Men-9-3-167

Psychology of Men & Masculinity 2008, Vol. 9, No. 3, 167–178

Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association 1524-9220/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.167

Correlates of Anger in Response to Gay Men: Effects of Male Gender Role Beliefs, Sexual Prejudice, and Masculine Gender Role Stress Dominic J. Parrott, John L. Peterson, Wilson Vincent, and Roger Bakeman Georgia State University The present study examined whether sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress mediate the effect of male gender role beliefs on anger in response to gay men. Participants were 135 exclusively heterosexual men who completed a structured interview designed to assess endorsement of 3 male gender norms (status, toughness, and antifemininity), sexual prejudice, masculine gender role stress, and anger in response to a vignette depicting a nonerotic male–male intimate relationship (i.e., partners saying “I love you,” holding hands, kissing). Results revealed that sexual prejudice fully mediated the association between status and anger (and partially mediated the association between antifemininity and anger) in response to gay men. Moreover, results indicated that masculine gender role stress partially mediated the effect of antifemininity on anger in response to gay men. Overall, these findings suggest that male gender role norms, particularly the antifemininity norm, are strongly associated with anger in response to gay men and that sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress are important mediators of these associations. Keywords: masculinity, sex roles, sexual prejudice, gender role stress, anger

Antigay aggression is an ongoing problem in the United States (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006; Harlow, 2005; National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs [NCAVP], 2007). Unfortunately, because of a reliance on convenience samples and the lack of data collection statutes for hate crimes based on sexual orientation in most states (Anti-Defamation League, 2003), an accurate estimation of the frequency and severity of antigay assaults remains elusive. Nevertheless, a recent national probability sample found that one in five sexual minority adults were victims of a person or property crime because of their sexual orientation and that approximately 50% were verbally insulted or abused because of their sexual orientation (Herek, in press). In addition, victims of antigay aggression, who are largely men who identify as gay or bisexual or people of male-to-female

Dominic J. Parrott, John L. Peterson, Wilson Vincent, and Roger Bakeman, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Dominic J. Parrott, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5010, Atlanta, GA 30302-5010. E-mail: [email protected]

transgender experience (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2006; NCAVP, 2007), are more likely to suffer psychiatric symptoms relative to victims of nonbiased assaults (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999). Hence, the need to understand the causes of aggression against this population is clearly important. It is well accepted that sexual prejudice is a key determinant of antigay aggression. Herek (2000a) defined sexual prejudice as a stable attribute that incorporates “all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation, whether the target is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual” (p. 19). Indeed, both experimental and correlational studies have demonstrated that sexual prejudice is positively associated with bias-motivated aggression toward gay men (Bernat, Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001; Franklin, 2000; Patel, Long, McCammon, & Wuensch, 1995; Roderick, McCammon, Long, & Allred, 1998), especially after exposure to sexual violations of the male gender role (e.g., male–male erotica; Parrott & Zeichner, 2005). However, antigay aggression is not always motivated by sexual prejudice. For example, many perpetrators are motivated by social dynamics such as peer group effects or thrill seeking

167

168

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

(Franklin, 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, for perpetrators motivated by these social dynamics, the selection of gay men or lesbians as targets is sanctioned by cultural norms of masculinity that value status, toughness, and, above all, heterosexuality (Herek, 1990, 2004; Neisen, 1990; Pharr, 1988). Thus, in addition to sexual prejudice, a strong adherence to culturally determined masculine ideologies may similarly facilitate antigay aggression (Franklin, 1998; Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997; Kite & Whitley, 1998). Consistent with this view, Parrott and Zeichner (in press) found that hypermasculinity was more positively associated with antigay aggression after exposure to male–male, relative to male–female, sexual activity. Collectively, these data indicate that sexual prejudice and endorsement of traditional masculine gender norms are important individual-level risk factors to consider when examining processes associated with antigay aggression. Nonetheless, these individual risk factors do not sufficiently explain antigay aggression in all perpetrators. Many men who are prejudiced or endorse a strong adherence to heterosexual masculinity fail to engage in antigay acts. Hence, other factors are necessary for antigay aggression to occur. It is pertinent that theories from the general aggression literature posit that anger mediates the relationship between individual and/or situational risk factors and aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Berkowitz, 1990, 1993). A recent study on the motivations for antigay aggression supports this view. Specifically, Parrott and Peterson (in press) found that anger in response to gay men mediated the association between sexual prejudice and antigay aggression and peer dynamics and antigay aggression. These data suggest that, to better understand the causes of antigay aggression, it is important to understand the factors that lead to men’s experience of anger.

Potential Causes of Antigay Anger Masculinity, Sexual Prejudice, and Antigay Anger Male sexual prejudice is strongly associated with adherence to traditional gender norms (Ehrlich, 1990; Kilianski, 2003; Parrott, Adams, & Zeichner, 2002; Patel et al., 1995; Polimeni, Hardie, & Buzwell, 2000; Sinn, 1997). The

connection between sexual prejudice and male gender role beliefs may be elucidated further by considering the development of each. Beliefs about the male gender role are culturally constructed from birth. Specifically, male gender role beliefs reflect an adherence to a variety of distinct norms, including the following: (a) status, which reflects the belief that men must gain the respect of others; (b) toughness, which reflects the expectation that men are physically tough and willing to be aggressive; and (c) antifemininity, which reflects the belief that men should not engage in stereotypically feminine activities (Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Similarly, sexual prejudice is also culturally constructed. However, sexual prejudice emerges from one’s developing masculine identity to reinforce one’s status as a heterosexual male (Herek, 2000a) and to represent a specific “repudiation of femininity” (Kimmel, 1997, p. 229). Indeed, sexual prejudice is a particularly likely by-product of masculine socialization (Shields & Harriman, 1984), especially an antifemininity theme within the male role (Parrott et al., 2002; Thompson, Grisanti, & Pleck, 1985). Numerous studies have shown that both traditional male gender role beliefs and sexual prejudice predict increased self-reports of anger among men who were exposed to male–male, relative to male–female, sexual activity (Bernat et al., 2001; Parrott & Zeichner, 2005, in press; Parrott, Zeichner, & Hoover, 2006). Inasmuch as sexual prejudice is a specific product of men’s endorsement of traditional masculine ideologies, it can be argued that sexual prejudice mediates the established link between male gender role beliefs and anger in response to gay men. However, it is important to conceptualize masculine ideology in terms of its specific norms rather than as a unidimensional construct (Fischer, Tokar, Good, & Snell, 1998). Thus, research that examines predictors of anger in response to gay men must examine the separate influence of each norm. This approach has important theoretical implications. For example, relative to the status or toughness norms, the antifemininity norm may be more directly related to anger in response to gay men. Likewise, the extent to which sexual prejudice mediates the relation between traditional male gender role beliefs and antigay anger may vary as a function of the specific norm

CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER

considered. For example, endorsement of the status, toughness, and antifemininity norms may elicit antigay anger through sexual prejudice. However, endorsement of the antifemininity norm may also exert direct effects on antigay anger after controlling for sexual prejudice. These hypotheses have yet to be tested in the extant literature and are one focus of the present investigation.

Masculinity, Masculine Gender Role Stress, and Antigay Anger In addition to facilitating sexually prejudiced anger in response to gay men, a strong adherence to heterosexual masculinity may also increase the likelihood of antigay anger within the male group context (Franklin, 2000). One individual factor that may reflect men’s susceptibility to these peer effects is masculine gender role stress. In contrast to masculine ideology, masculine gender role stress refers to the tendency for men to appraise “specific cognitions, behaviors, or situations as stressful and undesirable” (Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988, p. 135). As described by Eisler and Skidmore (1987), men high in gender role stress “will experience stress when they judge themselves unable to cope with the imperatives of the male role or when a situation is viewed as requiring ‘unmanly’ or feminine behavior” (p. 125). Accordingly, men who report high masculine gender role stress are posited to display increased anger in situations that require or involve behavior inconsistent with traditional male gender role norms (e.g., being in the presence of two gay men). These reactions are consistent with a strong adherence to heterosexual masculinity. Moreover, inasmuch as male peers perpetuate the importance of adhering to this ideology, men high in gender role stress may be especially susceptible to peer-related effects on antigay aggression. As such, masculine gender role stress appears especially likely to facilitate anger in response to gay men. Unfortunately, no study to date has directly examined this hypothesis. However, indirect evidence is found in related literatures. For example, men who endorse high, relative to low, levels of masculine gender role stress report higher levels of anger, more negative attributions, and heightened cardiovascular reactivity in response to situational threats of traditional masculinity (Cosenzo, Franchina, Eisler,

169

& Krebs, 2004; Eisler, Franchina, Moore, Honeycutt, & Rhatigan, 2000; Franchina, Eisler, & Moore, 2001; Lash, Eisler, & Schulman, 1990; Moore & Stuart, 2004). Likewise, men who report high levels of masculine gender role stress are more likely to use aggressive tactics in situations in which a female threatens their masculinity (Eisler et al., 2000; Franchina et al., 2001). The reviewed literature indicates that adherence to traditional masculine gender norms may lead to men’s tendency to experience stress in situations that are perceived to violate those norms. Indeed, it may well be that a tendency to experience certain gender-relevant situations as stressful, rather than merely holding traditional beliefs about the male role per se, more strongly predicts anger in response to gay men. Consistent with this view, Thompson, Pleck, and Ferrera (1992) concluded that masculine gender role stress likely predicts men’s behavior more directly than specific norms of masculinity. Given this rationale, it can be argued that masculine gender role stress mediates the established link between male gender role beliefs and anger in response to gay men. However, this mediational effect may vary as a function of the specific norm under investigation. This hypothesis has yet to be tested in the extant literature and is another focus of the present investigation.

The Present Research The aim of the present study was to examine two potential mediators of the relation between male gender role beliefs and anger in response to gay men. Consistent with the reviewed literature, male gender role beliefs, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress likely facilitate anger in response to gay men. Whereas male gender role beliefs involve several different norms, sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress are highly specific, unidimensional constructs that may affect antigay anger more directly. Thus, it was hypothesized that sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress would mediate the association between male gender role beliefs and anger in response to gay men. However, relative to other male role norms, pertinent theory suggests that the antifemininity norm is more closely related to responses to gay men. Thus, we hypothesized further that the antifemininity norm would still directly affect antigay anger after controlling

170

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

simultaneously for sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress.

Method Participants Participants were 173 men recruited through introductory psychology courses. Women were not recruited because, relative to men, they report lower levels of sexual prejudice toward gay men and are less likely to engage in antigay aggression (Baker & Fishbein, 1998; Lim, 2002; Polimeni et al., 2000; Whitley & Kite, 1995). Potential participants responded to a study advertisement titled “Survey of Social Attitudes.” Participants were informed that they would be required to complete a 1-hr interview designed to assess their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors about homosexuality and, more broadly, the roles of men and women in our society. Participants were told that they would receive partial course credit for completing the interview. Informed consent was obtained from all participants. From this initial sample of 173, 38 men were excluded because they reported prior male–male sexual behavior or sexual arousal, refused to answer some interview questions, or exceeded the targeted age range (18 –30 years old) generally found for heterosexual perpetrators of antigay aggression (Harry, 1990; NCAVP, 2007). Overall, the final sample consisted of 135 young adult, exclusively heterosexual, male participants from various racial backgrounds (see Table 1 for demographic details).

Table 1 Sample Demographics Variable

M(SD) or %

Age Education (in years) Race White, non-Hispanic African American Asian American Hispanic or Latino Other Relationship status Single, never married Married

20.0 (2.6) 14.1 (1.2)

Note.

n ⫽ 135.

50 24 17 2 7 97 3

Measures Structured interview. Participants completed a structured interview that included numerous self-report measures administered orally (discussed later). Thus, rather than completing items from each self-report measure in the traditional written format, participants responded orally to all items. A structured interview, rather than a traditional written self-report format, was used to establish a data collection strategy that may be easily adapted for use in large-scale national surveys. For each selfreport measure, a male interviewer read the instructions, response options, and items to participants. The interviewer provided clarification regarding instructions and items on request from participants. All participants were informed that they could refuse to answer any item and still receive compensation. Additional questionnaires were also administered orally but are unrelated to the present study and so are not reported here. Demographic form. These interview items obtained information such as age, sexual orientation, race, relationship status, and years of education. Kinsey Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating Scale (KRS; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948). A modified version of this instrument was used to assess previous sexual arousal and experiences. On this 7-item scale, participants rate their sexual arousal and behavioral experiences from 1 (exclusively heterosexual) to 7 (exclusively homosexual). As noted previously, only participants who reported exclusively heterosexual arousal and behavioral experiences were included in the analyses. Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). The MRNS is a 26-item inventory that assesses three dimensions of masculine ideology: status (e.g., “A man must stand on his own two feet and never depend on other people to help him do things”), toughness (e.g., “A good motto for a man would be ‘When the going gets tough, the tough get going’”), and antifemininity (e.g., “It bothers me when a man does something that I consider ‘feminine’”). Participants were asked to rate each item on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores corresponding to more traditional beliefs of the status, toughness, and antifemininity norms. This tridimensional

CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER

factor structure has been supported by both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Sinn, 1997; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Internal consistency coefficients for these subscales range between 0.74 and 0.81 in standardization samples (Thompson & Pleck, 1986). In the present sample, alpha reliability coefficients of 0.85, 0.70, and 0.80 were found for status, toughness, and antifemininity subscales, respectively. Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale (ATGS; Herek, 1988). Sexual prejudice was assessed with the 10-item, Likert-type ATGS, which specifically measures heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men. Scores range from 1 (extremely positive attitudes) to 9 (extremely negative attitudes). Sample items include “I think male homosexuals are disgusting,” and “Homosexual behavior between two men is just plain wrong.” Internal consistency for oral administrations of this measure in standardization samples typically exceeds .80, which was consistent with the present study (␣ ⫽ 0.88). This scale has been orally administered in numerous national surveys and been shown to be both reliable and valid (Herek, 2000b, 2002). Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale (MGRSS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). This 40item Likert-type scale assessed the tendency to appraise as stressful those situations that conflict with the traditional male gender role. Participants rated items on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all stressful) to 5 (extremely stressful), with higher scores reflecting increased masculine gender role stress. For example, sample items asked participants to rate how much stress they would feel if they were “comforting a male friend who is upset,” “perceived as having feminine traits,” “asking for directions when lost,” or “with a woman who is more successful.” The MGRSS has been found to be independent of measures of masculinity and beliefs about the masculine gender role (Eisler & Skidmore, 1987; Eisler et al., 1988). Standardization data indicate alpha reliability coefficients that exceed 0.90, which was consistent with the present sample (␣ ⫽ 0.94). Positive and Negative Affect Schedule— Expanded Form (PANAS–X; Watson & Clark, 1994). The PANAS–X was used to assess participants’ experience of anger in response to a vignette describing male–male intimate relationship behavior (discussed later). Specifically,

171

anger was assessed with the 6-item Anger– Hostility scale, which was presented in conjunction with the 20-item PANAS (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988). Participants were asked to rate the extent to which they would experience each mood descriptor on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely). Watson et al. reported an internal consistency coefficient of 0.84. In the present study, an alpha reliability coefficient of 0.90 was obtained. Before the oral administration of the PANAS–X, the interviewer asked participants to imagine themselves in the following situation: Imagine you are in the airport waiting for a friend’s flight to arrive. As you wait, you see a man who has just returned from his trip greet his male friend. They hug each other for several seconds, and then kiss on the lips for several seconds. They hug again and then kiss on the lips several more times. You overhear both men say how much they missed each other, and one of the men specifically says “I love you” to his male friend. The man who has been waiting at the airport then gives flowers to his friend who has just returned. Upon receipt of the gift, this man is visibly thankful, they embrace again, and both say that they love each other. The two men then walk away together holding hands.

Procedure On arrival to the laboratory, all participants provided informed consent. The structured interview was then administered. After completing the full interview, participants were debriefed, compensated with course credit, and thanked.

Results Descriptive Statistics Means, standard deviations, and ranges for the key variables are given in Table 2, along with their correlations. All variables except antigay anger were reasonably distributed (i.e., skew ⬍2.56 times its standard error). A reciprocal transform was required for the positively skewed antigay anger to meet this criterion; the transformed variable was used for subsequent analyses (although analyses with the untransformed variable gave essentially identical results). Unmediated effects of status, toughness, and antifemininity on anger in response to gay men (i.e., zero-order correlations) were significant (.34, .37, and .59, respectively).

172

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Key Variables Variable

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

Status Toughness Antifemininity Sexual prejudice MGRS Antigay anger

Descriptives

Correlations

M

SD

Range

1

2

3

4

5

6

52 32 22 42 112 10

13 9 9 24 39 6

17–77 13–54 7–42 10–90 13–186 6–30

— .54 .48 .50 .35 .34

— .59 .43 .50 .37

— .59 .57 .59

— .32 .67

— .47

—

Note. n ⫽ 135. MGRS ⫽ masculine gender role stress. All correlations are significant, p ⬍ .001.

Mediation Models We used path analysis (Kline, 2005; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) to examine whether sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress mediated the relationship between male gender role beliefs (status, toughness, and antifemininity) and anger in response to gay men. This analytical approach permitted simultaneous evaluation of the relationships between these variables while accounting for shared variance among the hypothesized mediators. First, we estimated path coefficients (using LISREL) for an unmediated model that linked status, toughness, and antifemininity to sexual prejudice, masculine gender role stress, and anger in response to gay men. This unmediated model did not include paths from sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress to antigay anger (see top of Figure 1). This model did not fit the data; ␹2(3, N ⫽ 135) ⫽ 39.5, p ⬍ .01; root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] ⫽ 0.30 (90% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.22– 0.39); confirmatory factor index [CFI] ⫽ .90. Direct effects of status on sexual prejudice, toughness on masculine gender role stress, and antifemininity on both sexual prejudice and masculine gender roles stress were significant. The mediated model that included links from sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress to antigay anger (Figure 1, bottom) fit the data; ␹2(1, N ⫽ 135) ⫽ 0.58, p ⫽ .45, RMSEA ⫽ 0.0 (90% CIs 0 – 0.21), CFI ⫽ 1.0. Total, direct, and indirect effects are shown in Table 3. The indirect effect of status was statistically significant and mediated fully by sexual prejudice (the indirect effect through masculine gender role stress was .00). The indirect effect of toughness,

although not statistically significant, t ⫽ 1.16, was mediated fully by masculine gender role stress (the indirect effect through sexual prejudice was .00). The direct and indirect effects of antifemininity were statistically significant. Overall, 39% of the total effect was direct, 43% was mediated by sexual prejudice, and 18% was mediated by masculine gender role stress. In summary, after we controlled for sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress, status and toughness had small and statistically insignificant direct effects on anger in response to gay men. In contrast, the effect of antifemininity maintained a significant direct positive effect. The indirect effect of status was significant and mediated fully by sexual prejudice (not masculine gender role stress). The indirect effect of toughness was mediated fully by masculine gender role stress (not sexual prejudice) but was not significant. The indirect effect of antifemininity was significant and mediated more by sexual prejudice then by masculine gender role stress. Of course, although we use standard structural equation terms here (direct effects, indirect effects, etc.), these correlational data cannot prove, but can only suggest, plausible causal relationships.

Discussion The aim of the study was to determine whether sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress mediate the associations between three norms of masculine ideology and antigay anger. Specifically, sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress were hypothesized to mediate the relations between the status, toughness, and antifemininity norms and antigay

CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER

.28**

Status

173

Sexual Prejudice

.01 .07

.01 Tough ness

.00 .25**

Antigay Anger

.56**

.44** Antifemininity

.42**

.28**

Status

MGR Stress

Sexual Prejudice

.54**

.01 –.09

.01 Tough ness

–.06 .25**

.22* .23**

**

.44 Antifemininity

Antigay Anger

**

.42

MGR Stress

Figure 1. Top panel: Unmediated effect of status, toughness, and antifemininity on increases in anger toward gay men. Bottom panel: Effect of status, toughness, and antifemininity on increases in anger toward gay men mediated by sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .001.

anger. In addition, antifemininity was expected to maintain a direct effect on antigay anger when controlling for sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress. These hypotheses were generally supported. Results indicated that sexual prejudice fully mediated the relation between status and antigay anger, did not mediate the relation between toughness and antigay anger, and partially mediated the relation between antifemininity and

antigay anger. In addition, results demonstrated that masculine gender role stress did not mediate the relation between status and antigay anger or the relation between toughness and antigay anger. However, masculine gender role stress partially mediated the relation between antifemininity and antigay anger. After accounting for sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress, antifemininity maintained a significant, albeit reduced, association with antigay anger.

174

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

Table 3 Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Status, Toughness, and Antifemininity on Anger in Response to Gay Men Variable

Total

Direct

Indirect

Status Toughness Antifemininity

.07 .00 .56**

–.09 –.06 .22*

.15** .06 .34**

Note. n ⫽ 135. * p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .001.

Results suggest that antifemininity is related directly to antigay anger and is related indirectly to antigay anger via sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress. It is interesting, however, that the majority of this indirect effect is mediated by sexual prejudice. In addition, these data indicate that adherence to the status norm is related to antigay anger indirectly through sexual prejudice. Finally, it appears that adherence to the toughness norm is not related to antigay anger, perhaps because endorsement of this norm reflects the expectation that men are willing to be aggressive. Although anger and aggression are inextricably linked (Cavell & Malcom, 2007), they reflect theoretically distinct emotional and behavioral processes, respectively (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz, 1993). Thus, endorsement of the toughness norm may relate more strongly to the actual enactment of antigay aggression. Future research is needed to investigate this possibility. In summary, inasmuch as masculine ideology is a multidimensional construct (Thompson & Pleck, 1986), these data suggest that antifemininity emerges as the norm that demonstrates a direct link to antigay anger and, potentially, to antigay aggression. These findings are generally consistent with theory pertinent to sexual prejudice. Fundamentally, sexual prejudice emerges from the development of masculine identity to reinforce one’s status as a heterosexual male (Herek, 2000a) and to represent a “repudiation of femininity” (Kimmel, 1997, p. 229). Because sexual prejudice is congruent with cultural norms of heterosexism and sexism (e.g., Brannon, 1976; Deaux & Kite, 1987; Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997; Kite, 2001; Pleck, 1981), it is particularly likely to reinforce these traditional norms (Herek, 2000a). In contrast, sexual prejudice does not

specifically reflect one’s physical prowess and, consequently, is not theoretically linked to one’s perceived toughness as a male. Accordingly, male sexual prejudice may be conceptualized as a manifestation of the status and antifemininity norms. Indeed, analyses revealed significant associations between status and sexual prejudice and antifemininity and sexual prejudice and failed to detect a significant association between toughness and sexual prejudice. Although sexual prejudice develops to reinforce traditional status and antifemininity norms of the male role, theorists posit that reinforcement of the antifemininity norm is particularly critical (e.g., Thompson et al., 1985). Consistent with this view, the present data suggest that an antifeminine orientation, whether expressed through sexual prejudice or an endorsement of the antifeminine male norm, is a critical correlate of men’s anger in response to gay men. These findings are also consistent with research and theory on masculine gender role stress. Specifically, results suggest that adherence to the traditional male norm of antifemininity is associated with the tendency to experience gender-relevant situations as stressful (i.e., high masculine gender role stress), particularly situations in which heterosexual men perceive that their antifeminine orientation is threatened by gay men. These men feel higher levels of anger as a consequence. Consistent with this finding, O’Neil (1982) posited that, to the extent that a heterosexual man fears the appearance of femininity, he will display exaggerated characteristics of the male role (e.g., anger). Likewise, research indicates that men who endorse high, relative to low, levels of masculine gender role stress report higher levels of anger in response to situations in which a female threatens their masculinity (Eisler et al., 2000). These data suggest that men’s “fear of femininity” is related to their tendency to experience anger when confronted with situations perceived to be “unmanly.” Once again, endorsement of the antifemininity norm appears to be fundamental to the experience of anger in response to gay men. The results of the present study have important implications for the prediction of antigay aggression. Recent research suggests that antigay anger mediates the association between sexual prejudice and antigay aggression and the association between peer effects and antigay

CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER

aggression (Parrott & Peterson, in press). In light of the present data, it appears that endorsement of masculinity norms, particularly status and antifemininity, may increase the likelihood of sexually prejudiced and peer-driven antigay aggression by facilitating men’s experience of anger in response to gay men. This interpretation is consistent with pertinent theory on the individual motivations and determinants of antigay aggression. One function of antigay aggression is to provide a means by which young men may prove their masculinity by demonstrating their socially expected rejection of femininity (Franklin, 1998; Hamner, 1990; Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997). Thus, individuals who endorse status and antifemininity norms may be more likely to engage in antigay aggression because of the anger associated with sexual prejudice and their experience of gender-related stress. Another function of antigay aggression is to “prove both toughness and heterosexuality to friends” (Franklin, 1998, p. 12). To the extent that endorsement of the toughness norm is associated with antigay aggression, the present data suggest that this association is not attributable to men’s experience of anger in response to gay men. An alternative explanation for the present findings merits discussion. In the present study, we assessed participants’ estimation of their anger to a hypothetical situation rather than their actual anger to an interpersonal interaction with a gay man. Thus, male participants were placed in a situation in which they had the opportunity to enact components of the male gender role (e.g., rejection of femininity) directly to another man (i.e., the male interviewer). In this situation, men who were highly sensitive to being perceived as nonmasculine or nonheterosexual may have been particularly likely to express antigay antipathy in an effort to reaffirm their masculine identity to the male interviewer. As a result, the present findings may actually reflect correlates of men’s selfpresentation to other men rather than correlates of actual felt emotion in response to gay men.1 Unfortunately, the design used in this study could not disentangle the extent to which the findings reflected men’s felt anger in real interactions with gay men, men’s self-presentation to other men, or both. Nevertheless, the theoretical mechanisms supported in this investigation are consistent with extant literature perti-

175

nent to these different explanations, regardless of which explanations ultimately prove most viable. For example, robust laboratory data have demonstrated that hypermasculinity and sexual prejudice predict state anger in response to gay men (e.g., Bernat et al., 2001; Parrott & Zeichner, in press; Parrott et al., 2006). This evidence suggests that the present findings may, in fact, reflect pathways to men’s experience of felt anger in direct response to gay men. Even so, until research determines the extent to which these variables predict tendencies in selfpresentation and/or true felt anger in response to gay men, the present results should be interpreted with caution. Although the present findings represent a significant advancement in the understanding of individual and contextual factors that lead to antigay anger, there are several other caveats regarding the conclusions of the present study. First, the correlational, cross-sectional design of the study cannot determine causal and temporal relationships among the variables. As a result, any causal explanations regarding the associations between the variables examined in this study should be interpreted with caution. Second, the study was limited to male college students between the ages of 18 and 30. Although young men are most often perpetrators of antigay aggression (Harry, 1990; NCAVP, 2007), results obtained from samples consisting solely of young adult college students may be limited in their applicability to the rest of the male population. For example, relative to older males, adolescent and young adult males may endorse male gender norms more strongly and report higher levels of sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress. In contrast, inasmuch as one’s level of education is positively correlated with favorable attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (Herek, 1994; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Plugge-Foust & Strickland, 2000; Yang, 1997), a university sample may underestimate true associations among pertinent variables. Thus, large population-based studies are required to determine whether these effects can be generalized to adult males in general. Third, we did not examine determinants of antigay anger within a male peer group context. As such, the present study did not provide the op1

We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.

176

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

timal test of how masculine gender role stress may predict anger in response to gay men. As noted earlier, men who endorse high masculine gender role stress are likely to become angry in situations that may be viewed as feminine or requiring feminine behavior (Eisler et al., 1988). Given that men’s fear of emasculation from male peers is believed to contribute to group-perpetrated antigay aggression (Franklin, 2000; Kimmel, 1997), future research that replicates the present data within a male group context is needed. Finally, in addition to the possibility of a self-presentation bias, it is also possible that an interview-based assessment strategy increased the risk of social desirability biases. In conclusion, results of this investigation indicate that endorsement of male gender role norms, particularly the antifemininity norm, is strongly associated with anger in response to gay men and that sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress are important mediators of these associations. Additionally, these results provide new evidence that links masculine gender role stress to anger in response to gay men. These results represent important steps toward clarifying the correlates of antigay anger and, potentially, toward understanding and reducing antigay aggression.

References Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. Anti-Defamation League. (2003). Hate crimes laws. Retrieved on January 3, 2008, from http:// www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp Baker, J. G., & Fishbein, H. D. (1998). The development of prejudice toward gays and lesbians by adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 36, 89 –100. Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45, 494 –503. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill. 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, 179 –187.

Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s blueprint for manhood, and what it’s done for us lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp. 1– 48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Cavell, T. A., & Malcom, K. T. (Eds.). (2007). Anger, aggression, and interventions for interpersonal violence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cosenzo, K. A., Franchina, J. J., Eisler, R. M., & Krebs, D. (2004). Effects of masculine genderrelevant task instructions on men’s cardiovascular reactivity and mental arithmetic performance. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 103–111. Deaux, K., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Thinking about gender. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.), Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science research (pp. 92–117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Ehrlich, H. (1990). The ecology of antigay violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 359 –365. Eisler, R., & Skidmore, J. (1987). Masculine gender role stress: Scale development and component factors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behavior Modification, 11, 123–136. Eisler, R. M., Franchina, J. J., Moore, T. M., Honeycutt, H., & Rhatigan, D. L. (2000). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of gender relevance of the conflict situation on men’s attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 1, 30 –36. Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988). Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger, anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 133–141. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Uniform Crime Reporting Program: Hate crime statistics, 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available online at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ hc2005/index.html Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Good, G. E., & Snell, A. F. (1998). More on the structure of male role norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 135–155. Franchina, J. J., Eisler, R. M., & Moore, T. M. (2001). Masculine gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of masculine gender relevance of dating situations and female threat on men’s attributions and affective responses. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2, 34 – 41. Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: Contextualizing the narratives of antigay assailants. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15, 339 –362.

CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER

Hamner, K. M. (1990). Gay-bashing: A social identity analysis of violence against lesbians and gay men. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 179 –190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Harlow, C. W. (2005, November). Hate crimes reported by victims and police (Publication No. NCJ 209911). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf Harry, J. (1990). Conceptualizing antigay violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 350 –358. Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientists, 29, 563–577. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451– 477. Herek, G. M. (1990). Psychological heterosexism and anti-gay violence: The social psychology of bigotry and bashing. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gay men (pp. 149 –169). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of the empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research, and clinical applications (pp. 206 –228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Herek, G. M. (2000a). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19 –22. Herek, G. M. (2000b). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251–266. Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40 – 66. Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6 –24. Herek, G. M. (in press). Hate crimes and stigmarelated experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. Herek, G. M., Gillis, R. J., & Cogan, J. C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 945–951. Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay

177

men: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239 –244. Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 37–56. Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). New York: Routledge. Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders. Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In R. Unger (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 215–227). New York: Wiley. 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). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Lash, S. J., Eisler, R. M., & Schulman, R. E. (1990). Cardiovascular reactivity to stress in men: Effect of masculine gender role stress appraisal and masculine performance challenge. Behavior Modification, 14, 3–20. Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 43, 85–97. Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2004). Effects of masculine gender role stress on men’s cognitive, affective, physiological, and aggressive responses to intimate conflict situations. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 132–142. National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs. (2007). Anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender violence in 2006. New York: Author. Neisen, J. H. (1990). Heterosexism: Redefining homophobia for the 1990s. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 1, 21–35. O’Neil, J. (1982). Gender-role conflict and strain in men’s lives: Implications for psychiatrists, psychologists, and other human-service providers. In K. Solomon & B. Levy (Eds.), Men in transition: Theory and therapy (pp. 5– 44). New York: Plenum Press. Parrott, D. J., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2002). Homophobia: Personality and attitudinal correlates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 1269 –1278.

178

PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN

Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (in press). What motivates hate crimes based on sexual orientation? Mediating effects of anger on antigay aggression. Aggressive Behavior. Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of sexual prejudice and anger on physical aggression toward gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, 3–17. Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (in press). Determinants of anger and physical aggression based on sexual orientation: An experimental examination of hypermasculinity and exposure to male gender role violations. Archives of Sexual Behavior. Parrott, D. J., Zeichner, A., & Hoover, R. (2006). Sexual prejudice and anger network activation: The mediating role of negative affect. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 7–16. 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, 354 –366. Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Inverness, CA: Chardon Press. Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Plugge-Foust, C., & Strickland, G. (2000). Homophobia, irrationality, and Christian ideology: Does a relationship exist? Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 25, 240 –244. Polimeni, A., Hardie, E., & Buzwell, S. (2000). Homophobia among Australian heterosexuals: The role of sex, gender role ideology, and gender role traits. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5, 47– 62. Roderick, T., McCammon, S. L., Long, T. E., & Allred, L. J. (1998). Behavioral aspects of homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 36, 79 – 88.

Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 53– 67. Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117–135. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson Educational. Thompson, E. H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J. H. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and their correlates. Sex Roles, 13, 413– 427. Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. Thompson, E. H., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L. (1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for masculinity ideology and masculinity-related constructs. Sex Roles, 27, 573– 607. Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (expanded form). Unpublished manuscript, University of Iowa. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070. Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 146 –154. Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477–507. Received August 27, 2007 Revision received February 14, 2008 Accepted February 17, 2008 䡲