Interpersonal Contact, Stereotype Acceptance, Gender Role Beliefs

https://doi.org/10.24839/2325-7342.JN24.1.18

Interpersonal Contact, Stereotype Acceptance, Gender Role Beliefs, Causal Attribution, and Religiosity as Predictors of Attitudes Toward Transgender Individuals Jordan Greenburg and A. Celeste Gaia* Emory & Henry College

ABSTRACT. Previous research has shown that members of the transgender community are often the victims of prejudice and discrimination (e.g., Grant et al., 2011; James et al., 2016). However, because transgender identity is still an emerging topic, relatively few studies have exclusively examined predictors of attitudes toward transgender individuals. The present study of undergraduates (N = 110) built on previous research by exploring the role of interpersonal contact, acceptance of stereotyping, traditional gender roles, causal attribution, religiosity, and gender in attitudes toward transgender persons. As hypothesized, one-way ANOVA and multiple regression indicated that interpersonal contact with transgender individuals and attributing transgender orientation to biological factors predicted lower levels of genderism/transphobia; whereas greater acceptance of stereotyping, endorsement of traditional gender roles, and greater religiosity predicted higher levels of genderism/transphobia. Men reported higher genderism/transphobia scores than women. Findings provided insight into how attitudes toward transgender individuals may be conceptualized and shaped by social and cognitive processes. Understanding these mechanisms is an important step in reducing prejudice and minimizing its adverse effects. Keywords: transgender, gender identity, prejudice, discrimination, stereotypes

revious research has found that transgender transgender individuals. Although there is individuals often experience prejudice and evidence that attitudes toward these groups share Pdiscrimination on the basis of their gender predictors (e.g., Nagoshi et al., 2008; Worthen, identity (Grant et al., 2011; James, et al., 2016; 2012), gender identity is a separate construct Whittle, Turner, & Al-Alami, 2007). A relatively from sexual orientation and should be examined limited but growing body of research has suggested as such (American Psychological Association, several predictors for transgender attitudes, or 2014). The present study aimed to further explore “transphobia,” including beliefs about gender, the predictors of attitudes toward transgender interpersonal contact, religiosity, and attribution of individuals in a sample of undergraduates. transgender identity (Claman, 2008; Nagoshi et al., Much of traditional psychological research has 2008; Norton & Herek, 2012; Tee & Hegarty, 2006). assumed two discrete categories of sex and gender: SPRING 2019 However, much of this research has examined male and female. This gender distinction resulted prejudice toward the general LGBTQ (i.e., lesbian, in a binary understanding of gender and led to PSI CHI JOURNAL OF gay, bisexual, transgender, queer) community numerous studies that focused on gender differ- PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than attitudes specifically directed toward ences between men and women (Hyde, Bigler, Joel, RESEARCH

Tate, & van Anders, 2018). Studies have indicated of respondents who identified or were perceived that individuals often negatively judge those who as transgender had been bullied and harassed express nonconforming gender behaviors that do while in school (K–12). Others reported being not fit within this binary conception (e.g., Auster the survivors of physical (24%) and sexual (13%) & Ohm, 2000; Eagly, Makhijani, & Klonsky, 1992; assault, and 17% percent indicated that they had Rudman & Fairchild, 2004). More recently, there left K–12 school due to harassment and mistreat- has been a movement within the scholarly commu- ment. Harassment and abuse also took place in the nity to redefine gender identity along a spectrum home. In fact, 10% of respondents reported that and as more fluid than the original binary construct a family member was responsible for the mistreat- (Evans, 2014). Within this new conceptualization ment, and 8% of respondents said they had to leave of gender identity, research in transgender stud- home for being transgender (James et al., 2016). In ies has emerged as an area of serious research another study, 37% of adult transgender individuals within psychology and other academic disciplines surveyed reported at least one physical attack since (Martinez-San Miguel & Tobias, 2016). they were 13 years old (Barboza, Dominguez, & Transgender is a term used to describe indi- Chance, 2016). viduals whose gender identity does not coincide Discrimination against trans individuals extends with the sex they were assigned at birth, whereas to economic difficulties and is related to limited cisgender describes people whose gender identity access to healthcare. Trans individuals reported and expression do correspond with their assigned unemployment at twice the rate of the general sex (American Psychological Association, 2018). population and experienced severe maltreatment The term transgender includes individuals who in the workplace due to their transgender identity identify as transsexual, genderqueer, as well as a and expression (James et al., 2016). Furthermore, variety of other identities (American Psychological 30% of adults reported being harassed, losing their Association, 2014). Although some measures of jobs or being denied a promotion, or being physi- antitrans attitudes use the term “transsexual,” many cally or sexually assaulted while at work. Another members of the transgender community do not pre- study indicated that 26% of respondents had lost a fer this language because it is not an umbrella and job due to being transgender, and 50% had been inclusive term (GLAAD, 2016). For the purposes of harassed in their workplace (Grant et al., 2011). this article, the terms transgender and trans will both These hardships are exacerbated within minority be used as descriptors for the multitude of gender populations (James et al., 2016). nonconforming identities. Because identifying as Not all acts of discrimination against transgen- trans is a personal and often private experience for der individuals are explicit, however. Transgender many people, it is difficult to determine the number individuals often experience what are called of individuals who identify as such. Meerwijk and “microaggressions” (Galupo, Henise, & Davis, Sevelius (2017) reported that their best estimate 2014). Sue (2010) described microaggressions is that 0.39% of the U.S. population identify as as subtle forms of discrimination that may be transgender. This was relatively consistent with a intentional or unintentional offenses that occur previous report that approximately 0.3% of U.S. in everyday life. Nadal, Skolnik, and Wong (2012) adults indicated transgender identity (Gates, 2011). identified eight categories of microaggressions directed toward trans individuals including the Prejudice and Discrimination use of transphobic and/or incorrectly gendered Against Transgender Individuals terminology, endorsement of a gender norma- Unfortunately, transgender individuals are sub- tive and binary culture or behaviors, denial of jected to a wide range of prejudice, harassment, personal body privacy, and an assumption of a and discrimination. The 2015 U.S. Transgender universal transgender experience. Nadal, Davidoff, Survey (USTS) of 27,715 transgender individuals Davis, and Wong (2014) examined the emotional in the United States revealed the high prevalence consequences of these microaggressions. They of mistreatment and discrimination of children, found that transgender individuals react to these adolescents, and adults who identify as transgender subtle forms of discrimination with feelings (James et al., 2016). Respondents indicated that of anger, betrayal, hopelessness, and distress. SPRING 2019 they had experienced verbal harassment, physical Further, trans individuals described such microag- PSI CHI and sexual assault, and general maltreatment due gression experiences as being emotionally and JOURNAL OF to their transgender identity. Fifty-four percent physically taxing (Nadal et al., 2014). Harassment PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

is evident even in places that are considered effective in reducing prejudice across a wide range relatively tolerant such as college campuses. of settings. Although originally designed as a way to McKinney (2005) conducted a qualitative study improve racial and ethnic relations, interpersonal that assessed transgender individuals’ experiences contact has been shown to be an effective method in a university setting. The results demonstrated in reducing prejudice among nonracial and non- overarching themes that included feelings of mis- ethnic samples as well. In fact, among the studies understanding and lack of support from faculty and reviewed by Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), the largest students. In 2015, 24% of transgender respondents effect sizes for interpersonal contact were found in in college or vocational schools reported verbal, studies that analyzed interpersonal contact among physical, and sexual harassment (James et al., 2016). those who identified as cisgender and gay men and Other research has identified negative physical lesbian women. Additional studies have found that and psychological consequences related to the greater interpersonal contact with gay and lesbian wide range of discrimination against those who individuals leads to more accepting attitudes (e.g., identify as trans. Over the course of their lives, trans Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993). individuals were more likely to have attempted Specifically, participants who reported closer rela- suicide than the general population (Grant et al., tionships with individuals who are gay and lesbian, 2011; James et al., 2016). In both Grant et al. (2011) as well as receiving direct disclosure about their and James et al. (2016), more than 40% reported sexual orientation, indicated less homophobia attempting suicide in their lifetime compared to (Herek & Capitanio, 1996). 4.6% of the general U.S. population. James et In considering specific instances of interper- al. (2016) reported that, in the past year, 7% of sonal contact and reduction of transphobia, work respondents had attempted suicide, whereas this by Walch et al. (2012) examined the effects of a number was 0.6% in the general U.S. population. speaker panel comprised of transgender individu- Rates of suicide rise for those who had lost jobs als in reducing antitransgender attitudes. Results due to bias, were harassed in school, or had been indicated that those who attended the speaker physically assaulted. Compared with 5% of the panel, as opposed to a traditional lecture that did general population, 39% of transgender individuals not include contact with transgender individuals, surveyed had experienced psychological distress showed greater immediate reductions of transpho- in the past month before completing the survey bia. Although both groups showed reduced levels (James et al., 2016). of transphobia, the results suggested that face-to- Because of these experiences of stigmatization face interaction with individuals who identified as and prejudice, and the resulting negative consequences, it is important to assess the components of transgender is more effective at reducing prejudice attitudes surrounding transgender identity. Herek than learning about transgender identity from a (2000) suggested that understanding the underly- third party. Interestingly, Crisp and Turner (2009) ing correlates of prejudice might be a step in have found that interpersonal contact may not have helping to prevent such bias. Among these studies, to be direct or face-to-face; imagined group contact some of the most prominent correlates of attitudes may be an effective way to reduce intergroup toward transgender individuals were interpersonal conflict and prejudice. Turner, Crisp, and Lambert contact experiences and beliefs about gender. (2007) found that imagined group contact helped to change individuals’ attitudes toward those of Intergroup Contact Theory a different sexual orientation. Because previous Initially based on Allport’s (1954) idea that inter- research has found correlations among predictors group conflict could be reduced through contact of homophobia and antitrans attitudes (e.g., Hill between opposing groups, the contact hypothesis & Willoughby, 2005; Tebbe, Moradi, & Ege, 2014), has received much attention because a great deal of these studies raise important questions that could research has been conducted on the effectiveness of be applied to research related to interpersonal interpersonal contact in reducing prejudice toward contact and attitudes toward transgender individu- minority groups (Oskamp & Jones, 2000). Inter- als. Therefore, the present study sought to examine SPRING 2019 group contact theory holds that more exposure to whether greater levels of direct interpersonal the targeted groups may reduce negative attitudes contact with transgender individuals (i.e., having PSI CHI JOURNAL OF held by outsiders. A meta-analysis by Pettigrew and met a trans person) would predict lower antitrans PSYCHOLOGICAL Tropp (2006) indicated that interpersonal contact is attitude scores. RESEARCH

Stereotype Acceptance and stereotyping acceptance as well as endorsement of Traditional Gender Role Beliefs traditional gender roles. Based on this research, the The idea of interpersonal contact theory is directly present study examined whether greater acceptance related to reducing preexisting stereotypes associ- of stereotypes and traditional gender roles would ated with marginalized groups. Stereotyping reflects predict higher transphobia scores. preconceived perceptions about how particular groups typically act (Eagly & Steffen, 1984), and Causal Attribution prejudice and stereotyping often go hand in hand Causal attribution is defined as the causes that (Gordijn, Koomen, & Stapel, 2001). Other studies people believe are the basis for the behavior of have supported this association between greater others (Tygart, 2000). Several foundational studies prejudice and the attribution of positive and nega- assessing attitudes toward gay and lesbian individu- tive traits to an ethnic group (Falanga, De Caroli, als found that attribution of sexual orientation to & Sagone, 2014). Although not all stereotypes are biological factors (e.g., genetics), rather than negative, the categorization of individuals based environmental factors, was positively correlated with on a small amount of information can be harmful. lower levels of homophobia. In fact, Tygart (2000) However, the application of stereotypes may seem found that the more that participants attributed useful to some people when attempting to under- sexual orientation to biological factors, the more stand an individual in the context of their group likely they were to support gay civil rights such membership (e.g., cultural, religious, gender). as domestic partnership and marriage. Although Allport (1954) suggested that categorical thinking limited, similar results have been found when is a natural function of human thought and begins assessing attitudes toward transgender individuals. from an early age. Despite this natural tendency to Claman’s study (2008) examined participants’ categorize, research has found that, in categorizing ratings of the degree to which they believed that groups, people tend to minimize differences within transgender orientation was primarily caused by groups (Plous, 2003). It is possible that, in general- biological factors, environmental factors, or a izing people on the basis of a social or ethnic group, mixture of both. It was found that those participants the individual aspects of group members may be who attributed transgender orientation to biology overlooked. Therefore, individuals may perceive as opposed to environment were more likely to trans persons as one homogenous group rather have positive attitudes regarding trans individuals than unique individuals. Because transgender (Claman, 2008). Furthermore, Tee and Hegarty individuals tend to fall outside established gender (2006) found that those who believe that gender is norms, the desire to categorize and the belief in a dichotomous construct only and that this biologi- its utility are particularly important concepts in cally based dichotomy leads to understandings of understanding transphobia. gender were more likely to oppose transgender civil For specific components of stereotyping and rights. Therefore, in the present study, we examined categorizing, endorsement of a binary construction how biological and environmental attributions may of gender has been shown to be important to anti- play a role in antitrans attitudes. LGBTQ attitudes. Specifically, those who believe in gender as a dichotomous concept are more likely Religiosity to have negative perceptions of both LGB and Measures of religiosity have often been used transgender identity (e.g., Norton & Herek, 2012; when assessing attitudes toward minority groups Tee & Hegarty, 2006). Norton and Herek (2012) including attitudes toward trans individuals (Cla- found that individuals who endorsed a gender man, 2008; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek, binary understanding were more likely to report 2012; Tee & Hegarty, 2006). All of these studies negative feelings toward the LGBT community. Also found high levels of religiosity to be associated tied to a binary conceptualization of gender is the with higher levels of transphobia. However, in one idea of male and female gender roles. Deaux and study, once sexual prejudice was controlled for, the Lewis (1984) identified “masculine” and “feminine” correlation of religiosity became nonsignificant in roles as one of the primary components surround- men, although it remained significant for women ing gender stereotypes. However, few studies have (Nagoshi et al., 2008). Additionally, Johnson, SPRING 2019 specifically analyzed the importance of traditional Brems, and Alford-Keating (1997) found religios- gender roles in transphobia levels (Claman, 2008). ity to be significantly correlated with more biased PSI CHI JOURNAL OF As a result, the current study assessed both general beliefs about the origin of sexual orientation and PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

overall levels of homophobia. a meta-analysis by Kite and Whitley (1996) found One reason that greater, and more conserva- that, across a wide range of studies, heterosexual tive in particular, religiosity may contribute to men tended to rate gay men more negatively than homophobia and antitrans attitudes is the literal did heterosexual women. In the development of interpretations of the Bible that are promoted an instrument to measure homophobia, Wright et within some religious communities (Burdette, al. (1999) reported that men scored higher on all Ellison, & Hill, 2005). Some religious denomina- three subscales of the Homophobia Scale, suggest- tions hold that biblical teachings clearly admonish ing that male participants were more likely than same-sex relations and that participating in a gay their female counterparts to experience negative or lesbian sexual relationship is not in accordance thoughts, negative emotions, social avoidance, with Christian values (Stanton, 2014). Because and behavioral aggression toward gay and lesbian many mainstream religions uphold the nuclear individuals. Studies in this area also have shown that family and marriage between a man and a woman men’s homophobic attitudes may be exacerbated as the highest standard, some followers hold the by propensity to aggression (Nagoshi et al., 2008). belief that gay and lesbian relations (and other Some researchers have suggested that heterosexual nonconforming sexual relationships) threaten men have a stake in upholding the traditional idea the church and in some ways, the prosperity of of masculinity and that men who express feminine the United States (Adkins, 2016). Although such characteristics or behaviors that are outside of the beliefs may be limited to the most conservative masculine ideal may suggest being gay, which is a evangelical protestant groups within the United threat to many heterosexual men (Herek, 1986; States, the belief that gay and lesbian relationships Kimmel, 1997). Furthermore, heterosexuality is should at least be discouraged is found in a wide required to meet cultural standards for masculinity, range of religious teachings (Pew Research Center, particularly in the United States (Herek, 1986). 2014). Although Biblical teachings admonish However, Kite and Whitley (1996) identified some same-sex relationships specifically, religious groups studies that have not indicated significant gender have begun to target transgender individuals. For differences in this area. To further explore the instance, the Family Policy Alliance initiated a role of gender in antitrans attitudes, we examined theologically-based resolution that was passed by the whether men would report higher scores on gen- Kansas Republication party describing transgender derism/transphobia than would women. individuals as not conforming to “God’s design for gender based on biological sex” and opposing any The Present Study efforts to validate transgender identity (Shorman Previous research has identified relatively consistent & Woodall, 2018). Therefore, the present study predictors of antitrans attitudes. Specifically, studies examined whether higher scores on religiosity have shown that greater exposure to transgender would predict greater antitrans attitudes. individuals (e.g., Walch et al., 2012) and attributing being transgender to biological factors (e.g., Gender Differences in Prejudice Claman, 2008) are associated with lower levels of In previous research, heterosexual men have antitrans prejudice; whereas greater acceptance reported more negative attitudes toward gay men of stereotypes and traditional gender roles (e.g., than have heterosexual women (e.g., Herek, Norton & Herek, 2012; Tee & Hegarty, 2006), 1988, 2002, 2003; Kite & Whitley, 1996). A similar as well as greater religiosity (e.g., Claman, 2008; gender difference in attitudes toward lesbian Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek, 2012; Tee & women also has been reported, but this difference Hegarty, 2006) predict higher levels of prejudice is not as robust as those found when judging gay toward transgender individuals. Furthermore, men (Herek, 1988). Similarly, several studies have studies have shown that men report greater indicated that women report positive attitudes antitrans prejudice than women (e.g., Claman, toward transgender individuals, whereas men tend 2008; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek, 2012; to have more negative attitudes toward this group Worthen, 2012, Wright et al., 1999). Based on these (e.g., Claman, 2008; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton previous studies, we identified six hypotheses: (a) SPRING 2019 & Herek, 2012; Worthen, 2012; Wright, Adams, direct interpersonal contact with transgender & Bernat, 1999). These results converge with a individuals (i.e., having met a trans person) would PSI CHI JOURNAL OF variety of previous studies that analyze gender predict lower scores on genderism/transphobia, PSYCHOLOGICAL differences in prejudicial attitudes. For example, (b) greater levels of interpersonal contact with RESEARCH

22 COPYRIGHT 2019 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 24, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Greenburg and Gaia | Predictors of Attitudes Toward Transgender transgender individuals would predict lower Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (M-C SDS; scores on genderism/transphobia, (c) greater Crowne & Marlowe, 1960), (f) the Rohrbaugh and acceptance of stereotypes and traditional gender Jessor Religiosity Scale (Rohrbaugh & Jessor, 1975), roles would predict higher scores on genderism/ and (g) items to assess transgender identity attribu- transphobia, (d) higher scores on religiosity would tion and interpersonal contact (Claman, 2008). predict higher scores on genderism/transphobia, Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire. (e) greater attribution of being transgender to The Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire biological factors would predict lower scores on measures the extent to which participants accept genderism/transphobia, and (f) men would report stereotyping in everyday life as useful (Carter et higher scores on genderism/transphobia than al., 2006). Participants indicate their agreement women. with 12 statements using a 6-point scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). After Method summing scores, mean scores are calculated, which Participants can range from 0–6, with higher scores indicating Participants were 110 undergraduate students greater acceptance of stereotyping. Items include (39 men, 64 women, 2 other, 5 missing) at a small “Sometimes when I meet new people, I can predict liberal arts school in the southeastern United States. their behavior or attitudes just from knowing what Five participants (4.5%) discontinued participa- social/cultural groups they belong to” and “Ste- tion before completing the study. The mean age reotypes have too much influence on our behavior of the students was 19.73 years (SD = 1.14). Of toward others” (reverse scored). In studies to the 105 participants who completed the question- establish reliability, the Acceptance of Stereotyping naire, most participants identified as European Questionnaire had a mean Cronbach’s α of .78 and American/White (86.7%, n = 91); followed by African a test-retest correlation of .70. Carter et al. (2006) American/Black (4.8%, n = 5); Asian/Pacific also has reported evidence for convergent and dis- Islander (3.8%, n = 4); “other” (3.8%, n = 4); and criminant validity. In the present study, Cronbach’s Native American/American Indian (0.9%, n = 1). α indicated an acceptable level of internal consis- Most participants (89.5%, n = 94) indicated their tency at .84. The mean score was 2.11 (SD = 0.85, sexual orientation as straight/heterosexual, with Median = 2.25), which corresponds most closely to 7.6% (n = 8) identifying as bisexual, 1% (n = 1) gay, responses of “slightly disagree.” Scores ranged from 1% (n = 1) lesbian, and 1% (n = 1) other. Those who 0.17 (low levels of stereotype acceptance) to 4.00 indicated they were gay, lesbian, bisexual, or other (high levels of stereotype acceptance). (n = 11) were removed from the analyses in order Gender Role Stereotypes Scale (GRSS). The to specifically examine attitudes of participants GRSS measures the degree to which participants who indicated they were cisgender/heterosexual. endorse a traditional binary view of gender roles Participants distributed among all four years of (GRSS; Mills et al., 2012). The scale consists of eight educational status with 24.8% (n = 26) first-year, items that describe certain tasks that are typically 37.1% (n = 39) sophomore, 24.8% (n = 26) junior, considered masculine or feminine. Participants rate and 13.3% (n = 14) senior students. Students were these items using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 recruited from a variety of classes including Psychol- (should always be done by the man) to 5 (should always ogy, French, Accounting, and Political Science. be done by the woman) based on their beliefs that Participation from these classes was voluntary. No the tasks should always be done by the man, the payment was provided, although some professors woman, or both. The scale is scored by summing chose to provide extra credit for participation. responses to the four items of the male stereotype subscale and the four items of the female stereotype Materials subscale and then calculating the mean score for Participants completed the instruments in the each. Mean scores on each subscale can range following order: (a) informed consent agreement, from 1–4. An item from the male stereotype scale (b) demographics form, (c) the Genderism and is “Mow the lawn,” and from the female stereotype Transphobia Scale – Revised Short Form (GTS-R- scale, “Prepare meals.” Higher scores on the female SF), (d) the Gender Role Stereotypes Scale (GRSS; factor indicate greater acceptance of female gender SPRING 2019 Mills, Culbertson, Huffman, & Connell, 2012), roles, and lower scores on the male factor indicate greater acceptance of male gender roles. PSI CHI (e) the Acceptance of Stereotyping Questionnaire JOURNAL OF (Carter, Hall, Carney, & Rosip, 2006), (e) the Evidence of construct validity has been PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

established by correlating the GRSS with other bias, participants completed the widely used M-C popular measures, and test-retest reliability indi- SDS (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). Participants who cators of the scale have been reported at .80 and score high on this scale may be seen as trying to Cronbach’s α for the male and female stereotype cast themselves in a favorable light by trying to subscales at .64 and .72, respectively (Mills et al., endorse culturally acceptable viewpoints. This bias 2012). In the present study, the Cronbach’s α of is especially important in research surrounding the male gender role subscale was .80; and for the social attitudes where some participants may select female gender role subscale was .71, thus indicating responses that would appeal to the attitudes of the acceptable internal consistency. The mean score researchers rather than their own personal beliefs. on the GRSS male gender role factor was 2.28, The M-C SDS contains 33 items to which and the mean score on the female factor was 3.31. respondents respond either “true” or “false” as Both of these are fairly close to scores indicating it pertains to them personally. The items refer to belief in equal responsibility but with slightly more behaviors that are seen as culturally acceptable traditional attitudes on the male stereotype scale. and/or desirable, but that are also relatively Genderism and Transphobia Scale-Revised unlikely to occur. Examples include “I sometimes (GTS-R-SF). The GTS-R-SF (Tebbe et al., 2014) is a feel resentful when I don’t get my way” and “I’m revision of the original Genderism and Transphobia always willing to admit when I make a mistake.” All Scale (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). The GTS-R-SF con- items are coded such that higher scores indicate a tains two subscales (a) Genderism/Transphobia, an greater level of socially desirable responses. Scores overall negative evaluation and negative emotions are calculated by summing responses to the items associated with gender nonconformity; and (b) and can range from 0 (low social desirability) to 33 Gender Bashing, which refers to the propensity (high social desirability). Internal consistency has for explicit harassment and/or assault toward trans been reported at .88 and test-retest reliability at .89 individuals (Tebbe et al., 2014). Because the present (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960). In the present study, study focused on more subtle and nonviolent forms Cronbach’s α indicated internal consistency of .73. of antitrans attitudes, the 5-item Gender-Bashing The mean social desirability score for participants subscale was not included in the questionnaire. was approximately the midpoint of possible scores The Genderism/Transphobia subscale consists of (M = 16.21, SD = 4.99; Median = 16.5). Scores 17 items. Participants rate their agreement with ranged from 4 to 25. the items using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 Rohrbaugh and Jessor Religiosity Scale. The (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree). Total scores Rohrbaugh and Jessor Religiosity Scale (Rohrbaugh are calculated by summing the item responses and & Jessor, 1975) assesses the amount of influence can range from 17–119. Items include “If I found religion has in an individual’s life. It also measures out my lover was the other sex, I would get violent,” the extent to which individuals participate in and “If a friend wanted to have his penis removed religion-related practices. The 8-item measure in order to become a woman, I would openly contains seven multiple-choice items and one support him” (reverse scored). Higher scores fill-in-the-blank. Using a multiple-choice format, on the GTS-R-SF Genderism/Transphobia scale participants choose responses that fit closest to indicate higher levels of antitrans attitudes. Tebbe their ideas and behaviors that are thought to reflect et al., (2014) reported a .93 Cronbach’s α for the religiosity. The fill-in-the-blank question inquires Genderism/Transphobia subscale items, as well as about how many religious services the participant evidence for convergent and discriminant validity. has attended in the past year, and responses were In the present study, Cronbach’s α was .97 for the divided into five equal groups for analysis such that Genderism/Transphobia subscale, demonstrating the response groups were coded 0 to 4, with higher strong internal consistency. Participants reported scores indicating more religious attendance. The a wide range of antitrans attitudes as measured by measure has four subscales including (a) Ritual the GTS-R-SF (range = 102, M = 60.2; SD = 38.93). Religiosity (Items 1 and 2): the extent to which a Scores on the GTS-R-SF scale ranged from 17 (indi- person engages in behaviors associated with the cating the lowest levels of genderism/transphobia) rituals of religion (e.g., attending services, pray- SPRING 2019 to 119 (indicating the highest levels of Genderism/ ing, meditation); (b) Consequential Religiosity Transphobia). (Items 3 and 4): the extent to which a person relies PSI CHI JOURNAL OF Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale on religion when having a personal problem or PSYCHOLOGICAL (M-C SDS). To control for any social desirability allows religion to influence how to spend time or RESEARCH

24 COPYRIGHT 2019 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 24, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Greenburg and Gaia | Predictors of Attitudes Toward Transgender behave; (c) Ideological Religiosity (Items 5 and 6): identity refers to a person’s internal sense beliefs about God, death, and immortality; and (d) of being male, female, or something else; Experiential Religiosity (Items 7 and 8): the extent gender expression refers to the way a per- which a person experiences comfort, security, son communicates gender identity to oth- reverence, and devotion associated with religion. ers through behavior, clothing, hairstyles, Items for each subscale are summed, and subscale voice, or body characteristics. (para.1) scores can range from 0–8 and overall religiosity scores can range from 0–32. Sample items include, Participants then read the following statement borrowed directly from Claman (2008): “Which of the following best describes your practice of prayer or religious meditation?” with response A lot of human behavior probably will options being “I never pray,” “I pray only during never be fully understood. Scientists as formal ceremonies,” “I usually pray in times of stress well as people in general disagree how or need but rarely at any other time,” and “Prayer much influence that individuals' genetic is a regular part of my daily life.” Rohrbaugh and inheritance has on transgender orienta- Jessor (1975) reported Cronbach’s α concerning tion. Please indicate how well the following reliability of the subscales over .90, indicating statements reflect your view on the causes high internal consistency. Both Rohrbaugh and of transgender orientation (Claman, 2008; Jessor (1975) and Nicholas and Durrheim (1996) p. 75). reported evidence of instrument construct validity. Cronbach’s α in the present study indicated strong Participants responded to questions used by internal consistency of the overall religiosity scale Claman (2008), originally adapted from Tygart at .94, with acceptable levels for all subscales as well (2000), to reflect the degree to which they believed (Ritual = .76, Consequential = .88, Ideological = .84, transgender identity is a result of biological fac- and Experiential = .88). tors, environmental factors, or a combination of The present sample overall scored as mod- both using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly erately religious (M = 16.9; SD = 5.70; Median = disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 17.0), with scores ranging from 8 to 28. This overall In the next part of this section, participants mean is slightly above the midpoint and also higher indicated the level of interpersonal contact they than the college mean (M = 12.5) reported by have had with transgender and transsexual individu- Rohrbaugh and Jessor (1975). The mean number als. Another description was borrowed directly from of times that participants reported attending a Claman (2008): religious service over the past year was 22.62 (SD = By definition, transsexuals are individuals 26.01), ranging from 0 to 150 times per year. The who identify with a gender different from highest mean on the subscales was for Ideological that which they were born. For instance, a Religiosity (M = 5.92; SD = 2.29), followed by Expe- person who was born as a male, but on the riential (M = 4.64; SD = 2.26, Ritual (M = 4.04; SD inside identifies as a female, is transsexual. = 2.17), and Consequential (M = 3.78; SD = 2.40). Transsexuals may have surgery or hormone Transgender identity attribution and interper- treatments to make their appearance more sonal contact. Using both original questions and congruent with their internal feelings, but those adapted from the methodology of Claman this is not always the case. (p. 77) (2008), the final section of the questionnaire contained questions regarding attribution of Participants then indicated their level of inter- transgender identity and level of interpersonal personal contact with transgender or transsexual contact with transgender individuals. To begin the individuals by responding to a series of questions section, participants read the following definition taken directly from Claman (2008). Interpersonal of transgender from the American Psychological contact was divided into questions to assess different Association (2014): components of contact. Participants responded to these questions with “yes” or “no.” To indicate direct Transgender is an umbrella term for interpersonal contact, participants responded to persons whose gender identity, gender “To your knowledge, have you ever personally met SPRING 2019 expression, or behavior does not conform a trans individual?” To report indirect contact, PSI CHI to that typically associated with the sex to “Have you ever had any knowledge of someone JOURNAL OF which they were assigned at birth. Gender who was transgender (e.g., through word of mouth PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

or mutual friends)?” Participants then indicated individuals by using a scale ranging from 1 (no the level of exposure through direct interpersonal understanding) to 3 (a great deal of understanding). contact (i.e., face-to-face) and indirect contact (e.g., Additionally, they judged the importance of the news, TV, social media). Participants ranked their general population understanding transgender level of exposure on a scale of 1 (no exposure) to individuals on a scale from 1 (not at all important) 3 (a great deal of exposure). to 3 (very important). Finally, participants responded to questions to Over 80% (n = 72, 13 missing) of participants indicate their level of understanding about trans responded that they had met a transgender person. An even larger number, 87.6% (n = 78, 13 missing), TABLE 1 indicated that they had knowledge of transgender individuals through a friend or word of mouth. Intercorrelations for Transphobia and Associated Variables When it came to reporting levels of knowledge of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 transgender individuals, most participants (67.4%, 1. Transphobia __ n = 60, 13 missing) indicated that they had “some understanding” of transgender individuals, 10.1% 2. Interpersonal -.26* __ (n = 9) reported that they had a “great deal of Contact understanding,” and 22.5% (n = 20) had “no 3. Stereotype .52** -.14 __ understanding.” When participants responded to Acceptance the question of how important they believed it is for 4. Male Gender -.63** .16 -.32** __ the general population to have an understanding of Roles transgender individuals, 79.5% (n = 70) indicated 5. Female Gender .44** -.09 .27* -.66** __ they thought it was “somewhat important,” and Roles 20.5% (n = 18) indicated it was “not important.” 6. Biological -.62** .11 -.36** .35** -.23* __ No participants responded with “very important.” Attribution

** ** ** ** 7. Environmental .42 -.02 .47 -.36 .15 -.45 __ Procedure Attribution All participation in the study was online using 8. Ritual Religiosity .31* -.02 .02 -.11 .03 -.31* .24* __ SurveyMonkey. After institutional review board 9. Ideological .53** -.12 .06 -.38** .15 -.30* .31* .66** __ approval was given (Protocol #0003_15), partici- Religiosity pants used a link to the survey that was provided Note. * p < .032. ** p < .001. N = 75–91. in an e-mail message. Only the primary researcher had access to the list of e-mails, and after all e-mails were sent out, the lists were destroyed. All data TABLE 2 remained anonymous and could not be connected Summary of Multiple Regression Analysis for Interpersonal to the participants’ e-mails or responses in any way. Contact, Stereotype Acceptance, Endorsement of Traditional After agreeing to the informed consent statement, Gender Roles, Transgender Attribution, and Religiosity as participants responded to the online question- Predictors of Genderism/Transphobia naire that followed. Participation in the study took Variable B SE β t p sr2 approximately 15–20 minutes. Interpersonal Contact -2.90 3.80 -.06 -0.79 .436 .055 Results Stereotype Acceptance 9.78 2.80 .30 3.50** .001 .244 Primary Analyses Male Gender Roles -12.43 5.79 -.24 -2.15* .036 -.15 Results from a one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) indicated that those who had met a Female Gender Roles 6.32 7.52 .08 0.84 .404 .059 transgender individual (M = 57.21, SD = 28.19) Biological Attribution -9.82 2.17 -.39 -4.52*** <.001 .316 reported less genderism/transphobia than those who had never met a transgender individual Environmental Attribution -2.08 2.64 -.08 -0.79 .435 .055 (M = 75.47, SD = 27.85), F = 5.76, p = .019, η2 = .06. Ritual Religiosity -0.53 1.32 -.04 -0.40 .689 .028 These results supported Hypothesis 1. In the next analysis, we used the Benjamini- Ideological Religiosity 4.23 1.32 .33 3.32** .002 .224 Hochberg procedure to control the false discovery rate (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Based on the Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001. N = 69. 11 variables used in the correlational analysis, the

new p value was .032. Pearson product-moment r(83) = .10, p = .382. However, there was a significant correlations indicated significant correlations at correlation between social desirability and ideologi- this level between genderism/transphobia scores cal religiosity, r(83) = .27, p = .016. and (a) level of interpersonal contact, (b) stereotype acceptance, (c) traditional male and female Secondary Analyses gender role acceptance, (d) attribution of being Secondary analyses examined correlations between transgender to biological factors, (e) attribution of genderism/transphobia and participants’ self- being transgender to environmental factors, and (f) reported level of understanding about trans ritual, consequential, ideological, and experiential individuals, which demonstrated a moderate religiosity. See Table 1 for these results. significant correlation, r(86) = -.24, p = .025. There Based on the significant correlations, Multiple was also a moderate to strong significant correlation Linear Regression analyses using genderism/ between genderism/transphobia and belief in the transphobia as the dependent variable and eight of importance of understanding transgender individu- the above variables as predictors tested Hypotheses als, r(85) = -.62, p < .001. As levels of understanding 2, 3, 4, and 5. Because collinearity appeared to and the belief in the importance of understanding be an issue with consequential and experiential individuals who identify as transgender increased, religiosity (i.e., tolerance < .20; VIF = 5.21, 5.94, antitrans attitudes decreased. Also notable is that as respectively), these two variables were removed levels of reported interpersonal contact increased, for the regression analysis, r(76) = .85, p < .001. so did participants’ reported understanding about The regression analysis indicated four significant trans individuals, r(85) = .35, p = .001. Furthermore, predictors in that greater acceptance of stereotypes, more endorsement of traditional male gender roles, and greater ideological religiosity predicted TABLE 3 higher scores on genderism/transphobia, whereas One-Way Analysis of Variance for the Effect of Gender attributing being transgender to biological factors on Genderism/Transphobia Scores predicted lower scores on genderism/transphobia, Men Women F(1, 87) p η2 F(8,62) = 17.90, p < .001, R 2 = .70, f 2= .02. Together these predictors accounted for 70% of the variance Variable M SD M SD in genderism/transphobia scores. Squared semi- Genderism/Transphobia 77.17 25.10 61.11 25.50 22.65 < .001 .21 partial correlations indicated that when considering each variable’s sole contribution to the variance in Note. Men (N = 36). Women (N = 53). scores, attributing being transgender to biological factors accounted for almost 32%, acceptance TABLE 4 of stereotypes contributed 24%, ideological religiosity 22%, and greater endorsement of male One-Way Analysis of Variance for the Effects of Gender on gender roles 15%. Findings provided support for Stereotype Acceptance, Gender Role Acceptance, Levels of Exposure, and Attributions for Being Transgender Hypotheses 3, 4, and 5, but not for Hypothesis 2. Men Women See Table 2 for these results. Results also provided F df p η2 support for Hypothesis 6, with men indicating Variable M SD M SD higher levels of genderism/transphobia than did *** women, as is shown in Table 3. Stereotype 2.59 0.69 1.82 0.81 21.16 1, 84 < .001 .20 Acceptance Social Desirability Male Gender 1.97 0.60 2.48 0.45 21.63*** 1, 90 < .001 .19 Role Acceptance To control for false discovery, we again used the * Benjamini-Hochberg (1995) procedure to deter- Female Gender 3.43 0.47 3.24 0.28 6.37 1, 90 .013 .07 Role Acceptance mine an adjusted p value of .016 for a series of Levels of 0.78 0.42 1.00 0.61 3.58 1, 84 .062 .04 Pearson product-moment correlations to examine Exposure the relationship between social desirability scores Biological 2.41 1.01 3.08 1.12 8.34** 1, 85 .005 .09 and the main variables. There was no significant Attribution correlation between the measure of social desir- Environmental 3.49 1.02 3.04 1.09 3.79 1, 85 .055 .04 ability and genderism/transphobia, which sug- Attribution gested that the results for antitrans attitudes Note. * = p < .05. ** p < .01. ***p < .001. were not confounded by a social desirability bias,

the more indirect exposure to transgender people media sources have increasingly included trans (e.g., media, news, TV, social media), the more individuals in show storylines (e.g., Orange Is the understanding they indicated they had of trans New Black, Transparent, Transamerica), indirect individuals, r(87) = .41, p < .001. However, indirect exposure could be a potentially interesting variable exposure was not correlated with genderism/ to explore in future studies assessing antitrans transphobia scores, r(86) = -.12, p = .255. prejudice. However, the present study suggests that One-way ANOVAs indicated that male partici- direct interpersonal contact experiences should pants reported greater stereotype acceptance and be considered the most effective form of social more endorsement of traditional male and female interaction when trying to reduce prejudice toward gender roles when compared to female partici- the transgender community. pants. However, women were more likely than men Two of the three variables associated with to attribute being transgender to biological origins. stereotyping were significant predictors of antitrans These results can be seen in Table 4. attitudes. Separately, acceptance of stereotypes accounted for 24% of variance in genderism/trans- Discussion phobia scores, and the endorsement of traditional Overall, findings indicated that having interper- male gender roles accounted for 15%. The rela- sonal contact with transgender individuals and tionship between general stereotyping behaviors making biological attributions for being transgen- and antitrans attitudes suggests that those who are der were associated with positive attitudes toward more accepting of stereotypes might minimize the transgender individuals, whereas greater stereotype distinct characteristics of transgender people and acceptance, more endorsement of traditional male view them as a homogenous group rather than as gender roles, and greater ideological religiosity individuals. This finding is in line with Carter et were significant predictors of antitrans attitudes. al. (2006), who found that individuals with the Furthermore, men reported greater levels of propensity to use stereotyping when interacting antitrans attitudes than did women. These results with people from a different social group tended to provided support for all but one hypothesis. have rigid gender role beliefs and relied on social Although participants who reported having met categories such as gender to understand others. a transgender person also indicated less negative It is possible that those who scored higher on the attitudes toward transgender people than those who stereotype acceptance scale consider transgender had not, the level of exposure was not a significant identity as a breach of the social norms associated predictor of antitrans attitudes. Therefore, the with gender, and as a result, demonstrated higher contact on its own was important rather than the levels of antitrans attitudes. extent of exposure. The finding that direct expo- Furthermore, greater endorsement of male sure (i.e., having met a person) indicated lower gender roles was a significant predictor of gender- scores on genderism/transphobia is consistent ism/transphobia levels, although this predictor on with previous research (e.g., Claman, 2008; Tee & its own accounted for the least amount of variance Hegarty, 2006). Notably, in the present study, direct in genderism/transphobia scores. These findings social contact (i.e., face-to-face interaction) was par- suggest that those who hold more traditional beliefs ticularly important in predicting lower genderism/ of what constitutes male-typical behaviors are more transphobia attitudes when compared to nondirect likely to react negatively to the crossing of tradi- forms of social interaction such as news, TV, and tional gender boundaries. This supports previous social media. Although indirect exposure was not studies finding that male gender roles play a role significantly correlated with levels of genderism/ in more negative attitudes toward gay men and transphobia, it was predictive of the level of under- lesbian women (e.g., Kite & Whitley, 1996). This is standing that participants reported regarding trans particularly true for heterosexual men (Oliver & individuals, in that more indirect exposure was Hyde, 1993). Further, research has suggested that, associated with greater understanding. Moreover, from a young age, violation of male gender norms our results indicated that greater understanding is viewed more negatively than violation of female of transgender individuals was moderately associ- gender norms (Schmalz & Kerstetter, 2006). In SPRING 2019 ated with lower levels of genderism/transphobia. general, girls are allowed more flexibility within Therefore, it is possible that outlets such as media stereotypical gender roles than boys. Our results PSI CHI JOURNAL OF could have an indirect effect on attitudes toward suggest that this belief may be pervasive through PSYCHOLOGICAL transgender individuals. Because television and adulthood in that the belief in male gender norms RESEARCH

(and perhaps the perceived violation of those The finding that cisgender male participants norms) is more strongly associated with transphobia indicated higher scores on genderism/transphobia than is the belief in female gender norms. then did their female counterparts is consistent Participants who attributed transgender iden- with previous studies on prejudice against gay, tity to biological factors reported significantly lower lesbian, and transgender individuals (e.g., Claman, levels of genderism/transphobia, whereas believing 2008; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek, 2012; that being transgender is better explained with Worthen, 2012; Wright et al., 1999). It is possible environmental origins was not a significant predic- that heterosexual male participants view gender tor. In fact, when considering its sole contribution nonconforming behaviors such as being transgen- to the variance in genderism/transphobia scores, der as a violation of masculine expectations and making a biological attribution accounted for the as a threat to heterosexual men, which supports most (32%) out of the four significant predictor previous research (e.g., Herek, 1986; Kimmel, variables. This finding is particularly important to 1997). This difference between men and women understanding how the conceptualization of being might also be explained by male participants being transgender plays a role in how others feel about more likely to accept stereotypes and endorse those who identify or are perceived as transgender. male gender roles, both of which were found to Our findings are also consistent with previous be predictors of antitrans attitudes. Women, on studies in this area (e.g., Claman, 2008; Tygart, the other hand, were more likely than men to 2000). Belief in a biological basis of transgender attribute being transgender to biological origins, identity acknowledges that those who identify as which helps to explain their lower scores on gen- transgender do not consciously choose to do so. derism/transphobia because making a biological Instead, factors outside of their control determined attribution for being transgender was found to be their gender identity. Therefore, if a person believes a strong predictor of more positive attitudes toward someone has no control over gender identity, then trans individuals. Future research could examine nonconformity to gender expression stereotypes is how stereotyping acceptance and endorsement of more acceptable. traditional gender roles may possibly account for In addition, those who reported greater any gender differences found in attitudes toward ideological religiosity were more likely to have those who identify as transgender. It must be noted higher levels of genderism/transphobia than those that, in the present study, participants responded who identified as less religious on this dimension. to a measure that assessed antitrans attitudes in When considering the individual contribution of general, not taking into account that participants this variable to the variance in scores, this variable might respond differently to transgender men as ranked second (22%). These results support compared transgender women. Worthen (2013) previous research in this area (e.g., Claman, 2008; and Billard (2018) have suggested that future Nagoshi et al., 2008; Norton & Herek, 2012; Tee studies should reconsider measuring transgender & Hegarty, 2006). Findings suggest that beliefs individuals as one group because the transgender in ideological religiosity (i.e., belief in the soul’s community encompasses a variety of identities. immortality and perceiving God as a higher power Therefore, we recommend that additional research that uses wrath to punish a transgressor) may lead could explore why cisgender persons might judge to more negative attitudes toward those who do not being transgender differently depending upon conform to mainstream religious beliefs. Further, the perceived gender identity of the transgender gender expression outside the mainstream may person. be seen as a threat to the Christian way of life, Although the present study provided new such as Stanton (2014) suggested, and would not insight into the factors that play a role in attitudes allow for society to uphold the traditional idea of toward transgender individuals, there were some the family. These findings are relatively consistent limitations. First, the sample size was relatively with Piumatti (2017) who found that religiosity small and contained more women than men. To and endorsement of traditional male gender roles address this issue and to limit false discovery (Type explained negative attitudes toward lesbian women I error) in the correlational analysis, we employed and gay men. Although Piumatti’s study focused on the Benjamini-Hochberg (1995) procedure. We SPRING 2019 prejudice related to sexual orientation rather than also examined the squared semi-partial correlations gender identity, it is plausible that a similar dynamic to determine the individual contribution of the PSI CHI JOURNAL OF may be at play in antitrans attitudes. predictor variables in the regression analysis. The PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

sample of college students was also predominantly have reported higher scores on ideological religios- White and offered little racial, ethnic, or socioeco- ity than they actually express in their everyday lives. nomic diversity. Further, the age distribution was Despite its limitations, the present study limited in that participants’ ages ranged from 18 had important strengths. It provided valuable to 22, with a mean age of 19.7 years. Findings must information about a subject that has become of be considered in light of generational differences increased interest in behavioral and social science. in that previous studies have shown that younger Attitudes cannot be changed unless their source is participants report greater acceptance of gender discovered, and this study has begun to uncover nonconformity than older individuals (e.g., Flores, these foundations. Although not all of the variables 2015). Therefore, caution must be used in the tested can be realistically and ethically altered (e.g., generalization of results with special attention paid religiosity), others such as interpersonal contact can to these sample size and demographic limitations. be implemented in educational resources that aim Including additional options for gender identity to reduce prejudice against transgender individuals. within the demographic section would also have The findings of the present study also offers provided the study with a mechanism to examine many promising questions for future research. First, the number of transgender individuals who par- it may be useful to further examine the components ticipated, although due to the limited number of of stereotyping as it relates to ideas about transgen- “other” responses, the number most likely would der individuals. For example, are there any specific not have been large enough for a meaningful stereotypes, anxieties, or misconceptions that are analysis with this sample. common among individuals who are unfamiliar Another limitation of the present study is the with the concept of transgender orientation? Or, reliance upon self-report methods and the risk of what other components of stereotyping other common method bias. However, we argue that this than gender roles are associated with transphobic bias is of limited concern for our study because we attitudes? As suggested by other researchers, chose measures that have demonstrated evidence of studying the variety of transgender identities may construct validity, which Conway and Lance (2010) be an important step in better understanding have suggested is a way to mitigate common method conceptualizations of this community. Finally, given bias. Although we primarily used instruments that the importance of gender roles and conceptualiza- have demonstrated evidence of validity and internal tions of masculinity and femininity to transphobic consistency, the questions borrowed from Claman attitudes, future studies should further explore (2008) do not have established validity and reli- attitudes toward trans-men and trans-women, as ability as a measure of interpersonal contact and well as differences in attitudes among cisgender attribution for being transgender. Further, the men and women. Claman (2008) measure used both the terms trans- Overall, the present study provided insight sexual and transgender. Because many individuals into how attitudes toward transgender individuals who identify as transgender prefer the use of trans may be conceptualized and shaped by social or transgender to transsexual, the questions should and cognitive processes. Findings suggested that be adapted to account for this preference. direct interpersonal contact, causal attribution, Because attitudes toward trans individuals can acceptance of stereotyping, gender role beliefs, be considered a topic that might elicit socially desir- and religiosity are important predictors of antitrans able responses, we assessed the correlation between attitudes. However, further research is needed a measure of social desirability and genderisim/ to enhance understanding of the prejudice and transphobia and the predictor variables. Results discrimination faced by transgender individuals. suggest that participants were not responding Understanding these mechanisms is an important in a socially desirable way on attitudes toward step in reducing prejudice and minimizing its transgender individuals, providing confidence in adverse effects. the primary findings of the present study. Caution References should be used, however, when conducting analyses Adkins, J. (2016, Summer). These people are frightened to death: Congressional with the measure of religiosity because significant investigations and the Lavender Scare. Prologue Magazine, 48(2). SPRING 2019 correlations surfaced between social desirability and Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/ the subscale of ideological religiosity, which also was summer/lavender.html PSI CHI Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. JOURNAL OF a significant predictor of antitrans attitudes. This American Psychological Association. (2018). A glossary: Defining transgender PSYCHOLOGICAL suggests that participants in the current study might terms. Monitor on Psychology, 49, 32. RESEARCH

https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/09/ce-corner-glossary.aspx Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. American Psychological Association. (2014). Answers to your questions about Retrieved from http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/reports/reports/ transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression. Washington, ntds_summary.pdf D.C.: American Psychological Association. Retrieved from Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some psychical https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender.pdf consequences of the social construction of gender and sexuality. American Auster, C. J., & Ohm, S. C. (2000). Masculinity and femininity in contemporary Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563–57 7. American society: A reevaluation using the Bem Sex-Role Inventory. Sex http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/000276486029005005 Roles, 43, 499–528. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1007119516728 Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Barboza, G. E., Dominguez, S., & Chance, E. (2016). Physical victimization, Correlates and gender differences. The Journal of Sex Research, 25, gender identity, and suicide risk among transgender men and women. 451–457. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224498809551476 Preventive Medicine Reports, 4, 385–390. Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.08.003 Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00051 Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A Herek, G.M. (2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal in the United States. The Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274. Statistical Society (Series B Methodological), 57, 289–300. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224490209552150 Billard, T. J. (2018). Attitudes toward transgender men and women: Development Herek, G. M. (2003). The psychology of sexual prejudice. In L. D. Garnets & D. and validation of a new measure. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1–11. C. Kimmel (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on lesbian, gay, and bisexual https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00387 experiences (pp. 157–164). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., & Hill, T. D. (2005). Conservative Protestantism and Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). ‘Some of my best friends’: Intergroup tolerance toward homosexuals: An examination of potential mechanisms. contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexual’s attitudes toward gay Sociological Inquiry, 75, 177–196. men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00118.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224007 Carter, J. D., Hall, J. A., Carney, D. R., & Rosip, J. C. (2006). Individual differences Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals’ in the acceptance of stereotyping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex 1103–1118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2005.11.005 Research, 30, 239–244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224499309551707 Claman, E. E. (2008). An examination of the predictors of attitudes toward Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The development and validation of the transgender individuals (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53, 531–544. Dissertations & Theses Global. (UMI No. 3325775). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-7140-x Conway, J. M., & Lance, C. E. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors Hyde, J. S., Bigler, R. S., Joel, D., Tate, C. C., & van Anders, S. M. (2018). The future regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of of sex and gender in psychology: Five challenges to the gender binary. Business and Psychology, 25, 325–334. American Psychologist. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-010-9181-6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/amp0000307 Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive James, S. E., Herman, J. L., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. (2016). perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. Washington, D.C.: National American Psychologist, 64, 231–240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014718 Center for Transgender Equality. Retrieved from http://www.transequality. Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability org/sites/default/files/docs/USTS-Full-Report-FINAL.PDF independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., & Alford-Keating, P. (1997). Personality correlates of 349–354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0047358 homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 57–69 Deaux, K., & Lewis, L. L. (1984). Structure of gender stereotypes: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v34n01_05 Interrelationships among components and gender label. Journal of Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia: Fear, shame and silence Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 991–1004. in the construction of gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.991 (Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp. 223–242). Florence, KY, U.S.: Eagly, A. H., Makhijani, M. G., & Klonsky, B. G. (1992). Gender and the evaluation Taylor & Frances/Routledge. of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 3–22. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.3 homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. of women and men into social roles. Journal of Personality and Social http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296224002 Psychology, 46, 735–754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.4.735 Martinez-San Miguel, Y., & Tobias, S. (Eds.). (2016). Trans studies: The challenge Falanga, R., De Caroli, M. E., & Sagone, E. (2014). Subtle and blatant prejudice to hetero- and homo normativities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University toward Africans in Italian adolescents. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Press. Sciences, 16, 708–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.284 McKinney, J. S. (2005). On the margins: A study of the experiences of Flores, A. R. (2015). Attitudes toward transgender rights: Perceived knowledge transgender college students. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Issues in and secondary interpersonal contact. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 3, Education, 3, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1300/J367v03n01_07 398–416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2015.1050414 Meerwijk, E. L., & Sevelius, J. M. (2017). Transgender population size in the Galupo, M. P., Henise, S. B., & Davis, K. S. (2014). Transgender microaggressions United States: A meta-regression of population-based probability samples. in the context of friendship: Patterns of experience across friends’ sexual American Journal of Public Health, 107, e1–e8. orientation and gender identity. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303578 Gender Diversity, 1, 461–470. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000075 Mills, M. J., Culbertson, S. S., Huffman A. H., & Connell, A. R. (2012). Assessing Gates, G. J. (2011). How many people are lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender? gender biases: Development and initial validation of the gender role (Executive Summary). Retrieved from the University of California School of stereotypes scale. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 27, Law Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law and 520–540. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542411211279715 Public Policy website http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/ Nadal, K. L., Davidoff, K. C., Davis, L. S., & Wong, Y. (2014). Emotional, behavioral, uploads/Gates-How-Many-People-LGBT-Apr-2011.pdf and cognitive reactions to microaggressions: Transgender perspectives. GLAAD. (2016). GLAAD media reference guide, 10th edition. http://www.glaad. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1, 72–81. org/sites/default/files/GLAAD-Media-Reference-Guide-Tenth-Edition.pdf http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000011 Gordijn, E. H., Koomen, W., & Stapel, D. A. (2001). Level of prejudice in relation Nadal, K. L., Skolnik, A., & Wong, Y. (2012). Interpersonal and systemic to knowledge of cultural stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social microaggressions toward transgender people: Implications for counseling. SPRING 2019 Psychology, 37, 150–157. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2000.1443 Journal of LGBT Issues in Counseling, 6, 55–82. Grant, J. M., Mottet, L. A., Tanis, J., Harrison, J., Herman, J. L., & Keisling, M. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15538605.2012.648583 PSI CHI (2011). Injustice at every turn: A report of the National Transgender Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. JOURNAL OF Discrimination Survey, executive summary. Washington, D.C.: National (2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7 orientation. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Nicholas, L. J., & Durrheim, K. (1996). Validity of the Rohrbaugh and Jessor Tebbe, E. A., Moradi, B., & Ege, E. (2014). Revised and abbreviated forms of the Religiosity Scale. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 83, 89–90. Genderism and Transphobia Scale: Tools for assessing anti-trans prejudice. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1996.83.1.89 Journal of Counseling Psychology, 61, 581–592. Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2012). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward transgender https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000043 people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Tee, N., & Hegarty, P. (2006). Predicting opposition to the civil rights of trans Roles, 68, 738–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0110-6 persons in the United Kingdom. Journal of Community and Applied Social Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta- Psychology, 16, 70–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/casp.851 analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29–51. Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.29 improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, Oskamp, S., & Jones, J. M. (2000). Promising practices in reducing prejudice: A 427– 441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430207081533 report from the president's Initiative on race. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Tygart, C. E. (2000). Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay prejudice and discrimination (pp. 319–334). Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum. rights. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 259–275. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/12.3.259 theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Walch, S. E., Sinkkanen, K. A., Swain, E. M., Francisco, J., Breaux, C. A., & http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 Sjoberg, M. D. (2012). Using intergroup contact theory to reduce stigma Pew Research Center (2014). Religious Landscape Study: Views about against transgender individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel homosexuality. Retrieved from http://www.pewforum.org/religious- presentation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 2583–2605. landscape-study/views-about-homosexuality/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00955.x Piumatti, G. (2017). A mediational model explaining the connection between Whittle, S., Turner, L., & Al-Alami, M. (2007). Engendered penalties: Transgender religiosity and anti-homosexual attitudes in Italy: The effects of male role and transsexual people’s experiences of inequality and discrimination. endorsement and homosexual stereotyping. Journal of Homosexuality, 64, London, UK: The Equalities Review. 1961–1977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2017.1289005 Worthen, M. G. F. (2012). Understanding college student’s attitudes toward LGBT Plous, S. (2003). The psychology of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination: individuals. Sociological Focus, 45, 285–305. An overview. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00380327.2012.712857 (pp. 3–48). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Worthen, M. G. F. (2013). An argument for separate analyses of attitudes toward Rohrbaugh, J., & Jessor, R. (1975). Religiosity in youth: A personal control lesbian, gay, bisexual men, bisexual women, MtF and FtM transgender against deviant behavior? Journal of Personality, 43, 136–155. individuals. Sex Roles, 68, 703–723. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1975.tb00577.x http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-012-0155-1 Rudman, L. A., & Fairchild, K. (2004). Reactions to counterstereotypic behavior: Wright, Jr., L. W., Adams, H. E., & Bernat, J. (1999). Development and validation The role of backlash in cultural stereotype maintenance. Journal of of the Homophobia Scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 157–176. Assessment, 21, 337–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1022172816258 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.157 Schmalz, D. L., & Kerstetter, D. L. (2006). Girlie girls and manly men: Children’s Author Note. Jordan Greenburg, Department of Psychology, stigma consciousness of gender in sports and physical activities. Journal Emory & Henry College; A. Celeste Gaia, Department of of Leisure Research, 38, 536–557. Psychology, Emory & Henry College. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.2006.11950091 Jordan Greenburg is now a doctoral candidate at the Shorman, J., & Woodall, H. (2018, February 18). Kansas GOP votes to ‘oppose all Department of Psychology at George Mason University, efforts to validate transgender identity.’ The Witchita Eagle. Retrieved from Fairfax, VA. https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article200798114.html Special thanks to Psi Chi Journal reviewers for their Stanton, G. (2014). 10 things everyone should know about a Christian view support. of homosexuality. Focus on the Family: Focus Findings. Retrieved from Correspondence concerning this article should be https://www.focusonthefamily.com/about/focus-findings/sexuality/10- addressed to A. Celeste Gaia, Department of Psychology, things-everyone-should-know-about-a-christian-view-of-homosexuality Emory & Henry College, Emory, VA 24327. Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: Race, gender, and sexual E-mail: [email protected]

SPRING 2019

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

32 COPYRIGHT 2019 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 24, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) Psi Chi Journal of Psychological Research: Reviewers for Volume 23 We sincerely appreciate the hard work on the part of the following individuals who each completed at least one review in 2018. Without the assistance of such dedicated professionals, Psi Chi Journal would not be able to function.—Debi Brannan (Editor)

Leslie D. Cramblet Alvarez Kristen Ann Diliberto-Macaluso Camille Tessitore King Lauren Fruh VanSickle Scharff Adams State University Berry College Stetson University U. S. Air Force Academy Kathryn B. Anderson Martin J. Downing Casey Knifsend Pamela Schuetze Our Lady of the Lake University Public Health Solutions California State University, Buffalo State College Sacramento Robin A. Anderson Gregory S. Drury Carl W. Scott Stephen F. Austin State University Laura B. Koenig St. Ambrose University University of St. Thomas Kutztown University Glena Lynne Andrews Leslie G. Eaton Elizabeth E. Seebach George Fox University State University of New York Penny Koontz at Cortland Marshall University Saint Mary’s University Lara K. Ault of Minnesota Saint Leo University Jorie H. Edwards David S. Kreiner Southwestern Oklahoma State University of Central Missouri Katharine S. Shaffer Ruth L. Ault University University of Baltimore Davidson College Stella G. Lopez Shlomit Flaisher-Grinberg University of Texas at San Antonio Connie Shears Erin Ayala Saint Francis University Chapman University St. Mary's University of Minnesota Charles A. Lyons Tifani Fletcher Eastern Oregon University Paul C. Smith Mario Baldassari West Liberty University St. Mary's University Pam Marek Alverno College Azenett A. Garza Caballero Kennesaw State University Fernanda Sofio Woolcott Angela Banitt Duncan Weber State University Washburn University Maureen Ann McCarthy Princeton University Rebecca Gilbertson Kennesaw State University Tammy L. Sonnentag Jonathan F. Bassett University of Minnesota Duluth Lander University Tammy McClain Xavier University Rupa Gordon West Liberty University Daniel W. Barrett Augustana College Debra C. Steckler Western Connecticut State University Julie Guay McIntyre University of Mary Washington Allyson S. Graf Russell Sage College Mark E. Basham Elmira College Crystal N. Steltenpohl Regis University Albee Therese Ongsuco University of Southern Indiana Heather A. Haas Mendoza Jonathan F. Bassett University of Montana Western Wesley College Rebecca M. Stoddart Lander University Jonathan J. Hammersley Tara Mitchell Saint Mary's College Susan E. Becker Western Illinois University Lock Haven University Maggie L. Syme Colorado Mesa University Georgina S. Hammock Michiko Nohrara-LeClair San Diego State University Barbara Blatchley Georgia Regents University Lindenwood University Agnes Scott College Kimberli R.H. Treadwell Thomas Fredrick Harlow Valerie Perez University of Connecticut Kosha D. Bramesfeld Tusculum College Wesley College Humber College Dunja Trunk Elizabeth A. Harwood Marilyn Petro Bloomfield College Scott R. Brandhorst Rivier University Nebraska Wesleyan University Southeast Missouri State University Mary Utley Karen Yvette Holmes Lindsay A. Phillips Drury University Sheila Brownlow Norfolk State University Albright College Catawba College Jennifer Van Reet Marya T. Howell-Carter Dee Posey Providence College Brittany Canfield Farmingdale State College Washington State University California Southern University Scott VanderStoep Robert Hymes Tracy M. Powell Mary Jo Carnot University of Michigan-Dearborn Western Oregon University Hope College Chadron State College Fanli Jia Jessica D. Rhodes Allison A. Vaughn Bradley James Caskey Seton Hall University Westminster College San Diego State University Birmingham–Southern College Nancy Davis Johnson Aaron S. Richmond Wayne Wilkinson Shawn R. Charlton Queens University of Charlotte Metropolitan State University Arkansas State University University of Central Arkansas of Denver Marla Johnston J. Austin Williamson Erin Colbert-White Farmingdale State College Lisa Rosen Augustana College University of Puget Sound Texas Woman's University Nancy J. Karlin William D. Woody Kimberley Cox University of Northern Colorado Steven V. Rouse University of Northern Colorado Walden University Pepperdine University Jennifer Katz Bill Wozniak Sarah Cronin State University of New York Michael Kieth Russell University of Nebraska at Kearney Bemidji State University at Geneseo Washburn University Grace Deason Emily Keener David A. Saarnio Robert R. Wright University of Wisconsin - La Crosse Slippery Rock University Arkansas State University Brigham Young University–Idaho Teddi S. Deka Allen Hayward Keniston Nicholas Salter Xiaomeng (Mona) Xu SPRING 2019 Missouri Western State University University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire Ramapo College of New Jersey Idaho State University PSI CHI Fabiana DesRosiers Jackie Kibler Donald Saucier Evan L. Zucker Dominican College Northwest Missouri State University Kansas State University Loyola University New Orleans JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Find your career. Eight graduate degree programs and four certificates inEducational Psychology

PhD in Educational Psychology Engage in the science of learning. Prepare for a career where you can use your knowledge of human learning and development to help shape the school environment and public policy. Core program areas include learning, motivation, and research design. MS or MA in Educational Psychology* Broaden your ability to apply psychological principles to a variety of professional contexts or prepare for your future doctorate in social science. MS in Quantitative Psychology* Do you like numbers, statistics, and social science? Prepare for a career in research, assessment, and data analysis. Develop proficiency in advanced Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational statistical techniques, measurement theory, and Programs (CACREP) and nationally recognized data analytics. by The Education Trust as a Transforming School PhD in School Psychology (five-year program) Counseling program. Prepare for a career as a licensed psychologist. Certificates Gain competencies in health service psychology High Ability/Gifted Studies,* Human Development to work in schools, private practice, or hospital and Learning,* Identity and Leadership Development settings. Accredited by the American Psychological for Counselors,* Neuropsychology* Association (APA)** and approved by the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Graduate assistantships and tuition waivers are Scientist-practitioner model with advocacy available. elements. Specializations available. MA/EdS in School Psychology (three-year program) Be immersed in community engaged, real-world bsu.edu/edpsy field experiences and intervention opportunities in our scientist-practitioner-advocate program. Leads *Online programs are available. to licensure as a school psychologist. Approved by **Questions related to the PhD in school NASP and the National Council for Accreditation of psychology’s accreditation status should be Teacher Education (NCATE). directed to the Office of Program Consultation and Accreditation, American Psychological Association, MA in School Counseling (two-year program) 750 First St. NE, Washington, D.C. 20002; (202) 336- Be a leader and advocate for educational equity for 5979; [email protected]; or all students in PK–12 schools. Leads to licensure as apa.org/ed/accreditation. a school counselor. Accredited by the Council for

SPRING 2019 Ball State University practices equal opportunity in education and employment and is strongly and actively committed to diversity within its community. Ball State wants its programs and services to be accessible to all people. For information about access and accommodations, please call the Office of PSI CHI Disability Services at 765-285-5293; go through Relay Indiana for deaf or hard-of-hearing individuals (relayindiana.com or 877-446-8772); or visit JOURNAL OF bsu.edu/disabilityservices. 582418-18 mc PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

April 8–12, 2019 UNDERGRADUATE RESEARCH WEEK

Can’t Get Enough Research Experience?

This year, we are excited to announce Psi Chi’s second annual Undergraduate Research Week. Mark April 8–12 on your calendar, and tell other students and faculty members to do the same.

All week long, this year’s event will feature webinars, resources to help you conduct quality SPRING 2019 research, and opportunities to share your professional presentation experiences. The full PSI CHI program will be available soon at https://www.psichi.org/blogpost/987366/318897/ JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

Gain Valuable Research Experience With Psi Chi!

Students and faculty are invited to visit Psi Chi’s free Conducting Research online resource at www.psichi.org/page/ConductingResearch. Here are three ways to get involved:

Join a Collaborative Recruit Online Participants Explore Our Research Research Project for Your Studies Measures Database www.psichi.org/page/Res_Opps www.psichi.org/page/study_links www.psichi.org/page/ With Psi Chi’s Network for Psi Chi is dedicated to helping researchlinksdesc International Collaborative members find participants to This database links to Exchange (NICE), you can join their online research studies. various websites featuring the CROWD and answer a Submit a title and a brief research measures, tools, and common research question description of your online instruments. You can search for with researchers internationally. studies to our Post a Study Tool. relevant materials by category You can also CONNECT with a We regularly encourage our or keyword. If you know of network of researchers open members to participate in all additional resources that could to collaboration. listed studies. be added, please contact [email protected]

SPRING 2019

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

SPRING 2019

PSI CHI JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH

COPYRIGHT 2019 BY PSI CHI, THE INTERNATIONAL HONOR SOCIETY IN PSYCHOLOGY (VOL. 24, NO. 1/ISSN 2325-7342) 71 Publish Your Research in Psi Chi Journal Undergraduate, graduate, and faculty submissions are welcome year round. Only the first author is required to be a Psi Chi member. All submissions are free. Reasons to submit include

• a unique, doctoral-level, peer-review process • indexing in PsycINFO, EBSCO, and Crossref databases • free access of all articles at psichi.org • our efficient online submissions portal View Submission Guidelines and submit your research at www.psichi.org/?page=JN_Submissions

Become a Journal Reviewer Doctoral-level faculty in psychology and related fields who are passionate about educating others on conducting and reporting quality empirical research are invited become reviewers for Psi Chi Journal. Our editorial team is uniquely dedicated to mentorship and promoting professional development of our authors—Please join us!

To become a reviewer, visit www.psichi.org/page/JN_BecomeAReviewer

Resources for Student Research Looking for solid examples of student manuscripts and educational editorials about conducting psychological research? Download as many free articles to share in your classrooms as you would like.

Search past issues, or articles by subject area or author at www.psichi.org/?journal_past

Add Our Journal to Your Library Ask your librarian to store Psi Chi Journal issues in a database at your local institution. Librarians may also e-mail to request notifications when new issues are released.

Contact [email protected] for more information.