism, sexism).
Accordingly, variables that are regularly associated with other forms of prejudiced attitudes (e.g.,
RWA and SDO) have received the most attention in previous research. However, sexual
orientation deviates from many other marginalized statuses in several fundamental ways. For
instance, lesbians and gay men often have to make a decision of whether or not to disclose their
sexual orientation (or “come out”) to others (Herek, 1996), but societal factors frequently make
this evaluation more complicated. In the U.S., acts of discrimination against lesbians and gay
men are often defended on the basis of the perpetrators’ “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and
several states have even enacted laws protecting people’s right to discriminate against someone
on the basis of sexual orientation (Wang et al., 2016). Further complicating this issue,
classifying sexual orientation as an immutable, inborn characteristic (versus a choice made by
lesbians and gay men) continues to be a point of contention in this country (Pew Research
Center, 2015). Additionally, research has found that some individuals report experiencing a
negative affective or visceral reaction to images of same-sex intimacy that is not often seen with
other marginalized groups (Guerra Meneses, 2015; Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, & Bloom, 2009;
Meier, Robinson, Gaither, & Heinert, 2006). For these reasons, traditional models of prejudiced
attitudes may fail to fully explain why sexual prejudice continues to be prevalent in this country.
The negative affective response model of homophobia proposes that when a homophobic
individual is confronted by an LGB-themed stimulus, he or she may experience a negative

20

psychophysiological response. Previous research has concentrated on several specific
dimensions of negative affect: 1) fear/anxiety, 2) anger/aggression, and 3) disgust.
Within the extant literature on this model of sexual prejudice, researchers have found that
some sexually prejudiced individuals report more symptoms of fear and anxiety after viewing
LGB-related stimuli (Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980;
Mahaffey, Bryan, & Hutchison, 2005a; Mahaffey, Bryan, & Hutchison, 2005b; Mahaffey,
Bryan, Ito, & Hutchinson, 2011; Shields & Harriman, 1984; Zeichner & Reidy, 2009). For
instance, previous research has found that homophobic men reported significantly more anxiety,
anger-hostility, and negative affect after being exposed to male same-sex erotica (Bernat et al.,
2001). Although most of the studies in this area of research have used only self-report measures
of fear and anxiety (e.g., Bernat et al., 2001; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980), a small number of
studies have also examined physiological markers of anxiety and found that exposure to samesex erotica was associated with heart rate acceleration (Shields & Harriman, 1984) and a startle
eye blink response (Mahaffey et al., 2005a; Mahaffey et al., 2005b; Mahaffey et al., 2011). In
sum, findings have been consistent across time and samples that some homophobic individuals
endorse greater feelings of fear and anxiety on both self-report and physiological measures after
being exposed to LGB-themed stimuli.
Researchers have suggested that both the self-reported and observed anxiety and/or fear
some heterosexual males experience when exposed to homoerotic material may not actually be a
fear of sexual minorities in general or even male same-sex sexual behavior, but rather it may be a
fear of their own sexual arousal in response to the stimulus (Meier et al., 2006; Zeichner &
Reidy, 2009). Studies that have examined arousal in sexually prejudiced participants have found
that homophobic males were more likely than non-homophobic males to become aroused when

21

watching erotic films featuring male same-sex sexual activity (arousal was measured by penile
tumescence, which is increased penile circumference indicating arousal; Adams, Wright, &
Lohr, 1996). However, despite significant increases in penile tumescence, sexually prejudiced
participants were more likely to underestimate or deny their sexual arousal in response to male
homosexual stimuli (Adams et al., 1996). The authors suggested that these participants might
have been utilizing defense mechanisms (e.g., repression, denial, reaction formation) in response
to feeling threatened by their homosexual impulses (Adams et al., 1996). On the other hand, the
authors also proposed that the significant increases in penile tumescence might be better
attributed to the sexually prejudiced participants’ anxiety (rather than sexual arousal) as penile
tumescence has also been associated with anxiety and attention in previous research (Adams et
al., 1996).
One recent study that sought to explain the relationship between sexual prejudice and
psychological dysfunction in Italian university students found that homophobia was related to
psychoticism and immature defense mechanisms (Ciocca et al., 2015); conversely, the authors
found that depressive symptoms and the use of neurotic defense mechanisms were predictive of
lower levels of sexually prejudiced attitudes. Ciocca et al. (2015) proposed that negative
emotions might be inappropriately directed at individuals who are perceived to be a threat when
they are externalized. Furthermore, the authors suggested that fear may be a major contributing
factor to sexual prejudice because individuals who self-reported an insecure/fearful attachment
style also endorsed higher levels of sexually prejudiced attitudes (Ciocca et al., 2015).
Previous research has also found that sexually prejudiced individuals report more anger
and feelings of aggression after viewing LGB-related material compared to those without such
prejudices (Bernat et al., 2001; Dasgupta et al., 2009; Hudepohl, Parrott, & Zeichner, 2010;

22

Parrot & Peterson, 2008; Parrot & Zeichner, 2005; Zeichner & Reidy, 2009). For instance, one
study found that when sexually prejudiced heterosexual males were exposed to male same-sex
erotica, they reacted with high amounts of anger (Ziechner & Reidy, 2009) and were more likely
to show anger than those who viewed heterosexual erotic material (Parrott & Zeichner, 2008).
This increase in anger was also observed when sexually prejudiced participants viewed nonerotic depictions of gay intimacy (Hudepohl, Parrott, & Ziechner, 2010). As was the case with
fear and anxiety, the majority of the studies used self-report indicators of anger and aggression;
however, a few studies have used interactive laboratory tasks to directly assess aggression
following exposure to LGB-related material. For instance, when Bernat et al. (2001) exposed
heterosexual male participants to gay male pornography, the sexually prejudiced participants
reported more anger and feelings of aggression. Participants were then asked to compete against
an opponent in a reaction time task; when the sexually prejudiced participants who had been
shown gay male pornography believed that their opponent was a gay man, they were more
aggressive and willing to administer shocks to their opponent (Bernat et al., 2001).
Finally, a number of studies have identified disgust as a component of negative attitudes
toward sexual minorities (Inbar, Pizzaro, & Bloom, 2012; Röndahl, Innala, & Carlsson; 2004;
Tapias, Glaser, Keltner, Vasquez, & Wickens, 2007; Terrizzi et al., 2010). For example, one
study found that inducing disgust in participants resulted in increased sexually prejudiced
attitudes (Terrizzi et al., 2010). Similarly, following an inducement of disgust, participants who
were generally more sensitive to the feeling of disgust exhibited more sexually prejudiced
attitudes in response to gay male public displays of affection while approval of heterosexual
public displays of affection remained the same (Inbar et al., 2012). The extant literature offers
competing explanations for the relationship between disgust and sexual prejudice (Dasgupta et

23

al., 2009; Olatunji, 2008). Whereas several studies suggest that the relationship between disgust
and sexual prejudice can primarily be attributed to an association between sexually transmitted
diseases (particularly HIV/AIDS) and male same-sex sexual behavior (e.g., Dasgupta et al.,
2009; Terrizzi et al., 2010), others attribute this relationship to religious purity and conservative
sexual ideas (e.g., Olatunji, 2008). Overall, while some studies have not found a significant
relationship between sexual prejudice and disgust (e.g., Zeichner & Reidy, 2009), others have
observed a significant association between sexually prejudiced attitudes and feelings of disgust
(particularly when studies use gay male stimuli; e.g., Dasgupta et al., 2009; Hudson & Ricketts,
1980).
In general, research on the negative affective response model of homophobia has been
inconsistent, which may be indicative of methodological flaws or the failure to account for
confounding variables. First, the different methods that previous studies have used to assess
affect (e.g., self-report questionnaires versus physiological or interactive tasks) may be partially
responsible for the inconsistencies in the extant literature. For instance, a study that compared
self-reports of arousal to penile tumescence in sexually prejudiced males found that participants
demonstrated more physical arousal in response to gay male pornography than they reported
(Adams et al., 1996). Thus, while utilizing multiple methods to investigate a research question is
generally advantageous, different methodology may yield different results (particularly when
participants are being asked to endorse socially undesirable attitudes like homophobia), which
can make it more difficult to compare findings across studies.
Second, the majority of the research on the negative affective response model of
homophobia uses erotic gay male imagery as stimulus material. While the shocking stimulus
material may lead to a more negative affective response, the use of erotic gay male imagery may

24

interfere with the studies’ external validity. In other words, when erotic gay male imagery is
used to induce a negative affective reaction, the researchers are potentially exposing homophobic
individuals to a visual image that they are unlikely to encounter in their daily lives. Thus, it is
difficult to use the findings of this line of research to predict how sexually prejudiced individuals
might react to LGB-related stimuli in their everyday lives.
Finally, one commonality across studies is that there were significant differences in
reactions across sexually prejudiced individuals. For instance, while Shields and Harriman
(1984) found that some of the sexually prejudiced participants in their study exhibited a
defensive heart rate pattern, this defensive pattern was not observed universally across all of the
homophobic participants. Similarly, Adams et al. (1996) found that only half of their
participants experienced marked penile tumescence in response to male same-sex erotica. Thus,
the existence of sexually prejudiced attitudes might be a necessary but insufficient predictor of
negative affective responses after exposure to LGB-related stimuli (Shields & Harriman, 1984).
The inconsistencies across sexually prejudiced individuals observed in previous research
may indicate that there are potential moderating or mediating variables that have not yet been
identified. Recently, one study found that a dual-process model (i.e., the impulsive/reflective
system described in Strack & Deutsch, 2004) was able to account for some of the variation in
homophobic participants’ sexual interest in same-sex visual stimuli (Guerra Meneses, 2015).
Using a mixed method design that included self-report questionnaires, eye-tracking, and a
manikin task to measure impulsive tendencies, the author found that an impulsive tendency to
approach “homosexual stimuli” moderated the relationship between homophobia and attraction
to same-sex visual stimuli among college-aged males with a high level of sexual prejudice
(Guerra Meneses, 2015).

25

Emotion Regulation
Likewise, it is possible that a moderating or mediating factor may be able to account for
the inconsistencies in the association between sexual prejudice and negative affective responses
to LGB-related material in the extant literature. One of these potential moderating variables is
emotion regulation, which refers to “the processes that influence which emotions we have, when
we have them, and how we experience or express these emotions” (Gross, Sheppes, & Urry,
2011, p. 767). While emotion regulation is often associated with attempts to decrease or “downregulate” negative emotions (e.g., anxiety, anger, sadness; Gross, 2015), individuals regulate
both negative and positive emotions by altering the intensity, duration, or quality of emotional
states (Gross, 1998).
There are three core features common to a wide array of emotion regulation strategies
(Gross, 2014). First, emotion regulation involves the activation of an intrinsic or extrinsic goal
that can be triggered to modify the generation of emotions. Second, emotion regulation includes
explicit and implicit regulatory processes responsible for altering the trajectory of one’s
emotions. Third, emotion regulation involves attempts to control the experiential, behavioral, or
physiological experience of an emotional response (e.g., the latency, magnitude, intensity, or
duration of an emotional reaction).
According the process model of emotion regulation (Gross, 2014), there are five distinct
categories of regulatory processes that can be engaged during an emotional response to regulate
affect: 1) situation selection (i.e., taking action to decrease one’s exposure to internal or
environmental situations that will likely result in negative emotions); 2) situation modification
(i.e., altering a situation to modify its emotional impact); 3) attentional deployment (i.e.,
intentionally focusing one’s attention within a situation to shape an emotional response); 4)

26

cognitive change (i.e., shifting one’s emotional response to a situation by altering one’s thoughts
about the situation or his or her ability to successfully respond to the situation); and 5) response
modulation (i.e., attempting to influence one’s emotional response to a situation after it has
already appeared; Gross, 1999).
The process model of emotion regulation is linked to the modal model of emotions
(Gross, 2014), which proposes that multifaceted emotional responses occur when an internal or
environmental situation draws an individual’s attention and the situation is appraised to have
meaning to the individual at this time (see Figure 1; Barrett, Ochsner, & Gross, 2007).

Situation

Attention

Appraisal

Response

Figure 1. The modal model of emotion.

The modal model of emotions integrates elements from the basic emotion approach (in which
emotional responses are automatically elicited from hardwired neural circuits) and the appraisal
approach (in which emotional responses are triggered by individuals’ patterns of cognition;
Barrett et al., 2007). Furthermore, the five distinct facets of the process model of emotion
regulation can be overlaid on the modal model of emotions such that there is an opportunity for
emotion regulation to occur at five different points along this trajectory of emotional experiences
(see Figure 2; Gross, 2014).

27

Situation
Selection

Situation
Modification

Attentional
Deployment

Cognitive
Change

Response
Modulation

Situation

Attention

Appraisal

Response

Figure 2: The five categories of the process model of emotion regulation overlaid on the modal
model of emotions.
Because emotion regulation is often associated with attempts to decrease negative
emotions (Gross, 2015), the current study evaluated the role of this potential confounding
variable on the self-report of negative affective responses after viewing stimuli featuring gay
men. Specifically, this study examined the potential influence of two emotion regulation
strategies, cognitive reappraisal (i.e., altering one’s cognitions to change the emotional impact of
an emotion-eliciting situation) and expressive suppression (i.e., modulating one’s responses to
inhibit existing emotion-expressive behavior; Gross, 1998), on self-reported negative affective
responses.

28

CHAPTER 5
RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES
The current study sought to extend the extant literature on sexual prejudice by using an
experimental design to concurrently examine factors associated with two of the most prominent
models of sexual prejudice: the personality model of homophobia and the negative affective
response model of homophobia. Although these two models of sexual prejudice are often
presented as conflicting and contradictory models in the extant literature, this study explored
whether or not these two models are actually complementary. The personality model of
homophobia is often used to predict which individuals are more likely to endorse anti-gay
attitudes, whereas the negative affective response model is often used to predict how individuals
might respond upon encountering an LGB-related stimulus. Accordingly, the personality model
of homophobia may explain sexual prejudice at a trait level, whereas the negative affective
response model may account for sexual prejudice at the episodic, state level. Thus, taken
together, these two models of sexual prejudice may be able to predict which individuals are most
likely to endorse anti-gay attitudes and how these individuals will react when confronted with
LGB-related stimuli.
This study was also designed to address a number of the methodological concerns with
previous research on sexual prejudice. For instance, while prior studies have often found a
correlational relationship between RWA, SDO, and sexual prejudice, they generally have not
used experimental manipulation to further explore these relationships. However, the current
study examined whether or not exposure to videos of gay men drawn from mainstream news
media stories moderated the relationship between RWA, SDO, and sexual prejudice by randomly
assigning participants to one of two video conditions (i.e., gay male or control). Similarly,

29

previous research on the negative affective response model of homophobia has generally used
same-sex erotic stimuli to induce negative affect, but it is then difficult to attribute changes in
arousal solely to a negative reaction to LGB-related material because erotic stimuli alone have
been related to physiological arousal. In addition, the external validity of these studies can be
limited as it is relatively easy to avoid same-sex male erotica. Thus, the current study was
designed to further examine and extend this model by using mainstream news media stories
featuring gay men, which is a stimulus that more accurately replicates the type of sexual minority
material most people are exposed to in the real world. Finally, some of the studies in this body
of literature measure negative affect without cueing participants to think about what it is that
makes them uncomfortable (i.e., LGB individuals); however, many people who experience fear
or anxiety related to a specific entity (e.g., spiders, snakes) only experience a negative affective
response after being forced to confront the feared stimulus. Thus, the current study primed
participants to think about gay men by having them watch a non-erotic video of a news story
featuring gay men before measuring their affective response.
In the current study, the following research questions and hypotheses were examined:
Question 1
Are the personality facets RWA and SDO associated with a greater endorsement of sexual
prejudice? For individuals who are high on RWA, SDO, or both RWA and SDO, is viewing a
video featuring gay men related to an increased endorsement of homophobia (see Figure 3)?
Hypothesis 1a. The personality facets RWA and SDO will be associated with a greater
endorsement of sexual prejudice. Participants who are high on both RWA and SDO (i.e., double
highs) will endorse the most sexually prejudiced attitudes, followed by participants who are high

30

on either RWA or SDO; participants who are low on both RWA and SDO will endorse the least
sexually prejudiced attitudes.

Figure 3. Moderation model in which exposure to gay male video content moderates the
relationship between personality style and sexually prejudiced attitudes. RWA = Right-Wing
Authoritarianism. SDO = Social Dominance Orientation.
Hypothesis 1b. The content of the video clip (i.e., gay male or control) will moderate the
relationship between the personality facets RWA and SDO and homophobia. Specifically, the
relationship between RWA, SDO, and endorsement of sexually prejudiced attitudes will be
larger when participants view a video featuring gay men versus the control video.
Question 2
Is exposure to gay male content (e.g., the videos from Question 1) associated with a
negative affective response? Does sexual prejudice moderate the relationship between viewing
video clips that feature gay men and a negative affective response? Can emotion regulation
moderate the relationship between sexual prejudice and a negative affective response after
viewing videos that feature gay male content (see Figure 4)?

31

Figure 4. Moderated moderation model (i.e., three-way interaction model) in which the two
indicators of emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) moderate the
moderating effect of sexually prejudiced attitudes on the relationship between negative affective
response (a latent variable with five manifest indicators) and exposure to gay male content.
Hypothesis 2a (main effect of exposure on negative affect). Overall, exposure to
videos that feature gay male content will be associated with a significantly more negative
affective response.
Hypothesis 2b (moderation). Sexual prejudice will moderate the relationship between
viewing video clips featuring gay men and a negative affective response, such that the
association between viewing gay male content and having a negative affective response will be
stronger in individuals with more sexually prejudiced attitudes.

32

Hypothesis 2c (moderated moderation). Emotion regulation will moderate the
moderating effect of sexual prejudice on the relationship between negative affective response
and exposure to video clips featuring gay men. In other words, there will be a three-way
interaction between exposure to gay male content, negative affective response, and emotion
regulation, such that individuals who endorse an elevated degree of homophobia and have poorer
emotion regulation will demonstrate a larger negative affective response than individuals who
endorse an elevated degree of homophobia but have better emotion regulation.
Question 3
Will a combined state-trait model of sexual prejudice better explain why some individuals have a
strong, negative affective reaction when exposed to video clips featuring gay men compared to
models that address sexual prejudice as either a stable, trait-level personality variable or a statelevel negative affective response?
Hypothesis 3. A state-trait model of sexual prejudice (see Figure 5) will adequately fit
the data. Specifically, according to a trait model of sexual prejudice, for participants who are
high on RWA, SDO, or both RWA and SDO, viewing a video that features gay male content will
be associated with a greater endorsement of sexually prejudiced attitudes. Furthermore,
according to a state model of sexual prejudice, this greater endorsement of sexually prejudiced
attitudes after viewing video clips featuring gay men will be associated with a more negative
affective response, particularly for participants who have poor emotion regulation.

33

Figure 5. “State-trait” model of homophobia: an integrated model of sexual prejudice that
includes facets of both the personality and negative affective response models of sexual
prejudice.

34

CHAPTER 6
PILOT STUDY
In order to empirically select the video clips used in the full study, a pilot study was
conducted to examine the reactions of individuals who were high on either RWA or SDO to
videos taken from mainstream news media stories about gay men. First, the researcher selected
10 potential video clips from mainstream news media stories online. The videos all featured
stories about white openly gay men, focused on topics that would be relevant to individuals high
in RWA or SDO (e.g., freedom to discriminate against gay men on the basis of deeply held
religious beliefs; equal rights for same-sex couples), and were all edited to approximately the
same length (between two and two and a half minutes). Second, undergraduate research
assistants who had been trained on the subjects of RWA and SDO evaluated these 10 potential
videos to ensure they all exhibited either RWA- or SDO-related content, had a similarly positive
or negative valence, and were equally engaging to watch. On the basis of this initial review of
the videos, six videos were selected for the pilot study.
Method
Participants. Participants (n = 147) were recruited from the Michigan State University
Human Participation in Research (HPR) system to participate in a study examining individuals’
reactions to video clips taken from mainstream news media stories about gay men. All
participants were between 18 and 23 years old (M = 19.47, SD = 1.27). The majority were
female (female: n = 99, 67.3%; male: n = 47, 32.0%). Most of the participants identified as
heterosexual (n = 136, 92.5%), followed by bisexual (n = 5, 3.4%), gay or lesbian (n = 2, 1.4%),
and other (n = 3, 2.0%; “questioning,” “asexual,” and “heterosexual and biromantic”). The
majority of the sample identified as White (n = 104, 70.7%), followed by Asian (n = 24, 16.3%),

35

Black or African American (n = 9, 6.1%), and other (n = 9, 6.1%). The majority of the
participants were “single, never married” (n = 141, 95.9%), and none reported having children (n
= 145, 98.6%; n = 2 did not answer this question). Participants were raised in a variety of
religions, including Catholic (n = 53, 36.1%), Christian or Protestant (n = 35, 23.8%), Muslim (n
= 5, 3.4%), Orthodox (n = 3, 2.0%), Jewish (n = 3, 2.0%), Hindu (n = 3, 2.0%), and Buddhist (n
= 2, 1.4%); 26.5% of the sample reported not being raised in any religion (n = 39) and 2% were
raised in an “other” religion (n = 3). Participants currently identified with numerous different
religions, including Catholic (n = 43, 29.3%), Christian or Protestant (n = 27, 18.4%), Muslim (n
= 5, 3.4%), Jewish (n = 3, 2.0%), Hindu (n = 3, 2.0%), Orthodox (n = 2, 1.4%), and Buddhist (n
= 2, 1.4%); 7.5% currently identified with an “other” religion (n = 11) and 34.0% of the sample
reported not identifying with any religion (n = 50; Agnostic: n = 15, 10.2%; Atheist: n = 12,
8.2%; “nothing in particular”: n = 22, 15.0%).
Procedure. Participants were invited to participate in an online study on the HPR
website; they were then redirected to the online survey hosted by Qualtrics, where participants
read the informed consent and indicated their agreement to participate in the study electronically.
Next, participants completed demographic measures as well as measures of RWA, SDO, and
sexual prejudice. They then watched six brief video clips; three of the video clips were meant to
elicit negative feelings in high RWA individuals (e.g., bakery refused to make the cake for a gay
wedding; gay male couple adopts and raises 12 children; couple denied adoption of daughter
they had cared for since birth) and three of the video clips were meant to elicit negative feelings
in high SDO individuals (e.g., husband of a male state trooper denied death benefits; gay male
couple harassed and evicted from their apartment; company denies spousal benefits for same-sex
couples). After each video clip, participants were asked to rate the video to ensure that they had

36

a similarly positive or negative valence (e.g., “Did you find the overall tone of this video clip to
be more negative or more positive?”) and were equally engaging to the participants (e.g., “To
what degree did you like or enjoy this video clip?”). Participants were then asked use a forced
sort method to rank the videos from most to least upsetting (e.g., “You just watched
six different video clips taken from mainstream news media that featured stories about gay men.
Now, we would like you to please rank the six videos from most to least upsetting (i.e., "1" =
most upsetting and "6" = "least upsetting). Keep in mind that the term "upsetting" can refer to
many different emotions, such as shocked, offended, sad, angry, etc. There is no right or wrong
order for the video clips - we are only interested in your opinion of the news stories.”).
Measures. The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) as well as the overall sample
means and standard deviations for all measures used in the pilot study are reported in Table 1.
Unless otherwise indicated below, item responses are summed for each measure such that a
higher score on the measure indicates a greater level of the construct.
Right-wing authoritarianism. The Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale contains
34 self-report items (Altemeyer, 1988, 1996; see Appendix). Participants were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agree or disagree with a given statement on a 9-point Likert scale (-4 =
very strongly disagree; -3 = strongly disagree; -2 = moderately disagree; -1 = slightly disagree;
1 = slightly agree; 2 = moderately agree; 3 = strongly agree; 4 = very strongly agree). The
RWA Scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity among college students (Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.92; Cramer, Miller, Amacker, & Burks, 2013).
Social dominance orientation. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) was measured with
a 16-item self-report questionnaire, the SDO Scale (Pratto et al., 1994; see Appendix). The SDO
Scale is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree/disapprove to 7 = strongly

37

agree/approve), and it includes items such as, “Some groups of people are simply inferior to
other groups,” “If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems,” and “It’s
OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.” The SDO scale has been found to
have good reliability and construct validity among college students (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91;
Pratto et al., 1994).
Sexually prejudiced attitudes (Homophobia). The 30-item measure of sexual prejudice
used in the current study includes items that are designed to assess cognitive (e.g., “Homosexual
behavior should be against the law.”), affective (e.g., “Gay men make me nervous.”), and
behavioral (e.g., “I avoid gay individuals.”) facets of homophobia. The questionnaire (see
Appendix) included 30 items drawn from four different measures of homophobia: the
Homophobia Scale (HS; Wright, Adams, & Bernat, 1999); the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and
Gay Men Scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988); the Index of Homophobia (IHP; Hudson & Ricketts,
1980); and the Multifaceted Scale for Measuring Attitudes Toward Homosexuality (MS;
Adolfsen et al., 2010). Sexual prejudice can be somewhat of an ill-defined construct (Costa,
Bandeira, & Nardi, 2013), but there is notable consistency in the content of items across the most
commonly used homophobia measures (Grey, Robinson, Coleman, & Bockting, 2013); however,
none of these scales has emerged as the gold standard measure of homophobia (Siebert,
Chonody, Siebert, & Rutledge, 2014). Due to the considerable overlap in the content of these
scales as well as the inability of any one of these measures to assess all three facets of sexually
prejudiced attitudes, the questionnaire used in this study selected its items from four of the most
commonly used measures. Because the current study is focused on attitudes towards gay men,
wherever necessary, the items in the homophobia scale were reworded to focus exclusively on

38

homosexuality in men. Participants respond to items on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree; 2
= somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 = strongly agree).
Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for All Scales Used in the Pilot Study
Number
of Items

α

M

SD

Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale

34

0.84

131.97

35.96

Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Scale

16

0.93

40.03

16.65

Sexually Prejudiced Attitudes Scale

30

0.96

57.15

21.87

Scale

Results
There were 155 individuals who participated in the pilot study; after eliminating those
who failed to complete the study (n = 5) or participated in the study more than one time (n = 3),
147 participants were retained for data analysis. The overall ratings of the valence (from
“extremely negative” to “extremely positive”) and participants’ enjoyment (from “disliked a
great deal” to “liked a great deal”) of the six videos can be found in Table 2.
Next, total scale scores for the RWA, SDO, and homophobia scales were calculated and
participants were grouped according to their scores. Because of the possible additive nature of
the relationship between the constructs of RWA and SDO, the number of “double

39

Table 2
Ratings of Negative or Positive Valence and Overall Enjoyment of Videos Used in the Pilot Study
Video 1

Video 2

Video 3

Video 4

Video 5

Video 6

Did you find the overall tone of this video clip to be more negative or more positive?
M (SD)
1 = Extremely negative
2 = Somewhat negative
3 = Neither positive nor negative
4 = Somewhat positive
5 = Extremely positive

2.57 (0.86)
11 (7.5%)
62 (42.2%)
48 (32.7%)
21 (14.3%)
1 (0.7%)

2.25 (0.88)
26 (17.7%)
69 (46.9%)
35 (23.8%)
12 (8.2%)
1 (0.7%)

4.15 (0.83)
0 (0.0%)
4 (2.7%)
28 (19.0%)
53 (36.1%)
58 (39.5%)

3.08 (1.16)
13 (8.8%)
36 (24.5%)
36 (24.5%)
43 (29.3%)
15 (10.2%)

2.17 (0.83)
30 (20.4%)
67 (45.6%)
36 (24.5%)
9 (6.1%)
0 (0.0%)

2.37 (0.84)
19 (12.9%)
64 (43.5%)
47 (32.0%)
11 (7.5%)
1 (0.7%)

2.63 (0.99)
26 (17.7%)
25 (17.0%)
71 (48.3%)
18 (12.2%)
3 (2.0%)

3.94 (0.97)
2 (1.4%)
6 (4.1%)
40 (27.2%)
44 (29.9%)
50 (34.0%)

3.21 (1.04)
9 (6.1%)
22 (15.0%)
57 (38.8%)
38 (25.9%)
16 (10.9%)

2.52 (0.99)
26 (17.7%)
40 (27.2%)
54 (36.7%)
20 (13.6%)
2 (1.4%)

2.63 (0.89)
16 (10.9%)
41 (27.9%)
66 (44.9%)
17 (11.6%)
2 (1.4%)

To what degree did you like or enjoy this video clip?
M (SD)
1 = Disliked a great deal
2 = Disliked somewhat
3 = Neither liked nor disliked
4 = Liked somewhat
5 = Liked a great deal

2.85 (0.94)
14 (9.5%)
28 (19%)
71 (48.3%)
25 (17.0%)
5 (3.4%)

Note. Video 1 = bakery refused to make the cake for a gay wedding; Video 2 = husband of a male state trooper denied death benefits;
Video 3 = gay male couple adopts and raises 12 children; Video 4 = gay male couple harassed and evicted from their apartment;
Video 5 = couple denied adoption of daughter they had cared for since birth; Video 6 = company denies spousal benefits for same-sex
couples. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent the total number of participants in each category with the percentage of the total
sample reported in parentheses.

40

highs” (i.e., individuals who scored in the top quartile on measures of both RWA and SDO) was
also calculated (n = 27); participants who were classified as double highs were excluded from the
pilot study analyses in order to isolate the videos that were most salient to individuals high on
either RWA or SDO. Participants were then grouped into tertiles based on their scores on the
measures of RWA and SDO; the top tertile for both the RWA scale and the SDO scale included
37 participants.
A frequency analysis was used to identify which of the videos were most frequently
ranked as the most upsetting for participants in either group. Two of the videos were
consistently identified as the most upsetting across the two groups: 1) the video in which a
couple is denied adoption of the daughter they had cared for since birth and 2) the video in which
the husband of a state trooper is denied death benefits. For individuals who were in the top
tertile on the RWA scale, 31.3% of the participants selected the adoption denial video as the
most upsetting. However, there was a tie between two videos for individuals in the top tertile on
the SDO scale: 35.3% of the high SDO participants rated the state trooper death benefits video as
the most upsetting video clip and 35.3% of these participants rated the adoption denial video as
the most upsetting. Given that the goal of the pilot study was to select the videos that were most
likely to elicit a negative reaction from sexually prejudiced individuals, the adoption denial video
(which was identified as the most upsetting video by 31.3% of the high RWA participants and
35.3% of the high SDO participants) and the state trooper death benefits video (which was
identified as the most upsetting video by 25.0% of the high RWA participants and 35.3% of the
high SDO participants) were selected as the stimulus videos for the full study. Due to the
considerable overlap between the two groups on which videos were identified as the most
upsetting as well as the sizeable number of “double high” participants in the sample, the two

41

stimulus videos (i.e., the adoption denial video and the state trooper death benefits video) were
collapsed into one category (i.e., gay male videos) for the full study.

42

CHAPTER 7
METHOD – FULL STUDY
Participants
Participants were recruited from the Michigan State University Human Participation in
Research (HPR) system and Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk); after viewing a brief
description of the study on the HPR or mTurk website, participants completed the study online
via the Qualtrics website. Participants recruited from the HPR system were compensated with
research credit, and participants who completed both parts of the survey could also choose to be
entered into a lottery to win one of two $50 Amazon gift cards. Participants recruited through
mTurk were compensated with $5, which was deposited in their Amazon Payments account.
Participation in the study was limited to heterosexually identified individuals who were at least
18 years of age.
Electronic data collection has become increasingly popular in the field of psychology,
largely because it allows for quicker, more economical data collection as well as access to more
diverse samples than are generally found in traditional university-based student participant pools
(Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (mTurk) has become one of the most
popular places for recruiting online participants in the social sciences (Goodman, Cryder, &
Cheema, 2013; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), and it was selected for the current study due to the
quality of the data produced by mTurk workers (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). While
mTurk workers often differ from traditional student participants on several important
demographic variables (e.g., age, gender, level of education, employment status; Goodman et al.,
2013), previous research has been able to replicate a number of traditional social scientific
findings using samples of participants recruited on mTurk (Berinsky, Huber, & Lenz, 2012).

43

In addition, previous research has discovered that RWA and SDO do not significantly
differ between samples of traditional student participants and samples of participants recruited on
mTurk, and sample (i.e., traditional student participants versus mTurk participants) does not
significantly moderate the effects of RWA and SDO on intolerance (Crawford & Pilanski, 2014).
Furthermore, RWA and SDO were both associated with support for political candidates who
opposed same-sex marriage in a sample of participants recruited on mTurk (Crawford, Brady,
Pilanski, & Erny, 2013). However, one study that compared the equivalency of responses from
traditional student participants (collected both in-person and online) and participants recruited on
mTurk found significant differences on three constructs related to prejudice (i.e., modern racism,
RWA, and SDO) among the three samples (in-person student participants, online student
participants, and mTurk participants; Gamblin, Winslow, Lindsay, Newsom, & Kehn, 2016).
Specifically, while the sample recruited on mTurk was equivalent to the in-person student
participants on measures of modern racism and SDO, they reported significantly lower average
scores on the RWA scale than both in-person and online student participants and significantly
lower average scores on the modern racism and SDO scales than the online student participants
(Gamblin et al., 2016). Because the authors attributed the differences on these scales to
disparities on several key demographic factors (e.g., gender, age) between their samples
(Gamblin et al., 2016), participants recruited from the traditional student participant pool and
mTurk were randomly assigned to one of the video conditions in the current study to produce
reasonably equivalent groups across conditions.
Part I of the study had 501 participants (HPR: n = 397; mTurk: n = 104) and 413
participants completed Part II of the study (HPR: n = 313; mTurk: n = 100) for an overall
retention rate of 82.44% (HPR: 78.84%; mTurk: 96.15%). Items to check for careless

44

responding (e.g., questions directing participants to select a specific response; factual multiplechoice questions about the content of the videos) were included to ensure that participants were
paying careful attention throughout the study. Participants were only retained in the final sample
if they had less than 10% of their total data missing across both parts of the study and correctly
answered at least seven of the ten careless responding questions (including at least three out of
the five multiple-choice validity check questions about the video). Furthermore, because this
study was primarily interested in externalized homophobia (rather than internalized
homophobia), participants who identified exclusively as “gay or lesbian” (n = 10, 2.8%) were
removed prior to data analysis. The final total sample included 350 participants (HPR: n = 262;
mTurk: n = 88).
Procedure
Data for this study were collected between April and June of 2016 (Part I: 04/19/201606/10/2016; Part II: 04/26/2016-06/17/2016). Participants were invited to participate in a twopart online study on the HPR and mTurk websites; they were then redirected to the online survey
hosted by Qualtrics, where participants read the informed consent and indicated their agreement
to participate in the study electronically. Participants then completed the demographic measures;
baseline measures of homophobia, state and trait anxiety, and positive and negative affect; as
well as measures of RWA, SDO, emotion regulation, social desirability, and traditional gender
role ideology. One week after their participation in Part I of the study, participants were
contacted via email and asked to complete Part II of the study (via a direct link in the email to the
survey on Qualtrics) within the following seven days.
In Part II, participants were randomly assigned (via the Qualtrics random assignment
algorithm) to one of the three video conditions during the study: the “RWA-themed” video

45

condition (n = 120), the “SDO-themed” video condition (n = 117), or the control video condition
(n = 123). Each video lasted approximately 2 minutes and 30 seconds and was drawn from news
reports about topical issues. The RWA- and SDO-themed stimulus videos used in this study
were selected from a pool of six potential video clips on the basis of the aforementioned pilot
study; because of the considerable overlap between the ratings of these videos in the pilot study,
the RWA- and SDO-themed stimulus videos were collapsed into one category (i.e., gay male
videos) for data analysis. The RWA-themed stimulus video featured two men who had adopted
a newborn girl who was taken away from them nearly two years later despite the girl’s biological
mother petitioning for the two men to retain custody of the girl. The SDO-themed stimulus
video featured the long-term partner of a State Highway Patrol trooper who was denied death
benefits normally paid out to the surviving spouse after the trooper was killed in the line of duty.
The control video featured a discussion of the increased presence and struggles experienced by
adjunct professors at colleges and universities. The control video was similar to the RWA- and
SDO-themed videos in length and style, but it did not contain any discussion of politically
charged issues nor did it feature any LGB-related content. To reduce potential confounds, all of
the videos featured news reports about White, openly gay men (except for the control video,
which introduced three white male professors whose sexual orientation was not discussed).
In order to ensure that participants were adequately exposed to the content of the stimulus
video, they watched the video twice with a brief pause in between and the online survey
instrument included a timing variable that did not allow the participants to advance until the
video’s playtime had elapsed. To ensure that participants adequately attended to the content of
the video clips, they were asked to answer five factual multiple-choice questions about the
content of the video, and a minimum score of 3 out of 5 was required (participants who failed

46

this exposure criterion were excluded from subsequent data analyses). Finally, participants once
again completed the homophobia measure, as well as the measures of state anxiety and positive
and negative affect. Upon completion of the survey, participants were offered a written
explanation of the aims of the study, as well as a list of campus, community, and online
resources related to mental health.
Measures
The reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) as well as the overall sample means and
standard deviations for all measures used in the study are reported in Table 3. Unless otherwise
indicated below, item responses are summed for each measure such that a higher score on the
measure indicates a greater level of the construct.
Criterion Variables
Right-wing authoritarianism. The Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale contains
34 self-report items (Altemeyer, 1988, 1996; see Appendix). Participants were asked to indicate
the extent to which they agree or disagree with a given statement on a 9-point Likert scale (-4 =
very strongly disagree; -3 = strongly disagree; -2 = moderately disagree; -1 = slightly disagree;
1 = slightly agree; 2 = moderately agree; 3 = strongly agree; 4 = very strongly agree). The
RWA Scale has demonstrated good reliability and validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92; Cramer,
Miller, Amacker, & Burks, 2013).
Social dominance orientation. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) was measured
with a 16-item self-report questionnaire, the SDO Scale (Pratto et al., 1994; see Appendix). The
SDO Scale is scored on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree/disapprove to 7 = strongly
agree/approve), and it includes items such as, “Some groups of people are simply inferior to
other groups,” “If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems,” and “It’s

47

OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.” The SDO scale has been found to
have good reliability and construct validity (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91; Pratto et al., 1994).
Outcome Variables
Sexually prejudiced attitudes (Homophobia). The 30-item measure of sexual
prejudice used in the current study includes items that are designed to assess cognitive (e.g.,
“Homosexual behavior should be against the law.”), affective (e.g., “Gay men make me
nervous.”), and behavioral (e.g., “I avoid gay individuals.”) facets of homophobia. The
questionnaire (see Appendix) included 30 items drawn from four different measures of
homophobia: the Homophobia Scale (HS; Wright et al., 1999); the Attitudes Toward Lesbians
and Gay Men Scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988); the Index of Homophobia (IHP; Hudson & Ricketts,
1980); and the Multifaceted Scale for Measuring Attitudes Toward Homosexuality (MS;
Adolfsen et al., 2010). Sexual prejudice can be somewhat of an ill-defined construct (Costa et
al., 2013), but there is notable consistency in the content of items across the most commonly
used homophobia measures (Grey et al., 2013); however, none of these scales has emerged as the
gold standard measure of homophobia (Siebert et al., 2014). Due to the considerable overlap in
the content of these scales as well as the inability of any one of these measures to assess all three
facets of sexually prejudiced attitudes, the questionnaire used in this study selected its items from
four of the most commonly used measures. Because the current study is focused on attitudes
towards gay men, wherever necessary, the items in the homophobia scale were reworded to focus
exclusively on homosexuality in men. Participants respond to items on a 5-point scale (1 =
strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree;
5 = strongly agree).

48

Anxiety. The State–Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA) is a
40-item self-report questionnaire, which is designed to evaluate cognitive and somatic symptoms
of state (in the moment) and trait (in general) anxiety (Ree, MacLeod, French, & Locke, 2000;
see Appendix). The STICSA includes two subscales, both of which can be assessed in the
moment or in general (i.e., state and/or trait): Cognitive (10 items; e.g., “I think the worst will
happen,” “I can’t get some thoughts out of my mind”) and Somatic (10 items; e.g., “My muscles
are tense,” “My breathing is fast and shallow”). Participants score items on a 4-point scale (1 =
not at all; 2 = a little; 3 = moderately; 4 = very much so). The STICSA State (Cronbach’s alpha
= 0.92) and Trait (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91) scales, as well as the subscales (State-Cognitive:
Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; State-Somatic: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; Trait-Cognitive: Cronbach’s
alpha = 0.87; and Trait-Somatic: Cronbach’s alpha = 0.87) have demonstrated good internal
consistency (Gros, Antony, Simms, & McCabe, 2007). In the current study, both state and trait
anxiety were assessed in Part 1 of the study, whereas only state anxiety was assessed in Part 2.
Positive and negative affect. The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule - Expanded
Form (PANAS-X) is a 60-item self-report questionnaire that is designed to measure one’s
current positive and negative affect (Watson & Clark, 1994; see Appendix). The PANAS-X
contains two higher-level subscales that reflect the valence of the mood descriptors (i.e., Positive
Affect (PA) and Negative Affect (NA)) and 11 lower-level subscales that reflect specific
affective content (i.e., Fear, Sadness, Guilt, Hostility, Shyness, Fatigue, Surprise, Joviality, SelfAssurance, Attentiveness, and Serenity). Participants are asked to indicate the extent to which
they currently feel a particular emotion (e.g., afraid, scared, nervous, distressed, enthusiastic,
excited, angry, hostile, irritable, disgusted) on a 5-point scale (1 = very slightly or not at all; 2 =
a little; 3 = moderately; 4 = quite a bit; and 5 = extremely). When asked to classify one’s affect

49

“right now (that is, at the present moment)”, the PA subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88) and the
NA subscale (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85) have demonstrated good internal consistency (Watson &
Clark, 1994). The PANAS-X was administered in both Parts 1 and 2 of the current study.
Moderating Variables
Emotion regulation. The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) is a 10-item selfreport questionnaire that is designed to measure one’s tendency to regulate his or her emotions
(Gross & John, 2003; see Appendix). The ERQ contains two subscales: Cognitive Reappraisal
(6 items; e.g., “When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change
what I’m thinking about.”) and Expressive Suppression (4 items; e.g., “I keep my emotions to
myself.”). Respondents score items on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). The scale has good convergent and divergent validity and internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha coefficients range from .68 to .76; Gross & John, 2003).
Control and Covariant Variables
Social desirability. A 10-item short form of the Social Desirability Scale (SDS; Crowne
& Marlowe, 1960; see Appendix) was used to measure social desirability bias (e.g., “I like to
gossip at times,” “There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone,” and “I’m
always willing to admit it when I make a mistake”; Strahan & Gerbasi, 1972). Participants are
asked to indicate whether each statement is true (1) or false (0) for them. Previous research has
found that this particular short form of the SDS is able to more accurately measure social
desirability than other short form measures (Fischer & Fick, 1993). The Strahan and Gerbasi
short form of the SDS that will be used in this study has strong validity and internal consistency
(Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88; Fischer & Fick, 1993).

50

Traditional gender role ideology. The Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS) is a 20-item
self-report questionnaire that is designed to measure gender role ideology and traditional gender
role expectations (e.g., “It bothers me more to see a woman who is pushy than a man who is
pushy,” “Women with children should not work outside the home if they don’t have to
financially”; Kerr & Holden, 1996; see Appendix). Participants are asked to rate items on a 7point Likert scale (1 = strongly agree; 4 = undecided; 7 = strongly disagree). The GRBS has
good validity and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89; Nierman, Thompson, Bryan, &
Mahaffey, 2007).
Demographic information. Participants were asked to self-report their age, gender,
race, sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, religious affiliation, political affiliation,
and their highest degree or level of school completed. College student participants recruited
from the HPR system were also asked to report the educational degree toward which they are
currently working, their current major, grade point average, and year in school. Community
sample participants recruited from mTurk were asked to report their current employment status
and their total household income before taxes during the past 12 months.

51

Table 3
Means, Standard Deviations, and Reliability Coefficients for All Scales Used in Part I and Part II of the Full Study
Scale
Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale
Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) Scale
Sexually Prejudiced Attitudes Scale
State–Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety
Trait Subscale
State Subscale
State – Cognitive Subscale
State – Somatic Subscale
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS-X)
Positive Affect Subscale
Negative Affect Subscale
Fear Subscale
Hostility Subscale
Guilt Subscale
Sadness Subscale
Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ)
Cognitive Reappraisal Subscale
Expressive Suppression Subscale
Social Desirability Scale (SDS)
Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS)

34
16
30

α
0.94
0.95
0.97

Part I
M
127.51
38.43
56.25

SD
38.31
18.89
21.44

21
21
10
11

0.95
0.94
0.92
0.89

31.84
30.10
16.24
13.86

10
10
6
6
6
5

0.91
0.93
0.90
0.89
0.91
0.90

6
4
10
20

0.88
0.79
0.62
0.92

Number
of Items

52

α
0.97

Part II
M
56.86

SD
22.29

11.49
10.21
6.68
4.44

0.95
0.94
0.91

28.92
15.16
13.77

10.08
6.35
4.51

24.63
14.91
8.54
8.35
8.56
7.86

8.90
6.85
4.08
3.85
4.41
4.09

0.92
0.93
0.90
0.88
0.92
0.90

23.01
14.37
8.39
8.13
8.19
7.47

8.66
6.34
3.90
3.49
4.13
3.79

29.74
14.69
4.35
97.00

6.10
5.13
2.10
22.65

-

-

-

CHAPTER 8
RESULTS - FULL STUDY
Demographic Information
All participants were between 18 and 69 years old (M = 24.19, SD = 9.47). The majority
of participants were female (female: n = 225, 64.3%; male: n = 125, 35.7%). The majority of the
sample identified as White (n = 277, 79.1%), followed by Asian (n = 37, 10.6%), Black or
African American (n = 27, 7.7%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (n = 1, 0.3%), Native
Hawaiian or Pacific Islander (n = 1, 0.3%), and other (n = 7, 2.0%). The majority of the
participants were currently “single, never married” (n = 301, 86.0%), with the remaining
participants reporting being married (n = 27, 7.7%), divorced (n = 13, 3.7%), or other (n = 9,
2.6%); only a small number of participants reported having children (n = 32, 9.1%). Participants
were raised in a variety of religions, including Christian or Protestant (n = 117, 33.4%), Catholic
(n = 112, 32.0%), Jewish (n = 7, 2.0%), Muslim (n = 5, 1.4%), Buddhist (n = 4, 1.1%), Orthodox
(n = 3, 0.9%), Hindu (n = 3, 0.9%), and Mormon (n = 1, 0.3%); 25.4% of the sample reported not
being raised in any religion (n = 89) and 2.6% were raised in an “other” religion (n = 9).
Participants currently identified with numerous different religions, including Christian or
Protestant (n = 92, 26.3%), Catholic (n = 86, 24.6%), Jewish (n = 7, 2.0%), Muslim (n = 4,
1.1%), Orthodox (n = 3, 0.9%), Hindu (n = 3, 0.9%), Mormon (n = 2, 0.6%), and Buddhist (n =
1, 0.3%); 5.4% currently identified with an “other” religion (n = 19) and 38.0% of the sample
reported not identifying with any religion (n = 133; Atheist: n = 35, Agnostic: n = 45, and
“nothing in particular”: n = 52). The majority of participants reported affiliating with the
Democrats (n = 149, 42.6%), followed by Republicans (n = 82, 23.4%), Independents (n = 64,
18.3%), “none” (n = 52, 14.9%), and “other” (n = 3, 0.9%). Most participants had completed

53

“some college, but no college degree” (n = 187, 53.4%) or were a “high school graduate” (n =
79, 22.6%; “GED”: n = 4, 1.1%); the remaining participants’ highest level of school completed
varied widely, from “some high school, but no diploma” (n = 1, 0.3%), college degrees (“2 year
college/Associate’s degree”: n = 28, 8.0%; “4 year college/Bachelor’s degree”: n = 36, 10.3%),
and graduate degrees (“Master’s degree”: n = 8, 2.3%; “Doctoral or professional degree”: n = 4,
1.1%; “some graduate school, but no graduate degree”: n = 3, 0.9%). Demographic information
separated by participant source (HPR or mTurk) can be found in Table 4.
Table 4
Demographic Variables by Participant Source (HPR or mTurk)
HPR
M = 19.95
(SD = 2.05)

mTurk
M = 36.82
(SD = 11.47)

Male
Female

74 (28.2%)
188 (71.8%)

51 (58.0%)
37 (42.0%)

White
Black or African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Other

207 (79.0%)
22 (8.4%)
0 (0%)
28 (10.7%)
0 (0%)
5 (1.9%)

70 (79.5%)
5 (5.7%)
1 (1.1%)
9 (10.2%)
1 (1.1%)
2 (2.3%)

1 (0.4%)
71 (27.1%)
2 (0.8%)
164 (62.6%)
16 (6.1%)
7 (2.7%)
1 (0.4%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)

0 (0%)
8 (9.1%)
2 (2.3%)
23 (26.1%)
12 (13.6%)
29 (33.0%)
2 (2.3%)
8 (9.1%)
4 (4.5%)

Age
Gender

Race

Education
Some high school (but no diploma)
High school graduate
GED (or high school equivalency)
Some college (but no college degree)
2 year college/Associate degree
4 year college/Bachelor’s degree
Some graduate school (but no graduate degree)
Master's degree
Doctoral or professional degree

54

Table 4 (cont’d)
Political Affiliation
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Other
None

111 (42.4%)
66 (25.2%)
36 (13.7%)
1 (0.4%)
48 (18.3%)

38 (43.2%)
16 (18.2%)
28 (31.8%)
2 (2.3%)
4 (4.5%)

Religious Affiliation – Past
Christian or Protestant
Catholic
Mormon
Orthodox (such as Greek or Russian Orthodox)
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Muslim
Buddhist
Hindu
Other
None

91 (34.7%)
96 (36.6%)
0 (0%)
3 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
7 (2.7%)
4 (1.5%)
4 (1.5%)
2 (0.8%)
7 (2.7%)
48 (18.3%)

26 (29.5%)
16 (18.2%)
1 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
1 (1.1%)
2 (2.3%)
41 (46.6%)

76 (29.0%)
75 (28.6%)
0 (0%)
3 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
7 (2.7%)
3 (1.1%)
1 (0.4%)
2 (0.8%)
15 (5.7%)
80 (30.5%)
M = 4.34
(SD = 1.95)
M = 95.23
(SD = 21.39)

16 (18.2%)
11 (12.5%)
2 (2.3%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (1.1%)
0 (0%)
1 (1.1%)
4 (4.5%)
53 (60.2%)
M = 4.42
(SD = 2.56)
M = 100.23
(SD = 25.41)

Religious Affiliation – Current
Christian or Protestant
Catholic
Mormon
Orthodox (such as Greek or Russian Orthodox)
Jehovah's Witness
Jewish
Muslim
Buddhist
Hindu
Other
None
Social Desirability Scale (SDS)
Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS)

Note. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent the total number of participants in each
category with the percentage of the total sample reported in parentheses.

55

In an attempt to control for potential confounds, variables that were identified as
covariates in previous research were measured in this survey. A series of one-way ANOVAs
(for continuous variables) or chi-square tests (for categorical variables) were conducted to
determine if there were any significant differences on these demographic and individual
difference variables among the three video conditions (see Table 5). There were no significant
differences between the three conditions for any of the potential covariates, which indicates that
Qualtrics was able to successfully randomly assign participants to a video condition. Because
the random assignment was able to produce reasonably equivalent groups across the three
conditions, these potential covariates were not included in subsequent analyses to maximize the
degrees of freedom (Rosenthal & Rosenthal, 2011). Table 6 contains the correlations between
all of the variables included in the subsequent data analyses.
Table 5
Video Condition Differences for Potential Covariates and Demographic Variables
F or χ2

df

p

Participant Source (HPR or mTurk)

1.14

4

0.89

Age

0.17

2, 349

0.85

Gender

0.50

2

0.78

Race

8.29

10

0.60

Sexual Orientation

7.30

4

0.12

Education

11.02

16

0.81

Political Affiliation

6.52

8

0.59

Religious Affiliation – Past

16.35

18

0.57

Religious Affiliation – Current

14.18

18

0.72

Social Desirability Scale (SDS)

0.60

2, 348

0.55

Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS)

1.12

2, 349

0.33

56

Table 6
Correlations between All Study Variables Included in Data Analysis

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
RWA
SDO
.60**
Sexual Prejudice
.69** .51**
Anxiety: Cognitive
.12*
.07
.10
Anxiety: Somatic
.16** .17** .22** .71**
Fear
.22** .17** .27** .63** .73**
Hostility
.22** .22** .33** .58** .70** .82**
Guilt
.18**
.13*
.20** .67** .69** .82** .78**
Sadness
.13*
.12*
.17** .71** .66** .78** .75** .82**
Cognitive Reappraisal
.00
-.11*
-.08 -.19** -.17** -.08
-.11* -.16** -.16**
Expressive Suppression .19** .15** .20** .16**
.07
.11*
.22** .21** .25**
Social Desirability
-.03
-.05
-.10 -.17** -.02
-.08
-.06
-.08
-.08
Gender Role Beliefs
-.58** -.44** -.50** -.07
-.12* -.17** -.18** -.15** -.11*

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01.

57

10

11

12

-.06
.07
.10

-.01
-.11*

.05

Hypothesis 1
Hypothesis 1 addressed whether or not the personality facets RWA and SDO were
associated with a greater endorsement of sexual prejudice, and whether exposure to gay male
content in a brief video clip would moderate this relationship. A hierarchical moderated
regression analysis was used to explore whether the relationship between RWA, SDO, and the
endorsement of homophobia was greater when participants viewed a video featuring gay men
versus the control video.
The analyses for Hypothesis 1 were run using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, which uses
an OLS regression-based path analytical framework to estimate conditional direct and indirect
effects in moderation and mediation models (Hayes, 2013). In order to determine whether the
impact of the predictor variable is significantly different from zero, the PROCESS macro
conducts an analysis of the simple slopes by estimating the effect of the predictor variable at low,
moderate, and high values of the moderator (or in a case like this with a dichotomous moderator,
by estimating the effect of the predictor variables at both levels of the moderator). In addition,
the PROCESS macro provides several values of Ŷ as a function of the moderator and the
predictor variable in order to create a graphical representation of the interaction.
The personality facets were entered into PROCESS as the predictor variable. Participants
were all placed into one of four personality categories based on their total RWA and SDO scale
scores: RWA Only, SDO Only, Double High, or None of the Above. First, participants were
grouped into tertiles based on their total scale scores on the RWA and SDO measures. Second,
participant’s rankings (i.e., low, moderate, or high) on these two measures were combined; any
participants who were ranked as being “high” (i.e., in the top tertile) on both RWA and SDO
were considered to be “Double High,” while participants who were only ranked as “high” on

58

either RWA or SDO were categorized as “RWA Only” or “SDO Only,” respectively. For this
sample, 42 participants (12.0%) were categorized as being high on RWA Only, 43 were high on
SDO Only (12.3%), 75 were high on both RWA and SDO (i.e., “Double High”; 21.4%), and 190
were not high on RWA or SDO (i.e., “None of the Above”; 54.3%). The dichotomous video
condition variable (i.e., 0 = control video, 1 = gay male video) was entered as the moderator
variable, and the total score on the homophobia scale from Part II of the study was entered as the
outcome variable.
Hypothesis 1a. It was hypothesized that the personality facets RWA and SDO would be
associated with a greater endorsement of sexual prejudice. Specifically, it was hypothesized that
participants who were high on both RWA and SDO (i.e., Double Highs) would endorse the most
sexually prejudiced attitudes, followed by participants who were high on either RWA or SDO
(i.e., RWA Only or SDO Only); it was hypothesized that participants who were low on both
RWA and SDO (i.e., None of the Above) would endorse the least sexually prejudiced attitudes.
A hierarchical, moderated regression was performed in order to establish whether the personality
facets were associated with a greater endorsement of homophobia. Because the Personality
variable was a multicategorical predictor (i.e., 0 = “None of the Above,” 1 = “RWA Only,” 2 =
“SDO Only,” and 3 = “Double High”), PROCESS automatically used simple indicator (i.e.,
“dummy variable”) coding to represent the groups with “None of the Above” serving as the
reference category. An examination of the main effects revealed that participants who were in
the RWA Only (β = 25.93, p < 0.0001) and the Double-High (β = 33.13, p < 0.0001) groups had
significantly greater sexually prejudiced attitudes than participants who were not high on either
RWA or SDO; there was not a significant main effect for the SDO Only group (β = 8.06, p =
0.11). In addition, there was a main effect of video condition on sexual prejudice (β = -5.81, p <

59

0.05) such that participants who viewed a video featuring gay male content reported less sexually
prejudiced attitudes than participants who watched the control video (see Table 7).
Hypothesis 1b. Additionally, it was hypothesized that the content of the video (i.e., gay
male or control) would moderate the relationship between the personality facets RWA and SDO
and greater endorsement of sexual prejudice. Specifically, the relationship between RWA, SDO,
and endorsement of homophobic beliefs would be larger when participants viewed video clips
featuring gay men versus the control video. A hierarchical, moderated regression was used to
examine whether exposure to videos that feature gay male content was able to moderate the
association between the personality facets RWA and SDO and a greater endorsement of sexual
prejudice. PROCESS created interaction terms between the personality dummy variables and
the dichotomous video condition variable. The interactions between video condition and RWA
Only (β = -2.81, p = 0.66), SDO Only (β =5.17, p = 0.40), and Double-High (β = 0.43, p = 0.93)
were not significant (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Estimated effect of the predictor variable (i.e. personality category) for both conditions
of the moderator (i.e., video condition). Simple indicator coding was used to represent the
personality category groups.

60

Table 7
Model 1: Hierarchical Moderated Regression Analyses Predicting Sexually Prejudiced Attitudes from Personality Category
Moderated by Exposure to Gay Male Content
R2

F

0.41

33.64***

Coefficient β

Standard Error

t

-5.81

2.62

-2.22*

RWA Only

25.93

5.41

4.79***

SDO Only

8.06

5.07

1.59

Double High

33.13

3.89

8.53***

RWA Only x Exposure

-2.81

6.45

-0.43

SDO Only x Exposure

5.17

6.20

0.83

Double High x Exposure

0.43

4.88

0.09

Model Summary
Main Effects
Exposure to Gay Male Content
Personality Category

Interactions

ΔR2 = 0.002

0.35

Note. All regression coefficients are unstandardized.
*p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

61

Hypothesis 2
For Hypothesis 2, a moderated moderation regression model was used to explore the
relationship between the content of the video (i.e., gay male or control), sexual prejudice,
emotion regulation, and negative affective response. Specifically, Hypothesis 2 addressed
whether or not exposure to video clips featuring gay men was associated with a more negative
affective response, and whether the relationship between viewing these gay male videos and a
negative affective response was moderated by sexual prejudice. Furthermore, this model
evaluated whether there was a three-way interaction between indicators of emotion regulation,
sexual prejudice, and negative affective response, such that emotion regulation moderated the
relationship between sexual prejudice (the proposed moderator) and a negative affective
response after viewing video clips featuring gay male content.
The moderated moderation regression model was estimated using MPlus Version 7.
First, the latent outcome variable (negative affective response) was specified using five manifest
variables (i.e., the State-Cognitive and State-Somatic subscales from the STICSA as well as the
Fear, Guilt, and Hostility subscales from the PANAS-X administered during Part II of the study).
Second, all of the predictor (i.e., video condition, which was a manifest dichotomous variable)
and moderator (i.e., homophobia [the total score on the sexual prejudice scale from Part II of the
study] and emotion regulation [the total score on the two subscales from the ERQ: Cognitive
Reappraisal and Expressive Suppression]) variables were defined. Prior to being entered into the
regression analyses, the continuous moderator variables (homophobia, cognitive reappraisal, and
expressive suppression) were mean centered to ensure that the coefficients for the products of
these variables would be more readily interpretable (Hayes, Glynn, & Huge, 2012). Third, the 2way interaction terms (i.e., video condition x homophobia; video condition x cognitive

62

reappraisal; video condition x expressive suppression; homophobia x cognitive reappraisal;
homophobia x expressive suppression ) and the 3-way interaction terms (i.e., video condition x
homophobia x cognitive reappraisal; video condition x homophobia x expressive suppression)
were defined. Finally, the predictor and moderator terms were all regressed on the latent
outcome variable (i.e., negative affective response) using maximum likelihood estimation (see
Figure 7 for the statistical diagram). The unstandardized and standardized regression weights
were examined for each of the paths in the model to determine the contribution of the measures
directly (see Table 8).

Figure 7. Statistical diagram for the moderated moderation model (i.e., three-way interaction
model) in which the two indicators of emotion regulation (cognitive reappraisal and expressive
suppression) moderate the moderating effect of sexually prejudiced attitudes on the relationship
between negative affective response (a latent variable with five manifest indicators) and
exposure to gay male content.

63

Hypothesis 2a. It was hypothesized that participants exposed to video clips that featured
gay male content would have a significantly greater negative affective response than participants
who viewed the control video. An examination of the main effects revealed that there was not a
significant relationship between video condition and negative affective response (β = -0.05, p =
0.93).
Hypothesis 2b. It was hypothesized that sexual prejudice would moderate the
relationship between viewing videos featuring gay male content and a negative affective
response, such that the association between viewing gay male content and having a negative
affective response would be stronger in more homophobic individuals. Neither the main effect
of homophobia on negative affective response (β = 0.04, p = 0.41) nor the interaction between
video content and homophobia on negative affective response were significant (β = 0.00, p =
0.93).
Hypothesis 2c. It was hypothesized that the two emotion regulation processes (i.e.,
cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression) would moderate the moderating effect of
homophobia on the relationship between negative affective response and exposure to videos
featuring gay male content. In other words, I hypothesized that there would be a three-way
interaction between exposure to gay male content, homophobia, emotion regulation, and negative
affective response, such that individuals who endorsed an elevated degree of homophobia and
had poorer emotion regulation would demonstrate a more negative affective response than
individuals who endorsed an elevated degree of homophobia but had better emotion regulation.
While the main effect of the expressive suppression subtype of emotion regulation on
negative affective response was significant (β = 0.38, p < 0.05), the results found that
participants who reported greater expressive suppression actually endorsed a more negative

64

Table 8
Model 2: Hierarchical Moderated Moderation Regression Analyses Predicting Negative Affective Response from Exposure to Gay
Male Content, Sexually Prejudiced Attitudes, and Emotion Regulation
Unstandardized
Model Results
Est. (β)
SE
p
Main Effects
Exposure to Gay Male Content
Sexually Prejudiced Attitudes
Emotion Regulation
Cognitive Reappraisal
Expressive Suppression
2-Way Interactions
Exposure x Sexual Prejudice
Exposure x Emotion Regulation
Exposure x Cognitive Reappraisal
Exposure x Expressive Suppression
Sexual Prejudice x Emotion Regulation
Sexual Prejudice x Cognitive Reappraisal
Sexual Prejudice x Expressive Suppression
3-Way Interactions
Exposure x Sexual Prejudice x Cognitive Reappraisal
Exposure x Sexual Prejudice x Expressive Suppression

STDYX Standardized
Model Results
Est. (β)
SE
p

-0.05
0.04

0.51
0.05

0.93
0.41

-0.01
0.19

0.05
0.23

0.93
0.40

-0.01
0.38

0.16
0.19

0.97
0.05

-0.01
0.44

0.22
0.22

0.97
0.05

0.00

0.03

0.93

0.02

0.22

0.93

-0.07
-0.16

0.10
0.12

0.45
0.18

-0.17
-0.30

0.23
0.22

0.45
0.17

-0.01
0.00

0.01
0.01

0.17
0.71

-0.37
0.10

0.25
0.26

0.15
0.71

0.00
-0.00

0.01
0.01

0.43
0.91

0.21
-0.03

0.26
0.25

0.42
0.91

65

affective response. However, the main effect of cognitive reappraisal on negative affective
response was not significant (β = -0.01, p = 0.97). Furthermore, the interactions between video
condition and emotion regulation (Cognitive Reappraisal: β = -0.07, p = 0.45; Expressive
Suppression: β = -0.16, p = 0.17) as well as homophobia and emotion regulation (Cognitive
Reappraisal: β = -0.01, p = 0.18; Expressive Suppression: β = 0.00, p = 0.71) on negative
affective response were not significant. Finally, the three-way interaction between video
condition, homophobia, and the two subtypes of emotion regulation were also not significant
(Cognitive Reappraisal: β = 0.00, p = 0.43; Expressive Suppression: β = -0.00, p = 0.91).
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 was designed to evaluate if a more comprehensive, integrated model of
sexual prejudice, which includes facets of both the personality and negative affective response
models of sexual prejudice, would be able to represent a “state-trait” model of homophobia.
Specifically, it was hypothesized that participants who were high on the personality facets RWA
and/or SDO would endorse more sexually prejudiced attitudes than participants who are not high
on either, particularly when participants viewed video clips featuring gay men versus the control
video. It was further hypothesized that this greater endorsement of homophobia after viewing
gay male content would be associated with a more negative affective response, particularly for
participants who have poor emotion regulation.
As was the case with Model 2, this regression model was estimated using MPlus Version
7. First, the latent outcome variable (negative affective response) was specified. Second, the
remaining variables were all identified and defined; prior to being entered into the regression
analyses, the continuous predictor and moderator variables (i.e., homophobia, cognitive
reappraisal, and expressive suppression) were mean centered to ensure that the coefficients for

66

the products of these variables would be more readily interpretable (Hayes, Glynn, & Huge,
2012). Third, the 2-way interaction terms (i.e., personality category x video condition; video
condition x homophobia; video condition x cognitive reappraisal; video condition x expressive
suppression; homophobia x cognitive reappraisal; homophobia x expressive suppression) and the
3-way interaction terms (i.e., video condition x homophobia x cognitive reappraisal; video
condition x homophobia x expressive suppression) were defined. Finally, the regression models
(i.e., personality category on homophobia; video condition on homophobia; personality category
x video condition on homophobia; video condition on negative affective response; homophobia
on negative affective response; cognitive reappraisal on negative affective response; expressive
suppression on negative affective response; homophobia x video condition on negative affective
response; video condition x cognitive reappraisal on negative affective response; video condition
x expressive suppression on negative affective response; homophobia x cognitive reappraisal on
negative affective response; homophobia x expressive suppression on negative affective
response; video condition x homophobia x cognitive reappraisal on negative affective response;
and video condition x homophobia x expressive suppression on negative affective response)
were specified using maximum likelihood estimation (see Figure 8 for the statistical diagram).
The unstandardized and standardized regression weights were examined for each of the
paths in the model to determine the contribution of the measures directly (see Table 9). There
main effects of personality category (β = 9.65, p < 0.00) and video condition (β = -5.52, p <
0.05) on homophobia were significant. In addition, there was a significant main effect of
expressive suppression (a subtype of emotion regulation) on negative affective response (β =
0.38, p < 0.05). However, none of the other relationships in this model were significant.

67

Figure 8. Statistical diagram for the “state-trait” model of homophobia, an integrated model of
sexual prejudice that includes facets of both the personality and negative affective response
models of sexual prejudice.
Comparison of Model Goodness of Fit
The regression paths specified from the additional predictors (i.e., personality category,
video condition) that were included in the structural model for Hypothesis 3 were significant.
However, this more comprehensive, integrated model of sexual prejudice that included facets of
both the personality and negative affective response models of sexual prejudice did not offer a
better fit for the data. Specifically, while the goodness of fit indicators for Model 2 were
generally acceptable (χ2(49) = 188.29, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.09; CFI = 0.91; TLI = 0.88; SRMR
= 0.04), the goodness of fit indicators for Model 3 were universally poor (χ2(68) = 1079.31, p <
0.001; RMSEA = 0.21; CFI = 0.59; TLI = 0.48; SRMR = 0.06; see Table 10 for additional
68

indicators of model fit). Furthermore, when the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the
Bayesian information criterion (BIC) were compared for Model 2 (the negative affective
response model) and Model 3 (the integrated state-trait model), both the AIC and BIC values
were lower for Model 2 (AIC = 8789.42; BIC = 8889.73) than for Model 3 (AIC = 11816.57;
BIC = 11936.17), indicating that Model 2 was a better balance of model fit and parsimony.

69

Table 9
Model 3: Latent Variable Regression Model for the “State-Trait” Model of Homophobia
Unstandardized
Model Results
Est. (β)
SE
p
Main Effects
Sexual Prejudice on Personality Category
Sexual Prejudice on Exposure to Gay Male Content
NAR on Exposure to Gay Male Content
NAR on Sexual Prejudice
NAR on Emotion Regulation
NAR on Cognitive Reappraisal
NAR on Expressive Suppression
2-Way Interactions
Sexual Prejudice on Personality x Exposure
NAR on Exposure x Sexual Prejudice
NAR on Exposure x Emotion Regulation
NAR on Exposure x Cognitive Reappraisal
NAR on Exposure x Expressive Suppression
NAR on Sexual Prejudice x Emotion Regulation
NAR on Sexual Prejudice x Cognitive Reappraisal
NAR on Sexual Prejudice x Expressive Suppression
3-Way Interactions
NAR on Exposure x Sexual Prejudice x Cognitive Reappraisal
NAR on Exposure x Sexual Prejudice x Expressive Suppression
Note. NAR = Negative Affective Response.
70

STDYX Standardized
Model Results
Est. (β)
SE
p

9.65
-5.52
-0.05
0.04

2.97
2.53
0.51
0.05

0.00
0.03
0.93
0.41

0.54
-0.12
-0.01
0.19

0.16
0.05
0.05
0.21

0.00
0.03
0.92
0.35

-0.01
0.38

0.16
0.19

0.97
0.05

-0.01
0.44

0.21
0.22

0.97
0.04

0.38
0.00

1.69
0.03

0.82
0.93

0.04
0.02

0.16
0.20

0.82
0.92

-0.07
-0.16

0.10
0.12

0.45
0.18

-0.17
-0.30

0.22
0.21

0.44
0.16

-0.01
0.00

0.01
0.01

0.17
0.71

-0.37
0.10

0.24
0.26

0.13
0.70

0.00
-0.00

0.01
0.01

0.43
0.91

0.21
-0.03

0.25
0.24

0.40
0.91

Table 10
Goodness of Fit Indicators for Model 2 and Model 3
χ2
(df)

RMSEA
(90% C.I.)

AIC

BIC

CFI

TLI

SRMR

Model 2

188.29***
(49)

0.09 (0.080.10)

8789.42

8889.73

0.91

0.88

0.04

Model 3

1079.31***
(68)

0.21 (0.200.22)

11816.57

11936.17

0.59

0.48

0.06

Note. RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; AIC = Akaike Information Criterion; BIC = Bayesian Information
Criterion; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; TLI = Tucker-Lewis Index; SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual.
*p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001.

71

CHAPTER 9
DISCUSSION
The current study was designed to extend the extant literature on sexual prejudice by
concurrently assessing factors associated with two of the most prominent models of sexual
prejudice: the personality model of homophobia and the negative affective response model of
homophobia. Because sexual prejudice can have negative implications for both sexual minority
individuals and those who hold these prejudiced attitudes, it is imperative that research identifies
which factors contribute to stigma, prejudiced attitudes, and discrimination against sexual
minority individuals. This study had three primary objectives: 1) to examine the personality
model of homophobia by exploring the relationship between RWA, SDO, and the endorsement
of sexually prejudiced attitudes; 2) to examine the negative affective response model of
homophobia by investigating the relationship between exposure to video clips featuring gay men,
sexual prejudice, emotion regulation, and negative affective responses; and 3) to examine
whether an integrated state-trait model of sexual prejudice was better able to explain why certain
individuals have a strong, negative affective reaction when exposed to gay male video stimuli.
In accordance with extant literature (Altemeyer, 2002; Childs, 2011; Keiller, 2010;
Whitley & Ægisdóttir, 2000), the current study found that individuals who were in the upper
tertile for RWA endorsed greater levels of sexual prejudice. Furthermore, the current study also
determined that “double high” participants (i.e., those individuals in the upper tertile for both
RWA and SDO) also endorsed significantly more sexually prejudiced attitudes than did
participants who were not in the upper tertile for RWA or SDO. While the majority of previous
research has focused on the relationship between sexual prejudice and RWA and/or SDO alone,

72

studies that have specifically accounted for “double high” individuals have uncovered
comparable results to the current study (Altemeyer, 2004; Sibley et al., 2006).
However, the current study notably differed from previous research (Goodman &
Moradi, 2008; Whitley & Lee, 2000) in that participants whose scores were in the upper tertile
on only the SDO scale did not endorse significantly greater levels of sexual prejudice.
Consequently, the significant relationship between “double high” participants and sexual
prejudice may indicate that being in the upper tertile for SDO alone is not sufficient to predict
sexually prejudiced attitudes. The landscape for LGB rights has been rapidly changing in recent
years (McCormack & Anderson, 2014). With the Supreme Court now requiring states to
recognize and license marriages for same-sex couples (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015) and recent
legal decisions against businesses that violate anti-discrimination laws on the basis of sincerely
held religious beliefs (American Civil Liberties Union, 2017), it is possible that the inequalities
and the desire to preserve these inequalities is no longer enough to predict homophobia except
when a person is also sexually prejudiced on the basis of their religious or moral beliefs (Bahns
& Crandall, 2013).
Recent research has found that RWA and SDO predict different “moral signatures”
(Milojev et al., 2014); specifically, while RWA was associated with a High Moralist signature
(one in which the five moral foundations – harm, fairness, ingroup, authority, and purity – are all
highly valued), SDO was associated with a “Neutral” moral signature where the five moral
foundations are all held uniformly low. Thus, if there has been a pervasive cultural shift towards
supporting equal rights for LGB individuals, SDO alone may no longer be strongly related to
sexual prejudice unless the High Moralist values associated with RWA are also present. It will
be interesting to observe if any trend emerges in studies that collected data more recently,

73

because without additional data it is impossible to determine whether the findings of the current
study are indicative of a systemic change in the nature of sexual prejudice or merely an anomaly
specific to this sample.
This study further hypothesized that the content of the video (i.e., gay male or control)
would moderate the relationship between the personality facets RWA and SDO and greater
endorsement of sexually prejudiced beliefs, but this hypothesis was not supported. RWA and
SDO are generally conceptualized to be individual-level personality factors, and therefore it is
possible that situational factors (e.g., watching a brief news story featuring gay men) may not be
powerful enough to affect the relationship between RWA, SDO, and sexually prejudiced
attitudes. However, research has found that for individuals high on RWA, even seemingly minor
alterations to wording (e.g., “homosexuals” versus “gay men and lesbians”; Rios, 2013) or how a
political message is framed (e.g., framing same-sex marriage in terms of individual liberty versus
social equality; Crawford, Brady, Pilanski, & Erny, 2013) was associated with increased sexual
prejudice. It is also possible that because the videos used in this study were taken from
mainstream news sources, they may have not been provocative enough to produce a more
homophobic response. Specifically, while the news stories discussed the relationships between
the individuals in the video, they were very careful to not use any potentially controversial
images (e.g., two men kissing or being physically affectionate). Thus, the videos may have been
too tame to elicit much of a response even from individuals who endorsed more homophobic
beliefs; without using more scandalous content in the video clips (e.g., gay male pornography),
the video manipulation simply may not have been strong enough to impact the relationship
between personality factors and sexually prejudiced attitudes.

74

This study also examined whether or not exposure to videos that feature gay male content
was associated with a more negative affective response, and whether the relationship between
viewing video clips featuring gay men and a negative affective response was modified by
homophobia. Specifically, the present study hypothesized that exposure to video clips featuring
gay men would be associated with negative affective response, particularly among participants
who endorsed more sexually prejudiced beliefs. However, this hypothesis was not supported:
neither the relationship between viewing videos with gay male content and having a negative
affective response nor the interaction between exposure to gay male content, homophobia, and
negative affective response were significant. While some studies have found that exposure to
video clips featuring gay men was able to successfully incite a negative affective state (e.g.,
fear/anxiety, anger/aggression, disgust), these studies have commonly used extremely
provocative sexual stimuli (e.g., male-on-male erotica; Parrott & Zeichner, 2008; Shields &
Harriman, 1984; Zeichner & Reidy, 2009). Conversely, the present study utilized stimuli drawn
from mainstream news media to examine whether similar results could be evoked using imagery
that one is more likely to encounter in daily life.
Regardless of the persistence of the term homophobia in popular culture, a great deal of
the extant literature in this field has proposed that it is an erroneous way to describe sexual
prejudice (Herek, 2015). While the empirical findings on the relationship between exposure to
gay-male stimuli and a phobic-like reaction have generally been mixed (Mahaffey et al., 2005a;
Mahaffey et al., 2005b; Mahaffey et al., 2011; Shields & Harriman, 1984; Zeichner & Reidy,
2009), there has been consistent evidence that sexual prejudice may be associated with increased
anxiety and negative affect (Bernat et al., 2001; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980; Mahaffey et al.,
2005a; Mahaffey et al., 2005b; Mahaffey et al., 2011; Shields & Harriman, 1984; Zeichner &

75

Reidy, 2009). Accordingly, although it may be an exaggeration to suggest that the majority of
sexually prejudiced individuals would actually meet the diagnostic criteria for a Specific Phobia
of gay people consistent with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th
ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), there is consistently an element of
anxiety, discomfort, and distress associated with sexual prejudice.
Furthermore, case studies have been able to identify a small subset of sexually prejudiced
individuals who appear to actually experience a true phobic response to sexual minorities. These
case studies have examined individuals whose surface-level sexual prejudice is actually driven
by an obsession or paranoia with the concern that they may experience unwanted same-gender
sexual attraction (Bhatia & Kaur, 2015; Murphy, 2006; Williams, 2008; Williams, Crozier, &
Powers, 2011; Williams, Wetterneck, Tellawi, & Duque, 2015). Thus, in the same way that
numerous people designate their fear of spiders as arachnophobia although only a small
proportion of those individuals would actually meet the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for a Specific
Phobia of spiders, a similar pattern may occur with homophobia. Consequently, the persistence
of labeling sexual prejudice as homophobia may be due in part to the societal tendency to apply
overtly pathological labels to behaviors that only minimally resembles a psychological disorder
(e.g., classifying a preference for one’s possessions to be organized in a specific way as “OCD”
when the behavior is only marginally similar to the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for ObsessiveCompulsive Disorder).
There was a significant main effect of expressive suppression, which is one of the
subtypes of emotion regulation, on negative affective response. However, the results indicated
that participants who reported greater expressive suppression actually endorsed a more negative
affective response. Emotion regulation has often been conceptualized within a dual-process

76

framework in which both explicit and implicit forms of emotion regulation can be
simultaneously engaged to help manage unwanted or undesirable emotions (Gyurak, Gross, &
Etkin, 2011). Because the affective states measured in this study were largely negative, one
would expect that individuals who are skilled at regulating emotions would either implicitly or
explicitly utilize these skills to decrease negative affect. Furthermore, studies have found that
instructing participants to label an affective state can have the unintentional consequence of
lowering activation in the limbic system (Lieberman, Eisenberger, Crockett, Tom, Pfeifer, &
Way, 2007). In this study, the participants were asked to complete the questionnaires about their
current emotional state shortly after being exposed to the video stimulus; it is therefore possible
that by using self-report measures of affective states (as opposed to direct psychophysiological
measures), participants who had strong emotion regulation abilities were unintentionally able to
reduce their negative affect merely through the act of being asked to pay attention to what they
were feeling.
Finally, this study examined whether a “state-trait” model of sexual prejudice that
integrated elements from both the personality and negative affective response models of
homophobia was better able to predict which individuals are most likely to endorse anti-gay
attitudes and how these individuals will react when confronted with LGB-related stimuli. In
other words, although these two models of sexual prejudice are often portrayed as conflicting or
contradictory models in the extant literature (Herek, 2015), the current study explored whether or
not they might have a complementary relationship. However, despite the relationship between
personality and sexual prejudice being significant in the integrated state-trait model, the
simplified model that did not include the categorical personality variable as a predictor was a
stronger fit for the data while being more parsimonious, and as such, this model was retained.

77

Limitations and Future Directions
Some of the more notable limitations of the current study are related to the stimulus
videos. For instance, given that this study was unable to find a significant relationship between
the content of the video and a negative affective response, it is possible that the decision to use
segments from mainstream television news programs resulted in stimulus videos that were not
provocative enough to incite the negative affective states observed in previous studies that
utilized gay male pornography. It will therefore be important to replicate this study with a
stronger induction that is still less provocative than using pornography. In particular, future
studies could script several vignettes and record them with professional actors to create carefully
crafted stimulus videos, which would allow the researcher to explicitly match the content of the
video to the specific aspects of RWA and SDO that have been associated with sexual prejudice
in previous research. The ability to tailor the stimulus materials would be particularly useful
because research that examined the relationship between RWA, SDO, and evaluations of news
articles indicated that the unique ideologies that differentiate these two groups (e.g., perceptions
of threat toward social stability versus threat toward social advantage) predicted different
interpretations of veracity and author bias in the articles when the content matched their
ideological beliefs (Crawford et al., 2013).
An additional limitation of the current study was the inclusion of only White, American,
gay men in the stimulus videos. The majority of the extant literature has focused exclusively on
attitudes towards gay men, largely because attitudes towards gay men tend to be more negative
than attitudes towards lesbians (Herek, 2000b). Consistent with this, stimulus videos in similar
studies have also solely focused on White, American, gay men; thus, using videos featuring only
White, American, gay men in this study was intentional for the purpose of allowing direct

78

comparisons of the current findings with those of the extant literature. Although this allowed for
more scientific rigor by minimizing the influence of potential confounding variables, the
opportunity to broaden the research to more diverse populations is lost. Future research should
extend this work by featuring a diverse assortment of individuals as the potential targets of
sexual prejudice in the stimulus videos to examine the variability in participants’ reactions. For
example, both RWA and SDO have been associated with prejudice toward a number of
outgroups (Kugler et al., 2010; Laythe et al., 2001; Sidanius & Pratto, 2001). Intersectionality is
a theory that examines how multiple social identities (e.g., race, gender, sexual identity) intersect
to shape an individual’s experience of the world (Bowleg, 2012); research on intersectionality
finds that when these multiple marginalized identities intersect with one another, it often leads to
social and structural inequalities that exceed those of individual’s with only a single
marginalized identity (Icard, 1996). Consequently, because ethnic minority gay men represent a
doubly marginalized group, they may provoke an even more negative reaction from others,
particularly among high SDO individuals. Similarly, RWA and SDO are associated with a
strong belief in traditional gender roles; like gay men, lesbians violate traditional gender roles as
a direct consequence of their relationships, and therefore future studies investigating whether
these personality factors are also related to sexual prejudice toward lesbians may prove
illuminating.
It will also be important for future studies to determine if the relationship between RWA,
SDO, and sexual prejudice may be changing over time. In this study (and in the pilot study in
particular), it was very difficult to separate the “pure” RWA/SDO participants from the double
highs. In addition, research is continuing to find increased acceptance for homosexuality in
general and legal rights for the LGB community in particular. As the LGB community continues

79

to advance in the social hierarchy, one might anticipate that the relationship between SDO and
sexual prejudice may fundamentally change. These social changes over time may warrant
longitudinal or cohort studies to explicitly examine if the relationship between RWA and SDO is
fundamentally changing with regard to sexual prejudice and, if so, what the potential long-term
implications of these changes could be.
An additional limitation of the current study is its reliance on self-report measures of
emotional states. While self-report measures are extremely common in social science literature,
there are varied reports about how accurately people are able to report their own emotions.
Furthermore, self-reported emotions can be influenced by other variables such as social
desirability and may be edited or downplayed. The current study explicitly considered the
influence of social desirability, but because the social climate has gradually become more
accepting of LGB individuals, it is possible that the participants were reluctant to report any
negative emotions in response to material featuring gay men. In the future, studies that
incorporate other measures of attitudes (such as the Implicit Association Task) or emotion (EEG
research) could better capture participant’s emotional response to the stimulus material.
Conclusion
In summary, the results of the current study did not support the integrated, state-trait
model of sexual prejudice, which incorporated elements from both the personality model of
homophobia and the negative affective response model of homophobia. Results indicated that
compared to the integrated model, the simplified model in which the categorical personality
variable was excluded was better able to describe the data while remaining parsimonious. This
study offered additional support for the personality model of homophobia, as individuals who
were high on both RWA and SDO (“double high”) or were high on RWA alone endorsed greater

80

levels of sexual prejudice than those low on both RWA and SDO. However, contrary to
previous research, the relationship between sexual prejudice and high SDO alone was not
significant; future research should investigate whether the changing landscape for LGB equality
has rendered SDO insufficient to predict sexually prejudiced attitudes on its own. While the
current study was unable to replicate previous research findings on the negative affective
response model of homophobia, there was a significant main effect of one subtype of emotion
regulation, expressive suppression, on negative affective response. Future research should
investigate the potential role of emotion regulation in altering the intensity, duration, or quality
of negative emotional states related to sexual prejudice.
Because sexual prejudice can have negative implications for both sexual minority
individuals and those who hold these prejudiced attitudes, it will be important for future research
to continue exploring the factors that contribute to stigma, prejudiced attitudes, and
discrimination against sexual minority individuals. One of the strengths of the current study was
its exploration of the relationship between the personality model of homophobia and the negative
affective response model of homophobia concurrently in the same sample. Furthermore, this
study offers an additional unique contribution to the research literature by expanding upon past
research on the personality model of homophobia by explicitly accounting for double highs
while exploring the relationships between RWA, SDO, and sexually prejudiced attitudes.

81

APPENDIX

82

RIGHT-WING AUTHORITARIANISM (RWA) SCALE
This survey is part of an investigation of general public opinion concerning a variety of social
issues. You will probably find that you agree with some of the statements, and disagree with
others, to varying extents. Please indicate your reaction to each statement according to the
following scale:
Very
strongly
disagree
-4

Strongly
disagree

-3

Moderately
disagree

-2

Slightly
disagree

Neutral

Slightly
agree

Moderately
agree

Strongly
agree

Very
strongly
agree

-1

0

+1

+2

+3

+4

1. Life imprisonment is justified for certain crimes.
2. Women should have to promise to obey their husbands when they get married.
3. The established authorities in our country are usually smarter, better informed, and more
competent than others are, and the people can rely upon them.
4. It is important to protect the rights of radicals and deviants in all ways.
5. Our country desperately needs a mighty leader who will do what has to be done to destroy
the radical new ways and sinfulness that are ruining us.
6. Gays and lesbians are just as healthy and moral as anybody else. *
7. Our country will be great if we honor the ways of our forefathers, do what the authorities tell
us to do, and get rid of the "rotten apples" who are ruining everything.
8. Atheists and others who have rebelled against the established religions are no doubt every bit
as good and virtuous as those who attend church regularly.
9. The real keys to the "good life" are obedience, discipline, and sticking to the straight and
narrow.
10. A lot of our rules regarding modesty and sexual behavior are just customs which are not
necessarily any better or holier than those which other people follow. *
11. There are many radical, immoral people in our country today, who are trying to ruin it for
their own godless purposes, whom the authorities should put out of action.
12. It is always better to trust the judgment of the proper authorities in government and religion
than to listen to the noisy rabble-rousers in our society who are trying to create doubt in
people's minds.
13. There is absolutely nothing wrong with nudist camps. *
14. There is no "ONE right way" to live life; everybody has to create their own way. *
15. Our country will be destroyed someday if we do not smash the perversions eating away at
our moral fiber and traditional beliefs.
16. Homosexuals and feminists should be praised for being brave enough to defy "traditional
family values.” *
17. The situation in our country is getting so serious, the strongest methods would be justified if
they eliminated the troublemakers and got us back to our true path.
18. It may be considered old fashioned by some, but having a normal, proper appearance is still
the mark of a gentleman and, especially, a lady.
19. Everyone should have their own lifestyle, religious beliefs, and sexual preferences, even it
makes them different from everyone else. *
83

20. A “woman’s place'' should be wherever she wants to be. The days when women are
submissive to their husbands and social conventions belong strictly in the past. *
21. What our country really needs is a strong, determined leader who will crush evil, and take us
back to our true path.
22. People should pay less attention to the Bible and the other old traditional forms of religious
guidance, and instead develop their own personal standards of what is moral and immoral. *
23. The only way our country can get through the crisis ahead is to get back to our traditional
values, put some tough leaders in power, and silence the troublemakers spreading bad ideas.
24. Our country needs free thinkers who will have the courage to defy traditional ways, even if
this upsets many people. *
25. There is nothing wrong with premarital sexual intercourse. *
26. It would be best for everyone if the proper authorities censored magazines so that people
could not get their hands on trashy and disgusting material.
27. It is wonderful that young people today have greater freedom to protest against things they
don’t like, and to make their own "rules" to govern their behavior. *
28. What our country really needs, instead of more "civil rights"' is a good stiff dose of law and
order.
29. Some of the best people in our country are those who are challenging our government,
criticizing religion, and ignoring the "normal way" things are supposed to be done. *
30. Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
31. Nobody should “stick to the straight and narrow.” Instead, people should break loose and try
out lots of different ideas and experiences. *
32. Once our government leaders give us the "go ahead," it will be the duty of every patriotic
citizen to help stomp out the rot that is poisoning our country from within.
33. We should treat protestors and radicals with open arms and open minds, since new ideas are
the lifeblood of progressive change. *
34. The facts on crime, sexual immorality, and the recent public disorders all show we have to
crack down harder on deviant groups and troublemakers if we are going to save our moral
standards and preserve law and order.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

84

SOCIAL DOMINANCE ORIENTATION (SDO) SCALE
Strongly
disagree
1

Strongly
agree
2

3

4

5

6

7

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups.
In getting what you want, it is sometimes necessary to use force against other groups.
It’s OK if some groups have more of a chance in life than others.
To get ahead in life, it is sometimes necessary to step on other groups.
If certain groups stayed in their place, we would have fewer problems.
It’s probably a good thing that certain groups are at the top and other groups are at the
bottom.
7. Inferior groups should stay in their place.
8. Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place.
9. It would be good if groups could be equal. *
10. Group equality should be our ideal. *
11. All groups should be given an equal chance in life. *
12. We should do what we can to equalize conditions for different groups. *
13. Increased social equality is beneficial to society. *
14. We would have fewer problems if we treated people more equally. *
15. We should strive to make incomes as equal as possible. *
16. No group should dominate in society. *
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763.

85

SEXUALLY PREJUDICED ATTITUDES
(HOMOPHOBIA)
Below you will find a series of statements. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or
disagree with each statement by selecting the number that best describes your response. Please
respond to each item.
Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor
disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

1

2

3

4

5

1.
2.
3.
4.

If I had a child, I would object to having a gay man as my child’s teacher.
I would rather live next door to a heterosexual couple than a gay male couple.
I prefer not being confronted with homosexuality.
Gay male couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples regarding the
adoption of children. *
5. Nowadays, gay men have too many rights.
6. Male homosexuality is a perversion.
7. Gay men should be free to live their lives as they wish. *
8. Gay men make me nervous.
9. Gay men deserve what they get.
10. If I discovered a friend was gay I would end the friendship.
11. I make derogatory remarks like “faggot” or “queer” about gay men.
12. Homosexuality is immoral.
13. I tease and make jokes about gay people.
14. Organizations that promote gay rights are necessary. *
15. I would feel comfortable having a gay male roommate. *
16. Homosexual behavior should not be against the law. *
17. I avoid gay individuals.
18. I think gay men are disgusting.
19. Male homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in men. *
20. Sex between two men is just plain wrong.
21. Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be condemned. *
22. I would feel comfortable working closely with a gay man. *
23. I would feel comfortable knowing that my clergyman was gay. *
24. I would feel that I had failed as a parent if I learned that my child was gay.
25. If I saw two men holding hands in public, I would feel disgusted.
26. The idea of gay marriage seems ridiculous to me.
27. I would feel angry if a member of my sex made a sexual advance toward me.
28. I would feel uncomfortable if a member of my sex made an advance toward me.
29. If a member of my sex made an advance toward me I would be offended.
30. I would like to have friends of my sex who were gay. *

86

Includes items from:
Adolfsen, A., Iedema, J., & Keuzenkamp, S. (2010). Multiple dimensions of attitudes about
homosexuality: Development of a multifaceted scale measuring attitudes toward
homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(10), 1237-1257.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and
gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia.
Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357-372.
Wright Jr., L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the
homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21(4), 337347.

87

STATE–TRAIT INVENTORY FOR COGNITIVE AND SOMATIC ANXIETY (STICSA)
STICSA: Your Mood at This Moment
Below is a list of statements which can be used to describe how people feel. Beside each
statement are four numbers which indicate the degree with which each statement is selfdescriptive of mood at this moment (e.g., 1 = not at all, 4 = very much so). Please read each
statement carefully and circle the number which best indicates how you feel right now, at this
very moment, even if this is not how you usually feel.
Not at all

A little

Moderately

Very much so

1

2

3

4

1. My heart beats fast.
2. My muscles are tense.
3. I feel agonized over my problems.
4. I think that others won’t approve of me.
5. I feel like I’m missing out on things because I can’t make up my mind soon enough.
6. I feel dizzy.
7. My muscles feel weak.
8. I feel trembly and shaky.
9. I picture some future misfortune.
10. I can’t get some thought out of my mind.
11. I have trouble remembering things.
12. My face feels hot.
13. I think that the worst will happen.
14. My arms and legs feel stiff.
15. My throat feels dry.
16. I keep busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.
17. I cannot concentrate without irrelevant thoughts intruding.
18. My breathing is fast and shallow.
19. I worry that I cannot control my thoughts as well as I would like to.
20. I have butterflies in the stomach.
21. My palms feel clammy.

88

STICSA: Your General Mood State
Below is a list of statements which can be used to describe how people feel. Beside each
statement are four numbers which indicate the degree with which each statement is selfdescriptive of mood at this moment (e.g., 1 = not at all, 4 = very much so). Please read each
statement carefully and circle the number which best indicates how often, in general, the
statement is true of you.
Not at all

A little

Moderately

Very much so

1

2

3

4

1. My heart beats fast.
2. My muscles are tense.
3. I feel agonized over my problems.
4. I think that others won’t approve of me.
5. I feel like I’m missing out on things because I can’t make up my mind soon enough.
6. I feel dizzy.
7. My muscles feel weak.
8. I feel trembly and shaky.
9. I picture some future misfortune.
10. I can’t get some thought out of my mind.
11. I have trouble remembering things.
12. My face feels hot.
13. I think that the worst will happen.
14. My arms and legs feel stiff.
15. My throat feels dry.
16. I keep busy to avoid uncomfortable thoughts.
17. I cannot concentrate without irrelevant thoughts intruding.
18. My breathing is fast and shallow.
19. I worry that I cannot control my thoughts as well as I would like to.
20. I have butterflies in the stomach.
21. My palms feel clammy.
Ree, M. J., French, D., MacLeod, C., & Locke, V. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic
dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait
Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 36(3), 313-332.

89

THE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE AFFECT SCHEDULE - EXPANDED FORM
(PANAS-X)
This scale consists of a number of words and phrases that describe different feelings and
emotions. Read each item and then mark the appropriate answer in the space next to that word.
Indicate to what extent you feel this way right now (that is, at the present moment). Use the
following scale to record your answers:
Very slightly or
not at all

A little

Moderately

Quite a bit

Extremely

1

2

3

4

5

cheerful
disgusted
attentive
bashful
sluggish
daring
surprised
strong
scornful
relaxed
irritable
delighted
inspired
fearless
disgusted with self

sad
calm
afraid
tired
amazed
shaky
happy
timid
alone
alert
upset
angry
bold
blue
shy

active
guilty
joyful
nervous
lonely
sleepy
excited
hostile
proud
jittery
lively
ashamed
at ease
scared
drowsy

angry at self
enthusiastic
downhearted
sheepish
distressed
blameworthy
determined
frightened
astonished
interested
loathing
confident
energetic
concentrating
dissatisfied
with self

Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect
schedule-expanded form.

90

EMOTION REGULATION QUESTIONNAIRE (ERQ)
We would like to ask you some questions about your emotional life, in particular, how you
control (that is, regulate and manage) your emotions. The questions below involve two distinct
aspects of your emotional life. One is your emotional experience, or what you feel like inside.
The other is your emotional expression, or how you show your emotions in the way you talk,
gesture, or behave. Although some of the following questions may seem similar to one another,
they differ in important ways. For each item, please answer using the following scale:
Strongly
disagree
1

Strongly
agree

Neutral
2

3

4

5

6

7

1. When I want to feel more positive emotion (such as joy or amusement), I change what I’m
thinking about.
2. I keep my emotions to myself.
3. When I want to feel less negative emotion (such as sadness or anger), I change what I’m
thinking about.
4. When I am feeling positive emotions, I am careful not to express them.
5. When I’m faced with a stressful situation, I make myself think about it in a way that helps
me stay calm.
6. I control my emotions by not expressing them.
7. When I want to feel more positive emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the
situation.
8. I control my emotions by changing the way I think about the situation I’m in.
9. When I am feeling negative emotions, I make sure not to express them.
10. When I want to feel less negative emotion, I change the way I’m thinking about the situation.
Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348-362.

91

SOCIAL DESIRABILITY SCALE (SDS) – SHORT FORM
Listed below are a number of statements concerning personal attitudes and traits. Read each
item and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each statement.
True

False

1

0

1. I like to gossip at times. *
2. There have been occasions when I took advantage of someone. *
3. I’m always willing to admit it when I make a mistake.
4. I always try to practice what I preach.
5. I sometimes try to get even rather than forgive and forget. *
6. At times I have really insisted on having things my own way. *
7. There have been occasions when I felt like smashing things. *
8. I never resent being asked to return a favor.
9. I have never been irked when people expressed ideas very different from my own.
10. I have never deliberately said something that hurt someone’s feelings.
Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191-193.

92

GENDER ROLE BELIEFS SCALE (GRBS)
Strongly
agree
1

Strongly
disagree

Undecided
2

3

4

5

6

7

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

It is disrespectful for a man to swear in the presence of a lady.
Women should not expect men to offer them seats on buses. *
Homosexual relationships should be as socially accepted as heterosexual relationships. *
The initiative in courtship should usually come from the man.
It bothers me more to see a woman who is pushy than a man who is pushy.
When sitting down at the table, proper respect demands that the gentleman hold the lady’s
chair.
7. Women should have as much sexual freedom as men. *
8. Women should appreciate the protection and support that men have traditionally given them.
9. Women with children should not work outside the home if they don’t have to financially.
10. I see nothing wrong with a woman who doesn’t like to wear skirts or dresses. *
11. The husband should be regarded as the legal representative of the family group in all matters
of law.
12. I like women who are outspoken. *
13. Except perhaps in very special circumstances, a gentleman should never allow a lady to pay
the taxi, buy the tickets, or pay the check.
14. Some equality in marriage is good, but by and large the husband ought to have the main sayso in family matters.
15. Men should continue to show courtesies to women such as holding open the door or helping
them on with their coats.
16. It is ridiculous for a woman to run a locomotive and for a man to darn socks.
17. A woman should be as free as a man to propose marriage. *
18. Women should be concerned with their duties of childrearing and housetending, rather than
with desires for professional and business careers.
19. Swearing and obscenity is more repulsive in the speech of a woman than a man.
20. There are some professions and types of businesses that are more suitable for men than
women.
Kerr, P. S., & Holden, R. R. (1996). Development of the Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS).
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 3-15.

93

REFERENCES

94

REFERENCES
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual
arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 440-445. doi:10.1037/0021843X.105.3.440
Adolfsen, A., Iedema, J., & Keuzenkamp, S. (2010). Multiple dimensions of attitudes about
homosexuality: Development of a multifaceted scale measuring attitudes toward
homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(10), 1237-1257.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.517069
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The
authoritarian personality. Oxford, England: Harpers.
Alden, H. L., & Parker, K. F. (2005). Gender role ideology, homophobia and hate crime: Linking
attitudes to macro-level anti-gay and lesbian hate crimes. Deviant Behavior, 26(4), 321343. doi:10.1080/016396290931614
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism: JosseyBass.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 30, 47-92. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60382-2
Altemeyer, B. (2002). Changes in attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality,
42(2), 63-75. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_04
Altemeyer, B. (2004). Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 144(4), 421-448. doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.4.421-448
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and
prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133.
doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). (2017, February). Washington State Supreme Court
rules florist discriminated against same-sex couple by refusing wedding-related service.
Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/news/washington-state-supreme-court-rules-floristdiscriminated-against-same-sex-couple-refusing

95

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders
(5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
Aronson, E. (1984). The social animal. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Arseneau, J. R., Grzanka, P. R., Miles, J. R., & Fassinger, R. E. (2013). Development and initial
validation of the Sexual Orientation Beliefs Scale (SOBS). Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 60(3), 407-420. doi:10.1037/a0032799
Austin, S. B., Ziyadeh, N. J., Corliss, H. L., Rosario, M., Wypij, D., Haines, J., … Field, A. E.,
(2009). Sexual orientation disparities in purging and binge eating from early to late
adolescence. Journal of Adolescent Health, 45(3), 238–245.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2009.02.001
Bahns, A. J., & Crandall, C. S. (2013). The opposite of backlash: High‐SDO people show
enhanced tolerance when gay people pose little threat. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 43(4), 286-291. doi:10.1002/ejsp.1947
Balkin, R. S., Schlosser, L. Z., & Levitt, D. H. (2009). Religious identity and cultural diversity:
Exploring the relationships between religious identity, sexism, homophobia, and
multicultural competence. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(4), 420-427. doi:
10.1002/j.1556-6678.2009.tb00126.x
Barrett, L. F., Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2007). On the automaticity of emotion. In J. Bargh
(Ed.), Social psychology and the unconscious: The automaticity of higher mental
processes (pp. 173–218). New York: Psychology Press.
Bates, C., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2001). Attitudes to women in society: The role of social
dominance orientation and social values. Journal of Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 11(1), 43-49. doi:10.1002/casp.589
Benjamin, A. J. (2006). The relationship between right-wing authoritarianism and attitudes
toward violence: Further validation of the Attitudes Toward Violence Scale. Social
Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(8), 923-926.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.8.923
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for
experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351368. doi:10.1093/pan/mpr057
Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and physical
aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 110(1), 179-187. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.179

96

Bhatia, M. S., & Kaur, J. (2015). Homosexual obsessive compulsive disorder (HOCD): A rare
case report. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 9(1), VD01-02.
doi:10.7860/JCDR/2015/10773.5377
Bowleg, L. (2013). “Once you’ve blended the cake, you can’t take the parts back to the main
ingredients”: Black gay and bisexual men’s descriptions and experiences of
intersectionality. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), 754-767. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0152-4
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, and cognition as distinct
components of attitude. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191-1205.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source
of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
doi:10.1177/1745691610393980
Callahan, M. P., & Vescio, T. K. (2011). Core American values and the structure of antigay
prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 58(2), 248-262.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2011.540180
Case, K. A., Fishbein, H. D., & Ritchey, P. N. (2008). Personality, prejudice, and discrimination
against women and homosexuals. Current Research in Social Psychology, 14(2), 23-38.
Retrieved from https://uiowa.edu/crisp/crisp/sites/uiowa.edu.crisp/files/14.2.pdf
Childs, C. E. (2011). Right-wing authoritarianism and prejudice: A meta-analysis. Ball State
University, Munice, IN. Retrieved from cardinalscholar.bsu.edu
Ciocca, G., Tuziak, B., Limoncin, E., Mollaioli, D., Capuano, N. Martini, A., … Jannini, E. A.
(2015). Psychoticism, immature defense mechanisms and a fearful attachment style are
associated with a higher homophobia attitude. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 12, 19531960. doi:10.1111/jsm.12975
Costa, A. B., Bandeira, D. R., & Nardi, H. C. (2013). Systematic review of instruments
measuring homophobia and related constructs. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 43(6), 1324-1332. doi:10.1111/jasp.12140
Cowan, G., Heiple, B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin, M. (2005). Heterosexuals'
attitudes toward hate crimes and hate speech against gays and lesbians. Journal of
Homosexuality, 49(2), 67-82. doi:10.1300/J082v49n02_04
Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and
experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 414-446. doi:10.1037/00332909.129.3.414

97

Crawford, J. T., Brady, J. L., Pilanski, J. M., & Erny, H. (2013). Differential effects of rightwing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on political candidate support:
The moderating role of message framing. Journal of Social and Political
Psychology, 1(1), 5-28. doi:10.5964/jspp.v1i1.170
Crawford, J. T., Jussim, L., Cain, T. R., & Cohen, F. (2013). Right‐wing authoritarianism and
social dominance orientation differentially predict biased evaluations of media
reports. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 163-174. doi: 10.1111/j.15591816.2012.00990.x
Crawford, J. T., & Pilanski, J. M. (2014). The differential effects of right-wing authoritarianism
and social dominance orientation on political intolerance. Political Psychology, 35(4),
557-576. doi:10.1111/pops.12066
Crowne, D. P. & Marlowe, E. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of
psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354. doi:10.1037/h0047358
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup
affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(4), 631-648.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., & van der Maas, H.
L. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network
(CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2-22. doi:10.1037/a0039802
Dasgupta, N., DeSteno, D., Williams, L. A., & Hunsinger, M. (2009). Fanning the flames of
prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice. Emotion,
9(4), 585-591. doi:10.1037/a0015961
Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male role norms,
and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41(3), 259-266.
doi:10.1080/00224490409552233
Dovidio, J. F., Penner, L. A., Albrecht, T. L., Norton, W. E., Gaertner, S. L., & Shelton, J. N.
(2008). Disparities and distrust: The implications of psychological processes for
understanding racial disparities in health and health care. Social Science &
Medicine, 67(3), 478-486. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.019
Duckitt, J. (2005). Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. In J. F.
Dovidio, P. S. Glick & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after
Allport (pp. 395-412). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2007). Right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation
and the dimensions of generalized prejudice. European Journal of Personality, 21(2),
113-130. doi:10.1002/per.614

98

Duncan, L., Peterson, B., & Winter, D. (1997). Authoritarianism and gender roles: Toward a
psychological analysis of hegemonic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23(1), 41-49. doi:10.1177/0146167297231005
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining willingness to engage
in intergroup contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1202-1214.
doi:10.1177/01461672022812006
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences. In M.
A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 139-160). London:
Sage.
Feinstein, B. A., Goldfried, M. R., & Davila, J. (2012). The relationship between experiences of
discrimination and mental health among lesbians and gay men: An examination of
internalized homonegativity and rejection sensitivity as potential mechanisms. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 80(5), 917-927. doi:10.1037/a0029425
Fingerhut, H. (2016, May). Support steady for same-sex marriage and acceptance of
homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2016/05/12/support-steady-for-same-sex-marriage-and-acceptance-ofhomosexuality/
Fischer, D. G., & Fick, C. (1993). Measuring social desirability: Short forms of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53(2),
417-424.
Fraïssé, C., & Barrientos, J. (2016). The concept of homophobia: A psychosocial
perspective. Sexologies, 25(3), 133-140. doi:10.1016/j.sexol.2016.02.002
Frindte, W., Wettig, S., & Wammetsberger, D. (2005). Old and new anti-semitic attitudes in the
context of authoritarianism and social dominance orientation: Two studies in Germany.
Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 11(3), 239-266.
doi:10.1207/s15327949pac1103_3
Gamblin B. W., Winslow M. P., Lindsay B., Newsom A. W., & Kehn A. (2016). Comparing inperson, Sona, and Mechanical Turk measurements of three prejudice-relevant constructs.
Current Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s12144-015-9403-1
Goodman, J. K., Cryder, C. E., & Cheema, A. (2013). Data collection in a flat world: The
strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision
Making, 26(3), 213-224. doi:10.1002/bdm.1753

99

Goodman, M. B., & Moradi, B. (2008). Attitudes and behaviors toward lesbian and gay persons:
Critical correlates and mediated relations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 371384. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.371
Gormley, B., & Lopez, F. G. (2010). Authoritarian and homophobic attitudes: Gender and adult
attachment style differences. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 525-538.
doi:10.1080/00918361003608715
Grey, J. A., Robinson, B. B. E., Coleman, E., & Bockting, W. O. (2013). A systematic review of
instruments that measure attitudes toward homosexual men. Journal of Sex
Research, 50(3-4), 329-352. doi:10.1080/00224499.2012.746279
Grös, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E. (2007). Psychometric properties of
the State-Trait Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison to
the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological Assessment, 19(4), 369-381.
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.369
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of
General Psychology, 2(3), 271-299. doi: 10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.271
Gross, J. J. (1999). Emotion regulation: Past, present, future. Cognition and Emotion, 13(5), 551573. doi: 10.1080/026999399379186
Gross, J. J. (2014). Emotion regulation: Conceptual and empirical foundations. In J. J. Gross
(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (2nd ed., pp. 3–20). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Gross, J. J. (2015). Emotion regulation: Current status and future prospects. Psychological
Inquiry, 26(1), 1-26. doi:10.1080/1047840X.2014.940781
Gross, J.J., & John, O.P. (2003). Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes:
Implications for affect, relationships, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 348-362. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348
Gross, J. J., Sheppes, G., & Urry, H. L. (2011). Emotion generation and emotion regulation: A
distinction we should make (carefully). Cognition and Emotion, 25(5), 765-781. doi:
10.1080/02699931.2011.555753
Guerra Meneses, A. (2015). Same-sex attraction in homophobic men: The role of impulsive
processes (master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:81099
Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J., & Etkin, A. (2011). Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A dualprocess framework. Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 400-412.
doi:10.1080/02699931.2010.544160

100

Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Authoritarianism, values, and the favorability and structure
of antigay attitudes. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding
prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (Vol. 4). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A
regression-based approach. Guilford Press.
Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Huge, M. E. (2012). Cautions regarding the interpretation of
regression coefficients and hypothesis tests in linear models with interactions.
Communication Methods & Measures, 6(1), 1-11.
Heaven, P. C. L., & Quintin, D. S. (2003). Personality factors predict racial prejudice.
Personality and Individual Differences, 34(4), 625-634. doi:10.1016/S01918869(02)00046-6
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and
gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.
doi:10.1080/00224498809551476
Herek, G. M. (1996). Why tell if you’re not asked? Self-disclosure, intergroup contact, and
heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In G. M. Herek, J. Jobe & R.
Carney (Eds.), Out in force: Sexual orientation and the military (pp. 197-225). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Herek, G. M. (2000a). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9(1), 19-22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G. M. (2000b). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians
and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56(2), 251-266. doi:10.1111/00224537.00164
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 66(1), 40-66. doi:10.1086/338409
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the
twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1(2), 6-24.
doi:10.1525/srsp.2004.1.2.6
Herek, G. M. (2009a). Sexual prejudice. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 441-467). Retrieved from
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10285315
Herek, G. M. (2009b). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States: A conceptual
framework. In D. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual
identities (pp. 65-111). New York: Springer.

101

Herek, G. M. (2015). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking more clearly about stigma, prejudice, and
sexual orientation [Supplement]. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 85(5), 29-37.
doi:10.1037/ort0000092
Herek, G. M. (2016). A nuanced view of stigma for understanding and addressing sexual and
gender minority health disparities. LGBT Health, 3(6), 397-399.
doi:10.1089/lgbt.2016.0154
Hiel, A. V., & Mervielde, I. (2005). Authoritarianism and social dominance orientation:
Relationships with various forms of racism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
35(11), 2323-2344. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02105.x
Hodson, G., Rush, J., & MacInnis, C. C. (2010). A joke is just a joke (except when it isn't):
Cavalier humor beliefs facilitate the expression of group dominance motives. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4), 660-682. doi:10.1037/a0019627
Hudepohl, A. D., Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2010). Heterosexual men's anger in response to
male homosexuality: Effects of erotic and non-erotic depictions of male-male intimacy
and sexual prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(8), 1022-1038.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.503511
Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia.
Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357-372. doi:10.1300/J082v05n04_02
Icard, L. D. (1996). Assessing the psychosocial well-being of African American gays: A
multidimensional perspective. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 5(2–3), 2549. doi:10.1300/ J041v05n02_02
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2012). Disgusting smells cause decreased liking of gay
men. Emotion, 12(1), 23-27. doi:10.1037/a0023984
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., Knobe, J., & Bloom, P. (2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive
disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9(3), 435-439. doi:10.1037/a0015960
Jellison, W. A., McConnell, A. R., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Implicit and explicit measures of sexual
orientation attitudes: In group preferences and related behaviors and beliefs among gay
and straight men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(5), 629-642.
doi:10.1177/0146167203262076
Jost, J. T., & Thompson, E. P. (2000). Group-based dominance and opposition to equality as
independent predictors of self-esteem, ethnocentrism, and social policy attitudes among
African Americans and European Americans. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 36(3), 209-232. doi:10.1006/jesp.1999.1403
Keiller, S. W. (2010). Abstract reasoning as a predictor of attitudes toward gay men. Journal of
Homosexuality, 57(7), 914-927. doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.493442

102

Kerr, P. S., & Holden, R. R. (1996). Development of the Gender Role Beliefs Scale (GRBS).
Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 3-15.
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men's attitudes toward women and gay men:
The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 4(1),
37-56. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4.1.37
Kimmel, M. S., & Mahler, M. (2003). Adolescent masculinity, homophobia, and violence.
American Behavioral Scientist, 46(10), 1439-1458. doi:10.1177/0002764203046010010
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons,
behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
22(4), 336-353. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes
toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.),
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and
bisexuals (pp. 39-61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Kugler, M. B., Cooper, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2010). Group-based dominance and opposition to
equality correspond to different psychological motives. Social Justice Research, 23(2),
117-155. doi:10.1007/s11211-010-0112-5
LeMar, L., & Kite, M. (1998). Sex differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: A
multidimensional perspective. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 189-196.
doi:10.1080=00224499809551932
Laythe, B., Finkel, D., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2001). Predicting prejudice from religious
fundamentalism and right wing authoritarianism: A multiple regression approach.
Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 40(1), 1-10. doi:10.1111/0021-294.00033
Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M. J., Tom, S. M., Pfeifer, J. H., & Way, B. M.
(2007). Putting feelings into words affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response
to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18(5), 421-428. doi:10.1111/j.14679280.2007.01916.x
Lingiardi, V., & Nardelli, N. (2014). Negative attitudes to lesbians and gay men: Persecutors and
victims. In G. Corona, E. Jannini, & M. Maggi (Eds.). Emotional, physical and sexual
abuse (pp. 33-47). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive
action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
79(4), 602-616. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602

103

Mahaffey, A. L., Bryan, A., & Hutchison, K. E. (2005a). Sex differences in affective responses
to homoerotic stimuli: Evidence for an unconscious bias among heterosexual men, but
not heterosexual women. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(5), 537-545.
doi:10.1007/s10508-005-6279-4
Mahaffey, A. L., Bryan, A., & Hutchison, K. E. (2005b). Using startle eye blink to measure the
affective component of antigay bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(1), 37-45.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2701_4
Mahaffey, A. L., Bryan, A. D., Ito, T. A., & Hutchison, K. E. (2011). In search of the defensive
function of sexual prejudice: Exploring antigay bias through shorter and longer lead
startle eye blink. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(1), 27-44. doi:10.1111/j.15591816.2010.00700.x
McCormack, M., & Anderson, E. (2014). The influence of declining homophobia on men’s
gender in the United States: An argument for the study of homohysteria. Sex Roles, 71(34), 109-120. doi:10.1007/s11199-014-0358-8
Meier, B. P., Robinson, M. D., Gaither, G. A., & Heinert, N. J. (2006). A secret attraction or
defensive loathing? Homophobia, defense, and implicit cognition. Journal of Research in
Personality, 40(4), 377-394. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2005.01.007
Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual
populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5),
674-697. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674
Milojev, P., Osborne, D., Greaves, L. M., Bulbulia, J., Wilson, M. S., Davies, C. L., ... & Sibley,
C. G. (2014). Right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation predict
different moral signatures. Social Justice Research, 27(2), 149-174. doi:10.1007/s11211014-0213-7
Monto, M. A., & Supinski, J. (2014). Discomfort with homosexuality: A new measure captures
differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 61(6),
899-916. doi:10.1080/00918369.2014.870816
Monroe, B. M., & Read, S. J. (2008). A general connectionist model of attitude structure and
change: the ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) model. Psychological Review,
115, 733-759. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.733
Morrison, M. A., & Morrison, T. G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale measuring
modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 1537. doi:10.1300=J082v43n02_02
Murphy, C. (2015, December). Most U.S. Christian groups grow more accepting of
homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/12/18/mostu-s-christian-groups-grow-more-accepting-of-homosexuality/

104

Murphy, D. (2006). Homophobia and psychotic crimes of violence. The Journal of Forensic
Psychiatry & Psychology, 17(1), 131-150. doi:10.1080/14789940500441477
Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental
health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(8), 1019-1029.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003
Nierman, A. J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2007). Gender role beliefs and
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the US. Sex Roles, 57(1-2), 61-67.
doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9197-1
Obergefell v. Hodges, 14-556 (2015)
Olatunji, B. O. (2008). Disgust, scrupulosity and conservative attitudes about sex: Evidence for a
meditational model of homophobia. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 13641369. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2008.04.001
Paolacci, G., & Chandler, J. (2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a
participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 184-188.
doi:10.1177/0963721414531598
Parrott, D. J. (2008). A theoretical framework for antigay aggression: Review of established and
hypothesized effects within the context of the general aggression model. Clinical
Psychology Review, 28(6), 933-951. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.02.001
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of sexual prejudice and anger on physical
aggression toward gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 6(1),
3-17. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1524-9220.6.1.3
Patel, S., Long, T. E., McCammon, S. L., & Wuensch, K. L. (1995). Personality and emotional
correlates of self-reported antigay behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 10(3),
354-366. doi:10.1177/088626095010003008
Perreault, S., & Bourhis, R. Y. (1999). Ethnocentrism, social identification, and discrimination.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 92-103.
doi:10.1177/0146167299025001008
Pew Research Center. (2015). Support for same-sex marriage at record high, but key segments
remain opposed. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2015/06/08/support-forsame-sex-marriage-at-record-high-but-key-segments-remain-opposed/
Poteat, V. P., Horn, S. S., & Armstrong, P. I. (2016). Condoning discrimination: The effects of
dominance and authoritarianism are moderated by different ways of reasoning about
antigay discriminatory acts. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, Advance online
publication. doi:10.1177/1368430216638528

105

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A
personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 67(4), 741-763. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Markman, K. D., & Snyder, C. J. (2006). Gender differences in
attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: The role of motivation to respond without
prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(10), 1325-1339.
doi:10.1177/0146167206290213
Ree, M. J., French, D., MacLeod, C., & Locke, V. (2008). Distinguishing cognitive and somatic
dimensions of state and trait anxiety: Development and validation of the State-Trait
Inventory for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA). Behavioural and Cognitive
Psychotherapy, 36(3), 313-332. doi:10.1017/S1352465808004232
Rios, K. (2013). Right-wing authoritarianism predicts prejudice against “homosexuals” but not
“gay men and lesbians”. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1177-1183.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.05.013
Roderick, T., McCammon, S. L., Long, T. E., & Allred, L. J. (1998). Behavioral aspects of
homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 36(1), 79-88. doi:10.1300/J082v36n01_05
Röndahl, G., Innala, S., & Carlsson, M. (2004). Nurses’ attitudes towards lesbians and gay
men. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 47(4), 386-392. doi:10.1111/j.13652648.2004.03116.x
Rosenthal, G., & Rosenthal, J. A. (2011). Statistics and data interpretation for social work.
Springer Publishing Company.
Russell, S. T. (2003). Sexual minority youth and suicide risk. American Behavioral Scientist, 46,
1241-1257. doi:10.1177/0002764202250667
Rye, B. J., & Meany, G. J. (2010). Measuring homonegativity: A psychometric analysis.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 42(3), 158-167. doi:10.1037/a0018237
Schellenberg, E. G., Hirt, J., & Sears, A. (1999). Attitudes toward homosexuals among students
at a Canadian university. Sex Roles, 40(1), 139-152. doi:10.1023/A:1018838602905
Schiffman, J. B., DeLucia-Waack, J. L., & Gerrity, D. A. (2006). An examination of the
construct of homophobia: Prejudice or phobia? Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling,
1(1), 75-93. doi:10.1300/J462v01n01_06
Shackelford, T. K., & Besser, A. (2007). Predicting attitudes toward homosexuality: Insights
from personality psychology. Individual Differences Research, 5(2), 106-114.

106

Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low
and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality, 10(1-2), 53-67.
doi:10.1300/J082v10n01_04
Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social dominance orientation and right‐
wing authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27(5), 755768. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00531.x
Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Effects of dangerous and competitive
worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a fivemonth period. Political Psychology, 28(3), 357-371. doi:10.1111/j.14679221.2007.00572.x
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (2001). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and
oppression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Sinclair, S., & Pratto, F. (2006). Social dominance orientation, gender, and
increasing educational exposure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(7), 16401653. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00074.x
Siebert, D. C., Chonody, J., Siebert, C. F., & Rutledge, S. E. (2014). The importance of
confirmatory validation: Short version of the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men
Scale. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 5(2), 189-210.
doi:10.1086/676519
Smith, T. W., Son, J., & Kim, J. (2014). Public attitudes toward homosexuality and gay rights
across time and countries. Retrieved from The Williams Institute website:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4p93w90c
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3),
157-175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x
Stoever, C. J., & Morera, O. F. (2007) A confirmatory factor analysis of the Attitudes Toward
Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) measure. Journal of Homosexuality, 52(3-4), 189-209.
doi:10.1300/J082v52n03_09
Stones, C. R. (2006). Antigay prejudice among heterosexual males: Right-wing authoritarianism
as a stronger predictor than social-dominance orientation and heterosexual identity.
Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 34(9), 1137-1150.
doi:10.2224/sbp.2006.34.9.1137
Stotzer, R. L., & Shih, M. (2012). The relationship between masculinity and sexual prejudice in
factors associated with violence against gay men. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 13(2), 136-142. doi:10.1037/a0023991

107

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlow-Crowne
Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 28(2), 191-193. doi:
10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2%3C191::AID-JCLP2270280220%3E3.0.CO;2-G
Tapias, M. P., Glaser, J., Keltner, D., Vasquez, K., & Wickens, T. (2007). Emotion and
prejudice: Specific emotions toward outgroups. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10(1), 27-39. doi:10.1177/1368430207071338
Terrizzi, J. A., Shook, N. J., & Ventis, W. L. (2010). Disgust: A predictor of social conservatism
and prejudicial attitudes toward homosexuals. Personality and Individual
Differences, 49(6), 587-592. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.024
Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup
prejudice via direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and
intergroup anxiety. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369-388.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy:
The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group
Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6(1), 37-54. doi:10.1177/1368430203006001011
Walls, N. E. (2008). Toward a multidimensional understanding of heterosexism: The changing
nature of prejudice. Journal of Homosexuality, 55(1), 20-70.
doi:10.1080/00918360802129287
Wang, T., Geffen, S., & Cahill, S. (2016). The current wave of anti-LGBT legislation: Historical
context and implications for LGBT health. Retrieved from The Fenway Institute website:
http://fenwayhealth.org/wp-content/uploads/The-Fenway-Institute-Religious-ExemptionBrief-June-2016.pdf
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1999). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect
schedule-expanded form.
Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 126-134. doi:10.1037/00223514.77.1.126
Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles,
45(11), 691-721. doi:10.1023/a:1015640318045
Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A metaanalysis. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19(1), 21-38.
doi:10.1080/10508610802471104

108

Whitley, B. E., & Ægisdóttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism, social
dominance orientation, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Sex
Roles, 42(11), 947-967. doi:10.1023/A:1007026016001
Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: A
comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117(1), 146-154.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.146
Whitley, B. E., & Lee, S. E. (2000). The relationship of authoritarianism and related constructs
to attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(1), 144-170.
Weinberg, G. H. (1973). Society and the healthy homosexual. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor
Press/Doubleday.
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004a). Religiosity, authoritarianism, and homophobia: A multidimensional
approach. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 14(1), 55-67.
doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr1401_5
Wilkinson, W. W. (2004b). Authoritarian hegemony, dimensions of masculinity, and male
antigay attitudes. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5(2), 121-131. doi:10.1037/15249220.5.2.121
Wilkinson, W. W. (2006). Exploring heterosexual women's anti-lesbian attitudes. Journal of
Homosexuality, 51(2), 139-155. doi:10.1300/J082v51n02_08
Williams, M. T. (2008). Homosexuality anxiety: A misunderstood form of OCD. In L. V. Sebeki
(Ed.). Leading-edge Health Education Issues (pp. 195-205). New York: Nova.
Williams, M. T., Crozier, M., & Powers, M. (2011). Treatment of sexual-orientation obsessions
in obsessive-compulsive disorder using exposure and ritual prevention. Clinical Case
Studies, 10(1), 53-66. doi:10.1177/1534650110393732
Williams, M. T., Wetterneck, C., Tellawi, G., & Duque, G. (2015). Domains of distress among
people with sexual orientation obsessions. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(3), 783-789.
doi:10.1007/s10508-014-0421-0
Wilson, M. S. (2003). Social dominance and ethical ideology: The end justifies the means? The
Journal of Social Psychology, 143(5), 549-558. doi:10.1080/00224540309598462
Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (2013). Social Dominance Orientation and Right‐Wing
Authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political conservatism. Political
Psychology, 34(2), 277-284. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00929.x
Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward lesbian, gay,
bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender individuals. Sex Roles, 68,
703-723. doi:10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1

109

Wright Jr., L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation of the
homophobia scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 21(4), 337347.
Zeichner, A., & Reidy, D. E. (2009). Are homophobic men attracted to or repulsed by
homosexual men? Effects of gay male erotica on anger, fear, happiness, and disgust.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(3), 231-236. doi:10.1037/a0014955

110