University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

(USC Thesis Other)

Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand com er and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UM I directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ARTICULATED THOUGHTS ABOUT INTENTIONS TO COMMIT
ANTI-GAY HATE CRIMES
Copyright 2000
by
Nadine Recker
A Thesis Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
MASTER OF ARTS
(PSYCHOLOGY)
August 2000
Nadine Recker
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 1405253
___ ©
UMI
UMI Microform 1405253
Copyright 2001 by Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
Bell & Howell Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THC CRAOUATC SCHOOL
UNIVCMSITY PAJIK
LOS ANOCLSS. CALJPORMLA 1 0 0 0 7
This thesis, written by
V > adine decker____________________
under the direction o f h Thesis Committee,
and approved by a ll its members, has been pre
sented to and accepted by the Dean of The
G raduate School, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements fo r the degree of
Q F f i l e r s v ' n o
T i n t * J u ly 10, 2000
TH ESIS CO M M ITTEE
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table o f Contents
List of Tables..........................................................................................................iii
List of Figures.........................................................................................................iii
Abstract...................................................................................................................iv
Introduction............................................................................................................. 1
Method............................................ 16
Results..................................................................................................................... 25
Discussion and Implications................................................................................. 43
References...............................................................................................................54
Appendix................................................................................................................. 61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table Page
1 Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients for
Continuous Scales.................................................................................. 25
2 Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients
for Dichotomous Scales.........................................................................26
3 Intercorrelations Between STAXI Trait Anger, Anger
Control, Anger-Out, and Anger Expression Subscales.......................27
4 Summary o f Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables
Predicting Anger Directed at the Victim, Disapproval o f
the Victim, and Perpetrator Support in the Hate.................................29
5 Intercorrelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed
for the Hate Crime and Non-Hate Crime Conditions
Combined.................................................................................................30
6 Intercorrelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed
for the Hate Crime Condition................................................................ 31
7 Intercorrelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed
for the Non-Hate Crime Condition....................................................... 32
8 Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables Assessed...................33
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Intentions to protect the victim, intentions to aggress against
the perpetrator, and identification o f the situation as a hate crime
in the hate crime versus non-hate crime conditions............................ 39
2 Perceived perpetrator motivations in the hate crime
versus non-hate crime conditions......................................................... 42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract
The Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations (ATSS) paradigm was
employed in the investigation of college students’ thoughts upon confrontation with a
conspiracy to commit a sexual-orientation based hate crime versus a non-bias crime. In a
between-subjects experimental design, participants were exposed to either an audiotaped
scenario of the planning of a hate crime or a comparable non-hate crime scenario.
Participants’ articulated thoughts in response to these stimuli were content analyzed and it
was found that anti-gay attitudes played an important role in how the victim of an anti
gay hate crime was perceived. In accordance with the hypotheses, anti-gay attitudes were
predictors of anger against the hate crime victim, disapproval of the hate crime victim,
and support of the hate crime perpetrators. Additional findings and their implications, as
well as suggestions for future research are discussed.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
Introduction
Hate crimes are criminal acts thaE are perpetrated against individuals or members
of specific stigmatized groups in society where the intent of the act, in part or in whole, is
to express condemnation, hate, disapproval, dislike, or distrust for that group (Herek,
1989). The particular individual who is attacked is of far less importance than his or her
membership in the despised group of which he or she is, or is perceived to be, a member.
The disturbing incidence of hate crimes has been recognized as a societal problem that
requires both legislative and policy initiatives to combat (Herek, 1989). A significant
manifestation of inter-group violence in contemporary U.S. society is evidenced by hate-
violence perpetrated against gay men and lesbians. The problem of anti-gay hate crimes
surfaces in many domains of society, including college campuses (Stello, 1998).
The relatively short history of hate crime research in psychology has yet to
establish a comprehensive reserve of knowledge, leaving many questions unanswered.
So far, particular emphasis has been devoted to the issue of victimization and the
psychological responses to sexual orientation-based hate events (Berrill & Herek, 1992;
Garnets, Herek, & Levy, 1990; Herek, 1S>89; Herek, 1994; Leving & McDevitt, 1993).
Other studies have focused on the perpetrators of anti-gay hate crimes (Berk, Boyd, &
Hamner, 1992; Comstock, 1991; Franklin, 1998; Harry, 1992). However, at the same
time, there appears to be a scarcity of meaningful, empirically-based information about
people’s perceptions and attitudes regarding hate crimes. Knowledge concerning
people’s attitudes and perceptions about tiate crimes is crucial because in order to foster
more awareness and compassion for hate crime victims and to target distorted
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
perceptions, one first has to know what people actually think about hate crimes. Research
regarding people’s beliefs about hate crimes sheds light on the kinds of attitudes that
facilitate the occurrence of hate crimes, as well as those that discourage them. Although
a few researchers have started to address these and other issues surrounding people’s
perceptions of hate crimes (e.g., Craig, 1999; Craig & Waldo, 1996), there is no question
that more work needs to be done in this area.
The scarcity of information about people’s attitudes and perceptions about hate
crimes is especially unfortunate in the field of sexual orientation-based hate crimes, as an
analysis of these types of hate crimes is incomplete without taking into consideration the
societal context in which they occur. This paper represents an attempt to fill some of the
void in the existing literature by exploring attitudes and perceptions about anti-gay hate
crimes.
According to Herek (1993), people’s heterosexist attitudes and perceptions create
a climate that permits the occurrence of hate crimes in the first place. Therefore, hate
incidents against gays and lesbians must be understood in the larger societal context,
which tolerates and fosters heterosexism and anti-gay violence. Herek defines cultural
heterosexism as “an ideological system that denies, denigrates, and stigmatizes any
nonheterosexual form of behavior, identity, relationship, or community” (p. 150).
According to this view, hate crimes are the most extreme expression of the heterosexism
that is prevalent in American society. As such, cultural heterosexism is the ultimate
determinant of anti-gay violence because it initially defines gay people as suitable targets
in a context that tolerates violence against them.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
People’s attitudes and perceptions about sexual orientation-based hate crimes may
translate into actual consequences for victims and perpetrators on a variety of levels. For
example, conservative voter attitudes likely contribute to the fact that a number of states
still do not have hate crime laws or specifically exclude sexual orientation as a protected
group (e.g., Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee). On the other hand, voters’ attitudes that
hate crimes are more serious than comparable non-bias crimes have likely been influential
in the enactment of tougher hate crime legislation in certain other states. Hence,
identifying and understanding people’s attitudes and perceptions about anti-gay hate
crimes, and the possible impact of these perceptions on current legislation, is a crucial
first step in the development of policies aimed at creating a societal climate with zero
tolerance for hate crimes.
Obtaining a feel for people’s perceptions about anti-gay hate crimes is important
for a number of other reasons as well. For example, perceptions about hate crimes may
have an impact on the victim’s psychological adaptation after the crime. This is the case
because the nature of the societal attitudes concerning the crimes is one of the important
factors determining the climate of social support surrounding the victim. Research has
shown that the presence of social support may be a buffer that decreases the risk of
developing PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) in the aftermath of traumatic
victimization (Vemberg et al., 1996, as cited in Davison & Neale, 1998). In addition,
social support has been identified as a critical variable in the recovery of victims who
suffer from PTSD symptoms (Davison & Neale, 1998). Consequently, hate crime victims
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
who perceive support for their cause in the public may be less likely to develop PTSD
symptoms. Moreover, perceived support may aid in the recovery process of hate crime
victims who develop the disorder. Conversely, it is possible that the absence of a
supportive environment and the presence of a hostile and unsupportive social climate in
the aftermath of a hate crime may exacerbate the victim’s suffering and prolong the
recovery process.
Another compelling argument for the study of people’s attitudes and perceptions
about hate crimes concerns the reporting of hate crimes to law enforcement agencies.
Society’s attitudes about victims may be an important factor determining the frequency of
hate crime reporting to the police. The reluctance of hate crime victims to report attacks
has been documented in several studies. Herek and colleagues (in press) found that hate
crime victims are much less likely than non-bias crime victims to report crimes to the
police. His research in the Sacramento area revealed that about one-third of the victims
of sexual orientation based hate crimes reported the crimes to the police compared with
two-thirds of gay and lesbian victims of non-bias crimes. A study of anti-gay/lesbian hate
crimes in the Los Angeles area even found that more serious forms of hate crimes, such
as physical assault, assault with a deadly weapon, sexual assault, and verbal threat of
harm, were predictive of non-reportage to law enforcement (Recker & Dunbar, 1998). In
other words, some of the victims who suffer the most frequently do not turn to law
enforcement for help. As a result, violent and traumatic forms of hate crimes are more
likely to go undetected in the criminal justice system.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
The fact that hate crimes tend to be underreported presents a significant obstacle
to the study and prevention of hate crimes. Accurate hate crime reports are important for
several reasons. First, legal, financial and psychological assistance is available for
victims only when the crime is reported. Second, the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted by
the legal system if the crime is not reported to law enforcement. And finally, accurate
documentation regarding the prevalence of hate crimes, including information about the
perpetrators, victims, and situational variables, is necessary for potential policy and
legislative initiatives.
Many victims may be reluctant to report hate crimes because of a perceived lack
of support for their cause by the general public and among law enforcement officials.
Research has documented a significant degree of mistrust of the police among gay and
lesbian hate crime victims. Comstock (1991) found that 67% of gay and lesbian hate
crime victims who declined to file a police report had experienced or perceived the police
to be anti-gay. This phenomenon, which is known as secondary victimization and is
well-established in the rape literature (e.g., Write, 1991), typically refers to the fact that
sometimes a crime victim feels maltreated all over again by the police. However,
secondary victimization is not limited to discriminatory treatment by the law enforcement
system. Gay hate crime victims, just like rape victims, may also feel victimized all over
again as a result of the (negative) reactions of other people around them. Hence, victims’
fear and the desire to avoid secondary victimization may explain why so many of them
are reluctant to seek assistance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
The Present Study
The present study investigates college students’ perceptions about anti-gay hate
crimes. In particular, it compares the perceptions people form of an anti-gay hate crime
that is being planned by two fellow students with the perceptions they form of the
planning of a comparable non-hate crime. In this context, a non-hate crime is defined as
a violent act against a person that is, unlike a hate crime, not motivated by the victim’s
sexual orientation. Hence, we are interested in distinguishing between people’s reactions
to crimes generally and their unique impressions created as a result of anti-gay hate
crimes.
This study focuses specifically on hate crimes against gay men. It is important to
clarify that we did not decide to focus our attention on this particular subgroup of victims
because we believe they deserve more attention than other hate crime victims. Rather, we
were motivated by the desire to provide a detailed, in-depth look at the context
surrounding one specific victimized group. Investigating the broad question of what
people think about all types of hate crimes in this country would involve asking questions
about what they think about Jews, lesbians, immigrants, Asians, people with disabilities,
and many others. In most cases, obtaining answers to these questions would involve
detailed accounts of unique, century-old prejudices for each group. Accordingly, for the
purpose of accuracy, we decided it would be prudent to focus on one victimized group
only. This approach allowed us to pay special attention to the issues most relevant to this
group.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
The people providing their perceptions about anti-gay hate crimes in our study
were college students who, unlike in other studies, were not chosen simply because of
convenience. Inquiring about college students’ perceptions about hate crimes appears to
be a highly sensible approach since these crimes often occur on college campuses (e.g.,
D’Augelli, 1989; Medina, 1999; Stello, 1998). In fact, studies on hate crime perpetration
have found that fellow students of hate crime victims were the second most frequently
reported perpetrators (Comstock, 1991). Although only 13% of all hate crime
perpetrators were identified as students, compared to 66% as unknown, this figure
nevertheless highlights the significance of the problem in educational institutions,
including college campuses.
Predictors of perceptions about hate crimes. This study focuses on the nature of
young people’s perceptions about anti-gay hate crimes and how these perceptions relate
to anti-gay attitudes and anger proneness. Anti-gay attitudes constitute an important
variable in this context because people’s perceptions concerning hate crimes are likely
influenced by their underlying negative attitudes about homosexuals. If negative attitudes
toward gays indeed turn out to be a predictor of certain perceptions about hate crimes, as
is hypothesized by this study, one can eventually start promoting more empathy and
understanding for anti-gay hate crime victims by targeting people’s general attitudes
toward gays.
This study employs Herek’s (1984) Attitudes Toward Gay Scale-Short Version for
the assessment of participants’ attitudes toward homosexual men. According to its
author, the ATG scale measures people’s personal feelings toward homosexuals. It taps
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
into the extent to which people object to homosexuality or consider i t morally wrong. It
is important to note that it does not assess stereotypes people may hold about gays or
whether or not gays should enjoy the same civil rights and privileges -as heterosexuals.
The scale’s conceptualization of attitudes toward gays that provides the basis for
the ATG differs considerably from the original notion of homophobia^ which is based on
the psychodynamic understanding of hatred toward homosexuals as a rejection of one’s
own homoerotic desires. The ATG was conceptualized in an alternative paradigm which
is also utilized by the present study. According to this relatively new viewpoint currently
dominating theory and research, anti-gay attitudes and behavior are considered to be a
rejection of members of an outgroup. Consequently, the scale is an assessment
instrument comparable to other contemporary measures of intergroup attitudes, e.g.
racism or anti-Semitism scales.
In addition to attitudes toward gays, this study explores whether people’s general
anger-proneness is related to their perceptions of hate crimes. Patel, Cong, McCammon,
and Wuensch (1995) pointed out a relationship between personality variables related to
anger expression and homophobic behavior. They found that elevated MMPI scale 9
(“mania scale”) scores are characteristic of individuals who tend to aggress against gays.
They describe the typical individual with an elevated scale 9 as a person being easily
bored, having low frustration tolerance, narcissistic, having difficulty in inhibiting
expression of impulses, being thrill seekers, and having periods of irriLtability,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
restlessness, hostility, and aggressive outbursts. Thus, they conclude that hate crime
perpetrators appear to possess a personality that predisposes them to angry outbursts of
aggression.
However, with the exception of the study by Patel et al. (1995), research has failed
to analyze the relationship between a perpetrator’s propensity for aggression and the
occurrence of anti-gay hate violence. Moreover, no information exists on the relationship
between anger and people’s perceptions about hate crimes. The present study seeks to fill
the latter void in the existing knowledge by investigating whether anger proneness plays a
role in how people perceive hate crimes. We were interested in the role of anger-
proneness as a predictor of perceptions about hate crimes, specifically anger directed
toward the victim. An important issue was whether anger-proneness would be a stronger
predictor of anger directed at a hate crime victim than of anger directed at a non-hate
crime victim. In addition, we investigated the possible interactions of anger-proneness
and anti-gay attitudes. Since anger-proneness was included in the study solely for
exploratory purposes, no specific hypotheses were formulated with regard to the
relationship of participants’ anger proneness and their respective perceptions about hate
crimes.
Investigating perceptions about anti-gay hate crimes via the on-line assessment of
cognitions. This study employs a multi-method approach that involves both paper and
pencil measures, as well as an assessment paradigm that allows for open-ended, “on line”
responses. Participants’ anti-gay attitudes and anger proneness were assessed with paper
and pencil questionnaires, whereas their perceptions about hate crimes were investigated
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
via the cognitive assessment paradigm called ATSS (articulated thoughts in simulated
situations paradigm). ATSS was developed by Davison, Robins, and Johnson (1983) as
an alternative assessment method that circumvents many problems associated with
traditional (paper-and-pencil) measures of cognitive assessment. The ATSS paradigm is
a think-aloud approach that enables researchers to assess participants’ cognitions “on
line.” The immediate assessment of people’s thoughts and perceptions, which does not
allow much time for thought censoring, makes ATSS an ideal paradigm for the
investigation of sensitive topics, such as hate crimes. Furthermore, it has been noted that
ATSS is particularly useful when relatively little is known about the cognitive terrain of
interest (Davison, Vogel, & Coffman, 1997), as is the case in the present study.
ATSS has been successfully employed in the study of a variety of psychological
issues, including marital and family conflict (e.g., Eckhardt, Barbour, & Davison, 1996;
Eckhardt, Barbour, Wilson, & Davison, 1996; Eckhardt, Barbour, Wilson, Davison,
Kandies, et al., 1996), hypertension and anger (e.g., Davison, Williams, Nezami, Bice, &
DeQuattro, 1991; Williams, Davison, Nezami, & DeQuattro, 1992), anxiety and
depression (Davison, Haaga, Rosenbaum, Dolezal, & Weinstein, 1991; White, Davison,
Haaga, & White, 1992), and smoking cessation (Haaga, Davison, McDermut, Hillis, &
Twomey, 1993; Haaga & Steward, 1992).
In the typical ATSS procedure, participants are presented with audio-taped
scenarios. Each scenario is split up into several segments to allow blocks of time (30
seconds) in between segments for participants to verbalize their thoughts. Participants
are instructed to imagine themselves in the situation presented on tape and to articulate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
11
their thoughts during the segment breaks. Their articulated thoughts are tape-recorded
and later transcribed for content analysis.
In the present study, which employed a between-subjects experimental design,
participants were exposed via audio-tape to either a fictional scenario about an anti-gay
hate crime that was being planned or a comparable scenario about two students planning
a non-bias crime. Participants were instructed to imagine overhearing a conversation
between two fellow students who are discussing a plan to commit a crime against another
student. At the time of the overheard conversation, no actual crime has been committed;
however, if the perpetrators in the scenario follow through with their intentions, as they
point out they will, there will be a crime in the near future. Thus, we labeled the
condition with the intended gay victim the “hate crime scenario,” and the control scenario
with the intended heterosexual victim the “non-hate crime scenario.”
Participants’ verbalized thoughts in response to these scenarios were transcribed
and content analyzed according to the dependent variables of interest, which are
described in the following sections.
Perceptions About Anti-Gav Hate Crimes: Dimensions Assessed
Anger at the victim. This coding dimension assessed the intensity of participants’
anger directed at the victim depicted in the scenario. The investigation of anger directed
at the victim was considered a crucial dimension since, in combination with other
variables examined, such as support of the perpetrator, it provides insight into the extent
to which people ascribe blame to the victim. We hypothesized that highly anti-gay
individuals, as assessed by questionnaires, would exhibit significantly more anger toward
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
the hate crim e victim than non-prejudiced individuals. Anti-gay attitudes were expected
to have no predictive relationship to anger at the victim in the non-hate crime scenario.
Support and disapproval of the victim. These dependent variables assessed the
degree to wtiich people sympathized with the victim’s actions and beliefs and the degree
to which people disapproved of them. We hypothesized that people with highly anti-gay
attitudes w ould be less supportive and more disapproving of the hate crime victim.
Conversely, we expected no relationship between anti-gay attitudes and support and
disapproval of the victim in the non-hate crime scenario.
Support and disapproval of the perpetrator. We examined the degree to which
people sympathized with the perpetrators’ actions and beliefs and the degree to which
people disapproved of them. We hypothesized that people with highly anti-gay attitudes
would be m ore supportive and less disapproving of the hate crime perpetrators. On the
other hand, w e expected no relationship between anti-gay attitudes and support and
disapproval of the perpetrators in the non-hate crime scenario.
Intentions to protect the victim. We analyzed people’s intentions to intervene and
take steps to protect the victim because we were interested in whether bystanders or
witnesses, ju s t like victims of hate crimes, would experience reluctance to report the
crime or intervene in any way. The goal was to assess how supportive witnesses of hate
crimes really are when it comes to taking actual steps to protect the victim. Do hate
crime victim s have reason to believe that most people are apathetic bystanders with
respect to hate violence? We hypothesized that people with anti-gay attitudes would be
less likely to intervene in the hate crime scenario than in the non-hate crime scenario. On
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
the other hand, we predicted that people with positive attitudes toward gays would be
equally likely to protect the hate crime and the non-hate crime victim. Furthermore, it
was hypothesized that intentions to protect the hate crime victim would be related to the
kinds of perceptions formulated in response to the scenario, e.g., the degree of anger at
the hate crime victim or disagreement with the hate crime victim. Specifically, we
expected people who were angry or disapproving of the hate crime victim to be less likely
to intervene.
Intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator. A common fallacy
regarding hate crime victimization is that the consequences of hate motivated incidents
are assumed to be psychologically and geographically confined to the immediate
situation. However, hate victimization appears to have far-reaching effects on both the
individual victim and society because hate crimes are likely to provoke retaliatory crimes
and incite community unrest (Barnes & Ephross, 1994). Our study investigated whether
hate crimes indeed provoke more aggression than non-bias crimes. In accordance with
prior research, we hypothesized that the anti-gay hate crime scenario would elicit more
intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator than the non-bias crime scenario.
We predicted that this would be the case for all subjects regardless of their level of anti
gay attitudes toward gays.
Identification of the situation as a hate crime. In addition, this study explored
whether people would spontaneously identify a hate crime when confronted with one.
Due to recent coverage of hate crimes in the national and local media (e.g., the anti-gay
hate crime against Matthew Sheppard in Wyoming, Bufford Furrow’s shooting rampage
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
14
at a Jewish day care center in Los Angeles, and numerous other high profile cases), as
well as highly publicized legislative measures (e.g., the Hate Crimes Statistics Act), we
believed that it was reasonable to hypothesize that the issue of hate crimes would be
relatively present in people’s minds. Hence, we predicted that participants would more
frequently correctly identify the hate crime scenario as a hate crime than falsely classify
the non-hate crime scenario as a hate crime.
Perceived perpetrator motivations. This aspect of the study was designed to
investigate the causes that people attribute to the perpetrators’ behavior in both an anti
gay hate crime and a comparable non-bias crime. We assessed the types of spontaneous
explanations people provided for the perpetrators’ behavior. Due to the exploratory
nature of this part of the study, no specific hypotheses were formulated.
The coding dimensions pertaining to perceived perpetrator motivations reflected
several issues that have been recognized in the literature as playing a role in motivating
anti-gay hate crimes. We were interested in the extent to which people perceived the
perpetrators’ behavior as being influenced by these factors. For example, we explored
whether participants attributed the perpetrators’ behavior to repressed homosexual
impulses, as has been hypothesized in the psychoanalytic tradition (West, 1977, as quoted
in Davison & Neale, 1998, chap. 14). In addition, in light of Herek’s (1994) finding that
hostile attitudes toward gays are predicted by the endorsement of high religiosity and
political conservatism, we examined whether high religiosity and ideology were
perceived as motivating factors. An additional influence was Franklin’s (1998) proposal
that dynamic group processes play a major role in anti-gay/lesbian violence. Franklin
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
reports that certain prohibited acts, in this case hate crimes against gays and lesbians,
provide social status for group members who have no other means of attaining such
status. Moreover, and not insignificantly, Franklin found that these behaviors function to
alleviate boredom in the group. Therefore, we evaluated whether ignorant feelings of
superiority over the victim and boredom were perceived as motivating the anti-gay hate
crime in our scenario. We also assessed whether insecurity and fear were perceived
motivators, as prejudicial behavior may in some cases be a manifestation of underlying
feelings of anxiety or insecurity (Myers, 1996; Sullaway & Dunbar, 1996). Finally, we
investigated whether the perpetrators’ behavior was regarded as a result of jealousy of the
victim.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
Method
Participants
A total of 92 University of Southern California (“USC”) undergraduate students
( 37 men and 53 women) participated in this study. Their mean age was 20.9
years fSD = 3.34). Ttiirty-nine percent of the participants were CaucasianAVhite, 23 %
were Latino/a, 19 % w ere Asian American, 5 % were Middle Eastern, 4% were African-
American, and 7 % indicated they were members of other ethnic groups. Three
participants did not report their race/ethnicity on the demographics questionnaire.
Ninety-two percent o f the participants stated they were heterosexual, whereas 2 %
indicated their sexual orientation was homosexual and 3 % bisexual (2 students declined
to respond to this item ). Participants were recruited with the assistance of the University
of Southern California psychology department human subjects pool and received class
extra credit for their participation.
Measures
In order to avoid priming the participants to anti-gay issues and to decrease
potential social desirability bias on the anger scales, all questionnaires were administered
separately in time from the experiment. The questionnaires were handed out to
participants as part o f the USC psychology department subject pool pre-measures
questionnaire packet, which is a collection of paper and pencil measures inquiring about a
variety of different topics. This questionnaire packet is filled out by all undergraduate
subject pool participants at the beginning of each semester. Hence, any obvious
connection between th e questionnaires and the experiment was avoided.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
Demographics questionnaire. Participants were asked to provide personal
information on gender, age, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation.
Attitudes Toward Gav Men Scale - Short Form eATG-Sl. In order to assess their
attitudes toward male homosexuals, participants were asked to complete the Attitudes
Toward Gay Men scale - short form (ATG-S Herek, 1984). The short version of the ATG
scale contains a subset of items of the longer version. The validity and reliability of the
ATG and its short version have been demonstrated in numerous studies with different
populations, including college students (e.g., Herek, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993a,
1993b). The short scale consists of five attitude statements concerning gays which
participants rate on a six-point scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Participants completed selected
portions the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI, Spielberger, 1996). The
STAXI has proved useful in the assessment of the experience, expression, and control of
anger in normal and abnormal individuals (Deffenbacher, 1992; Moses, 1992). STAXI
subscales that were of special interest here are (a) the trait anger scale which assesses a
person’s general “anger proneness,” (b) the anger expression subscale which assesses the
general tendency to experience intense angry feelings, which may be suppressed,
expressed in aggressive behavior, or both, (c ) the anger-out subscale which assesses a
person’s tendency to express anger in aggressive behavior directed toward other persons
or objects, and (d) the anger control subscale, which measures the extent to which a
person invests in controlling and preventing the experience of anger.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
Procedure
The experimental ATSS procedure was administered in the ATSS laboratory at
USC by either the author or one of two highly trained undergraduate research assistants.
Upon arrival in the ATSS laboratory, participants were asked to read and sign an
informed consent form. At this time the experimenter provided a brief overview of the
ATSS procedure and answered any questions. Next, the participant listened to tape-
recorded instructions that further explained the ATSS procedure. Following the
instructions, the participant, assisted by the experimenter, practiced the procedure with a
sample tape. The sample tape instructed the participant to imagine him- or herself
overhearing two acquaintances talking negatively about him or her. After ensuring that
the participant fully comprehended the instructions, the ATSS procedure began and the
experimenter left the room to ensure privacy and the likelihood of uncensored
responding.
ATSS Scenarios
The study employed a between subjects design. This means that during the ATSS
procedure, each participant was randomly assigned to listen to either a scenario about an
anti-gay hate crime or a scenario about a non-hate crime. Forty-seven participants (51%)
listened to the hate crime tape, while 45 participants (49%) listened to the non-hate crime
tape. Each scenario (thematically unrelated scenario, hate crime scenario, and non-hate
crime scenario) was composed of seven segments (see Appendix for scenarios). The
dialogues of the two experimental tapes were identical except fo r slight changes in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
content that reflected the hate crime component. In addition to one of the experimental
tapes, each subject listened to a neutral, thematically unrelated introductory scenario.
Introductory scenario about a neutral topic. In the neutral introductory scenario
the participant was- asked to imagine that he or she overhears a discussion between two
fellow students about a boring professor. This scenario was administered before the actual
stimulus tape to alL participants in order to ensure complete comfort and familiarity with
the method.
Hate crime scenario. In the hate crime scenario, the participant was exposed to a
conversation between two fellow students about a hate crime the two students are
planning to com m it against another student. In the scenario, the participant is instructed
to imagine overhearing a conversation between two fellow college students that takes
place in the laundry room of their apartment building. The students overheard are talking
about how much they hate their gay neighbor. They point out that he frequently invites
other gay men over to his apartment for parties and often displays physical affection
toward them in public. They state that they consider his behavior immoral and dangerous
for various reasons-, such as religion and the threat of AIDS. Eventually, they create a
plan to get rid of their gay neighbor by writing him a threatening anonymous letter. If
that does not cause him to leave, they decide, they will beat him up. The planned crime
depicted in this sc&nario qualifies as a hate crime because the victim is targeted by the
perpetrators specifically due to his membership in a protected group (i.e., gays).
Non-hate crime scenario. In the non-hate crime scenario, the participants were
instructed to imagine overhearing a conversation in the laundry room between two fellow
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
students about a crime the two students are planning to commit against another
(heterosexual) student. They share the same concerns as the students in the hate crime
tape. However, the main reason for their anger is not the student’s homosexuality, as the
person targeted in this scenario is clearly heterosexual. For example, the perpetrators in
this condition are angry at the student for having lots of women over at his apartment all
the time. Eventually, they decide to make this student leave in a manner identical to the
perpetrators in the hate crime scenario. Again, while the perpetrators in this scenario
dislike their target for various reasons, it is not because of his racial, ethnic, religious, or
sexual orientation status. Hence, the planned crime depicted in the scenario does not
qualify as a hate crime since the victim is not targeted because of his membership in any
protected group.
Debriefing. All participants were debriefed at the end of the procedure. The
experimenter reassured them that all the scenarios were entirely fictional and answered
any questions they had about the study.
ATSS Transcription and Coding of the Dependent Variables
This study’s primary objective was to gain insight into the participants’ cognitive
reactions toward the hate crime victim depicted in the ATSS scenario. In particular, this
study focused on participants’ angry thoughts directed at the victim. Thus, a coding
scheme was developed for anger directed at the victim. Coding for articulated thoughts
involving anger has been successfully employed in a variety of previous ATSS studies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
(e.g., Davison, Williams, Nezami, Bice, & Dequattro, 1991; Williams, Davison, Nezami,
& DeQuattro, 1992).
In addition, this study assessed the extent to which participants disagreed or
agreed with both the victim and the perpetrator in the scenario. Furthermore, we assessed
certain dimensions related to perceived perpetrator motivations and examined whether the
scenario was identified as a hate crime, whether the participant was planning to intervene
to protect the victim, and whether the participant voiced intentions to aggress against the
perpetrator.
Two undergraduate research assistants who received extensive training in ATSS
coding transcribed the tapes. After the establishment of the coders’ inter-rater reliability
(see result section), the tapes were divided between them for the purpose of content
analysis. Detailed information about each coding dimension is provided in the following
section.
Anger at the victim. This coding dimension reflects the participants’ intensity of
anger directed at the victim. Tone of voice, frequency of words evidencing emotion, such
as angry, mad, furious, enraged, etc., and other content reflecting an angry mood state are
taken into account when rating the subject on this dimension. Anger ratings range from 0
(not at all angry) to 1 0 (very angry/furious) for each segment and are summed to obtain a
total score for the entire scenario. Examples of statements reflecting anger are ‘This
really pisses me off!” or “These guys are really making me angry.”
Agreement with the Victim. For each of the seven segments of the scenario, a
rating of “yes” (= 1) or “no” ( = 0 ) assessed whether the participant stated any kind of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
agreement/ support for the victim. Therefore, total victim support scores for the entire
scenario could range from 0 to 7. This coding dimension was intended to reflect the
extent to which participants directly supported or agreed with the victim’s lifestyle,
actions mentioned in the scenario, or views, versus being simply indifferent. Examples of
statements reflecting support of the victim are “I believe he has the right to invite
whomever he wants to his place,” or “He’s a courageous guy.”
Disapproval of the victim. On the other hand, in each segment of the scenario, a
rating of “yes” ( = 1 ) or “no” ( = 0 ) assessed whether the participant stated any type of
disagreement or disapproval of the victim. Consequently, summed victim disagreement
scores for the entire scenario could range from 0 to 7. This coding dimension was
intended to reflect the extent to which participants directly disagreed or disapproved of
the victim’s lifestyle, actions mentioned in the scenario, or views, versus being simply
indifferent. Examples of statements reflecting disagreement with the victim are “I think
he should not kiss other guys in public,” or “I think gays are morally wrong.”
Agreement with the perpetrator. In each segment of the scenario, a rating of “yes”
( = 1) or “no” ( = 0 ) assessed whether the participant stated agreement/support for the
perpetrator. Hence, total perpetrator support scores for the entire scenario could range
from 0 to 7. This coding dimension was intended to reflect the extent to which
participants directly supported or agreed with the perpetrators’ lifestyle, actions
mentioned in the scenario, or views, versus being simply indifferent. Examples of
statements reflecting support of the perpetrators are “I totally understand why they are so
pissed-off,” “I think they are doing the right thing by wanting him to leave.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
Disapproval o f the perpetrator. On the other hand, in each segment of the
scenario, a rating of “yes” (= 1) or “no” (= 0 ) assessed whether the participant in any
way disagreed or disapproved of the perpetrator. Again, total perpetrator disagreement
scores for the entire scenario ranged from 0 to 7. This coding dimension was intended to
reflect the extent to which participants directly disagreed or disapproved of the
perpetrators’ lifestyle, actions mentioned in the scenario, or views, versus being simply
indifferent. Examples of statements reflecting disagreement with the perpetrators are
“They are so wrong!” “How can they be so ignorant?” or “I think their actions are not
going to solve anything.”
Intentions to protect the victim. The study also explored whether the participants
mentioned any intentions or plans to protect the victim in the scenario. Examples of this
include plans to warn the victim, calling the police, or informing the apartment manager.
Intentions to physical aggress against the perpetrator. In addition, this study
examined whether th e participants articulated any intentions to physically aggress against
the perpetrator. Examples of this include verbalizations such as “I am going to beat up
these guys,” or “I feel like smashing their faces.”
Identification o f the situation as a hate crime. It was noted whether the participant
identified the incident as a hate crime at any point throughout the scenario.
Perceived perpetrator motivations. The content of participants’ verbalizations was
also analyzed for perceived perpetrator intentions. It was assessed whether the subject
believed that the perpetrators acted as a result of their (a) ignorance and feelings of
superiority over the victim (for example, by stating “They are so narrow-minded!” or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
“Why do they think they are so much better than the guy?”), (b) religious beliefs (e.g.,
“These guys are religious fanatics.”), (c) jealousy of the victim (e.g., “They are just
jealous that they are never invited anywhere.”), (d) own homosexuality (e.g., “I think
these guys are into each other.”), (e) hate ideology (e.g., ‘They must belong to the
KKK.”), (f) insecurity and fear (e.g., “I think these guys are really afraid of the gay guy.”),
or (g) boredom (e.g., “These guys are losers. They just don’t know what else to do with
their time.”). A present/absent rating for each motivation category indicated whether the
subject mentioned any of these perpetrator motivations at any point throughout the
scenario.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
Results
Inter-Rater Reliability
To ascertain inter-rater reliability for the frequency-coded scales, i.e., anger
directed at the victim, support for the victim, disapproval of the victim, support for the
perpetrator, and disapproval of the perpetrator, consistency intra-class correlation
coefficients were calculated for the first 16 % o f tapes which were coded by both coders.
As displayed in table 1, inter-rater reliability was in the superior range for all variables,
ranging from .84 to 1.00.
Table 1: Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients for Continuous Scales
Intra-Class
Correlation Coefficient*
Victim Anger .98
Victim Support .84
Victim Disapproval 1.0
Perpetrator Support 1.0
Perpetrator Disapproval__________________ .94
Note*. All correlations significant at the p < .001 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
To assess inter-rater reliability for the dichotomous dependent variables, i.e., the
variables which received a ‘“present” or “absent” rating (perceived perpetrator
motivations, intentions to protect the victim, intentions to aggress against the
perpetrators, and whether a lhate crime was identified), Cohen’s Kappa measures of
agreement were calculated fo r the same 16 tapes. As displayed in table 2, inter-rater
reliability was again in the s-uperior range, with kappas ranging from .76 to 1.0.
Table 2: Inter-Rater Reliability Coefficients for Dichotomous Scales
Kappa*
Homosexuality
Perceived Perpetrator Motivations
.76
Insecurity/Fear 1 . 0
Ignorance .84
Boredom .76
Hate Ideology 1 . 0
Religion 1 .0
Jealousy 1 . 0
Intentions to Protect
Other Dimensions
.73
Victim
Intentions to Aggress agains-t
Perpetrator 1 . 0
Mention of Hate Crime 1 . 0
Note*. All coefficients were significant at the p<.01 level or better.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Anger Index
To facilitate interpretation of the role of anger, the scale scores of the STAXI trait
anger, anger control, anger-out, and anger expression subscales were converted to z-
scores and combined into a general anger index. This approach was sensible due to the
relatively high correlations among the STAXI scales of interest (coefficients ranging from
.466 to .770, see correlation matrix in table 3).
Table 3: Intercorrelations Between STAXI Trait Anger. Anger Control. Anger-Out, and
Anger Expression Subscales
STAXI Subscale 1. 2. 3. 4.
1. Trait Anger — -.454* .518* .518*
2. Anger Control — -.466* -.770*
3. Anger-Out — .660*
4. Anger Expression_______________________________________________—
Note. * Correlation significant at the p < .01 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Multiple Regression Analyses for Continuous Dependent Variables
The questionnaire-based predictors anger and anti-gay attitudes were entered into
multiple regression models for the hate crime and the non-hate crime conditions. With
regard to the hate crime condition, attitudes toward gays proved to be an important
variable in the prediction of the following ATSS variables: participants’ anger directed at
the hate crime victim, disapproval of the victim, and support of the perpetrators.
Participants’ questionnaire-based anger-proneness turned out to be predictive with regard
to articulated anger at the victim. A summary of the multiple regression analyses for
variables predicting anger directed at the victim, disapproval of the victim, and
perpetrator support in the hate crime condition is provided in table 4. The table provides
an overview of the significant beta weights in the hate crime condition and also shows the
variance accounted for (R2 ) for each dependent variable of interest.
Additional tables are presented in order to provide a general overview of the data.
Table 5 displays a correlation matrix which provides an overview of the intercorrelations
of all continuous variables assessed for the hate crime and non-hate crime condition
combined. Table 6 presents the same matrix for the hate crime condition only, and table
7 for the non-hate crime condition. Descriptive statistics for all continuous variables are
displayed in table 8 for the hate crime and non-hate crime condition combined, for the
hate crime condition only, and for the non-hate crime condition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
Table 4: Summary of Multiple Regression Analyses for Variables Predicting Anger
Directed at theVictim. Disapproval of the Victim, and Perpetrator Support in the Hate
Crime Condition
Dependent Variables
Victim Victim Perpetrator
Anger (R2 = .64) Disapproval (R2 = .13) Support (Rj= .23)
Predictors B SEB (3 B SE B (3 J3 SE B ( 3
Attitudes
toward Gays .05 .024 .253* .027 .011 .40* .057 .017 .504*
Anger Index .153 .052 .338 NS NS
ATG X Anger .924
Interaction
.167 .635* NS NS
Note. NS = non-significant. * Beta weights significantly different from corresponding
weights in the non-hate crime condition (p < .05). able 5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
Table 5: IntercorTelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed for the Hate Crime
and Non-Hate Crime Conditions Combined
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6 . 7.
1. Attitudes Toward Gays — .161 .336** .10
331**
.309** -.16
2. Anger Index .008 .015 -.006 .105 .076
3. Anger at the Victim -.014
7 9 7 **
.332* - -.437**
4. Support of the Victim — .1 1 2 .249* -.248*
5. Disapproval of the Victim — .282** -.426**
6 . Support of the Perpetrators — -.422**
7. Disapproval of the Perpetrators —
Note. * Correlation significant at the p < .05 level. ** Correlation significant at the
p < .0 1 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
Table 6 : Intercorrelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed for the Hate Crime
Condition
Variable 1. 2 . 3. 4. 5. 6 . 7.
1. Attitudes Toward Gays .229 .543** .173 .501** .578** -.050
2. Anger Index — .148 .030 .124 .144 .056
3. Anger at the Victim — - .1 0 1 .570** .463** -.265
4. Support of the Victim — .143
.4 9 4 **
-.333*
5. Disapproval of the Victim — .451** -.300*
6 . Support of the Perpetrators — -.290*
7. Disapproval of the Perpetrators —
Note. * Correlation significant at the p < .05 level. ** Correlation significant at the
p < . 0 1 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Table 7: Intercorrelations Between Continuous Variables Assessed for the Non-Hate
Crime Condition
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Attitudes Toward Gays — .068 .178 .028 .261 .069 -.303*
2. Anger Index — -.108 .039 -.080 .062 .103
3. Anger at the Victim — .084 .912** .226 -.643
4. Support of the Victim — .113 -.120 -.098
5. Disapproval of the Victim — .203 -.584**
6. Support of the Perpetrators — -.617**
7. Disapproval of the Perpetrators —
Note. * Correlation significant at the p < .05 level. ** Correlation significant at the
p < . 0 1 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8: Descriptive Statistics for Continuous Variables Assessed.
Hate Crime and Non-Hate
Crime Combined (N = 92) Hate Crime (N = 47) Non-Hate Crime (N = 45)
Variable___________ M SD Min. Max.________ M SD Min. Max._________M SD Min. Max.
ATG-S 14.23 7.21 5.0 30.0 13.42 7.23 5.0 30.0 15.05 7.19 5.0 30.0
Anger Index .003 3.31 -7.89 8.22 -.52 3.29 -7.98 6.25 .50 3.30 -6.23 8.22
Anger at .74 2.81 .00 19.0 .65 2.47 .00 14.0 .82 3.15 .00 19.0
Victim
Support of .50 .86 .00 4.0 .58 .97 .00 4.0 .42 .72 .00 3.0
Victim
Disapproval .23 .74 .00 6.0 .21 .51 .00 2.0 .24 .93 .00 6.0
of Victim
Support of .59 .93 .00 4.0 .58 .97 .00 4.0 .60 .89 .00 3.0
Perpetrators
Disapproval of 6.20 1.39 .00 7.0 6.19 1.56 .00 7.00 6.2 1.22 2.0 7.0
C O
C O
34
Anger and anti-gay attitudes turned out to be insignificant in the prediction of
disapproval of the perpetrator and support of the victim in both the hate crime and non
hate crime scenarios. Examination of the data revealed a restricted range in participants’
responses in these coding categories. Eighty-two percent of all participants had a
perpetrator disapproval score of 6 or higher (out of a scale ranging from 0 to 7). Eighty-
eight percent of all participants had a victim support score of one or zero (out of a scale
ranging from 0 to 7).
Anger at the victim. Participants’ anti-gay attitude score, anger index score, as
well as the interaction of anti-gay attitudes and anger (all assessed via questionnaires)
were entered as predictors into separate regression models for the hate crime and the non
hate crime conditions, predicting articulated thoughts reflecting anger directed at the
victim. For the hate crime condition, the regression was significant with all three
predictors in the model (F (3,32) = 21.09, p < .001), and accounted for 65% of the
variance in the victim anger score (adjusted Rr = .65). However, for the non-hate crime
condition, neither the model nor any of the beta weights were significant.
For the hate crime condition, the interaction term of anti-gay attitudes and anger
evidenced the strongest predictive relationship with the dependent variable ((3 = .626, p <
.001). This beta weight was a significantly greater predictor than the corresponding beta
of -.199 (p < .31) in the non-hate crime condition (L(l,32) = 2.25, p < .025). The second
highest predictor was the anger index ((3 = .349, p < .003), but this beta weight was not
significantly different from the corresponding beta in the non-hate crime condition. The
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
beta weight for anti-gay attitudes was .254 (p < .032), which was significantly higher than
the -.194 beta weight (p < .308) for anti-gay attitudes in the non-hate crime condition (t
(1,32) = 2.02, e < -05).
To examine the direction of the interaction between anger index score and anti
gay attitudes in the hate crime condition, high and low anti-gay attitude groups were
created for the hate crime condition by performing a median split of the cases depending
on participants’ score on the ATG scale. Since the median of the ATG scale was 13,
participants who scored less than or equal to 13 on the ATG scale were classified as
having positive attitudes toward gay people, whereas participants with scores higher than
13 were classified as having negative attitudes. Pearson’s correlation coefficients were
calculated for the anger index score and articulated anger directed at the victim for both
the high and the low anti-gay attitude groups. For the high anti-gay attitude group, the
non-significant correlation of anger index score and anger directed at the victim was r =
.144, whereas there was a zero correlation of these variables for the low anti-gay attitude
group.
Disapproval of the victim. The same three predictors (attitudes towards gays,
anger, and the attitudes X anger interaction term) were entered into multiple regression
models predicting articulated disapproval of the victim in the hate crime and non-hate
crime scenarios. For the hate crime condition, the regression was significant only for the
attitudes towards gays predictor (F (1,32) = 5.98, p < .02), and accounted for 13% of the
variance in the disapproval of the victim score (adjusted = .13). The other predictors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
were not significant in the hate crime condition. In the non-hate crime condition, neither
the model nor the beta weight for attitudes toward gays were significant. The beta weight
for anti-gay attitudes in the hate crime regression model was .397 ( 2 < -02), which was
significantly higher than the .182 beta weight ( 2 < -318) for anti-gay attitudes in the non
hate crime condition (t (1,32) =1.71, p_< -025).
Support of the perpetrator. The same three predictors (attitudes towards gays,
anger, and the attitudes X anger interaction term) were entered into multiple regression
models predicting support for the perpetrator in the hate crime and non-hate crime
scenarios. For the hate crime condition, the regression was once again significant only
for the attitudes toward gays predictor (F (1,32) = 10.891, p < .002), and accounted for
23% of the variance in the disapproval of the victim score (adjusted R l = .23). The other
predictors were not significant in the hate crime condition. In the non-hate crime
condition, neither the model nor the beta weight for attitudes toward gays was significant.
The beta weight for anti-gay attitudes in the hate crime regression model was .504 (p <
.002), which was significantly higher than the .096 beta weight (p < .601) for anti-gay
attitudes in the non-hate crime condition (t (1,32) = 2.01, p < .05).
Chi-Square Analyses for Dichotomous Dependent Variables
Intentions to protect the victim. A significant difference between the hate crime
and non-hate crime condition was found for mentioning plans to intervene and protect the
victim (chi-square = 6.58, p < .01). Forty-five percent of the participants in the hate
crime condition stated that they would intervene in some way to protect the victim,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
whereas only 29 % of the people in the non-hate crime condition stated this intention
(figure 1 ).
When people were grouped into high and low anti-gay attitude groups according
to the procedure described before, no differences emerged with regard to their likelihood
to intervene in the hate crime condition. This means that people with positive attitudes
were no more likely to protect the hate crime victim than people with negative attitudes.
However, our analyses revealed a significant negative correlation between anti-gay
attitudes and frequency of mentioning intentions to protect the victim when responses for
the hate crime and non-hate crime scenario were combined (r = -.247, p < .022). Separate
analyses for the hate crime and non-hate crime condition revealed non-significant
correlations in the same direction. Thus, anti-gay people were somewhat less likely to
protect any victim, regardless of sexual orientation status.
Furthermore, there was a significant negative correlation between disapproval of
the victim and the number of times the participants mentioned intentions to protect the
victim in the hate crime scenario. The higher the level of disapproval of the victim, the
less likely the participant was to articulate intentions to protect the victim (r = -.327, p <
.025). The correlation between disapproval of the victim and intentions to protect was
non-significant in the non-hate crime condition.
Intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator. Significantly more people
in the hate crimes condition (21%) than in the non-hate crime condition (7%) mentioned
intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator (chi-square = 4.04, p < .04). There
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
were no differences between the high and low anti-gay attitude groups with regard to this
variable.
Identification of the situation as a hate crime. Participants who listened to the
hate crime scenario did not identify the crime as a hate crime more often than participants
who listened to the non-hate crimes scenario. Only 6% of the people in the hate crime
condition correctly identified the incident as a hate crime versus 4 % of the people in the
non-hate crime condition who falsely classified the incident as a hate crime. A summary
of the frequencies of intentions to protect the victim, intentions to physically aggress
against the perpetrator, and identification of a hate crime in both the hate crime and non
hate crime scenarios is displayed in figure 1 .
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Figure 1: Intentions to protect the victim, intentions to aggress against the perpetrator,
and identification of the situation as a hate crime in the hate crime versus non-hate crime
conditions.
60
Tape Condition
^ ■ H a te Crime
I iNon-Hate Crime
Intent to Protect* Hate Crime Statement
Intent to Aggress*
Note. * Chi-square significant at the £ < .04 level.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Perceived perpetrator motivations. Overall, ignorance was mentioned most
frequently as a perpetrator motivation in both the hate crime and non-hate crime
scenarios, although it was mentioned significantly more often in the hate crime than in the
non-hate crime scenario. Jealousy, insecurity, and religion were also differentially
attributed as motivators depending on the type of scenario. However, there was no
difference for the perceived motivations of homosexuality, boredom, and hate ideology
between the hate crime and non-hate crime condition. In addition, no differences were
found between the attributions of people with negative attitudes versus people with
positive attitudes toward gays. A summary of the frequencies of perceived perpetrator
motivations for both the hate crime and non-hate crime conditions is displayed in
figure 2 .
The perpetrators’ ignorance and feelings of superiority were the perceived
perpetrator motivation mentioned most frequently in both the hate crime and non-hate
crime conditions. However, they were mentioned by significantly more subjects in the
hate crime than in the non-hate crime condition ('chi-square = 5.615, 2 < -018). Seventy-
nine percent of participants who listened to the hate crimes tape attributed the
perpetrators’ actions to their ignorance and feelings of superiority, whereas only 56% of
the participants in the non-hate crime condition perceived this variable as playing a role
in the perpetrators’ actions.
A significant difference between the hate crime and non-hate crime condition was
also found for the frequency of mentioning jealousy as a perpetrator motivation (chi-
square = 17.76, p < .001). Forty-four percent of the participants in the non-hate crime
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
condition perceived jealousy as playing a motivating role for the perpetrators. However,
only 6% of the participants in the hate crime condition found this to be the case.
In addition, more participants in the hate crime than in the non-hate crime
condition believed that insecurity and fear played a role in motivating the perpetrators’
behavior. This difference was marginally significant at the p < .066 level (chi-square =
3.37). Forty-three percent of subjects mentioned the perpetrators’ own insecurities and
fears as a motivating force in the hate crime condition, versus only 24 % in the non-hate
crime condition.
Surprisingly, participants seemed to attribute the perpetrators’ behavior to religion
more frequently in the non-hate crime than in the hate crime condition. Twenty-four
percent of the participants in the non-hate crime condition thought that the perpetrators
were motivated by religion, versus only 11% of the participants in the hate crime
condition. This difference between the hate crime and non-hate crime conditions was
marginally significant at the p < .08 level (chi-square = 3.05).
Another surprising finding was that the perpetrators’ actions were attributed no
more frequently to hate ideology, homosexuality, or boredom in the hate crime condition
than in the non-hate crime condition.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
Figure 2: Perceived perpetrator motivations in the hate crime versus non-hate crime
conditions.
100
80'
60'
03
< D
03
O 40.
H*-
O
C D
O)
CC
Condition
20-
c
< D
■ ■ H ate Crime
I [Non-Hate Crime
O
C L
Perceived Perpetrator Motivations
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Discussion and Implications
The current research project presents information about the psychological context
in which hate crimes occur by providing insight into people’s thoughts when they are
confronted with a anti-gay hate crime or a non-bias crime in their planning stages via the
ATSS cognitive assessment paradigm. People’s cognitive appraisals concerning
intentions to commit an anti-gay hate crime and a non-hate crime differed tremendously
on a variety of dimensions.
The Relationship of Anti-Gav Attitudes and Perceptions about Hate Crime Victims
The results of this study showed that anti-gay attitudes played an important role in
how the victim of an intended anti-gay hate crime was perceived. In accordance with our
hypotheses, we found that anti-gay attitudes were strong predictors of anger against the
hate crime victim, disapproval of the hate crime victim, and support of the hate crime
perpetrators. Specifically, people with negative attitudes toward gays were more inclined
to be angry and disapproving of the hate crime victim and his actions. In addition,
negative attitudes toward gays were associated with more support for the hate crime
perpetrators. Anti-gay attitudes were not predictive of any of the foregoing perceptions in
the non-hate crime scenario.
Two of our hypotheses were not supported by the data. Anti-gay attitudes were
not predictive of disapproval of the perpetrators and support of the victim in both the hate
crime and non-hate crime scenarios. However, these results should not be overanalyzed
since they were likely due to invariance in the participants’ responses in the perpetrator
disapproval and victim support coding categories. In both the hate crime and non-hate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
crime scenarios, nearly everyone strongly disagreed with the perpetrators and hardly
anyone voiced support foT the victim. Given these outcomes, it is suggested that future
research refine these codLng dimensions and potentially also the stimulus scenarios in
order to allow for more accurate distinction between degrees of perpetrator disagreement
and victim support.
With regard to participants’ articulated anger directed at the hate crime victim, we
were able to determine th-at, in addition to anti-gay attitudes, anger-proneness was also an
important predictor. As mentioned above, more negative attitudes concerning gays were
associated with a higher 1-evel of anger toward the hate crime victim, but not toward the
non-hate crime victim. However, an angry disposition by itself did not appear to translate
into more anger expressed toward a hate crime victim than toward a non-hate crime
victim. In other words, anger-prone people overall were equally as likely to be angry at
the hate crime victim as ait the non-hate crime victim.
However, it appeared that the presence of a certain combination of the two
variables, anti-gay attitudes and anger-proneness, was important with regard to
participants’ anger responise at the hate crime victim. When confronted with an anti-gay
hate crime, anger-prone p»eople who held hostile attitudes towards gays were more likely
than anger-prone people w ith positive attitudes to be angry at the victim. No such
interaction was found in th e non-hate crime scenario. Hence, it may be that the presence
of anger-prone personality tendencies in anti-gay people slightly exacerbates their anger
response at hate crime victims.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
In sum, our findings concerning anger and disapproval of the hate crime victim
and support of the perpetrator suggest that people who hold strong anti-gay attitudes may
believe that the victim is, at least to a certain extent, at fault. Not only did these people
♦
express the view that the hate crime victim was wrong, but they also specifically endorsed
his punishment by showing support for the perpetrators’ actions. Anti-gay people may
tend to perceive the assault as the victim’s responsibility since, in their minds, it was the
“morally wrong” homosexual behavior that ultimately “provoked” it.
The concept of “blaming the victim” of a crime for his or her assault has been a
research interest in psychology ever since its introduction through Ryan’s (1976) book by
the same title. The mentality of blaming homosexuals for certain misfortunes they
experience is certainly not new, either. For example, many people still believe that the
AIDS epidemic is “God’s punishment for homosexuality” (Singer, Rogers, & Corcoron,
1987), and the notion that AIDS patients “get what they deserve” is not uncommon
among anti-gay people. Our results show that this blaming mentality may also apply to
the victims of sexual orientation based hate crimes.
Previous research found that anti-gay attitudes are related to a variety of other
variables, such as the endorsement of traditional sex roles, high religiosity, political
conservatism, lack of interpersonal contact with gays or lesbians, low level of education
(Herek, 1994), an authoritarian personality (Haddock & Zanna, 1998; Herek, 1984; Wylie
& Forest, 1992), as well as negative perceptions about AIDS and its victims (see for
example, D ’Angelo, McGuire, Abbott, & Sheridan, 1994; Dupras, Levy, Samson, &
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
Tessier, 1989). The results of our study indicate that it is reasonable to add negative
perceptions about gay hate crime victims to this list of correlates of anti-gay attitudes.
The foregoing results, which strongly suggest that negative attitudes toward gays
may affect how they are perceived if they fall victim of a hate crime, are quite disturbing
because such negative perceptions potentially translate into discriminatory behavior. For
instance, people who believe that gay hate crime victims are at least partially responsible
for their assault are probably unwilling to support legislative and other initiatives that
benefit victims of sexual orientation-based hate crimes. Hence, these findings once again
underline the importance of fostering tolerance toward gays. As suggested by Herek
(1993), the problem of hate crimes needs to be addressed on a broad level with the goal of
reducing heterosexism in our society.
Other Relevant Perceptions about Hate Crimes
Intentions to protect the victim. An encouraging finding was that, overall, many
people were actually willing to intervene and help the victim of an anti-gay hate crime.
Surprisingly, people were even more inclined to help the hate crime victim than the non
bias crime victim. This finding is perhaps based on most people’s perception that hate
crime victims are genuinely innocent since they are targeted exclusively due to their
membership in a specific group. Consequently, people may feel that hate crime victims
are even more “deserving” of help and protection than other crime victims.
A global hostile predisposition toward gays did not uniquely influence the
likelihood of intervening in the hate crime scenario, as anti-gay people were somewhat
less likely than non-prejudiced people to protect any kind of crime victim. However, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
likelihood to intervene and help the hate crime victim was still somewhat related to the
way he was perceived in the scenario. People who disapproved of the hate crime victim’s
views and actions mentioned plans to intervene less frequently than people who did not
disapprove. Such negative perceptions of the victim played a greater role in the decision
to protect the hate crime victim than in the decision to protect the non-bias crime victim.
Thus, while it appeared that a negative attitudinal predisposition toward gays did not
uniquely determine the likelihood of protecting gays versus non-gays, a negative
immediate perception of the victim did reduce the likelihood of intervening in the hate
crime scenario.
Intentions to physically aggress against the perpetrator. The results of this study
indicate that hate crimes are more likely than non-bias crimes to lead to additional
violence. In accordance with our hypothesis and prior research, the hate crime scenario
aroused a greater desire to physically aggress against the perpetrators than the non-bias
crime scenario. The rationale behind tougher punishment for hate crime perpetrators is
partially based on the view that hate crimes “provoke retaliatory crimes ... and incite
community unrest (Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 1993, p. 13, as cited in Craig, 1999). In
accordance with prior research (e.g., Craig, 1999), our findings provide further support
for the validity of this argument.
The high potential for escalation associated with hate crimes that was
demonstrated by this study emphasizes the need for special sensitivity and caution by
everyone involved in the aftermath of a hate crime. Law enforcement and victims
assistance personnel should be trained to attend to the special needs of victims, their
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
friends and families, as well as witnesses of the assault. Such assistance may decrease the
chances o f retaliation and the risk of future violence.
Identification of the situation as a hate crime. Contrary to our expectation, it
appeared that the concept of hate crimes was not very present on our participants’ minds.
We found that people did not identify the scenario as a hate crime more often in the hate
crime condition than in the non-hate crime condition. Only a small percentage of
participants mentioned hate crimes at all, half of them falsely classifying the non-hate
crime situation as a hate crime.
Apparently, despite the recent media coverage of hate crimes and highly
publicized cases, it does not appear that people spontaneously identify the concept of hate
crimes. Clearly, more education needs to take place, not only to increase awareness of
hate crimes, but also to inform people about what hate crimes actually are.
It is certainly possible that many people would have correctly classified the
scenario as a hate crime had they been primed to hate crime issues or directly asked “is
this incident a hate crime, yes or no?” This is an important question that should definitely
be addressed in future research, for example, by simply directing a query to the
participants after exposing them to the scenarios. However, the fact that people did not
spontaneously think about the concept of hate crimes when confronted with one is
nevertheless very intriguing considering the fact that reactions to the hate crime and non
hate crime scenarios differed so tremendously. This demonstrates that people’s
cognitions concerning the scenarios were not the result of automatic reactions to a
popular label (i.e., “hate crimes”). Obviously, people did not analyze the scenarios on
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
such a superficial level. Instead, they reacted to the characteristics of the complex stimuli
present in the scenario (e.g., the homosexual victim, the homophobic perpetrators, etc.).
Perceived perpetrator motivations. This exploratory part of the study revealed
interesting profiles regarding people’s perceived perpetrator motivations that again
emphasized striking differences between perceptions concerning the hate crime and non
hate crime conditions. However, due to the exploratory nature of the data and the only
marginally significant findings rendered by some analyses, it should be noted that the
following interpretations represent speculations and hypotheses rather than definite
conclusions regarding perceived perpetrator motivations.
Overall, while people attributed the hate crime perpetrators’ behavior to beliefs
related to prejudice, they did not think that it was a reflection of an extreme religious or
ideological conviction. On the other hand, the behavior of the non-hate crime perpetrator
was viewed as more situationally determined by the perpetrators’ feelings of jealousy of
the victim.
Participants did not perceive the hate crime perpetrators’ ideological beliefs as
playing a significant part in motivating their actions. Nor were conservative religious
attitudes regarded as major factors motivating the hate crime perpetrators’ behavior. In
fact, people even perceived religion to play a more important part in the non-hate crime
perpetrators’ behavior. If we equate radical ideological and religious attitudes to
membership in hate groups, these perceptions about hate crime perpetrators may actually
be accurate. According to research, the overwhelming majority of anti-gay hate crime
perpetrators are not affiliated with organized hate ideology groups (Berrill, 1992;
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
Crevecoeur, Catham, Recker, & Dunbar, 1998) and would probably not characterize
themselves as subscribing to their philosophies.
Taken together, these findings are encouraging, as people no longer seem to hide
behind the stereotypical assumption that only religious or ideological extremists condone
and commit hate crimes. It appears that people are finally realizing that hate crimes are a
problem that can no longer be attributed to organizations such as the KKK or the Aryan
Nation, which clearly exist on the fringe of mainstream society. Instead, it seems that the
public’s awareness and perception of hate violence as a broad societal problem is
increasing.
Our study did, however, produce evidence that people associated the hate crime
perpetrators’ behavior with prejudicial tendencies. The fact that boredom was perceived
by participants to play a minor role in motivating perpetrators’ behavior suggests that the
hate crime perpetrators’ acts were seen as deliberate expressions of certain views and not
just as random occurrences that resulted from pure boredom. Participants thought that
ignorance and feelings of superiority toward the victim were important factors motivating
the perpetrators in both the hate crime and non-hate crime scenarios. However, these
motivations were deemed even more important in the hate crime than in the non-hate
crime condition. This indicates that participants were sensitive to the fact that certain
attitudes of superiority toward out-group members (i.e., anti-gay attitudes) may have
played a greater role in motivating the hate crime perpetrators than the non-hate crime
perpetrators.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
Apparently, however, these feelings of superiority over the victim were not
perceived to be part of a larger ideological belief system that preaches the moral
superiority of certain groups over others, because, as previously mentioned, people did
not think that the hate crime perpetrators were motivated by hate ideology or conservative
religious views. Instead, participants may have felt that degrading the victim provided
the hate crime perpetrators with gratification on a personal level and consequently
functioned to raise their self-esteem. This finding may reflect Franklin’s (1998) idea that
in a group context, hate crimes provide social status for group members who have no
other means of feeling successful.
In addition, our study found that insecurity and fear were conceived as playing a
more important role in motivating the perpetrators’ behavior in the hate crime than in the
non-hate crime condition. Again, this may reflect the participants’ impression that the
hate crime perpetrators’ behavior, unlike the behavior of the perpetrators in the non-hate
crime condition, was related to prejudicial attitudes. Possibly, people picked up on the
notion that prejudicial behavior may in some cases be a manifestation of underlying
feelings of inferiority and anxiety (Myers, 1996, chapter 11; Sullaway & Dunbar, 1996).
Apparently, participants did not feel that homosexual impulses played a more
important role in motivating the hate crime perpetrators’ behavior than in motivating the
non-hate crime perpetrators’ behavior. In fact, since homosexuality played a negligible
role as a perceived perpetrator motivation, it can be concluded that participants generally
assumed the perpetrators’ sexual orientation to be “solidly” heterosexual in both
scenarios. This finding may consequently help explain why jealousy was perceived as a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
major motivating factor in the non-hate crime scenario, but not in the hate crime scenario.
In the non-hate crime scenario, the heterosexual perpetrators had plausible reasons to be
jealous of the victim. For example, it is reasonable to assume that the perpetrators may
have been jealous of the victim’s popularity with women. On the other hand, the
heterosexual perpetrators’ incentive for jealousy in the hate crime condition was not quite
as compelling, as their victim went to gay parties and was popular with other gay men.
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
The present study provides important information regarding people’s perceptions
about anti-gay hate crimes and thereby contributes to the understanding of the broader
context in which hate crimes occur. However, this study only addresses people’s
perceptions about sexual orientation-based hate crimes against gay men and, as a result,
neglects lesbians, bisexuals, and transsexuals, as well as hate crimes committed on the
basis o f religion, race/ethnicity, disability, and gender. Accordingly, further research is
necessary to explore people’s perceptions about these other kinds of hate crimes. This
could be accomplished by exposing people to ATSS scenarios depicting racial, religious
or other types of hate crimes.
Furthermore, it is important to replicate the results of this study with other
populations. First, the results should be replicated with a sample that is more
representative of the entire public in terms of its level of education, range of ages, and
socioeconomic status. Due to the fact that we attained our results with a relatively highly
educated sample from an environment that is associated with liberal political attitudes, we
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
53
predict that a more diverse and less educated sample would probably amplify the
magnitude of our findings.
In addition, future research should explore whether perceptions of people who are
members of the assaulted group are different from perceptions of people who are not
likely to be victims of this particular type of hate crime. This approach is important since
hate crimes are often conceptualized as attacks against an entire community. Hence, it is
crucial to explore the nature of the adverse effects members of such communities may
suffer in response to a hate crime. Only a few participants in our study indicated that they
were homosexual or bisexual. Unfortunately, this low number did not render sufficient
statistical power to investigate the differences between them and heterosexuals in
response to the hate crime scenario. Therefore, future studies should attempt to include
an adequate number of people who are members of the groups targeted by the hate crime
perpetrator.
In sum, the present study illustrated that people’s perceptions about anti-gay hate
crimes are complex and far from being completely understood. Hopefully, researchers
will continue to explore perceptions about all types of hate crimes. As has been
repeatedly argued in this paper, understanding the societal context of hate crimes is
crucial in order to gain insight into issues related to victimization, determinants of hate
crime perpetration, and hate crime prevention.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
References
Barnes, A., & Ephross, P. (1994). The impact of hate violence on victims:
Emotional and behavioral responses to attacks. Social Work. 39 (3), 247-251.
Berk, R. A., Boyd, E. A., & Hamner, K. M. (1992). Thinking more clearly about
hate-motivated crimes. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes:
Confronting violence against lesbians and gav men (pp. 123-146). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Berrill, K. T. (1992). Anti-gay violence and victimization in the United States:
An overview. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence
against lesbians and gav men (pp. 19-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Berrill, K. T., & Herek, G. M. (1992). Primary and secondary victimization in
anti-gay hate crimes: Official response and public policy. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill
(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gav men (pp. 289-305).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Comstock, G. D. (1991). Violence against lesbians and gav men. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Craig, K. M. (1999). Retaliation, fear or rage: An investigation of African
American and White reactions to racist hate crimes. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.
14,138-151.
Craig, K. M., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). “So what’s a hate crime anyway?” Young
adults’ perceptions o f hate crimes, victims, and perpetrators. Law and Human Behavior.
20,113-129.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Crevecoeur, D., Catham, S., Recker, N., & Dunbar, E. W. (1998, August).
Sociodemographic and behavioral dimensions of hate crime perpetration. Poster session
presented at the 106th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, San
Francisco, CA.
D’Angelo, R. J., McGuire, J. M., Abbott, D. W., & Sheridan, K. (1998).
Homophobia and perceptions of people with AIDS. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology. 28. 157-170.
D’Augelli, A. R. (1989). Lesbians’ and gay men’s experiences of discrimination
and harassment in a university community. American Journal of Community Psychology.
17.312-321.
Davison, G. C., Haaga, D. A. F., Rosenbaum, J., Dolezal, S. L., & Weinstein, K.
A. (1991). Assessment of self-efficacy in articulated thoughts: “States of mind” analysis
and association with speech anxious behavior. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An
International Quarterly. 5. 83-92.
Davison, G. C., & Neale, J. M. (1998). Abnormal psychology (7th ed.). New
York: Wiley.
Davison, G. C., Robins, C., & Johnson, M. (1983). Articulated thoughts during
simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognition in emotion and behavior.
Cognitive Therapy and Research. 7. 17-40.
Davison, G. C., Vogel, R. S., & Coffman, S. G. (1997). Think-aloud approaches
to cognitive assessment and the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 65. 950-958.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
Davison, G. C., Williams, M. E., Nezami, E., Bice, T. T., & DeQuattro, V. L.
(1991). Relaxation, reduction in angry articulated thought, and improvements in
borderline essential hypertension. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. 14. 453-469.
Deffenbacher, J. L. (1992). Trait anger: Theory, findings, and implications, In
C. D. Spielberger & J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 9, pp.
177-201). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Dupras, A., Levy, J., Samson, J. M., Tessier, D. (1989). Homophobia and
attitudes about AIDS. Psychological Reports. 64. 236-238.
Eckhardt, C., Barbour, K., & Davison, G. C. (1996). Articulated thoughts of
maritally violent and nonviolent men during anger arousal. Unpublished manuscript,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington.
Eckhardt, C., Barbour, K., Wilson, J., & Davison (1996, November). Anger-
related affect and aggressive verbalizations in maritally violent men. Paper presented at
the annual convention of the Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New
York.
Eckhardt, C., Barbour, K., Wilson, J., Davison, G. C., Kandies, M., Smith, H., &
McGill, L. (1996, November). Articulated cognitive processes in maritally violent and
maritally discordant nonviolent men. Paper presented at the annual convention of the
Association for the Advancement of Behavior Therapy, New York.
Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: Contextualizing the narratives of
antigay assailants. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Series Eds.) & G. M. Herek (Vol. Ed.),
Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gav issues: Vol. 4. Stigma and sexual
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gav men, and bisexuals (pp. 1-23).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Garnets, L. Herek, G. M., & Levy, B. (1992). Violence and victimization of
lesbians and gay men: Mental health consequences. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill
(Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gav men (pp. 207-222).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Haaga, D. A. F., Davison, G. C., McDermut, W., Hillis, S. L., & Twomey, H. B.
(1993). “State of mind” analysis of the articulated thoughts of exsmokers. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. 17. 427-439.
Haaga, D. A. F., & Steward, B. (1992). Self-efficacy for recovery from a lapse
after smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 60. 24-28.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Authoritarianism, values, and the
favorability and structure of antigay attitudes. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Series Eds.)
& G. M. Herek (Vol. Ed.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gav issues: Vol. 4.
Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gav men, and
bisexuals (pp. 82-107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Harry, J. (1992). Conceptualizing anti-gay violence. In G. M. Herek & K. T.
Berrill fEds.l. Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and gav men (pp. 113-
122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor analytic
study. Journal of Homosexuality. 10. 39-51.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men:
Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research. 25, 451-477.
Herek, G. M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men: Issues for
research and policy. American Psychologist. 44. 948-955.
Herek, G. M. (1993). The Context of antigay violence: Notes on cultural and
psychological heterosexism. In L. D. Garnets & D. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological
perspectives on lesbian and gav male experiences fpp. 89-107). New York: Columbia
University Press.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Heterosexism, hate crimes, and the law. In M. Constanzo
& S. Oskamp (Eds.), Violence and the law (pp. 89-112). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (in press). Psychological sequelae of
hate crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993a). Public reactions to ADDS in the United
States. In J. B. Pryor & G. D. Reeder (Eds.), The social psychology of HIV infection (pp.
229-261). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993b). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’
attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research. 30.
239-244.
Levin, J., & McDevitt, J. (1993). Hate crimes: The rising tide of bigotry and
bloodshed. New York: Plenum Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
Medina, J. (1999, November 30). Hate crimes spurred tonight’s town hall. Daily
Troian, p. 1.
Moses, J. A. (1992). State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory, research edition.
In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 9, pp. 510-525). Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.
Myers, D. G. (1996). Social psychology (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
National Gay & Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF). (1988). Anti-gay violence.
victimization and defamation in 1987. Washington, DC: NGLTF.
Patel, S., Long, T. E., McCammon, S. L., & Wuensch, K. E. (1995). Personality
and emotional correlates of self-reported anti-gay behaviors. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence. 10. 354-366.
Recker, N., & Dunbar, E. W. (1998, March). Demographic and behavioral
characteristics of gav/lesbian hate victimization and event reportage. Paper presented at
the Conference on Interdisciplinary Theory and Research on Intercultural Relations,
Fullerton, CA.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage Books.
Singer, E., Rogers, T., & Corcoron, M. (1987). AIDS. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 51. 580-595.
Spielberger, C. D. (1996). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression
Inventory (STAXD. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
Stello, S. (1998, November 17). More violent acts against gays reported. Daily
Troian, pp. 1, 3.
Sullaway, M., & Dunbar, E. (1996). Clinical manifestations of prejudice in
psychotherapy: Toward a strategy of assessment and treatment. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice. 3. 296-309.
White, J. A., Davison, G. C., Haaga, D. A. F., & White, K. L. (1992). Cognitive
bias in the articulated thoughts of depressed and nondepressed psychiatric patients.
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease. 180. 77-81.
Williams, M. E., Davison, G. C., Nezami, E., & DeQuattro, V. L. (1992).
Cognitions of type A and B individuals in response to social criticism. Cognitive
Therapy and Research. 16. 19-30.
Write, M. J. (1991). Identifying child sexual abuse using the Personality
Inventory for Children. Dissertation Abstracts International. 52. 1744.
Wylie, L., & Forest, J. (1992). Religious fundamentalism, rightwing
authoritarianism and prejudice. Psychological Reports. 71. 1291-1298.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
Appendix
Content of Stimulus Tapes
Content of Hate Crime Tape 1.
NARRATOR: “Imaging you are in the laundry room in your apartment building and you
overhear the following conversation between two neighbors who are college students like
you.”
STUDENT A (male): “Hey, guess what: our favorite neighbor had one of his parties
again last night.”
STUDENT B (male): “Are you serious? You mean he had his gay friends over at his
apartment again?”
A: “Yeah, I even saw him kissing this one guy at the door.”
B: “That’s just wrong. He really doesn’t have any morals. The least he could do is restrict
his sinful lifestyle to the inside of his apartment where nobody has to see it.”
------------------------------------------- <30 sec>-------------------------------------------------
A: “It kind of scares me that something like that is going on in our building. I’m just
thinking about AIDS and that really makes me nervous.”
B: “You’re right. Who knows, some of his friends could be HIV positive. The chances
of that are actually not that slim. It’s kind of scary when you realize that he and his
friends touch the same things that we handle every day, like door handles, elevator
buttons and things like that.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
B: “I think people like him who live such a sinful life are going to be punished by God
some day. After all, there are even some kids in the building, right? I just don’t think
that God would want children to grow up witnessing things like that. They are gonna
grow up all messed up about sex and what’s right or wrong.”
A: “I know. I wouldn’t want my children to see this guy making out with his gay
friends.”
---------------------------------- < 3 0 sec>------------------------------------------------
B: “I tell you, this guy is annoying me more and more. Yesterday when I got home from
class he was in the elevator with me and I swear he was checking me out. He always
looks at me in a certain way and it gives me the creeps.”
A: “Doesn’t surprise me. I think he likes picking up on straight guys. Listen to this: one
night he even came over to my place all dressed up in his slick Armani outfit and asked
me if I wanted to go to a party with him.”
------------------------------------------- <30 sec>------------------------------------------------
A: “Man, talking about that guy and the disgusting things he does makes me sick to my
stomach. He sort of makes the whole neighborhood look sleazy... The best thing would
really be if he just left. That would take care of the problem.”
B: “I wonder if we could complain to the University about him.”
A: “Yeah right! Like that’s going to help! If we wait for them to do something about
that, nothing is ever going to happen. It’s like they don’t care about the sick things that
are going on around here.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
B: “Well, I guess if we want to clean up around here we have to take things into our own
hands.”
B: “I know how we can get rid of him once an for all.”
A: “What do you mean?”
B: “How about writing him a nice little anonymous letter letting him know that if he
plans to stay in the building or even this neighborhood he’ll be really sorry.”
-------------------------------------------- <30-sec>-------------------------------------------------
A: “Not a bad idea. Scare him a little bit! I bet it doesn’t take much to scare that little
faggot.”
B: “Exactly. Just scare him a little and I bet he’ll leave us alone very soon. - Hey, and if
it takes more than a letter - I know some guys who would love nothing more than kick
that guy’s ass.”
A: (Laughs) “Great! That sounds really good. I think it will finally take care of our
problems.”
--------------------------------------------<30 sec>-------------------------------------------------
Content of Non-Hate Crime Tape.
NARRATOR: “Imaging you are in the laundry room in your apartment building and you
overhear the following conversation between two neighbors who are college students like
you.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
STUDENT A (male): “Hey, guess what: our favorite neighbor had one of his parties
again last night.
STUDENT B (male): “Are you serious? You mean he had all these women over at his
apartment again?”
A: “Yeah, I even saw him kissing this one girl at the door.”
B: “That’s just wrong. He really doesn’t have any morals. The least he could do is
restrict his sinful lifestyle to the inside of his apartment where nobody has to see it.”
A. “It kind of scares me that something like that is going on in our building. I’m just
thinking about AIDS and that really makes me nervous.”
B. “You’re right. Who knows, some of these women could be HIV positive. The
chances of that are actually not that slim. It is kind of scary when you realize that he and
his friends touch the same things that we handle every day, like door handles, elevator
buttons and things like that.”
--------------------------------------------<30 sec>------------------------------------------------
B: “I think people like him who live such a sinful life are going to be punished by God
some day. After all, there are even some kids in the building, right? I just don’t think
that God would want children to grow up witnessing things like that. They are gonna
grow up all messed up about sex and what’s right or wrong.”
A. “You’re right. I wouldn’t want my children to see this guy making out with these
women.”
<30 sec>------------------------------------------------
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
65
B. “I tell you, this guy is annoying me more and more. Yesterday when I got home from
class he was in the elevator with me and I swear he was checking this girl out. He always
looks at her in a certain way and it gives me the creeps.”
A. “Doesn’t surprise me. I think he likes picking up on women. Listen to this: one night
he even came over to my friend Tracy’s place all dressed up in his slick Armani outfit and
asked her if she wanted to go to a party with him.”
------------------------------------------- <30 sec>------------------------------------------------
A: “Man, talking about that guy and the disgusting things he does makes me sick to my
stomach. He sort of makes the whole neighborhood look sleazy... The best thing would
really be if he just left. That would take care of the problem.”
B: “I wonder if we could complain to the University about him.”
A: “Yeah right! Like that’s going to help! If we v/ait for them to do something about
that, nothing is ever going to happen. It’s like they don’t care about the sick things that
are going on around here.
B: “Well, I guess if we want to clean up around here we have to take things into our own
hands.”
------------------------------------------- <30 sec>-----------------------------------------------
B: “I know how we can get rid of him once an for all.”
A: “What do you mean?”
B: “How about writing him a nice little anonymous letter letting him know that if he
plans to stay in the building or even this neighborhood he’ll be really sorry.”
A: “Not a bad idea. Scare him a little bit! I bet it doesn’t take much to scare that jerk.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
-------------------------------------------- <30 sec>------------------------------------------------
B: “Exactly. Just scare him a little and I bet he’ll leave us alone very soon. - Hey, and if
it takes more than a letter - I know some guys who would love nothing more than kick
that guy’s ass.”
A: (Laughs) “Great! That sounds really good. I think it will finally take care of our
problems.”
---------------------------------------------<30 sec>-------------------------------------------------
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

A typology of maritally violent men and correlates of violence

PDF

Applying the theory of reasoned action to condom use: The effect of immediate consequences on intention-behavior consistency

PDF

Affection and conflict in family relationships

PDF

Content analysis of articulated thoughts of chronic worriers

PDF

Expectancies for alternative behaviors predict drinking problems: A test of a cognitive reformulation of the matching law

PDF

Articulated thoughts regarding cognitions toward older adults

PDF

Psychological reactions to racial hate crime victimization: An investigation utilizing the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm

PDF

Effects of personal resource sufficiency on perceived difficulty and desirability of earthquake preparedness

PDF

The relationship between alcoholism and crime: autonomic and neurpsychological factors

PDF

Depression in offspring following severe prenatal stress

PDF

Cognitive predictors of intention -behavior consistency in safer sex practices

PDF

Hedonic aspects of conditioned taste aversion in rats and humans

PDF

Does intense probation monitoring of truants work? An empirical econometric analysis of its effect on school and individual attendance, grades, and behavior

PDF

Depression and suicidality in Latino adolescents: A study of acculturation and gender role beliefs

PDF

History of depression, antidepressant treatment, and other psychiatric illness as risk factors for Alzheimer's disease in a twin sample

PDF

Intragroup evaluations, attitude source, and in-group member derogation

PDF

Adolescents' social attitudes: Genes and culture?

PDF

Effects of threat and self-focus on consensual bias in majorities

PDF

Hyperactive symptoms, cognitive functioning, and drinking habits

PDF

Ethnic identity, acculturation, self-esteem and perceived discrimination: A comparison study of Asian American adolescents

Asset Metadata

Creator Recker, Nadine (author)

Core Title Articulated thoughts about intentions to commit anti-gay hate crimes

School Graduate School

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,psychology, behavioral,Psychology, clinical,psychology, cognitive,psychology, social,sociology, criminology and penology

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Davison, Gerald C. (committee chair), [illegible] (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-36216

Unique identifier UC11342200

Identifier 1405253.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-36216 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 1405253.pdf

Dmrecord 36216

Document Type Thesis

Rights Recker, Nadine

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA