University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

The articulated thoughts of heterosexual male college students in reaction to anti-gay hate speech

(USC Thesis Other)

The articulated thoughts of heterosexual male college students in reaction to anti-gay hate speech

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content THE ARTICULATED THOUGHTS OF HETEROSEXUAL MALE COLLEGE
STUDENTS IN REACTION TO ANTI-GAY HATE SPEECH

by
William Andrew Mullane
_____________________________________________________________________

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 2008

Copyright 2008 William Andrew Mullane

ii

Acknowledgements
There are a great number of people to whom I owe sincere thanks for their support
throughout this project. I would like to thank Drs. Gerald C. Davison, David
Schwartz, and David Walsh for the direction and support they have provided.
I owe a great deal of thanks to the team of undergraduate research assistants who were
essential to the completion of this project. This team included Amber Degn, Amy
McKinney, Nicole Tu, Olivia Bello, Sarah Lurie, Steven Tsai, Tiffany Jones, and
William Hoover. Leading this group of research assistants were two very dedicated
and talented individuals who served as Project Coordinators: Alexis Asatourian and
Pamela Levine.
Most of all, I am indebted to my partner, my family, and my colleagues. Gregory
Baldasaro, my partner, has been extremely patient, supportive, and unconditionally
loving throughout this experience and I am thankful for all that his companionship has
added to my life. My mother and father have always been unwaveringly loving and
supportive and were especially so during this process. Finally, I am incredibly
grateful to have colleagues like Kristopher Stevens, Sarah Duman-Serrano, Katrina
Vickerman, Jen Dave, and Shelley Tom who have, through their friendship,
brightened my path.
This project was supported in part by funds from the Kellerman Research Fund and I
would like to thank Dr. Jonathan Kellerman for his generous support.
iii

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements ii
List of Tables iv
Abstract v
Chapter 1: Background and Significance 1
What is Hate Speech? 1
How Common is Anti-gay Hate Speech? 2
The Impacts of Anti-gay Hate Speech 4
How Might Anti-gay Hate Speech Impact Heterosexual Males? 5
Study Aims 7

Chapter 2: Methods 9
Participants 9
Measures 9
Procedures 16
Chapter 3: Results 17
Manipulation Check 17
Experimental Group Differences 19
Associations Between Variables 21
Primary Analyses 23
Chapter 4: Discussion 27
References 34
Appendices 38
Appendix A 38
Appendix B 40
Appendix C 44
Appendix D 48

iv

List of Tables

Table 1. Intra-Class Coefficients for ATSS Coded Variables 12
Table 2. Manipulation Check: Attributions Regarding ATSS Condition 19
Table 3. Demographic Differences Between Experimental Groups 20
Table 4. Independent Samples t-tests of Group Differences in Potential 21
Confounders
Table 5. Summary Statistics and t-test Values for Variables of Interest 24
Table 6. Regression Values for Models of Interest 25
v

Abstract
Though scholars acknowledge heterosexuals can be targets of anti-gay aggression,
little research has examined the effects of such victimization. This study examines
how the experience of being the target of anti-gay hate speech impacts heterosexual
males and how these impacts differ from those of hostile non-hate speech. Using the
Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations Paradigm (ATSS), 58 heterosexual male
college students were randomly assigned to one of two ATSS conditions: an anti-gay
hate speech condition (“fag”) or a hostile non-hate speech condition (“asshole”).
Results indicate that being the target of anti-gay hate speech resulted in significantly
less anxiety than hostile non-hate speech. However, participants who attributed their
being targeted to anti-gay motivations expressed significantly more anger than
participants who did not.
1

Chapter 1: Background and Significance
What is Hate Speech?
Hate speech is not simply an expression of anger or hate. It includes the
communication of intent to subjugate a target group or an individual thought to belong
to that target group. It has been defined as “words intended to harm or intimidate an
individual because of their membership in a minority group” (Herek, 1989) and
language “used to ambush, terrorize, wound, humiliate, and degrade” (Matsuda,
Lawrence, Delgado, & Crenshaw, 1993). Matsuda et al. (1993) define hate speech
using three criteria: first, it is speech that suggests inferiority; second, it is directed at a
member of an oppressed group; and third, it is degrading, hateful, and persecutory.
Further, hate speech is a core feature of hate crimes, often playing a critical role in the
defining of a crime as a hate crime. Herek (1989) argues that hate speech, even in the
absence of physical aggression, may itself be declared a hate crime because of its
impact on victims. Though the First Amendment aims to preserve free speech, many
governmental and non-governmental institutions have regulations that limit the use of
language that are judged to express bias towards particular groups or members of
those groups.
What is often overlooked or underappreciated in societal and academic
considerations of hate speech is that it does not need to be aimed at members of a
socially-devalued group to be harmful. In fact, some types of hate speech, like the use
of terms like “fag,” are directed at individuals who do not belong to the group to
2

which these terms refer, but instead may often be used by individuals to derogate or
ostracize others. The use of such terms likely has effects on both members of targeted
groups and on individuals who do not belong to targeted groups. In fact, Burn (2000)
found in a survey of college students that males often used terms like “faggot” as an
insult among their peer group. Anti-gay terms are likely used to deride others outside
of one’s peer group as well, but there is little data on the frequency of such events.

How Common is Anti-gay Hate Speech?
What limited research there is regarding the prevalence of anti-gay verbal
harassment comes from studies addressing experiences of sexual minority
victimization. In a national study of the experiences of sexual minority middle school
and high school students conducted by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education
Network (GLSEN, 2001), nearly 83% of respondents reported being verbally harassed
or threatened because of their sexual orientation in the previous year. Nearly 42% of
respondents reported being physically harassed and 21% physically assaulted during
the same period.
Another study, conducted by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
(NGLTF, 2003), of 1,669 sexual minority respondents from fourteen college and
university campuses across the United States found derogatory remarks about sexual
orientation to be the most frequently cited form of anti-gay harassment. Of those
reporting anti-gay harassment within the previous year, 48% reported being verbally
3

harassed, 11% reported threats of physical violence, and 2% reported actual physical
assault. Twenty percent of all respondents feared for their safety because of their
sexual orientation and 51% concealed their sexual orientation to avoid intimidation.
In total, about one third of gay, lesbian, or bisexual respondents reported experiences
of harassment based on their sexual orientation.
A study by Herek, Gillis, Cogan, and Glunt (1997) of sexual minority adults
found that more than 75% of their sample had been the target of anti-gay harassment
since age 16. Similar to the findings of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force
(2003) study, approximately half Herek et al’s (1997) sample had been the target of
verbal harassment within the previous year.
It should be noted that these studies tell us nothing about the experiences of
heterosexuals regarding anti-gay hate victimization. While the statistics reported in
each sample vary, possibly as a function of the age-related decline associated with all
forms of aggression (Tremblay, 2002), taken as a whole, these studies demonstrate
that hate-based verbal harassment (e.g., hate speech) is the most commonly
experienced type of victimization among sexual minorities. As mentioned, it is likely
that such experiences are common not only among sexual minorities, but as the
findings of Burn (2000) suggest, among heterosexual populations as well.

4

The Impacts of Anti-gay Hate Speech
The research to date has suggested that hate crimes are, as might be expected,
harmful. The findings from two studies of sexual minority adults found that anti-gay
hate crime victims, as compared to non-hate crime victims, were more anxious, more
angry, believed less in the benevolence of others, and reported perceptions of greater
vulnerability to future victimization (Herek et al., 1997; Herek, Gillis, & Glunt, 1999).
Based on these findings, it seems that the experience of hate crime victimization, as
compared with that of non-hate victimization, causes individuals to see the world in a
different light. These data indicate cognitive changes that Janoff-Bulman (1989)
suggests occur with traumatic events. She suggests that such events challenge basic
assumptions, altering in negative ways how victims view themselves, others, the
world, and the future. These basic assumptions include benevolence of the world,
meaningfulness of the world, and worthiness of self (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). The
negative mental health outcomes linked to having such beliefs challenged include
depression, anxiety, and Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). How non-minority
hate crime targets experience hate crimes or what the effects of such experiences are
remains unknown.

How Might Anti-gay Hate Speech Impact Heterosexual Males?
According to Harry (1992), four elements must be in place for anti-gay
violence to occur: (1) victims must violate norms; (2) victims must be distinguishable;
5

(3) perpetrators must have a need to declare their status; and (4) perpetrators must
have skewed or disconnected morals. These requisites suggest that one must be a
distinguishable gay target or violate accepted gender norms. This perspective does not
account for the possibility that an individual may be targeted in the absence of either
or both of Harry’s first two criteria. One can be a heterosexual male, the target of anti-
gay hate speech, be impacted by the experience, and thereby become a victim of anti-
gay hate speech. However, Harry’s proposed necessary features suggest what being
the target of anti-gay hate victimization might mean to victims, whether they are a
sexual minority male or not.
As mentioned, one purpose of hate victimization is, by definition, to
communicate that one is being targeted because of their actual (or perceived) group
membership and to subjugate the individual based on that group membership (Berk,
1990). This is of importance in understanding the impact that falsely assumed sexual
minority status might have on heterosexual males. For heterosexual males who are
targeted because of perceived minority status, such victimization might pose several
threats: they may believe that someone judges them to be, look, or behave like a
homosexual; they may be treated as a sexual minority again (i.e., re-victimized); or
friends or family may reject them because of this.
Though no research to date has directly examined how heterosexual males
react to being the target of anti-gay hostility, research on aggression and negative
attitudes towards homosexuals may offer clues. Two studies (Bernat, Calhoun,
6

Adams, & Zeichner, 2001; Parrot & Zeichner, 2005) provide a link between
homosexual stimuli and anger and aggression. Bernat et al. (2001) provide evidence
of an association between higher levels of homophobia and higher levels of negative
affect, anxiety, anger, and physical aggression towards gay males (as measured by
electric shock intensity and duration) after viewing a homoerotic video. Parrot &
Zeichner (2005) replicated and extended the design of Bernat et al. (2001) by
providing a comparison between viewing heterosexual and homosexual erotic videos.
In addition to supporting the results of Bernat et al. (2001), the results of this study
also provide evidence of a positive association between beliefs in traditional gender
roles and homophobia. Although these studies tend to utilize homoerotic stimuli
(homoerotic video) to elicit emotional arousal, they relate such findings to the threat
that homosexuality poses to masculinity, though such links have yet to be empirically
established.
While anti-gay aggression is likely to have many correlates, these data indicate
that anti-gay attitudes are associated with anti-gay aggression and that there is a link
between experiencing homosexual stimuli and directing anger and aggression at gay
males. In the instance of being attacked, verbally or physically, because someone
thinks they are gay, heterosexual males with higher levels of anti-gay attitudes are
more likely to respond with aggression than they might if they were attacked for other
non-biased reasons. This reaction may ultimately relate to the threat that being
assumed to be gay represents to one’s masculinity.
7

Study Aims
Previous research has examined minority targets’ reactions to hate speech or
hate crime using retrospective approaches (Herek, Cogan & Gillis, 2002; Herek,
Gillis, Cogan, & Glunt, 1997; Herek, Gillis & Cogan, 1999; Hershberger & D’Augelli,
1995; Nielsen, 2002; Rose & Mechanic, 2002) or has examined how society or
bystanders might perceive hate speech victimization (Boeckmann & Liew, 2002;
Cowan & Hodge, 1996; Cowan & Mettrick, 2002; Leets, 2002; Leets, 2001; Rayburn
& Davison, 2002). Though there are a few articles on the topic of anti-gay hate
speech, few if any data exists on the impact that anti-gay hate speech has on
heterosexual males. Furthermore, little published research to date has sought to
experimentally examine targets’ reactions to hate speech in a controlled setting.
The present study seeks to address the gaps in this body of research by
experimentally examining how heterosexual males might respond to being the target
of anti-gay hate speech and by employing an assessment method that avoids the
problems of retrospective self-report (Davison, Robins, & Johnson, 1983). This study
examines how heterosexual males experience anti-gay hate speech, how this
experience differs from the experience of hostile non-hate speech, and how anti-gay
attitudes and previous victimization experiences relate to these reactions. Given the
findings of previous research and the stigma associated with homosexuality, we
hypothesized that heterosexual males would react with greater anxiety and greater
anger, hostility, and aggression to experiencing anti-gay hate speech than they would
8

to experiencing hostile non-hate speech. Further, it was expected that participants’
reactions to anti-gay hate speech would be related to anti-gay attitudes such that
participants endorsing higher levels of anti-gay attitudes would react with more anger,
hostility, and aggression while experiencing anti-gay hate speech than would
participants endorsing lower levels of anti-gay attitudes. Finally, we expected that
previous victimization within the past year would be related to expressed anxiety
across all conditions.

9

Chapter 2: Methods
Participants
Fifty-nine college-age, self-identified heterosexual males were recruited from
the University of Southern California’s undergraduate subject pool and also from the
wider university community. One participant was dropped from analyses due to
multiple extreme values, yielding a final sample size of 58. The mean age (20.1 years
old) and age range (18-27 years old) of our sample reflects a college population. Our
sample was racially and ethnically diverse with approximately 7% Black and African
Americans, 7% Hispanic or Latino, 3.4% Indian or Native American, 24% Asian or
Pacific Islander, 48% White Non-Hispanic, and 10% indicating other race or ethnicity.
All participants were offered either credit towards psychology courses’ research
participation requirements or entry in a cash lottery.

Measures
The Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations Paradigm. The Articulated
Thoughts in Simulated Situations paradigm (ATSS; Davison, Robins, & Johnson,
1983) was used to examine participants’ reactions to anti-gay hate or hostile non-hate
speech. In the ATSS paradigm, participants are asked to imagine themselves in a
hypothetical situation and, at intervals throughout the scenario, speak-aloud the
thoughts that are going through their mind. The ATSS paradigm is a nearly
concurrent assessment tool utilized to “present specific, concrete stressors designed to
10

elicit cognitions” that are of theoretical interest in the specified situation (Davison,
Vogel, and Coffman, 1997). The flexibility of the ATSS paradigm provides the
opportunity to isolate hate speech from other phenomena typically associated with
hate victimization (i.e., physical harassment etc.) and allows for a direct comparison
between hate speech and a comparable hostile non-hate speech condition.
ATSS Scenarios. The ATSS scenarios constructed for this study were intended
to reflect a realistic analog of experiences of verbal aggression based on either
minority or non-minority status. The two scenarios were constructed so that they were
identical, with the exception of the type of speech used. In both scenarios, the
participant is asked to imagine that he is shopping in a grocery store late at night. The
participant notices another male in the grocery store staring at him and, then shortly
afterwards, this other person becomes verbally hostile. Soon it becomes clear that the
other person in the scenario is becoming hostile toward the participant either because
he is perceived to be gay (anti-gay hate speech condition) or for some other reason
(hostile non-hate speech condition). This becomes evident as the participant hears the
other person say either “this fag here keeps looking at me” or “this asshole here keeps
looking at me.” The scenarios proceed identically with the exception of the type of
speech used. See Appendix A and B for full ATSS scenarios.
ATSS Variables. ATSS coded variables included verbalizations of anxious
thoughts; verbalizations of angry, hostile, and aggressive thoughts; and three codes
reflecting attributions of being targeted because of racial ethnic prejudice, sexual
11

orientation prejudice, or non-prejudicial reasons. Further definition of ATSS coded
variables can be found in Appendix D. ATSS coded variables were assessed for
frequency of occurrence. Frequency was determined by summing the occurrence of
words or statements reflecting ATSS coded variables across the segments.
ATSS Variable Coding. Transcripts of participants’ responses were scored by
raters blind to the ATSS scenario condition. Raters were extensively trained using
ATSS transcripts generated from pilot study participants. Raters were paired, each
coding pair was assigned ATSS coding variables, and they were directed to code
transcripts independently.
Transcripts were grouped and coded in blocks of twenty-five to facilitate the
identification of any difficulties raters might have experienced in coding. Inter-rater
reliability was examined within each block and if a significant discrepancy (intra-class
correlation coefficients less than .70) in ratings were identified, the raters were asked
to meet and discuss their understanding of the problematic code without reference to
specific transcripts. Raters were then sent back to recode the entire block of
transcripts without reference to their previous coding score sheets. If discrepancies
were found after the second round of coding, the raters were asked to meet with the
investigator to discuss the problematic code further and then sent back to recode. If
satisfactory inter-rater reliability was not reached after this third attempt, then data
from the last coding were accepted as final.
Inter-rater reliability of rater pairs for ATSS coded variables was assessed
12

using intra-class coefficients (ICC; McGraw & Wong, 1996). ICC values of ATSS
coded variables ranged from .73 to .96. Final scores of ATSS coded variables were
obtained by averaging the values obtained by the two raters, resulting in a single value
for each ATSS coded variable. See Table 1.

Table 1.
Intra-class Coefficients for ATSS Coded Variables

Variable ICC Values

ATSS-Anxiety .730

ATSS-AHA .955

ATSS-Attr SO .938

ATSS-Attr Prej
nv

ATSS-Attr Other
nv

Note. ATSS-Anxiety= ATSS coded anxiety; ATSS-AHA= ATSS coded
anger/hostility/aggression; ATSS-Attr SO= ATSS coded sexual orientation based
attributions; ATSS-Attr Prej= ATSS coded other minority status attributions; ATSS-
Attr Other= ATSS coded other (nonprejudical) attributions.
nv
Zero variance due to
lack of occurrence.

Demographic Questionnaire. Participants completed a demographic
questionnaire that included questions regarding sexual minority group membership.
Given that the current study examines heterosexual males’ reactions to anti-gay hate
speech, we assessed sexual orientation with a multidimensional approach to be certain
13

that our sample consisted solely of heterosexual males. Specifically, in addition to
standard demographic variables (race/ethnicity, religion, religiosity, parents’ SES and
sex), we asked information regarding sexual identity, sexual behavior, sexual fantasy,
and sexual attraction.
Schedule of Prior Victimization. This 46-item questionnaire, a modification of
that utilized by Rayburn (2003) , asks participants to indicate whether they have
experienced a range of verbal, physical or sexual assault experiences over the past 12
months and, if they have, how frequently. Types of victimization assessed in this
measure include not only racial/ethnic bias and anti-gay victimization, but also non-
bias victimization such as theft and assault.
Implicit Associations Task (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).
The IAT is a computerized sorting task in which participants assign a range of stimuli
representing two categories of interest to one of two target categories. From this task,
composite measures of automatic bias are produced by measuring the amount of time
it takes participants to respond to the stimulus items for each category (see Greenwald,
et al., 1998 for more information about the IAT).
The IAT administered in this study was designed to quantify the degree to
which participants hold negative or positive automatic (implicit) sexual orientation
bias (homosexuality vs. heterosexuality). In this particular version of the IAT,
individuals were presented with a picture of two brides (homosexuality) and asked to
choose between assigning it to a “Good or Gay People” category or a “Bad or Straight
14

People” grouping. The groupings were then switched to their polar opposites: “Bad
or Gay People” or “Good or Straight People.” The amount of time an individual took
to correctly assign the stimuli to the appropriate category was recorded and the mean
for each combination (“Good or Gay People,” “Good or Straight People,” “Bad or Gay
People,” and “Bad or Straight People”) was computed. Faster response times indicate
a relative strength in association and slower ones indicate a relative weakness in
association (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2005). For instance, an individual who has
faster response times when he is required to assign homosexual stimuli to the category
“Bad or Gay People”, as compared to when he are asked to assign the same stimuli to
the category “Good or Gay People”, has a negative automatic association for
homosexuals. On the other hand, an individual that responds faster to the task of
assigning homosexual stimuli to the category “Good or Gay People”, as compared to
when he is required to assign homosexual stimuli to the category “Bad or Gay
People”, has a positive automatic association for homosexuals.
Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS-G; Morrison & Morrison, 2002). The
MHS was developed to assess contemporary attitudes towards gay men. Unlike more
traditional measures, the MHS does not examine attitudes based on more traditional
objections to homosexuality. This 12-item measure asks participants to rate the extent
to which they agree with statements such as “Gay men have become far too
confrontational in the demand for equal rights” on a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being
“Strongly Disagree” and 5 being “Strongly Agree.” Compared with more traditional
15

measures of attitudes towards gay men and lesbians, like the Attitudes Towards
Lesbians and Gays Scale (ATLG-S; Herek, 1984), the items of the MHS are less
extreme, have been shown to be less prone to the floor effects seen with measures like
the ATLG-S, and have been shown to predict prejudicial behavior (Morrison &
Morrison, 2002). Additionally, the MHS demonstrates good test-retest reliability
(r=.91).
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-State subscale (STAI-S; Spielberger, 1983). This
20-item questionnaire asks participants to rate the degree to which they currently feel
nervous, apprehensive, or worried on a 4-point Likert scaling. As such, the STAI-S
measures situationally dependent states of anxiety and was used in this study to
measure baseline anxiety and post-exposure anxiety. The STAI-S was administered as
a pre-ATSS and post-ATSS measure. Reported test-retest reliability (alpha=.33)
supports such use in that state-based measures are expected to have low test-retest
reliability because of the state dependence of the form of anxiety measured.
State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-State Anger subscale (STAXI-SA;
Spielberger, 1996). The STAXI-SA is a 10-item questionnaire that asks participants
to rate the degree to which items such as “I am furious” reflect how they currently feel
on a Likert scale of 1 (“Not at all”) to 4 (“Very much so”). The STAXI-SA is
intended to measure situationally dependent anger; the measure’s low test-retest
reliability (alpha=.25) supports its use for this purpose. As such, the measure was
utilized as a pre-ATSS and post-ATSS measure.
16

Procedures
The experiment was conducted in one session lasting approximately 1 ½ hours.
After consent was obtained, the participants were administered the aforementioned
questionnaires. The experimenter then administered the IAT. After the participant
completed the IAT, the experimenter entered the room and explained the ATSS task
and informed the participant that they would now complete a ATSS practice task.
During the ATSS Instruction tape, which included an ATSS practice exercise, the
experimenter remained in the room with the participant to be sure that he adhered to
the ATSS procedure and coached him if he was in need of further explanation. Then
the participant heard and responded to either the anti-gay or hostile non-hate speech
ATSS tape. The participant then completed the post-experimental questionnaires,
including the STAI-S and the STAXI-SA for a second time.
17

Chapter 3: Results
Manipulation Check
Several measures were utilized to assess whether participants in each condition
perceived the scenarios as intended. First, we examined the number of times during
the ATSS participants expressed that they were being victimized because they were
thought to be gay or bisexual. Significant differences were found between the two
conditions (See Table 2). The mean values of this code reflected participants’ belief
that they were targeted because they were thought to be gay, with the anti-gay hate
speech condition being significantly higher than in the non-hate condition (t=3.42,
p=.001), suggesting that participants perceived the scenarios as intended. We also
coded for thoughts reflecting participants’ beliefs that they were targeted because of
racial or ethnic bias or for other reasons. Codes reflecting these two attributions did
not occur. See Table 2.
A second manipulation check measure was taken during the debriefing
interview. Participants were asked to rate on a 5-point Likert scale the extent to which
they believed the perpetrator in the scenario was aggressive toward them because of
their real or perceived sexual orientation. Significant group differences were again
found with the mean rating for this measure being higher in the hate condition than in
the non-hate condition (t=5.94, p<.001) even after controlling for experiences of
victimization within the previous year. None of the participants expressed a belief that
they were being targeted for any reasons other than perceived sexual orientation.
18

These measures suggest that participants in the anti-gay hate scenario believed that
they were being targeted because the perpetrator believed them to be gay.
We were also interested in how engaging and realistic participants found the
two experimental ATSS scenarios. These measures included the realism of the scenes
participants imagined during the ATSS, the validity of the thoughts participants
vocalized during the ATSS, and the extent to which participants actually felt as if the
situation was happening to them. Participants were asked to respond to each item
using a 5-point Likert scale, with 1 being the lowest value and 5 being the highest. No
significant differences between the two conditions were found using independent
samples t-tests. See Table 2.
Mean values of these three measures suggest that participants were moderately
engaged by the ATSS scenarios and that participants believed that their thoughts
verbalized during the ATSS were reasonably similar to those they might have if the
situation actually occurred to them (see Table 2).

19

Table 2.
Manipulation Check: Attributions Regarding ATSS Condition

Variable Hate Non-hate t-value df p-value

mean/sd mean/sd

Attr SO 3.3/3.5 1.6/4.3 3.42 51 .001

SoTarg 3.6/1.5 1.5/1.0 5.94 49 .000

Realism 3.2/.93 3.2/1.1 0.12 56 .90

Thoughts 4.3/1.2 4.0/.87 0.85 55 .40

Engaged 2.8/1.2 3.0/1.2 -0.75 56 .45

Note. Attr SO= ATSS coded sexual orientation based attributions; SoTarg=debriefing:
belief about being targeted because of being believed to be gay; Realism= debriefing:
how realistic; Thoughts= debriefing: realism of thoughts; Engaged= debriefing:
engagement in ATSS. Reported means and standard deviations are for untransformed
variables. Test statistic and significance values are reported for tests of variables after
square root transformations.

Experimental Group Differences
To ensure that participants in the anti-gay hate speech and hostile non-hate
conditions were comparable, we examined differences on age, race, and ethnicity,
negative attitudes towards gay men, and consideration of issues regarding race,
gender, and sexual orientation. Additionally, because our primary measures relied on
participants’ verbalization during the ATSS scenarios, we conducted an independent
20

groups t-test on the mean number of words participants produced in each condition.
The two groups did not differ on any of these measures, giving us confidence that the
groups did not differ with regard to these variables we believe to be important with
regard to this study. See Tables 3 and 4.

Table 3.
Demographic Differences Between Experimental Groups

Variable Hate Condition Non-hate Condition Value/significance

Age 20.3/1.9 19.9/1.7 t = 0.86, p = .40
a

Race Asian=20.7% Asian=27.6%
Black/Afr.Am.=13.8% Black/Afr.Am.=0%
Hispanic/Latino=3.4% Hispanic/Latino=10.3%
Indian/Ind.Am.=3.4% Indian/Ind.Am.=3.4%
White=48.3% White=48.3%
Other=10.3% Other=10.3% x
2
= 5.29/.38
b

Note. “Other” racial/ethnic category may include those of Middle Eastern ethnicity
and others who feel their race/ethnicity was not represented by one of the response
options. No participants indicated Native American as their racial/ethnic group.
a
=

independent groups t-test with 56 df, group means, and standard deviations.
b
=
Pearson Chi-square with within group category percentages

21

Table 4.
Independent Samples t-tests of Group Differences in Potential Confounders

Variable Hate Non-hate t-value

df p-value

mean/sd mean/sd

GLB issues 2.1/0.9 1.9/0.6 1.02 46 .31

Race issues 3.1/0.6 3.0/0.8 0.55 56 .58

Gender issues 3.0/0.9 2.8/0.8 0.89 56 .38

Word Count 771/309 733/243 0.51 51 .61

MHS 32.5/9.9 33.4/9.1 -0.38 54 .71

IAT .62/.51 .50/.39 1.01 56 .32

CrVt12
a
2.7/2.4 1.5/1.4 2.23 45 .03

RaVt12 .68/1.3 .17/.38 1.97

31 .06

SoVt12 .03/.19 0/0 1.00

28 .31

Note. GLB issues = time thinking about gay, lesbian, and bisexual issues; Race issues
= time thinking about racial/ethnic issues; Gender issues = time thinking about gender
issues; ATSS-WC = ATSS word count; MHS = Modern Homonegativity Scale; IAT =
Implicit Associations Task; CrVt12 = criminal victimization- past 12 months; RaVt12
= racial victimization- past 12 months; SoVt12 = sexual orientation victimization- past
12 months

Associations Between Variables
Given the association found in previous literature between negative attitudes
toward gay men and aggression towards gay men, we examined the association
between our measure of expressed anger, hostility, and aggression coded from ATSS
22

transcripts and negative attitudes toward gay men as measured by the Modern
Homonegativity Scale-Gay (MHS) and also by the Implicit Associations Task (IAT)
for participants in our anti-gay hate speech condition. The association between
verbalized anger, hostility, and aggression and the MHS was not found to be
significant (r=-.01, p=.95). Although the association between verbalized anger,
hostility, and aggression and our self-report measure of negative attitudes toward gay
men, the MHS, was not significant, the association between verbalized anger,
hostility, and aggression and our implicit measure of negative attitudes toward gay
men, the IAT, was found to be significant (r=.38, p=.05). We also examined the
relationship between negative attitudes towards gay men (MHS) and the IAT and
verbalized anxiety as coded from ATSS transcripts. Both the association between the
MHS and verbalized anxiety (r=-.08, p=.56) and the IAT and verbalized anxiety (r=-
.20, p=.13) were non-significant. While our paper-and-pencil measure of negative
attitudes towards gay men, the MHS, was not associated with expressed anger,
hostility, and aggression in the anti-gay hate speech condition, negative attitudes
towards gay men, as measured by the IAT, was. Given this association, the IAT was
included in later analysis.
We next examined the association between victimization experiences in the
past year and verbalized anger, hostility, and aggression and verbalized anxiety.
Victimization in the past year was not significantly associated with expressed anger,
hostility, and aggression (r=.19, p=.34) or with expressed anxiety (r=.23, p=.08).
23

Contrary to expectations, our measure of experiences of victimization in the past year
was not significantly associated with either outcome measure. However, because we
thought such experiences would be important to consider with regard to verbalized
anxiety, we included this measure in further analysis.

Primary Analyses
Our primary hypothesis was that anti-gay hate speech would evoke greater
anger, hostility, and aggression than would hostile non-hate speech. Contrary to this
hypothesis regarding the relationship between anti-gay hate speech and verbalized
anger, hostility, and aggression, the difference between the two conditions was not
significant (t=.55, p=.59), suggesting that experiencing anti-gay hate speech did not
result in greater verbalized anger, hostility, and aggression. Although our measure of
perceptions regarding victimization were initially considered part of the manipulation
checks, we examined how it related to verbalized anger, hostility, and aggression
because such beliefs are likely an important factor in how individuals experience
victimization. We found that attributing victimization to the possibility that the
perpetrator believes they are gay was associated with greater verbalized anger,
hostility, and aggression (t=4.00, p=.001, r-squared=.40). See Tables 5 and 6.
Given that our implicit measure of negative attitudes towards gay men, the
IAT, was found to be associated with verbalized anger, hostility, and aggression, we
24

examined the effect of negative attitudes towards gay men after controlling for the
effects of the belief that they were being targeted because the perpetrator believed they
were gay. We entered the IAT into the regression equation of the belief that the
incident occurred because of real or perceived sexual identity on verbalized anger,
hostility, and regression and found that the effects of implicit negative attitudes toward
gay men were not significant (t=1.00, p=.33) even after considering the effect of
attributing targeting to the perpetrator’s belief that they are gay. See Table 6.

Table 5
Summary Statistics and t-test values for Variables of Interest
Hate Non-hate Possible Sample t-value p-value
Variable mean/sd mean/sd range mean/sd

Anxiety 4.31/3.93 7.45/5.74 0+ 5.94/5.15 -2.99 .004

AHA 14.41/10.36 12.41/11.03 0+ 13.33/10.67 .55 .59
Attr SO 3.20/3.46 1.55/4.19 0+ 2.35/3.91 3.42 .001

MHS 32.60/9.76 32.68/9.46 12-60 32.64/9.52 -.38 .71
IAT .62/.51 .50/.39 0+ .56/.54 1.01 .32
STAI-S
a
41.14/10.53 43.62/11.95 0-80 42.40/11.24 -.83 .41
STAXI
a
13.39/4.58 14.66/7.28 0-40 14.04/6.09 -.79 .44
Note. Anxiety = ATSS coded anxiety; AHA = ATSS coded anger, hostility, and
aggression; Attr SO = ATSS coded belief that the perpetrator believes they, the target,
are gay; IAT = Implicit Associations Task; STAI-S = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory-
State subscale; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory- State subscale.
a
=
Post-ATSS values

25

Table 6
Regression Values for Models of Interest

Model
Estimate t-value p-value R-Squared

AHA
a
← Attr SO .94 4.00 .001 .40
AHA
a
← IAT .52 1.00 .33 .43

← Attr SO .85 3.34 .003 .38

Anxiety ← Condition .86 3.27 .002 .33
← CrVt12 .61 2.04 .97 .17
STAI-S(1) ← STAI-S(2)/Condition .48 1.37 .18 .20
STAXI(1) ← STAXI(2)/Condition .18 .93 .37 .03

Note. Anxiety = ATSS coded anxiety; AHA = ATSS coded anger, hostility, and
aggression; Attr SO = ATSS coded belief that the perpetrator believes they, the target,
are gay; CrVt12 =criminal victimization- past 12 months; IAT = Implicit Associations
Task; STAI-S = State-Trait Anxiety Inventory- State subscale; STAXI = State-Trait
Anger Expression Inventory- State subscale.
a
= Anti-gay Hate condition only

We next examined the hypothesis that participants in the anti-gay hate speech
condition would verbalize more anxiety than participants in the hostile non-hate
speech condition using an independent groups t-test. This analysis did not support our
hypothesis; instead, results of this analysis refute the hypothesis that experiencing
anti-gay hate speech would result in more thoughts expressing anxiety than would
experiencing hostile non-hate speech (t=-2.99, p=.004). This, in fact, suggests that
experiencing hostile non-hate speech resulted in significantly greater anxiety than did
experiencing anti-gay hate speech. Because we expected that previous victimization
experiences in the past year might contribute to reactions to being targeted and
26

previous victimization experiences in the past year was associated with experimental
condition, we examined the influence that such experiences had on verbalized anxiety
by entering our measure of previous victimization experiences into our linear
regression model of experimental condition regressed on expressed anxious thoughts.
Results of this analysis indicate that victimization experiences within the past year are
significant predictors of verbalized anxiety (t=2.21, p=.03). After controlling for the
effects of these experiences, we found that the difference between the anti-gay hate
speech condition and the hostile non-hate condition was greater (t=3.27, p=.002).
These results suggest that experiencing victimization in the past year was an important
predictor of verbalized anxiety and masked the difference between our anti-gay hate
speech condition and our hostile non-hate speech condition. See Table 6.
Paper-and-pencil self-report measures of state anger (STAXI) and state anxiety
(STAI) were also utilized in this study. Differences between conditions were
examined using linear regression adjusting for pretest values. Significant differences
between groups were not found using these measures. See Table 6.

27

Chapter 4: Discussion
Previous research on the impacts of hate speech, and hate victimization more
broadly, has utilized retrospective methods and has tended to focus on sexual and
other minority groups. In contrast, the present study examines the impacts of hate
speech experimentally and focused on these effects in heterosexual men. The design
of this study also allowed us to isolate the effects of anti-gay hate components from
the effects of hostile speech per se. Further, this study examined the links between
previous victimization experiences and anti-gay attitudes. As such, the findings of this
study represent what may be a first step toward examining the wider impacts of hate
victimization by looking beyond the most obvious victims.
Contrary to our expectations, experiencing anti-gay hate speech alone did not
result in participants expressing greater anger, hostility, and aggression than they did
in reaction to a verbal assault that had no anti-gay components. Instead, it was
participants’ beliefs that the perpetrator saw them as gay which resulted in their
expressing greater anger, hostility, and aggression. While anti-gay attitudes were
found to be associated with expressed anger, hostility, and aggression in the face of
anti-gay hate speech, this association disappeared once we considered participants’
beliefs about being targeted because the perpetrator thought they were gay. Also
contrary to our predictions, experiencing hostile non-hate speech resulted in greater
anxiety than did experiencing anti-gay hate speech. As expected, experiencing
victimization in the past year was associated with increased anxiety.
28

Our finding that experiencing anti-gay hate speech did not elicit significantly
greater anger, hostility, and aggression than hostile non-bias speech has important
implications regarding victimization. Our findings suggest that it was not the
experience of being the target of anti-gay hate speech that was meaningful, but instead
that participants’ understanding of that experience that mattered most in terms of
provoking anger, hostility, and aggression. If participants thought the perpetrator
believed them to be gay and that this was the reason they were targeted, then
participants expressed more anger, hostility, and aggression than they did if they did
not attribute their targeting to anti-gay motivations.
We believe there are two possible reasons for this. First, aggressive reactions
are linked to the threat that homosexuality poses to masculinity (Bernat et al., 2001;
Parrot & Zeichner, 2005). Second, believing that you are targeted because you are not
liked does not threaten your social status, but believing that you are the victim of
aggression because you are believed to be gay does- it suggests that you are not
believed to be heterosexual and, therefore, are a member of a socially devalued group.
Despite trends reflecting a decrease in anti-gay attitudes over the past 20 years, anti-
gay attitudes continue to persist and with them, the stigma associated with
homosexuality (Herek, 1984; Herek, 1992). Being linked to a highly stigmatized
group is likely to result in greater negative affect than being linked to many other
social categories (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Lickel, 2000; Herek, 2002). Being
29

categorized by others, through aggression, verbal or otherwise, is likely to be viewed
by individuals as a form of ostracism and met with reactive aggression.
Given the links present in previous research between aggression and anti-gay
attitudes, we had expected to find that those with more negative attitudes towards gay
men would express significantly greater anger, hostility, and aggression when faced
with being the target of an anti-gay hate speech incident than with an incident of
hostile non-bias verbal victimization. However, our findings do not support this
hypothesis. This was a surprising result given the robust nature of the link between
anti-gay attitudes and anger and aggression in previous studies. It may be that anti-
gay attitudes do not relate to immediate emotional arousal (i.e., anger, hostility,
anxiety) elicited by anti-gay hate speech. It may be that the strong negative social
stigma attached to homosexuality, not necessarily individual attitudes toward
homosexuality, determines how individuals react to anti-gay victimization; these
constructs might be related to one another, but may also have independent effects. For
instance, an individual may not hold negative attitudes towards homosexuals and yet,
may have negative reactions when others assume him to be homosexual because of the
negative social stigma attached to homosexuality (e.g., feminine characteristics). It is
also possible that an individual might be outraged by the act of someone targeting a
minority group, irrespective of whether they belong to that minority group or hold
negative attitudes towards homosexuality.
30

Another surprising finding was that experiencing anti-gay victimization was
not associated with participants expressing significantly more anxiety than they did
when experiencing hostile non-bias victimization. We had expected that some
participants would express greater anger and aggression while others would express
greater anxiety in response to anti-gay victimization as compared to hostile non-bias
victimization. We also expected that previous victimization experiences and anti-gay
attitudes would be associated with these different ways of responding to anti-gay
victimization. Our findings indicate that experiencing hostile non-hate speech, not
anti-gay hate speech, resulted in greater expressed anxiety among participants and that
this anxiety is associated with experiences of previous victimization in the past 12
months, not with anti-gay attitudes. While such a finding is unexpected, it may be that
not having an explanation for why they were being victimized may have led to greater
anxiety for those in the hostile non-hate speech condition as compared to those in the
anti-gay hate speech condition.
Further, these findings suggest that the ATSS paradigm may be a useful tool in
examining such questions. In this study, the ATSS paradigm was able to detect
differences when other measures did not. While ATSS coded variables typically relate
to self-reported measures of related constructs, the disconnect between paper-and-
pencil measures and ATSS coded variables is not unique to this study. At least one
study comparing paper-and-pencil measures and ATSS coded variables found that
ATSS coded variables were able to detect significant effects that paper-and-pencil
31

measures did not (Davison, Williams, Nezami, Bice, & DeQuattro, 1991). For this
reason, the apparent disconnect between paper-and-pencil measures and ATSS coded
variables seen here are not concerning. In fact, these discrepancies might offer further
support for the utility of the ATSS paradigm in cases where there is reason to believe
that differences exist but are not detected by paper-and-pencil measures.
The present study has several limitations. First, and foremost, our study was a
laboratory investigation of the impacts of hate speech. Our scenarios were designed to
emphasize verbal victimization and the ATSS procedure did not allow participants to
exit the situation or engage the perpetrator, both of which are possible reactions to
victimization experiences and are likely to lead to very different outcomes such as
decreased or increased victimization. In a similar real world situation, it is likely that
there would be reciprocal interactions between a perpetrator and target, which could
either escalate or deescalate the situation and the target’s reactions to that situation.
What this study can offer is insight into how heterosexuals might think in such
situations, but not how they might behave. It is important to emphasize this point
because the ATSS examines individuals’ concurrent cognitive reactions to an
imagined situation; behavior was not observed in the ATSS utilized in the present
study. Second, the findings of our study cannot speak to the long-term impacts of
experiencing hate speech. While immediate reactions may be predictive of how
individuals react to victimization in the long-term, other factors relating to post-
victimization experiences, such as the availability of and willingness to engage
32

support networks and the response of support networks, which can mitigate
individuals’ long-term reactions.
Additionally, it should be mentioned that this study involved a highly select
sample. Important differences are likely to exist between individuals who are college
educated and the wider population. Individuals with higher levels of education tend to
endorse less prejudicial attitudes and tend to be more accepting of sexual minorities.
Our findings are also limited to a specific cohort that has been raised during a time of
great changes in terms of the social acceptance and social visibility of sexual
minorities, meaning that they are generally likely to be less prejudiced and more
accepting of sexual minorities than those of earlier cohorts. Finally, it is also
important to highlight the fact that this study examined how the experience of anti-gay
hate speech victimization differs from the experience of hostile non-hate speech
victimization. Our results should not be taken to represent how individuals might
respond to hate motivated aggression more generally. Nor should our results be taken
to represent the potential impacts of hate- motivated aggression aimed at sexual
minorities or other socially devalued groups like racial, ethnic, or religious minorities.
Despite such limitations, this study is a step toward understanding how
heterosexual males may react to the experience of anti-gay hate speech and contributes
to efforts to better understand individuals’ reactions to experiencing hate speech. The
findings of this study are unique as compared to previous research in the domain of
hate speech and hate crime research because previous research has not experimentally
33

examined reactions to being targeted by hate aggression and has not examined how
non-minorities might react to being the target of hate aggression. As this is an initial
inquiry into this topic, it seems important for future research to address several issues
not yet addressed in this or other studies. First, what factors relate to our findings
regarding anger, hostility, and aggression and the belief that one was victimized
because they were believed to be gay? Second, it is important to experimentally
examine the impacts of anti-gay hate speech on sexual minorities using procedures
like those employed in this study (e.g., the ATSS), as previous research regarding
impacts on victims has utilized retrospective designs. Third, such research initiatives
should be extended to examine how other minority groups and non-minority groups
respond to other minority-focused hate speech.

34

References
Barron, R.M., & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in
social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
Berk, R.A. (1990). Thinking About Hate-Motivated Crimes. Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 5,3, 334-349.
Bernat, J.A., Calhoun, K.S., Adams, H.E., & Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobic and
physical aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual individuals. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 179-187.
Blascovich, J., Berry Mendes, W., Hunter, S.B., & Lickel, B. (2000). Stigma, threat,
and social interactions. In T.F. Heatherton, R.E. Kleck, M.R. Hebl, & J.G.
Hull (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Stigma (pp. 307-333). New York:
Guilford Press.
Boeckmann, R.J., & Liew, J. (2002). Hate Speech: Asian American Students’ Justice
Judgments and Psychological Responses. Journal of Social Issues, 58,2, 363-
381.
Burn, S.M. (2000). Heterosexuals’ Use of “Fag” and “Queer” to Deride One Another:
A Contributor to Heterosexism and Stigma. Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 2,
1-11.
Cowan, G., & Hodge, C. (1996). Judgments of Hate Speech: The Effects of Target
Group, Publicness, and Behavioral Responses of the Target. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 26,4, 355-374.
Cowan, G., & Mettrick, J. (2002). The Effects of Target Variables and Setting on
Perceptions of Hate Speech. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,2, 277-
299.
Davison, G.C., Robins, C., & Johnson, M. (1983). Articulated thoughts during
simulated situations: A paradigm for studying cognitions 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, 65,6, 950-958.
35

Davison, G.C., Williams, M.E., Nezami, E., Bice, T.L., & DeQuattro, V.L. (1991).
Relaxation, reduction in angry articulated thoughts, and improvements in
borderline essential hypertension. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 14, 453-
469.
GLSEN. (2001). The GLSEN 2001 National School Climate Survey: The School-
Related Experiences of Our Nation’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and
Transgendered Youth.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual
differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
Harry, J. (1992). Conceptualizing Anti-gay Violence. In G.M. Herek & K.T. Berrill
(Eds.), Hate Crimes: Confronting Violence Against Lesbians and Gay Men
(pp113-122). Los Angeles: Sage Press.
Herek, G.M. (1984a). Attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A factor analytic study.
Journal of Homosexuality. Special Issue: Homophobia: An overview, 10, 39-
51.
Herek, G.M. (1984b). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In J.P. DeCecco (Ed.), Homophobia in
American Society: Bashers, batterers, and bigots (pp.1-21). New York:
Harrington Park Press.
Herek, G.M. (1989). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay Men. American
Psychologist, 44, 6, 948-955.
Herek, G. M. (1992). Hate crimes against lesbians and gay men. In W. R. Dynes & S.
Donaldson (Eds.), Homosexuality: discrimination, criminology, and the law
(pp. 216-223). New York: Garland Publishing.
Herek, G.M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the
United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 4, 1-18.
Herek, G.M., Cogan, J.C., & Gillis, J.R. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes
based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 2, 319-339.
Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., & Cogan, J.C. (1999). Psychological sequelae of hate-crime
victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 67, 6, 945-951.
36

Herek, G.M., Gillis, J.R., Cogan, J.C., & Glunt, E.K. (1997). Hate crime victimization
among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults: Prevalence, psychological correlates,
and methodological issues. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 12, 2, 195-215.
Hershberger, S. L., & D'Augelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the
mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths.
Developmental Psychology, 31, 1, 65-74.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1989). Assumptive worlds and the stress of traumatic events:
Applications of the schema construct. Social Cognition, 7,2, 113-136.
Leets, L. (2001). Explaining Perceptions of Racist Speech. Communication
Research, 28,5, 676-706.
Leets, L. (2002). Experiencing Hate Speech: Perceptions and Responses to Anti-
Semitism and Antigay Speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58,2, 341-361.
Matsuda, M.J., Lawrence, C.R., Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K.W. (1993). Words that
wound: Critical Race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press
McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass
correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 1, 30-46.
Morrison, M.A., & Morrison, T.G. (2002). Development and validation of a scale
measuring modern prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of
Homosexuality, 43, 2, 12-37.
National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (2003). NGLTF’s Campus Climate for Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgendered People: A National Perspective.
Nielsen, L.B. (2002). Subtle, Pervasive, Harmful: Racist and Sexist Remarks in
Public as Hate Speech. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 2, 265-280.
Nosek, B.A., Greenwald, A.G., & Banaji, M.R. (2005). Understanding and Using the
Implicit Association Test: II. Method Variables and Construct Validity.
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 2, 166-180.
Parrott, D.J. & Ziechner, A. (2005). Effects of sexual prejudice and anger on physical
aggression toward gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of Men &
Masculinity, 6, 3-17.
37

Rayburn, N. R. (2003) The Psychological Consequences of Hate Crime Victimization:
An Investigation Utilizing the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations
Paradigm. Dissertation Abstracts International, 63 (12), 6104B.
Rayburn, N.R. & Davison, G.C. (2002). Articulated Thoughts About Antigay Hate
Crimes. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 26, 4, 431-447.
Rose, S.M, & Mechanic, M.B. (2002). Psychological Distress, Crime Features, and
Help-Seeking Behaviors Related to Homophobic Bias Incidents. American
Behavioral Scientist, 46,1, 14-26.
Spielberger, C.D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Expression Inventory:
STAI (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Spielberger, C.D. (1996). Manual for the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory
(STAXI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Tremblay, R. E. (2002). The Origins of Youth Violence. In C. van Hofsten and L.
Backman (Eds.), Psychology at the turn of the millennium, Vol. 2: Social,
developmental, and clinical perspectives (pp. 77-88). Florence, KY: Taylor &
Frances/Routledge.

38

Appendix A

ATSS Instruction Tape

“Thank you for participating in this study. In this study, we are interested in
the things people say to themselves when they are confronted with different situations.
Often, when people are going about their daily affairs, interacting with others and so
forth, they have a kind of internal monologue going through their heads, a constant
stream of thoughts or feelings which reflect their reactions to something that is
happening.
What we’d like you to do is play a part in a situation we have taped. Your part
will involve listening to a situation, imagining yourself in the situation, and tuning in
to what is running through your mind. The tape is divided into fourteen segments. At
the end of each segment, there will be a tone, followed by a pause of thirty seconds,
during which time we would like you to say aloud whatever is going through your
mind. Say as much as you can until you hear another tone. Of course, there are no
right or wrong answers, so please just say whatever comes to mind, without judging
whether it seems appropriate or not. The more you can tell us the better.
Try to imagine as clearly as you can that it is really you in the situation right
now. Note that your task is not to speak back to any one of the voices on the tape, as
though you were having a conversation with one of them. Rather, you should tune in
to your own thoughts and say them aloud. The microphone in front of you will enable
us to record your comments.
39

This is just a brief overview and we will give you more detailed instructions as
we go along. But, do you have any questions at this point?”
40

Appendix B
Anti-gay Hate Speech Condition
Segment One:
It’s getting late in the evening and you are at the grocery store doing your shopping.
The store is almost empty. You are pushing the shopping cart as you turn down the
beverage aisle. This guy is looking at you; you make eye contact with him hesitantly
and quickly look away. Still you can feel this guy still looking at you. You look and
then quickly overt your gaze and see he is still looking. (tone)

Segment Two:
As you head towards the water section you move closer to him. You turn your head as
to keep him in the corner of your vision and see that he is still looking at you. (tone)

Segment Three:
As you move past him you hear him say into his cell phone “this fag here keeps
looking at me”. (tone)

Segment Four:
As you exit the produce section, you check your cart and see that you have all that you
came for and head to the checkout. Walking towards the front of the store, you see a
41

magazine cover about the upcoming elections. “Fag! Watch where you’re going” the
same guy says to you as he cuts ahead of you. (tone)

Segment Five:
A woman nearby looks at you, says “People”, shrugs her shoulders and she heads to
the checkout line. (tone)

Segment Six:
As you near the registers, you notice that there is only one checkout open and he is
one person ahead of you. (tone)

Segment Seven:
Again, he is on his cell phone and you hear him telling the person he is speaking to “I
hate fucking faggots. Hope he dies.” (tone)

Segment Eight:
You turn to the same magazine you had seen before on the election and pretend to
read it as you monitor what he is saying. You listen, but can not seem to make out
what he is saying as he is being totaled-out by the cashier. As he walks out the door
with his groceries in hand you see him turn back and look you in the eyes. (tone)

42

Segment Nine:
The woman in front of you is getting totaled out. She looks back at you too as she is
walking away. (tone)

Segment Ten:
“Hi” the cashier says as she begins to ring you up; you collect your groceries and walk
towards the door. The doors open and you walk out into the parking lot. There is a
dark car parked in the corner, its engine running and its lights beaming on you. (tone)

Segment Eleven:
You walk to your car and glance over at the car but can’t see inside it. (tone)

Segment Twelve:
You step to your car, open the trunk, and load your groceries in the trunk. The black
car in the corner is still there. (tone)

Segment Thirteen:
You open your car door, get in, put on your seat belt, start the car and look in the
rearview mirror, pull back , stop, and drive towards the exit of the parking lot. You
glance in your rearview mirror; the black car is still there- lights on. (tone)

43

Segment Fourteen:
At the exit you turn onto the street and drive away. (tone)
44

Appendix C

Non-Hate Speech Condition
Segment One:
It’s getting late in the evening and you are at the grocery store doing your shopping.
The store is almost empty. You are pushing the shopping cart as you turn down the
beverage aisle. This guy is looking at you; you make eye contact with him hesitantly
and quickly look away. Still you can feel this guy still looking at you. You look and
then quickly overt your gaze and see he is still looking. (tone)

Segment Two:
As you head towards the water section you move closer to him. You turn your head as
to keep him in the corner of your vision and see that he is still looking at you. (tone)

Segment Three:
As you move past him you hear him say into his cell phone “this asshole keeps
looking at me”. (tone)

Segment Four:
As you exit the produce section, you check your cart and see that you have all that you
came for and head to the checkout. Walking towards the front of the store, you see a
45

magazine cover about the upcoming elections. “Asshole! Watch where you’re going”
the same guy says to you as he cuts ahead of you. (tone)

Segment Five:
A woman nearby looks at you, says “People”, shrugs her shoulders and she heads to
the checkout line. (tone)

Segment Six:
As you near the registers, you notice that there is only one checkout open and he is
one person ahead of you. (tone)

Segment Seven:
Again, he is on his cell phone and you hear him telling the person he is speaking to “I
hate this fucking asshole. Hope he dies.” (tone)

Segment Eight:
You turn to the same magazine you had seen before on the election and pretend to
read it as you monitor what he is saying. You listen, but can not seem to make out
what he is saying as he is being totaled-out by the cashier. As he walks out the door
with his groceries in hand, you see him turn back and look you in the eyes. (tone)

46

Segment Nine:
The woman in front of you is getting totaled out. She looks back at you too as she is
walking away. (tone)

Segment Ten:
“Hi” the cashier says as she begins to ring you up; you collect your groceries and walk
towards the door. The doors open and you walk out into the parking lot. There is a
dark car parked in the corner, its engine running and its lights beaming on you. (tone)

Segment Eleven:
You walk to your car and glance over at the car but can’t see inside it. (tone)

Segment Twelve:
You step to your car, open the trunk, and load your groceries in the trunk. The black
car in the corner is still there. (tone)

Segment Thirteen:
You open your car door, get in, put on your seat belt, start the car and look in the
rearview mirror, pull back, stop, and drive towards the exit of the parking lot. You
glance in your rearview mirror; the black car is still there- lights on. (tone)

47

Segment Fourteen:
At the exit, you turn onto the street and drive away. (tone)

48

Appendix D

ATSS Coding Manual
Differential Impacts Study
Wm. Andrew Mullane, B.A., and Gerald C. Davison, Ph.D.

General Coding Guidelines:
• While coding you will be reading transcripts and listening to their
corresponding tapes. You will be coding primarily from transcripts using tapes
as a secondary source of information when the content of a particular coding
unit is unclear.
• Coding units do not have to represent coherent statements. An example of this
may be “I’m scared. Yeah, freaked-out!” Coding units are broken down for
you and usually include a clause and stated or implied subject.
• In coding, we are counting the number of times specific variables occur rather
than the presence or absence of variables. These occurrences can be either
single words or phrases that are related to the coded variable. When you have
a phrase that involves multiple occurrences of a coded variable, you should
count the number of times this coded variable occurs instead of counting the
phrase itself (i.e., “I’m anxious and afraid” counts as two occurrences even
though it is one phrase). You code at the statement level when inference is
necessary (i.e., “this guy is weird and it’s freaking me out” counts as two
occurrences because we count “this guy is weird” and “it’s freaking me out”).
• A statement may contain more than one occurrence of a specific variable and
may also be coded as more than one variable. An example of this is when the
participant says something like “I am so pissed, but I’m nervous about this.”
This could be coded as 2 occurrences of self-reference, and an occurrence of
both anger and anxiety. In other words, there is nothing special about coding
units, as they are just there to make coding easier.
• Please note that many variables contain word lists. These word lists are not
exhaustive. There may be instances when you feel as if a word relates to a
variable and yet is not listed for that variable. Coding is subjective and means
that you may be required to make inferences about their meaning(s). The word
lists and examples are there to provide you with exemplars of codes and not
exhaustive explications of them.

49

ATSS Variables:

Anxiety – number of words or phrases relating fear or anxiety.
Ex. Scared, anxious, distressed, uneasy, worried, dread, apprehensive,
frightened, afraid, nervous, uneasy, panic, terrified, alarmed, stressing,
dread, panicked, shaky, petrified, apprehensive, worried, concerned,
alarmed, cautious, jittery, shaky, startled, “This is not a safe situation”,
“This is not good”, “I’m in trouble”, “I can’t handle this”, etc.
AHA - number of words or phrases relating anger, hostility, aggression, or a stated
wish that the perpetrator is harmed are all coded as aggression. Expressions that are
not directed at the perpetrator are coded as well.
Ex. Angry, mad, pissed, mad, fuming, furious, livid, heated, raging,
irate, enraged, boiling, fuming, fired-up, steaming, hostile, teed-off,
burned-up, annoyed, agitated, peeved, and uses of angry name-calling
or cursing directed at the stimulus/perpetrator (i.e. “what a fucking
psycho, fucker”, “Fucking faggot”), etc.
Ex. “I’m going to hurt this guy”, I’m gonna tell this guy off”, “I’m
gonna punch this guy”, “Wish this guy were dead”, “Hope he gets hit
by a car”, “My friends will kick his ass”, “I feel like throwing
something”, “he’s going to pay”, etc.
*Note that we do not code legal action as an aggressive statement.*

50

ATTR SO - number of words or phrases relating that the participant believes that this
situation is happening to them because of their real or perceived sexual orientation.
Ex. “Does this guy think I’m gay”, “He thinks I’m a fag”, “Does he
think I’m hitting on him”, “He thinks I want to fuck him”, etc.
ATTR Prej – number of words or phrases relating that the participant believes that
this situation is happening to them because of other minority status
Ex. “Is this guy starting with me because I’m Asian?”, “Is he starting
with me because I am Jewish?”, etc.
ATTR Other – number of words or phrases relating that the participant thinks or
believes that this situation is happening to them because of reasons other than sexual
orientation, race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation.
Ex. “This guy must think I started with him”, “Does he think I have
beef with him?”, etc.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Though scholars acknowledge heterosexuals can be targets of anti-gay aggression, little research has examined the effects of such victimization. This study examines how the experience of being the target of anti-gay hate speech impacts heterosexual males and how these impacts differ from those of hostile non-hate speech. Using the Articulated Thoughts in Simulated Situations Paradigm (ATSS), 58 heterosexual male college students were randomly assigned to one of two ATSS conditions: an anti-gay hate speech condition ( "fag ") or a hostile non-hate speech condition ( "asshole" ). Results indicate that being the target of anti-gay hate speech resulted in significantly less anxiety than hostile non-hate speech. However, participants who attributed their being targeted to anti-gay motivations expressed significantly more anger than participants who did not.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Measuring narcissistic cognitions in response to relationship threat using articulated thoughts in simulated situations

PDF

Assessing therapeutic change mechanisms in motivational interviewing using the articulated thoughts in simulated situations paradigm

PDF

Personalized normative feedback applied to undergraduates with problem drinking: a comparison with psychoeducation and an examination of cognitive-affective change mechanisms via the articulated ...

PDF

Exploring experiences of minority-stress and alcohol use among sexual minorities using articulated thoughts in simulated situations: a proof of concept study

PDF

Self-reported and physiological responses to hate speech and criticisms of systemic social inequality: an investigation of response patterns and their mediation…

PDF

The sources of impact in college on gay male student identity: the current student perspective

PDF

Reacting to the negative consequences of your decisions: an ATSS comparison of cognitive and affective reactions in older versus younger adults

PDF

Zooming in on mindfulness and gaming: the application of a brief, standardized, zoom-based, mindfulness intervention on videogame play as compared to a treatment as usual approach

PDF

Signs of skilled adaptation in the co-speech ticking of adults with Tourette's

PDF

Exploring the academic success of black male former student-athletes and their experiences with academic support upon re-entry to college

Asset Metadata

Creator Mullane, William Andrew (author)

Core Title The articulated thoughts of heterosexual male college students in reaction to anti-gay hate speech

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Master of Arts

Degree Program Psychology

Publication Date 06/10/2008

Defense Date 05/08/2008

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

Tag anti-gay victimization,hate speech,OAI-PMH Harvest,verbal aggression

Language English

Advisor Davison, Gerald C. (committee chair), Schwartz, David (committee member), Walsh, David A. (committee member)

Creator Email mullane@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m1263

Unique identifier UC1280391

Identifier etd-Mullane-20080610 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-69035 (legacy record id),usctheses-m1263 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Mullane-20080610.pdf

Dmrecord 69035

Document Type Thesis

Rights Mullane, William Andrew

Type texts

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

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu