THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES
HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
By
James Patrick Clifton
A Thesis
Presented to
The Faculty of Humboldt State University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Psychology
Academic Research
May, 2011
THE ROLE OF INTERGROUP THREAT IN ATTITUDES TOWARD SAME-SEX
MARRIAGE AND ITS BENEFICIARIES
HUMBOLDT STATE UNIVERSITY
By
James Patrick Clifton
Approved by the Master's Thesis Committee:
Dr. Chris Aberson, Major Professor Date
Dr. Gregg Gold, Committee Member Date
Dr. Dave Campbell, Committee Member Date
Dr. Chris Aberson, Graduate Coordinator Date
Dr. Jená Burges, Vice Provost Date
Abstract
The Role of Intergroup Threat in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage and its
Beneficiaries
James Patrick Clifton
This study investigated the relationship between perceptions of threat and attitudes toward same-sex marriage from the framework of intergroup threat theory
(ITT). Intergroup threat theory postulates that outgroup prejudice and discrimination are driven by threats to the ingroup. Threats in ITT include realistic threat (i.e., perceived impediments to ingroup welfare), symbolic threat (i.e., threats to the integrity of ingroup worldview), and intergroup anxiety. As a set, threats explained 84% of the variance in policy attitudes and 67% of the variance in beneficiary attitudes. Symbolic threat was most strongly tied to policy opposition, followed by intergroup anxiety and realistic threat. Prejudice toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage was predicted by symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety, but not realistic threat. This work supported the prediction that stronger perceptions of intergroup threat are associated with greater resistance to same-sex marriage and more prejudiced attitudes toward its beneficiaries. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.
iii
Table of Contents
Page Abstract ...... iii Table of Contents ...... iv List of Tables ...... vi List of Figures ...... vii Introduction ...... 1 Literature Review...... 5 Realistic Threat ...... 5 Symbolic Threat ...... 6 Intergroup Anxiety ...... 7 Integrated Threat Theory ...... 11 Intergroup Threat Theory ...... 12 Realistic threat ...... 13 Symbolic threat ...... 13 Intergroup anxiety...... 14 Statement of the Problem ...... 15 Hypothesis 1 ...... 16 Hypothesis 2 ...... 17 Rationale ...... 17 Hypothesis 3 ...... 18 Rationale ...... 18 Method ...... 19 Participants ...... 19 Measures ...... 23 Realistic threat ...... 23 Symbolic threat ...... 23
iv
Intergroup anxiety...... 24 Attitudes toward same-sex marriage ...... 24 Attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage ...... 24 Procedure ...... 25 Data Analysis ...... 25 Results ...... 28 Reliability ...... 28 Tests of Hypotheses ...... 31 Do the Threat Measures Address Distinct Constructs? ...... 36 Discussion ...... 38 Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage ...... 38 Attitudes toward Policy Beneficiaries ...... 41 Limitations ...... 42 Directions for Future Research ...... 44 General Discussion ...... 46 References ...... 49 APPENDIX A ...... 58 Survey Form ...... 58
v
List of Tables
Table Page 1 Comparison of the Demographic Characteristics between HSU and ISU …...….21 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and α Coefficients among Study Variables ………………………………………………………………….30 3 F Model, R2 Model, Squared Semi-Partial Correlations, Standardized Regression Coefficients, Raw Regression Coefficients, and 95% CI around Regression Coefficients ………………………………………………....33 4 Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities of Realistic Threat, Symbolic Threat, and Intergroup Anxiety Items …………………………….….37
vi
List of Figures
Figure Page
1 Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage …………………………………………...34 2 Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage Beneficiaries …………………………….35
vii
Introduction
The contentious atmosphere surrounding the policy of same-sex marriage is
characterized by fervor from the opposition and an equal intensity of ardor from
proponents. Despite considerable strides made by the gay community in gaining equal
rights over the past several decades, highly polarized attitudes surrounding same-sex
marriage demonstrate that sexual prejudice remains a major societal issue (Herek, 2000).
Given the long history of prejudice and discrimination faced by sexual minorities in the
United States, it is not surprising that same-sex marriage is a topic of heated debate.
Arguments against same-sex marriage are often framed in terms of clashing values or religious beliefs—barriers that are resistant to change (Herek, 2006). However, arguments against same-sex marriage often used in court rulings to depict harmful consequences of same-sex marriage (e.g., that children raised by same-sex parents are at risk for developmental problems) are not empirically substantiated (Patterson, 2009).
Both the American Psychological Association (2004) and the American Psychiatric
Association (2005) endorse legalization of same-sex marriages. The struggle to legalize same-sex marriage has been met with fierce opposition because many people perceive the policy as threatening (Schmitt, Lenmiller, & Walsh, 2007). Unfortunately, the threats posed by same-sex marriage to heterosexuals have not been thoroughly examined.
Research of this sort may be especially useful now, at a time when support for same-sex marriage is on the rise.
1 2 Several states recently legalized same-sex marriage, and related policies such as domestic partnerships or civil unions are also gaining endorsement. The 1996 Gallup
Poll estimated national support for same-sex marriage at 27%. In 2009, the Gallup Poll estimated support for same-sex marriage at 40%, and the 2010 Gallup Poll shows that support climbed slightly to a record 44% of Americans favoring legalization. In addition,
survey data indicated that 60% of respondents believe same-sex partners should be allowed to share at least some of the benefits of marriage in the form of either domestic partnerships or marriage (Kohut, 2004). These findings suggest that most adults are now in favor of giving same-sex couples at least some of the benefits of marriage currently allowed only to heterosexuals. Support is stronger for domestic partnerships and civil unions than same-sex marriage, possibly because the term “same-sex marriage” threatens heterosexuals’ identity (Schmitt et al., 2007). Others argue that because marriage is defined as a union between one man and one woman, changing the definition of marriage would be costly (Stivers & Valls, 2007). Thus, some opponents of same-sex marriage would support domestic partnerships or civil unions but not marriage between two people of the same sex. We can make some sense of this argument in light of the historical context of marriage.
During the founding of the United States, policy makers endorsed a very rigid model of marriage characterized by a:
. . . lifelong, faithful monogamy, formed by the mutual consent of a man and a woman, bearing the impress of the Christian religion and the English common law in its expectations for the husband to be the family head and economic provider, his wife the dependent partner. (Cott, 2002, p. 3)
3 This Christian model of monogamy was sanctioned not only by political and legal
authorities, but also by the general public because Christian theology was widely
endorsed during early US history. This model of marriage exemplifies its historical ties
to politics and religion, and shows how the history of marriage molded the traditional
values of gender and family. Echoing this model, two commonly held arguments against
same-sex marriage are that it violates religious beliefs and threatens traditional values of
gender and family (Brewer & Wilcox, 2005; Greene, 2009). Similarly, moral values are
also used to question the legitimacy of same-sex marriage. The majority of adults in the
United States regard homosexual behavior as unnatural and wrong (Herek, 2000; Yang,
1997), individuals who associate themselves as gay or lesbian are often viewed with
feelings of disgust by heterosexuals (Herek, 1994), and disgust is an embodied form of moral judgment (Schnall, Haidt, Clore, & Jordan, 2008). Moral values play a central role in American politics, specifically in deciding to vote for a candidate in support of same- sex unions versus a candidate opposed to the policy (Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006).
Much of the empirical literature on same-sex marriage focuses on the importance of the aforementioned threats to same-sex marriage, yet none has examined the relative importance of specific types of threat in relation to policy and beneficiary attitudes. One model of intergroup threat, the integrated threat theory, is particularly good at explaining the relationship between threats and attitudes (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006), including attitudes toward controversial social policies such as affirmative action and its beneficiaries (Renfro, Duran, Stephan, & Clason, 2006). The current study utilizes a
4 revised version of integrated threat theory to examine the relationship between perceptions of threat and attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries.
In the following section I will describe the evolution of threat research relevant to the integrated threat theory. Types of threat that you will read about may come from real sources (e.g., war between neighboring countries), symbolic sources (e.g., differing worldviews), may be based on inaccurate perceptions, and may concern individuals’ apprehensions about intergroup interaction (e.g., when contact with an outgroup provokes feelings of anxiety). As I outline each type of threat I will provide examples of their application in current research on intergroup relations.
Literature Review
Realistic Threat
Early research on the types of threat that lead to hostile or antagonistic outgroup
attitudes is based in realistic group conflict theory (RGCT), which states that a real
conflict of group interests, such as competition between groups for scarce resources,
results in negative outgroup attitudes (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif, 1966). Sources
of real threat do not have to involve competition over scarce resources, and may instead
entail threats to ingroup welfare, such as threats posed to the economic or political power
of the ingroup (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). In addition, sources of real threat may be
formed on the grounds of threats that are merely perceived to exist (Bobo, 1983). For
instance, in a study about Germans attitudes toward immigrants, perceived threat was a
more important predictor of exclusionary attitudes that actual threat. The amount of threat
that Germans felt toward immigrants was determined by the number of immigrants that
the Germans perceived lived in close proximity rather than the actual number of
immigrants living nearby. Stronger perceptions of threat, in turn, related to more
antagonistic attitudes toward immigrants (Semyonov, Raijman, Tov, & Schmidt, 2004).
What this study shows is that people do not base their attitudes on whether a threat truly exists, only that it is perceived as such.
5 6 Symbolic Threat
Symbolic beliefs may cause negative intergroup attitudes, even in the absence of
competition or conflicting goals (Sears, 1988). Symbolic racism theory suggests that
antiblack affect, traditional values, and the values of equality and individualism deeply
rooted in American culture may be used to justify prejudice and discrimination (Kinder &
Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1983; Sears, 1988). The relationship between symbolic racism
and positions on issues such as racial policy, busing, affirmative action, and welfare, even
after controlling for factors such as political ideology and party identification is widely supported (Kinder & Sears, 1981; Kluegel & Smith, 1983; McConahay & Hough, 1976;
Sears & Allen, 1984; Sears & Citrin, 1985; Sears & Kinder, 1971). For example, Whites may believe that policies such as affirmative action and welfare provide an unjust advantage to Blacks because the policies violate the American value of equality (Sawires
& Peacock, 2000). Symbolic racism theory also posits that differences in values are grounds for prejudice (Kinder & Sears, 1981; McConahay, 1983). For instance, Whites evaluate Blacks more negatively when they believe that Blacks do not support their system of values (Biernat, Vescio, & Theno, 1996), and attitudes toward homosexuals are more negative when heterosexuals perceive that the two groups have dissimilar values
(Haddock, Zanna, & Esses, 1993).
7 Intergroup Anxiety
Apart from realistic and symbolic types of threat, apprehensions about interacting with outgroup members also relate to negative outgroup attitudes (Stephan & Stephan,
2000). This type of threat, called intergroup anxiety, is an interpersonally oriented emotion; it arises out of concern for the self, either because a person fears negative psychological or behavioral consequences, or because they fear negative evaluation by ingroup or outgroup members (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). In this section I will explain why anxiety may arise for heterosexuals during interaction (or anticipated interaction) with sexual minorities such as beneficiaries of same-sex marriage, and delineate some of the negative affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses that may result.
Gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals have been common targets of virulent forms prejudice and discrimination, as noted by a substantial number of hate crimes directed at these groups over the last several decades (Herek, 2000). The depreciation of individuals based on sexual orientation is evidence that gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals are stigmatized. Moreover, stigmatizing conditions are evaluated differently depending on the perceived controllability of the condition, wherein conditions perceived to be under an individual’s control are evaluated more negatively than conditions perceived to be out of an individual’s control (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). Research suggests that the majority of Americans perceive sexual orientation to be a lifestyle choice (Whitley,
1990); thus, homosexuality may be evaluated more negatively than stigmatizing
8 conditions in which individuals are not perceived to be responsible for their fate (e.g.,
persons born with disabilities).
Ambivalence-amplification theory, which posits that members of non stigmatized
groups may hold ambivalent feelings toward stigmatized groups, provides a context for
explaining responses to intergroup anxiety (Katz, Wackenhut, & Hass, 1986). One the
one hand, non stigmatized group members may feel sorrow and have sympathy for
individuals with stigmatizing conditions because of the prejudice and discrimination they
are perceived to face, but on the other hand feel that the stigmatized are responsible for
their plight and have no one to blame but themselves. These conflicting emotions, in
turn, cause feelings of discomfort which may lead to an amplification of responses during
intergroup interaction. Under conditions of negative intergroup interaction, activation of
negative ambivalent feelings is likely, resulting in more negative responses to stigmatized
groups (Katz et al., 1986), and subsequent evaluations of that contact may result in more
negative outgroup attitudes (Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
An experiment on intergroup contact with gay men lends support to ambivalence- amplification theory (Bromgard & Stephan, 2006). In this experiment, male participants that interacted with a conversation partner they perceived as homosexual scored higher on an ambivalence measure compared with participants that interacted with a conversation partner whose sexual orientation was unknown. Importantly, participants in the ambivalence eliciting condition sat further away from the man they perceived to be gay when the topic of conversation was threatening (e.g., dating practices) compared with
a condition in which the conversation topic was nonthreatening (e.g., favorite movies).
9 This lends support to the contention that conditions of negative contact (i.e., when a threatening conversation topic is presented) with an outgroup that produces ambivalent feelings (e.g., sexual minorities) may elicit more negative behavioral responses to the situation than under conditions of positive contact (i.e., when the topic of conversation is pleasant).
As noted in the previously mentioned study by Bromgard and Stephan (2006), sexual prejudice is often expressed in subtle ways via nonverbal behaviors (e.g., by distancing oneself from the object of prejudice). Even when individuals conscientiously intend to act in a non prejudiced manner toward stigmatized groups, implicit (i.e., unconscious) prejudices may still manifest through automatic processes (Bargh, 1994;
Hebl & Dovidio, 2005). Implicit prejudice toward gay men or lesbians may be expressed for a variety of reasons. Here I will discuss how these implicit biases may elicit anxiety during intergroup contact, and the possible negative repercussions of that anxiety.
Implicit prejudice toward gay men or lesbians may result from unconscious conflicts surrounding sexual orientation (i.e., underlying homosexual feelings coupled with the pressures of heteronormativity), and in defensive persons, anxiety resulting from such implicit conflicts may be projected onto gay men and lesbians during contact
(Herek, 1984). A study on masculinity threat provides support for the idea that defensive reactions to gay men may result when stereotypic traits regarding gay men (e.g., femininity) that people wish to deny exist within themselves are made salient (Glick,
Gangl, Gibb, Klumpner, & Weinberg, 2007). For instance, men who value masculinity
10 may direct negative affect toward a gay man when he is perceived to hold effeminate as opposed to masculine traits.
Furthermore, external pressures (e.g., fear of social disapproval) to respond in an unbiased manner may result in heightened anxiety during intergroup contact (Trawalter,
Richeson, & Shelton, 2009). In contemporary America, there is a strong positive regard for equality in political, economic, social, and civil rights (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).
For individuals that strongly endorse egalitarianism, it may be very important to control any underlying (implicit) prejudices that they hold with respect to stigmatized groups.
Consequently, they may worry about being perceived as prejudiced during intergroup contact, promoting feelings of anxiety and discomfort (Crocker et al., 1998; Gaertner &
Dovidio, 1986; Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Trying to control this anxiety has been shown to sap cognitive resources during intergroup contact (Richeson & Trawalter, 2005), leading to biased processing of information and an increased reliance on stereotypes
(Stephan & Stephan, 1985).
Additionally, concerns about behaving in an inappropriate manner and being embarrassed during intergroup contact may motivate individuals to avoid intergroup contact (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Researchers have found that interracial anxiety results in the avoidance of contact with outgroups (Plant, 2004; Plant & Devine, 2003), and a similar result may be inferred with respect to sexual minorities. Moreover, a study on discrimination of gay men and lesbians in the workplace lends support for this proposition. In this study, researchers found the presence of a subtle form of workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian job applicants, whereby workers in charge of
11 hiring decisions spent less time with gay and lesbian applicants than heterosexual applicants (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002).
Integrated Threat Theory
Early research on realistic and symbolic threat pitted them in competition with one another (Sniderman & Tetlock, 1986). However, symbolic threat has unique predictive power apart from realistic threat (and visa versa). For example, both symbolic and realistic aspects of prejudice are distinctively tied to opposition to bilingual education
(Huddy & Sears, 1995; Sears & Huddy, 1993). Thus, state of the art threat research has shifted from a focus on competing theories into a single unifying theory, called integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000). In the next two sections I will explain the major premise of the theory, review relevant literature on integrated threat theory, show how the theory has evolved, and define the specific types of threat central to the theory.
Integrated threat theory posits that negative attitudes are born out of perceptions of threat. In the original formulation of the theory, four types of threat play a unique role in the formation of negative attitudes; realistic threat (e.g., a loss of resources), symbolic threat (e.g., threats to morality), intergroup anxiety, and negative stereotypes. The integrated threat theory shows predictive power in a wide variety of intergroup contexts
(Stephan & Stephan, 2000), such as: attitudes between Whites and Blacks (Aberson &
Gaffney, 2009; Stephan et al. 2002); attitudes between Mexicans and Americans
(Stephan, Diaz-Loving, & Duran, 2000); attitudes between Whites and Native Canadians
(Corenblum & Stephan, 2001); and women’s attitudes toward men (Stephan, Stephan,
12 Demitrakis, Yamada, & Clason, 2000). Integrated threat theory has also been useful in
predicting attitudes toward immigrants (Bizman & Yinon, 2001; Curseu, Stoop, &
Schalk, 2007; Rohmann, Florack, & Piontkowski, 2006; Stephan, Renfro, Esses, Stephan,
& Martin, 2005); individuals with stigmatizing conditions, such as cancer or AIDS
(Berrenberg, Finlay, Stephan, & Stephan, 2002); religious groups (González, Verkuyten,
Weesie, & Poppe, 2008; Tausch, Hewstone, & Roy, 2009); political parties (Osborne,
Davies, & Duran, 2008); and social policies (Renfro et al., 2006; Sibley & Liu, 2004).
Furthermore, a meta-analytic assessment of intergroup threats showed integrated threat
theory to be a better predictor of intergroup attitudes than other threat models or
individual threats alone (Riek et al., 2006).
Intergroup Threat Theory
Some recent revisions were made to integrated threat theory, although the original premise, that negative attitudes arise out of perceptions of threat, remains the same. The revised theory, called intergroup threat theory (ITT), places an emphasis on the context of
intergroup relations in deciding the most salient predictors of intergroup attitudes (i.e.,
which predictors are strongest), because the relationship between threats and attitudes depend upon the specific groups being examined (Davis & Stephan, 2011; Riek et al.,
2006; Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, 2009). For example, because high power groups hold more resources than low power groups, high power groups have more to lose and thus react more negatively to feelings of threat than low power groups (Johnson, Terry, &
13 Louis, 2005). We would therefore expect a different pattern of relationships between
threats and attitudes for low power groups and high power groups.
ITT also revised the types of threats that influence attitudes. The three main
categories of threat in ITT are realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety.
Negative stereotypes have been recategorized as an antecedent of threat because they
significantly predict realistic and symbolic threat (Stephan et al., 2002), and show better
fit as an antecedent of threat in a structural equation model (Aberson & Gaffney, 2009).
Realistic threat. Based on RGCT (LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Sherif, 1966), and
research showing that perceived threat is a more important predictor of attitudes than
actual threat (e.g., Semyonov et al., 2004 ), ITT defines realistic threat as perceived threats to ingroup welfare or safety, as well as perceived threats to economic and political power (Stephan et al., 2009). For example, in studies examining attitudes toward African
Americans, realistic threat addresses issues such as “Blacks dominate American politics more than they should,” and “Too much money is spent on educational programs that benefit Blacks” (e.g., Stephan et al., 2002); and in a study examining attitudes toward affirmative action, realistic threat addresses issues such as “Affirmative action leads to costly lawsuits that hurt American businesses,” and “Affirmative action fosters hostility and violence directed at the majority group” (Renfro et al., 2006).
Symbolic threat. Attitudes based on theories of symbolic racism are known as symbolic threat (e.g., Sears, 1988), defined in ITT as threats to morals, values, beliefs, and traditions of an ingroup (Esses, Haddock, & Zanna, 1993; Stephan & Stephan, 2000).
For example, in studies examining attitudes toward African Americans, symbolic threat
14 addresses issues such as “Whites and Blacks have very different values,” and “Blacks want their rights to be put ahead of the rights of Whites” (e.g., Stephan et al., 2002); and
in a study examining attitudes toward affirmative action, symbolic threat addresses issues such as “Affirmative action is wrong because it is an attempt to legislate morality,” and
“The kind of people who benefit from affirmative action have the same work values as the majority of Americans” (reverse-scored; Renfro et al., 2006).
Intergroup anxiety. Intergroup anxiety is a threat centered on feelings of anxiety or discomfort during outgroup interaction. It may result in a host of negative affective, cognitive, and behavioral consequences (Stephan & Stephan, 1985). Intergroup anxiety is a very strong predictor of intergroup attitudes and in ITT models often demonstrates a stronger relationship with intergroup attitudes than either realistic or symbolic threat
(Riek et al., 2006).
Statement of the Problem
The benefits of legally recognized marriage are far reaching. Among heterosexual couples, those who marry show greater commitment to their partner, more satisfaction with their relationships, greater happiness, and better mental health (Brown,
2000; Gove, Hughes, & Style, 1990; Nock, 1995; Stack & Eshleman, 1998). This should come as no surprise, given the wide array of privileges that accompany marriage: tax benefits, medical benefits, property inheritance, and retirement benefits, to name a few.
Currently, the issue of whether or not same-sex couples should receive these benefits by being allowed to legally marry is highly controversial. Despite the controversy, no empirical basis exists for denying same-sex couples the right to marry (Patterson, 2009); and denying same-sex couples the privileges associated with marriage is a form of discrimination that contradicts egalitarian values.
In order to better understand the attitudes of those who oppose same-sex marriage it is necessary to address reasons why people feel threatened by the policy, and much of the research on same-sex marriage has done just that. However, a comprehensive model examining the degree to which individual threats impact attitudes toward same-sex marriage has yet to be tested. Whereas there is abundant research examining attitudes toward lesbians and gay men (e.g., Herek, 2000), the current study appears to be the first to examine attitudes toward same-sex couples who have entered into married relationships. Based on previous research, I devised the following set of hypotheses about the role of threats in attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries.
15 16 Hypothesis 1. Greater intergroup anxiety, along with greater perceptions of realistic and symbolic threat will relate to more negative attitudes toward same-sex
marriage and its beneficiaries.
Rationale. The literature on same-sex marriage is replete with reasons why people oppose same-sex marriage, many of which fall into the categories of realistic or
symbolic threat. For instance, the belief that same-sex marriage violates traditional
values of gender and family (Price, Nir, & Cappella, 2005) is a symbolic threat;
contrariwise, the beliefs that same-sex marriage will result in tax increases (Stivers &
Valls, 2007) or that children raised by same-sex parents are at risk for developmental
problems (e.g., Patterson, 2009) fall under the domain of realistic threat. In addition,
several theories posit that anxiety may have negative effects on intergroup relations
(Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Gudykunst, 1995; Stephan & Stephan, 1985); and research
has shown that intergroup anxiety is generally a better predictor of outgroup attitudes than either realistic or symbolic threat across a wide variety of relational contexts (Riek et al., 2006).
Negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage presumably imply negative attitudes toward those who benefit from the policy. That is, if people did not disagree with the practices of gay men and lesbians (the population which benefits from same-sex marriage) then there would be no reason to oppose a policy supporting them. In fact, one way that people respond cognitively to feelings of threat is to oppose policies favoring
the threatening outgroup (Renfro et al., 2006; Sawires & Peacock, 2000).
17 Hypothesis 2. Symbolic threat will be more strongly related to opposition to
same-sex marriage than realistic threat.
Rationale. The institution of marriage is inextricably tied to religion, and its
history in the United States has been highly influential in shaping traditional values of gender and family (Coontz, 2005). Among opponents of same-sex marriage, religion, traditional values, and morality are among the most salient issues surrounding the same- sex marriage debate (Brewer & Wilcox, 2005; Greene, 2009; Olson, Cadge, & Harrison,
2006), whereas proponents of the policy often appeal to principles of equality (Price et al., 2005). In addition, news media coverage of same-sex marriage appears to follow a similar structure (Pan, Meng, & Zhou, 2010).
News media is highly influential in affecting the public’s perceptions of and
attitudes toward social policy, and this is especially true of same-sex marriage (Anderson,
Fakhfakh, & Kondylis, 1999; Comstock & Paik, 1991). For example, a study that examined coverage of same-sex marriage in two popular media outlets, The New York
Times and the Chicago Tribune, between the years of 2002 and 2004 found that among
the two outlets, the Chicago Tribune focused on symbolic issues such as traditional family values and religion at a significantly higher rate than The New York Times (42%
and 29%, respectively); whereas The New York Times focused on issues of equal rights at
a significantly higher rate than the Chicago Tribune (Pan, Meng, & Zhou, 2010). It is important to note that The New York Times openly supports same-sex marriage whereas the Chicago Tribune does not. This is not to say that coverage of same-sex marriage in
the news media will be the determining factor in public opinion about same-sex marriage,
18 rather it is presented to underscore the importance of symbolic issues for those who do not openly endorse the policy.
Hypothesis 3. Intergroup anxiety will be more strongly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries than toward the policy.
Rationale. Intergroup anxiety is an interpersonally oriented emotion (Stephan &
Stephan, 1985). Because it focuses on threats that outgroup members pose to individuals, intergroup anxiety will have a stronger association with attitudes toward people (e.g., same-sex marriage beneficiaries) than something less tangible such as a social policy.
Past research has followed this trend: Intergroup anxiety was more strongly related to beneficiaries of affirmative action than toward the policy (Renfro et al., 2006).
19 Method
Participants
A power analysis was performed using an SPSS script for multiple regression designs to determine the sample size required to achieve an adequate level of statistical
power to detect significant regression coefficients for the three predictors. This script
requires estimates of correlations (ρs) between each predictor variable to address issues
of multicollinearity as well as ρs between each predictor and criterion variable. A meta-
analysis of intergroup threat provided the estimated correlations (Riek et al., 2006).
Because the cost of making a Type II error is low in the present study (i.e., little is at
stake for participants), power of .80 is considered an adequate standard (Aberson, 2010).
The power analysis revealed that 231 participants would be necessary to achieve power
of .80.
Data was collected for 307 participants. Individuals that identified as gay,
lesbian, or bisexual were eliminated from data analysis because the present study sought
to examine attitudes of ingroup members only. Thirty six cases were eliminated based on
sexual orientation and 13 cases were excluded due to extensive missing data. The final
sample consisted of 258 heterosexual participants. Approximately half the sample was
drawn from Humboldt State University (HSU; n = 128; Mage = 20) and the remaining
50% from Iowa State University (ISU; n = 130; Mage = 19). Samples from the two
Universities were combined for data analysis; however, there were some differences in
20 demographic characteristics between the two samples (see Table 1). The HSU sample consisted of more females, less registered voters, and fewer religious individuals.
Regarding class level, the ISU sample had more freshmen and sophomores. There were also ethnic differences, wherein the vast majority of the ISU sample was White (89%) compared with 58% of the HSU sample. The samples also differed in terms of political ideology and party identification, in which the HSU sample was comprised of more
Democrats and liberals.
21 Table 1 Comparison of the Demographic Characteristics between HSU and ISU HSU ISU Total χ2 V n (%) n (%) n (%) Gender Female 98 67 165 17.52*** .26 (76.6%) (51.5%) (64.0%) Class Freshman 38 64 102 22.47*** .30 (29.9%) (49.2%) (39.7%) Sophomore 35 45 80 (27.6%) (34.6%) (31.1%) Junior 31 13 44 (24.4%) (10.0%) (17.1%) Senior 23 8 31 (18.1%) (6.2%) (12.1%) Ethnicitya White 74 115 189 50.08*** .44 (57.8%) (88.5%) (73.3%) Hispanic/Latino 26 1 27 (20.3%) (0.8%) (10.5%) Multiracial 18 2 20 (14.1%) (1.5%) (7.8%) Asian/Asian- 4 4 8 American (3.1%) (3.1%) (3.1%) Black 4 2 6 (3.1%) (1.5%) (2.3%) Native American 1 0 1 (0.8%) (0%) (0.4%) Other 1 6 7 (0.8%) (4.6%) (2.7%) Ideology Conservative 13 36 49 26.96*** .32 (10.3%) (27.7%) (19.1%) Middle of the 42 60 102 Road (33.3%) (46.2%) (39.8%) Liberal 71 34 105 (56.3%) (26.2%) (41%)
22
Party IDa Democrat 69 38 107 37.49*** .39 (56.6%) (29.2%) (42.5%) Republican 11 43 54 (9.0%) (33.1%) (21.4%) Independent 23 25 48 (18.9%) (19.2%) (19%) Green 8 1 9 (6.6%) (0.8%) (3.6%) Other 11 23 34 (9.0%) (17.7%) (13.5%) Registered voter 72 100 172 12.40*** .22 (56.3%) (76.9%) (66.7%) Religious or spiritual 65 83 148 4.50* .13 (50.8%) (63.8%) (57.4%) Regular church attendees 20 46 66 13.23*** .23 (15.6%) (35.4%) (25.6%) Note. aFisher’s exact test was employed due to small expected cell counts. Regular church attendance is defined as those who attended church at least 2-3 times a month during the last year. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
23 Measures
A survey included five measures designed to assess perceptions of threat and
attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries. Three measures addressed
threats posited by ITT; namely, realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety. I
created the realistic and symbolic threat scales for the present study as I found no
measures addressing these threats in the extant literature. Items for the realistic and
symbolic threat scales were developed based on Proposition 8 (i.e., the California
Marriage Protection Act) pamphlets and from a study on attitudes toward affirmative
action (Renfro et al., 2006). The final two measures assessed outgroup and policy
attitudes: One measure addressed attitudes toward same-sex marriage and the other
addressed attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries. All measures utilized a 10-
point (0-9) scale.
Realistic threat. The realistic threat measure consists of eleven items, and
examines perceptions of threat to heterosexuals’ resources, political power, and welfare.
Items were measured on a scale from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree). A sample item is “Supporting same-sex marriage is a waste of taxpayer's money.” Higher scores on this scale indicate greater perceptions of realistic threat.
Symbolic threat. The 11-item symbolic threat scale measured perceptions of threat to religious beliefs, morality, and the value system of heterosexuals. Items were measured on a scale from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree) with statements such as
“The legalization of same-sex marriage jeopardizes religious freedom” and “Same-sex
24 marriage poses little or no threat to the cultural practices of the majority of Americans”
(reverse-scored). Higher scores on this scale relate to greater perceptions of symbolic threat.
Intergroup anxiety. The intergroup anxiety measure was adapted from the
Stephan and Stephan (1985) intergroup anxiety scale. Twelve items “anxious, apprehensive, comfortable, secure, worried, calm, confident, awkward, tense, carefree, nervous, and at ease” were measured on a scale ranging from (not at all ____ ) to
(extremely ____ ) to assess participants’ perceived anxiety when interacting with beneficiaries of same-sex marriage. This scale has shown good reliability in previous work when examining anxiety toward beneficiaries of a social policy (Renfro et al.,
2006). Higher scores indicate greater intergroup anxiety.
Attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Attitudes toward the policy of same-sex marriage were assessed with a scale adapted from previous research on attitudes toward affirmative action (Renfro et al., 2006). Items were measured on a scale from (strongly disagree) to (strongly agree). This twelve-item scale consists of statements such as “I am extremely supportive of same-sex marriage” and “Same-sex marriage should be ended as soon as possible” (reverse-scored). Higher scores on this scale are evidence of greater policy opposition.
Attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage. The attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries scale is adapted from a previous measure of attitudes toward beneficiaries of affirmative action (Renfro et al., 2006). Participants were instructed to indicate how they felt about beneficiaries of same-sex marriage with twelve
25 items “dislike, admiration, hostility, attraction, resentment, appreciation, disdain, respect, hatred, friendliness, repulsion and warmth” on a scale ranging from (no _____ at all) to
(extreme _____ ). Higher scores are associated with more negative attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage.
Procedure
Participants were recruited through the Humboldt State University and Iowa State
University student participation pools to fulfill research requirements or for extra credit.
Students must have been at least 18 years old and enrolled in psychology courses in order to access the participation pools.
At Humboldt State University, questionnaires were administered in a laboratory setting. Participants were assured that their participation was voluntary, and responses were kept anonymous and confidential. Upon arriving to the laboratory, each participant received a questionnaire comprised of the measures described above and demographic information. At Iowa State University, the same survey was administered online. The questionnaire took about 30 minutes to complete.
Data Analysis
Multiple regression analyses addressed each of the two proposed models. One assessed how well the threat variables predicted attitudes toward the policy of same-sex marriage and another assessed how well the threat variables predicted attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage (Hypothesis 1). For each model, standardized beta coefficients and squared semi-partial correlations were computed to examine the unique
26 variance explained by each predictor. Additional tests determined whether one coefficient (i.e., symbolic threat) was significantly stronger than another coefficient (i.e., realistic threat) in the same-sex marriage model (Hypothesis 2), and whether a coefficient
(i.e., intergroup anxiety) from one regression model was significantly stronger than the same independent coefficient from the other regression model (Hypothesis 3; Aberson,
2010).
Because the realistic and symbolic threat measures were developed for the present study, an item analysis addressed internal consistency. A corrected item-total correlation of less than .30 in conjunction with a qualitative analysis of item content determined whether an item should be dropped from a scale. The purpose of the qualitative item analysis was to determine whether ambiguous wording was responsible for low corrected item-total correlations, and whether the items conveyed important content not otherwise captured by other items in the scale. Because realistic and symbolic threats tap distinct constructs (Bobo, 1983), but have been strongly correlated in previous research (e.g.,
Renfro et al., 2006), an exploratory factor analysis was employed to examine the factor structure of each threat variable.
An analysis of normality indicated that, aside from intergroup anxiety, each measure was positively skewed. Square-root data transformations normalized the realistic threat, symbolic threat, attitudes toward same-sex marriage, and attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries scales. Regarding multicolliniearity, a strong correlation
(r = .87), low tolerance value, and large variance proportions among the realistic and symbolic threat measures indicated issues. However, this was expected because realistic
27 and symbolic threat measures have shown to be highly correlated in previous work
(Stephan & Stephan, 2000). Multivariate outliers were addressed by examining
Mahalanobis distance statistics for each model. I used a Mahalanobis statistic of greater than 16.27 (the critical value of the χ2 distribution with df = 3, p = .001) as the criteria for
case deletion. No multivariate outliers were present using these criteria.
For each model, a scatterplot of residuals was examined to address issues with
linearity, heteroscedasticity, and normality of residuals. The model with attitudes toward
same-sex marriage as the criterion variable evidenced issues with heteroscedasticity but
not linearity. To address whether issues with heteroscedasticity explained significant
findings in the attitudes toward same-sex marriage model, White’s method of correcting
for heteroscedasticity was employed (Hayes & Cai, 2007). Significant findings did not
differ after making the heteroscedasticity correction, and this was taken as evidence that
heteroscedasticity in the model was not responsible for significant findings. With respect
to the beneficiary attitude model, there were no apparent issues with heteroscedasticity,
linearity, or normality of residuals.
Results
Reliability
An item analysis established that all items would be included in the intergroup anxiety and attitudes toward same-sex marriage scales (12 items each; α = .94 and .98, respectively). The attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries scale evidenced one low corrected item-total correlation (r = .19), and the corresponding item was dropped from the final scale (11 items; α = .94). The dropped item asked participants to rate their attitude toward people who benefit from same-sex marriage on a scale from (No attraction at all) to (Extreme attraction). For realistic threat, four items displayed low corrected item-total correlations (r’s from -.09 to .21): “Domestic partners and married people have the same rights under the law”, “States that allow weddings by same-sex couples will see an increase in tax revenue associated with wedding spending”, “The government’s focus on same-sex marriage issues has led it to ignore more pressing political issues and economic problems”, and “If same-sex marriage was legalized, churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if they did not agree with same-sex marriage”. After a review of item content, I dropped these items from the final scale, resulting in a seven-item measure (α = .91). Finally, two items were dropped from the symbolic threat scale after examining the corrected item-total correlations (r’s < .20) and determining that the item content was ambiguously worded and did not convey unique content. The dropped items are: “Same-sex marriage is a result of a change in
28 29 values of the American population” and “Same-sex marriage is an attempt to legislate morality”. The final 9-item scale evidenced good internal consistency reliability (α =
.92). Means, standard deviations, α coefficients, and correlations among study variables are displayed in Table 2.
30 Table 2 Means, Standard Deviations, Correlations, and α Coefficients among Study Variables Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 1. Realistic threat 17.51 15.13 (.91) .87* .66* .84* .72* 2. Symbolic threat 25.58 19.65 (.92) .71* .90* .77* 3. Intergroup anxiety 30.37 20.96 (.94) .75* .74* 4. Policy attitudes 30.64 32.04 (.98) .81* 5. Beneficiary attitudes 26.12 20.77 (.94) Note. *p < .001. Internal consistency values presented in parentheses.
31 Tests of Hypotheses
Consistent with my first hypothesis, realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety significantly predicted attitudes toward same-sex marriage, and accounted for 84% of the variance in policy attitudes, F(3, 255) = 457.3, p < .001.
Stronger perceptions of threat were associated with greater policy opposition. Symbolic threat was the strongest predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage, followed by intergroup anxiety and realistic threat (see Table 3 and Figure 1). Using a method for comparing dependent coefficients (Aberson, 2010), symbolic threat was not a significantly stronger predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage than realistic threat, 95% CI [-.007, .026]. Thus, support was not found for the hypothesis that symbolic threat is a significantly better predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage than realistic threat (Hypothesis 2).
Supporting my first hypothesis, the set of threats significantly predicted attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries, accounting for 67% of the variance in beneficiary attitudes, F(3, 255) = 172.4, p < .001. Individually, prejudice toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage was predicted by symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety, but not realistic threat (see Table 3 and Figure 2). Stronger perceptions of symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety were associated with more negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries. To test my third hypothesis, a method for comparing two independent coefficients (Aberson, 2010) was employed, finding that
32 intergroup anxiety was not a significantly stronger predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries than attitudes toward the policy, 95% CI [-.139, .155].
33 Table 3 F Model, R2 Model, Squared Semi-Partial Correlations, Standardized Regression Coefficients, Raw Regression Coefficients, and 95% CI around Regression Coefficients F Model R2 sr2 b* b 95% CI Model around b Criterion Marriage 457.3*** .84 Predictor Realistic .008 .18*** 0.29 [0.13, 0.45] Symbolic .075 .60*** 0.89 [0.73, 1.04] Anxiety .020 .20*** 0.03 [0.02, 0.04] Criterion Beneficiaries 172.4*** .67 Predictor Realistic .002 .11 0.12 [-0.04, 0.28] Symbolic .037 .42*** 0.43 [0.27, 0.59] Anxiety .066 .37*** 0.04 [0.03, 0.05]
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. For each model, dfnumerator = 3, dfdenominator = 255.
34
Realistic .18***
.60*** Symbolic SS Marriage
.20***
Anxiety
Figure 1. Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage.*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
35
Realistic .11
.42*** Symbolic Beneficiaries
.37***
Anxiety
Figure 2. Standardized Beta Coefficients Demonstrating the Role of Threats in Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage Beneficiaries. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001
36 Do the Threat Measures Address Distinct Constructs?
An exploratory factor analysis was employed on realistic threat, symbolic threat,
and intergroup anxiety items using a Direct Oblimin rotation. An oblique rotation was used because factors were expected to correlate. SPSS extracts factors using the criteria
of an Eigenvalue greater than one, and determined that three factors would maximize the
explained variance. However, examination of a scree plot determined that a two factor
solution better fit the data and allowed for better interpretability of the factors. For the
two factor solution, the unrotated Eigenvalues totaled 17.07, accounting for 61.0% of
item variance, and the rotated Eigenvalues totaled 24.29, accounting for 86.8% of item variance. Importantly, the increase in Eigenvalues after rotation does not mean that more variance is explained. Rather, this information, used in conjunction with the fact that the two factors were correlated with one another (r = .61), suggests that the rotated factors overlap and share some explained variance. Evaluation of the structure matrix showed that realistic and symbolic threat items loaded onto one factor, labeled group threat
(factor loadings ranged from .50 to .91), and intergroup anxiety items loaded onto a separate factor, labeled interpersonal threat (factor loadings ranged from .68 to .85; see
Table 4).
37 Table 4 Rotated Factor Loadings and Communalities of Realistic Threat, Symbolic Threat, and Intergroup Anxiety Items Group Interpersonal Communality threat threat Damages society’s moral standardsb .91 .61 .84 Violates sanctity of marriageb .88 .60 .78 Waste of taxpayer moneya .87 .58 .77 Public schools teach homosexuality is normala .87 .56 .76 Undermines meaning of traditional familyb .83 .62 .71 Loss of political powera .83 .53 .69 Jeopardizes religious freedomb .83 .53 .68 Purpose of marriage is to conceive childrena .82 .53 .68 Financial burdens of same-sex marriagea .81 .58 .67 Threat to cultural practicesb .76 .48 .57 Family strengthened by recognition of SSMb .72 .52 .53 Marital protections for policy beneficiariesa .72 .58 .55 Same family valuesb .72 .63 .57 Violates religious beliefsb .60 .33 .36 Public schools teach gay marriagea .58 .20 .37 Similar relationship qualityb .50 .49 .31 Calmc .52 .85 .73 Nervousc .49 .85 .72 At easec .50 .82 .68 Tensec .53 .82 .68 Carefreec .47 .81 .66 Confidentc .44 .81 .66 Anxiousc .49 .75 .57 Securec .44 .73 .54 Akwardc .51 .72 .53 Worriedc .56 .71 .52 Comfortablec .49 .70 .50 Apprehensivec .50 .68 .47
% explained 51.6 9.3 Rotated Eigenvalue 12.5 11.7 Rotated % 44.8 42.0 Note. Principal components analysis with Direct Oblimin rotation. Factors explain 86.8%. SSM = same-sex marriage. aRealistic threat. bSymbolic threat. cIntergroup anxiety
Discussion
In the present study, I examined whether realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety predicted attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries
(Hypothesis 1), whether symbolic threat was a stronger predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage than realistic threat (Hypothesis 2), and whether intergroup anxiety was more strongly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries than toward the policy (Hypothesis 3). Findings provided partial support for the study hypotheses. Realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety significantly predicted attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries (Hypothesis 1).
However, with respect to my second hypothesis, symbolic threat was not a significantly stronger predictor of policy opposition than realistic threat. Finally, I did not establish that intergroup anxiety was more strongly related to beneficiary attitudes than attitudes toward same-sex marriage (Hypothesis 3). The following sections address how results fit with the extant research on same-sex marriage, offer explanations for why the hypotheses found only partial support, discuss how this work may be expanded in future research, and examine the broader implications of the current findings.
Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage
Stronger perceptions of realistic threat were associated with stronger opposition to same-sex marriage. Findings suggest that heterosexuals may worry that their children
38 39 will be taught in school that homosexuality is normal, that same-sex marriage confer benefits (e.g., social security and health care) at the expense of tax payers, that same-sex marriage is causing the United States to lose political power, and that the policy is a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Symbolic threat was the strongest predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Individuals with higher perceived symbolic threat displayed greater resistance to the policy. Symbolic threat was also strongly correlated with the other predictors in the model (realistic threat, r = .87 and intergroup anxiety, r = .71) yet still explained 7.5% of the variance in policy attitudes over and above the other threats. However, with respect to group-related threats (i.e., realistic and symbolic), my hypothesis that symbolic issues would be predominantly related to same-sex marriage attitudes was not supported
(Hypothesis 2). The distinction between symbolic threat being a stronger predictor and symbolic threat being a significantly stronger predictor than realistic threat is important.
Symbolic threat was not a significantly stronger predictor of same-sex marriage attitudes than realistic threat, although there were trends toward symbolic threat being a stronger predictor, as noted by the standardized regression coefficient. Thus, regarding group oriented threat, no conclusions can be drawn about the primacy of symbolic threat in relation to the policy (Hypothesis 2). It is likely that the multicollinearity reduced power considerably, and that significant differences in support of Hypothesis 2 were not found due to low statistical power for the test of differences between coefficients. A power analysis revealed that I would need more than triple the current sample size (n = 888) to detect a difference between symbolic threat and realistic threat. Although Hypothesis 2
40 was derived from research on same-sex marriage (Brewer & Wilcox, 2005; Greene,
2009; Olson et al., 2006), to my knowledge there have not been any actual statistical tests of this hypothesis. Despite this shortcoming, the findings on symbolic threat are consistent with the research cited above, showing that same-sex marriage is incongruous with heterosexuals’ religious ideals, morality, and system of values.
The findings that realistic threat and symbolic threat predicted attitudes toward a social policy is also consistent with previous research (Huddy & Sears, 1990; Renfro et al., 2006), although this is the first study to find an interpersonally oriented threat such as intergroup anxiety to significantly predict attitudes toward a social policy. I hypothesized that intergroup anxiety would be more strongly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries than toward the policy based on previous research showing that interpersonally oriented threats (e.g., negative stereotypes, intergroup anxiety) related to beneficiaries of affirmative action but not the policy itself (Renfro et al., 2006), and the fact that intergroup anxiety in this context is not defined by discomfort surrounding the policy; rather, it represents apprehension surrounding future interactions with beneficiaries of the policy. Unfortunately, I was unable to support this prediction. The present study found that individuals who anticipated feeling anxious about interacting with men who are married to another man or women who are married to another woman were more likely to oppose same-sex marriage laws than individuals who anticipated feeling comfortable during such interactions. Furthermore, the correlation between intergroup anxiety and attitudes toward same-sex marriage was considerable, so it is
41 likely that multicollinearity between the threats and intergroup anxiety produced a non- significant result.
A possible explanation for the finding that intergroup anxiety was associated with more negative attitudes toward same-sex marriage is derived from research showing that intergroup anxiety may be caused by negative attitudes toward and beliefs about the outgroup (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000). For instance, individuals who feel threatened by same-sex marriage and oppose the policy may worry about being perceived as prejudiced during interaction with beneficiaries of same-sex marriage, possibly explaining why intergroup anxiety had a carryover effect in predicting attitudes toward the policy. However this is impossible to establish here, given the correlational nature of the present study.
Attitudes toward Policy Beneficiaries
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety as a set significantly predicted attitudes toward same-sex marriage beneficiaries.
However, realistic threat by itself was not a significant predictor in the model. Symbolic threat was the strongest predictor of beneficiary attitudes, closely followed by intergroup anxiety. Regarding symbolic threat, greater perceived value differences between heterosexuals and same-sex marriage beneficiaries were associated with more negative evaluations of same-sex marriage beneficiaries (i.e., prejudiced attitudes). Additionally, heterosexuals who were apprehensive about future interactions with beneficiaries of same-sex marriage held more prejudiced attitudes toward policy beneficiaries than those
42 who anticipated feeling at ease during intergroup contact. These findings are consistent with previous work on the role of intergroup threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries (Renfro et al., 2006), wherein greater perceptions of symbolic threat and intergroup anxiety were related to more negative attitudes toward policy beneficiaries.
Limitations
One primary limitation is that realistic and symbolic threats did not appear to comprise distinct threat categories. Factor analysis indicated that realistic threat and symbolic threat items loaded onto the same factor (capturing group-related threat), and intergroup anxiety items loaded onto a separate factor (capturing interpersonal threat).
However, this should not be taken as definitive evidence that the two scales measure the same construct. It could be the case that realistic threat and symbolic threat are highly related, yet comprise distinct components of the same factor. Previous research on ITT found similar relationships: Realistic and symbolic threats are often highly correlated
(e.g., Aberson & Gaffney, 2009), and in a study on attitudes toward affirmative action, an exploratory factor analysis showed that realistic and symbolic threat items loaded onto the same factors (Renfro et al., 2006). For that reason, empirical approaches apart from factor analysis may help distinguish between realistic and symbolic threats. In one study participants rated the degree to which each item constitutes a “loss of economic resources, political power, or threats to the well-being of the group” (realistic threat) versus “issues or problems created by group differences in values, beliefs, customs or
43 norms” (symbolic threat), finding that participants categorized each item as belonging to its respective category at a significantly higher rate than the other (Renfro et al., 2006, p.
47). Future research may benefit from utilizing a similar approach to establish the content validity of these new realistic and symbolic threat measures.
Another limitation is that I was unable to gather support for two of my predictions. This is likely due to low statistical power. A comparison of the actual correlations among predictors found in the study (r’s from .66 to .87) with the estimated correlations used in the initial power analysis (r’s from .35 to .59) revealed that I largely underestimated the amount of overlap among predictors. Stronger correlations between predictors reduce the power of tests comparing the strength of those predictors. Thus, it is likely that multicollinearity is responsible for the lack of significant findings with respect to my hypotheses that symbolic threat would be more strongly related to attitudes toward same-sex marriage than realistic threat (Hypothesis 2), and that intergroup anxiety would be more strongly related to beneficiary attitudes than attitudes toward same-sex marriage
(Hypothesis 3).
Another methodological limitation concerns the correlational research design, insofar as it cannot definitively establish a causal relationship between threats and attitudes. However, previous research on ITT experimentally manipulated realistic threat, symbolic threat, and intergroup anxiety, finding that increasing perceptions of each threat resulted in more negative outgroup attitudes (Stephan et al., 2005). The potential for bidirectionality notwithstanding, this and other similar experimental studies
(e.g., Maio, Esses, & Bell, 1994) suggest that threats lead to negative outgroup attitudes.
44 Directions for Future Research
The core aspect of intergroup threat theory is the notion that perceived threats
beget prejudice and discrimination. However, another major component of ITT
incorporates antecedents to threat, wherein antecedents influence threats, and threats
mediate the relationship between antecedents and attitudes (Stephan & Stephan, 2000).
Antecedents often utilized in ITT include strength of ingroup identification (e.g.,
importance of heterosexual identity), quantity and quality of previous contact experiences
with the outgroup, prior knowledge of the outgroup, prior intergroup conflict, and group
status. Several of these antecedents may be importantly related to same-sex marriage
attitudes.
For instance, individuals who identify strongly with an ingroup often hold antagonistic outgroup attitudes (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Thus, heterosexuals who derive a strong sense of meaning from their sexual orientation may feel threatened by a policy
such as same-sex marriage. Additionally, contact experiences with beneficiaries of same-
sex marriage may also influence threats and attitudes toward the policy. This is derived from the contact hypothesis (Allport, 1954), which has received robust support in social
psychological research in general (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), and specifically as an
antecedent to threat in ITT (Stephan et al., 2009). There is considerably evidence that
positive contact experiences improve outgroup attitudes via a reduction intergroup
anxiety, symbolic threat, and realistic threat (e.g., Aberson & Gaffney, 2009).
45 Knowledge of the outgroup may also influence attitudes toward same-sex marriage. People fear that which is unfamiliar to them (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) and thus feel threatened by it. In addition, individuals who know little about an outgroup increasingly rely on stereotypes about that group. Stereotype endorsement is another established antecedent of threat in intergroup threat theory (Stephan et al., 2009). In the case of attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries, negative stereotypes about men who are married to another man, women who are married to another woman, and characteristics of same-sex relationships may impact perceived threats and attitudes.
Group status may also be an important contextual factor. Heterosexuals have higher status than sexual minorities, and high status groups react more negatively to feelings of threat than low status groups (Johnson et al., 2005). However, this only categorizes status in a very broad manner (i.e., at the group level), and does not convey the importance of status at an individual level. One construct that measures the importance of status for individuals is social dominance orientation (SDO). Individuals who score high on measures of SDO want their ingroup to dominate over other groups.
They may do this through the use of political and economic policies that maintain status hierarchies favoring the ingroup (Sidanius, Pratto, & Bobo, 1996). Notably, SDO is associated with prejudice toward homosexuals (Whitley, 1999), and opposition toward social policies such as affirmative action (Sidanius et al., 1996). Thus, it is likely that heterosexuals with a strong social dominance orientation oppose same-sex marriage laws in the interest of maintaining the status quo of dominance and subordination.
46 Research on the correlates of sexual prejudice provides additional antecedents that may be relevant in the case of same-sex marriage. For instance, authoritarian individuals hold more prejudiced attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and bisexuals (Haddock &
Zanna, 1998; Whitley 1999). Religion is also strongly related to sexual prejudice. In general, non-religious heterosexuals are less sexually prejudiced than heterosexuals who commonly attend religious services or hold fundamental religious values (Herek &
Capitanio, 1996). Similarly, heterosexuals may invoke religious beliefs to oppose same- sex marriage laws (Brewer & Wilcox, 2005; Greene, 2009; Olson et al., 2006). Perhaps not surprisingly, political ideology and party affiliation are also related to sexual prejudice: Conservatives and Republicans show greater sexual prejudice than liberals and
Democrats (Yang, 1998), especially with respect to same-sex marriage (Olson et al.,
2006). Moreover, these correlates of sexual prejudice predict voting preference on gay- related policies such as whether or not a law should prohibit discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation (Strand, 1998).
General Discussion
This study contributes new knowledge to the extant literature on same-sex marriage attitudes and adds importantly to predictions of ITT. Whereas previous research found that issues under the domain of symbolic threat (e.g., Olson et al., 2006) and realistic threat (e.g., Patterson, 2009) are importantly tied to the policy, this was the first study to utilize several threats together in the same model, providing the ability to parcel out the unique prediction of each threat. Additionally, this study is the first to
47 address attitudes toward beneficiaries of same-sex marriage as a population distinguished from sexual minorities in general, and also the first study to demonstrate that intergroup anxiety is an important predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries.
This study lends support for intergroup threat theory to predict attitudes toward social policy, and highlights the importance of the social context in determining which will be the most salient threats toward that policy. With respect to the social context, previous work on the role of ITT in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries found that intergroup anxiety was not a significant predictor of policy attitudes (Renfro et al., 2006), whereas the present study has demonstrated that intergroup anxiety is an important predictor of attitudes toward same-sex marriage. Thus, consistent with the framework of intergroup threat theory (Stephan et al., 2009), this study shows that perceived threats toward social policies demonstrably vary by the social context.
Notably, this work may have implications for people who wish to change public opinion with respect to same-sex marriage and its beneficiaries (e.g., the media). Results suggest that focusing on similarities in the core values between heterosexuals and sexual minorities may increase support for same-sex marriage and create more positive attitudes toward its beneficiaries. Realistic threat was also an important aspect of policy attitudes, and disseminating facts about how same-sex marriage is not a barrier to ingroup welfare
(e.g., informing the public that children raised by same-sex couples are at no greater risk for developmental problems than children raised by opposite-sex couples; Patterson,
2009) may help to dispel myths associated with that threat. Finally, intergroup anxiety
48 was importantly related to both policy and beneficiary attitudes. Positive contact experiences with beneficiaries of same-sex marriage (and perhaps sexual minorities in general) may help to reduce prejudiced and discriminatory attitudes through a reduction in intergroup anxiety (Voci & Hewstone, 1993).
References
Aberson, C.L. (2010). Applied power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Aberson, C. L., & Gaffney, A. M. (2009). An integrated threat model of explicit and implicit attitudes. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 808-830. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.582
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
American Psychiatric Association. (2005). Support of legal recognition of same-sex civil marriage [Position statement]. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200502.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2004). Resolution on sexual orientation, parents, and children [Policy statement]. (Adopted by the APA Council of Representatives, July 2004)
Anderson, P. B., Fakhfakh, A., & Kondylis, M. A. (1999). Attitudes toward the media’s portrayals of gays and lesbians. Electronic Journal of Human Sexuality, 2. Retrieved from www.ejhs.org.
Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horsemen of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer Jr., & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition, vol. 1: Basic processes; vol. 2: Applications (2nd ed.) ( pp. 1- 40). Hillsdale, NJ, England: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Berrenberg, J. L., Finlay, K. A., Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2002). Prejudice toward people with cancer or AIDS: Applying the integrated threat model. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 75-86. doi: 10.1111/j.1751- 9861.2002.tb00078.x
Biernat, M., Vescio, T. K., & Theno, S. A. (1996). Violating American values: A “value congruence” approach to understanding outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 387-410. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1996.0018
Bizman, A., & Yinon, Y. (2001). Intergroup and interpersonal threats as determinants of prejudice: The moderating role of in-group identification. Basic and Applied social Psychology, 23, 191-196. doi: 10.1207/153248301750433669
49 50 Bobo, L. (1983). Whites’ opposition to busing: Symbolic racism or realistic group conflict? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1196-1210. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.45.6.1196
Brewer, P. R., & Wilcox, C. (2005). The polls-trends: Same-sex marriage and civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 599-616. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfi052
Brown, S. L. (2000). The effect of union type on psychological well-being: Depression among cohabitors versus married. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 241-255. doi: 10.2307/2676319
Comstock, G., & Paik, H. (1991). Television and the American child. New York: Academic Press.
Coontz, S. (2005). Marriage, a history. New York, NY: Penguin Group.
Corenblum, B., & Stephan, W. G. (2001). White fears and native apprehensions: An integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 33, 251-268. doi: 10.1037/h0087147
Cott, N. F. (2002). Public vows: A history of marriage and the nation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology, Vols. 1 and 2 (4th ed.) (pp. 504-553). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Curseu, P. L., Stoop, R., & Schalk, R. (2007). Prejudice toward immigrant workers among Dutch employees: Integrated threat theory revisited. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 125-140. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.331
Davis, M. D., & Stephan, W. G. (2011). Electromyographic analyses of responses to intergroup threat. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 196-218. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00709.x
Esses, V. M., Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1993). Values, stereotypes, and emotions as determinants of intergroup attitudes. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 137-166). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. Dovidio & S. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61-89).
51 Gallup Poll. (2010). Americans' opposition to gay marriage eases slightly. Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans- opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx
Glick, P., Gangl, C., Gibb, S., Klumpner, S., & Weinberg, E. (2007). Defensive reactions to masculinity threat: More negative affect toward effeminate (but not masculine) gay men. Sex Roles, 57, 55-59. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9195-3
Gonzalez, K. V., Verkuyten, M., Weesie, J., & Poppe, E. (2008). Prejudice towards Muslims in the Netherlands: Testing integrated threat theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 667-685. doi: 10.1348/014466608X284443
Gove, W. R., Hughes, M., & Style, C. B. (1983). Does marriage have positive effects on the psychological well-being of the individual? Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24, 4-35. doi: 10.2307/2136639
Greene, B. (2009). The use and abuse of religious beliefs in dividing and conquering between socially marginalized groups: The same-sex marriage debate. American Psychologist, 64, 698-709. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.698
Gudykunst, W. D. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory: Current status. In R. Wiseman (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8-58). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Haddock, G., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). Authoritarianism, values, and the favorability and structure of antigay attitudes. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 82-107). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Haddock, G., Zanna, M. P., & Esses, V. M. (1993). Assessing the structure of prejudicial attitudes: The case of attitudes toward homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1105-1118. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.65.6.1105
Hayes, A. F., & Cai, L. (2007). Using heteroskedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 709-722. doi: 10.3758/BF03192961
Hebl, M. R., & Dovidio, J. F. (2005). Promoting the "social" in the examination of social stigmas. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 156-182. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_4
52 Hebl, M. R., Foster, J. B., Mannix, L. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815-825. doi: 10.1177/0146167202289010
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality. Special Issue: Homophobia: An Overview, 10, 1-21. doi: 10.1300/J082v10n01_01
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G.M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay psychology (pp. 206-228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19-22. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00051
Herek, G. M. (2006). Legal recognition of same-sex relationships in the United States: A social science perspective. American Psychologist, 61, 607–621. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.61.6.607
Herek, G. M. & Capitanio, J. (1996). "Some of my best friends": Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412-424. doi: 10.1177/0146167296224007
Huddy, L., & Sears, D. O. (1995). Opposition to bilingual education: Prejudice or the defense of realistic interests? Social Psychology Quarterly, 58, 133-143. doi: 10.2307/2787151
Johnson, D., Terry, D. J., & Louis, W. R. (2005). Perceptions of the intergroup structure and anti-Asian prejudice among white Australians. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 8, 53-71. doi: 10.1177/1368430205048616
Katz, I., Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. G. (1986). Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. In J. F. Dovidio, & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 35-59). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press.
Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 414-431. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.40.3.414
53 Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1983). Affirmative action attitudes: Effects of self- interest, race affect, and stratification beliefs on Whites’ views. Social Forces, 61, 797-824. doi: 10.2307/2578135
Kohut, A. (2004). Voters liked campaign 2004, but too much “mud-slinging”. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. Retrieved February 21, 2010, from http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/233.pdf
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. Oxford, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602-616. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
Maio, G. R., Esses, V. M., & Bell, D. W. (1994). The formation of attitudes toward new immigrant groups. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1762-1776. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.tb01573.x
McConahay, J. B. (1983). Modern racism and modern discrimination: The effects of race, racial attitudes, and context on simulated hiring decisions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 9, 551-558. doi: 10.1177/0146167283094004
McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 23-45. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02493.x
Nock, S. L. (1995). A Comparison of marriages and cohabiting relationships. Journal of Family Issues, 16, 53-76. doi: 10.1177/019251395016001004
Olson, L. R., Cadge, W., & Harrison, J. T. (2006). Religion and public opinion about same-sex marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87, 340-360. doi: 10.1111/j.1540- 6237.2006.00384.x
Patterson, C. J. (2009). Children of lesbian and gay parents: Psychology, law, and policy. American Psychologist, 64, 727-736. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.64.8.727
Pan, P. L., Meng, J., & Zhou, S. (2010). Morality or equality? Ideological framing in news coverage of gay marriage legitimization. The Social Science Journal, 47, 630-645. doi: 10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.002
Pettigrew, T. F. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783. doi: 10.1037/0022- 3514.90.5.751
54
Plant, E. A. (2004). Responses to interracial interactions over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1458-1471. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264244
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (2003). The antecedents and implications of interracial anxiety. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 790-801. doi: 10.1177/0146167203029006011
Price, V., Nir, L., & Cappella, J. N. (2005). Framing public discussion of gay civil unions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 179-212. doi: 10.1093/poq/nfi014
Renfro, C. L., Duran, A., Stephan, W. G., & Clason, D. L. (2006). The role of threat in attitudes toward affirmative action and its beneficiaries. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 41-74. doi: 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00003.x
Richeson, J. A., & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 934-947. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.6.934
Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Gaertner, S. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10, 336-353. doi: 10.1207/s15327957pspr1004_4
Rohmann, A., Florack, A., & Piontkowski, U. (2006). The role of discordant acculturation attitudes in perceived threat: An analysis of host and immigrant attitudes in Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 683- 702. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2006.06.006
Sawires, J. N., & Peacock, M. J. (2000). Symbolic racism and voting behavior on Proposition 209. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2092-2099. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02426.x
Schmitt, M. T., Lehmiller, J. J., & Walsh, A. L. (2007). The role of heterosexual identity threat in differential support for same-sex ‘civil unions’ versus ‘marriages’. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 443-455. doi: 10.1177/1368430207081534
Schnall, S., Haidt, J., Clore, G. L., & Jordan, A. H. (2008). Disgust as embodied moral judgment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1096-1109. doi: 10.1177/0146167208317771
55 Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. A. Katz & D. A. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles in controversy. Perspectives in social psychology (pp. 53-84). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Sears, D. O., & Allen, H. M. (1984). The trajectory of local desegregation controversies and Whites’ opposition to busing. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp.123-151). New York: Academic Press.
Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1985). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sears, D. O., & Huddy, L. (1993). The symbolic politics of opposition to bilingual education. In S. Worchel & J. A. Simpson (Eds.), Conflict between people and peoples (pp. 145–169). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
Sears D. O., & Kinder, D. R. (1971). Racial tensions and voting in Los Angeles. In W. Z. Hersch (Ed.), Los Angeles: Viability and prospects for metropolitan leadership (pp. 51-88). New York: Praeger.
Semyonov, M., Raijman, R., Tov, A. Y., & Schmidt, P. (2004). Population size, perceived threat, and exclusion: A multiple-indicators analysis of attitudes toward foreigners in Germany. Social Science Research, 33, 681-701. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2003.11.003
Sherif, M. (1966). Group conflict and cooperation. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sibley, C. J., & Liu, J. H. (2004). Attitudes towards biculturalism in New Zealand: Social dominance and Pakeha attitudes towards the general principles and resource- specific aspects of bicultural policy. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 33, 88- 99.
Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1996). Racism, conservatism, affirmative action, and intellectual sophistication: A matter of principled conservatism or group dominance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 476-490. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.476
Sniderman, P. M., & Tetlock, P. E. (1986). Reflections on American racism. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 173-187. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00231.x
Stack, S., & Eshleman, J. R. (1998). Marital status and happiness: A 17-nation study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 60, 527-536. doi: 10.2307/353867
56 Stephan, C. W., Stephan W. G., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Women’s attitudes toward men: An integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24, 63-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1471- 6402.2000.tb01022.x
Stephan, W. G., Boniecki, K. A., Ybarra, O., Bettencourt, A., Ervin, K. S., Jackson, L. A., McNatt, P. S., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threats in the racial attitudes of Blacks and Whites. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1242-1254. doi: 10.1177/01461672022812009
Stephan, W. G., Diaz-Loving, R., & Duran, A. (2000). Integrated threat theory and intercultural attitudes: Mexico and the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 31, 240-249. doi: 10.1177/0022022100031002006
Stephan, W. G., Renfro, C. L., Esses, V. M., Stephan, C. W., & Martin, T. (2005). The effects of feeling threatened on attitudes toward immigrants. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 29, 1-19. doi: 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2005.04.011
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 157-175. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1985.tb01134.x
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 23-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Morrison, K. R. (2009). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 43- 59). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Stivers, A., & Valls, A. (2007). Same-sex marriage and the regulation of language. Politics, Philosophy, & Economics, 6, 237-253. doi: 10.1177/1470594X07077275
Strand, D. A. (1998). Civil liberties, civil rights, and stigma: Voter attitudes and behavior in the politics of homosexuality. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. (pp. 108-137). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Austin & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
57 Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., & Roy, R. (2009). The relationships between contact, status, and prejudice: An integrated threat theory analysis of Hindu-Muslim relations in India. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 19, 83-94. doi: 10.1002/casp.984
Trawalter, S., Richeson, J. A., & Shelton, J. N. (2009). Predicting behavior during interracial interactions: A stress and coping approach. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 243-268. doi: 10.1177/1088868309345850
Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: The meditational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 6, 37-52. doi: 10.1177/1368430203006001011
Whitley, B. E. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals' attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369-377. doi: 10.1177/0146167290162016
Whitley, B. E. (1999). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 126-134. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.126
Yang, A. S. (1997). Trend: Attitudes toward homosexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477-507. doi: 10.1086/297810
Yang, A. S. (1998). From wrongs to rights: Public opinion on gay and lesbian Americans moves toward equality. Washington, DC: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.
APPENDIX A
Survey Form
ID # ______(leave blank)
Please answer the following questions about yourself and your relationships with others. There are several questions that may be somewhat sensitive regarding your relationships with people who are married to someone of the same sex. That is, men who are married to a man OR women who are married to a woman. Please remember that all information is confidential. If you feel uncomfortable you may withdraw from the study without penalty.
You must be 18 years or older to participate.
If you have questions, you may contact Chris Aberson (x3670, [email protected]).
PLEASE NOTE: This form is printed on both sides. Please complete both the front and back of each page.
58 59 For each of the items listed below, please indicate how you would feel when interacting with people who are married to someone of the same sex whom you do not know.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Anxious Anxious
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Apprehensive Apprehensive
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Comfortable Comfortable
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Secure Secure
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Worried Worried
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Calm Calm
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Confident Confident
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Awkward Awkward
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Tense Tense
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Carefree Carefree
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely Nervous Nervous
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Not at all Extremely At Ease At Ease
60 My attitude toward people who benefit from same-sex marriage is:
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No dislike at all Extreme dislike
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No admiration at all Extreme admiration
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No hostility at all Extreme hostility
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No attraction at all Extreme attraction
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No resentment at all Extreme resentment
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No appreciation at all Extreme appreciation
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No disdain at all Extreme disdain
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No respect at all Extreme respect
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No hatred at all Extreme hatred
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No friendliness at all Extreme friendliness
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No repulsion at all Extreme repulsion
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 No warmth at all Extreme warmth
61 Use the scale printed below each item to indicate your agreement with each of the following statements concerning same-sex marriage.
1. The government's focus on same-sex marriage issues has led it to ignore more pressing political issues and economic problems. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
2. Same-sex marriage poses little or no threat to the cultural practices of the majority of Americans. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
3. Domestic partners and married people have the same rights under the law. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
4. Same-sex marriage undermines the meaning of the traditional family. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
5. Marital protections, such as social security and health care benefits, should be available to same-sex partners. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
6. The legalization of same-sex marriage jeopardizes religious freedom. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
7. Parents should teach their children about marriage without public schools teaching their kids that gay marriage is okay. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
8. Same-sex marriage is a result of a change in values of the American population. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
62 9. Supporting same-sex marriage is causing the U.S. to lose some of its political power. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
10. Same-sex marriage is an attempt to legislate morality. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
11. States that allow weddings by same-sex couples will see an increase in tax revenue associated with wedding spending. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
12. Same-sex marriage violates the sanctity of marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
13. The purpose of marriage is to conceive children, therefore only a man and a woman should be married. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
14. Gay men and lesbians desire relationships similar in quality to heterosexuals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
15. If same-sex marriage was legalized, churches would be forced to perform same-sex marriages even if they did not agree with same-sex marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
16. The family will be strengthened by the recognition of same-sex marriages. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
17. Same-sex marriage violates religious beliefs held by the American majority. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
63 18. Recognition of same-sex marriage poses a threat to society because public schools will be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
19. Same-sex marriage damages society’s moral standards. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
20. Same-sex marriage will lead to unnecessary financial burdens, such as social security and health care benefits. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
21. The values of gay men and lesbians regarding family are the same as those of heterosexuals. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
22. Supporting same-sex marriage is a waste of taxpayer's money. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
64 Use the scale printed below each item to indicate your agreement with each of the following statements concerning same-sex marriage.
1. I am extremely supportive of same-sex marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
2. Same-sex marriage should be ended as soon as possible. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
3. The institution of marriage should be kept strictly between a man and a woman. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
4. I would support a federal policy to legalize same-sex marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
5. The goals of same-sex marriage are good. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
6. All in all, I oppose laws that allow same-sex couples the right to marry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
7. The legalization of same-sex marriage is an important step toward the acceptance of individuals who are not heterosexual. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
65 8. Same-sex marriage ensures equal rights for all relationships regardless of sexual orientation. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
9. I support individuals who are not heterosexual seeking marriage rights. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
10. Men and women naturally complement one another, therefore a union between two men or two women should not be recognized in marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
11. I would not support a constitutional amendment legalizing same-sex marriage. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
12. Same-sex couples deserve all of the rights that heterosexual couples can enjoy; therefore same-sex marriage should be available for two men or two women who choose to marry. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Strongly Mildly Mildly Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree
66 Finally, a few questions about you. Remember that all responses are anonymous.
A. What is your ethnicity? 1. White 2. African-American 3. Hispanic/Latino 4. Asian/Asian-American 5. Native American 6. multiracial 7. Other Specify ______
B. What is your age? ______
C. How would you describe your socio-economic status? 1. Lower Class 2. Lower-Middle Class 3. Middle Class 4. Upper-Middle Class 5. Upper Class
D. Are you a registered voter? 1. Yes 2. No
E. How would you describe your political ideology? 1. Very Conservative 2. Conservative 3. Middle of the road 4. Liberal 5. Very Liberal
F. What political party, if any, are you a member of? 1. Democrat 2. Republican 3. Green 4. Independent 5. Other 5a. Specify ______
G. What is your sex? 1. Male 2. Female
H. What is your sexual orientation? 1. Heterosexual 2. Homosexual 3. Bisexual
67 I. What is your relationship status? 1. Single 2. Cohabitating 3. Married/Widowed 4.Divorced/Separated
J. Are you a religious/spiritual person? 1. Yes 2. No
L. How often do you attend religious services? 1. Never 2. Less than once a year 3. About once or twice a year 4. Several times a year 5. 2-3 times a month 6. Nearly every week 7. Several times a week
M. How often do you read the bible? 1. Never 2. Less than once a year 3. About once or twice a year 4. Several times a year 5. 2-3 times a month 6. Nearly every week 7. Several times a week
N. What is your religious denomination or religious affiliation? (e.g. Methodist, Baptist, Catholic, etc...) Specify ______
O. Year in College: 1. Freshman 2. Sophomore 3. Junior 4. Senior