<%BANNER%>

A Threat Based Approach to Subgroups

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024584/00001

Material Information

Title: A Threat Based Approach to Subgroups Do Different Subgroups of Gay Men Elicit Different Prejudices?
Physical Description: 1 online resource (74 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cook, Corey
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: prejudice, subgroups, threat
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A threat based approach to prejudice was used to assess the differences between threat perceptions and emotional and behavioral reactions to various subgroups, as well as the superordinate groups, of gay and straight men. Previous research has suggested that subgrouping processes of stereotyping can reduce the outgroup homogeneity effect and lead one to recognize different characteristics between outgroup members. It was hypothesized that when different subgroups of a stereotyped superordinate group (e.g., those perceived to be politically active, feminine, masculine, or promiscuous) are made salient, different patterns of tangible threat perception will arise, as well as different behavioral and emotional patterns as a result of the perceived threats. It was hypothesized that gay male targets in general will be perceived as posing greater health and values threats than will straight men, and these threat patterns will differ between the various subgroups of gay men, as will emotional and behavioral reactions to these threats. Students at a large southeastern university (n = 202) rated threat perceptions and behavioral and emotional reactions to the different subgroups in question. Although sexual orientation and subgroups showed main effects on measures of threat perception, overall perceptions did not differ as a function of subgroup status in combination with sexual orientation. The specific hypotheses were therefore not supported.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Corey Cook.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Cottrell, Catherine.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024584:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024584/00001

Material Information

Title: A Threat Based Approach to Subgroups Do Different Subgroups of Gay Men Elicit Different Prejudices?
Physical Description: 1 online resource (74 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Cook, Corey
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: prejudice, subgroups, threat
Psychology -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Psychology thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: A threat based approach to prejudice was used to assess the differences between threat perceptions and emotional and behavioral reactions to various subgroups, as well as the superordinate groups, of gay and straight men. Previous research has suggested that subgrouping processes of stereotyping can reduce the outgroup homogeneity effect and lead one to recognize different characteristics between outgroup members. It was hypothesized that when different subgroups of a stereotyped superordinate group (e.g., those perceived to be politically active, feminine, masculine, or promiscuous) are made salient, different patterns of tangible threat perception will arise, as well as different behavioral and emotional patterns as a result of the perceived threats. It was hypothesized that gay male targets in general will be perceived as posing greater health and values threats than will straight men, and these threat patterns will differ between the various subgroups of gay men, as will emotional and behavioral reactions to these threats. Students at a large southeastern university (n = 202) rated threat perceptions and behavioral and emotional reactions to the different subgroups in question. Although sexual orientation and subgroups showed main effects on measures of threat perception, overall perceptions did not differ as a function of subgroup status in combination with sexual orientation. The specific hypotheses were therefore not supported.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Corey Cook.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Cottrell, Catherine.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024584:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THREAT BASED APPROACH TO SUBGROUPS: DO DIFFERENT SUBGROUPS OF GAY MEN ELICIT DIFFERENT PREJUDICES? By COREY L. COOK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE R EQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Corey L. Cook

PAGE 3

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 5 ABSTRACT .......................................................................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 7 Background .................................................................................................................................... 7 Subgrouping Hypothe sis ............................................................................................................... 9 Threat Based Approach .............................................................................................................. 12 Alternate Approaches .................................................................................................................. 14 Current Research and Hypotheses ............................................................................................. 16 METHOD ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Subgroup Manipulations ............................................................................................................. 21 Participants .................................................................................................................................. 23 Measures and Procedure ............................................................................................................. 24 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................ 29 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................................... 44 DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 50 GENERIC SUBGROUP MANIPULATION ................................................................................... 51 ACTIVIST SUBGROUP MANIPULATION .................................................................................. 52 FEMININE SUBGROUP MANIPULATION ................................................................................. 53 MASUCULINE SUBGROUP MANIPULATION .......................................................................... 54 PROMISCUOUS SUBGROUP MANIPULATION ........................................................................ 55 THREAT PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION QUESTIONNAIRE .................... 56 QUESTIONS OF SPECIFIC THREAT ............................................................................................ 59 QUESTIONS OF SPECIFIC EMOTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THREATS ................................. 60 FEELING THERMOMETER ........................................................................................................... 62 SOCIAL DISTANCING SCALE ...................................................................................................... 63 MANIPULATION CHECK FOR SUBGROUP PERCEPTIONS ................................................. 64

PAGE 4

4 ATTITUDES TOWARD LESBIAN AND GAY MEN SCALE .................................................... 65 DEMOGRAPHIC S QUESTIONNAIRE .......................................................................................... 66 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 68 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................................................................................. 73

PAGE 5

5 LIST OF TABLES Table page Table 3 1. Means for all manipulation check items ........................................................................ 41 Table 3 2. Mean measures for each target ....................................................................................... 42 Table 3 3. Behavioral recommendations for each domain ............................................................. 43

PAGE 6

6 Abstract of T hesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science THREAT BASED APPROACH TO SUBGROUPS: DO DIFFERENT SUBGROUPS OF GAY MEN ELICIT DIFFERENT PREJUDIC ES? By COREY L. COOK May 2009 Chair: Catherine A. Cottrell Major: Psychology A threat based approach to prejudice was used to assess the differences between threat perceptions and emotional and behavioral reactions to various subgroups, as well as the superordinate groups, of gay and straight men. Previous research has suggested that subgrouping processes of stereotyping can reduce the outgroup homogeneity effect and lead one to recognize different characteristics between outgroup members. It was hypoth esized that when different subgroups of a stereotyped superordinate group (e.g., those perceived to be politically active, feminine, masculine, or promiscuous) are made salient, different patterns of tangible threat perception will arise, as well as differ ent behavioral and emotional patterns as a result of the perceived threats. It was hypothesized that gay male targets in general will be perceived as posing greater health and values threats than will straight men, and these threat patterns will differ bet ween the various subgroups of gay men, as will emotional and behavioral reactions to these threats. Students at a large southeastern university ( n = 202) rated threat perceptions and behavioral and emotional reactions to the different subgroups in question. Although sexual orientation and subgroups showed main effects on measures of threat perception, overall perceptions did not differ as a function of subgroup status in combination with sexual orientation. The specific hypotheses were therefore not suppor ted.

PAGE 7

7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Can different members of a group bring to mind different ideas about the group to which they belong? For example, do different ideas about women come to mind when one sees a business woman than when one sees a housewife? Are both of these people still unambiguously recognized as belonging to the same superordinate group, women? Background When Walter Lippman coined the term stereotypes (1922) he described them as pictures in our heads; meaning, the mental pictures that we have of different groups of people. More recently, Hilton and von Hippel (1996) defined stereotypes as beliefs and opinions about the characteristics, attributes, and beh aviors of members of various groups. There are many facets of research on stereotypes and other associated phenomena (e.g., stigma, prejudice), including the processes by which stereotyping occurs, the reasons why stereotyping occurs, and when stereotyping is likely to occur or not. Other researchers are interested in the particulars of stereotyping the actual beliefs, opinions, and perceptions that people hold about members of other groups. Empirical research focused on discerning the content of stereot ypical beliefs about various groups has been conducted since the earliest days of work in the field of Social Psychology. For example, Gordon Allport (1954) addressed the beliefs attributed to various ethnicities and minority groups in his groundbreaking w ork on prejudice, and Harding and colleagues (Harding, Kutner, Proshansky, & Chein, 1954) evaluated the contents, correlates, determinants, and change of attitudes of individual old Americans toward minority groups in the first edition of the Lindzey Han dbook of Social Psychology Since the early days of empirical research on stereotypes by Allport and others, it has become a social psychological truism that stereotyping is a universal and beneficial aspect of

PAGE 8

8 human behavior. A wealth of research has sug gested that stereotyping processes are automatic (e.g., Devine, 1989; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) and prove useful by helping make sense of our social environment by allowing us to form simple, well -structured impressions (Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Macrae & Bodenh ausen, 2000). The outgroup homogeneity effect, or tendency for people to see members of their own group as different from one another while underestimating the differences between members of other groups, is a well documented result of these processes (Lin vill, Fischer, & Salovey, 1989; Park & Judd, 1990). Some recent research on the processes of stereotyping, however, may suggest that we, as researchers, have over -generalized the extent to which people homogenize their perceptions of outgroup members (for a review, see Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Traditionally, researchers of stereotypes, stigma, and prejudice have generalized their findings across members of a particular social group, without taking into consideration the intragroup differences that may v ery well be recognized to exist among group members. A review of the literature on culturally held stereotype content (e.g., Devine & Elliot, 1995; Gilbert, 1951; Karlins, Coffman, & Walters, 1969; Katz & Braly, 1933; Madon, Guyll, Aboufadel, Montiel, Smit h, Palumbo, & Jessim, 2001) reveals that people hold very diverse stereotypes for a variety of different groups. Each of these studies, however, assessed the perceptions of stereotyped groups as a whole, generalizing ideas across all members of the group i n question, and overlooking perceptions of individuating members within these groups. It is well documented, for example, that the stereotypical characteristics of women include qualities such as nurturing, submissive, caring, etc. (see Kite, 2001 for a re view). However, in studies that have assessed the perceptions of various subgroups of woman (i.e., bunny, clubwoman, career woman, housewife, and woman athlete) (Clifton, McGrath, & Wick, 1976; Deaux, Winton,

PAGE 9

9 Crowley, & Lewis, 1985; Noseworthy & Lott, 1984; Vonk & Olde -Monnikhof, 1988), the only subgroup that has consistently shown a high resemblance to the global gender stereotype of women was housewife (Eckes, 1994, 1996). This suggests that although people may have a global cognitive representation of the qualities of the members of a particular group, they could still be able to recognize that different members of the group are not representative of the stereotypic characteristics attributed to the group as a whole. Subgrouping Hypothesis Researchers have recently distinguished between two processes of recognizing differences among various group members subtyping and subgrouping. Richards and Hewstone (2001) discerned the differences between these two processes of stereotyping, concludin g that subtyping occurs when perceivers respond to members of a target group who disconfirm their stereotypes by seeing them as exceptions to the rule and placing them in a separate subcategory apart from members who confirm the stereotype (p. 52). This response to stereotype disconfirmers has been well -established (see Hewstone, 1994, for a review) and is akin to what Allport (1954) referred to as re -fencing holding the general category intact by excluding the special case (p. 23). Research conducted using the subtyping model (Weber & Crocker, 1983; Maurer, Park, & Rothbart, 1995) has shown that subtyping discourages stereotype change by allowing a person to simply exclude disconfirmers from their personal boundaries of the superordinate group. On th e other hand, subgrouping occurs when perceivers organize information into multiple clusters of individuals who are similar to one another in some way and are different from other group members (Maurer et al., 1995; Richards & Hewstone, 2001). Subgroups, t herefore, could manifest the stereotype in different ways, and can include both confirmers and disconfirmers (Park, Ryan, & Judd, 1992). In their review of the literature, Richards and

PAGE 10

10 Hewstone suggest that the process of subgrouping is associated with an increase in perceived group variability and can therefore overcome the outgroup homogeneity effect. This idea was supported in a study conducted by Maurer, Park, and Rothbart (1995) in which they presented participants with a group of people who could be s orted into 5 separate subgroups, four of which confirmed one key feature, while one of the subgroups disconfirmed the feature. In the subtyping condition, participants were asked to sort members into two groups, confirmers and disconfirmers. In the subgrouping condition, participants were instructed to sort the group members into as many groups as desired. When making generalizations about the groups after completing the sorting exercises, participants in the subgrouping condition rated more variability amo ng group members than did participants in the subtyping condition. In our study, we are interested in finding potential differences in prejudices and behavioral reactions toward the individuating members of a stereotyped group. The group we have chosen to consider is gay men. In 2004, the APA Council of Representatives voted to take a leadership role in opposing all discrimination in legal benefits, rights, and privileges against same -sex couples, as well as to provide scientific and educational resource s that inform public discussion and public policy development regarding social orientation and marriage (Paige, 2005, pp. 498499). This stance by the APA reflects the cultural significance of the ongoing debates regarding the rights of gays and lesbians in the United States. These arguments involve topics such as same -sex marriage, adoption, and military policies. Gregory Herek (2006) explains that in the U.S. political opposition to government recognition of same -sex couples has been intense. For example by 2006 same -sex couples in most European countries had some degree of official recognition, and full marriage rights were granted in some countries (e.g., Belgium, the Netherlands, and Spain). However, in 2006 Massachusetts was the only state in the

PAGE 11

11 U.S that allowed same -sex marriages. In order for the institutionalized discrimination of gays and lesbians to be understood and addressed, research about prejudices towards these groups needs to continue. Though we will be addressing the potential differences of perceptions of subgroups of gay men, the findings of this particular study should not be extended to lesbian women, as Herek has also noted (2000) that historically researchers interested in homophobia, or sexual prejudice, have designed studies tha t primarily assess peoples attitudes towards gay men; they then use these findings to make generalizations regarding homosexual individuals a broad category encompassing both gay men and lesbian women. This general focus on homosexuality can mask the pot ential differences between heterosexual individuals attitudes toward lesbian women and their attitudes toward gay men (Kite, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998). For these reasons we believe that it is important to assess prejudice toward gay men and lesbia n women independently, and we will thus be focusing the current study on perceptions of gay men. In line with the ideas proposed by Richards and Hewstone (2001) and the findings by Maurer, Park, and Rothbart (1995), we propose that when people are presente d with targets who are unambiguously representative of a stereotyped group yet differ from other members of the group, the varying subgroups will be perceived differently from one another and could also be perceived differently from the global stereotypes of their group. Only one other published study thus far has attempted to both determine the subgroups of gay men and measure the stereotypic content of those subgroups. In a study by Clausell and Fiske (2005) participants were asked to identify the attribu tes of gay males and then sort the selected attributes into subgroups of gay males. A second set of participants were later presented with the ten most common subgroups previously identified and asked to rate the extent to which 30 different attributes des cribed each subgroup. Thee attributes were selected from the results to describe each of the ten subgroups.

PAGE 12

12 The resulting subgroups, along with the attributes chosen to describe them, were then measured using the Stereotype Content Model (SCM; Fiske, Cuddy Glick, & Xu, 2002) to assess the dimensions of warmth and competence that people feel toward each subgroup. This study was a follow up to previous research using the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002) in which gay men were rated by participants as being neutral on dimensions of warmth and competence, thus contradicting well -documented prejudice held towards gay men (e.g., Herek, 1990; 2000). Clausell and Fiske (2005) therefore tested for differences between subgroups of gay men. The subgroups tested included crossd resser/drag queen gay men, hyper -masculine gay men, straight acting gay men, gay male activists, artsy/artistic gay men, leather/biker gay men, flamboyant gay men, feminine gay men, and in the closet gay men The resulting data indicated that the various s ubgroups were indeed perceived differently on dimensions of warmth and competence, with some subgroups falling into the low -competence, low -warmth quadrant (leather/biker and cross dresser subgroups), some falling into the low -competence, high -warmth quadr ant (flamboyant and feminine subgroups), and the rest falling into the high -competence, low -warmth quadrant. Although this study was run primarily to validate the functions of the Stereotype Content Model, the resulting data suggest that people perceive subgroups of the superordinate group gay men to be different from one another, and also perceive these subgroups differently than the superordinate group as a whole. These observed differences, however, were simply measured, not predicted. We have chosen to use a different approach that should allow for these differences in perception of subgroups to be systematically predicted. Threat -Based Approach To assess the perceptions of subgroup members, we have chosen to use the sociofunctional threat -based appr oach proposed by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005). This approach predicts that out -groups are believed to pose qualitatively distinct threats to ones in -

PAGE 13

13 group resources and therefore will evoke qualitatively distinct emotional reactions. The sociofunctional ap proach is based on three propositions: (a) Humans evolved as highly interdependent social beings; (b) effectively functioning groups tend to possess particular social structures and processes; and (c) individuals possess psychological mechanisms developed by biological and cultural evolution to take advantage of the opportunities provided by group living and to protect themselves from threats to group living. The approach was also used by Cottrell, Neuberg, and Li (2007) to predict the traits people most va lue in members of different social groups. Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) used the sociofunctional approach to generate specific predictions about the threat driven nature of intergroup affect, focusing on specific negative emotions rather than general negat ive affect. These predictions were based on empirical research on the qualitatively distinct emotions elicited by various perceived stimulus events, as well as the actions taken to resolve the problems posed by such events (e.g., Ekman & Friesen, 1975; Fri jda, 1986; Izard, 1991; Lazarus, 1991; Nesse, 1990; Plutchik, 1980). Three primary emotions anger, disgust, and fear are shaped by natural selection to automatically address recurrent survival -related problems (Ekman, 1999), and secondary emotions such as pity, envy, and guilt also direct the individual toward adaptive outcomes. According to this evolutionary approach to emotions, perceived stimulus events such as obstacles to desired outcomes would lead to discrete emotions such as anger, and action s uch as aggression would be taken to remove the obstacle an adaptive outcome to solve the perceived problem. Particularly relevant to the current research are perceived physical and moral contamination (i.e., health threat and value threat), which are hyp othesized to evoke disgust, and behaviors focused on removing the ostensible contaminant from ones environment.

PAGE 14

14 Cottrell and Neubergs (2005) sociofunctional threat based hypotheses regarding prejudice were largely supported. They found that different groups, two of which being gay men and activist feminists, evoked qualitatively different profiles of specific emotional reactions; the variations in reactions that they found had been previously overlooked in more traditional studies of prejudice. Cottrell a nd Neuberg also found that different groups evoked qualitatively different profiles of perceived threats and that the specific threats posed by different groups were able to predict the emotion profiles evoked by those groups. For example, Cottrell and Neu berg found overall prejudice toward gay men to be very high, but not significantly different than overall prejudice felt toward activist feminists and fundamentalist Christians. However, the amount of disgust felt toward gay men was significantly higher th an the amount of disgust felt toward activist feminists and fundamentalist Christians; this emotional reaction (disgust) was systematically predicted by the participants perception of gay men as a threat to others physical health. As noted, feminist acti vists were rated highly on feelings of overall prejudice, and were seen mainly as a threat to others social coordination and personal freedoms. It is also important to note that while gay men analyzes the global perceptions that people hold, activist feminists could represent a subgroup of lesbian women and might be perceived differently than the superordinate group to which they belong. Alternate Approaches Although we have chosen to use a threat based approach to assess potential differences in perceptio ns of, and behavioral and emotional reactions to, subgroups of gay men, there are a number of other approaches to prejudice that could be taken to address our questions regarding the perceptions of subgroups. The advantages of using a threat -based approach rather than other theoretical approaches that move beyond the traditional view of prejudice as a general attitude were discussed in detail by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005). Other potential approaches include: (1)

PAGE 15

15 intergroup emotions theory (Devos, Silver, M ackie, & Smith, 2002; Smith, 1993, 1999; Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Smith 1993, 1999), or IET, which combines social identity and self categorization theories with appraisal theories of emotions and posits that people experience a diversity of discrete intergroup emotions toward different groups; (2) image theory (Alexander, Brewer, & Herrmann, 1999; Brewer & Alexander, 2002), which predicts that specific appraisals on the dimensions of intergroup competition, power, and status lead to differentiated emo tional reactions; and (3) revised integrated threat theory (Stephan & Renfro, 2002) which emphasizes the importance of different threats (e.g., realistic and symbolic threats to the ingroup and the individual) for understanding prejudice. Although these al ternative theories overlap with the sociofunctional threat based approach, they were unable to test the hypothesis proposed by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) that general measures of prejudice and threat may actually mask across -group differences in specific emotion and threat profiles (for a review see Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Another potential theoretical approach is the previously mentioned stereotype content model (SCM; Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999), which proposes that people ex perience distinct emotions toward groups perceived to differ on dimensions of warmth and competence. Pity is expected to be felt toward high-warmth, low -competence groups; envy toward low -warmth, high -competence groups; admiration toward high-warmth, high -competence groups; and contempt toward low -warmth, low -competence groups. Clausell and Fiske (2005) used the SCM to measure perceptions of ten composite subgroups of gay men in an attempt to determine why gay men, a group well documented as a target of pre judice, were rated as neutral on measures of warmth and competence according to the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002). In contrast to earlier research, Clausell and Fiske found that the various subgroups of gay men were perceived

PAGE 16

16 differently from one another on mea sures of warmth and competence. Although this addresses one of the questions posed in our subgroup hypothesis (whether or not subgroups will be seen differently from one another as well the superordinate group), the stereotype content model aggregates diff erent emotional reactions to create the four emotion clusters, thereby potentially masking primary discrete emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust, fear, etc.) toward target groups and their members. For example, according to the quadrants used in SCM t o characterize emotional reactions to different groups, the contempt category (low -warmth, low -competence) should house both anger and disgust. Data reported by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) imply that these two emotions are qualitatively distinct from one a nother and differ among perceptions of various outgroups as a result of threat perceptions associated with the respective group. Of the many theoretical approaches previously outlined, only the threat based approach used by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) supported the hypothesis that general measures of prejudice and threat may actually mask across -group differences in specific emotion and threat profiles. This idea is further explicated in our current research, in that general measures of prejudice for a supe rordinate group may actually mask perceptions of various categories, or subgroups, of members perceived to exist within the larger group. We believe that perceptions of different subgroups should evoke different discriminatory tendencies, and the sociofunc tional, threat based approach allows us to extend beyond ideas or feelings that people hold toward a group, and also allows us to systematically predict emotional and behavioral reactions toward a group as a function of the tangible threats the group or su bgroup is perceived to pose. Current Research and Hypotheses Overview. In this study, we tested for differences in threat perceptions of subgroups of gay men using target individuals as representatives of each respective subgroup or superordinate group. We included identical measures for subgroups of straight men to ensure that the observed

PAGE 17

17 patterns of threat perception are a result of the unique combination of the specific subgroup and a homosexual sexual orientation, and not simply a result of threats att ributed to the subgroup itself. The subgroups we tested were theoretically chosen based on previous empirical literature as well as pretest data we have collected regarding the various subgroups that are perceived to exist within the superordinate group, g ay men. The subgroups that we have chosen to measure are activist gay men, feminine gay men, masculine gay men, and promiscuous gay men; we have also chosen to measure a generic gay male target and a generic straight male target as representatives of their respective superordinate groups to use as baseline measures. Although the subgroups we are interested in pertain specifically to gay men, we have also chosen to measure these same subgroups of straight men to use as a baseline measure to ensure that our i mpressions are not coming solely from the subgroup status of our gay targets. We therefore also measured perceptions of activist straight men, feminine straight men, masculine straight men, and promiscuous straight men. These particular subgroups were s elected based on data collected during a pretest in which 134 undergraduates (82 female, 51 male, 1 unknown; mean age 19.13) completed a questionnaire in which they were given an explanation of how subcategories of larger social groups exist and can be recognized, and they were asked to list the sub-categories that come to mind for a number of superordinate groups, including the group Gay Men These data suggested that participants are able to easily recall and distinguish subgroups of gay men as well as subgroups of other superordinate groups. Many of the sub-categories of gay men listed by participants mapped on to known stereotypes of gay men (e.g., artistic, closeted, flamboyant, etc.). Two of the most prominent sub-categories listed by participants w ere feminine gay men and masculine gay men. These two subgroups are therefore important to measure as the data

PAGE 18

18 suggests that perceptions of gay men and subgroups of gay men may be influenced by gender role expectancies or violations of prescribed gender r oles an idea that has been explored and supported by other researchers (e.g., Kerns & Fine, 1994). Of the many subgroups listed by participants in the pretest, we also chose to measure activist gay men based on previous empirical research by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) that suggests that feminist activists are perceived to threaten values and personal freedoms. There may be an overall perception by majority group members that activist members of virtually any minority group, particularly those who are fig hting for equal rights, are trying to limit the personal freedoms or harm the values of the majority. We also chose to measure promiscuous gay men based on pretest feedback as well as previously established stereotypes of gay men (e.g., Gilman, 1985). We c hose to measure perceptions of straight members of each subgroup to ensure that perceptions of the gay subgroup members were not due solely to subgroup status, but rather as a result of the recognition of the target as being a member of a subgroup of gay m en. We also chose both generic gay male and generic straight male to use as comparison groups measuring perceptions of superordinate group s to ensure that the feedback we receive regarding perceptions of performance is due to the subgroup of targets in qu estion. Predictions. We predict that there will be differences in threat perceptions of different subgroups of a superordinate group, as well as differences in emotional reactions and behavioral responses toward the different subgroups as a result of thes e tangible threat perceptions. We also predict that these differences among subgroups will be masked by the overall assessment of the superordinate group to which they belong. We have derived specific hypotheses from our threat -based approach to the perce ptions of subgroups. We predict: (1) the generic gay target, representative of the superordinate group of

PAGE 19

19 gay men will be perceived more negatively than the generic straight target, a representative of the superordinate group men This should replicate th e findings of more traditional measures of prejudice toward gay men. (2) The four subgroups of gay men will be seen differently on measures of threat perception and, as a result, will also differ from one another on emotional and behavioral reactions in re sponse to threat perception. More specifically, (2a) the activist gay male target will cue ideas related to personal freedoms and will be seen as a greater threat to values than will the generic gay male target. Behavioral and emotional reactions should di ffer according to these differences in threat perception. For example, the activist gay male should be less likely to be recommended to perform activities in domains that cue values, such as political positions or work as a local church or youth leader. (2 b) The promiscuous gay male target will cue ideas related to personal health and contagious disease and will thus be seen as a greater threat to health than will the generic gay male target. Behavioral and emotional reactions toward the promiscuous gay mal e target should differ from those of the generic gay male target according to the differences in threat perception. For example, the promiscuous gay male should be less likely to be recommended to participate in social activities that involve people that a re seen to be particularly susceptible to health threats such as activities that involve older people or volunteering at a local hospital. (2c) In line with Richards and Hewstones (2001) idea that subgrouping can decrease the outgroup homogeneity effec t, we predict that the feminine and masculine subgroups will share similar, yet slightly attenuated patterns of threat perceptions, as well as the corresponding behavioral and emotional reactions, to those of the superordinate group. Finally, we believe that (3) all predicted effects of threat perception, and the corresponding behavioral and emotional reactions, of gay men will be stronger for male participants than for female participants. This prediction follows from previous researcher (e.g.,

PAGE 20

20 Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998) that has shown that men show more overall prejudice toward gay men than do women.

PAGE 21

21 CHAPTER 2 METHOD Subgroup Manipulations Participants were presented with a target member of one of five groups (generic/no subgroup, activist subgroup, feminine subgroup, masculine subgroup, promiscuous subgroup). Demographic information sheets ostensibly completed by the target were used to manipulate group membership. Pilot data was collected to ensure that the target profiles conveyed the de sired impressions. Fifty-three participants (39 female and 14 male) from upper level psychology courses agreed to participate for extra credit or for no compensation. Participants were told that they were providing information for a future study in which i mpressions of different individuals would be manipulated by supplying information about that individual. Participants were only provided with the targets answer to the question of What do you do for fun? and were asked to provide feedback about the impr essions they formed of an individual based on the information provided. Participants were presented information from one of the five subgroup types (generic/no subgroup, activist, feminine, masculine, or promiscuous), and were asked to rate various impress ions on a scale ranging from one (not at all) to seven (extremely). Participants were asked to rate how positively they felt toward the target, how politically involved the person seemed, how feminine the person seemed, how masculine the person seemed, and how promiscuous the person seemed. Participants were also asked to indicate what gender they thought the person to be based on the information provided (female, male, or dont know/cant tell) and were asked to indicate the sexual orientation of the perso n based on the information provided (gay, straight, or dont know/cant tell). For the generic gay and straight male targets, the answer to the question of what they do for fun was simply, I like to hang out with my friends. This was meant to avoid conv eying

PAGE 22

22 impressions of any particular subgroup. The generic profile did not stand out on any of the measures of the desired impressions of the specific subgroups. For the activist subgroup, the answer to the question, What do you do for fun? was: I like to be active in the community. I belong to a couple political groups that organize demonstrations on social issues and try to get people to be more concerned about whats going on in the world. A one -way ANOVA testing between subgroup conditions on perceptions of political involvedness was significant, F (4, 48) = 32.21, p < .001, = 0.73.The activist profile (M = 6.7, SD = 0.48) was seen as significantly more politically involved than each of the other profiles (p < .001 for each). For the feminine subg roup, the answer to the question What do you do for fun? was: I like to go dancing and to go shopping. On lazy nights I like to stay at home, cook a good meal, and watch tv. A one -way ANOVA testing between subgroups on perceptions of femininity was sig nificant, F (4, 48) = 24.63, p < .001, = 0.67. The feminine profile was rated as being significantly more feminine ( M = 5.62, SD = 0.65) than each of the other profiles ( p < .05 for each comparison). For the masculine subgroup, the answer to the question What do you do for fun? was: I like working out and I really enjoy outdoor activities like hiking and kayaking. I also like to play poker with my buddies and like to go out every once in a while for a beer. A one -way ANOVA testing between subgroups on perceptions of masculinity was signi ficant, F (4, 48) = 25.36, p < .001, = 0.68. The masculine profile was rated as being significantly more masculine (M = 6.0, SD = 0.63) than each of the other profiles ( p < .05 for each comparison) except the promiscuous profile ( M = 5.1, SD = 1.37) ( p = .18).

PAGE 23

23 For the promiscuous subgroup, the answer to the question What do you do for fun? was: I like going online to meet people. I also like to hook up with people at the clubs. Im always up for anything fun with lots of people. A one -way ANOVA testing between subgroups on perceptions of promiscuity was significant, F (4, 48) = 11.33, p < .001, = 0.49. The promiscuous profile was rated as being significantly more promiscuous ( M = 5.60, SD = 0.84) than each of the other profiles ( p < .001 for each comparison). The resulting data suggest that each subgroup profile conveyed the respective desired impressions. Post Hoc tests also showed that each subgroup differed significantly on ratings of the desired impression. The only exception was on ratings of masculinity of the promiscuous profile. Changes were not made to the profile, however, as the desi red impression of masculinity was observed. The data also suggest that gender and sexual orientation of targets based on the information provided were relatively ambiguous. All but one participant guessed the sexual orientation of their respective profile to be either straight or undeterminable (dont know/cant tell). Masculine and feminine profiles were most often guessed to be male and female, respectively, while the promiscuous profile was also guessed most often to be male. The activist and generic pro files were indicated to be undeterminable. Overall, the pilot data suggest that the subgroup profiles convey the necessary conditions for their respective subgroups based solely on the information provided in the answer to the question, What do you do for fun? Participants Participants were 202 (153 female, 49 male) undergraduate students from psychology classes at University of Florida who were compensated for participating by receiving partial credit toward a course requirement. Participants were bet ween 18 and 24 years of age ( M = 19.33). Ninety-six participants self identified as exclusively Caucasian/White, 38 as African -

PAGE 24

24 American, 25 as Hispanic, 16 as Asian -American, and 27 as multi -ethnic or other. Experimenters ensured that participants were t reated according to the standards set by the American Psychological Association (Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, 2001). Measures and Procedure Participants were greeted by an experimenter upon arrival and were escorted to a ro om in which they completed the study requirements. Participants were first asked to complete the informed consent form, which explained that they would be rating their impressions of others. When finished with the consent form, participants were presented with the cover story by the experimenter. Participants were told, In this study we are interested in how well your impressions of individuals can predict that persons performance in various situations. We are working with a local community outreach group that helps organize charity and volunteer events for local organizations such as daycare facilities, retirement homes, and student groups. Were going to use the feedback from this study to help the organizers of the outreach group decide which members sho uld participate in various tasks. Data will also be collected further down the road to see how accurate participants predictions were. Are you ready to begin the study? Following the cover story, participants were given a folder that contained two forms: a blank questionnaire titled Demographics Questionnaire ( Appendix A) and a copy of a questionnaire ostensibly completed by a member of the community outreach group titled Student Member Information Sheet. The blank demographics sheet was easily vie wed in the folder handed to participants, while the student member information sheet was turned over. Participants were told that the information they provided on the demographics form would remain anonymous and would only be used by the researchers to hel p understand the sample from which they obtained information. The demographics form asked for the participants age, gender, sexual orientation (straight, gay, bisexual, or questioning), year in school, major, and asked for the participant to briefly descr ibe their future plans after graduating, and to briefly

PAGE 25

25 describe what they like to do for fun. When participants completed the demographic questionnaire they were asked to place it back in the folder, turned over, and to take out the other form, the Stude nt Member Information Sheet. They were told that this was a copy of a form completed by a member of the community outreach group and they were asked to carefully look over the information and to form an impression of the group member. The student member information sheet contained the same questions as the participants demographics questionnaire ostensibly completed by a member of the community outreach group. The community members answers to the question of sexual orientation and what they do for fu n were used to manipulate sexual orientation and subgroup membership of the target. All other information was held constant across the target profiles. Participants were randomly presented with one of ten target individual profiles: a generic gay or straig ht male ( Appendix B), an activist gay or straight male (Appendix C), a feminine gay or straight male (Appendix D), a masculine gay or straight male (Appendix E), or a promiscuous gay or straight male (Appendix F). All participants were presented with a n information sheet ostensibly completed by a 22 year old male, who is a junior in school and is a psychology major. For the answer to the question regarding future plans, all profiles stated, I plan on going to graduate school. The answer to sexual orie ntation was either gay or straight, to manipulate sexual orientation of the target. The answer to the question asking to briefly describe what the person does for fun was used to manipulate impressions regarding the subgroup of the target. After being pre sented with the target profile, participants were directed to the computer and were asked a series of questions regarding their opinions about the targets ability to perform in various domains, as well as to what extent they would recommend the target for performing in each domain ( Appendix G). These questions were designed to get a rating of the overall

PAGE 26

26 performance of the targets in particular domains as well as a behavioral reaction of the participant based on these assessments. The domains in questi on were designed to address the specific threats that were shown by Cottrell & Neuberg (2005), using the sociofunctional threat based approach, to be associated with gay men. These data suggested that gay men primarily represent threats to health and threa ts to values. To examine values threats, participants were asked to rate the targets performance in domains in which they can influence children, morals, or public policy, such as day care facilities, churches, and politics (e.g., Based on the informatio n provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer at a local day care center? followed by, Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local day care center?). To examine heal th threats, participants were asked to rate the targets performance in domains in which they would be around people who would be particularly susceptible to health threats, such as elderly people and people in hospitals, as well as performance in domains in which there may be concern of spread of contagious diseases such as blood banks or through food preparation (e.g., Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer at a local retirement home? and Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local retirement home?). These ratings were measured using a seven point scale. Following the questions regarding behavior in particular domains, participants were asked to complete additional tasks developed to assess threat perceptions (Appendix H) and emotional reactions (Appendix I) toward the target. Participants were asked questions developed to measure perceptions of specific threats and specific emotions fel t in response to those threats. Questions of specific threats and emotional reactions were measured on a seven point scale

PAGE 27

27 ranging from one (not at all) to seven (very much). These questions were included to assess the extent to which a target is perceived to represent general threats to a participants ingroup, as well as to what extent the target is seen to represent threats to health and values. For example, questions of general threat include, In general, I think that this group members poses a challen ge to people like me. Questions of emotional reactions were designed to assess responses to these particular threats. For example, questions measuring the predicted response to perceived threats to values include; When I think about my impression of this group member, I feel morally sickened by him/her. Participants global feelings toward the target were measured using a feeling thermometer (Appendix J). Feeling thermometers have been widely used in survey and laboratory research (e.g., Sapiro, Rosenst one, & Miller, 1998) and have been successfully used in previous research to measure peoples overall prejudice and attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women (e.g., Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993; Herek & Capitanio, 1999). The feeling thermometer employs a 101 point scale (from 0 to 100 degrees) on which participants are asked to rate their overall feelings toward an individual or group. Higher ratings indicate warmer, more favorable feelings toward the target, whereas lower ratings indicate colder, more neg ative feelings toward the target. Global behavioral reactions toward the target were measured using Crandalls (1991) adopted version of the Bogardus Social Distancing Scale (1925) ( Appendix K). This is a seven point scale that consists of seven items that assess prejudice as a measure of the extent to which a person actively distances themselves from a target. Sample items include, He/she is a likeable person, and He/she is the kind of person that I tend to avoid. Some items are reversed to create a single scale, ranging from 1 to 7, with higher numbers indicating greater amounts of

PAGE 28

28 social distancing. The social distancing scale has shown to be reliable in several studies by Crandall (1991a, 1991b; Crandall, Glor, & Britt, 1997) with alphas averagi ng .88. A manipulation check was administered following the measures of threat perception and emotional and behavioral reactions to the target by asking to what extent the target was seen on a variety of dimensions pertaining to the subgroups (e.g., polit ically active, feminine, masculine, promiscuous) ( Appendix L). A question regarding the sexual orientation of the target was also included to ensure that sexual orientation was manipulated properly. Participants were also asked to complete one half of the Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale designed by Herek (1994) (Appendix M). This scale has been reliably used by Herek (e.g., 1994; 1998; 2000) to assess affective reactions toward lesbians and gay men, and includes questions such as, Sex between two men is just plain wrong. Participants completed the questions pertaining to attitudes toward gay men to account for potential individual differences in reactions toward targets. Responses were measured on a seven point scale, with higher valu es indicating higher levels of sexual prejudice. Finally, participants were asked to complete a demographic questionnaire to allow for the ability to test for individual differences in responses ( Appendix N). Recorded demographics included age, ethnic ity, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, relationship status, and personal contact with gays and lesbians. After completing the study materials, participants were presented with a debriefing of the nature and intentions of the study and were asked to notify the experimenter that they had finished. Experimenters then asked the participants if they had any additional questions regarding the study and thanked for their time and participation.

PAGE 29

29 CHAPTER 3 RESULTS We predicted that there would be differences in threat perceptions of different subgroups of a superordinate group, as well as differences in emotional reactions and behavioral responses toward the different subgroups as a result of these tangible threat perceptions. We also predicted tha t these differences will be masked by the overall assessment of the superordinate group to which they belong. Manipulation checks were first analyzed to ensure that our manipulations of sexual orientation and subgroup of targets were appropriately conveyed. On the question asking participants to recall the sexual orientation of the target they evaluated, participants overwhelmingly correctly encoded sexual orientation only 3 participants incorrectly identified the sexual orientation of the target. The d ata from these participants were not included in the analyses, as it was crucial to our hypotheses that sexual orientation of the target was encoded correctly. A series of 2 (target sexual orientation: gay, straight) by 5 (subgroup: generic, activist, fe minine, masculine, promiscuous) ANOVAs were run for the manipulation checks of perceived masculinity, promiscuity, femininity, and politically involvedness of targets. Table 1 presents means for all manipulation check items. For the manipulation check of perceived political involvedness of targets, there was a significant main effect of subgroup, F (4, 189) = 82.17, p < .001, = 0.64. The activist profile was seen as more politically involved ( M = 6.71, SD = 0.51) than each other profile ( p < .001 for each) for both gay and straight targets. There was no significant interaction and no significant main effect for sexual orient ation of target. For the manipulation check of perceived femininity of targets, there were significant main effects of sexual orientation, F (1, 189) = 16.8, p < .001, = 0.08 and subgroup, F (4, 189)

PAGE 30

30 = 23.62, p < .001, = 0.33. Gay targets were seen as significantly more feminine ( M = 3.67, SD = 1.67) than straight targets ( M = 2.85, SD = 1.57). For gay targets, the feminine profile was seen as significantly more feminine ( M = 4.63, SD = 1.54) than each other profile ( p < .01) except the promiscuous profile ( M = 4.75, SD = 1.33; p = 0.79). For straight targets, the feminine profile ( M = 4.67, SD = 1.19) was seen as more feminine than each other profile ( p < .001 for each). The interaction in this analysis was not of great interest because the fem inine subgroup was seen as more promiscuous for both gay and straight targets, with the exception of the promiscuous gay target. On the manipulation check of perceived masculinity of the target, there were significant main effects of sexual orientation, F (1, 189) = 45.23, p < .001, = 0.19 and subgroup, F (4, 189) = 22.62, p < .001, = 0.32. Straight targets were seen as significantly more masculine ( M = 4.85, SD = 1.39) than gay targets ( M = 3.64, SD = 1.61). The masculine profile ( M = 5.75, SD = 1.21) was perceived as signifi cantly more masculine than each other profile for both gay targets ( p < .05 for each comparison) and for straight targets ( p < .01 for each comparison). The interaction in this analysis was not of great interest because the masculine subgroup was seen as m ore masculine for both gay and straight targets. For the manipulation check of perceived promiscuity of targets, there were significant main effects of sexual orientation, F (1, 189) = 15.87, p < .001, = 0.08 and subgroup, F (4, 189) = 5.05, p < .01, = 0.10. Straight targets were seen as significantly more promiscuous ( M = 3.82, SD = 1.8) than gay targets ( M = 3.16, SD = 2.05). The promiscuous profile ( M = 6.18, SD = 1.27) was perceived as signif icantly more promiscuous than each other profile for both gay targets ( p < .001 for all comparisons) and for straight targets ( p < .001 for all comparisons). The

PAGE 31

31 interaction in this analysis was not of great interest because the promiscuous subgroup was se en as more promiscuous for both gay and straight targets. The reliability of the various measures was also analyzed prior to testing specific hypotheses. For measures of performance in various behavioral domains, participants were asked to predict how wel l they think a person would perform as well as to what extent they would recommend that person perform in the various domains. Correlations for these two ratings in each domain were large ( r > 0.80, p < 0.001 for each). Therefore, the two ratings for each domain were combined to create a composite variable measuring overall recommendation for the particular behaviors. Of the questions measuring specific threat, two were designed to measure perceptions of health threat (to what extent the target increases the risk of physical sickness and harms the medical health of people like me), and two were designed to measure perceptions of values threat (to what extent the target promotes values that directly oppose and advocates values that are morally inferio r to the values of people like me). The two measures of perceptions of health threat were strongly correlated, r = 0.72, p < 0.001, and were therefore combined to form one measure of overall perception of health threat. The two measures of perceptions of values threat were also strongly correlated, r = 0.79, p < 0.001, and were therefore aggregated into one measure of overall perception of values threat. Of the questions measuring specific emotions felt in response to perceptions of specific threat, two w ere designed to measure physical disgust the predicted response to perceived threats to health, and two were designed to measure moral disgust the predicted response to perceived threats to values. The two measures of physical disgust felt toward a tar get were strongly correlated, r = 0.80, p < 0.001, and were combined to form one measure of overall

PAGE 32

32 feelings of physical disgust. The two measures of moral disgust were also strongly correlated, r = 0.81, p < 0.001, and were therefore also aggregated into one measure of overall feelings of moral disgust toward the target. Finally, reliability of Crandalls Social Distancing Scale (1991) was measured using Cronbachs alpha. The result, distancing toward a target. Analyses of specific predictions were run following determination of reliability of our measures, and are outlined below. Table 2 presents means for threat, emotion, and overall prejudice measures. Table 3 presents means for recommendations for performance in each domain. Hypothesis 1: The generic gay target should be perceived more negatively than the generic straight target, thus replicating more traditional measur es of prejudice. To test this hypothesis we performed a planned contrast on the dependent variables that measured more general forms of prejudice (e.g., the feeling thermometer and the social distancing scale). We predicted that the generic gay target wou ld evoke more negative responses than the generic straight target. We found a significant difference between the generic gay target (M = 3.75, SD = 0.82) and the generic straight target ( M = 3.26, SD = 0.70) on the measure of social distancing, t (41) = 2.09, p < .05, d = 0.64, demonstrating more negative behavioral reactions toward the generic gay target. Although the generic gay target was rated more negatively ( M = 64.82, SD = 21.84) than the generic straight target ( M = 73.52, SD = 14.56) on the measure of overall feeling, using the global feeling thermometer, the difference was not significant, t (41) = 1.53, p = 0.13, d = 0.47. These results supported our hypothesis, replicating more traditional measures of prejudice. Hypothesis 2: The four subgroups of gay men will be seen differently on measures of threat perception and will also differ from one another on emotional reactions in response to threat perception.

PAGE 33

33 We conducted a 4 (subgroup: activist gay male, feminine gay male, masculine gay male, promi scuous gay male) x 2 (threat: health, values) mixed model ANOVA to test for differences of threat perception toward the subgroups. We did not find a significant interaction, F (3, 73) = 0.33, p > .05, = 0.01, or a significant main effect of subgroup, F (3 73) = 0.62, p > .05, = 0.03. We did, however, find a significant main effect of threat, F (1, 73) = 41.99, p < .001 = 0.37. Perceptions of values threats ( M = 3.01, SD = 1.88) were significantly greater than perceptions of health threats ( M = 1.9, SD = 1.21) for these gay targets. This same pattern was observed for the 4 (subgroup: activist gay male, feminine gay male, masculine gay male, promiscuous gay male) x 2 (emotion: physical disgust, moral disgust) mixed model ANOVA testing for differences of emotional reactions toward the subgroups. We did not find a significant interaction, F (3, 73) = 2.1, p > .05, = 0.08, or a significant main effect of subgroup, F (3, 73) = 0.64, p > .05, = 0.03. We did, however, find a significant main effect of emotion, F (1, 73) = 13.94, p < .001 = 0.16. Participants ratings of moral disgust felt toward targets ( M = 2.1 0, SD = 1.45) were greater than their ratings of physical disgust felt toward targets ( M = 1.74, SD = 1.09). This pattern follows our prediction that moral disgust would be felt in response to perceptions of values threat. Our overall hypothesis that the s ubgroups of gay men will differ from one another on perceptions of threat and emotional reactions of participants, however, was not supported. Hypothesis 2a: The activist gay male target will be seen as a greater threat to values than will the generic gay male target; behavioral and emotional reactions should also differ according to these differences in threat perception. We performed planned contrasts to compare perceptions of values threat of the activist target to those of the generic target for both g ay and straight targets. We also performed contrasts on the specific emotions and behaviors related to these threats. We expected the activist

PAGE 34

34 gay target to evoke more of these negative reactions than the generic gay target. Comparisons of perceptions of v alues threat posed by the activist gay target ( M = 2.76, SD = 1.79) to those of the generic gay target ( M = 2.52, SD = 1.56) showed no significant difference, F (1, 189) = 0.64, p > .05, = 00. An interaction contrast testing this difference for gay versu s straight targets suggests that this pattern is similar for both straight and gay targets, F (1, 189) = 0.44, p > .05, = 0.00. Comparisons of moral disgust in response to the perceptions of values threat posed by the activist gay target ( M = 1.69, SD = 1.02) to those of the generic gay target ( M = 1.87, SD = 1.33) showed no significant difference, F (1, 189) = 0.01, p > .05, = 0.00. This differences is similar for both straight and gay targets, as indicated by an interaction contrast, F (1, 189) = 0.06, p > .05, = 0.00. Comparisons of behavioral recommendations in domains meant to cue values threat were also performed. Participant recommendations for volunteering at a local day care center for the activist gay target ( M = 4.76, SD = 1.48), compared to those of the generic gay target ( M = 4.64, SD = 0.82), showed no significant difference, F (1, 189) = 0.89, p > .05, = 0.00. This pattern holds for straight male targets when compared to gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 1.3, p > .05, = 0.01. Behavioral recommendations for being a youth group leader at a local church for the activist gay target ( M = 4.26, SD = 1.53), compared to those of the generic gay target ( M = 4.5, SD = 0.96), showed no significant difference, F (1, 189) = 2.63, p > .05, = 0.01. This pattern holds for straight male targets when compared to gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 2.67, p > .05, = 0.01. Behavioral recommendations for performing as a member of a public policy think tank for the activist gay target ( M = 6.32, SD = 0.92), compared to those of the generic gay target ( M

PAGE 35

35 = 5.05, SD = 1.23), showed a significant difference in the opposite direction than predicted, F (1, 189) = 32.80, p < .001, = 0.15. The interaction contrast suggests that this pattern differs for straight ta rgets versus gay targets, F (1, 189) = 25.86, p < .001, = 0.12. In particular, the activist targets were more likely to be recommended to perform as members of public policy think tanks than were the generic targets, though this difference was larger for straight targets than for gay targets. Behavioral recommendations for coaching a little league baseball team for the activist gay target ( M = 4.13, SD = 1.33), compared to those of the generic gay target ( M = 3.82, SD = 0.95), showed no significant differ ence, F (1, 189) = 0.01, p > .05, = 0.00. This pattern did not differ for straight male targets versus gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 1.06, p > .05, = 0.00. Our hypothesis that the activist gay target will be seen as a greater threat to values than will the generic gay target was the refore not supported. Hypothesis 2b: The promiscuous gay male target will be seen as a greater threat to health than will the generic gay male target, and behavioral and emotional reactions should differ according to these differences in threat perception. As for the previous hypothesis, we performed planned contrasts to compare perceptions of health threat posed by the promiscuous target to those of the generic target for both gay and straight targets. We also performed contrasts on the specific emotions a nd behaviors related to these threats. We expected the promiscuous gay target to evoke more of these negative reactions than the generic gay target. Comparisons of perceptions of health threat posed by the promiscuous gay target ( M = 2.53, SD = 1.29) to th ose of the generic gay target ( M = 1.66, SD = 1.32) showed a significant difference, F (1, 189) = 4.6, p < .05, = 0.02. The interaction contrast suggests that this pattern differs for straight targets versus gay targets, F (1, 189) = 4.44, p < .05

PAGE 36

36 = 0.02. These results suggest that the promiscuous targets were seen as greater health threats than were generic t argets, and the difference was larger for straight targets than for gay targets. Comparisons of physical disgust in response to the perceptions of health threats posed by the promiscuous gay target ( M = 1.9, SD = 1.33) to those of the generic gay target ( M = 1.77, SD = 1.44) showed no significant difference, F (1, 189) = 1.59, p > .05, = 0.01. This pattern holds for straight male targets when compared to gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 2.08, p > .05, = 0.01. Comparisons of behavioral recommendations in domains meant to cue threats to health were also performed. Participants were si gnificantly less likely to recommend the promiscuous gay target for volunteering at a local retirement home ( M = 3.95, SD = 1.17) than they were to recommend the generic gay target ( M = 4.5, SD = 0.96), F (1, 189) = 7.39, p < .01, = 0.04. The interaction contrast suggests that this pattern differs for straight male targets versus gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 5.19, p < .05, d = = 0.03. These data suggest that the promiscuous targets are less likely to be recommended to volunteer at a local retirement h ome, although this difference is greater for straight targets than for gay targets. Participants were also significantly less likely to recommend the promiscuous gay target for volunteering at a local hospital ( M = 4.4, SD = 1.28) than they were to recomme nd the generic gay target ( M = 4.59, SD = 0.80), F (1, 189) = 6.63, p < .05, = 0.03. The interaction contrast suggests that this pattern differs for straight male targets versus gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 9.04, p < .01, = 0.05. These data suggest that the promiscuous targets are less likely to be recommended to volunteer a t a local hospital, although this difference is greater for straight targets than for gay targets. Behavioral recommendations for volunteering at a local blood bank did not differ for the promiscuous gay target ( M = 4.13, SD = 1.65), compared to those of t he generic gay target ( M =

PAGE 37

37 4.39, SD = 1.29), F (1, 189) = 1.1, p > .05, = 0.01. This pattern holds for straight male targets when compared to gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 0.72, p > .05, = 0.00. Differences in behavioral recommendations for preparing food for a charity event for the promiscuous gay male target ( M = 4.33, SD = 1.09) and the generic gay male target ( M = 4.8, SD = 0.65) approached significance, F (1, 189) = 3.28, p = .07, = 0.02. This pattern holds for straight male targets when compared to gay male targets, F (1, 189) = 1.41, p > .05, = 0.01. This sug gests that the promiscuous male target is somewhat less likely to be recommended to prepare food for a charity event than is the generic male target, regardless of sexual orientation, but not to a significant degree. Our hypothesis that the promiscuous ga y male target will be seen as a greater threat to health than will the generic gay male target therefore was not supported. Although there were significant differences in recommendations for performance in some of the behavioral domains, these seemed to be based on subgroup of the target in question, regardless of sexual orientation. Hypothesis 2c: The feminine and masculine subgroups of gay men will share similar, yet slightly attenuated patterns of threat perceptions to those of the superordinate group. No specific hypotheses were given regarding perception of the feminine and masculine subgroups of gay men, therefore we performed a 3 (target: feminine, masculine, generic) x 2 (target sexual orientation: gay, straight) ANOVA to probe for significant effec ts among our dependent measures. We found no significant interactions or main effects for perceptions of health threat among subgroups, p > 0.10 for each test. These results suggest that feminine and masculine subgroups were not perceived as posing more of a health threat than the generic target for gay or straight targets. We also did not find an interaction for perceptions of values threat, F (2, 114) = 0.55, p > .05, = 0.01. We did however, find a significant main effect of target sexual

PAGE 38

38 orientation on perceptions of health threat, F (1, 114) = 10.42, p < .01, = 0.08. Gay targets were perceived as posing greater health threat ( M = 2.84, SD = 1.77) than straight t argets ( M = 1.97, SD = 1.09). We found no significant interactions or main effects for ratings of physical disgust felt toward targets, F (2, 114) = 0.01, p > .05, for the interaction. These results suggest that feminine and masculine subgroups did not elicit more physical disgust than did the generic target for either gay or straight targets. We also did not find an interaction for feelings of moral disgust, F (2, 114) = 0.61, p > .05, = 0.03. We did however, find a significant main effect of target sexual orientation on feelings of moral disgust, F (1, 114) = 6.06, p < .05, = 0.05. Gay targets elicited more feelings of moral disgust ( M = 2.16, SD = 1.49) than straight targets ( M = 1.58, SD = 1.00). Among the behavioral recommendations for different domains, a significant main effect of sexual orientation was found on recommendations for volunteering at a local retirement home, F (1, 114) = 4.21, p < .05, = 0.04, with gay targets receiving higher recommendations ( M = 4.61, SD = 1.05) than straight targets ( M = 4.29, SD = 1.12). Target sexual orientation also had a significant main effect on participants recommendations of targets volunteering as a youth group leader for a local church, F (1, 114) = 9.56, p < .05, = 0.08, with gay targets receiving lower recommendations ( M = 3.4, SD = 1.57) than straight targets ( M = 4.2, SD = 1.35). A main effect of target sexual orientation was also found on recommendations for volunteering at a local hospital, F (1, 114) = 6.23, p < .05, = 0.05. For this activity, gay targets received higher recommendations ( M = 4.75, SD = 0.96) than did straight targets ( M = 4.31, SD = 0.96). A significant main effect of sexual orientation was also observed on recommendations for target s working as members of a public policy think tank, F (1, 114) = 10.02, p < .05, = 0.08. Gay

PAGE 39

39 targets again received higher recommendations ( M = 5.06, SD = 1.36) than straight targets ( M = 4.33, SD = 1.14). Significant main effects of subgroup, F (1, 114) = 17.89, p < .001, = 0.24 and sexual orientation, F (1, 114) = 5.94, p < .05, = 0.05 were found on recommendations for preparing food for a charity event. Recommendations for the feminine subgroup were significantly greater than those for the generi c and masculine subgroups ( M differences of 1.15 and 1.19, respectively, p < .001 for both). Recommendations were also higher for gay targets ( M = 5.13, SD = 0.93) than for straight targets ( M = 4.69, SD = 1.00). Significant main effects of subgroup, F (1, 114) = 26.26, p < .001, = 0.32 and sexual orientation, F (1, 114) = 13.61, p < .05, = 0.11 were also found on recommendations for volunteering to coach a little league baseball. Recommendations for the masculine subgroup were significantly greater than those for the generic and feminine subgroups ( M differences of 1.51 and 1.84, respectively, p < .001 for both). Recommendations were also higher for straight targets ( M = 4.92, SD = 1.17) than for gay targets ( M = 4.12, SD = 1.16). Although perceptions of gay and straight ta rgets differed on a number of measures, our hypothesis that threat patterns would be slightly attenuated for feminine and masculine subgroups when compared to the generic, or superordinate, group were not supported. Hypothesis 3: All predicted effects of threat perception, and the corresponding behavioral and emotional reactions, of gay men will be stronger for male participants than for female participants. Participant gender was included in all analyses with the prediction that all predicted effects wou ld be stronger for male participants than for female participants. These results showed no significant interactions involving gender ( p > .20 for all interactions). Therefore, our

PAGE 40

40 hypothesis regarding effects of participant gender was not supported. This w as likely due to the very small number of male participants (49) in our sample.

PAGE 41

41 Table 3 1. Means for all m anipulation c heck i tems Generic Activist Feminine Masculine Promiscuous M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Perceived Political Involvedness G ay 3.50 1.34 6.63 0.50 3.16 1.07 2.68 1.67 2.45 1.23 Straight 3.29 1.52 6.77 0.53 3.11 0.53 2.48 1.21 2.72 1.32 Perceived Femininity Gay 3.50 1.30 3.37 1.26 4.63 1.54 2.05 1.51 4.75 1.33 Straight 2.62 1.12 3.00 1.41 4.67 1.19 1.57 0.87 2.61 1.54 Perc eived Masculinity Gay 3.50 1.26 4.11 1.24 2.63 1.38 5.21 1.40 2.80 1.40 Straight 4.33 1.32 4.68 0.95 3.72 1.07 6.24 0.77 5.17 1.40 Perceived Promiscuity Gay 3.27 1.45 2.58 1.64 2.37 1.38 1.47 0.77 5.95 1.54 Straight 2.86 1.20 3.05 1.53 3.50 1.43 3.62 1.36 6.44 0.86

PAGE 42

42 Table 3 2. Mean m easures for each t arget Generic Activist Feminine Masculine Promiscuous M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Total SDS Gay 3.75 0.82 3.70 1.08 3.81 1.04 3.52 1.19 3.64 1.17 Straight 3.26 0.70 3.10 0.80 3.04 0.95 3.52 1.19 3.64 1.17 Feeling Thermometer Gay 64.82 21.84 76.63 17.95 64.66 20.63 70.05 19.69 58.75 23.33 Straight 73.52 14.56 78.73 16.28 72.06 12.93 70.90 16.69 51.78 24.98 Health Threat Gay 1.66 1.32 1.50 0.76 2.24 1.40 1.87 1.21 1.98 1 .46 Straight 1.71 0.80 1.64 0.74 1.83 0.95 1.79 1.26 2.53 1.29 Values Threat Gay 2.52 1.56 2.76 1.79 3.13 1.89 2.87 1.85 3.28 2.01 Straight 2.00 1.05 2.34 1.37 1.89 0.99 2.02 1.24 3.39 1.79 Physical Disgust Gay 1.77 1.44 1.50 0.90 1.76 0.93 1.79 1. 19 1.90 1.33 Straight 1.45 0.96 1.45 0.96 1.47 0.67 1.50 1.02 1.97 1.37 Moral Disgust Gay 1.86 1.33 1.68 1.02 2.50 1.70 1.79 1.43 2.05 1.65 Straight 1.50 0.95 1.61 1.03 1.56 0.84 1.69 1.21 2.83 1.57

PAGE 43

43 Table 3 3. Behavioral r ecommendations for each d omain Generic Activist Feminine Masculine Promiscuous M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD Domain 2 Gay 4.64 0.82 4.76 1.48 4.63 1.16 4.55 1.40 3.73 1.30 Straight 4.31 1.07 4.73 1.32 4.58 1.03 4.33 1.18 3.22 1.36 Domain 3 Gay 4.50 0.96 4.74 0.95 4.79 1.08 4.5 5 1.10 3.95 1.17 Straight 4.31 0.98 4.68 1.06 4.28 1.19 4.00 1.33 3.42 1.39 Domain 4 Gay 3.91 1.59 4.26 1.53 2.95 1.52 3.34 1.60 2.73 1.54 Straight 4.10 0.94 4.77 1.38 4.11 1.30 4.40 1.47 2.28 1.27 Domain 5 Gay 4.59 0.80 5.05 1.18 4.76 1.03 4.89 1.05 4.40 1.28 Straight 4.40 0.90 4.52 1.10 4.33 1.00 4.19 0.98 3.28 1.36 Domain 6 Gay 5.05 1.23 6.32 0.92 5.05 1.35 5.08 1.51 4.65 1.51 Straight 4.67 1.27 6.55 0.67 4.06 1.12 4.26 1.04 3.86 1.47 Domain 7 Gay 4.39 1.29 4.50 1.56 4.47 1.18 4.84 1.51 4.13 1.64 Straight 4.19 0.95 4.34 1.13 4.78 1.06 4.62 1.11 3.78 1.19 Domain 8 Gay 4.80 0.65 4.95 1.20 5.63 1.08 4.97 1.06 4.33 1.09 Straight 4.26 1.20 4.18 1.37 5.75 0.75 4.07 1.10 3.75 1.20 Domain 9 Gay 3.82 0.95 4.13 1.33 3.29 1.42 5.26 1.10 3.45 1.53 Straight 4.45 1.51 4.05 1.45 4.33 0.97 5.98 1.02 3.69 1.52

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION It has been reliably demonstrated that stereotyping is a universal aspect of human behavior and social perception. Research on the processes of stereotyping and its correl ates has been of utmost interest to social psychologists since the early days of work in the field. More recent research on the processes of subtyping when perceivers respond to members of a target group who disconfirm their stereotypes by seeing them as exceptions to the rule and placing them in a separate subcategory apart from members who confirm the stereotype (Richards & Hewstone, 2001) and subgrouping when perceivers organize information into multiple clusters of individuals who are similar to o ne another in some way and are different from other group members (Maurer et al., 1995; Richards & Hewstone, 2001) may suggest that researchers have traditionally over generalized the extent to which people homogenize their perceptions of outgroup member s. For example, in a study by Maurer, Park, and Rothbart (1995) people rated more variability among outgroup members when instructions led them to use the process of subgrouping, rather than subtyping. The outgroup homogeneity effect the tendency for people to see members of their own group as different from one another while underestimating the differences between members of other groups has been one of the most well documented results of the processes of stereotyping (e.g., Linvill, Fischer, & Salo vey, 1989; Park & Judd, 1990). Some of the more recent studies on the processes of stereotyping, however, suggest that the process of subgrouping is associated with an increase in perceived group variability and can therefore overcome the outgroup homogene ity effect (see Richards & Hewstone, 2001 for a review). The subgrouping hypothesis led us to question when outgroup members will be distinguished from, rather than homogenized

PAGE 45

45 to, the superordinate group to which they belong. What implications does this have on perceptions and behavioral reactions to these distinguishing members? Using a threat -based approach to prejudice we measured the behavioral and emotional reactions of participants to various subgroup members of a superordinate group. We predicted th at differences in behavioral and emotional reactions toward these targets would emerge in response to different patterns of threat perception. More specifically, we predicted that threat perceptions of gay men who have been shown in previous research (Co ttrell and Neuberg, 2005) to represent perceived threats to health and values would differ as a function of subgroup status. That is, we predicted that although these people unambiguously represent their superordinate group, gay men, they will be perceiv ed to represent different threats than the group as a whole, and people will demonstrate different behavioral and emotional reactions toward them as a response. In addition to our overall hypothesis that subgroups of the superordinate group, gay men, would be seen differently from one another and differently from the group as a whole, we developed and tested specific hypotheses regarding the subgroups in question. We predicted that the generic gay target (a measure of the superordinate group) would be perce ived more negatively on global measures than the generic straight target. This would replicate more traditional measures of prejudice. We also predicted that the activist gay target would be perceived as a greater threat to values than would the generic ga y target. Subsequently, we predicted that behavioral and emotional reactions toward the target would correspond to values threat perception the activist gay target should receive lower recommendations for behaving in domains related to values and should elicit greater feelings of moral disgust than the generic gay target. We predicted that the promiscuous gay target would be perceived as more of a health

PAGE 46

46 threat than the generic gay target and would thus evoke greater feelings of physical disgust and less behavioral recommendations in domains designed to cue health threats. It was predicted that feminine and masculine gay targets would show similar, but attenuated threat perceptions and behavioral and emotional reactions than the generic gay target. Last, w e predicted that female participants would report less perceptions of threat and less negative behavioral and emotional reactions toward gay targets than would male participants replicating previous findings in overall assessments of homosexuality (e.g., Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998). Generic gay targets were seen more negatively overall than were generic straight targets, supporting our first hypothesis ( Hypothesis 1 ). Manipulation checks on subgroup status showed that subgroup impressions wer e adequately conveyed; however, our hypothesis that subgroups of gay men would be seen differently from one another and differently from the superordinate group ( Hypothesis 2 ) was not supported. For the most part, there were no observed differences in thre at perceptions of subgroups of gay men or for subgroups of straight men. Subsequently, our specific hypotheses regarding threat perceptions of the activist gay target and the promiscuous gay target in comparison with the generic gay target ( Hypotheses 2a, 2b) were not supported. Our hypothesis that feminine and masculine subgroups would show attenuated patterns of threat perception compared to the generic target ( Hypothesis 2c ) was also not supported. Finally, our hypothesis that male participants would vie w gay targets more negatively overall than would female participants ( Hypothesis 3 ) was not supported. This result could be due the under representation of male participants in our sample. Some interesting results were found in the analysis, despite the la ck of support for the specific hypotheses. For example, gay targets as a whole were perceived as posing greater threats to values than threats to health (see results for Hypothesis 2 ). Participants ratings of moral

PAGE 47

47 disgust felt toward gay targets were gre ater than their ratings of physical disgust felt toward targets (see results for Hypothesis 2 ). This pattern supports our prediction that moral disgust would be felt in response to perceptions of values threat. Other main effects found in our analyses are worth interpreting. For example, promiscuous targets, both gay and straight, were perceived as greater health threats than the generic target (see results for Hypothesis 2b). Subsequently, participants were less likely to recommend the promiscuous targets to volunteer at a local retirement home or to volunteer at a local hospital, both domains designed to cue ideas of perceptibility to health threats. For the interaction test of feminine, masculine, and generic targets, gay targets were perceived as posing greater threats to health (see results for Hypothesis 2c) Gay targets also elicited greater feelings of moral disgust and received lower recommendations for performing as a youth group leader for a local church. Although these findings do not support our specific hypotheses, they are interesting in regards to their implications to prejudice in general. Although the findings of our study do not support the subgrouping hypothesis that subgroups will be perceived differently than the superordinate group and thus override the outgroup homogeneity effect there are some limitations worth noting. One major limitation of our data is the underrepresentation of male participants in our sample ( n = 202; 153 female, 49 male). With the number of between subject cond itions in our study, there is an inadequate number of male participants to draw conclusions regarding mens assessments of the subgroups in question. Previous research (e.g., Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998) has shown that men show more overall pre judice toward gay men than do women. The overrepresentation of women in our sample may very well have an effect on our overall patterns of threat perception among the measured subgroups.

PAGE 48

48 Another limitation worth noting is the question of whether or not ea ch of our subgroup targets were indeed recognized as representing a subgroup of the superordinate group. Pilot data and manipulation checks indicated that participants recognized and rated subgroup targets as conveying the proper impressions (e.g., the act ivist profile was rated as significantly more politically active than each other subgroup, etc.) and that sexual orientation of each target was appropriately interpreted. However, we did not develop a way to test whether or not participants viewed each tar get as a subgroup or a subtype of the superordinate group in question. This may have important implications to overall perceptions of targets. According to the subgroup hypothesis (Richards & Hewstone, 2001) if the target were seen as a subtype of the supe rordinate group in question, rather than a subgroup, perceivers can simply pass the target off as an exception to the rule and would have no reason to change overall impressions of the group as a whole or to make special accommodations for the deviating target. It could simply be that being presented with one target member of a subgroup is not enough to bring to mind perceptions of the subgroup itself. Our hypotheses regarding perceptions of subgroups in contrast to the superordinate group were not supporte d. This does not, however, invalidate the subgroup hypothesis as a whole nor does it make the question of when group members are seen differently than the superordinate group any less important. Although stereotypes play a large role in our everyday perc eptions of others, it seems highly unlikely that our perceptions of outgroup members do not deviate when presented with important pieces of information. For example, if the global stereotype of an outgroup is that they are passive or non threatening in a p hysical sense (e.g., the stereotypes of Asian -Americans), it would be detrimental for a perceiver to fail to recognize aggressive cues displayed by a deviating member of that group. Research on subgrouping (e.g., Maurer, Park, &

PAGE 49

49 Rothbart, 1995) has also shown that recognizing differentiating features of group members may also reduce the outgroup homogeneity effect, which in turn could result in reductions of ingroup bias. In order to understand the functions of stereotyping more thoroughly, as well as bette r understand how we can reduce prejudice, further research is still required to learn more about when and why we might perceive members of an outgroup differently than our global stereotypes of the superordinate group as a whole.

PAGE 50

50 APPENDIX A DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions. As mentioned before, your responses are confidential. These demographic questions only serve to help us explore the sample helping us with our study. What is your gender? ______ Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? ______ Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old are you? ______ years Year in school: _______________ Major: _______________ What are your plans for the future ? (Please answer briefly.) What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.)

PAGE 51

51 APPENDIX B GENERIC SUBGROUP MANIPULATION S tudent Member Information Sheet Please answer the following questions. These questions will help the community group organizers know more about the members of the group and will help in making decisions regarding group activities. What is your gender? X Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? X Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old a re you? 22 years Year in school: Junior Major: Psychology What are your plans for the future? (Please answer briefly.) I plan to go to graduate school. What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.) I like to hang out with my friends

PAGE 52

52 APPENDIX C ACTIVIST SUBGROUP MANIPULATION S tudent Member Information Sheet Please answer the following questions. These questions will help the community group organizers know more about the members of the group and will help in making decisions regarding group activities. Wh at is your gender? X Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? X Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old are you? 22 years Year in school: Junior Major: Psychology What are your plans for the future? (Please answer briefly.) I plan to go to graduate school. What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.) I like to be active in the community. I belong to a couple political groups that organize demonstrations on social issues and try to get people to be more concerned about whats going on in the world.

PAGE 53

53 APPENDIX D FEMININE SUBGROUP MANIPULATION S tudent Member Information Sheet Please answer the following questions. These questions will help the community group organizers know more about the members of the group and will help in making decisions regarding group activities. What is your gender? X Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? X Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old are you? 22 years Year in school: Junior Major: Psychology What are your plans for the future? (Please answer briefly.) I plan to go to graduate school. What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.) I like to go dancing and to go shopping. On lazy nights I like to stay at home, cook a good meal, and watch tv.

PAGE 54

54 APPENDIX E MASUCULINE SUB GROUP MANIPULATION S tudent Member Information Sheet Please answer the following questions. These questions will help the community group organizers know more about the m embers of the group and will help in making decisions regarding group activities. What is your gender? X Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? X Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old are you? 22 years Year in school: Junior Major: Psychology What are your plans for the future? (Please answer briefly.) I plan to go to graduate school. What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.) I like working out an d I really enjoy outdoor activities like hiking and kayaking. I also like to play poker with my buddies and like to go out every once in a while for a beer.

PAGE 55

55 APPENDIX F PROMISCUOUS SUBGROUP MANIPULATION S tudent Member Information Sheet Please answer the following questions. These questions will help the community group organizers know more about the members of the group and will help in making decisions regarding group activities. What is your gender? X Male ______ Female Which of the following best describes you? X G ay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning How old are you? 22 years Year in school: Junior Major: Psychology What are your plans for the future? (Please answer briefly.) I plan to go to graduate school. What do you do for fun? (Please answer briefly.) I like going online to meet people. I also like to hook up with people at the clubs. Im always up for anything fun with lots of people.

PAGE 56

56 APPENDIX G THREAT PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIORAL REACTION QUESTIONNAIRE Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform at organizing an on -campus charity event ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person organize an on -campus charity event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer at a local day care center ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local day care center ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think t his person would perform as a volunteer at a local retirement home? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local retirement home? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much

PAGE 57

57 Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a youth group leader for a local church ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information p rovided, to what extent would you recommend this person be a youth group leader at a local church ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer at a local hospital ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local hospital? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a member of a public policy think tank ? (Note: Think tanks are groups that engage in advocacy in areas such as social policy, political strategy, economy, etc.) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person perform as a member of a public policy think tank? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer at a local blood bank ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely

PAGE 58

58 Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer at a local blood bank ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform at preparing food at a charity event ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the inf ormation provided, to what extent would you recommend this person prepare food at a charity event? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much Based on the information provided, how well do you think this person would perform as a volunteer coac h for a little league baseball team ? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Extremely Based on the information provided, to what extent would you recommend this person volunteer to coach a little league baseball team? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at al l Very much

PAGE 59

59 APPENDIX H QUESTIONS OF SPECIFIC THREAT In general, I think that this group member poses a challenge to people like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much In general, I think that this group member increases t he risk of physical sickness for people like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much In general, I think that this group member poses problems for people like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much In general, I thi nk that this group member promotes values that directly oppose the values of people like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much In general, I think that this group member harms the medical health of people like me 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much In general, I think that this group member advocates values that are morally inferior to the values of people like me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much

PAGE 60

60 APPENDIX I QUESTIONS OF SPECIFIC EMOTIONS IN R ESPONSE TO THREATS When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel respect for him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel positive toward him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel morally sickened by him/her. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I fee l dislike for him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel admiration for him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel physically disgusted by him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel negative towards him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much

PAGE 61

61 When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel morally disgusted by him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel a liking for him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much When I think about my impressions of this group member, I feel physically sickened by him/her 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all Very much

PAGE 62

62 APPENDIX J FEELING THERMOMETER From what you know right now, use the following scale to indicate how you feel toward the group member you have evaluated. In the space below, you may write any degree between 0 and 100. Marking 100 degrees indicates very warm (or positive) feelings toward him/her, with zero degrees indicating very cold (or negative) feelings toward him/her. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Very Coolly Very Warmly Your feeling thermometer rating for this group member: ________

PAGE 63

63 APPENDIX K SOCIAL DISTANCING SCALE Indicate the degree to wh ich you agree or disagree with the following statements by circling a number on each scale below: He/she appears to be a likeable person. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like him/her to be a close personal friend. Strongly disagr ee Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I wouldn't mind it at all for him/her to move into my neighborhood. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like him/her to come and work at the same place I do. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 He/she is a person who is similar to me. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I would like to have him/her marry into my family. Strongly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 He/she is the kind of person that I tend to avoid. Stro ngly disagree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX L MANIPULATION CHECK FOR SUBGROUP PERCEPTIONS Please read the following information and answer the questions regarding your impressions of this person. How masculine did this person seem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all masculine Very masculine How promiscuous did this person seem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all promiscuous Very promiscuous How feminine did this person seem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all feminine Very feminine How politically involved did this person seem? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Not at all politically involved Very politically involved

PAGE 65

65 APPENDIX M ATTITUDES TOWARD LESBIAN AND GAY MEN SCALE The following items inquire about your perceptions and opinions. Read each statement and indicate the strength of your agreement using the scale below. Please respond honestlythere are no right or wrong answers. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Strongly Strongly Disagree Agree _____ Sex between two men is just plain wrong. _____ Male homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be condemned. _____ I think that male homosexuals are disgusting. _____ Male homosexuality is a perversion. _____ Male homosexual ity is a natural expression of sexuality in men. _____ Sex between two women is just plain wrong. _____ Female homosexuality is merely a different kind of lifestyle that should not be condemned. _____ I think that lesbians are disgusting. _____ Female homosexuality is a perversion. _____ Female homosexuality is a natural expression of sexuality in women.

PAGE 66

66 APPENDIX N DEMOGRAPHICS QUESTIONNAIRE Please answer the following questions. As mentioned before, your responses are confidential. These demographic questions only serve to help us explore the sample helping us with our study. What is your gender? ______ Male ______ Female How old are you? ______ years Which of the following ethnic group(s) do you consider yourself a member of? You can check multiple groups. ______ African American ______ Asian American ______ Hispanic ______ Native American ______ Caucasian/White ______ Other: _________________________________________ Which of the following religions best describes you? ______ Prote stant (Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc.) ______ Catholic ______ Fundamentalist/Evangelical Christian ______ Jewish ______ Muslim ______ Hindu ______ Buddhist ______ Other: _________________________________________ ______ No religious affilia tion

PAGE 67

67 Which of the following best describes you? ______ Gay/lesbian ______ Straight ______ Bisexual ______ Questioning Which of the following best describes your current dating status? ______ Not dating anyone ______ Dating multiple people _____ Dating one person exclusively ______ Living in a committed domestic partnership ______ Engaged ______ Married In general, how much personal contact have you had with lesbian women? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None at all A lot Are any of your close friends lesbian women? Yes No In general, how much personal contact have you had with gay men? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 None at all A lot Are any of your close friends gay men? Yes No

PAGE 68

68 REFERENCES Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Hermann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out -group stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 7893. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Meas uring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299308. Brewer, M. B., & Alexander, M. G. (2002). Intergroup emotions and images. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From p rejudice to intergroup relations: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 209 225). New York: Psychology Press. Clausell, E., & Fiske, S. T. (2005). When do subgroup parts add up to the stereotypic whole? Mixed stereotype content for gay male subgroups explains overall ratings. Social Cognition, 23, 161181. Clifton, A. K., McGrath, D., & Wick, B. (1976). Stereotypes of women: A single category? Sex Roles, 2, 135148. Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat based approach to prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770789. Cottrell, C. A., Neuberg, S. L., & Li, N. P. (2007). What do people desire in others? A sociofunctional perspective on the importance of valued characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 208231. Crandall, C. S. (1991a). AIDS related stigma and the lay sense of justice. Contemporary Social Psychology, 15, 6667. Crandall, C. S. (1991b). Multiple stigma and AIDS: Medical stigma and attitudes toward homosexuals and IV -drug users in A IDS -related stigmatization. Social Behavior: Journal of Applied Social and Community Psychology, 1, 165172. Crandall, C. S., Glor, J., & Britt, T. W. (1997). AIDS related stigmatization: Instrumental and symbolic attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 95123. Deaux, K., Winton, W., Crowley, M., & Lewis, L. L, (1985). Level of categorization and content of gender stereotypes. Social Cognition, 3, 145167. Devine, P. G., (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled componen ts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5 18. Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 11391150.

PAGE 69

69 Devos, T., Silver, L. A., M ackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Experiencing intergroup emotions. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 111134). New York: Psychology Press. Eckes, T. (1994). Features of men, features of women: Assessing stereotypic beliefs about gender subtypes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 107123. Eckes, T. (1996). Linking female and male subtypes to situations: A range -of -situation -fit effect. Sex Roles, 35, 401426. Ekman, P. (1999). Basic emotions. In T. Dalgleish & M. Power (Eds.), The handbook of cognition and emotions (pp. 45 60. Sussex, England: Wiley. Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1975). Unmasking the face: A guide to recognizing emotions from facial clues. Eng lewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473491. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878902.er Fiske, S. T., & N euberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum model of impression formation from category based to individuated processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (vol. 3, pp. 174). New York: Academic Press. Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Gilbert, G. M. (1951). Stereotype persistence and change among college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 2 45254. Gilbert, D. T., & Hixon, J. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509517. Gilman, S. L. (1985). Differences and pathology: Stereotypes of sexuality race, and madness. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 11051118. Harding, J., Kutner, B., Proshansky, H., & Chein, I. (1954). Prejudice and ethnic relations. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 10211061). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

PAGE 70

70 Herek, G. M. (1990). The content of anti -gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316333. Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In Greene, B., & Herek, G. M. (Eds.). Lesbian and gay psychology: Theory, research and clinical applications (pp. 206 228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Herek, G. M. (1998). Attitudes t oward l esbians and g ay m en s cale. In Davis, C.M. (Ed.), Handbook of Sexuality -Related Measures (pp. 392 394). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sag e Publications. Herek, G. M. (2000). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251266. Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public O pinion Quarterly, 66, 4066. Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same -sex relationships in the Unites States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607621. Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexua ls think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. The Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348360. Hewstone, M. (1994). Revision and change of stereotypic beliefs: In search of the elusive subtyping model. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 69 109. Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 237 271. Izard, C. E. (1991). The psychology of emotions. New York: Plenum Press. Karlins, M., Coffman, T. L., & Walters, G. (1969). On the fading of social stereotypes: Studies in three generations of college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 1 16. Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred college students. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 28, 280290. Kerns, J. G., & Fine, M. A. (1994). The relation between gender and negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: Do gender role attitudes mediate this relation? Sex Roles, 31, 297307. Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homose xuals: A meta analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 6981. Kite, M. E. (2001). Gender stereotypes. In J. Worrell (Ed.) Encyclopedia of gender: Sex similarities and differences and the impact of society on gender (vol. 1, pp. 561570). Sand Diego, CA: Academic Press.

PAGE 71

71 Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336353. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (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 (pp. 39 61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in -group and out -group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165188. Lippman, W. (1992). Public o pinion. New York: Harcourt. Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Socia l Psychology, 79, 602616. Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition: Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 93 120. Madon, S., Guyll, M., Aboufadel, K., Montiel, E., Smith, A., Palumbo, P., & Jussim, J. ( 2001). Ethnic and national stereotypes: The Princeton trilogy revisited and revised. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 9961010. Maurer, K. L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping processes in stereotype representati on. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 812824. Nesse, R. M. (1990). Evolutionary explanations of emotions. Human Nature, 1, 261289. Noseworthy, C. M., & Lott, A. J. (1984). The cognitive organization of gender stereotypic categories. Perso nality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 10, 474481. Paige, R. U. (2005). Proceedings of the American Psychological Association for the legislative year 2004. American Psychologist, 60, 436511. Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173191. Park, B., Ryan, C. S., & Judd, C. M. (1992). Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in -groups and out -groups. Journal of Personal ity and Social Psychology, 63, 553567. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.

PAGE 72

72 Publication m anual of the A merican P sychological A ssociation (5th ed.). (2001). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associatio n. Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. (2001). Subtyping and s ubgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52 73. Sapiro, V., Rosenstone, S. J., & Miller, W. E. (1998). American n ational e lection s tudies, 19481997 (CD ROM). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter -University Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer and distributor). Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297 315). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Smith, E. R. (1999). Affective and cognitive implications of a group becoming a part of the self: N ew models of prejudice and of the self -concept. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and social cognition (pp. 183 196). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 191 207). New York: Psychology Press. Vonk, R., & Olde -Monnikhof, M. (1998). Gender subgroups: Intergroup bias within the sexes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 3747. Weber, R., & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961 977.

PAGE 73

73 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Corey Cook was born in Glendale, AZ on April, 21 19 83. He was the first born grandchild on his mother s side of the family and the first of her four children. He was raised mainly by his mother and grandmother in the rural community of Show Low, AZ, located in the White Mountains of Northeastern Ari zona, though he often spent extended periods of time with family in the metropolitan Phoenix area. After graduation from Show Low High School in 2001, Corey moved to Tempe, AZ to attend Arizona State University. H e graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bac helor s of Sci ence in Psychology in December 2005, becoming a first generation college graduate. During his undergraduate career he had become very active in the social psychology department where he assisted many professors and graduate students with development and col lection of their research, and he had made the decision to apply to graduate the year following his graduation. He subsequently spent a year working as an academic counselor for University of Phoenix and spent time volunteering in the psychology department at Arizona State as well as independently researching social and evolutionary psychology. Corey was accepted to a Ph.D. program in social psychology at University of Florida in f all 2007. Working with Dr. Catherine Cottrell, h is research focuses on issues relating to stigma and prejudice, fundamental motives of behavior, intergroup rela tions, and self -presentation. He comp leted his Master of Science in s pring 2009. His master s thesis focused on the subgrouping process of stereotyping and how it can change ov erall perceptions of various stigmatized groups, particularly gay men. This focus applied an evolutionary threat -based approach to prejudice, extending beyond more traditional views of the components of prejudice.

PAGE 74

74 Corey is currently developing follow up research to his master s thesis and continues his research studies with Dr. Cottrell. Upon completion of his Ph.D., he plans to pursue a career in academia as a researcher and professor.