Intergroup Anxiety and Willingness to Partner: Heterosexual

INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL

RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS

COREY S. MUÑOZ

(Under the Direction of Kecia M. Thomas)

ABSTRACT

The diversification of the workplace is a growing trend in organizations today. Traditionally this diversity has focused on gender and racial diversity. However, this study broadens the definition of diversity to include sexual minority issues in the workplace. More specifically, this research accessed participant’s willingness to partner with a sexual minority coworker. Employee biographical forms have been provided as a means for manipulating variables (job level & sexuality). Previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety towards sexual minorities were also examined as possible influences on participant’s willingness to partner. The results indicated that the sexuality of the co-workers did play an important part in participant’s willingness to partner as heterosexual employees were rated higher than homosexual. Gender differences were found in intergroup anxiety and previous contact experiences. Job level influenced distancing behaviors as the greatest differences in ratings between heterosexual and homosexual employees were found at the senior manager job level.

INDEX WORDS: Gay & lesbian employees, Intergroup anxiety, Interpersonal heterosexism, Job partner, Co-worker attitudes, Employee job level

INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL

RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS

COREY S. MUÑOZ

B.A., The Oklahoma State University, 2000

A Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The University of Georgia in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

MASTER OF SCIENCE

ATHENS, GEORGIA

2003

Corey S. Muñoz

INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL

RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS

COREY S. MUÑOZ

Approved:

Major Professor: Kecia Thomas

Committee: Rob Mahan Bob Hill

Electronic Version Approved:

Maureen Grasso Dean of the Graduate School The University of Georgia December 2003

DEDICATION

This paper represents a personal and professional milestone in my life and I chose to dedicate it to my parents, David and Susan. Words alone can not express the level of gratitude that I have for their encouragement and support through the years. There is not doubt in my mind that with out them, I would not be where I am today and it is for that reason alone that I am grateful. Thank you Mom and Dad!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project was definitely a collaborative piece of work. Therefore, I have many

individuals I would like to thank. First and foremost, I would like to take a moment and acknowledge Kecia M. Thomas for her guidance, direction, and vision for this project. With out her support for research in this under studied area, this project would have never been possible.

You are truly my mentor and your direction has been invaluable. I would also like to thank Bob

Hill for his comments and review of previous versions of this document as well as his insight into the unique issues that gay and lesbian individuals face. Next, I would like to acknowledge

Rob Mahan for his fresh and insightful perspective during the various phases of this project.

Finally, I would like to thank my friends for their helpful support during this process.

Jimmy, Taures, Tray, and Brad – thank you for your humor and for all the memories that we have together. Last but certainly not least, I would like to acknowledge Mike for always being there through every step and for sharing your life with me.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DEDICATION...... v

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... vi

LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

2 INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER:

HETEROSEXUAL RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS...... 2

Distancing Dynamic – Intergroup Anxiety ...... 3

Interpersonal Discrimination...... 8

Partner Job Level...... 10

Summary ...... 12

Re-Statement of Hypotheses ...... 13

3 METHOD ...... 14

Participants ...... 14

Design...... 14

Scenario Development ...... 16

Dependent Variables ...... 17

Use of Distracters ...... 19

Procedures ...... 19

Pilot Study ...... 20

4 RESULTS ...... 21

Correlation Analysis...... 21

T-test...... 22

Repeated Measures ANOVA ...... 23

Test for Mediation...... 27

5 DISCUSSION...... 28

Gender Differences...... 28

Importance of Previous Contact...... 29

Willingness to Partner ...... 30

Future Research...... 32

Limitations...... 33

Implications...... 34

REFERENCES ...... 36

APPENDICES ...... 41

A Participant Consent Form ...... 42

B Participant Scenario Instructions ...... 43

C Candidate #1 ...... 44

D Candidate #2 ...... 45

E Candidate #3 ...... 46

F Candidate #4 ...... 47

G Candidate #5 ...... 48

vii

H Candidate #6 ...... 49

I Candidate Recall and Decision Form ...... 50

J Intergroup Anxiety Toward Homosexuals Scale...... 51

K Contact Experiences Questionnaire...... 54

L Participant Demographic Questionnaire...... 56

M List of Distracter Items ...... 57

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1: Sample Characteristics...... 15

Table 2: Intercorrelations and Coefficients Alpha for Scales and Variables...... 22

Table 3: Mean and Standard Deviations for Willingness to Partner ...... 23

Table 4: Summary of Repeated Measures ANOVA...... 25

Table 5: Regression Analysis Summary for Test of Mediation for Previous Contact and

Intergroup Anxiety on Willingness to Partner...... 27

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Model of Intergroup Anxiety ...... 6

Figure 2: Hypothesis Model of Mediation Relationship...... 13

Figure 3: Plot of Interaction between the Job Level of the Potential Candidate and the Sexuality

of the Candidate on the Willingness to Partner ...... 26

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The diversification of the workforce is a growing trend in organizations today. In the past, this diversification has primarily been attributed to the growing number of ethnic minorities and females entering the workforce. However, sexual minorities are another minoritive segment of the workforce that has seen an increase in visibility over the past couple of decades. There are an unprecedented number of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people publicly acknowledging who they are and doing so in their respective working environments (McNaught, 1993; Van Den Bergh,

1999). Although this increased visibility of sexual minorities in the work place has been well documented in the news press, there is very little empirical research as to the impact of these issues on the working environment (Croteau, 1996). Specifically, there is no empirical evidence as to the impact of this increased visibility in the work place of gays and lesbians in regards to the reactions and responses of their non-gay co-workers.

The present research examines the affective and behavioral reactions of non-gay co- workers to their gay and lesbian counterparts. Specifically, this study examines participants’ levels of intergroup anxiety and willingness to partner with a sexual minority co-worker, the relationship between intergroup anxiety and previous contact experiences with gays or lesbians, and the effects of the job level of the sexual minority worker on participants’ willingness to partner in an organization. The various job levels of the sexual minority workers in this study include supervisor, peer, and subordinate.

CHAPTER 2

INTERGROUP ANXIETY AND WILLINGNESS TO PARTNER: HETEROSEXUAL

RESPONSE TO SEXUAL MINORITY CO-WORKERS

More recently attitudes, to some extent have changed towards sexual minorities. Overall,

American adults hold negative attitudes towards homosexuals (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Yang,

1997). However, attitudes have become more favorable over the past few decades yet still

remain predominately negative (Herek, 2000). As an extension of this change in attitudes,

various trends in heterosexual opinions have recently been examined. Previous empirical

research has shown that heterosexuals who know someone that is gay or lesbian are likely to

hold more favorable attitudes towards sexual minorities (Herek, 1988). Likewise, heterosexuals

who have experienced more interpersonal contact with someone who was gay or lesbian generally have more favorable attitudes towards sexual minorities (Herek & Capitanio, 1996). In addition, gender plays an important role in attitude development toward gays and lesbians. In general, heterosexual men tend to hold more negative attitudes and are more likely to display sexual prejudice toward gays and lesbians than heterosexual women (Herek & Capitanio, 1999).

Gender differences in attitudes have also manifested differently towards the gender of the sexual minority, with heterosexual men holding the highest level of negative attitudes towards gay men as compared to heterosexual women’s attitudes towards lesbians (Kite & Whitley, 1998). The increased visibility of gay men and lesbians has also been linked, on a limited basis, to a variety of diversity-related aspects in the workplace. Organizations are beginning to make efforts to affirm sexual diversity within their working environments. These affirmations usually consist of a written statement declaring that the organization does not discriminate based on sexual

orientation, conducting diversity workshops, supporting informal gay and lesbian professional

networks, and providing domestic partner benefits for sexual minorities. These efforts have been

empirically linked to more positive work attitudes of gay and lesbians (Button, 2001). Also,

these organizational efforts to promote diversity have created a more positive working

environment for gay and lesbian employees. This positive social climate has been directly

related to how open a gay man or lesbian employee can be in the workplace in regards to their

sexuality. The organizational implication of this increased positive social environment is higher

job satisfaction among sexual minorities (Ellis & Riggle, 1995). Not only is this level of

“outness” related to job satisfaction, but a positive relationship has been shown between a

positive organizational climate for sexual minorities and an increase in organizational

commitment, lower job stress, and increased perception of top level management support (Day &

Schoenrade, 1997, 2000). Also, these organizational efforts have been shown to reduce work

place discrimination towards gays and lesbians (Ragins & Cornwell, 2000). The reduction of

discrimination is related to job satisfaction, as most gay and lesbian employees still fear various

forms of discrimination in the work place (Levine & Leonard, 1984; Croteau, J.M., 1996).

Distancing Dynamic - Intergroup Anxiety

Intergroup anxiety is a relatively recent construct examined in the psychological literature

(Britt, Boniecki, Bescio, Biernat, & Brown, 1996). The concept was first formally investigated

by Stephan and Stephan (1985) who define intergroup anxiety as “anxiety stemming from contact with out-group members.” Traditionally this form of anxiety has been examined in regards to contact between stigmatized versus non-stigmatized groups. In addition, the previous anxiety literature has specifically looked at the anxiety related to contact between individuals of differing racial/ethnic groups and gender differences (Stephan & Stephan, 1985, 1989a, 1989b;

Islam & Hewstone, 1993). This construct has yet to be extended to include anxiety stemming

from contact between heterosexual and homosexual individuals.

Intergroup contact between individuals from different social identity groups often elicits anxiety between group members (Stephen & Stephan, 1985, 1989a, 1989b; Britt, et. al., 1996).

When individuals initially interact and meet people, feelings of discomfort and unease often emerge. This discomfort is magnified when individuals are from different social groups or between members of non-stigmatized and stigmatized groups. Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) model of intergroup anxiety identifies several antecedents to this affective component of intergroup interactions (See Figure 1). The authors highlight prior intergroup relations, intergroup cognitions, and situational factors as important antecedent variables. The prior relations between the groups are important in terms of amount and type of interactions. If the

intergroup relations have traditionally been characterized negatively then anxiety will be

increased or if prior intergroup contact has been limited, future interactions will elicit anxiety.

As previously mentioned, contact has been directly linked to an increase in favorable attitudes

towards gays and lesbians (Herek & Capitanio, 1999). In addition, limited intergroup contact

promotes heterosexist assumptions that other individuals are heterosexual as well.

Next, intergroup cognitions are an important antecedent factor. These cognitions include

prior knowledge, expectancies, and general stereotypes of the out-group. When prior intergroup

contact has been limited, ingroup members remain relatively ignorant of the outgroup’s values,

norms, and behaviors (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). This uncertainty can lead to increased anxiety

between the groups and reliance on negative stereotypes that lead to an expectation of negative

behaviors by the outgroup. A common stereotype towards homosexuals is that often gay men

and lesbians are viewed as violating traditional gender roles. Numerous studies have correlated

traditional sex role ideologies with hostile attitudes towards gays and lesbians (Thompson,

Grisanti, & Pleck, 1985; Herek, 1988, Krulewitz & Nash, 1980).

A third antecedent cause of intergroup anxiety deals with situational factors. These have been identified as the structure, composition, and status of the intergroup interaction. Members of groups that are low in social status often experience more intergroup anxiety when compared to those members of high status groups (Stephan & Stephan, 1989). This increased anxiety also holds true for contact between members of stigmatized and non-stigmatized groups and intergroup contact between employees at differing hierarchical levels (Stephan & Stephan,

1985).

The outcomes associated with the intergroup anxiety model are categorized into three components; affective, cognitive, and behavioral (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). The affective consequences of intergroup anxiety include increased emotional and evaluative reactions. These amplified reactions can stem from either positive or negative intergroup interactions and include overreactions, conflict, and increased negative evaluations of the out-group. Cognitive consequences of intergroup anxiety include information processing biases, motivational biases, and self-awareness. Intergroup contact that elicits anxiety increases the reliance on social stereotypes and attributional errors dealing with the out-group and also intensifies in-group

membership.

The final consequence presented in the model and a key element of this study deals with

behavioral responses to intergroup anxiety. These responses include avoidance of the out-group

by the in-group members. This avoidance is characterized as a coping method that often leads to

a decrease in individual anxiety as well as a decrease in the anxiety between the groups. The

avoidance has even been extended to include non-stigmatized groups limiting their interaction

with stigmatized groups for fear of contamination of the stigma. This avoidance or distancing aspect of anxiety is expected to manifest in the workplace by heterosexual employees being less willing to partner with a homosexual employee.

Figure 1: Model of Intergroup Anxiety (Stephan and Stephan, 1985)

Antecedents Consequences

Prior Inter- Group Relations Behavioral

Intergroup Intergroup Cognitions Anxiety Cognitive

Situational Factors Affective

As previously mentioned, theories of intergroup anxiety have focused primarily on racial and ethnic interactions, gender, religious affiliation, and persons with disabilities (Stephan and

Stephan, 1985, 1989a, 1989b; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). The model has yet to be extended towards other stigmatized groups such as sexual minorities. Also noted earlier, gender differences exist in attitude development towards gays and lesbians (Herek & Capitano, 1999;

Kite & Whitley, 1998). These gender differences in attitudes coupled with the theory of intergroup anxiety predict that gender differences will be present in the intergroup anxiety level.

Specifically, the male heterosexual employees will indicate more anxiety towards gay and lesbian employees than female heterosexual employees.

H1: A main effect is being proposed for gender on intergroup anxiety level toward gays

and lesbians such that male participants will report more intergroup anxiety than

female participants.

As mentioned earlier, another important variable in intergroup anxiety is the prior intergroup contact (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). More specifically, the amount of contact and the specific conditions of that contact results in anxiety levels increasing. When contact with the stigmatized group has been minimal, higher anxiety levels will be found during subsequent interactions. Previous studies have shown the importance of increased intergroup contact in heterosexuals’ exhibiting positive attitudes towards gay men and lesbians (Gentry, 1987; Herek,

1988; Schneider & Lewis, 1984). Furthermore, Herek & Capitanio (1996) examined the complexity of contact between heterosexuals and sexual minorities. The contact experience is affected by three set of factors: multiple contacts, more intimate contacts, and contacts that involved direct disclosure of sexual orientation. All of these potentially contribute to increasing favorable attitudes. However, few studies have examined intergroup contact as an antecedent to intergroup anxiety specifically between heterosexuals’ and gay men and lesbians. This study seeks to examine intergroup contact as a factor of intergroup anxiety between heterosexuals and homosexuals.

H2: A negative relationship is being proposed between previous contact experiences and

intergroup anxiety level such that participants will report less intergroup anxiety

when indicating previous contact experiences with one or more individuals who are

homosexual.

Interpersonal Discrimination

Given the still negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians in general, and their increasing

visibility in the workplace, theories illuminating interpersonal prejudice may shed light on the

non-gay response to this particular form of diversity. Lott and Maluso’s (1995) treatment of

interpersonal discrimination as distancing appears informative to understanding heterosexuals’

affective and behavioral responses to gays and lesbians in the workplace.

The theory of interpersonal discrimination is broadly defined as behaviors that limit and

control the lives of those to whom it is directed. One type of interpersonal discrimination,

heterosexist discrimination specifically relates to institutional and individual discriminatory

behaviors towards non-heterosexuals (Herek, 1990, Fernald, 1995). As an extension of Lott’s

(1995) social psychological conception of sexism, interpersonal heterosexism is composed of related but independent dimensions of prejudice, stereotypes, and discrimination (Fernald, 1995).

Heterosexist prejudice refers to the negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Heterosexist stereotypes refer to the widely shared beliefs that are used to justify hostility towards homosexuals and heterosexist discrimination refers to the face-to-face overt behaviors that distance, avoid, or exclude lesbians and gay men. Although each component is equally important in the understanding of heterosexism, the focus of this research deals with the later specifically referring to the distancing behaviors of heterosexual employees and their willingness to partner with a homosexual co-worker. Distancing behaviors have often been used as an index of negative responses to minority groups and can serve as an operational definition of interpersonal discrimination (Lott & Maluso, 1995).

Even though the previous research has been limited, research has shown support for distancing as an indicator of interpersonal discrimination. Despite the small increase in positive

attitudes toward gays and lesbians, researchers have still found that individuals continue to

physically distance themselves from homosexuals (Morin & Garfinkle, 1978). Other distancing

behaviors have also been supported from previous research such as individuals reporting less

attraction to and less willingness to have future interactions with someone labeled as gay or

lesbian (Krulewitz & Nash, 1980). Also, researchers have shown that individuals interacting

with a partner who was homosexual were less willing to disclose information and in return

sought less information regarding their partner (Kite & Deaux, 1986). Another indicator of

distancing behaviors could be the tendency of heterosexuals to perceive homosexuals as

dissimilar to themselves (Shaffer & Wallace, 1990). This perception could be a coping method

for intergroup anxiety or used to justify various forms of distancing behaviors. Furthermore,

researchers have found that emotional reactions were more extreme with reactions to success

being more positive with a partner from a dissimilar group and emotional reactions to failure

being more negative from a dissimilar group partner, which could also indicate a type of distancing behavior (Stephan & Stephan, 1989).

Based upon the theory of interpersonal discrimination, distancing behaviors in an organization will manifest through willingness to partner with a homosexual employee. The prediction is that heterosexual employees will be less willing to partner with their homosexual co-workers than with their heterosexual counterparts.

H3: Partner sexuality will have a main effect on participants’ willingness to partner

such that participants will be more willing to partner with a heterosexual

employee than with a homosexual employee.

In addition, this present study seeks to examine the influence of intergroup anxiety on the

participants’ behavioral responses. Specifically, it is expected that intergroup anxiety will be related specifically to the participants’ willingness to partner with a gay or lesbian employee.

H4: A negative relationship is being proposed between intergroup anxiety and

willingness to partner such that increased intergroup anxiety decreases the

willingness to partner with a sexual minority co-worker.

Based on the model of intergroup anxiety, a possible mediated relationship of intergroup anxiety is being explored between prior intergroup contact with a gay or lesbian and participants’ willingness to partner with a homosexual co-worker.

Partner Job Level

Like all employees, gay and lesbian employees differ on a number of job relevant and irrelevant characteristics. An additional goal of this study is to examine the boundaries under which anti-gay distancing behavior is reinforced or deterred. Employee job level may be a potential job related characteristic that influences the likelihood of distancing towards homosexual employees. The present study sought to explore the possible interaction between willingness to partner and the job level of the potential partner. Specifically, willingness to partner and the job level of the partner – supervisor, peer, or subordinate will be examined from an exploratory perspective. The social adaptation theory (Piner & Kahle, 1984) and the ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979) may shed some light on this dynamic.

Social adaptation theory has been used to examine other minority and stigmatized groups in the work environment (Colella, Denissi, & Varna, 1998; Piner & Kahle, 1984). Social adaptation theory states the significance of alternative responses in a given situation and context will determine the response an individual chooses to give. Thus, in situations with high

consequences for the rater or employee, the negative bias responses will be evoked and vice versa for situations with little or no consequences for the employee or rater.

On the basis of this social adaptation theory, the prediction is that non-gay co-workers will evoke more negative attitudes in situations where their sexual minority co-worker is their supervisor. This interaction with a superior would elicit a situation with greater consequences for the heterosexual co-worker. Furthermore, in situations where the sexual minority employee is the peer or subordinate of the heterosexual co-worker, less negative attitudes will be expressed. However, the peer level will elicit more negative attitudes than the subordinate level because of the assumption that consequences for the non-gay worker decreases when interacting with a subordinate.

In contrast the ultimate attribution error states that in-group and out-group membership overrides the fundamental attribution error by the tendency to make in-group serving attributions. More specifically, in-group members tend to give the benefit of the doubt to similar individuals, which indicates that in-group members tend to engage in self-serving and similarity biases. However, if an out-group member or gay co-worker in this study is able to provide the in-group member with desirable resources, then in-group members are less likely to use those biases against the out-group members. Therefore, according to the ultimate attribution error the job level prediction is reversed compared to that of the social adaptation theory prediction.

Interaction with gay or lesbian supervisors will elicit the most positive responses from non-gay coworkers and the least positive responses from interacting with gay or lesbian subordinates given the potential career payoff.

H5: An interaction is being proposed between the job level of the potential candidate

and the sexuality of the candidate on the willingness to partner of the participant.

Summary

Gays and Lesbians have dramatically increased their visibility in their working environments over the past couple of decades (McNaught, 1993; Van Den Bergh, 1999). This increased visibility has been well documented in the popular press. However, there is very little empirical research to date as to the impact of these issues on the working environment (Croteau,

1996). This current study seeks to examine the non-gay response to this increased visibility in the work place of sexual minorities.

Intergroup anxiety theory has been presented to provide better understanding of the anxiety stemming from contact with out-group members (Stephan & Stephan, 1985; Britt, et. al,

1996). Previous literature has examined intergroup anxiety specifically focused towards racial and ethnic interactions, gender, religious affiliation, and persons with disabilities (Stephan and

Stephan, 1985, 1989a, 1989b; Islam & Hewstone, 1993). The current study seeks to expand the intergroup anxiety literature to include intergroup contact between homosexual and heterosexual individuals. More specifically, distancing behaviors defined as willingness to partner in this study, are being examined toward heterosexual and homosexual employees. Additionally, gender differences and previous contact are expected to have an impact on an employee’s willingness to partner with a gay or lesbian co-worker. Furthermore, employee job level may be a potential job related characteristic that influences the probability of anti-gay distancing behavior.

Re-Statement of Hypotheses

1. A main effect is being proposed for gender on intergroup anxiety level toward gays and lesbians such that male participants will report more intergroup anxiety than female participants.

2. A negative relationship is being proposed between previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety level such that participants will report less intergroup anxiety when indicating previous contact experiences with one or more individuals who are homosexual.

3. Partner sexuality will have a main effect on participants’ willingness to partner such that participants will be more willing to partner with a heterosexual employee than with a homosexual employee.

4. A negative relationship is being proposed between intergroup anxiety and willingness to partner with gay or lesbian employee such that increased intergroup anxiety decreases the willingness to partner with a sexual minority co-worker.

5. An interaction is being proposed between the job level of the potential candidate and the sexuality of the candidate on the willingness to partner of the participant.

Figure 2: Hypothesis Model of Mediation Relationship

Antecedents Consequences

Prior Inter- H2 H4 Group Relations Behavioral

Intergroup Anxiety

CHAPTER 3

METHOD

Participants

One hundred and fifty five students participated from a research pool at a large southeastern university. The sample was 47 % male; 53 % female; the average age was 19.8

(SD=2.35); and 97% indicated that they were not married. The majority of the sample indicated that they were Caucasian (87%) and other racial/ethnic groups were also indicated: 5.8%

African American, 3.2% Asian American, and 1.3% Hispanic (See Table 1 for complete sample characteristics).

This sample is significant given the location and the use of college age students. As noted earlier, a common characteristic of perpetrators of anti-gay/lesbian behaviors are predominately young adults (Herek, et.al., 1997; LeBlanc, 1991; Murphy, 2001). The research pool is comprised of undergraduate students who typically range in age from 18 to 23. The students in this research pool are required to participant in research in order to receive course credit and only respondents who self identify as heterosexual were used in the sample.

Design

This study is a 3 X 2 within subjects design. Participants were placed in a role to respond to potential work partners. There were 6 potential partners to evaluate in total, corresponding to the 6 scenarios and every participant evaluated each of the 6 potential partners. Participants were given detailed instructions prior to evaluating each of the candidates. The instructions included specific job requirements, possible work assignments with these new partners, and the degree of

Table 1:

Sample Characteristics

Demographic Information Frequency/ Percentage

Gender Male 73 (47.1) Female 82 (52.9)

Race African American 9 (5.8) Asian American 5 (3.2) Caucasian 135 (87.1) Hispanic 2 (1.3) Other 3 (1.9)

Marital Status Married 3 (1.9) Single 151 (97.4)

Age 17-20 117 (75.5) 21-25 35 (22.6) 26-31 3 (.18)

Sexual Orientation Heterosexual 155 (100)

Year in School Freshman 60 (38.7) Sophomore 46 (29.7) Junior 33 (21.3) Senior 14 (9.0) Graduate 2 (1.3)

interaction that will be expected between them and their new “co-worker.” Participants were introduced to each of the 6 potential work partners through an Employee Biographical Form.

They were asked to indicate their willingness to partner with each candidate after each form.

After the within subjects portion of the study concludes, the study assessed their intergroup anxiety and previous intergroup contact experiences.

Scenario Development

Employee Biographical Forms: The employee biographical forms were standardized and consisted of information about job level, educational level, performance ratings, membership in professional organizations, and civic involvement (See Appendices C through H for complete copies of the form). The candidates’ biographical forms only varied slightly in content except for the professional organizations (e.g. Atlanta Gay and Lesbian Executive Network, Georgia

Society of Business Professionals), civic involvement (e.g. United Way of Atlanta), and subordinate, peer, and supervisor job level sections of the documents where there was a distinct difference between memberships in predominantly heterosexual organizations versus memberships in predominantly homosexual organizations as well as the indicated job levels of each candidate. The standardized employee biographical forms were used to improve the face validity of the selection process and ensure equivalence of each of the candidates being presented to the participants. In addition, the forms were demographically neutral with no names, age, gender, or race being listed.

Sexuality of Candidates: The sexuality of each of the potential partners was manipulated through their respective biographical forms. Specifically, the professional organizations and civic involvement sections of the biographical forms contained either membership in

predominantly heterosexual organizations versus memberships in predominantly homosexual

organizations (See Appendices C through H for a complete listing).

Job Level of Candidates: The job levels of the potential partners were also manipulated

through the employee biographical forms. The candidates were either listed under the current

position section of the form as an assistant manager, manager, or senior manager.

Each of the six scenarios contained each of the two manipulations. For example, one

scenario contained assistant manager as the job level and heterosexual as the employee sexuality.

The next scenario contained manager for the job level and homosexual for the sexuality so on

and so forth until all possible manipulations were captured.

Dependent Variables

Willingness to Partner: The willingness to partner of each of the participants with the 6 potential candidates was assessed by a single item following each of the employee biographical forms. This item was scaled from 1 to 5 ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The single item read as follows: Based upon the information provided on the Employee Biographical

Form, to what extent are you willing to partner with this candidate on a future long-term work projects? (See Appendix I for the Candidate Recall and Rating Form).

Sexual Minority Partnering Score: This variable is comprised of participants’ average

scores on willingness to partner with gay and lesbian employees. This score examines only

responses of participants’ willingness to partner with gay and lesbian employees and not the

scores of willingness to partner with heterosexual employees.

Intergroup Anxiety Towards Gays and Lesbians: The intergroup anxiety of the

participants was assessed once after the with-in subjects portion of the study. The intergroup

anxiety was measured by a revised version of the Intergroup Anxiety Toward African American

Scale (IATAA) that focuses on anxiety towards gays and lesbians (Britt, et. al., 1996). This

adopted version focuses on an individual’s cognitive outcome expectancies when interacting

with homosexual individuals. More specifically, the scale measures the degree of anxiety that

results from interacting with gays and lesbians in various situations.

The Intergroup Anxiety Toward Homosexuals Scale is a 21-item measure, which

includes 10 items measuring anxiety towards gay men, 10 items measuring anxiety towards lesbians, and one question measuring anxiety towards homosexuals in general. Participants are asked to respond to a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

Items are averaged to indicate that higher scores show greater intergroup anxiety towards homosexuals. One item included in the scale reads as follows: I would feel nervous if I had

to sit alone in a room with a lesbian and start a conversation (See Appendix J for a complete copy of the instrument).

Prior Intergroup Contact: Prior contact experiences of the participants with gay and

lesbian individuals were also assessed. Personal contact was assessed through a series of

questions organized around 2 categories of contact; quantitative and qualitative aspects of

contact. This measure is based on the methods employed by Islam & Hewstone (1993) to

measure prior intergroup contact between varying religious groups.

The Contact Experiences Questionnaire is a 10-item measure based on a 5-point Likert

scale. As mentioned previously, the measure is separated into 2 categories. The quantitative

aspects of contact include 5 questions concerning amount and frequency of contact with gays or lesbians in a variety of settings. One item included in the first category of the scale reads as follows: I repeatedly have contact with someone who is gay or lesbian at school. Secondly, 5 questions are used to assess the qualitative aspects of contact that examine whether the contact

was perceived as equal, voluntary, superficial, experienced as pleasant, and cooperative. One item included in the scale reads as follows: I perceive my contact with a gay or lesbian person as voluntary. (See Appendix K for a complete copy of the instrument).

Use of Distracters

Various “distracters” were used throughout the instruments to help disguise the salience of the purpose for the study and to reduce socially desirable responses of the participants. These items were embedded within the larger surveys of contemporary attitudes and experiences that address sexuality as well as race, ethnicity, nationality, and gender. Specifically, distracters were utilized in the Intergroup Anxiety Toward Homosexuals Scale (See Appendix M for a complete listing).

Procedures

Participants were administered a packet of instruments that included a participant’s biographical questionnaire, six Employee Biographical Forms, the Intergroup Anxiety Toward

Homosexuals Scale, and the Contact Experiences Questionnaire. Also included in the packet will a set of detailed instructions for each participant that explained their role as respondents to potential partners (See Appendices A & B for the complete set of participant instructions).

Embedded in the participant instructions was the scenario development which included specific job requirements, work assignments with these new partners, and the degree of interaction that will be expected between them and their new “co-worker.” During the within subjects portion of the study, the participants were asked to indicate their willingness to partner with each candidate after reviewing each of the Employee Biographical Forms. After the within subjects portion of the study was completed, the participants then completed the contact experiences form,

intergroup anxiety form, and the participant’s demographic form (See Appendix L for a complete

copy of the participant’s demographic form). Finally, participants were debriefed and informed

of the true nature of the study.

Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted to gather information on varying aspects of this current

study. The purpose of the pilot study was two-fold; assess the participant’s ability to recall the

sexuality of the candidates and the job level of the candidates. This piloted data included 30

participants in order to adequately meet the goals of the pilot study. The salience of the

candidate’s sexuality was assessed through a series of questions regarding the manipulation of each Employee Biographical Form. In the same regards, the salience of the candidate’s job level was assessed through the participant’s understanding of the relevant information contained in the standardized Employee Biographical Forms. As mentioned earlier, both the candidate’s sexuality and job level will be manipulated through these forms. After the participants completed the survey, there were then asked to discuss various aspects of the survey including grammar, readability of the survey, and any further reactions to the content of the questionnaires.

These comments were utilized to make any appropriate changes to the surveys before data collection began.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

The study utilized correlation analyses to examine the basic nature of relationships

among the variables previous contact experiences, intergroup anxiety, and willingness to partner

with a sexual minority coworker. A t-test was conducted to examine gender differences of

participants in intergroup anxiety towards gay men and lesbians. A repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to examine the relationship of partner sexuality on participant’s willingness to partner as well as examining the interaction of job level and sexuality of the partner on willingness to partner. Finally, a test for mediation (James & Brett, 1984; Baron & Kenny,

1986) was conducted using hierarchical regression to examine the mediating effects of

intergroup anxiety on previous contact experiences and willingness to partner with a sexual minority.

Correlation Analyses

Hypotheses 2 predicted that there would be a negative relationship between previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety level such that participants will report less intergroup anxiety when indicating previous contact experiences with one or more individuals who are homosexual. The correlation between theses two variables was both negative and significant,

(r=-.75; p<.01), thus the hypothesis was supported. See table 2 for a complete summary of variable correlations.

Hypothesis 4 also predicted that there would be a negative relationship between intergroup anxiety and willingness to partner with a gay or lesbian employee such that increased intergroup anxiety decreases the willingness to partner with a sexual minority co-worker. This

hypothesis was also supported with a significant negative correlation (r=-.56; p<.01).

Table 2:

Intercorrelations and Coefficients Alpha for Scales and Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Gender -----

2. Age -.047 -----

3. Intergroup Anxiety -.136 -.230** (.93) Towards Homosexuals

4. Intergroup Anxiety -.435** -.184* .894** (.91) Towards Gay Men

5. Intergroup Anxiety .182* -.214** .896** .607** (.92) Towards Lesbians.

6. Willingness to Partner .068 .172* -.560** -.461** -.511** -----

7. Previous Contact .238** .092 -.745** -.709** -.623** .505** (.87) Experiences

*p<.05; **p<.01. N sizes ranged from 145 – 150. Coefficient alphas are reported on the main diagonal.

T-test

This study used an independent samples t-test to examine gender differences in intergroup anxiety towards gays and lesbians. As stated in hypothesis 1, a main effect is expected on intergroup anxiety level towards gays and lesbians such that male participants will report more intergroup anxiety than female participants. The results of the t-test yielded a non- significant result t(148)=1.671; p=.097 for gender differences in intergroup anxiety towards

homosexuals including both gay men and lesbians. However, separate t-tests were conducted for

examining gender differences in intergroup anxiety towards gay men t(150)=2.489; p<0.00 and

towards lesbians t(152)=-2.27; p=.024; both yielding significant results. This indicates that

women had higher intergroup anxiety towards lesbians and men had higher intergroup anxiety

towards gay men. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test was utilized to examine gender

differences in previous contact experiences. The results also yielded a significant result t(150) =

-2.998; p=.003 with women reporting more previous contact experiences.

Table 3:

Mean and Standard Deviations for Willingness to Partner

Job Level Sexuality of Co-worker Assistant Manager Manager Senior Manager

Homosexual 3.25 3.533 3.46 (.9830) (.9944) (1.0969)

Heterosexual 4.09 4.31 4.43 (.7413) (.6146) (.6690)

Repeated Measures ANOVA

A repeated measures ANOVA was utilized to examine the relationship of co-worker

sexuality on participant’s willingness to partner. Hypothesis 3 states that partner sexuality will

have a main effect on participant’s willingness to partner such that participants will be more

willing to partner with a heterosexual employee than with a homosexual employee. The results

support this hypothesis with a significant main effect for partner sexuality F(1,149)=123.673; p<0.00. Furthermore, frequencies associated with the participants’ willingness to partner the

most with one candidate indicate that 85.8 % selected a heterosexual candidate and only 13.6 % chose a gay or lesbian candidate.

The repeated measures ANOVA was also utilized to examine the interaction of job level and sexuality of the partner on willingness to partner. The sexual orientation by job level interaction was significant as well F(1,149)=8.813; p=.003 thus providing further support for hypothesis 3.

Three paired-samples t-tests were conducted to follow up on the significant interaction.

Differences in mean ratings for willingness to partner between the homosexual and heterosexual candidates were significantly different between assistant manager and senior manager job levels t(150)=2.968; p=.003 and between the manager and senior manager job levels t(149)=2.519; p=.013. However, the assistant manager and manager job levels did not show a significant difference t(153)=.638; p=.524. Table 3 indicates that the difference in mean ratings for willingness to partner with the homosexual candidate was lowest with the assistant manager job level but the rating was higher for the manager level than the senior manager level. Family wise error rates were controlled for across these paired samples t-tests using the Holm’s sequential

Bonferroni approach (Hays, 1994; Green, Salkind, Akey, 1997).

Table 4:

Summary of Repeated Measures ANOVA

Variable Df F η2 p

Sexuality (S) 1 123.67** .454 .000

Job Level (J) 1 19.20** .114 .000

Sexuality x Job Level 1 8.813** .056 .003

S x J with-in group error 149 (.219)

Note. Values enclosed in parenthesis represent mean square errors. *p< .05; **p< .01.

Figure 3:

Plot of Interaction between the Job level of the Potential Candidate and the Sexuality of the

Candidate on the Willingness to Partner.

4.6 4.43 4.4 4.31 4.2 r e 4.09 n t r

a 4 P o Homosexual 3.8 Heterosexual ess t

n 3.533 g

n 3.6 i l l i

W 3.46 3.4

3.2 3.25 3 123 Job Level

Test for Mediation

A regression analysis indicated that previous contact experience was significantly related to the mediator, intergroup anxiety (β=-.745, p<.01; see Model 1). Thus, the first requirement for Baron and Kenny’s (1986) test for mediation was satisfied. The second requirement in Baron and Kenny’s (1986) test for mediation is also satisfied with previous contact being significantly related to willingness to partner (β=.505, p<.01; see Model 2). The third requirement was also supported with the mediating variable of intergroup anxiety being significantly related to the criterion of willingness to partner, even when the predictor variable, previous contact was included in the regression equation (β=-.407, p<.01; see Model 3). The beta weight associated with previous contact was reduced when intergroup anxiety was added to the regression equation

(β=.505, p<.01 in Model 2; β=.230, p<.05 in Model 3), therefore the final requirement for the test for mediation was satisfied. Since the beta associated with previous contact was reduced, yet still significant, partial mediation was established.

Table 5:

Regression Analysis Summary for Test of Mediation for Previous Contact and Intergroup

Anxiety on Willingness to Partner

Model Dependent Variable β Total R2 ∆R2 F df Model 1 Previous Contact Intergroup Anxiety -.745** .555 182.41** 1, 146 Model 2 Previous Contact Willingness to .505** .255 49.52** 1, 145 Partner Model 3 Previous Contact Willingness to .230* .359 .104 39.15** 2, 140 Intergroup Anxiety Partner -.407**

*p< .05; **p< .01.

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this present research was to examine the affective and behavioral

reactions of non-gay co-workers to their gay and lesbian counterparts. Specifically, this study

examines participants’ levels of intergroup anxiety and willingness to partner with a sexual

minority co-worker, the relationship between intergroup anxiety and previous contact

experiences with gays or lesbians, and the effects of the job level of the sexual minority worker

on participants’ willingness to partner in an organization. Once again, the three job levels of the

sexual minority co-workers in this study include supervisor, peer, and subordinate.

Gender Differences

Previous literature has indicated that gender plays an important role in attitudes towards

gay men and lesbians. More specifically, heterosexual men have been found to hold more

negative attitudes and are often more likely to display sexual prejudice towards gays and lesbians

than heterosexual women (Herek & Capitanio, 1999). The results of this study did not support

these previous findings. The gender differences in intergroup anxiety towards sexual minorities

were not found in which male participants had significantly higher intergroup anxiety than

female participants. However, past research has demonstrated the complex nature of these

gender differences towards gay men or lesbians. Gender differences in attitudes manifest

themselves differently towards the gender of the sexual minority, with heterosexual men holding

the highest level of negative attitudes towards gay men as compared to attitudes towards lesbians

(Kite & Whitley, 1998). The results of this research are congruent with these previous findings that men hold significantly higher intergroup anxiety levels towards gay men than did female

participants. However, female participants held significantly higher intergroup anxiety toward

lesbians than did the male participants.

These results show that gender differences in intergroup anxiety are more complex. With

women holding higher anxiety levels towards lesbians and men holding higher anxiety levels

towards gay men reaffirms that the gender of the sexual minority is indeed an important factor.

These increased anxiety levels towards the same gender could be caused by fear of same sex

sexual harassment or by a common stereotype that often gay men and lesbians are viewed as

violating traditional gender roles. Traditional sex role ideologies have been related to hostile

attitudes towards gays and lesbians (Thompson, Grisanti, & Pleck, 1985; Herek, 1988, Krulewitz

& Nash, 1980). Furthermore, interaction with the same gender sexual minority could call into question the sexuality of the heterosexual person causing increased worry, unease, or fear of contamination of the stigma themselves (Stephan & Stephan, 1985).

Importance of Previous Contact

The results provided strong support for the importance of prior intergroup contact in reducing intergroup anxiety towards homosexuals. Overall, those whom reported prior contact experiences with gay men or lesbians reported significantly lower intergroup anxiety levels. The

decreased anxiety levels with prior contact were held consistently when examining anxiety towards homosexuals (gay men and lesbians) as well as anxiety levels towards gay men and lesbians separately. These results are consistent with past evidence that have shown the importance of increased intergroup contact in heterosexuals’ exhibiting more favorable attitudes towards gay men and lesbians (Gentry, 1987; Herek, 1988; Schneider & Lewis, 1984; Herek &

Capitanio, 1996). In addition, gender differences were indicated with women reporting having significantly more previous contact experiences with non-heterosexuals.

Prior intergroup contact was also predictive of willingness to partner with a sexual minority co-worker. As expected, the results showed that prior contact experiences was related positively to increasing the willingness to partner. Thus, those individuals whom reported previous contact experiences were more willing to partner with a gay or lesbian co-worker.

Willingness to Partner

Overall the results indicate that individuals are more willing to partner with a heterosexual co-worker than with a gay or lesbian co-worker. The hypothesis was based upon the premise of a specific aspect of interpersonal discrimination referred to as heterosexist discrimination (Lott & Maluso, 1995). Heterosexist discrimination encompasses distancing behaviors of heterosexual employees and their willingness to partner with a gay or lesbian co- worker. Distancing behaviors have often been used as an index of negative responses to minority groups and can serve as an operational definition of interpersonal discrimination. These results continue the previous research showing that individuals continually physically distance themselves from out-group members and homosexuals (Morin & Garfinnkle, 1978; Krulewitz &

Nash, 1980; Kite & Deaux, 1986; Stephan & Stephan, 1989; Shaffer & Wallace, 1990).

Furthermore, this research extends the examination of distancing behaviors to the workplace environment and shows that heterosexuals continually distance themselves from their gay and lesbian co-workers.

Another indicator of distancing behaviors was the percentage of individuals rating a gay or lesbian co-worker as the candidate with whom they would want to work with the most. As mentioned previously, few selected one of the three homosexual candidates (13.6 %) with the majority indicating a heterosexual candidate (85.8 %). This significant difference between the

ratings of the two types of candidates continues to point to an overwhelming presence of distancing on the part of non-gay individuals towards sexually diverse co-workers.

Furthermore, as predicted intergroup anxiety was negatively related to willingness to partner indicating that as intergroup anxiety levels decrease, individuals are more willing to partner with a co-worker who has a different sexual orientation. While this hypothesis was based upon the premise that as a type of coping method, individuals may reduce their intergroup anxiety levels by distancing themselves or being unwilling to partner with a gay or lesbian co- worker, other factors influence this result as well. Besides intergroup anxiety being negatively related to a person’s willingness to partner, intergroup anxiety was also found to partially mediate the relationship between previous contact experiences and willingness to partner suggesting a more complex relationship. Specifically, an individual’s willingness to partner with a gay man or lesbian is effected by both their previous contact experiences and their intergroup anxiety towards sexual minorities.

An additional goal of this study was to examine the boundaries under which anti-gay distancing behaviors are reinforced or deterred. In one of the most interesting findings of this research, employee job level was found to be a job related characteristic that influences the likelihood of distancing towards homosexual employees. Two contrasting theories, social adaptation theory (Colella, Denissi, & Varna, 1998; Piner & Kahle, 1984) and the ultimate attribution error (Pettigrew, 1979) were used as possible explanations for how employee job level would influence distancing towards homosexual employees. Social adaptation theory suggested that individuals would be less willing to partner with a non-heterosexual supervisor because the situation would elicit a great consequence for the heterosexual co-worker. In contrast, the ultimate attribution error stated that heterosexual individuals would be more willing

to partner with a non-heterosexual supervisor because of the potential career pay-off of working with an upper level co-worker would override out-group biases. The results indicated that the mean difference in an individuals’ willingness to partner was greatest between a heterosexual and homosexual senior manager. This suggests that heterosexual employees are less likely to partner with a homosexual senior manager than with a heterosexual senior manager. This finding supports the social adaptation theory indicating that the interaction with a senior manager elicited a situation with greater consequence for the heterosexual co-worker and therefore they rated the senior manager the lowest.

Future Research

The results indicate the prevalence of distancing behaviors on behalf of heterosexual employees to their homosexual counterparts. This present study examined one type of distancing behavior, willingness to partner. Future studies should try to examine other forms of distancing towards homosexuals in an organizational context. Future research should also examine differences in distancing behaviors towards all types of sexually diverse individuals. For example, this research assumed a dichotomous view of sexuality which in fact sexuality has been suggested to be more complex. In addition, distancing behaviors could be examined towards not only to homosexuals in general but to gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgender employees separately. This present research found differences in intergroup anxiety towards gay men versus lesbians and future research could also extend to encompass different distancing behaviors and intergroup anxiety towards these other types of sexual diversity.

A number of factors could potentially impact the behavioral responses of heterosexual employee intergroup anxiety towards their homosexual co-workers. For instance, this present research only examined prior contact experiences with homosexuals and intergroup anxiety as

antecedents to their behavioral response of willingness to partner with a sexually diverse co- worker. Future research should expand these antecedent factors to include intergroup cognitions, such as prior knowledge, stereotypes, and religious affiliation as well as situational factors, such as social status and composition (Stephan and Stephan, 1985). Furthermore, other consequences of intergroup anxiety should be examined. This present research examined behavioral consequences of intergroup anxiety. Future research should expand these consequences and include affective outcomes, such as emotional reactions and conflict as well as cognitive consequences. These cognitive outcomes could include self-serving and similarity biases

(Stephan and Stephan, 1985).

Finally, future research should further examine the cost of “coming out” in the workplace for non-heterosexual employees using a heterosexual privilege framework. This present research found that one cost for homosexual employees was potential distancing from their heterosexual counterparts. However, when individuals had increased contact experiences with non- heterosexuals, their willingness to partner increased suggesting a short term consequence of distancing but a long term benefit with contact experiences eventually increasing their willingness to partner. Furthermore, horizontal hostility and distancing behaviors from homosexuals to homosexuals should be examined because of these potential consequences for sexual minority employees. Members of the same in-group may act negative towards each other because of counterfeiting or identity management strategies in order not to break the heterosexual privilege.

Limitations

Several limitation of this study should be noted. Although the age and region of the sample utilized was explained as important factor for research dealing with sexually diverse

people (see Murphy, 2001; Herek, et.al., 1997; LeBlanc, 1991), the use of undergraduate

students could pose potential problems for the generalizability of the findings. Specifically, many of the students had no real work experience in a corporate setting in which the scenarios where based upon. Furthermore, geographical differences in anti-gay/lesbian behaviors limit the findings being generalized to other parts of the country.

Another limitation of this study is the nature of the experimental design. The experimental setting and scenarios were short-lived and lacked the long term, in-depth interaction usually associated with co-workers. However, given the significant findings of this research this may not be a significant limitation but it may call into question the degree to which these anti-gay/lesbian behaviors may be expressed given a more long term, in-depth contact of a real workplace environment. In addition, the experimental setting did not include but rather accounted for other possible influential factors such as race and gender of the candidates.

Realistically, these other factors could potentially influence the outcome of the results.

In addition, a difficulty exists of detecting distancing behaviors in a real word, non-experimental setting because of modern forms of prejudice which are less overt and more subtle.

Implications

Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) model provided the basis for selecting previous contact experiences and intergroup anxiety as indicators of distancing behaviors. As noted earlier, this theory has solely been examined in relationship to race, gender, and differing religious groups.

This research extends this theory to include sexual diverse individuals as well. As noted earlier, other parts of Stephan and Stephan’s (1985) model should be extended to homosexuals such as intergroup cognitions and contextual factors. In addition, other outcomes of intergroup anxiety besides distancing behaviors could also be extended to this group such a cognitive and affective

outcomes. This present research also extended Fernald’s (1995) theory of interpersonal heterosexism to other contexts such as working environments. This theory provided a nice framework for examining distancing behaviors in an organizational environment.

On an individual level, an additional implication from this research includes the loss of opportunity for the non-heterosexual employees because heterosexual employees are less willing to work with them. This constitutes a loss of chance for individual performance due to the potential loss of working assignments due to these distancing behaviors. This has potential human resource implications for the lack of employee development, work teams, and mentoring opportunities for homosexual employees. Furthermore, if organizations allow, remain silent, or reinforce these distancing behaviors, then the organization will loose this talent group due to turnover.

REFERENCES

Baron, 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(6), 1173-1182.

Britt, T.W., Boniecki, K.A., Bescio, T.K., Biernat, M., & Brown, L.M. (1996). Intergroup

anxiety: A person X approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1177-

1188.

Button, S.B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level

examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 17-28.

Colella, A., DeNisi, A.S., & Varma, A. (1998). The impact of ratee’s disability on performance

judgments and choice as partner: The role of disability-job fit stereotypes and

interdependence of rewards. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1), 102-111.

Croteau, J.M. (1996). Research on the work experiences of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people:

An integrative review of methodology and findings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 48.

195-209.

Day, N.E., & Schoenrade, P. (1997). Staying in the closet versus coming out: Relationships

between communication about sexual orientation and work attitudes. Personnel

Psychology, 50, 147-163.

Dougherty, T.W., Ebert, R.J., & Callender, J.C. (1986). Policy capturing in the employment

interview. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 9-15.

Ellis, A.L. & Riggle, E.D.B. (1995). The relation of job satisfaction and degree of openess about

one’s sexual orientation for lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 30 (2). 75-

85.

Fernald, J.L. (1995). Interpersonal heterosexism. In B. Lott & Maluso (eds.). The Social

Psychology of Interpersonal Discrimination. 80-117. New York: Guilford Press.

Gentry, C.S. (1987). Social distance regarding male and female homosexuals. Journal of Social

Psychology, 127. 199 – 208.

Green, S.B., Salkind, N.J., & Akey, T.M. (1997). Using SPSS for Windows: Analyzing and

Understanding Data. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Hays, W.L. (1994). Statistics. (5th ed.). Texas: Harcourt College Publishers.

Herek, G.M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes towards lesbians and gay men: Correlates and

gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25(4), 451-477.

Herek, G.M., & Capitanio, J.P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact,

concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.

Herek, G.M., & Capitanio, J.P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbian

and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36(4),

348-373.

Herek, G.M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 9(1), 19-22.

Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of

Homosexuality, 5, 357-371.

Islam, M.R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety,

perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19(6), 700-710.

James, L.R., & Brett, J.M. (1984). Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 69(2), 307-321.

Kite, M.E., & Deaux, K., (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and behavioral

consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(2), 137-162.

Kite, M.E. & Whitley, B.E., (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes

towards homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. Stigma and Sexual

Orientation: Understanding Prejudice Against Lesbians, Gay Men, and Bisexuals.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Krulewitz, J.E., & Nash, J.E. (1980). Effects of sex-role attitudes and similarity on men’s

rejection of male homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(1),

67-74.

Levine, M.P., & Leonard, R. (1984). Discrimination against lesbians in the workforce. Signs:

Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 9, 700-710.

Lott, B. & Maluso, D. (1995). Interpersonal heterosexism. The Social Psychology of

Interpersonal Discrimination. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

McNaught, B. (1993). Gay issues in the workplace. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Morin, S.F., & Garfinkle, E.M. (1978). Male homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34(1),

29-47.

Murphy, B.C. (2001). Anti-Gay/Lesbian violence in the United States. Peace, Conflict, and

Violence; Peace Psychology for the 21st Century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Pettigrew, T.F. (1979). The ultimate attribution error: Extending Allport’s cognitive analysis of

prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 5, 461-476.

Piner, K.E., & Kahle, L.R. (1984). Adapting to the stigmatizing label of mental illness:

Foregone But Not Forgotten. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(4), 805-

811.

Ponterotto, J.G., Burkard, A., Reiger, B.P., & Greiger, I. (1995). Development and initial

validation of the quick discrimination index (QDI). Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 55, 1016-1031.

Ragins, B.R., & Cornwell, J.M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of

perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1244-1261.

Schneider, W., & Lewis, I.A. (1984). The straight story on homosexuality and gay rights.

Public Opinion, 7, 16-20, 59-60.

Shaffer, D.R., & Wallace, A. (1990). Belief congruence and evaluator homophobia as

determinants of the attractiveness of component homosexual and heterosexual males.

Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 3(1), 67-87.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41(3),

157-175.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1989a). Antecedents of intergroup anxiety in Asian-

Americans and hispanic-americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 13,

203-219.

Stephan, W.G., & Stephan, C.W. (1989b). Emotional reactions to interracial achievement

outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 19(7), 608-621.

Thompson, E.H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J.H. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and their

correlates. Sex Roles, 13(7-8), 413-427.

Van Den Bergh, N. (1999). Workplace problems and needs for lesbian and gay male employees:

Implications for EAP’s. Employee Assistance Quarterly, 15(1), 21-60.

Yang, A.S. (1997). The polls-trends; attitudes towards homosexuality. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 61, 477–507.

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Participant Consent Form

CO-WORKER PREFERENCE CONSENT FORM

I, ______agree to participate in the research titled "Previous contact on co-worker choice" conducted by Mr. Corey S. Munoz and Dr. Kecia M. Thomas (Department of Psychology, 330 Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602; 542-2174). I understand that I do not have to participate if I do not want to. I can stop taking part without giving any reason, and without penalty. I can ask to have all of the information about me returned to me, removed from the research records, or destroyed.

The reason for this study is examine the role of prior intergroup contact with diverse individuals on co-worker preference.

If I volunteer to take part in this study, I will be asked to do the following things: 1) Read a memo from a fictitious consulting company and 6 short biographical profiles of potential work partners, and then answer 1 question after each student profile (15 minutes). 2) Provide information on my demographic background such as my age, race/ethnicity, gender, and major (5 minutes). 3) Answer questions in regards to my current anxiety state and my previous contact experiences with diverse individuals. (10 minutes).

I will receive RP Pool credit as part of my participation in this study. The credit received for participation will be .5 credit.

No risks are expected.

The results of this participation will be confidential. No identifying information will be on the data and all data will be kept in a locked room in the Psychology department that may only be accessed by the researchers.

No information about me, or provided by me during the research, will be shared with others without my written permission except if it is required by law.

The investigator will answer any further questions about the research, now or during the course of the project (542-0057).

I understand that I am agreeing by my signature on this form to take part in this research project and understand that I will receive a signed copy of this consent form for my records.

______Signature of Investigator Date Signature of Participant Date

Research at the University of Georgia which involves human participants is overseen by the Institutional Review Board. For questions or problems about your rights please call or write: Chris A. Joseph, Ph.D., Human Subjects Office, University of Georgia, 606A Boyd Graduate Studies Research Center, Athens, Georgia 30602-7411; Telephone (706) 542-6514; E-Mail Address [email protected].

Appendix B: Participant Scenario Instructions

Georgia Consulting Group

MEMO FROM THE MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Georgia Consulting Group (GCG) is about to embark on an important strategic initiative that will impact the nature of our work for generations to come. This strategic initiative will focus on the company’s image and mission for the next generation. Because of the importance and visibility of this initiative, we are assembling a team of promising young professionals who can help GCG move into the future. You have been selected to fulfill a leadership role for this exciting project. This new project will be a tremendous opportunity for you to work on a valued opportunity by the management team and one that will also be a highly visible within the company as well. However we realize that work of this magnitude is best done in collaboration and partnership with others. Therefore, we would like to provide you with an opportunity to assist in selecting the person with whom you will be partnered over the next 18 months. We have assembled a folder of personnel records of 6 of your colleagues. Please review each individual and indicate the extent to which you would like to work with each person. Your input is valuable to us and will be used in helping to guide our ultimate decision regarding with whom you will work. Please note that this new assignment will require a significant time commitment on behalf of you and your partner for this project, as well as extensive travel. Therefore, the effectiveness of this project is very much dependent upon the ability of you and your partner to develop a successful working partnership. Once again, the management team of the Georgia Consulting Group values your effort on this new initiative and your input. Your feedback will play a vital in this decision making process. Again, please review the 6 candidates’ employee biographical forms and indicate the level of your willingness to partner with each of the 6 candidates. Thank you once again for your time.

Appendix C: Assistant Manager, Heterosexual Employee Form

Candidate #1

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 008165 Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX

Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ___X___ Manager ______Senior Manager ______

Indicate Your Highest Education Level: High School ______Some College ______College Degree ______(B.A., B.S., etc.) Some Graduate School X Graduate Degree ______(MBA, M.A., etc.) Indicate Your Previous Overall Performance Rating (2001): Poor ______Average ______Good ______Excellent X

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement: - Atlanta Consulting Network - United Way of Atlanta - Young Business Leaders of American - Atlanta Zoo Friends

Appendix D: Assistant Manager, Homosexual Employee Form

Candidate #2

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 009265 Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX

Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ___X___ Manager ______Senior Manager ______

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement:

- Gay and Lesbian Business Leaders of Georgia - United Way of Atlanta - Atlanta Consulting Network - Lesbian and Gay Financial Network

Appendix E: Manager, Homosexual Employee Form

Candidate #3

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 003132 Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ______Manager ___X___ Senior Manager ______

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement:

- Business Professionals of the South - Gay and Lesbian Alliance of Georgia - Atlanta Gay and Lesbian Executive Network - United Way of Atlanta

Appendix F: Senior Manager, Heterosexual Employee Form

Candidate #4

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 895626 Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ______Manager ______Senior Manager ___X___

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement:

- Atlanta Business League - United Way of Atlanta - Georgia Business Development Council - Atlanta Chamber of Commerce

Appendix G: Manager, Heterosexual Employee Form

Candidate #5

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 008165-B Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ______Manager ___X___ Senior Manager ______

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement: - Business Professionals of the South - Georgia Habitat for Humanity - Greater Atlanta Business Coalition - United Way of Atlanta

Appendix H: Senior Manager, Homosexual Employee Form

Candidate #6

Georgia Consulting Group Employee Biographical Form 2b

STRICTLY CONFIDENTIAL

Name: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Employee ID: 029565 Dates of Employment: XXXXX to XXXXX Mailing Address: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Home Phone Number: (XXX)XXXXXXX Current Position/Job Level: Assistant Manager ______Manager ______Senior Manager ___X____

Please List Active Membership in Professional Organizations and Civic Involvement in Which You Have Demonstrated Leadership:

Professional Organizations: Civic Involvement: - Georgia Lesbian and Gay Business Guild - Atlanta Gay & Lesbian Civic Association - Gay and Lesbian Business Society - Atlanta Zoo Friends

Appendix I: Candidate Recall and Decision Form

The next set of questions is a recall test based on the information provided on the preceding form. Please indicate your response to each of the questions below based on the information provided on the previous Employee Biographical Form. Please keep in mind that not all information is blatantly stated on the employee form. Some questions may require inferences in order to select a response.

Candidate #

1. The candidate’s race is: 2. Their current job level is: _____ African American/Black _____ Assistant Manager _____ Asian _____ Manager _____ Caucasian/White _____ Senior Manager _____ Hispanic _____ Other _____ Native American _____ Other

3. The candidates sexual orientation is: 4. The candidates age is: _____ Heterosexual _____ 18 – 25 _____ Homosexual _____ 26 – 39 _____ Other _____ 40 – 55 _____ 56 – 69 _____ Other

5. The candidates highest educational level is: 6. Based on the previous form, please indicate this _____ High School candidate’s performance rating (2002). _____ Some College _____ Poor _____ College Degree (B.A., B.S., etc.) _____ Average _____ Some Graduate School _____ Good _____ Graduate Degree (MBA, M.A., etc.) _____ Excellent _____ Other _____ Other

7. Based upon the information provided on the Employee Biographical Form for candidate #, to what extent are you willing to partner with this candidate on future long-term work projects? 1 2 3 4 5 Very Unwilling Unwilling Neutral Willing Very Willing

8. Out of all six of the candidates, please indicate the candidate number of whom you would be most willing to partner with on future long-term work projects?

Candidate # ______

Appendix J: Intergroup Anxiety Toward Homosexuals

Please circle the number that best indicates how much you Agree or Disagree with each statement. * Items scored in reverse.

1 2 3 4 5 Strongly Disagree Disagree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

1. I would feel nervous if I had to sit alone in a room with a lesbian and start a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5

2. I just do not know what to expect from a person who is a gay man.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Although I do not consider myself close-minded, I do not know how to present myself around someone who is a lesbian.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My lack of knowledge and understanding about lesbians prevents me from feeling completely comfortable around them.

1 2 3 4 5

5. I can interact with gay men without experiencing much anxiety.

1 2 3 4 5

6. If I were at a party, I would have no problem with starting a conversation with a gay man.

1 2 3 4 5

7. It makes me uncomfortable to bring up the topic of homosexuality around lesbians.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I experience anxiety when I talk to someone who is a lesbian.

1 2 3 4 5

9. The differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals makes interactions between homosexuals and heterosexuals awkward.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I would experience some anxiety if I were the only heterosexual person in a room full of gay men.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I worry about coming across as being close-minded when I talk with gay men.

1 2 3 4 5

12. I worry about coming across as being close-minded when I talk with lesbians.

1 2 3 4 5

13. I would experience some anxiety if I were the only heterosexual person in a room full of lesbians.

1 2 3 4 5

14. I experience anxiety when I talk to someone who is a gay man.

1 2 3 4 5

15. It makes me uncomfortable to bring up the topic of homosexuality around gay men.

1 2 3 4 5

16. If I were at a party, I would have no problem with starting a conversation with a lesbian.

1 2 3 4 5

25. I can interact with lesbians without experiencing much anxiety.

1 2 3 4 5

26. My lack of knowledge and understanding about gay men prevents me from feeling completely comfortable around them.

1 2 3 4 5

27. Although I do not consider myself close-minded, I do not know how to present myself around someone who is a gay man.

1 2 3 4 5

28. I just do not know what to expect from a person who is a lesbian.

1 2 3 4 5

29. I would feel nervous if I had to sit alone in a room with a gay man and start a conversation.

1 2 3 4 5

Appendix K: Contact Experiences Questionnaire

Please circle the number that best indicates how much you Agree or Disagree with each statement.

30. I repeatedly have contact with someone who is gay or lesbian at school. 1 2 3 4 5

31. I often interact with a neighbor who is gay or lesbian. 1 2 3 4 5

32. I do not frequently have contact with a close friend who is gay or lesbian. 1 2 3 4 5

33. I often engage in informal talks with someone who is gay or lesbian. 1 2 3 4 5

34. I often have someone who is gay or lesbian visit my home or apartment. 1 2 3 4 5

35. I would characterize my interactions with someone who is gay or lesbian as an equal. 1 2 3 4 5

36. I perceive my contact with a gay or lesbian person as voluntary. 1 2 3 4 5

37. My interactions with gay or lesbian individuals would be considered superficial. 1 2 3 4 5

38. My contact experiences with gay or lesbians have been pleasant. 1 2 3 4 5

39. My previous contact experiences with a gay or lesbian would be characterized as cooperative. 1 2 3 4 5

Appendix L: Participant Demographic Questionnaire

Please provide the following demographic information.

1. Gender ___ Male ___ Female

2. Race/Ethnicity ___ African American/Black ___ Asian

___ Caucasian/White ___ Hispanic ___ Native American ___ Other 3. Marital/Partnership Status ___ Married ___ Single

4. Age ______

5. Major ______

6. Hometown ______

7. Sexual Orientation: ____ Heterosexual ____ Homosexual

____ Bi-sexual ____ Other

8. What year are you in school? _____ Freshman ______Sophomore

_____ Junior ______Senior

_____ Graduate

Appendix M: List of Distracter Items

1. I would feel nervous if I had to sit alone in a room with a black person and start a

conversation.

1 2 3 4 5

2. I just do not know what to expect from black people.

1 2 3 4 5

3. Although I do not consider myself a racist, I do not know how to present myself around

blacks.

1 2 3 4 5

4. My lack of knowledge about black culture prevents me from feeling completely comfortable around blacks. 1 2 3 4 5

5. If I were at a party, I would have no problem with starting a conversation with a black

person.

1 2 3 4 5

6. I can interact with blacks without experiencing much anxiety.

1 2 3 4 5

7. It makes me uncomfortable to bring up the topic of racism around black people.

1 2 3 4 5

8. I experience anxiety when I talk to blacks.

1 2 3 4 5

9. The cultural differences between black and whites makes interactions between blacks and whites awkward.

1 2 3 4 5

10. I would experience some anxiety if I were the only white in a room full of blacks.

1 2 3 4 5

11. I worry about coming across as a racist when I talk with blacks.

1 2 3 4 5