Proposed Revision and Validation of the Genderism

PROPOSED REVISION AND VALIDATION OF THE GENDERISM

AND TRANSPHOBIA SCALE

A Thesis

Presented to the faculty of the Department of Psychology

California State University, Sacramento

Submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Psychology

Sam Stevens

SPRING 2018

Sam Stevens

PROPOSED REVISION AND VALIDATION OF THE GENDERISM

AND TRANSPHOBIA SCALE

A Thesis

Sam Stevens

Approved by:

______, Committee Chair Dr. Lawrence Meyers

______, Second Reader Dr. Rebecca Cameron

______, Third Reader Dr. Timothy Gaffney

______Date

iii

Student: Sam Stevens

I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to be awarded for the thesis.

______, Graduate Coordinator ______Dr. Lisa M. Bohon Date

Department of Psychology

Abstract

PROPOSED REVISION AND VALIDATION OF THE GENDERISM

AND TRANSPHOBIA SCALE

Sam Stevens

One of the most frequently used inventories to measure anti-trans prejudice in research is the

Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS; Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Multiple versions of this inventory have been proposed to improve measurement of both negative attitudes

(Genderism/Transphobia) and violent behaviors (Gender-Bashing) toward trans individuals

(Carrera-Fernandez, LaMeiras-Fernandez, Rodriquez-Castro, & Vallejo-Medina, 2014; Tebbe,

Moradi, & Ege, 2014). The present study assessed the psychometric properties of the original

GTS factor structure and 3 proposed revisions. Results of confirmatory factor analysis and reliability assessment indicated poor fit for all existing inventories. Further analysis on 2 independent samples yielded a new 17-item factor structure with good fit, sufficient reliability, and convergent validity. Additional analyses configured a structural model using intrinsic religiosity to predict trans negativity with ethnocentrism and prosociality acting as mediators in this relationship.

______, Committee Chair Dr. Lawrence Meyers

______Date

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my dad for sawdust and nail polish and Thanksgiving spaghetti. Five more minutes…

I would like to thank Big Grandma, Little Grandma, Grandpa, and Margie for being part of the village that raised me and taught me to look for the little positives in a huge ugly world.

I would like to thank Aunt Linda for allowing me a space to hide long enough to write a whole bunch of pages in peace.

I would like to thank Jestin for providing me the opportunity to put my education before my fear of not eating for the first time in my life. Your generosity and small silent gestures are not overlooked and can never fully be repaid. The world is lucky to encounter your quiet beauty.

I would like to thank Dr. Meyers for giving me just enough rope to stave off boredom but not enough to hang myself. I appreciate you respecting my need for independence and inability to conform.

I would like to thank Dr. Cameron for taking a chance on that weird awkward kid so long ago. You have given me the courage to try when I did not believe in myself over the years. I may have grumbled about “mothering” at times but still appreciated you taking the time to do so.

I would like to thank Dr. Gaffney for his role on my thesis committee and the hours of IRT lectures.

I would like to thank Dr. Bohon, Dr. Ellison, and Dr. August for their encouragement and words of wisdom as I have assessed what is possible and important for my still uncertain future.

I would like to thank my lab mates for not killing me for my neurotic need to overproduce.

I would like to thank the friends, near and far, who helped walk me through one of the darkest times in my life. I am still here because of your honesty, loyalty, and enduring patience. I will never forget your kindnesses.

I would like to thank my students and employees who over the years have given me the privilege of mentoring them. You taught me just as much as I taught you. You know who you are and I still believe in you.

Finally, I would like to thank Wren for the impact you have had on my life. You are a beautiful light that shines so bright. I never cease to be amazed by your curiosity, your individuality, and your mind. I feel honored to be part of the village raising you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Acknowledgments ...... vi

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Figures ...... x

Chapter

1. INTRODUCTION ……………..…………………………………….………………….. 1

Statement of the Problem ...... 1

Historical Background: From Sex to Transgender ...... 3

2. TRANSPHOBIA AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS ...... 10

Transphobia ...... 10

Gender Role Expectations...... 12

Religiosity ...... 16

Ethnocentrism ...... 19

Prosociality ...... 21

3. MEASURING TRANSPHOBIA ...... 23

4. PRESENT RESEARCH ...... 26

Purpose ...... 26

Hypotheses ...... 27

5. EXAMINATION OF THE GTS FACTOR STRUCTURE ...... 28

Method ...... 28

Results ...... 29

vii

6. REVISION OF THE GTS FACTOR STRUCTURE ...... 31

Method ...... 31

Results and Discussion ...... 34

7. STRUCTURAL MODEL PREDICTING TRANSPHOBIA...... 39

Method ...... 39

Results and Discussion ...... 41

8. GENERAL DISCUSSION ...... 46

Hypotheses ...... 47

Limitations ...... 49

Future Directions ...... 51

Conclusion ...... 52

Appendix A...... 53

References ...... 54

viii

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page

1. Demographic Characteristics for Cisgender Heterosexual Participants…………...…. 28

2. Fit Statistics for Existing Versions of the GTS…………………………………....…. 30

3. Structure Coefficients of the New Proposed Structure of the GTS………….….……. 36

4. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics between the GTS subscales,

the ATLG, ATTI, HBSS, and AOSQ for EFA…………….…………..……….……. 37

5. Correlations and Descriptive Statistics between the GTS subscales,

the ATLG, ATTI, HBSS, and AOSQ for CFA……………….…………….….….…. 38

6. Descriptive Statistics of Structural Model Variables…………………………..….…. 40

LIST OF FIGURES Figures Page

1. Proposed relationships between predictor variables intrinsic religiosity,

ethnocentrism, prosociality, and dependent variable trans negativity……...... 27

2. Structural model predicting trans negativity ...... ……………………………. 41

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Statement of the Problem

In March of 2016 the transgender subgroup of the LGBT community became a focus of national media when the state of North Carolina passed legislation that banned any municipality in the state from passing laws that would protect members of the LGBT community from discrimination. This legislation was created in response to the city of Raleigh, North Carolina passing a law that allowed transgender individuals to use public bathrooms that corresponded to their gender identity as opposed to their biological sex. While North Carolina is the only state that has successfully enacted a bill restricting transgender individuals from using bathrooms accommodating more than one person at a time based on biological sex, 16 additional states have considered adopting similar legislation in the year 2017 alone (Kralik, 2017).

One of the reasons that this issue is so problematic is because it symbolizes the relationship between individual and institution in the ongoing battle against prejudice. According to Dividio and colleagues, prejudice is “an individual-level attitude (whether subjectively positive or negative) toward groups and their members that creates or maintains hierarchical status relations between groups.” (2010, p. 7). In the case of the North Carolina bathroom ban, the city- level of government tried to alter existing rights for a minority group but met resistance at the state-level that managed to override changes to the hierarchical status quo. Although one city may have tried to allow transgender individuals to use the bathroom most congruent with their gender identity, the majority opinion held at the individual level could still influence other government officials to act on their behalf to maintain prejudice against transgender individuals.

One construct that appears to play an important role in driving prejudice toward transgender individuals is religiosity. The relationship between religiosity and acceptance of

2 others, particularly toward people whose identities contradict religious doctrine, appears to be complex and nuanced, but it does appear that religiosity plays a role in prejudice and intolerance

(e.g., Allport & Ross, 1967; Cygnar, Noel, & Jacobson, 1977; Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff,

2012; Leak & Finken, 2011). To further complicate existing research surrounding prejudice, particularly toward transgender individuals, it has been proposed that motivating factors and social context should be considered in addition to religious orientation to better explain contradictory results about prejudice (Griffin, Gorsuch, & Davis, 1987; Hunsberger & Jackson,

2005). Particularly, most religions tend to involve the creation of groups of individuals based on similar belief systems that can lead to ethnocentric responses toward individuals that are perceived as members of an out-group (Shinert & Ford, 1958). However, many religions endorse ideological doctrine that encourages more prosociality that can translate into increased care for others (Furrow, King, & White, 2004) and it is possible exposure to these messages could also reduce prejudice against others.

Although research has been conducted regarding attitudes toward transgender individuals and religiosity, there is still a need for a more accurate means of assessing how transphobia presents itself at the individual level. This includes examining the inventories being used in current research to measure how transphobia manifests itself, and is the first major focus of the present research. Additionally, no current research exists examining how ethnocentrism and prosociality interact with religiosity in the prediction of manifestations of transphobia. It is possible that a better understanding of how group values such as ethnocentrism and prosociality interact with religiosity could help present new ways to reduce prejudice against transgender individuals at both the individuals and systemic level. Configuring the relationship of transphobia to these other constructs represents the second major focus of the present research.

Historical Background: From Sex to Transgender

The manifestation of transphobia (sometimes referred to interchangeably as anti- transgender prejudice or cisgenderism) is the negative reactions to transgender individuals up to and including fear and violence (Lennon & Mistler, 2014). This form of prejudice grew out of the evolution of biological sex (often called sex assigned at birth) and gender identity from singular to differing constructs.

In early times dating back to ancient Greeks, humans were originally seen as all belonging to one biological sex (Laquer, 1992, pp. 25-31) however, classifications were still made between males and females based on the physical external anatomical configuration they possessed. During this time males were seen as superior and more fully formed with females given a subordinate role due to lacking what was seen as fully formed genitalia. This was a prevalent belief until Darwin proposed his theory of evolution that included the sexual selection hypothesis which theorized that differences in size and morphology for members of the animal kingdom are determined by the advantages provided in mate selection (Hedrick & Temeles,

1989). With his work on sexual dimorphism, Darwin recognized that differences exist within groups of males and groups of females as well as between them and these differences in mental and physical traits were coined secondary sex characteristics. Darwin particularly noticed that males tend to have greater variability in their secondary sex characteristics than females, or the variability hypothesis (Shields, 1982). Darwin did not place much further focus on determining the extent that males and females vary in their respective traits. However, other scientists such as

Ellis (1894) continued his study in this area as a means of demonstrating that males were superior in both amount of physical variability and mental capacity (Feingold, 1992). This debate continued to be controversial for quite some time with some critics, such as Pearson and

Hollingworth, arguing that societal circumstances and limitations prevented females from equal

4 access were to blame for mental variability and others, such as Thorndike, supporting male intellectual superiority.

Darwin providing an increased understanding of the differences and diversity within a biological sex was one step toward the development of gender as a distinct construct. Gender, in comparison to sex, is the amount of femininity or masculinity a person possesses that is not directly connected to biology (Stoller, 1968, p. 9) such as mannerisms, behaviors, or psychological mindset. Although the conception of gender was a separate construct from sex, it was still expected for gender and sex to correspond and related primarily to the conception of the differences in variability within a gender. This means that males were expected to have a varying degree of masculinity simply because they were males and females were expected to have a varying degree of femininity simply because they were females (Lewis & Weinraub, 1979).

However, increased empirical recognition of the possibility for biological ambiguity in determining sex at birth further changed the relationship between sex and gender. Although this biological ambiguity has existed throughout history (Feder, 2009) by a variety of names, scientifically it was termed hermaphroditism (later intersex and now Disorders of Sex

Development or DSD) and has been defined as the “atypical appearance of the external genitalia at birth where they differ from the usual development of either sex and create difficulty in sex assignment” (Hughes, 2002). The difficulty in assigning sex at birth helped spur research about the role society plays in the development of gender outside the biological influence of predetermined sex as well as sexual orientation.

Research involving individuals with DSD became a way for scientists to compare gender differences between infants who could have potentially been assigned either sex at birth and how the expectations of the assigned sex may influence gender development and sexual orientation.

One theory that was endorsed during the 1950s by such physicians as John Money was that the

5 gender identity of a child could be changed within the first 18 months after birth without any complications. These scientists believed that surgery to make an infant with DSD either male or female during this window would allow them to adopt that gender permanently (Fausto-Sterling,

2000). One reason these beliefs were endorsed was due to recognition that the environment plays a strong influence on development through the reinforcement of gender-congruent behavior

(Lewis & Weinraub, 1979). These first experimental surgical treatments on individuals with DSD were during a time when homosexuality was still considered a mental illness with diagnostic criteria included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the individuals with DSD were not immune from stigma. Particularly, given the lens of pathology that homosexuality was viewed through, individuals who did not unequivocally fall into the expected male or female categories were viewed in a similar pathological light. The relationship between DSD and sexual orientation was often conflated because there was not a clear picture as to which side of the binary an individual with DSD belonged to and, therefore, the opposite sex they would be expected to be attracted to by society (Feder, 2009).

While many individuals with DSD who underwent surgery did eventually adopt the respective gender identity as Money predicted (Stoller, 1968), this was not a universal result. One of the most well-known cases where surgery did not result in the corresponding identity as presumed by Money’s theory was the case of David Reimer. David Reimer was not born with

DSD but was treated with corrective surgery by Money after a circumcision accident at eight months old resulted in the loss of his penis. While David became Joan (from his original name

John), his twin brother was used as a control to determine developmental differences in gender.

However, as Joan, David never fully adjusted and eventually was treated to return him as much as possible to his male physiology at the age of 14 when he threatened suicide if left as female.

David tried to live the rest of his life as a typical male after restorative surgeries, including

6 marrying and adopting children, but the psychological trauma he endured from his experiences

(as well as accusations of abuse) was more than he could overcome and he eventually commit suicide when he was 38 years old (Beh & Diamond, 2005). This seems to indicate that gender identity development is more complex than Money originally posited.

In addition to surgical procedures, advances in the understanding of genes and chromosomes have added further complexity to the concepts of sex and gender. The introduction of DSD originated with determining which sex to assign at birth based on visible genitalia but now includes disorders related to additional or missing sex chromosomes. Females are typically born with the chromosome composition of XX while males are typically born with the composition of XY. These disorders include differences in the composition of the XX and XY configuration such as XXY, XXXY, XXYY, and XXXYY. In addition to chromosome composition, the amount and type of hormones a fetus is exposed to can impact whether it results in the infant being labeled as having DSD. For example, too much androgen during pregnancy could result in a more masculinized female while too little could result in a more feminized male

(Hird, 2000). However, if the genitals are not abnormally developed, it is possible that other chromosomal compositions or hormonal impact on development may exist that have not been reported or discovered.

DSD may have created difficulties in understanding the identification of gender based on sex but transgender identities have created difficulties in understanding the certainty of gender with regard to identifiable sex (Hird, 2000). Transgender individuals, like individuals with DSD, have existed throughout time but increased emphasis on this identity also began after the discovery of sex and gender as individual constructs. During the 19th century, the concepts of transgender and homosexuality were often seen as synonymous due to work by Ulrich with proposing that some feminine men actually had the soul of a woman trapped in a man’s body

7 which he name urnings. However, because popular views of male homosexuals involved a lack of masculinity, many believed the term urning to be another name for homosexuality (Drescher,

2010).

Conflation of homosexuality and transgender can also be attributed to Freudian theories about normality. Freud presented many theories drawing on sexuality to explain human behavior.

In the case of homosexuality, Freud posited that some male homosexuals want to experience what their female counterparts are allowed to with other men and in order to cope with these desires they may come to identify with the females they envy (Murphy, 1984). Furthermore, Freud also proposed that male homosexuals sometimes primarily identify with their mothers instead of the normal bond with their fathers and this can lead to femininity in adulthood (Stoller, 1968).

Transgender individuals were first classified as transvestites and different from homosexuals in

1910 by Hirschfield but the construct transgender was brought to the forefront under the name term transsexual when sex-reassignment surgery was performed in 1952 (Drescher, 2010;

Stryker, 2008, p. 38). This surgery was performed to transform a man named George Jorgenson into Christine Jorgenson with all the external genitalia that being female entailed. This was not the first surgery of this type to happen but Jorgenson, a former member of the military, was reported about actively in the media at a time that the United States was garnering increased political attention for participation in WWII which lead to questions of the existing masculine image of conquering heroes (Stryker, 2008, p. 48). Being transsexual, however, was often seen as a transitional identity for individuals who elected to undergo sex-reassignment surgery as they changed from one binary identity to another (Hird, 2000).

With increased understanding of sex, gender, and DSD, the term transsexual changed to transgender and was first used in the 1970s as a way to describe individuals who live their lives as a gender that is not consistent with their sex assigned at birth (Drescher, 2010). This term was

8 predominantly used by individuals who identified as the opposite sex than that assigned at birth which lead to many people seeing transgender individuals as a “man trapped in a woman’s body”

(MTF or male-to-female) or vice versa (FTM or female-to-male) who desired the same relationships and status as their counterparts born into those bodies (Hird, 2000). In the face of ambiguity, these surgeries and labels seem to have enabled society to try to keep their notions of the binary as was attempted with individuals with DSD. This conceptualization of transgender has expanded over time and now includes a myriad of identities under a trans umbrella that include identities such as genderqueer, genderfluid, and agender that do not adhere directly to the binary gender expected by society. One reason for the increased recognition and complexity of this identity is simply because of the awareness brought by individuals such as Jorgenson who provided a name to a previously nameless experience. Since transgender is used most frequently for the binary conceptualization of gender, these additional names were added to encompass a diversity of gender expression.

Increased recognition of transgender identities has also resulted in a new mental illness being added to the DSM for these individuals. The first instance of transgender identity being addressed in official diagnostic terms was in the third edition of the DSM in 1980: gender identity disorder for children (GIDC) and transsexualism. Seven years later, at the same time that homosexuality was removed completely due to its increase in perceived normativity, a third diagnosis was added to the DSM: gender identity disorder of adolescence and adulthood, nontranssexual type. The names of the mental illness for transgender individuals in the DSM have continued to be revised with increased understanding of gender identity and the experiences of being transgender. The fifth, and most current, edition of the DSM was published in 2013 and now uses the term gender dysphoria for diagnosis of transgender individuals. Gender dysphoria was chosen as a means of assessing the distress experienced by an individual who identifies with

9 or wants to be the other gender (Lev, 2013). One reason gender dysphoria and other diagnoses surrounding trans individuals are still being used is because those who were involved in the work groups helping update both the DSM and the International Classifications of Diseases (ICD) recognized that society at large was not yet ready to accept the idea of transitioning from gender to another as a normative experience and further revisions will be necessary as this perception changes in the future (Drescher, 2013).

Although gender dysphoria puts an emphasis on the experience of feeling incongruence over gender identity, it still has been presented in terms of a binary gender structure that may not apply to all who identify as transgender. The adoption of the term gender dysphoria is also problematic because it is used as a necessary criterion to gain access through insurance companies to hormonal or surgical transitional services typically associated with the binary gender structure even if there is no experience of distress (Drescher, 2013). Finally, the continued use of mental health criteria for this subgroup of the LGBT community seems to imply that individuals with this diagnosis have been deemed in need of curing at an institutional level, as was seen with homosexuality and conversion therapy before it, (Drescher, 2010) which can perpetuate this dismissive and medical-modeled sentiment at an individual level.

The transgender subgroup of the LGBT community is incredibly diverse and, while definitions are necessary for understanding transphobia, this can also lead to assumptions of group homogeneity. For the sake of maximal inclusion, I will be using the term trans whenever applicable to acknowledge that the ways individuals choose to self-identify in this community expands far beyond the traditional binary definition of transgender (e.g. MtF also known as male- to-female and FtM also known as female to male). Additionally, I will being using female and male rather than man and woman, regardless of whether sex or gender are being discussed, due to their feminine and masculine connotations without assigning specific societal roles.

Chapter 2

TRANSPHOBIA AND RELATED CONSTRUCTS

The fact that an entire state decided to enact legislation against the trans community was not an isolated incident. This is indicative of a larger problem, transphobia, that is not entirely understood but for which a rudimentary framework already exists.

Transphobia

Transphobia can take different forms depending on the beliefs people hold about trans individuals and the environmental influences in their everyday lives. The environment of any given individual is ultimately influenced by the societal expectations and norms of their time. For example, in the 18th and 19th centuries it would not be normative (and in many places illegal) for a female to wear pants but would not be seen as crossing gender lines in many societies today

(Feinberg, 1996, p. 88). Although it has become normative for females to wear pants, laws banning dressing in clothing of the opposite sex were established as late as the 1970s in the

United States that could result in fines and/or being put under arrest (Stryker, 2008, pp. 32-36).

One well-known example of transphobia on the individual level is the story of Brandon Teena.

Brandon Teena was a female-to-male transgender individual who was raped and killed by two male friends in the town of Falls City, Nebraska after they discovered that he was not assigned male as sex at birth (Sloop, 2000). Transphobia does not necessarily have to originate in the cisgender (not transgender) or heterosexual world. For example, some feminist groups will not accept transwomen as members because they do not view them as really being women or having experienced the same oppression (Stryker, 2008, p. 103). While scientific advances have evolved the empiricism of sex and gender, the existence of people who fall under the trans umbrella in much of the Westernized world still seems to be viewed from a lens of pathology and abnormality.

However, not all cultures hold negative views of people who fall under the trans umbrella. One the earliest known trans identities included the Berdaches found in certain Native

American cultures. The term Berdache is the derogatory French term meaning male prostitute and has been used interchangeably with Two-Spirit by researchers to describe individuals who do not identify as singularly male or female but rather a fluidity of both. Two-Spirit is the most recognized name for Native American trans individuals but each tribe tends to have their own name for these individuals (e.g. Kwidό, Winkte, and Nάdleehί ). Native American tribes, such as the Navajo, Lakota, Tewa, and Zuni often accepted these individuals regardless of their gender identity. Some clans not only accepted these individuals but held them akin to holy, although this is not a universal sentiment. Two-Spirits are seen as a legitimate identity with nuanced categorization and a variety of roles that have been captured by scholars in terms such as

“alternate gender” and “third gender” (Epple, 1998; Schnarch, 1992). In addition to Two-Spirits, there are various Pacific Islander trans individuals who serve functional roles in family and social life. For example, in Samoa and Tonga, there are trans individuals known as the Fa’afafini (or fakaleiti) who are raised as women and adopt female mannerisms and behaviors. The term

Fa’afafini translates to “in the manner of a woman” and, similar with their Native American counterparts, does not translate directly to Westernized binary categorizations of sex and gender.

Oftentimes, being fa’afafini resulted from parents recognizing their son was more feminine and then raising them in the fashion as they would their daughters. Although raised as women, fa’afafini still are afforded greater personal freedom and autonomy than women who were born biologically female. This fa’afafini tradition extends to times before Western culture made contact with the Pacific islands, indicating there was a lack of outside influence on the construction of gender roles. These individuals can also play essential roles in the families such as acting as caregivers and handling other domestic responsibilities when there are not enough

12 female children to care for ailing or aging parents (Chen, 2014; Farran, 2010). Furthermore, in

India, Hijras (or Aravanis) are trans individuals born biologically male and are considered either

“not-men” who adopt feminine roles in all areas of life or “third gender” who are castrated and play spiritual roles similar to priestesses such as blessing newborn children (Mahalingam, 2003).

This is not an exhaustive list of cultures accepting of trans individuals but many of them do seem to exist outside of mainstream Western cultural influence.

Gender Role Expectations

One of the reasons that certain cultures are more or less accepting of trans individuals and gender deviant behavior is due to the differing expectations around gender roles and essentialism.

The construction of gender is not one that is universally done within a binary framework but the

Westernized world has a tendency to frame all genders with this bias. It was not until the 1980s, that the dichotomous categorization of gender by Westernized culture became a topic of scholarly scrutiny due to the increased quantity of anthropological works indicating a widespread existence of potential “third genders” and the tendency for researchers to shoehorn a construct they did not understand into the language expected of a binary and essentialist perspective (Towle & Morgan,

2002).

One reason that the essentialist perspective is so problematic within the context of viewing gender is that it acts as a means of describing the essential elements of what it means to be a particular gender. This essentialist perspective breaks individuals down into the characteristics that are usually associated with traditional gender roles via heuristics as an expectation of how individuals should present themselves and act in the world (Buck, 2016).

This type of categorization of gender tends to be strongly guided by, and reinforcing of, male and female stereotypes and role expectations. McGarty, Yzerbty, and Spears (2002) propose that stereotypes exist because they help individuals understand the world around them, save time in

13 making judgments, and are beliefs shared by groups of people (p. 2). Stereotypes about males and females, particularly, tend to be guided by beliefs that people are distinctly different based on personality, sex, and gender (Hoffman & Hurst, 1990). For example, women tend to be seen as more nurturing and caretaking while men are more aggressive or assertive. Also, females tend to be smaller in build so also are deemed physically weaker and in need of protection by their male counterparts. Additionally, it has traditionally been expected for women to take care of the home and children, regardless of their occupational responsibilities, while the men are expected to be the primary breadwinner of the household. Hoffman and Hurst (1990) argue that it is not merely exposure to these stereotypes that drive perpetuation of them but also that these types of beliefs persist as a rationalization for the sex-based division of labor. Specifically, in an experimental study comparing women categorized as working as entrepreneurs vs. educators, they found that people have a tendency to rationalize the females categorized as working in the more nurturing job as doing so because it better suited their personalities (a trait often seen as static). This seems to act as a means of explaining and understanding why females and males are in certain roles even if there are sufficient counterexamples in the everyday world to show this is not a consistent role that genders play. The essentialist perspective is also less likely to make distinctions between gender and biological sex and can result in gender being seen as immutable and unchanging, a phenomenon similar to implicit person theories.

Implicit person theories was first proposed by Dweck (1988) to explain how people view intelligence as being either a fixed (entity-based) or able to change over time (incrementally- based). Implicit person theories has been demonstrated to extend beyond learning motivation and intellectual ability in terms of self-attributes to domains such as interpersonal relationships, morality, and the world at large (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Research on implicit person theories has shown people who view the world through an entity-based lens, rather than an incrementally-

14 based lens, tend to rely more heavily on extreme trait assessments of others without sufficient social information about the target individuals. The assignment of extreme trait judgments can either both positive or negative and is the same process found in stereotyping behaviors (Levy,

Stroessner, & Dweck, 1998). However, the way that people process information about others is also related to whether or not they are confronted with information that is consistent or inconsistent with the stereotypes they already endorse. Specifically, individuals who approach the world with an entity-based theory are more likely to pay attention to information that confirm their stereotypes while those who endorse an incrementally-based theory are less likely to attend to traits that confirm stereotypes or will search for additional information about inconsistent information. This means that people who endorse entity person theory are less likely to change their belief in stereotypes about others even in the face of disconfirming information (Plaks,

Stroessner, Dweck, & Sherman, 2016). In terms of trans people, this could result in a lower likelihood in believing that someone could change so completely rom who they were as an entity, therefore relying on more extreme stereotypes such as trans people being perverted or having a mental illness.

Another reason that certain individuals differ in their acceptance of trans individuals is due to the amount of conscious contact they have had with this group of people. This is related to the Interpersonal Contact Theory originally proposed by Allport (1954). Interpersonal Contact

Theory asserts that the amount and quality of contact a person has with a given out-group will impact how positively or negatively they will view individuals belonging to that group. However,

Allport also recognized that interpersonal relationships are not simplistic and that four conditions must be present for the contact between an individual and someone representing an out-group to be positive. Specifically, Allport believed that positive contact between different group members must allow for the members to see each other as equal in status, involve common goals, require

15 cooperation between members of both groups, and be supported by authority figures, laws, and/or customs. While groups who meet all of Allport’s four conditions tend to report the most dramatic decrease in prejudice toward out-groups, as long as the contact is nonthreathening and voluntary, any contact seems to help reduce prejudice. Interestingly, having an in-group friend who is also friends with someone from an out-group can also help reduce prejudice. (Pettigrew, Tropp,

Wagner, & Christ, 2011). Additionally, as long as the group is not seen as threatening, the size of a minority group growing can also decrease prejudice due to an increased chance of exposure

(Wagner, Christ, Pettigrew, Stellmacher, & Wolf, 2006)

Although the LGBT community is typically viewed as a cohesive one, issues with trans individuals are also found within the LGBT community. Specifically, gay men tend to have the greatest difficulty in including and accepting trans individuals while lesbian women tend to experience greater ambivalence around this issue (Stone, 2009). This less than welcoming environment is problematic for contact with both heteronormative cisgender individuals and the

LGBT community because less inclusion within a community that trans individuals are supposed to belong to can also decreases the likelihood of them revealing themselves to outsiders that are viewed as even less accepting. However, certain environments do allow for positive contact, such as schools, through the use of panel presentations. Panel presentations allow for a safe space for trans individuals to share their personal stories and answer questions from audiences as a means of educating people. Research has shown that panel presentations, particularly when followed by a lecture on trans issues, can significantly reduce prejudice and transphobia. The panel presentation can be replaced with a lecture on trans issues but with reduced impact on prejudice

(Walch, Sinkkanen, Swain, Francisco, Breaux, & Sjorberg, 2012).

Religiosity

Religiosity appears to play an especially important role in predicting negative reactions toward trans individuals. The relationship between religiosity and acceptance of others, particularly toward people whose identities contradict religious doctrine, appears to be complex and nuanced, but it does appear that religiosity plays a role in prejudice and intolerance (e.g.,

Allport & Ross, 1967; Cygnar, Noel, & Jacobson, 1977; Johnson, Rowatt, & LaBouff, 2012;

Leak & Finken, 2011). The ways that a person approaches faith-based principles are a complex matter and, in an attempt to parse out religiosity by differing motivation and maturity, Allport and

Ross (1967) distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. Intrinsic orientation was intended to embody the need to internalize the religious beliefs to which individuals have committed themselves while extrinsic orientation was intended to capture the goal of utilizing religion for some of its associated aspects such as providing an opportunity to establish social relationships, offering a sense of safety, or enhancing feelings of moral superiority (Allport & Ross, 1967). At its original inception, intrinsic religiosity was seen as embodying universal compassion toward others while extrinsic religiosity was more judgmental due to the observed likelihood for the extrinsically religious to discriminate along racial lines in comparison to the intrinsically religious. However, both intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations have been linked to prejudice toward minority groups based on both sexual orientation and race (e.g. Fulton, Gorsuch, & Maynard, 1999; Kirkpatrick, 1993) but these relationships have proven to be complex and contradictory with both religious orientations positively predicting prejudice in different studies.

For the assessment of prejudice toward trans individuals, specifically, the intersection of gender role expectations and sexual orientation must be considered, further complicating an unclear picture. For example, previous research has shown that intrinsic religiosity, but not

17 extrinsic religiosity, is related to greater endorsement of traditional gender roles and the expectation for a woman to stay home with young children over working outside the home by both genders (Jones & McNamara, 1991). Research has also shown contradictory results on whether intrinsic or extrinsic religiosity is more related with increased prejudice toward individuals that are not heterosexual (e.g. homosexual, bisexual). While Batson and colleagues

(1999) found that individuals with higher levels of intrinsic religiosity are more likely to discriminate against gay individuals, others have found that this likelihood to discriminate extends to higher levels of extrinsic religiosity as well as lower levels of intrinsic religiosity when taking into account the perception of violations of religious values with regard to promiscuity

(Mak & Tsang, 2008). Further research by Anderson and Koc (2015) has found that extrinsic religiosity, but not intrinsic religiosity, is more likely to predict explicit negative attitudes toward both lesbians and gay men. Gay men were seen as more negative than lesbians in this study and this was related to cultural biases in Muslim faith that hold more traditional gender role beliefs about masculinity. This coincides with research indicating that intrinsic religiosity can relate to lower or higher levels of prejudice depending on whether the religious belief system encourages tolerance toward the specific out-group in question (Batson & Stocks, 2005).

Intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity have yielded such inconsistent results in terms of negativity and positivity toward others depending on the out-group in question that two additional religious orientations have since been proposed: quest and fundamentalism. The quest religious orientation was proposed by Batson (1976) and Batson and Ventis (1982) as a way to help explain the cases when individuals who are more religious are also more tolerant. While extrinsic religiosity can be seen as a “means” of using religion and intrinsic religiosity can be seen as the

“end” in religious practice, quest orientation is the “journey” to finding religion (Batson &

Schoenrade, 1991). Specifically, this religious journey for individuals involves recognizing that

18 the answers provided by religiosity are not always clear and using this knowledge to open- mindedly question doctrine to better understand their particular faith (Batson & Schoenrade,

1991). Much research has been conducted on the quest religious orientation and its relationship to tolerance of others. For example, research examining has shown that individuals high in the quest orientation have a tendency to “hate the sin, but love the sinner” as long as the sinner was not actively promoting intolerance toward others. Specifically, individuals high in quest would still be willing to give someone who was anti-gay money toward a trip as long as the trip was not specifically aimed at attending an anti-gay event (Batson, Denton, & Vollmecke, 2008).

Furthermore, research has shown that higher levels of quest religiosity have been related to lower levels of both prejudice and negativity toward homosexuality (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992).

Religious fundamentalism was created to reflect the opposite approach to religiosity than seen with quest: greater close-mindedness, less tolerance, self-centeredness about the religious group one is affiliated with, and greater emphasis on the fundamental content of the religious beliefs of one’s faith (Bizumic & Duckitt, 2007). Extensive research has been conducted on the relationship between religious fundamentalism and prejudice and consistently shown that individuals with greater levels of religious fundamentalism also tend to have greater levels of prejudicial beliefs such as homophobia and transphobia (e.g. Kirkpatrick, 1993; Nagoshi et al.,

2008) as well as greater endorsement of traditional gender norms (Vincent, Parrott, & Peterson,

2011). However, while this relationship between fundamentalism and prejudice has been consistent, the definition of religious fundamentalism is often framed in terms of Judeo-Christian belief systems that may not consistently extend to other religious belief systems and may not always be the best orientation framework for understanding prejudice (Hunsberger & Jackson,

2005). While there have been some inconsistencies with the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and prejudice, the fact that it does not assume religious affiliation but still relates to

19 both gender role expectations and reactions to values violations makes this orientation a stronger candidate for further research on prejudice against trans individuals than religious fundamentalism. This is especially true since little is currently known about how intrinsic religiosity relates to transphobia because of the emphasis in existing research on religious fundamentalism.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism was originally coined by Sumner (1906) to refer to the tendency for individuals to place the groups they claim membership to at the center of their world and to view all other groups in reference to their own (Wrench, Corrigan, McCroskey, & Punyanunt-Carter,

2006). More recent definitions of ethnocentrism have expanded Sumner’s framework to describe include the use of ethnocentrism as a means of defending one’s in-group values and culture by viewing the in-group as superior to others. Given the polarizing nature of creating in-groups versus out-groups, it is not surprising that ethnocentrism has also been linked to various forms of prejudice and intolerance. For example, Americans students who have traveled abroad but did not have not have much contact with foreigners during their travels are more likely to hold higher levels of ethnocentrism than those who had contact with foreigners. Additionally, when comparing Japanese students (a relatively homogenous group of individuals) to American students (a less homogenous group of individuals), Japanese students express significantly higher levels of ethnocentrism than their American counterparts (Neulip, Chaudoir, & McCroskey,

2001). Further research has also shown that higher levels of ethnocentrism are also related to higher levels of homophobia (Wrench & McCroskey, 2003) and anti-minority attitudes (Bizumic

& Duckitt, 2007). Due to the complexity of defining trans identities, little is currently known about how ethnocentrism relates specifically to transphobia.

One reason that ethnocentrism is consistently related to prejudice toward various out- groups may be that the ways that members of different groups interact and the limited contact between them. The messages that we are taught by our specific cultures about out-groups and how to interact with them may play a role in the manifestation of prejudice because of the values, assumptions, and communicative expectations people carry with them about themselves and each other that rely on stereotypes in substitution for knowledge. Given the fact that we all are raised with messages about how we are to interact with other people, ethnocentrism is generally viewed as a universal construct (Neulip, Chaudoir, & McCroskey, 2001). While ethnocentrism may be related to prejudice in its higher levels, less extreme levels of ethnocentrism has been demonstrated to encourage positive outcomes such as in-group cohesion and bonding and is not entirely a problematic issue to be solved (Wrench et al., 2006).

Religious affiliation is one area that can both benefit from moderate levels and exhibit the negativity seen with higher levels of ethnocentrism. While most religious orders encourage a sense of brotherhood and family for those within the ranks of their faith, the level of devoutness that a person experiences may turn this sense of community into one of elitism(Batson & Stocks,

2005). Specifically, those who endorse a more intrinsically religious orientation also are more likely to have higher self-esteem and, when combined with devoutness, this can result in a greater sense of ethnocentrism and superiority over those outside of their particular faith. This seems contradictory to the universality of many religions that teach universal compassion and brotherhood but many of these same religions also teach that followers are given an elevated status as “saved” or “chosen” that differentiates them from outsiders (Batson & Stocks, 2005). It is possible that encouraging tolerance at the institutional level may also promote a reduction in ethnocentric and prejudicial attitudes. This reflects research performed in the Netherlands that found that church members were more ethnocentric than non-members but that the core members

21 of the church who heard more sermons on tolerance also tended to exhibit lower prejudice for ethnic minorities but also stronger ethnocentric orientation toward their religious group (Eisinga,

Felling, & Peters, 1990).

Prosociality

Prosocial motivation has been a difficult construct to understand because it often requires determining internal driving forces for the actions of an individual such as helping, cooperation, and conflict resolution. However, prosocial motivation research has shown that individuals who exhibit prosocial behaviors, such as altruism and social accommodation motivation, also tend to exhibit less prejudice toward out-groups. Social accommodation motivation was coined by

Allport (1924) and refers to the process of adjusting one’s thoughts, behaviors, and feelings based on the real, imagined, or perceived presence of others (Graziano & Habashi, 2010). One proposed reason for the link between prosociality and reduced prejudice is that individuals with higher levels of social accommodation motivation may hold fewer prejudices to begin with than their less motivated counterparts and this allows them to be more emotionally responsive and express greater sympathy toward members of out-groups. These individuals may also be more likely to find positive attributes in others, even when experiencing conflict with them, which can reduce the negative light shed on outsiders. However, is also possible that individuals who experience higher levels of social accommodation motivation still experience prejudice but their prosocial desires outweigh their negativity and this results in suppressing prejudicial responses for the greater good of the community as the environment dictates (Graziano & Habashi, 2010).

Religious teachings tend to hand down prosocial guiding moral principles that include the treatment of others but the existence of these directions does not necessarily mean followers adhere to them. Previous research has shown that highly religious individuals, regardless of orientation, to tend to exhibit less prosocial behaviors if the target of their actions violates their

22 religious values (Preston, Ritter, & Hernandez, 2010). Even the type of helping behavior a person chooses can vary based on religious orientation. For example, more closed-minded religious orientations have a greater tendency to blame the out-group asking for help and expect them to change to help themselves while more open-minded and symbolic religious orientations tend to prefer empowerment and direct assistance (Preston, Ritter, & Hernandez, 2010). However, the fact that many religions have an omnipotent figurehead, such as God or Allah, that knows what followers are thinking and doing may allow for prosociality in the face of existing prejudice because of the presence of social accommodation motivations. Although these figureheads are not necessarily tangible, they can act as a filter for devotees to reflect upon in the same manner as a human presence (Norenzayan & Shariff, 2008; Preston, Ritter, & Hernandez, 2010).

All of these findings about prejudice, religiosity, ethnocentrism, and prosociality seem to suggest a complex picture that is far from understood. Individuals who are religious do not always act in prejudicial or prosocial ways but with the addition of ethnocentrism and less open- minded religious orientations the outcome becomes more certain. There is a dearth of existing research that specifically addresses prejudice as it relates to trans individuals with regard to ethnocentrism and prosociality. Furthermore, there is no current research that addresses transphobia when taking into consideration, ethnocentrism, and religious orientation.

Chapter 3

MEASURING TRANSPHOBIA

There are three inventories that are currently used that measure attitudes toward individuals belonging to the trans community. One inventory is the Attitudes Toward

Transgender Individuals (ATTI) that was created by Walch, Ngamake, Francisco, Stitt, and

Shingler (2012) as a way to measure positive attitudes toward the trans community. This is a unidimensional measure that contains 20 questions using a 5-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Agree through 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree to 5=Strongly Disagree.

While this scale is measuring transphobia, the response format allows for more questions that ask positive opinions about trans individuals. Walch et al. modified questions that had already been validated from the Heterosexual Attitudes Toward Homosexuals scale (HATH; Larsen et al.,

1980), such as “I would feel comfortable if I learned that my best friend was a transgendered individual.” and the Index of Homophobia scale (IHP; Hudson & Ricketts, 1980). Additional questions were also created to capture attitudes specific only to transphobia such as

“Transgendered individuals are really just closeted gays.” and “Transgendered individuals should not be allowed to cross dress in public.” The internal reliability of the ATTI has demonstrated good reliabilities of a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 and .96 in two different samples during scale creation indicating consistency in measuring transphobic attitudes (Walch et al., 2012).

Another commonly used transphobia scale is the Transphobia Scale (TS) which was created by Nagoshi and colleagues in 2008. This is a unidimensional measure that contains eight items using a 7-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Completely Disagree to

7=Completely Agree. Items from this scale include “I don’t like it when someone is ﬂirting with me, and I can’t tell if they are a man or a woman.” and “I am uncomfortable around people who don’t conform to traditional gender roles, (e.g., aggressive women or emotional men).” The TS

24 has been used extensively and has consistently yielded good internal reliability with Cronbach’s alpha in the .90s (Warriner, Nagoshi, & Nagoshi, 2013).

The third of the most widely used inventories for measuring transphobia is the Genderism and Transphobia Scale (GTS) which was created by Hill and Willoughby in 2005. This is the only existing scale measuring transphobia that is not unidimensional in nature and contains two subscales: Genderism/Transphobia and Gender-Bashing. The Genderism/Transphobia subscale of the GTS measures irrational fear or disgust toward trans individuals and negativity toward noncompliance with traditional gender roles, while the Gender-Bashing subscale of the GTS measures harassment or violence toward trans individuals. This original inventory contained 32 items across the two subscales using 7-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly

Disagree through 4=Neutral to 7=Strongly Agree. Sample items from the

Genderism/Transphobia subscale include “If I found out that my best friend was changing their sex, I would freak out.” and “Men who cross-dress for sexual pleasure disgust me.” and from the

Gender Bashing subscale include “I have beat up men who act like sissies.” and “If a man wearing makeup and a dress, who also spoke in a high voice, approached my child, I would use physical force to stop him.”

Hill and Willoughby (2005) had originally intended the GTS to contain three subscales:

Genderism, Transphobia, and Gender-Bashing. However, during their statistical analyses and replication of this scale they determined that the Genderism and Transphobia items did not exhibit enough independence from one another to warrant separate subscales. Their solution to this issue was to collapse these subscales together leading to the final two subscales seen today.

Since its inception, the GTS has been subjected to scrutiny with regard to its psychometric properties due to its multidimensional nature. Three revised and shortened versions of the GTS exist retaining the two-factor structure: a proposed 12-item short-form revision based

25 on a Spanish sample (Carrera-Fernandez, Lameiras-Fernandez, Rodriquez-Castro, & Vallejo-

Medina, 2014) and a proposed 22-item full-scale together with a 13-item short-form created using

Midwest and Southeastern U.S. samples (Tebbe, Moradi, & Ege, 2014).

Chapter 4

PRESENT RESEARCH

Purpose

Given that trans identities are becoming more commonplace, it is important that we have an adequate means to assess when negative attitudes and behaviors (e.g., prejudice, discrimination) are directed toward this subgroup. While unidimensional inventories are important, a working multidimensional inventory can also lend greater nuance to a complicated area of study. The GTS is a good candidate for such a multidimensional inventory but more work was needed to determine exactly which factor structure is most appropriate to reliably measure this type of prejudice.

This study involved three phases of analysis. The purpose of the first phase of the present study was to address the structure of the GTS to determine which, if any, of these versions of the

GTS may be able to demonstrate generalizability to new geographic locations. This phase also addressed which of the proposed factor structures could be reproduced as psychometrically viable by evaluating the existing versions of the GTS. Specifically, confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate the four existing versions. The second phase of this analysis addressed revisions of the GTS that appeared to be warranted given the results of the evaluations in the first phase.

Specifically, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was used to refine the existing factor structure of the GTS followed by an assessment of reliability and convergent validity. Additionally, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the newly proposed GTS factor structure together with a second assessment of its reliability and its convergent validity with other measures. The purpose of the third phase of this study was to address a possible dynamic that might underlie the relationship between religiosity, particularly intrinsic religious orientation, and prejudice toward the trans community. Specifically, this study evaluated a structural equation

27 model of Intrinsic Religiosity predicting Trans Negativity with Ethnocentrism and Belief in

Humanity acting as mediators in the analysis.

Hypotheses

The proposed structural model explaining the relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity,

Trans Negativity, Ethnocentrism, and Prosociality is presented in Figure 1. This model proposed that individuals with higher levels of Intrinsic Religiosity would also demonstrate higher levels of

Ethnocentrism and Prosociality (Hypothesis 1); individuals with higher levels of Ethnocentrism would also demonstrate higher levels of Trans Negativity (Hypothesis 2); individuals with higher levels of Prosociality would demonstrate lower levels of Trans Negativity (Hypothesis 3); individuals with higher levels of Intrinsic Religiosity would also demonstrate higher levels of

Trans Negativity (Hypothesis 4); and that Ethnocentrism and Prosociality would act individually and together as mediators between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity (Hypothesis 5).

Figure 1

Figure 1. Proposed relationships between predictor variables intrinsic religiosity, ethnocentrism, prosociality and dependent variable trans negativity. Intrinsic religiosity and ethnocentrism were proposed to have a positive relationship and prosociality to have a negative relationship with trans* negativity.

Chapter 5

EXAMINATION OF THE GTS FACTOR STRUCTURE

Method

Participants

Data for this study was collected from 576 undergraduate psychology students recruited from the human subjects pool at a university in Northern California. Twelve participants did not answer all of the questions on the Genderism and Transphobia Scale and were removed from the data set before any analyses were performed. Given the nature of the research question, all 91 individuals who did not identify as cisgender and heterosexual were also excluded before the analysis step in this study. The remaining 473 participants ranged in age from 15 to 63 (M =

21.20, SD = 5.42). There was no predominant ethnic group identity indicated by participants although a majority identified as cisgender females (81%). See Table 1 for further detailed demographic information. Students received one hour credit toward the required three hour research participation requirement in exchange for their participation in this study.

Table 1 Demographic Characteristics for Cisgender Heterosexual Participants Participant Characteristic n % Gender Female 385 81.4 Male 88 18.6 Ethnicity African American/Black 22 4.7 Asian/Asian American/Pacific 120 25.4 Islander European/European 121 25.6 American/White Hispanic/Latino(a) 129 27.3 Middle Eastern 7 1.5 Native American 2 0.4 Multiple Ethnicities 60 12.7 Other 12 2.5

Materials

Participants completed a set of inventories (described in the second and third phases) in addition to the original version of the GTS (Hill & Willoughby, 2005). Previous research has shown that the GTS and its subscales are correlated with anti-LGBT attitudes and traditional gender role acceptance (Hill & Willoughby, 2005; Tebbe et al., 2014).

Results

Data Screening

In addition to screening for participants who belonged to groups that could confound analysis results, all data for the GTS was checked to verify the assumptions of normality, such as skew and kurtosis, were met along with addressing any potential errors in scoring and/or data entry.

CFAs

In order to determine the fit of the previously proposed factor structures of the GTS we performed CFAs using IBM SPSS Amos 22 with maximum-likelihood estimation for each of the four proposed inventories. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), the

Incremental Fit Index (IFI), and the standardized root mean-square residual (RMSEA) were used to determine the viability of the factor structures across the different inventories. Guidelines for evaluating minimally acceptable levels of model fit for this analysis included a CFI, IFI, and TLI

> .90 and a RMSEA < .10 (Kline, 2005; Meyers, Gamst, & Guarino, 2017; Schumaker & Lomax,

2016).

The obtained fit statistics for this set of analyses are presented in Table 2. We first evaluated the originally proposed 32-item two-factor structure of the GTS (Hill & Willoughby,

2005) and determined that it yielded a less than acceptable fit. We then assessed the three proposed revisions of the inventory. First, the 12-item revision of the GTS (Carrera-Fernandez et

30 al., 2014) was examined and it yielded a poor fit. Second, we assessed the 22-item revision of the

GTS (Tebbe et al., 2014), which also yielded a less than acceptable fit. Finally, we assessed the

13-item short-form revision of the GTS (Tebbe et al., 2014) and it did yield a good fit of the data.

Table 2 Fit Statistics for Existing Versions of the GTS CFI TLI IFI RMSEA[CI] χ2 Full 32 Item (Hill & Willoughby, .798 .784 .799 .087[.083, .090] 2102.640* 2005) 12-Item Short Scale (Carrera- .825 .782 .826 .120[.109, .131] 411.835* Fernandez et al., 2014) 22-Item Revision (Tebbe et al, 2014) .899 .888 .900 .076[.071, .082] 778.018* 13-Item Short Scale (Tebbe et al., .952 .941 .952 .070[.059, .080] 210.008* 2014)

Note: * p < .001

Given the fit of the 13-item version of the GTS, we examined the reliability of this form for the full item set and for its two individual subscales using a Cronbach’s alpha of .70 as criterion for minimally acceptable reliability. The full 13-item form of the GTS yielded a

Cronbach’s alpha of .864 and the Genderism/Transphobia subscale yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of

.899, each meeting the minimum standard for reliability, but the Gender Bashing subscale fell well short of this standard with a Cronbach’s alpha of .508. However, the construct intended to be assessed by the Gender Bashing subscale was deemed sufficiently important to trans-related research and discrimination to warrant considering an alternative factor structure that would support it together with the Genderism/Transphobia subscale. Thus, using the data from our existing sample, we next attempted to determine whether a somewhat different factor structure would better represent this inventory in the second phase of this study.

CHAPTER 6

REVISION OF THE GTS FACTOR STRUCTURE

Method

Materials

This phase of analysis utilized the original 32-item GTS along with materials that included the Attitudes Toward the Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG; Herek, 1994), the

Attitudes Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale described previously (ATTI; Walch,

Ngamake, Francisco, Stitt, & Shingler, 2012), the Homophobic Behaviors of Students Scale

(HBSS; Van de Ven, Bornholt, & Bailey, 1996), and the Acceptance of Stereotypes

Questionnaire (AOSQ; Carter, Hall, Carney, & Rosip, 2006).

The ATLG assesses attitudes toward lesbians and gay men and contains multiple versions. This particular version contained 14 questions, 10 focusing on lesbians and 4 focusing on gay men, using a 5-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree through 3=Neither Agree nor Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Sample items include “Lesbians just can’t fit into our society.” and “Male homosexuals should not be allowed to teach school.” with higher scores indicating greater negative attitudes toward lesbians and gay men.

The HBSS assesses the attitudes of students toward homosexuality and contained 10 questions using a 5-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree through

3=Neither Agree nor Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Sample items include “I would NOT like to have a gay person or lesbian address the class about homosexual issues.” and “I would NOT sign my name to a petition asking the government to make sure gays and lesbians have equal rights with everybody else.” with higher scores indicating greater negative attitudes toward homosexuality.

The AOSQ assesses the likelihood for individuals to accept social stereotypes and contained 12 questions using a 6-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly

Disagree to 6=Strongly Agree. Sample items include “In daily life, there’s so much to pay attention to, it helps if you can make a few assumptions about a person.” and “To hold a stereotype does not necessarily mean that you are looking down on someone.” with higher scores indicating a greater likelihood to accept social stereotypes about others.

The inventories were compiled into booklets and randomly ordered in each packet with the exception of the four LGBT-related measures that were sorted in each packet so that there were no more than two consecutive LGBT-related measures in any packet. Additionally, the demographics sheet was always the last sheet in each packet to minimize any priming effect on participants’ answers to the questions regarding gender and sexual orientation in some of the inventories.

Procedure

This research was conducted in a classroom-type setting within the psychology department of a Northern California university. Each research session took no more than an hour worth of time and accommodated up to eight participants per session. Participants were welcomed into the designated research room at the beginning of their assigned research time and asked to silence and put away all electronic devices such as cell phones. Once this was completed, all participants were asked to complete a sign-in sheet that included their research participation identification number, date and time of their research session, and an email address for use in assigning completed research participation credit. Participants were then asked to take a seat and given a consent form to read and sign providing permission to participate in this research. All consent forms were collected and placed in a manila envelope labeled

“Confidential” that remained separate from all other research materials in order to ensure

33 anonymity for participants. Once consent forms were collected, participants were given a packet of materials including those described above with the instruction to answer as honestly as possible to all questions but not to make any identifying marks upon them to ensure anonymity.

Once each participant completed their packet of surveys it was placed in a file folder separate from the consent form in order to ensure they could not be linked at any point during this study.

The researcher then gave each participant a debriefing form ( A) and orally debriefed them as to the nature of the research they had participated in. Debriefing forms included contact information for the lead researcher as well as for student counseling in case they felt they had experienced distress from the questions asked in the inventories. Participants were then dismissed from the research room and thanked for their time.

Establishing Subsamples

The 473 undergraduate participants were randomly divided into two subsamples with 223 individuals selected for contributing data to an EFA to assess a potential revision of the GTS and

250 individuals reserved as a hold out sample for inclusion in any CFAs that were used to confirm results found in the EFA. The individuals in the EFA sample ranged in age from 15 to 63

(M = 21.25, SD = 5.38). Approximately 83% of participants identified as female and 17% as male. Approximately 27% identified their ethnicity as Hispanic/Latino, 27% of

European/European American/White, 25% as Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, 12% as

Multiple ethnicities, 5% as African American/Black, 1% as Middle Eastern, 2% as other ethnicities, and less than 1% as Native American. The individuals in the CFA sample ranged in age from 17 to 63 (M = 21.14, SD = 5.47). Approximately 80% of participants identified as female and 20% as male. Approximately 28% identified their ethnicity as Hispanic/Latino, 24% of European/European American/White, 26% as Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander, 13% as

Multiple ethnicities, 5% as African American/Black, 2% as Middle Eastern, 3% as other ethnicities, and less than 1% as Native American.

Results and Discussion

EFA and Scale Intercorrelations

We performed an EFA using principal axis factoring with a promax rotation to examine the existing factor structure proposed by the original authors on all 32 items of the GTS using the subsample of 223 participants. Eight factors emerged with eigenvalues greater than one and accounted for 67.03% of the common variance. The preexisting factor structure proposed a two- factor model, and our intention was to preserve such a structure if it were possible to do so. The first two factors in this analysis accounted for 42.71% of the cumulative variance but, not surprisingly, the structure matrix of this full item set showed substantial “cross-loadings” and low item-factor correlations for several of the items, indicating a poor fit for the data.

Given this lack of clear factor structure from the original 32-item scale (Hill &

Willoughby, 2005), follow-up analyses were performed with the intent of reducing the item set until a reasonable degree of simple structure was achieved for the two factors. Our goal was to remove items correlating less than .50 with their respective factor and, to reduce “cross-loading,” we also removed those items whose correlations with each of the factors failed to achieve a .20 difference. If both a < .50 item-correlation and substantial cross-loading occurred simultaneously, the low-correlation item was given priority for removal. Items were removed one at a time and the analysis performed again in an iterative manner based on these criteria but theory-based decisions were also considered if multiple items showed problematic cross-loading in the same step of the iterative progression. This process resulted in the removal of 15 items: 12 of the 25

Genderism/Transphobia items (Items 4, 8, 10, 11, 18, 21, 23, 24, 26, 28, 30 and 31) and three of the seven Gender Bashing items (Items 6, 9, and 13).

Once removing the poorly performing items, a clear factor structure exhibiting relatively good simple structure emerged for the 17 remaining items. Only two factors yielded eigenvalues above 1.00 and cumulatively accounted for 53.78% of the common variance. The structure coefficients associated with these 17 items are shown in Table 3. The two factors emerging from this analysis still seem to capture the constructs represented by the subscales of the original (full) version of the GTS. That is, the Genderism/Transphobia subscale still appeared to represent prejudicial attitudes toward transgender individuals and gender deviance with items such as “If I found out that my best friend was changing their sex, I would freak out.” and “A man who dresses as a woman is a pervert.”, and the Gender Bashing subscale still appeared to represent the likelihood of acting with violence toward individuals who do not adhere to the gender binary with items such as “I have beat up men who act like sissies.” and “I have behaved violently toward a woman because she was too masculine.”

The items removed from the original Gender-Bashing subscale represented less extreme harassing behaviors, leaving only items related to actually committing physical harm on trans or gender deviant individuals, which may explain the improvement in the reliability of this subscale, at least for this sample. The items removed from the Genderism/Transphobia subscale contained items that could be judged to contain potentially problematic wording. For example, Item 4

(removed) stated, “God created two sexes and two sexes only.” while Item 27 (retained) stated,

“People are either men or women.” That Item 27 was retained and Item 4 was removed because the latter item was more neutrally worded and free of religious connotations contained in the former item. Similarly, Item 11(removed) stated, “Men who shave their legs are weird.”; however, men may shave their legs for reasons that are considered acceptable by society (e.g., certain athletes such as Olympic swimmers commonly shave their legs), and so this item failed to

“load” strongly in the factor structure.

Table 3 Structure Coefficients of the New Proposed Structure of the GTS Items Genderism/ Gender Transphobia Bashing 15. Women who see themselves as men are abnormal. .81 .28 25. Feminine men make me feel uncomfortable. .81 .29 17. A man who dresses as a woman is a pervert. .78 .35 7. Men who cross-dress for sexual pleasure disgust me. .76 .22 19. Feminine boys should be cured of their problem. .75 .42 16. I would avoid talking to a woman if I knew she had a .73 .24 surgically created penis and testicles. 29. Masculine women make me feel uncomfortable. .68 .20 12. I cannot understand why a woman would act .64 .30 masculine. 22. If a man wearing makeup and a dress, who also spoke .60 .21 in a high voice, approached my child, I would use physical force to stop him. 14. Children should play with toys appropriate to their .59 .32 own sex. 3. If I found out that my best friend was changing their .57 .27 sex, I would freak out. 5. If a friend wanted to have his penis removed in order to .55 .21 become a woman. I would openly support him. 27. People are either men or women. .54 .20 32. If I encountered a male who wore high-heeled shoes, .25 .84 stockings, and makeup, I would consider beating him up. 20. I have behaved violently toward a man because he was .41 .75 too feminine. 2. I have behaved violently toward a woman because she .17 .65 was too masculine. 1. I have beat up men who act like sissies. .28 .54

*Bolded items indicate primary factor loading

The two subscales were then evaluated for reliability. The 17-item full scale, the 13-item

Genderism/Transphobia subscale, and the 4-item Gender Bashing subscale yielded Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of .90, .91, and .74, respectively.

To further validate the newly created Genderism/Transphobia and Gender Bashing subscales of the GTS, we were interested in the degree to which these subscales would correlate with the ATLG, ATTI, AOSQ, and HBSS. The ATLG has been demonstrated in previous research to be correlated with anti-trans prejudice and acceptance of stereotypes (Tebbe et al.,

2014; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Walch et al., 2012). The ATTI has been shown to be correlated with the GTS subscales as well as with stereotype acceptance (Walch et al., 2012). Additionally, previous research has shown that the HBSS is correlated to anti-LGBT attitudes and cognition

(Van de Ven et al., 1996). Furthermore, previous research has shown that the AOSQ is correlated with anti-trans and sexist attitudes (Walch et al., 2012; Carter et al., 2006).

Scale intercorrelations together with the scale means, standard deviations, and

Cronbach’s alpha coefficients are shown in Table 4. The two GTS subscales correlated .36, suggesting that they were assessing somewhat related but still relatively distinct constructs.

Correlations of these subscales with the other scales ranged from moderate to quite strong; in particular, the Genderism/Transphobia subscale shared a considerable amount of variance with the ATLG, ATTI, and HBSS scales. Generally, individuals who more strongly endorsed

Genderism/Transphobia and Gender Bashing attitudes held more negative attitudes toward homosexuality (ATLG and HBSS), were more likely to accept stereotypes about others (AOSQ), and had less positive attitudes toward transgender individuals (ATTI). It thus appears that the newly formulated subscales of the GTS demonstrated convergent validity with these other measures while not strongly correlating with each other.

Table 4 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics between the GTS subscales, the ATLG, ATTI, HBSS, and AOSQ for EFA 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD α 1. GTS-Transphobia - 2.32 1.18 .93 2. GTS-Gender Bashing -.36** - 1.25 .44 .71 3. ATLG .79** .42** - 1.72 .79 .93 4. ATTI -.84** -.33** -.85** - 3.95 .82 .96 5. HBSS .71** .33** .77** -.78** - 1.85 .79 .82 6. AOSQ .34** .14* .22** -.32** -.32** - 3.43 .77 .72 ** p < .01, * p < .05

CFA

To determine the replicability of the newly proposed GTS factor structure, a confirmatory factor analysis with maximum likelihood estimation was conducted using ISM SPSS Amos 22 on the hold out (independent) sample of 250 participants. It appeared that, although the chi-square was statistically significant, χ2 (118, N = 250) = 264.956, the resulting model yielded an acceptable fit as indexed by the CFI = .933, TLI = .923, IFI = .934, and RMSEA = .071 (90% CI

[.059, .082]).

Reliability analyses for this holdout subsample data yielded a Cronbach’s alpha of .912 for the full scale, .926 for the Genderism/Transphobia subscale, and .712 for the Gender Bashing subscale; these are consistent with the results of those based on our other independent subsample.

Further, as shown in Table 5, a similar pattern of correlations to those of the other independent subsample was obtained between the two GTS subscales and the ATLG, ATTI, AOSQ, and

HBSS. These analyses taken together suggest that the 17-item factor structure of the GTS was performing consistently well to allow for direct and indirect predictions of the subscales within a structural modeling framework for the third phase of this study.

Table 5 Correlations and Descriptive Statistics between the GTS subscales, the ATLG, ATTI, HBSS, and AOSQ for CFA 1 2 3 4 5 6 M SD α 1. GTS-Transphobia - 2.32 1.18 .93 2. GTS-Gender Bashing .26** - 1.25 .44 .71 3. ATLG .81** .25** - 1.72 .79 .93 4. ATTI -.87** -.21** -.85** - 3.95 .82 .96 5. HBSS .76** .13* .77** -.81** - 1.85 .79 .82 6. AOSQ .31** .06 .20** -.23** .19** - 3.43 .77 .72 ** p < .01, * p < .05

CHAPTER 7

STRUCTURAL MODEL PREDICTING TRANSPHOBIA

Method

Participants

The data from the full sample of 473 undergraduate participants from the first phase were utilized to assess a structural equation model predicting the construct assessed by the GTS.

Materials and Procedure

This last phase of analysis utilized the newly revised GTS and the ATTI along with the

Revised Enthnocentrism Scale (RES; Neuliep & McCroskey, 2013), the Religious Orientation

Scale-Revised (ROSR; Gorsuch & McPherson, 1989), and the Revised NEO Personality Revised

Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). These inventories were included in the booklet completed by participants in the randomized order described in the second phase of this analysis.

The RES assesses negative attitudes toward individuals viewed as outside of an individual’s in-group and contained 22 items of which 7 were filler distraction questions. All questions utilized a 5-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to

5=Strongly Agree. Sample items included questions such as “My culture should be the role model for other cultures.” and “I do not cooperate with people who are different.” See Table 6 for descriptive statistics of the RES and all other variables used in this phase.

The ROSR assesses the internally and externally motivated reasons for an individual’s religiosity and contained 8 intrinsically motivated items and 6 extrinsically motivated items. This scale utilized a 6-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to

6=Strongly Agree. Sample items from the Intrinsic subscale of this inventory included questions such as “I have often had a strong sense of God’s presence.” and “My whole approach to life is based on my religion.” Due one question on this inventory being worded with the word God,

40 specific instructions were included for participants in case they did not align with Judeo-Christian faith that stated “An item includes the word God. If this word is not a comfortable one for you, please substitute another idea, which calls to mind the divine or holy for you.”

The NEO-PI-R contains 240 questions and assesses the Big Five personality domains of

Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism utilizing a 5-point summative response scale ranging from 1=Strongly Disagree to 5=Strongly Agree. Each domain contains six facets, eight questions per facet, with Warmth and Positive Emotions belonging to the Extraversion domain and Trust and Altruism to the Agreeableness domain. The Warmth facet included questions such as “I really like most people I meet.” and “I’m known as a warm and friendly person.” while the Positive Emotions facet included questions such as “I have sometimes experienced intense joy or ecstasy.” and “Sometimes I bubble with happiness.” The Trust facet included questions such as “I believe that most people are basically well-intentioned.” and “I think most of the people I deal with are honest and trustworthy.” while the Altruism facet included questions such as “I try to be courteous to everyone I meet.” and “I think of myself as a charitable person.”

Table 6 Descriptive Statistics of Structural Model Variables M SD 95% CI α GTS-Genderism/Transphobia 2.29 1.00 [2.19, 2.38] 0.92 GTS-Gender Bashing 1.51 0.55 [1.46, 1.56] 0.72 ATTI 4.01 0.80 [3.94, 4.08] 0.90 Intrinsic Religiosity 2.86 0.75 [2.79, 2.92] 0.71 Ethnocentrism 2.71 0.51 [2.66, 2.76] 0.86 Warmth 3.87 0.58 [3.82, 3.92] 0.75 Positive Emotions 3.78 0.66 [3.72, 3.84] 0.74 Altruism 4.07 0.50 [4.02, 4.11] 0.71 Trust 3.15 0.56 [3.10, 3.20] 0.70

Results and Discussion

We evaluated a structural model, shown in Figure 2, hypothesizing that Intrinsic

Religiosity would both directly predict the latent variable Trans Negativity and indirectly predict it through Ethnocentrism as well as Prosociality.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Structural model predicting trans negativity. Model testing the proposed relationships between the predictor variables and trans negativity with standardized estimates.

The latent outcome variable in this model was Trans Negativity (comprised of the ATTI

Scale and the newly created Gender Bashing and Transphobia/Genderism subscales of the GTS).

The predictor variable was Intrinsic Religiosity (a subscale of the ROSR). The manifest mediator variable of Ethnocentrism, represented by the Revised Enthnocentrism Scale, and the latent mediator variable of Prosociality (comprised of the Warmth, Positive Emotions, Trust, and

Altruism subscales of the NEO-PI-R) were proposed to individually mediate the relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity.

Although the chi-square was statistically significant, χ2 (23, N = 473) = 86.472, p < .001, the model yielded a good fit as indexed by the CFI (.958), the GFI (.960), the IFI (.958), and the

RMSEA (.076, 95% CI [.060, .094]). All of the individual paths comprising the two indirect effects from Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity were statistically significant. Aroian tests

(Aroian, 1947) demonstrated that the indirect paths from Intrinsic Religiosity through

Ethnocentrism to Trans Negativity, z = 3.17, p = .002, and from Intrinsic Religiosity through

Prosociality to Trans Negativity, z = -2.76, p = .006, were statistically significant. The direct path from Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity (standardized path coefficient = .479) was also statistically significant and the model accounted for 32% of the variance in Trans Negativity.

To determine whether Ethnocentrism and Prosociality acted as mediators between

Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity in the full model, the unmediated model was examined.

The direct path from Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity was significant in isolation

(standardized path coefficient = .481, p < .001) and a Freedman-Schatzkin test (Freedman &

Schatzkin, 1992) revealed that the value of this path was not significantly different from the corresponding path in the full model with the inclusion of both Ethnocentrism and Prosociality as mediators.

Each simple mediation structure was then examined separately. The direct path from

Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity was statistically significant in both simple mediation structures (ps < .001). Aroian tests demonstrated that the indirect paths from Intrinsic Religiosity through Ethnocentrism to Trans Negativity (p = .001) and from Intrinsic Religiosity through

Prosociality to Trans Negativity (p = .005) were statistically significant.

We then compared the strength of the direct paths in each simple mediation structure to its strength in the isolated (unmediated) model using Freedman-Schatzkin tests. The results showed that the direct path from Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity was significantly weaker when mediated by Ethnocentrism (standardized path coefficient = .436) than in the unmediated model (standardized path coefficient = .481), t(471) = 4.2297, p < .001, indicating that partial mediation was observed. However, an additional Freedman-Schatzkin test determined that the direct path from Intrinsic Religiosity to Trans Negativity was significantly stronger when mediated by Prosociality (standardized path coefficient = .519) than in the unmediated model

(standardized path coefficient = .481), t(471) = -5.0092, p < .001, indicating that Prosociality acted as a suppressor variable in that simple mediation structure. These two effects appeared to balance each other in the full model, resulting in the equivalence of the strength of the direct paths in the full and unmediated models.

Many factors could contribute to the amount of prejudice individuals experience toward any given minority group, particularly toward a less understood or researched group such as the trans subgroup of the LGBT community (Lenning & Buist, 2013). The current results suggest that individuals who hold greater intrinsically motivated religious beliefs also tend to exhibit greater negativity toward trans individuals. Greater levels of intrinsically motivated religious beliefs are also related to a more ethnocentric orientation. In turn, greater ethnocentrism is also related to greater negativity toward trans individuals. This suggests that individuals who are intrinsically motivated in their religious beliefs also tend to hold more negative views toward trans individuals. However, individuals who are more intrinsically motivated in their religious beliefs also tend to be more ethnocentric which then enhances the existing negativity toward trans individuals. One reason for this may be that individuals who are more intrinsically motivated in their religious beliefs may also see themselves as having greater similarity to others with similar

44 religious orientations than those who do not, thus creating out-groups of those viewed as dissimilar. Another contributing factor could also be that individuals who are intrinsically religious also hold a greater likelihood of feeling superior to out-groups and this could help drive seeing themselves as morally superior in comparison to outsiders. This may particularly be the case with trans individuals due to a general lack of understanding of what the concept embodies and the potential for these individuals to be seen as violating theological laws by engaging in various forms of transitional procedures to minimize experiences of dysphoria. While not assessed within this study, the degree to which intrinsic religiosity aligns with the closed- mindedness found in fundamentalist religious beliefs systems may potentially be an underlying driver of prejudice seen toward out-groups in general and trans individuals, specifically.

In addition to ethnocentrism, intrinsically motivated religious beliefs can sometimes be related to prosociality, particularly for core church members. Greater levels of prosociality are also related to less negativity toward trans individuals. While intrinsic religiosity is, in itself, predictive of greater negativity toward trans individuals, adhering to the prosocial expectations written in religious doctrine appears to account for some of the variance in intrinsic religiosity.

This, in turn, appears to enable prosociality to act as a suppressor variable allowing intrinsic religiosity to more strongly predict negativity toward trans individuals. One reason for this result may be that individuals who are intrinsically oriented in their religious beliefs are also more likely to be prejudiced against trans individuals because they view trans individuals as rejecting the biological bodies given to them by a higher power. As they develop greater strength in, and knowledge of their faith, they also become more deeply committed to following religious doctrine which leads to greater acceptance of trans individuals as human beings deserving of love without judgment but at the same time a greater commitment to their faith sharpens their awareness that trans individuals are in conflict with their faith.

Intrinsic religiosity appears to have different relationship strengths in predicting negativity toward trans individuals in the face of ethnocentrism and prosociality, respectively.

However, in the presence of both ethnocentrism and prosociality, these constructs appear to neutralize each other, and so the influence of intrinsic religiosity on negative attitudes to trans individuals is no different from its influence examined in isolation.

CHAPTER 8

GENERAL DISCUSSION

With the growing recognition and presence of trans individuals, the need for a multidimensional inventory to effectively assess potential prejudice toward this group is of particular importance. While pre-existing versions of the GTS have proposed various structures to assess this construct, further revisions in this current study were still necessary to ensure an adequate degree of internal consistency and simple structure. This newest version of the GTS reduced the number of inventory items to 17 with a clear factor structure, good internal reliability, and demonstrated convergent validity from the original 32-item scale; this should allow for increased efficiency in inventory administration without requiring a short-form companion. One reason some items were not performing as seen in previous research, particularly some of the items on the original Gender Bashing subscale, may be due to the cultural climate in which the present study was conducted. Previous versions of the GTS had been derived of samples from

Canada and the Midwestern and Southeastern regions of the United States that may not have been quite as liberal or tolerant of the LGBT community as the West Coast of the United States.

Individuals more prone to exhibiting discrimination behaviors against gender deviance from this latter region appear to also be more likely to resort to more extreme ways of expressing themselves. This may be a result of residing in a stronger self-policing environment that discourages milder forms of harassment or discriminative behaviors found in other less tolerant environments; thus, those items addressing general harassment but not mentioning violence failed to correlate very strongly with that factor in our current sample.

Hypotheses

The first hypothesis, which stated that individuals with higher levels of Intrinsic

Religiosity will also demonstrate higher levels of Ethnocentrism and Prosociality was supported by the structural model. Moderate positive relationships were observed between both Intrinsic

Religiosity and Ethnocentrism and Intrinsic Religiosity and Prosociality, indicating that individuals who express higher levels of intrinsic religiosity also tend to express higher levels of ethnocentrism and prosociality. The observed relationship between intrinsic religiosity and ethnocentrism supports research by Eisinga, Felling, and Peters, (1990) that found that individuals who are more religious also tend to be more ethnocentric. The observed relationship between intrinsic religiosity and prosociality supports research by Norenzayan and Shariff, (2008) that the awareness of a religious omnipotent being can encourage prosociality.

The second hypothesis, which stated that individuals with higher levels of Ethnocentrism will also demonstrate higher levels of Trans Negativity was also supported by the structural model. Moderate positive relationships were observed between Ethnocentrism and Trans

Negativity, indicating that individuals who express higher levels of ethnocentrism also tend to express higher levels of negativity toward trans individuals. This observed relationship supports research by Reynolds and colleagues (2007) that found stronger identification with one’s in-group is also predictive of greater discrimination, even in the face of various personality variables.

The third hypothesis, which stated that individuals with higher levels of Prosociality will demonstrate lower levels of Trans Negativity was also supported by the structural model.

Moderate negative relationships were observed between Prosociality and Trans Negativity, indicating that individuals who express higher levels of Prosociality also tend to express lower levels of negativity toward trans individuals. This relationship supports research by Caprara,

Alessandri, and Eisenberg (2012) that helping others can make individuals better about themselves and, therefore, also can more easily accept others.

The fourth hypothesis, which stated that individuals with higher levels of Intrinsic

Religiosity will also demonstrate higher levels of Trans Negativity was also supported by the structural model. A moderate positive relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans

Negativity was observed, indicating that individuals with higher levels of intrinsically oriented religiosity also tend to hold higher levels of negativity toward trans individuals. This is consistent with previous research that has shown various forms of religiosity is related to prejudice against trans individuals (e.g. Adams et al., 2016; Loo, 2015; Nagoshi et al., 2008).

The fifth hypothesis, which stated that Ethnocentrism and Prosociality will act individually and together as mediators between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity was partially supported by the structural model. The individual mediation model examining Intrinsic

Religiosity through Ethnocentrism to Trans Negativity did indicate that individuals who are higher in Intrinsic Religiosity also held higher levels of Trans Negativity. The inclusion of

Ethnocentrism as a mediator in this relationship resulted in a further increase in Trans Negativity.

Additionally, the individual mediation model examining Intrinsic Religiosity through

Ethnocentrism to Trans Negativity indicated that the inclusion of Prosociality in this relationship resulted in a suppression effect. This specifically means that Prosociality was able to account for some of the variance in Intrinsic Religiosity, allowing a stronger relationship between Intrinsic

Religiosity and Trans Negativity. However, when considering both Ethnocentrism and

Prosociality as mediators simultaneously, there was not a significant difference in the relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity which does not support this hypothesis.

Ethnocentrism acting individually as a mediator between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans

Negativity supports previous work by Batson and Stocks (2005) that an intrinsically oriented

49 religiosity can encourage ethnocentric beliefs that create a sense of superiority over outsiders.

This could especially be the case due to existing religious doctrine that address actions some trans individuals engage in such as Deuteronomy 22:5 that states “A woman must not wear men’s clothing, nor a man wear women’s clothing, for the Lord your God detests anyone who does this.” (Holy Bible, New International Version). Prosociality acting individually as a mediator between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity supports previous research by Preston, Ritter, and Hernandez (2010) indicating that prosociality can be contingent on whether the target person(s) are considered to be in violation of religious doctrine. However, in the presence of both

Ethnocentrism and Prosociality, these constructs seem to balance each other out and do not have an impact on the relationship between Intrinsic Religiosity and Trans Negativity. This seems to reflect research by Graziano and Habashi (2010) that prosociality can have a suppressing effect on in the face of prejudice as well as research by Eisinga, Felling, and Peters (1990) that has found that exposure to religious doctrine encouraging tolerance is related to increased tolerance and ethnocentric beliefs.

Limitations

While this newly created version of the GTS does appear to be an improvement on previous iterations of the GTS, there are still some limitations that impacted both the scale construction and subsequent predictions of Trans Negativity. Firstly, this study utilized convenience sampling through the student population provided by the human subjects pool.

Although an adequate diversity in gender and ethnic identity was present in the current sample, these undergraduate students may also not represent the general population due to a predominance of young females who may differ on trans prejudice in comparison to their male counterparts. Also, the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales created by Allport were intended to tap into religious maturity which may be somewhat contingent on age and may not generalize to

50 similar intrinsic religiosity of more mature adults. Furthermore, this particular university sample resided in a less conservative area of Northern California. All previous versions of the GTS were generated in more conservative areas of North America and the more extreme version of the

Gender Bashing subscale may not capture all possible nuance of behavioral discrimination against trans individuals. Further research is needed to ensure the factor structure, reliability, and validity of this newest version of the GTS will generalize to more conservative areas outside of the West Coast.

Another limitation is the lack of information on specific religious affiliations of participants from the present study. While the ROSR was specifically chosen due to its lack of reliance on Judeo-Christian terminology to assess religious orientation, it is possible that religious orientation may change the interpretation of the scale questions. Given the ethnic diversity of the current sample, it is possible that, although a predominantly Judeo-Christian area of Northern

California, other religious affiliations may be more or less tolerant and impacted the overall picture of Trans Negativity. Future studies should include demographic and other questions to better assess the specific nature of the religious affiliations and orientations that may play a role in transphobia. Additionally, this ethnic diversity is, in part, related to immigration to the particular region this study was conducted and the differences in countries of origin could be impacting the generalizability of current results.

One further limitation is a lack of information regarding contact with members of the

LGBT community, specifically the trans subgroup of individuals. The area this study was conducted in has a large LGBT presence, including trans individuals. It is possible that certain individuals had more contact with trans individuals than in previous studies and this could impact generalizability to more conservative areas where trans individuals may be less likely to feel comfortable living. Additionally, the demographics form did not collect gender and sex identity

51 separately or offer a trans-specific option. This could have lead some trans participants to choose the male or female option because it was more congruent with their identity leading to their inclusion in the anti-trans analyses. Future research should try to find a balance between overwhelming participants with gender and sex terminology but also allow for a nuanced picture of sample demographics.

Future Directions

Suggestions for future directions include adding additional variables that help capture additional prosocial attitudes. While the latent variable of prosociality does capture the defining characteristics of this construct, it also relied heavily upon the NEO-PI-R for measuring these qualities. It is possible that scales more tailored to prosociality research could provide a different or more nuanced understanding of how prosociality mediates religiosity and trans negativity.

Also, this structural model only accounted for 32 percent of the variance in trans negativity, indicating that other factors are involved in the proposed relationship. For example, previous links have been made between religiosity, ethnocentrism, right wing authoritarianism, and prejudice (e.g. Jonathon, 2008; Rowatt et al., 2016; Sibley, Robertson, & Wilson, 2006), religiosity, ethnocentrism, and nationalism (e.g. Mladenovska – Dimitrovska & Dimitrovska,

2015; Rosenblatt, 1964), contact theory and prejudice (e.g. Crisp & Turner, 2009;Tropp &

Pettigrew, 2005), and implicit person theories and prejudice (e.g. Haslam et al., 2006; Rattan &

Dweck, 2010) which may help further explain the mechanisms surrounding religiosity and trans negativity. As addressed in the limitations, it is possible that the ethnic diversity in the human subjects pool may need to be addressed in future research. Considering the existing links between religiosity and prejudice and ethnocentrism and nationalism, future research should also consider participant citizenship, country of origin, and other related demographic information to determine how these factors help drive trans negativity. This relationship may be particularly important if

Pacific Islanders constitute a significant portion of the Asian/Asian American/Pacific Islander identity because of the increased tolerance for trans identities in some of these regions.

Conclusion

This study evaluated a structural mediation model with intrinsic religiosity used to predict the newly proposed subscales of the GTS, along with the ATTI, with the manifest mediator variable of Ethnocentrism and the latent mediator variable of Belief in Humanity. Results suggested that individuals who are more intrinsically religious also tend hold more negative attitudes toward the trans community with ethnocentrism mediating this relationship and a belief in humanity sharpening this relationship. Further research is necessary to determine how different religious affiliations and extremes may be involved in this relationship between ethnocentrism, belief in humanity, and transphobia. It is possible that more conservative religious beliefs, such as fundamentalism, may influence how these mediators impact the relationship between intrinsic religiosity and transphobia. Additionally, given the fact that the West Coast is presumed to be more liberal than other regions, additional studies are necessary to increase generalizability of these results.

APPENDIX A

Debriefing Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of personal group preferences and certain personality characteristics on homophobia and transphobia. Specifically, religiosity, neuroticism, extraversion, openness, conscientiousness, agreeableness, and self-esteem will be evaluated. Additionally, the group preferences being considered are nationalism/patriotism, ethnocentrism, and acceptance of stereotyping. I am interested in the role these factors might have on homophobia and transphobia as well as personal attitudes towards the LGBT community which are not acted on. This study is also being used to validate a newly created scale called the Attitudes Towards Transgendered Individuals by replicating the author’s original study with supporting variables from the list above.

Hypothesis and Supporting Research

Research has shown the likelihood of displaying prejudice towards the LGBT community can be related to other preferences towards one’s group membership and prejudices such as ethnocentrism and nationalism (Johnson et al., 2012, Gomley & Lopez, 2010, Marsh & Brown, 2009). Additionally, research has shown the stronger the sense of religiosity a person experiences relates to their attitudes and behaviors toward the LGBT community (Johnson et al., 2012, Marsh & Brown, 2009). Other factors that may influence a person’s response to the LGBT community involves a variety of personality traits such as self-esteem, readiness to accept stereotypes, and anxiety (Gomley & Lopez, 2010, Nagoshi et al., 2008, Walch et al., 2012). Walch et al., 2012 also created a new scale to measure attitudes towards transgender individuals that is looking to tap more into feelings toward this community rather than behavior. One aspect of this study is to replicate her original study to help strengthen and validate her scale for future use. I hypothesize these different preferences will relate to homophobia, transphobia, and negative attitudes towards the LGBT community. Also, I hypothesize certain personality characteristics, such as lower self- esteem and higher acceptance of stereotypes and neuroticism will positively correlate with increased negative regard for the LGBT community. The intent of this study is to better understand how and where in-group/out-group biases exist and how to navigate around them in a constantly diversifying environment.

Psychological Services

If you have experienced any personal distress caused by the content or materials in this research and want to talk to someone, counseling services are available through the Student Health Center free of charge. Please contact Psychological Services at 916-278-6416 for assistance.

Contact Information

The results of this study will be available by May of 2015. If you would like further information about the study or have questions regarding the experiment, please contact Sam Stevens at [email protected] at your convenience. Replying to emails can take up to 48 hours, please be patient awaiting feedback.

References

Adams, K. A., Nagoshi, C. T., Filip-Crawford, G., Terrell, H. K., & Nagoshi, J. L. (2016).

Components of Gender-nonconformity Prejudice. International Journal of

Transgenderism, 17(3-4), 185-198.

Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, 1954.

Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal Religious Orientation and Prejudice. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432-443.

Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism, Quest,

and Prejudice. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113-133.

Anderson, J., & Koc, Y. (2015). Exploring Patterns of Explicit and Implicit Anti-gay Attitudes in

Muslims and Atheists. European Journal of Social Psychology, 45, 687-701.

Aroian, L. A. (1947). The Probability Function of the Product of Two Normally Distributed

Variables. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 18(2), 265-271.

Batson, C. D. (1976). Religion as Prosocial: Agent or double agent? Journal for the Scientific

Study of Religion, 29-45.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 1) Validity concerns.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 416-429.

Batson, C. D., & Schoenrade, P. A. (1991). Measuring religion as quest: 2) Reliability concerns.

Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 430-447.

Batson, C. D., & Stocks, E. L. (2005). Religion and Prejudice. In Dovidio, J. F., Glick, P. G., &

Rudman, L. (Eds.), On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (413-427).

Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Batson, C. D., & Ventis, W. L. (1982). The Religious Experience: A social-psychological

perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

Batson, C. D., Denton, D. M., & Vollmecke, J. T. (2008). Quest Religion, Anti-fundamentalism,

and Limited versus Universal Compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,

47(1), 135-145.

Batson, C. D., Floyd, R. B., Meyer, J. M., & Winner, A. L. (1999). "And Who Is My Neighbor?":

Intrinsic religion as a source of universal compassion. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 445-457.

Beh, H. G., & Diamond, M. (2005). David Reimer's Legacy: Limiting parental discretion.

Cardozo Journal of Law and Gender, 12(5), 5-30.

Bizumic, B., & Duckitt, J. (2007). Varieties of Group Self-centeredness and Dislike of the

Specific Other. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29(2), 195-202.

Buck, D. M. (2016). Defining Transgender: What do lay definitions say about prejudice?

Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 3(4), 465-472.

Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenberg, N. (2012). Prosociality: The Contribution of Traits,

Values, and Self-efficacy Beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6),

1289-1303.

Carrera-Fernandez, M. V., Lameiras-Fernandez, M., Rodriguez-Castro, Y., & Vallejo-Medina, P.

(2014). Spanish Adolescents’ Attitudes toward Transpeople: Proposal and validation of a

short form of the Genderism and Transphobia Scale. Journal of Sex Research, 51(6), 654-

666.

Carter, J.D., Hall, J., Carney, D., & Rosip, J. (2006). Individual Differences in the Acceptance of

Stereotyping. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 1103-1118.

Chen, C. H. (2014). Prioritizing Hyper-masculinity in the Pacific Region. Culture, Society, and

Masculinities, 6(1), 69-90.

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI–R) and

the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources.

Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions?:

Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64(4), 231.

Cygnar, T. E., Noel, D. L., Jacobson, C. K. (1977). Religiosity and Prejudice: An

interdimensional analysis. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16(2), 183-191.

Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. M. (2010). Prejudice, Stereotyping and

Discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. The SAGE handbook of prejudice,

stereotyping and discrimination, 3-29.

Drescher, J. (2010). Queer Diagnoses: Parallels and contrasts in the history of homosexuality,

gender variance, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Archives of Sexual Behavior,

39, 427-460.

Drescher, J. (2013). Controversies in Gender Diagnoses. LGBT Health, 1(1), 9-13.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A Social-cognitive Approach to Motivation and

Personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Eisinga, R., Felling, A., & Peters, J. (1990). Religious Belief, Church Involvement, and

Ethnocentrism in the Netherlands. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(1), 54-

75.

Epple, C. (1998). Coming to Terms with Navajo Nadleehi: A critique of berdache, "gay,"

"alternate gender," and "two-spirit." American Ethnologist, 25(2), 267-290.

Farran, S. (2010). Paciﬁc Perspectives: Fa’afaﬁne and Fakaleiti in Samoa and Tonga: People

between worlds. Liverpool Law Review, 31, 13-28.

Fausto-Sterling, A. (2000). The Five Sexes, Revisited. The Sciences, 40(4), 18-24.

Feder, E. K. (2009). Imperatives of Normality: From “Intersex” to “Disorders of Sex

Development.” GLC: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 15(2), 225-247.

Feingold, A. (1992). Sex Differences in Variability in Intellectual Abilities: A new look at an old

controversy. Review of Educational Research, 62(1), 61-84.

Freedman, L. S., & Schatzkin, A. (1992). Sample Size for Studying Intermediate Endpoints

within Intervention Trials of Observational Studies. American Journal of Epidemiology,

136, 1148-1159.

Fulton, A.S., Gorsuch, R. L., & Maynard, E.A. (1999). Religious Orientation, Antihomosexual

Sentiment, and Fundamentalism among Christians. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 38(1), 14-22.

Furrow, J. L., King, P. E., & White, K. (2004). Religion and Positive Youth Development:

Identity, meaning, and prosocial concerns. Applied Developmental Science, 8(1), 17-26.

Gorsuch, R. L., & McPherson, S. E. (1989). Intrinsic/extrinsic measurement: I/E-revised and

single-item scale. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 28(3), 348-354.

Graziano, W. G., & Habashi, M. M. (2010). Motivational Processes Underlying Both Prejudice

and Helping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 313-331.

Griffin, G.A.E. , Gorsuch, R. L., & Davis, A. L. (1987). A Cross-cultural Investigation of

Religious Orientation, Social Norms, and Prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 26, 358-365.

Haslam, N., Bastian, B., Bain, P., & Kashima, Y. (2006). Psychological Essentialism, Implicit

Theories, and Intergroup Relations. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9(1), 63-

76.

Hedrick, A. V., & Temeles, E. J. (1989). The Evolution of Sexual Dimorphism in Animals:

Hypotheses and tests. TREE, 4(5), 136-138.

Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing Heterosexuals’ Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men: A

review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.),

Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues , v.1: Lesbian and gay psychology:

Theory, research, and clinical applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Hill, D. B., & Willoughby, B. L. B. (2005). The Development and Validation of the Genderism

and Transphobia Scale. Sex Roles, 53(7-8), 531-544.

Hird, M. J. (2000). Gender’s Nature: Intersexuality, transsexualism, and the ‘sex’/’gender’ binary.

Feminist Theory, 1(3), 347-364.

Hoffman, C., & Hurst, N. (1990). Gender Stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 58(2), 197-208.

Hudson, W. W., & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A Strategy for the Measurement of Homophobia.

Journal of Homosexuality, 5(4), 357-372.

Hughes, I. A. (2002). Intersex. BJU International, 90, 769-776.

Hunsberger, B., & Jackson, L. M. (2005). Religion, Meaning, and Prejudice. Journal of Social

Issues, 61(4), 807-826.

Johnson, M. K., Rowatt, W. C., & LaBouff, J. P. (2012). Religiosity and Prejudice Revisited: In-

group favoritism, out-group derogation, or both? Psychology of Religion and Spirituality,

4(2), 154-168.

Jonathon, E. (2008). The Inﬂuence of Religious Fundamentalism, Right-Wing Authoritarianism,

and Christian Orthodoxy on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Attitudes toward

Homosexuals. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18, 316-329.

Jones, B. H., & McNamara, K. (1991). Attitudes toward Women and Their Work Roles: Effects

of intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientations. Sex Roles, 24(1), 21-29.

Kirkpatrick, L. A. (1993). Fundamentalism, Christian Orthodoxy, and Intrinsic Religious

Orientation as Predictors of Discriminatory Attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of

Religion, 32(3), 256-268.

Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New

York, NY: Guilford Press.

Kralik, J. (2017, July, 28). “Bathroom Bill” Legislative Tracking. National Conference of State

Legislatures. Retrieved from http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/-bathroom-bill-

legislative-tracking635951130.aspx

Laquer, T. W. (1992). Making Sex: Body and gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Larsen, K. S., Reed, M., & Hoffman, S. (1980). Attitudes of Heterosexuals toward

Homosexuality: A Likert-type scale and construct validity. Journal of Sex Research,

16(3), 245-257.

Leak, G. K., & Finken, L. L. (2011). The Relationship between the Constructs of Religiousness

and Prejudice: A structural equation model analysis. The International Journal for the

Psychology of Religion, 21, 43-62.

Lenning, E., & Buist, C. L. (2013). Social, Psychological, and Economic Challenges Faced by

Transgender Individuals and their Significant Others: Gaining insight through personal

narratives. Culture, Health, and Sexuality, 15(1), 44-57.

Lennon, E., & Mistler, B. J. (2014). Cisgenderism. In TSQ: Transgender Studies Quarterly, 1(1-

2), 63-64.

Lev, A. I. (2013). Gender Dysphoria: Two steps forward, one step back. Clinical Social Work

Journal, 41, 288-296.

Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype Formation and Endorsement:

The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421-

1436.

Lewis, M., & Weinraub, M. (1979). Origins of Early Sex-role Development. Sex Roles, 5(2), 135-

153.

Loo, M. M. (2015). Transprejudice: Personality traits that predict anti-transgender attitudes

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Fielding Graduate University, Santa Barbara, CA.

Mahalingam, R. (2003). Essentialism, Culture, and Beliefs about Gender among the Aravanis of

Tamil Nadu, India. Sex Roles, 49(9-10), 489-496.

Mak, H. K., & Tsang, J. (2008). Separating the “Sinner” from the “Sin:” Religious orientation

and prejudiced behavior toward sexual orientation and promiscuous sex. Journal for the

Scientific Study of Religion, 47(3), 379-392.

McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (2002). Stereotypes as Explanations: The formation of

meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Meyers, L. A., Gamst, G., & Guarino, A. J. (2017) Applied Multivariate Research: Design and

interpretation (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mladenovska–Dimitrovska, M., & Dimitrovska, A. (2015). Connection between Nationalism,

Religiosity, Authoritarianism, and Social Distance. Proceedings from WEI International

Academic Conference, 2015. Harvard, MA: West East Institute.

Murphy, T. F. (1984). Freud Reconsidered: Bisexuality, homosexuality, and moral judgment.

Bisexual and Homosexual Identities, 9(2-3), 65-77.

Nagoshi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrell, H. K., Hill, E. D., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T. (2008).

Gender Differences in Correlates of Homophobia and Transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521-

531.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (2013). Ethnocentrism Scale. [Measurement Instrument].

Retrieved from Database for the Social Science. www.midss.ie

Neuliep, J. W., Chaudoir, M., & McCroskey, J. C. (2001). A Cross-cultural Comparison of

Ethnocentrism Among Japanese and United States College Students. Communication

Research Reports, 18(2), 137-146.

Norenzayan, A., & Shariff, A. F. (2008). The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality.

Science, 322(5898), 58-62.

Pettigrew, T. F., Tropp, L. R., Wagner, U., & Christ, O. (2011). Recent Advances in Intergroup

Contact Theory. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 35, 271-280.

Plaks, J. E., Stroessner, S. J., Dweck, C. S., & Sherman, J. W. (2016). Person Theories and

Attention Allocation: Preferences for stereotypic versus counter-stereotypic information.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 876-893.

Preston, J. L., Ritter, R. S., & Ivan Hernandez, J. (2010). Principles of Religious Prosociality: A

review and reformulation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(8), 574-590.

Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). Who Confronts Prejudice?: The role of implicit theories in

the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21(7), 952-959.

Reynolds, K. J., Turner, J. C., Haslam, S. A., Ryan, M. K., Bizumic, B., & Subasic, E. (2007).

Does Personality Explain In-group Identiﬁcation and Discrimination?: Evidence from the

minimal group paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 517-539.

Rosenblatt, P. C. (1964). Origins and Effects of Group Ethnocentrism and Nationalism. The

Journal of Conflict Resolution, 8(2), 131-146.

Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley, A. (2016).

Associations between Religious Personality Dimensions and Implicit Homosexual

Prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(3), 397-406.

Schnarch, B. (1992). Neither Man nor Woman: Berdache - A case for non-dichotomous gender

construction. Anthropologica, 34(1), 105-121.

Schumaker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling.

(4th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

Shields, S. A. (1982). The Variability Hypothesis: The history of a biological model of sex

differences in intelligence. The University of Chicago Press, 7(4), 769-797.

Shinert, G., & Ford, C. E. (1958). The Relation of Ethnocentric Attitudes to Intensity of Religious

Practice. The Journal of Educational Sociology, 32(4), 157-162.

Sibley, C. G., Robertson, A., & Wilson, M. S. (2006). Social Dominance Orientation and Right-

Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects. Political Psychology, 27(5),

755-768.

Sloop, J. M. (2000). Disciplining the Transgendered: Brandon Teena, public representation, and

normativity. Western Journal of Communication, 64(2), 165-189.

Stoller, R. J. (1968). Sex and Gender: The development of masculinity and femininity. London:

Karnac Books.

Stone, A. L. (2009). More than Adding a T: American lesbian and gay activists’ attitudes towards

transgender inclusion. Sexualities, 12(3), 334-354.

Stryker, S. (2008). Transgender History. Berkeley, CA: Seal Press.

Tebbe, E. A., Moradi, B., & Ege, E. (2014). Revised and Abbreviated Forms of the Genderism

and Transphobia Scale: Tools for assessing anti-trans* prejudice. Journal of Counseling

Psychology, 61(4), 581-592.

The Holy Bible. The New International Version, Zondervan Publishing House, 1984.

Towle, E. B., & Morgan, L. M. (2002). Romancing the Transgender Native: Rethinking the use

of the “Third Gender” concept. GLC: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies, 8(4), 469-

497.

Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between Intergroup Contact and Prejudice

Among Minority and Majority Status Groups. Psychological Science, 16(12), 951-957.

Van De Ven, P., Bornholt, L., & Bailey, M. (1996). Homophobic Behavior of Students Scale.

Handbook of Sexuality-related Measures, 397-8.

Vincent, W., Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (2011). Effects of Traditional Gender Role Norms

and Religious Fundamentalism on Self-identified Heterosexual Men's Attitudes, Anger,

and Aggression toward Gay Men and Lesbians. Psychology of Men and Masculinity,

12(4), 383.

Wagner, U.,Christ, O.,Pettigrew, T. F.,Stellmacher, J. and Wolf, C. (2006). Prejudice and

Minority Proportion: Contact instead of threat effects. Social Psychology Quarterly,

69(4), 380–90.

Walch, S. E., Ngamake, S. T., Francisco, J., Stitt, R. L., & Shingler, K. A. (2012). The Attitudes

Toward Transgendered Individuals Scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 41, 1283-1291.

Walch, S. E., Sinkkanen, K. A., Swain, E. M., Francesco, J. Breaux, C. A., & Sjoberg, M. D.

(2012). Using Intergroup Contact Theory to Reduce Stigma against Transgender

Individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel presentation. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, 42(10), 2583-2605.

Warriner, K., Nagoshi, C. T., & Nagoshi, J. L. (2013). Correlates of Homophobia, Transphobia,

and Internalized Homophobia in Gay or Lesbian and Heterosexual Samples. Journal of

Homosexuality, 60(9), 1297-1314.

Wrench, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). A Communibiological Examination of Ethnocentrism

and Homophobia. Communication Research Reports, 20(1), 24-33.

Wrench, J. S., Corrigan, M. W., McCroskey, J. C., & Punyanunt-Carter, N. M. (2006). Religious

Fundamentalism and Intercultural Communication: The relationships among

ethnocentrism, intercultural communication apprehension, religious fundamentalism,

homonegativity, and tolerance for religious disagreements. Journal of Intercultural

Communication Research, 35(1), 23-44.