See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262324619

Walking the Straight and Narrow: Examining the Role of Traditional Gender
Norms in Sexual Prejudice

Article in Psychology of Men & Masculinity · March 2013

DOI: 10.1037/a0031943

CITATIONS READS
27 1,179

2 authors:

Joseph D Wellman Shannon K. McCoy

University of Mississippi University of Maine
30 PUBLICATIONS 652 CITATIONS 46 PUBLICATIONS 4,790 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph D Wellman on 29 September 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychology of Men & Masculinity © 2013 American Psychological Association
2014, Vol. 15, No. 2, 181–190 1524-9220/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0031943

Walking the Straight and Narrow: Examining the Role of Traditional

Gender Norms in Sexual Prejudice
Joseph D. Wellman and Shannon K. McCoy
University of Maine

In the current work, we examine the extent to which prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women may
be driven in part by traditional gender norms and the violation of these norms that same-sex couples
represent. Although these relationships have long been theorized, strong empirical evidence is lacking.
Across two studies, men who strongly endorsed (Study 1) or were primed with (Study 2) traditional
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

gender norms perceived relationship violence directed toward gay men as less severe, less in need of
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

intervention, and more likely caused by the victim than participants low in gender norm endorsement or
primed with neutral content. In contrast, traditional gender norms were less predictive of heterosexual
men’s prejudice toward lesbian victims of relationship violence, and not predictive of heterosexual
women’s prejudice toward gay and lesbian victims. Thus, the relationship between traditional gender
norms and sexual prejudice appears to be strongest for heterosexual men’s prejudice toward gay men.

Keywords: gender norms, sexual prejudice, discrimination, gay, lesbian

Although there have been many advances in civil rights and
tolerance in the last half century for a variety of stigmatized
groups, prejudice based on sexual orientation remains a significant
problem in the United States (Herek, 2006, 2009). Recently, sexual
prejudice has been rampant in political and legal battles surround-
ing the right for gay and lesbian couples to marry in the United
States, as well as the recent repeal of the U.S. military’s “Don’t
ask, don’t tell” policy. Gay men and lesbian women routinely face
discrimination and prejudice, resulting in difficulty obtaining em-
ployment and housing (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002;
Herek, 2009), being ostracized and ignored (Bromgard & Stephan,
2006; Swim, Ferguson, & Hyers, 1999; Talley & Bettencourt,
2008), verbal abuse (Poteat & Espelage, 2005), and even physical
attack (Herek, 2009; U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau
of Investigation, 2008). We propose that rigidly prescribed tradi-
tional gender norms significantly contribute to discrimination and
prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women in the United States.
Although this may appear to be a well-studied hypothesis, an
examination of the literature offers less than compelling evidence.
In two studies, we test the hypothesis that traditional gender norm
endorsement (Study 1) or salience (Study 2) increases prejudice
toward both gay men and lesbian women.
This article was published Online First March 4, 2013.
Joseph D. Wellman and Shannon K. McCoy, Psychology Department,
University of Maine.
Joseph D. Wellman is now at the Department of Psychology at Wesleyan
University.
We thank Elizabeth Allan and Amy Blackstone for their helpful com-
ments on Study 1. The authors would also like to thank Ellen E. Newell,
Brandon Cosley, and Ryan Pickering for their helpful comments on pre-
vious drafts of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Joseph D.
Wellman, Wesleyan University, Department of Psychology, 207 High
Street, Middletown, CT 06459-0408. E-mail: jwellman@wesleyan.edu
181
Many theories of prejudice (Allport, 1954; Rokeach, 1972;
Stephan & Stephan, 2000) suggest that out-group animosity may
spring from a perceived violation of cherished in-group values. For
example, theories of symbolic threat (e.g., symbolic racism) have
proposed that at the root of prejudice is conflict over values and
beliefs (Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1983; Sears, 1988).
Consistent with this perspective, when out-groups are perceived to
violate an important value, they are evaluated more negatively
(Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996). In a recent meta-analysis,
increased symbolic threat was found to be associated with in-
creased prejudice toward out-group members (Riek, Mania, &
Gaertner, 2006). Although much of the research on symbolic threat
has focused on racism, it has also been applied to sexual prejudice.
Individuals who perceive that gay men and lesbian women violate
important values of morality have been shown to hold more
negative attitudes toward them (Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993;
Wynan & Snyder, 1997). We propose that because gay men and
lesbian women represent a violation of traditional gender norms,
the extent to which an individual subscribes to these norms may
predict his or her level of sexual prejudice.
The roots of sexual prejudice and discrimination are likely
closely tied to traditional gender norms and roles (Herek, 2000;
Parrott, 2009). Gender norms are most often defined as culturally
shared expectations about the characteristics men and women
should possess and how they ought to behave (Eagly, Wood, &
Diekman, 2000). Communal characteristics ascribed to women
suggest that they ought to be warm, sensitive, and nurturing.
Conversely, men are ascribed primarily agentic characteristics and
are expected to be dominant, assertive, and aggressive (Eagly,
1987). For example, strong endorsement of “It is more important
to encourage boys than to encourage girls to participate in athlet-
ics” would indicate strong traditional gender norm endorsement
(Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995).
Gender norms are particularly rigid for men in the United States,
and boys learn from an early age to walk the “straight and narrow”
 182 WELLMAN AND MCCOY
and that being feminine or engaging in feminine behavior is
unacceptable (e.g., Herek, 2009; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Mas-
culinity is achieved by constant vigilance to these rigid expecta-
tions, resulting in a fragility that is unique to the masculine gender
role. Consequently, masculinity is easily threatened, and when
threatened, must be reestablished by embodying or adhering to
masculine gender roles (Bosson, Vandello, Burnaford, Weaver, &
Wasti, 2009; Vandello, Bosson, Cohen, Burnaford, & Weaver,
2008). The rigidity and fragility of the masculine gender role may
make men particularly sensitive to violations of gender role norms
(Bosson et al., 2009).
Individuals who violate gender norms face consequences. Men
depicted as possessing feminine traits are readily perceived as gay
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
rather than heterosexual; likewise, women with masculine traits
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
are often perceived as lesbian (e.g., Blashill & Powlishta, 2009;
Deaux & Lewis, 1984; Kite & Whitley, 1998). Gay men and
lesbian women are viewed as acting “like the opposite sex” (Klas-
sen, Williams, & Levitt, 1989) and to possess traits typically
ascribed to the other sex (e.g., gay men as feminine, lesbian
women as masculine; Kite & Deaux, 1987; Martin, 1990; Taylor,
1983). Further, the more gay men and lesbian women actually do
violate traditional gender norms, the more likely they are to be
victims of sexual prejudice (D’Augelli, Grossman, & Starks, 2006;
Lehavot & Lambert, 2007) and the more psychological distress
they may experience (Skidmore, Linsermeier, & Bailey, 2006).
This increased prejudice may be the result of the threat to mascu-
linity that gay men represent. The rigidity and fragility of the male
gender role may lead men to engage in anti-gay behavior to bolster
their masculinity (Kite & Whitley, 1998; Parrott, 2009). Although
the literature has explored related hypotheses, direct experimental
evidence of the role of traditional gender norms in sexual prejudice
is relatively weak. Correlational work has demonstrated that neg-
ative or restrictive attitudes toward women and sexual prejudice
tend to co-occur (e.g., Ficarrotto, 1990; Herek, 1988; Kilianski,
2003; Sinn, 1997). Other researchers have found that the extent to
which men are bothered by the violation of traditional gender
norms (e.g., “It bothers me when a man does something that I
consider ‘feminine’”) is associated with increased prejudice and
anger toward gay men (Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, & Bakeman,
2008). Although these correlational studies provide support for the
hypothesis, they do not demonstrate a causal link between gender
norms and sexual prejudice.
Although related experimental work is consistent with our hy-
pothesis, unambiguous evidence of the role of traditional gender
norms in sexual prejudice is lacking. For example, Vescio and
Biernat (2003) demonstrated that priming traditional “family val-
ues” with a picture of a traditional family led to decreased sym-
pathy toward a gay father who loses custody of a child, but only if
the participant strongly endorsed “family security” as a personal
value a priori and the gay father was a bad parent. Traditional
gender norms are likely a component of family values, yet family
values likely incorporate much more (e.g., taking care of loved
ones, parenting norms, religious norms). Further, it is difficult to
discern if “family values” are the root of sexual prejudice or if the
prime effects are, in part, the byproduct of ubiquitous media
campaigns linking gay marriage to threats to traditional marriage,
and thus family values.
Although not designed to specifically test the role of traditional
gender norms in sexual prejudice, Dasgupta and Rivera (2006)
found that implicit prejudice predicted less positive nonverbal
behavior during an interaction with a gay interviewer if the par-
ticipant held traditional gender beliefs and was low in behavioral
control. Although this does seem to suggest that sexual prejudice
is more likely among those high in traditional gender beliefs, a
close examination of the traditional beliefs about gender scale used
in the study reveals a mixed measure with items similar to those
found in explicit sexual prejudice measures (e.g., “If a member of
my sex made a sexual advance toward me I would feel angry”;
“Men who end up gay probably didn’t have strong male role
models during their childhood”). Thus, the specific implications of
these findings for the present hypothesis are a bit difficult to
disentangle, and it remains unclear whether traditional gender
norms are an important predictor of sexual prejudice.
Together, these studies offer some supportive evidence that
traditional gender norm endorsement may underlie prejudice to-
ward gay men, yet it is far from certain. Although these studies
provide some preliminary evidence for gender norms influence
toward gay men, these studies did not examine prejudice toward
lesbian women. We might expect that the same processes that
impact prejudice toward gay men also impacts prejudice toward
lesbian women, yet this remains a gap in the literature.
Research Goals and Hypotheses
The current research directly examines the role of traditional
gender norms in sexual prejudice. Importantly, we examine the
predictive utility of traditional gender norms for both prejudice
toward gay men and prejudice toward lesbian women. Although
one might expect that the same processes that influence prejudice
toward gay men also influence prejudice toward lesbian women,
lesbian targets are frequently omitted in sexual prejudice research,
preventing such comparisons. Finally, we examine these relation-
ships within a context in which sexual prejudice may have dire
consequences: intimate partner violence.
Intimate partner violence has been defined as violence between
two individuals who are romantically involved with one another
(McClennen, 2005). Intimate partner violence occurs with equal
frequency across gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships
(Cruz & Firestone, 1998), occurring in 14% to 35% of all rela-
tionships (Ely, Dulmus, & Wodarski, 2004; Renzetti, 1997; Turell,
2000; Waldner-Haugrud, Gratch, & Magruder, 1997). Contrary to
these findings, people tend to view same-sex partner violence as
less prevalent and less serious than heterosexual partner violence
(Harris & Cook, 1994; Poorman, Seelau, & Seelau, 2003; Seelau,
Seelau, & Poorman, 2003; Seelau & Seelau, 2005). Even the
police are less likely to arrest perpetrators or uphold restraining
orders if the relationship violence is not in a prototypical hetero-
sexual relationship (male against female; Connolly, Huzurbazar, &
Routh-McGee, 2000; Renzetti, 1989). This reluctance to intervene
in same-sex intimate partner violence poses serious risks to gay
men and lesbian women and may be the result of sexual prejudice.
Across two studies, we examine the consequences of traditional
gender norms for perceptions of severity, behavioral intentions to
intervene, and victim blame in intimate partner violence across
gay, lesbian, and heterosexual relationships. We hypothesize that
traditional gender norms will be associated with lower perceptions
of severity and intention to intervene and higher victim blame
when the victim is a gay man. In contrast, when the victim is a
 GENDER NORMS AND SEXUAL PREJUDICE
heterosexual woman, traditional gender norms may facilitate the
perception that women are “damsels in distress”—weak and in
need of protection (i.e., chivalry norms, Glaeser & Sacerdote,
2003; benevolent sexism, Glick & Fiske, 1996). Thus, traditional
gender norms should increase perceptions of severity and intention
to intervene and reduce victim blame when the victim is a hetero-
sexual woman. It is unlikely, however, that this motivation to
protect a female victim generalizes to lesbian women. As dis-
cussed previously, lesbian women violate traditional gender norms
and are perceived as more masculine than heterosexual women and
thus may be viewed as less in need of protection.
We begin our examination of these hypotheses among hetero-
sexual men as roles for men are more rigid and fragile than those
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
for women (Thompson & Pleck, 1986). If traditional gender norms
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
play a role in sexual prejudice, it would be most likely to be found
among heterosexual men. Further, men have been shown to be
higher in sexual prejudice and are more frequently the perpetrators
of sexual-identity hate crimes than heterosexual women
(D’Augelli & Rose, 1990; Herek, 2000; Kite, 1984; Kite & Whit-
ley, 1998). In Study 1, we measure traditional gender norm en-
dorsement in a sample of heterosexual men and examine the
consequences for perceptions of intimate partner violence in gay,
lesbian, and heterosexual couples. In Study 2, we extend our
investigation in two important ways: (1) we manipulate the sa-
lience of traditional gender norms, and 2) we examine our hypoth-
eses among both heterosexual men and women.
Study 1
In Study 1, when the victim of intimate partner violence was gay
or lesbian, we hypothesized that the more heterosexual men en-
dorse traditional gender norms, the less seriously they will view
the violence, the more they will blame the victim, and the less
willing they will be to intervene on behalf of the victim. In
contrast, when the victim of the violence is a woman in a hetero-
sexual relationship, we hypothesized that endorsement of tradi-
tional gender norms would be positively associated with both
perceived severity of the violence and willingness to intervene, and
negatively associated with victim blame. We also included a
control condition that violates traditional gender norms: violence
perpetrated by a woman in a heterosexual relationship.
Method
Participants. Male heterosexual undergraduate students (N !
120; mean age ! 21.52 years, SD ! 4.11) participated for credit
in a human development course. Participants were asked to indi-
cate their sexual orientation at the end of the survey as either
heterosexual, gay, bisexual, or other (two students were excluded
for reporting a sexual identity other than heterosexual). Partici-
pants were primarily European American (96%; 1.6% African
American, 0.8% Asian, 0.8% Latino, 0.8% Other).
Procedure. Participants were asked to complete a survey on-
line. After completing an informed consent page, participants were
asked to imagine observing their neighbors (a romantic couple) in
an argument, culminating in a brief physical struggle. One indi-
vidual is depicted as wanting to leave and the other is trying to get
them to stay; a struggle ensues and the aggressor forces the victim
back into the apartment and slams the door. Importantly, in an
183
attempt to control for physical strength differences, participants
also learned that regardless of gender, the members of the couple
were roughly equivalent in height, weight, and age.
Manipulation of victim’s sexual orientation. Participants
were randomly assigned to one of four versions of the scenario,
which differed only by the gender composition of the individuals
depicted. In the gay male scenario the neighbors were described as
“James” and “Kevin” and their gender was listed as male (gay
victim condition; MM). In the lesbian scenario, the neighbors were
“Sarah” and “Amanda,” and both were identified as female (les-
bian victim condition; FF). In the heterosexual couple conditions,
the information identified one man “James” and one woman
“Amanda.” In the male perpetrator condition, James is described
as pushing Amanda into the apartment (heterosexual female victim
condition; MF), and in the female perpetrator condition, Amanda
pushes James (heterosexual male victim condition; FM). In all
other respects, the scenarios were identical. Participants then com-
pleted the questionnaires in the order described in the methods
section.
Measures.
Perceived severity. The average of three items (e.g., “How
serious do you feel this incident was?”) responded to on a 7-point
scale (1 ! not at all; 7 ! very) was used to measure perceived
severity (" ! .82).
Willingness to intervene. Three items assessed participant’s
willingness to intervene (e.g., “What would you have done had you
seen this?”; " ! .75). Responses were made on a 5-point scale
(1 ! leave them alone; 5 ! intervene then), with high numbers
indicating high willingness to intervene.
Victim blame. The degree to which participants held the vic-
tim responsible for the incident was assessed with two items on a
scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree): “This incident
was likely due to (victim name) provoking (aggressor name)”;
“(victim name) is an aggressive person” (r ! .50, p#.001).
Traditional gender norm endorsement1. We used the 5-item
old-fashioned sexism scale (Swim et al., 1995) to assess traditional
gender norm endorsement as it consists of items relevant to the
appropriate roles both men and women should embody (e.g., “I
would be equally comfortable having a woman as a boss as a man”
[reverse scored]; “It is more important to encourage boys than to
encourage girls to participate in athletics”; " ! .78). Responses
were made on a 5-point scale (1 ! strongly disagree; 5 ! strongly
agree).
Results
Preliminary analysis. Due to methodological constraints, our
moderator was assessed during the same session as our dependent
variables. Importantly, our proposed moderator (gender norm en-
dorsement) was not influenced by the scenario participants read,
F(3, 116) ! 1.40, p $ .25. On average, participants endorsed
1
The old-fashioned sexism subscale was used because it encompass
attitudes about gender norms/roles without focusing on the role of women
exclusively, such as a scale like the Hostile Sexism Subscale of the
Ambivalent Sexism Inventory does (e.g., “Many women are actually
seeking special favors, such as hiring policies that favor them over men,
under the guise of asking for ‘equality’”; “Most women interpret innocent
remarks or acts as being sexist”; “Women are too easily offended”; Glick
& Fiske, 1996).
 184 WELLMAN AND MCCOY
traditional gender norms at around the midpoint of the scale (M !
2.61, SD ! 1.13).
Analysis overview. We conducted a hierarchical linear re-
gression analysis to examine the effects of scenario, gender norm
endorsement, and their interaction, for each dependent variable. In
Step 1, we entered the main effects condition (represented by three
dummy-coded variables with the gay victim scenario [MM] as the
reference group) and gender norm endorsement (centered at the
mean). In Step 2, we entered the interaction (represented by each
of the three condition dummy-coded variables % gender norm
endorsement). A significant interaction is evidenced by a signifi-
cant change in R2 in Step 2 and was followed up by graphing the
simple slopes within condition at 1 standard deviation above and
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
below the grand mean of gender norm endorsement. Details for
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
each analysis are presented in Table 1. We focus on the predicted
interaction effects and simple slopes below.
Perceived severity. As predicted, the interaction between sce-
nario condition and gender norm endorsement was significant
(Step 2: &R2 ! .18; F[3, 112] ! 12.55, p # .01). Examination of
the simple slopes, graphed in Figure 1, revealed that participants
perceived violence against the gay and lesbian victims as less
severe the more they endorsed traditional gender norms (MM: ' !
(.65, p # .01; FF: ' ! (.38, p # .01). A similar pattern was
observed among participants who read about a male victim of a
female perpetrator (FM: ' ! (.41, p # .01). In contrast, partic-
ipants viewed violence perpetrated by a man against a woman as
more severe the more they endorsed traditional gender norms (MF:
' ! .45, p # .01).
Willingness to intervene. The hypothesized interaction was
significant (Step 2: &R2 ! .15; F[3, 112] ! 10.62, p # .01). As
predicted, greater gender norm endorsement predicted less will-
ingness to intervene in the same-sex incident. Examination of the
simple slopes, which are graphed in Figure 2, revealed that par-
ticipants were less willing to intervene for a gay or lesbian victim
the more they endorsed traditional gender norms (MM: ' ! (.74,
p # .001; FF: ' ! (.75, p ! .000). No significant slopes were
observed for either heterosexual victim (MF: ' ! .17, p $ .20;
FM: ' ! (.17, p ! .23).
Victim blame. As predicted, the interaction in Step 2 was
significant (&R2 ! .20; F[3, 112] ! 12.01, p # .01). The more
men endorsed traditional gender norms, the more they blamed the
Table 1
Study 1: Model Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis
Perceived severity
Dependent variable ' &R2
Step 1 .30!!
MM vs. MF .48!!
MM vs. FM (.07
MM vs. FF .12
Gender norm endorsement (GNE) (.24!!
Step 2 .18!!
MM vs. MF % GNE .56!!
MM vs. FM % GNE .12
MM vs. FF % GNE .13
Note. MM ! Gay Male Victim; MF ! Heterosexual Female Victim; FM ! Heterosexual Male Victim; FF ! Lesbian Female Victim; GNE ! Gender
Norm Endorsement.
!
p # .05. !! p # .01.
gay victim (' ! .38 p # .01). We did not observe any effect for
the lesbian victim (' ! .03, p $ .80). Men blamed the male victim
of a woman more (' ! .77, p # .01) and the female victim of a
man less (' ! (.49, p # .01) as gender norm endorsement
increased (Figure 3).
Discussion
Of note, a main effect of scenario was witnessed on every
dependent variable. When men read the prototypical scenario in
which a heterosexual man victimized a woman, they reported more
willingness to intervene, they perceived the violence as more
serious, and they blamed the victim less than in the three remaining
conditions. This main effect, however, was qualified by the pre-
dicted interaction. As can be seen in every graph, at low levels of
gender norm endorsement, men’s responses to the violence they
read about was less influenced by the sexual orientation of the
couple or the sex of the perpetrator. As traditional gender norm
endorsement increases, we see increased differentiation of re-
sponses toward victims based on their sexual orientation and the
sex of the perpetrator.
Examining our effects within condition, consistent with our
hypotheses, the extent to which men endorsed traditional gender
norms significantly predicted increased prejudice toward gay men
and lesbian women. The effects were most consistent when the
target of the violence was a gay man. The more men endorsed
traditional gender norms, the less willing they were to intervene,
the less seriously they viewed the incident, and the more they
blamed the gay victim. Although largely in line with our hypoth-
eses, the effects overall were less consistent and strong when the
target of the violence was a lesbian woman. The more men
endorsed traditional gender norms, the less willing they were to
intervene and the less serious they perceived lesbian relationship
violence. Traditional gender norm endorsement did not predict
men’s blaming of the victim in lesbian relationship violence.
Traditional gender norm endorsement also influenced responses
in our other role violating condition—when a man was victimized
by a heterosexual woman. In this condition, endorsing traditional
gender norms predicted decreased severity and greater victim
blame but did not predict willingness to intervene in the incident.
Finally, when the victim was a heterosexual woman, men were
Willingness to intervene Victim blame
' &R2 ' &R2
.32!! .15!!
.46!! (.33!!
.13 (.01
.13 .04
(.37!! .16
.15!! .21!!
.46!! (.44!!
.27! .19
(.01 (.17
 GENDER NORMS AND SEXUAL PREJUDICE 185

7 7
Scenario Vic!m
6 β= .45* Scenario Vic!m 6
Perceived Severity

β= .77*

Vic!m Blame
5 5
Heterosexual Female Heterosexual Female
β= .38* Heterosexual Male
β= -.38* Heterosexual Male 4
4 Gay Male
Gay Male β= .03
β= -.65* Lesbian Female
Lesbian Female 3
3 β= -.41*
2
2 β= -.49*

1
1
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)

Gender Norm Endorsement Gender Norm Endorsement

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Figure 3. Study 1: Gender Norm Endorsement and Scenario Condition

Figure 1. Study 1: Gender Norm Endorsement and Scenario Condition
Moderate Victim Blame.
Moderate Perceived Severity.

more likely to view the incident as serious and less likely to blame
the victim the more they endorsed traditional gender norms. This
did not, however, translate to greater willingness to intervene on
the victim’s behalf. In sum, men’s endorsement of traditional
gender norms led to the most consistently unfavorable effects
when the victim was a gay man and the most consistently favor-
able effects when the victim was a heterosexual woman.
Study 1a
One important limitation of Study 1 is that participants may
perceive fights within same-sex couples as more “evenly matched”
and thus less dangerous. Although we took care to describe all
victims and perpetrators as equivalent in height and weight, we
conducted a simple follow-up study to rule out this possibility. In
Study 1a, we modified the scenarios to describe violence between
“two roommates who are friends”; every other aspect of the
scenario remained the same. We hypothesized no relationships
between gender norm endorsement and the dependent variables for
the same-sex violence and female-against-male scenario. Gender
norms still might play a role in perceptions of male-against-female
violence. Gender norm endorsement did not predict responses
when the altercation took place between these roommates. We
5 women’s bias.
β= .17 Scenario Vic!m
Willingness to Intervene
observed no main effect of condition (MM, FF, FM, MF), gender
norm endorsement, or the interaction (ps $ .22) on willingness to
intervene, perceived severity, or victim blame.2 When the individ-
uals involved were merely friends, gender norm endorsement did
not predict perceptions of the incident regardless of the gender of
the victim and/or perpetrator. Thus, the effect of gender norm
endorsement leading to perceiving gay and lesbian violence as less
severe has more to do with the sexuality of the couple than with a
perceived physical size or strength match between the fight par-
ticipants.
In sum, the findings from Study 1 suggest that sexual prejudice
may be rooted in individual differences in traditional gender norm
endorsement. Yet gender norm cues pervade our social world.
Media portrayals, commercials, and, perhaps most egregiously,
print advertisements perpetuate traditional gender norms in the
United States. Is it possible that we are all vulnerable to the
influence of traditional gender norms? Or is it only those who
strongly endorse these norms who are vulnerable to its bias (as
Vescio and Biernat’s, 2003, findings with family values might
suggest)? In Study 2, we take an experimental approach by prim-
ing traditional gender norms to draw more causal inferences about
the consequences of gender norm endorsement for perceptions of
victims of intimate partner violence and to examine whether subtle
gender norm cues influence these perceptions. In addition, we
attempt to further extend our findings by examining heterosexual

4
Study 2
Heterosexual Female The goal of Study 2 was to extend our previous findings and
β= -.17 Heterosexual Male lend further support to the hypothesis that gender norms moderate
3
Gay Male discrimination toward gay men and lesbian women. We primed
β= -.75* Lesbian Female
traditional gender norms (or neutral content) via advertisements
2 β= -.74* before administration of the procedure employed in Study 1.We
hypothesized that when traditional gender norms were made sa-
lient, participants would be less willing to intervene, would be
1
more likely to blame the victim, and would perceive the violence
Low (-1 SD) High (+1 SD)
as less severe in the same-sex conditions relative to a neutral
Gender Norm Endorsement prime. In contrast, when the violence was perpetrated by a man in

Figure 2. Study 1: Gender Norm Endorsement and Scenario Condition

2
Moderate Willingness to Intervene. Details of this study can be obtained from the corresponding author.
 186 WELLMAN AND MCCOY
a heterosexual relationship, we expected the gender prime to
increase willingness to intervene, decrease victim blame, and
increase perceptions of severity relative to the neutral prime,
consistent with Study 1.
There are two important reasons to include female participants
in Study 2. First, it is important to test whether the effects of
traditional gender norms on sexual prejudice extends to women or
is specific to men. As stated previously, men’s gender roles are
more rigidly prescribed. Thus, men may be more sensitive to the
gender role violation that gay men and lesbian women represent.
Second, we found stronger and more consistent effects of tradi-
tional gender norms for heterosexual men’s prejudice toward gay
men than toward lesbian women. Are gay men more targeted
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
because they violate the participant’s own gender role? If so,
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
would women be more likely to target lesbian women than gay
men following a traditional gender role prime? Thus, although our
predictions for heterosexual men are quite clear, those for hetero-
sexual women are less so.
Method
Participants. Heterosexual participants were recruited from
the university community (women, n ! 271; men, n ! 186; mean
age ! 22.76 years, SD ! 6.99) to participate in an online study for
a chance to win a $50 gift card. Participants were primarily
European American (92.4%; 2.0% African American, 3.2% Asian,
9% Latino; 1.5% Other; demographic information was assessed in
the same manner as in Study 1; 32 individuals reported a sexual
identity other than heterosexual and were thus excluded from
analysis).
Procedure. Participants were recruited via the university in-
ternal electronic mail system. Recruitment asked individuals to
participate in two brief online studies, one about reactions to print
media and the second about interpersonal interaction. “Reactions
to print media” served as the prime manipulation, which was
followed by administration of the scenario study (same procedure
as Study 1). To further the two-study ruse, participants completed
separate informed consents for each study.
Prime manipulation. Participants were asked to view a series
of magazine advertisements from popular periodicals. The gender
norm prime condition depicted men and women (no romantic
couples, no families) in traditional gender roles (e.g., a woman
dreaming of a washer/dryer; a male athlete in an action pose,
promoting an energy drink). The neutral condition consisted of
neutral product advertisements that did not contain people (e.g.,
bread advertisement showing a piece of bread, water advertisement
showing a fern and bottled water). Each participant viewed six
advertisements and evaluated them.
Prime manipulation check. Independent raters (N ! 10) rated
each advertisement on the extent to which it represented traditional
gender norms (0 ! not at all; 6 ! very much). The gender norm
advertisements were rated above the midpoint of the scale and
were significantly higher than the neutral advertisements, t(9) !
10.60, p # .05 (gender norm, M ! 4.68, SD ! .78; neutral, M !
.51, SD ! .80).
The prime manipulation was followed by reading one of the four
scenario conditions from Study 1. Participants then completed the
questionnaires in the order described below.
Measures. We used the same measures of perceived sever-
ity (" ! .88), willingness to intervene (" ! .78), and victim
blame (r ! .50, p#.001) used in Study 1.
Results
Analysis overview. A 2 (gender: male vs. female) % 2 (prime:
gender norm vs. neutral) % 4 (scenario condition: MF, FM, MM,
FF) ANOVA was conducted for each dependent variable. Details
for each analysis are presented in Table 2. We focus on the highest
order interactions below. To follow up our three-way interactions,
we examined the simple main effect of prime within each condi-
tion by gender. Means and standard deviations for all conditions
are presented in Table 3.
Primary Analysis.
Perceived severity. The three-way interaction was technically
marginally significant, F(3, 442) ! 2.53, p ! .05 (for details on
lower order effects, see Table 2).3 To test our a priori hypotheses,
we examined the Prime % Scenario effect within each gender
using the overall model error term.
For men, the Prime % Scenario interaction was significant, F(3,
442) ! 3.79, p # .01 (see Table 3). In the gay victim condition,
men primed with traditional gender norms rated the violence as
significantly less severe (M ! 1.97, SE ! .23) than men primed
with neutral content (M ! 2.73, SE ! .24), F(1, 442) ! 5.42, p #
.05; )p2 ! .02. This pattern reversed when the victim was a woman
in a heterosexual relationship (prime: M ! 4.35, SE ! .21; neutral:
M ! 3.67, SE ! .22), F(1, 442) ! 5.04, p # .05; )p2 ! .02. No
effects were observed in the remaining conditions (FM: F[1,
442] ! .97, p ! .35; FF: F[1, 442] ! .60, p ! .43).
In contrast, women’s perceptions of severity were not moderated
by the Prime % Scenario interaction, F(3, 442) ! .39, p ! .76.
Willingness to intervene. The three way interaction was sig-
nificant, F(3, 442) ! 3.77, p #.01 (for details on lower order
effects, see Table 2). To probe the interaction, we examined the
Prime % Scenario effect within each gender using the overall
model error term.
For men, the predicted Prime % Scenario interaction was sig-
nificant, F(3, 442) ! 3.26, p # .05 (see Table 3). In the gay victim
condition, men primed with traditional gender norms tended to
report lower willingness to intervene (M ! 2.72, SE ! .21) than
men in the neutral prime condition (M ! 3.35, SE ! .22), F(1,
442) ! 4.32, p # .05; )p2 ! .02. The prime also decreased
participants willingness to intervene when a man was the victim of
a woman (prime: M ! 2.39, SE ! .21; neutral: M ! 3.19, SE !
.24), F(1, 442) ! 5.02, p # .05; )p2 ! .02. No effects were
observed for the other conditions (FF: F[1, 442] ! .43, p ! .51;
MF: F[1, 442] ! 2.65, p ! .10).
In contrast to the effects observed with men, women’s willing-
ness to intervene was not moderated by the Prime % Scenario
interaction, F(3, 442) ! .86, p ! .46.
Victim blame. Although the three-way interaction was not
significant, F(3, 442) ! 1.39, p ! .25 (for details, see Table 2), we
examined the Prime % Scenario effect within each gender sepa-
rately in order to remain consistent with our previous analysis and
to test our a priori predictions for men.
3
Details on lower order effects can be obtained from the corresponding
author.
 GENDER NORMS AND SEXUAL PREJUDICE 187

Table 2
Study 2: Model Summary of Full Factorial ANOVA Analysis

Dependent variable Perceived severity Willingness to intervene Victim blame

Gender F(1, 442) ! 45.05!!

F(1, 442) ! 31.07!!
F(1, 442) ! 11.19!!
Prime F(1, 442) ! .84 F(1, 442) ! 1.16 F(1, 442) ! .05
Scenario F(3, 442) ! 30.79!! F(3, 442) ! 24.38!! F(3, 442) ! 8.89!!
Prime % Gender F(1, 442) ! .41 F(1, 442) ! 2.47 F(1, 442) ! .38
Prime % Scenario F(3, 442) ! 2.46 F(3, 442) ! .93 F(3, 442) ! 2.82!
Scenario % Gender F(3, 442) ! 7.77!! F(3, 442) ! 7.28!! F(3, 442) ! 6.96!!
Gender % Prime % Scenario F(3, 442) ! 2.53 F(3, 442) ! 3.77!! F(3, 442) ! 1.39
!
p # .05. !!
p # .01.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

For men, the predicted Prime % Scenario interaction was sig- these advertisements led to bias against gay male victims of relation-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

nificant, F(3, 422) ! 3.26, p # .05 (see Table 3). Men primed with
traditional gender norms blamed the gay victim more (M ! 3.87,
SE ! .21) compared with those primed with neutral content (M !
3.02, SE ! .25), F(1, 442) ! 4.77, p # .05; )p2 ! .02. An effect
of prime was also found when a woman was a victim of
violence from a man, such that the gender norm prime de-
creased participants victim directed blame (M ! 1.63, SE !
.22) relative to the neutral prime (M ! 2.29, SE ! .24), F(1,
442) ! 4.20, p # .05; )p2 ! .02. No effect of prime was found
for the other conditions (FM: F[1, 442] ! .35, p ! .52; FF: F[1,
176] ! .59, p ! .44).
Consistent with the previous two variables, and in contrast to the
effects reported for men, the Prime % Scenario interaction did not
moderate women’s victim blame, F(3, 263) ! .29, p ! .84.
Discussion
In Study 2, we took advantage of gender norm cues readily avail-
able in our social environment: print advertisements. Merely viewing
ship violence among heterosexual men. Consistent with the effects
observed in Study 1, heterosexual men primed with traditional gender
norms perceived gay male intimate partner violence as less serious,
were less willing to intervene and blamed the victim more than men
primed with neutral content. In contrast to Study 1, heterosexual
men’s reactions to a victim of lesbian violence were not moderated by
the traditional gender norm prime. Thus, the consequences of tradi-
tional gender norm salience for heterosexual men’s sexual prejudice
appear to be limited to gay men.
Further, women’s reactions to the scenario victims were unaf-
fected by the gender norm prime. Thus, the effects for heterosexual
men did not generalize to heterosexual women. It appears that
women’s sexual prejudice may be less rooted in traditional gender
norms. Further, if traditional gender norms make one particularly
concerned with violation of one’s own gender role, we would have
expected the gender norm prime to moderate women’s reactions to
a lesbian victim. It did not. These inconsistencies between percep-
tions of gay men and lesbian women highlight the need to distin-

Table 3
Study 2: Means and Standard Deviations by Gender, Prime, and Scenario Condition

MM FF FM MF

Perceived severity
Male
Prime 1.97 (1.57)a 2.72 (1.51)a 2.17 (1.00)a 4.35 (1.24)a
Control 2.73 (1.04)b 2.98 (1.23)a 2.47 (1.05)a 3.67 (1.16)b
Female
Prime 3.56 (.92)a 3.63 (1.13)a 3.16 (1.01)a 3.92 (.85)a
Control 3.78 (.85)a 3.57 (.97)a 3.01 (1.00)a 4.03 (.89)a
Willingness to intervene
Male
Prime 2.72 (1.34)a 2.99 (1.30)a 2.39 (1.13)a 4.48 (.78)a
Control 3.35 (1.08)b 3.19 (.92)a 3.04 (.88)b 4.03 (.97)a
Female
Prime 3.83 (.85)a 3.94 (.96)a 3.61 (.91)a 3.96 (.91)a
Control 3.82 (1.03)a 3.88 (1.08)a 3.29 (.92)a 4.17 (.91)a
Victim blame
Male
Prime 3.78 (1.46)a 2.98 (1.48)a 2.48 (1.28)a 1.63 (1.08)a
Control 3.02 (1.25)b 2.71 (1.16)a 2.67 (1.26)a 2.29 (1.19)b
Female
Prime 2.33 (1.19)a 2.37 (1.25)a 2.26 (.95)a 2.15 (1.05)a
Control 2.28 (.87)a 2.38 (1.13)a 2.52 (.77)a 2.30 (1.03)a
Note. Simple main effects with a Sidak correction were used examine differences between prime and control within gender and scenario conditions.
Different superscripts indicate significant differences between prime and control within participant gender. MM ! Gay Male Victim; FF ! Lesbian Female
Victim; FM ! Heterosexual Male Victim; MF ! Heterosexual Female Victim. p # .05.
 188 WELLMAN AND MCCOY
guish between gay and lesbian targets as well as the gender of the
participant when examining sexual prejudice.
Consistent with Study 1, we also found that heterosexual men in
the gender norm prime condition perceived the prototypical rela-
tionship violence scenario of a heterosexual female victim as more
serious and assigned marginally less victim blame. These effects
are consistent with the idea that traditional gender norms lead to
more protective responses for heterosexual female victims.
In addition, the experimental design employed bolsters causal
inferences regarding the role of traditional gender norms in bias
toward gay men. To our knowledge, this is the first study to
demonstrate that priming heterosexual men with gender norms
leads to bias against gay men.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
General Discussion
Across two studies, we found support for our hypothesis that
traditional gender norms moderate sexual prejudice among hetero-
sexual men in the form of bias primarily toward gay male victims
of intimate partner violence. Across every dependent variable in
both studies, whether primed or endorsed, gender norms led to gay
men being viewed more negatively by heterosexual men. In Study
1, traditional gender norm endorsement predicted decreased per-
ceptions of incident severity, decreased willingness to intervene,
and increased victim blame for gay male victims of relationship
violence. Study 1a ruled out the alternative explanation that gay
male violence was viewed as less severe due to a physical size/
strength match between the fight participants. Study 2 demon-
strated that when gender norms are made salient, perceptions of
incident severity decreased, willingness to intervene decreased,
and victim blame increased in the gay victim condition relative to
when these norms were not salient. Participants in the heterosexual
male victim condition showed some consistency with gay men,
further suggesting that it is the violation of gender norms that is
driving some of the bias gay men experience. Gender norm en-
dorsement was associated with decreased perceived severity and
increased victim blame (Study 1), and priming gender norms led to
reduced willingness to intervene in the heterosexual male victim
condition. The inconstancy in response suggests that gay men
represent a more severe violation of norms, which may bring about
more severe consequences for them.
Our results for heterosexual men’s reactions to lesbian victims
were less consistent. In Study 1, heterosexual men perceived the
victimization of lesbian women as less serious and were less
willing to intervene the more they endorsed traditional gender
norms. Yet, unlike gay male victims or heterosexual male victims,
lesbian victims were not viewed as more to blame the more
perceiver’s endorsed gender norms. They did, however, still re-
ceive greater blame than heterosexual female victims, on average.
Further, in Study 2, priming traditional gender norms did not
moderate heterosexual men’s willingness to intervene in, percep-
tions of severity of, or victim blame for, lesbian relationship
violence. Our effects are consistent with research demonstrating
that gay men are viewed more negatively than lesbian women
(Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Whitley, 1998) and that gay
men report more experiences with sexual prejudice than do lesbian
women (Herek, 2009). Although a prime effect for lesbians was
not witnessed, participants in the lesbian scenario consistently
found the incident less severe, were less likely to intervene, and
blamed the victim more than the heterosexual female victim.
Recent research by Hawthorne and Smith (2012) has demonstrated
that gender norm endorsement does not negatively impact percep-
tions of lesbian women in the army (a gender-role-violating occu-
pation). The inconsistencies witnessed for lesbian women may be
due to the fact that perceivers may view the lesbian condition as
either stereotype violating (e.g., women shouldn’t be aggressive or
violent) or stereotype consistent (e.g., lesbians are aggressive and
violent).
We also found that heterosexual women demonstrated less
prejudice or bias against same-sex couples than heterosexual men.
On every dependent variable, women in Study 2 demonstrated less
bias toward same-sex couples than men. Women, like men,
showed a decrease in perceived severity when the violence was
presented as between a same-sex couple. In addition, they found
female-against-male violence to be more severe than any other
condition. However, women did not demonstrate significant dif-
ferences in their willingness to intervene or blame of same-sex
couples versus the prototypical male-against-female condition.
Further, women’s reactions to gay and lesbian victims were not
moderated by the gender norm prime in Study 2. The results of
Study 2 suggest that the role of traditional gender norms in sexual
prejudice may be limited to heterosexual men’s prejudice. Few
studies have presented a combined examination of both gay and
lesbian targets by both male and female participants. Our results
make a significant contribution to our understanding of the role of
traditional gender norms in sexual prejudice. Although the idea
that gender norm violation underlies sexual prejudice is not a novel
one, our data suggest that these effects may be strongest for
heterosexual men’s prejudice toward gay men. These findings are
consistent with work demonstrating that the male gender role is
quite rigid (Bosson et al., 2009) and that men face greater social
consequences for violating their own gender role (Thompson &
Pleck, 1986). For these reasons, heterosexual men may find gay
men particularly threatening when traditional gender norms are
salient (or strongly endorsed).
In contrast to the gay and lesbian victim conditions, traditional
gender norms led to more positive reactions to the prototypical
interpersonal violence scenario among heterosexual men. When a
man victimized a woman, traditional gender norm endorsement
(Study 1) or prime (Study 2) led male participants to increase
ratings of severity and decrease victim blame. It should be noted
however, that this did not translate into an increased willingness to
intervene. Neither study suggests that those men higher in tradi-
tional gender norm endorsement or salience were more apt to
intervene to save our “damsel in distress.”
Conclusions
In examining our hypothesis regarding the role of traditional
gender norms in sexual prejudice, we have taken a multimethod
approach, examining both endorsement and salience of traditional
gender norms. Our most significant contribution to the literature
may be our prime effect in Study 2. We find that irrespective of a
heterosexual men’s own level of traditional gender norm endorse-
ment, making traditional gender norms salient led to increased
sexual prejudice toward gay men. Given that traditional gender
norm cues are rampant within North American society, this finding
 GENDER NORMS AND SEXUAL PREJUDICE
is disturbing and calls attention to a new source of potential bias
toward gay men.
Much of the research that has examined sexual prejudice has
excluded lesbian targets. Often it is assumed that the same pro-
cesses underlie prejudice toward both gay men and lesbian women.
Our findings, however, suggest this may not be the case and
highlight a need for inclusion of lesbian targets in future research.
In addition, although considerable research has been devoted to
examining gender differences in levels of sexual prejudice,
whether or not the roots of sexual prejudice are similar for both
men and women has been less well examined. At minimum, our
research suggests that men’s prejudice toward gay men may be
more influenced by subtle gender norm primes than women’s.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
The advertisements used in Study 2 are some of the more benign
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
examples of traditional gender norm cues portrayed in the media
(i.e., TV, film, billboards, print advertisements). The constant
bombardment of these gender norm cues may contribute signifi-
cantly to the discrimination gay men face at the hands of hetero-
sexual men. We have offered here the first experimental evidence,
to our knowledge, that gender norms moderate heterosexual men’s
bias against gay men. Although related research exists (family
values prime: Vescio & Biernat, 2003; gender beliefs endorse-
ment: Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006), these studies were not designed
to test the simple association between traditional gender norms and
sexual prejudice, nor did they find compelling support for our
hypothesis. Our work demonstrates that priming traditional gender
norms led to decreased perceptions of severity, decreased behav-
ioral intentions to intervene, and increased blaming of the victim,
all of which have potential real world consequences.
In recent decades, we have seen positive change in attitudes
toward gay men and lesbian women (Yang, 1997, 2001), due,
perhaps, to declines in traditional gender norm endorsement. In our
work, men low in gender norm endorsement (Study 1; left side of
all graphs) did not exhibit bias against gay and lesbian victims.
There is still a long road ahead toward eliminating the prejudice
that gay men and lesbian women face daily. The current work
suggests that interventions aimed at reducing endorsement of
traditional gender norms or reducing the prevalence of gender
norm cues may be effective in reducing some bias based on sexual
orientation.
References
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York, NY: Addison
Wesley.
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American
values: A “value congruence” approach to understanding outgroup atti-
tudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387– 410.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of
sexual orientation as a cue for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61,
783–793. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9684-7
Bosson, J. K., Vandello, J. A., Burnaford, R. M., Weaver, J. R., & Wasti,
S. (2009). Precarious manhood and displays of physical aggression.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 623– 634. doi:10.1177/
0146167208331161
Bromgard, G., & Stephan, W. G. (2006). Responses to the stigmatized:
Disjunctions in affect, cognition and behavior. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 36, 2436 –2448. doi:10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00111.x
Connolly, C., Huzurbazar, S., & Routh-McGee, T. (2000). Multiple parties
in domestic violence situations and arrest. Journal of Criminal Justice,
28, 181–188. doi:10.1016/S0047-2352(00)00034-9
189
Cruz, J. M., & Firestone, J. M. (1998). Exploring violence and abuse in gay
male relationships. Violence and Victims, 13(2), 159 –173.
Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic anti-gay prejudice
to behavior: The moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and
behavioral control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91,
268 –280. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.268
D’Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T. (2006). Childhood
gender atypicality, victimization, and PTSD among lesbian, gay, and
bisexual youth. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 1462–1482.
D’Augelli, A. R., & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a university
community: Attitudes and experiences of heterosexual freshmen. Jour-
nal of College Student Development, 31(6), 484 – 491.
Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). The structure of gender stereotypes:
Interrelationship among components and gender label. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. doi:10.1037/0022-3514
.46.5.991
Eagly, A. M. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role
interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eagly, A. M., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of
sex differenced and similarities: A current appraisal. In W. Eckes &
H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender
(pp. 123–174). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ely, G. E., Dulmus, C. N., & Wodarski, J. S. (2004). Intimate partner
violence: A literature review reflecting an international crisis. Stress,
Trauma and Crisis: An International Journal, 7, 77–91. doi:10.1080/
15434610490450860
Ficarrotto, T. J. (1990). Racism, sexism, and erotophobia: Attitudes of
heterosexuals toward homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality, 19, 111–
116. doi:10.1300/J082v19n01_07
Glaeser, E. L., & Sacerdote, B. (2003). Sentencing in homicide cases and
the role of vengeance. Journal of Legal Studies, 32, 363–382. doi:
10.1086/374707
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Dif-
ferentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
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, 1105–1118. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
Harris, R. J., & Cook, C. A. (1994). Attributions about spouse abuse: It
matters who the batterers and victims are. Sex Roles, 30, 553–565.
doi:10.1007/BF01420802
Hawthorne, L., & Smith, J. L. (2012). A few good (straight) men: Uncou-
pling the effects of gender and sexual orientation on sexual prejudice
toward Army personnel. Unpublished manuscript.
Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal
and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosex-
ual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–
825. doi:10.1177/0146167202289010
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexual’s attitudes toward lesbians and gay
men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25,
451– 477. doi:10.1080/00224498809551476
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 9, 19 –22. doi:10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the
United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61,
607– 621. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607
Herek, G. M. (2009). Sexual prejudice. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of
prejudice (pp. 441– 467). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”:
Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes to-
ward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
22, 412– 424. doi:10.1177/0146167296224007
 190 WELLMAN AND MCCOY
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual men’s attitudes toward
women and gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity.
Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 4, 37–56. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.4
.1.37
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic
racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40, 414 – 431. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414
Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A
meta-analytic review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 69 – 81. doi:
10.1300/J082v10n01_05
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality
and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11,
83–96. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1987.tb00776.x
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men
differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and meth-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
odological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orienta-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
tion: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexual-
s(pp. 39 – 61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/
9781452243818.n3
Klassen, A. D., Williams, C. J., & Levitt, E. E. (1989). Sex and morality in the
U.S.: An empirical enquiry under the auspices of the kinsey institute.
Middletown, CT, England: Wesleyan University Press, Middletown,
CT.
Lehavot, K., & Lambert, A. J. (2007). Towards a greater understanding of
antigay prejudice: On the role of sexual orientation and gender role
violation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 279 –292. doi:
10.1080/01973530701503390
Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with
nontraditional and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22, 151–166.
doi:10.1007/BF00288188
McClennen, J. C. (2005). Intimate partner violence between same-gender
partners recent findings and future research. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 20, 149 –154. doi:10.1177/0886260504268762
McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The
effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring deci-
sions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551–558. doi:
10.1177/0146167283094004
Parrott, D. J. (2009). Aggression toward gay men as gender role enforce-
ment: Effects of male role norms, sexual prejudice, and masculine
gender role stress. Journal of Personality, 77, 1137–1166. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-6494.2009.00577.x
Parrott, D. J., Peterson, J. L., Vincent, W., & Bakeman, R. (2008). Cor-
relates of anger in response to gay men: Effects of male gender role
beliefs, sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 9, 167–178. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.167
Poorman, P. B., Seelau, E. P., & Seelau, S. M. (2003). Perceptions of
domestic abuse in same- sex relationships and implications for criminal
justice and mental health responses. Violence and Victims, 18, 659 – 669.
doi:10.1891/vivi.2003.18.6.659
Poteat, V. P., & Espelage, D. L. (2005). Exploring the relation between
bullying and homophobic verbal content: The Homophobic Content
Agent Target (HCAT) Scale. Violence and Victims, 20, 513–528.
Renzetti, C. M. (1989). Building a second closet: Third party responses to
victims of lesbian partners. Family Relations: An Interdisciplinary Jour-
nal of Applied Family Studies, 38, 157–163. doi:10.2307/583669
Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Violence in lesbian and gay relationships. In L.
O’Toole & J. R. Schiffman (Eds.), Gender violence: Interdisciplinary
perspectives (pp. 285–293). New York, NY: New York University.
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and
outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Review, 10, 336 –353. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Rokeach, M. (1972). Beliefs, attitudes, and values. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
View publication stats
Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.),
Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy (pp. 53– 84). New York,
NY: Plenum Press.
Seelau, E. P., Seelau, S. M., & Poorman, P. B. (2003). Gender and
role-based perceptions of domestic abuse: Does sexual orientation mat-
ter? Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 21, 199 –214. doi:10.1002/bsl.524
Seelau, S. M., & Seelau, E. P. (2005). Gender-role stereotypes and per-
ceptions of heterosexual, gay and lesbian domestic violence. Journal of
Family Violence, 20, 363–371. doi:10.1007/s10896-005-7798-4
Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant validity of masculinity
ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117–135. doi:10.1006/
jrpe.1997.2172
Skidmore, W. C., Linsermeier, J. A., & Bailey, J. M. (2006). Gender
nonconformity and psychological distress in lesbian and gay men. Ar-
chives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 685– 697. doi:10.1007/s10508-006-
9108-5
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. (2000). An integrated threat theory of
prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Eds.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination
(pp. 23– 45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Swim, J. K., Aikin, K. J., Hall, W. S., & Hunter, B. A. (1995). Sexism and
racism: Old-fashioned and modern prejudices. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 68, 199 –214. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.199
Swim, J. K., Ferguson, M. J., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Avoiding stigma by
association: Subtle prejudice against lesbians in the form of social
distancing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21, 61– 68.
Talley, A. E., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2008). Evaluations and aggression
directed at a gay male target: The role of threat and antigay prejudice.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 647– 683. doi:10.1111/j.1559-
1816.2007.00321.x
Taylor, A. (1983). Conceptions of masculinity and femininity as a basis for
stereotypes of male and female homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality,
9, 37–53. doi:10.1300/J082v09n01_04
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The structure of male role norms.
American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 531–543. doi:10.1177/
000276486029005003
Turell, S. C. (2000). A descriptive analysis of same-sex relationship
violence for a diverse sample. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 281–293.
doi:10.1023/A:1007505619577
U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2008). Uni-
form crime report: Hate crime statistics, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Vandello, J. A., Bosson, J. K., Cohen, D., Burnaford, R. M., & Weaver,
J. R. (2008). Precarious manhood. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 1325–1339. doi:10.1037/a0012453
Vescio, T. K., & Biernat, M. (2003). Family values and antipathy toward
gay men. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33, 833– 847. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2003.tb01927.x
Waldner-Haugrud, L. K., Gratch, L., & Magruder, B. (1997). Victimization
and perpetration rates of violence in gay and lesbian relationships:
Gender issues explored. Violence and Victims, 12, 173–184.
Wynan, M. A., & Snyder, M. (1997). Attitudes toward “gays in the
military”: A functional perspective. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-
ogy, 27, 306 –329. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00634.x
Yang, A. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 61, 477–507. doi:10.1086/297810
Yang, A. S. (2001). The 2000 national election study and gay and lesbian
rights: Support for equality grows. Washington, DC: National Lesbian
and Gay Task Force.
Received August 28, 2012
Revision received January 9, 2013
Accepted January 11, 2013 !