Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Full length article “Masculine Guys Only”: The effects of femmephobic mobile dating application profiles on partner selection for men who have sex with men

* Brandon Miller , Elizabeth Behm-Morawitz

University of Missouri, United States article info abstract

Article history: Mobile dating applications (apps) have changed the way gay men find others in their geographic area for Received 10 December 2015 sexual activity and romantic relationships. Many of these apps are branded in relation to traditional Received in revised form masculinity and have become a breeding ground for femmephobic, or anti-effeminate, language. Past 4 March 2016 research has not examined the effects of femmephobic language in social networking apps designed for Accepted 31 March 2016 men who have sex with men (MSM) on app users' perceptions. This research employed an online Available online 8 April 2016 experiment of 143 MSM app users to test how users respond to femmephobic and non-femmephobic language use in MSM dating profiles. Participants rated the profile users, as well as reported their Keywords: fl Social networking desire to meet the user in an of ine context. Results indicated that the use of femmephobic language in fi fi LGBTQ dating pro les affects a potential partner's perceived intelligence, sexual con dence, and dateability, as Femmephobia well as one's desire to meet potential partners offline for friendship or romantic purposes. Anti- Partner selection effeminacy was an important moderator of the main effect. Framing © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Mobile dating apps

1. Introduction mobile versions of Manhunt (Manhunt Mobile) and Adam4Adam (Adam4Adam RADAR), are general MSM networks. Others are Gay men and women are more likely to use a larger number of designed with specific sub-groups in mind. Scruff is targeted to social networking sites than heterosexuals (“Gay and lesbian adults hairier men, GROWLr is targeted to “bears”, and MISTER is labeled …”, 2010), and men who have sex with men (MSM) are especially as being for more “mature” and “masculine” gay men. There exists avid Internet users (Grov, Breslow, Newcomb, Rosenberger, & an assortment of other apps available for MSM looking to connect, Bauermeister, 2014). In one study, gay men reported being active however, none are branded as places for distinctly effeminate queer on an average of five social networking sites, and some men had as males, and many are branded in relation to traditional masculinity. many as 12 distinct social networking profiles (Gudelunas, 2012). As such, these new avenues for connection have become a breeding For MSM, mobile dating applications (apps) are an extremely ground for femmephobic, or anti-effeminate, language (Miller, popular outlet for social networking and for finding potential sex- 2015). This experiment explored how femmephobic language on ual and romantic partners. Grindr is the most well-known of these MSM dating apps impacts perceptions of profile users, and for GPS-enabled dating sites, connecting gay, bisexual, or curious men whom the impact of this language is strongest. with other MSM in their direct area. Since its launch in 2009, Grindr Examining masculinity privileging in MSM-specific mobile has amassed more than 5 million users in 192 countries (Grindr, dating profiles is a necessary avenue of research, as a number of 2015). problematic issues have been associated with constructions of Grindr has changed the way MSM find others for sexual activity masculinity. Gay male masculinity norms have been related to and romantic relationships. A variety of other apps have been feelings such as lowered self-esteem (Sanchez, Greenberg, Liu, & developed to offer similar GPS-enabled dating or social networking Vilain, 2009), and internalized homophobia (Sanchez & Vilain, services. Like Grindr, some apps, such as Jack'd, Hornet, or the 2012; Sanchez, Westefeld, Liu, & Vilain, 2010). Furthermore, con- ceptions of masculinity have been associated with problematic behaviors such as gay male substance use (Hamilton & Mahalik, * Corresponding author. 2009), risky sexual behavior (Hamilton & Mahalik, 2009), E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Miller). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.03.088 0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 177 disordered eating (Lakkis, Ricciardelli, & Williams, 1999), and ste- essential to explore the formation of gay masculine ideals. Edelman roid use (Halkitis, Green, & Wilton, 2004; Halkitis, Moeller, & (1994) posits that male homosexuality has traditionally been linked DeRaleau, 2008). Understanding how MSM receive femmephobic with feminine behaviors. He argues that these behavioral pre- language illuminates perceptions about its utility in seeking and sentations have defined homosexuality as a construct that is choosing partners, and it better positions researchers and health inflexible and in direct opposition to heterosexuality. While con- practitioners to combat this type of linguistic presentation. ceptions of masculinity and femininity are undoubtedly culture- Additionally, the present study develops the literature on mo- specific, the current research posits that conceptions of masculin- bile dating apps and partner selection, particularly in relation to ity within gay culture are relatively steady across geographical MSM online communities, by highlighting the effect of self- borders. This may be attributed to the historical denigration of gay presentation on others’ interpretations of online dating personas, male effeminacy, which dates back to at least the late 19th century, as well as their intentions to meet the user in a variety of offline when theories of sexual inversion emerged in the medical litera- contexts. It establishes femmephobic framing as a device through ture (Nardi, 2000). The medicalization of people known as which scholars might examine masculinity preferences, anti- “congenital inverts” (p. 2) emerged at roughly the same time as the effeminacy, and the bias for all things masculine within the on- popularization of the conceptions of heterosexuality and homo- line culture of this specific population of men. By examining fem- sexuality, and the equation of these constructs with the “normal mephobic language and its impact on a number of perception and and abnormal” (p. 2). Effeminate men and butch women were ex- intention-to-meet variables, the present study has created a tem- amples of the exterior notions of inverted gender behavior, and plate by which one might scrutinize other linguistic and visual el- because both threatened customary conceptions of masculinity and ements of self-presentation. femininity, they were seen as cause for alarm (Nardi, 2000). Gay men have historically been treated as men who failed at gender 2. Literature review (Levine, 1998). In the current work, masculinity refers to the emotional and 2.1. Framing masculinity in MSM dating apps physical traits, as well as the behaviors, commonly associated with maleness within the gay community. This includes an ascription to The current study emphasizes the importance of looking at the masculine norms, but also an avoidance of feminine ones. It is effects of language utilized to create profile personas in mobile known that gay men adopt traditional masculine ideals early in life, dating apps. Framing offers a context from which to study how as they tend to experience negative responses to feminine femmephobic language in MSM profiles may both reflect a expression at a young age. This privileging of traditional masculine masculine bias in MSM app culture as well as influence user per- ideals may continue into adulthood. Studies have shown that ceptions of other MSM users. Framing is the means by which in- gender atypical boys draw out negative reactions and behaviors dividuals build a cognitive construction, or the way in which from both their peers and adults (Blakemore, 2003; Cater & individuals reorient their thinking about an issue (Chong & McCloskey, 1984; Lamb, Easterbrooks, & Holden, 1980; Martin, Druckman, 2007). According to Entman (1993), framing is funda- 1990; Young & Sweeting, 2004). Correspondingly, gay individuals mentally about selection and salience. Framing is to select “aspects are more likely to report having a preference for opposite-sex of a perceived reality and make them more salient in a communicating childhood playmates, feeling like the opposite sex as a child, and text” (p. 52), which influences individuals’ attitudes, beliefs, and desiring activities and career goals traditionally associated with the behaviors. In the present case, framing in MSM-specific mobile opposite gender (Bailey & Zucker, 1995). Harry (1983) hypothesized dating profiles, via language use, may influence how MSM users that gay men learn to defeminize as a coping strategy to deal with think about romantic and sexual partners. ridicule related to this childhood gender nonconformity. Bailey At the cognitive level of the MSM user, individual frames are the (1996) used the term “femiphobia” to reference anti-effeminacy mentally stored ideas and frames of reference that a person uses to in homosexual men, suggesting that this phobia was partly interpret and process information (Entman, 1993) that they rooted in the desire to avoid being stereotyped, spanning from early encounter in MSM online communities. MSM apps are user- experiences as feminine boys in society. While “femiphobia” could generated media, thus users create content (e.g., profiles and have been a fitting label for the scope of the current work, the term messages) based on their individual frames of homosexuality and “femmephobia” seems to be a more comprehensive and correct masculinity, and these frames also guide the perceptions and in- term. terpretations of the content they view. Individuals typically seek to The term “femmephobia” has occasionally been used in frame themselves advantageously in dating apps (Ellison, Heino, & academia, most often in reference to women, and to feminine les- Gibbs, 2006; Hancock & Toma, 2009). bians in particular. For example, Levitt, Gerrish, and Hiestand Some users rely on anti-effeminacy themes to frame their (2003) used the word to describe the type of ideas, language, and romantic preferences in MSM apps, resulting in femmephobic behaviors (e.g. femme-bashing) that femme lesbians worked to language. The expression of anti-effeminacy attitudes may be confront within the lesbian community. Although the authors offer motivated by a need to be accepted by others, as MSM app users no definition of the term, there are unmistakable links between its may “seek to enhance their appeal by aligning themselves with the usage in a lesbian context and in a gay male one. Perhaps the most anti-effeminacy ethos they perceive to be popular” (Taywaditep, straightforward definition of femmephobia comes from blogger 2002, p. 16). Thus, their profile text may be framed in an anti- Ozy Frantz (2012), who referred to it as “the devaluation, fear and effeminacy manner partly due to the perceived commonality and hatred of the feminine: of softness, nurturance, dependence, pervasiveness of these attitudes. This femmephobic framing dem- emotions, passivity, sensitivity, grace, innocence and the color onstrates adherence to a masculine ideal within the gay male cul- pink.” This definition surpasses the definition of “femiphobia,” ture, an ideal promoted by anti-effeminacy attitudes and the which refers only to negative feelings toward feminine men privileging of masculine presentation. (Skidmore, Linsenmeier, & Bailey, 2006), as it focuses on hatred toward femininity more generally. It is important to recognize that 2.2. Anti-effeminacy and the privileging of masculinity any negativity directed toward feminine MSM is undoubtedly connected to the overall devaluation of femininity in society at To understand femmephobia in MSM online communities, it is large. Therefore, for the purposes of this paper, “femmephobia” can 178 B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 be defined any negative feeling, aversion, or behavior directed to- be avoided even if some masculine behaviors are simultaneously ward femininity or toward those who exhibit feminine traits, based exhibited (Clarkson, 2006). Studies on MSM's personal advertise- upon societal understandings of what is masculine and feminine. ments have supported the proposition that these homosexual men This definition of femmephobia relates well to the literature on view effeminacy as undesirable in romantic and sexual potential gay male's apprehension toward femininity, particularly in other partners (Bailey et al., 1997; Laner & Kamel, 1997; Lumby, 1978). gay and bisexual men. According to Bergling (2001), gay men who This femmephobic attitude might be present more strongly for ascribe to a strict idealized masculinity experience a “fear” of some men based on demographics. For example, in a study that effeminate gay men, and these traditional ideals about masculinity contrasted the online personal advertisements of small town and affect how gay men feel about both themselves (Szymanski & Carr, urban gays and lesbians, Gudelunas (2005) found that small-town 2008) and same-sex relationships (Wester, Pionke, & Vogel, 2005). men were particularly concerned with masculinity, frequently From a framing perspective, research indicates that gay male cul- employing terms like “straight-acting” or “masculine” in their free- ture's privileging of masculinity and denigration of effeminacy re- text description of potential partners. sults in profile language and content that is presented as similarly It is not surprising then, that MSM tend to have high levels of femmephobic. masculinity consciousness. Masculinity consciousness is “a novel It must be noted that recent quantitative research illustrates the psychological construct defined as men's personal tendency to be usage of femmephobic profile text is often quite minimal in relation concerned and preoccupied with masculinity in their public to the overall number of profiles (Birnholtz, Fitzpatrick, Handel, & appearance” (p. 18). It can be identified as individual variance in the Brubaker, 2014; Miller, 2015). Nonetheless, we maintain that this salience of masculinity in a male's self-concept, public self- issue is of utmost importance for two clear reasons. Firstly, expo- consciousness, and self-presentation (Taywaditep, 2002). Men sure to anti-effeminacy and/or pro-masculinity messages in these who are high in masculinity consciousness are those for whom particular online spaces far outweighs exposure to pro-effeminacy masculinity represents a principal aspect of their self-concept. At and/or anti-masculinity messages. Numerous scholars have found the same time, Taywaditep (2002) found that homosexual men that gay men using personal advertisements prefer masculine express some of the most powerfully held stereotypical beliefs mates, and that they tend to stress the desire for men who display about effeminacy, positing that men attempt to enhance their ap- traditional masculine interests or behaviors (Bailey, Kim, Hills, & peal in personal advertisements by presenting advertisements Linsenmeier, 1997; Laner & Kamel, 1977; Lumby, 1978; Phua, framed with femmephobia. 2002; Taywaditep, 2002). In a content analysis of profiles from In relation to computer-mediated communication, some work the MSM-specific dating app Jack'd, Miller (2015) found that, has illuminated the tendency of MSM to label others as stereo- although six percent of men included a self-description of their typical based on their mere usage of particular websites or social own masculinity or lack of effeminacy, not one man in 300 networks. For example, in a study of the MSM app Gaydar, Cassidy described himself as feminine or lacking masculinity in his profile (2013) found that men imagined other users as being less nice, text. Similarly, in this same study, seven percent of men included a sincere, educated, classy, happy, or normal than themselves, preference for masculine or feminine partners, with all but one of despite also being users of the same app. When these stereotypes those instances calling for masculine/not feminine potential part- about gay male femininity are combined with conceptions of the ners. This devaluation of femininity may cause more effeminate “other” on mobile apps for MSM, it seems to manifest in ways that men to engage in self-stereotyping, as research has shown that one could easily describe as anti-effeminate. lower-status group members have a tendency to protect them- selves in this way (Latrofa, Vaes, & Cadinu, 2012). 2.3. The present study Secondly, this line of research is important because, even though the number of profiles employing femmephobic language is small, As an extension of the more traditional personal advertisement, it remains one of the most dominant patterns of exclusionary dating apps are rooted in judgment, both the ones that profile users language on MSM-specific online spaces. For example, Birnholtz put forth in the text they present, as well as the opinions profile et al. (2014) explored the use of the clause “no” in reference to viewers form upon analysis of this text. Gudelunas (2012) found the types of men Grindr users wanted to restrict from contacting that the primary manner in which MSM use MSM-specific mobile them. In both college-town and urban center settings, no fems/ dating apps is for sexual encounters, with the secondary use of feminine/girly/flamers was the most prevalent exclusionary term offering a place to find relationships and friendships. Men indicated (1.5% of profiles from college towns; 0.7% of profiles from urban that they did not feel comfortable on traditional, heteronormative centers). This figure exceeded the negatively skewed language dating websites like Match.com, and they were more likely to use surrounding age, body type, smoking, race, and political identifi- gay-specific websites and apps to find both sexual and romantic cation. In Miller's (2015) previously mentioned study on Jack'd, partners. In one study on Grindr, participants claimed to view it as explicit partner preferences based on masculinity correspondingly “a virtual place in which they were co-situated with other MSM, exceeded explicit preferences based on potential contacts' age or across multiple physical spaces and places” (Blackwell, Birnholtz, & race. Therefore, anti-effeminacy and pro-masculinity language Abbott, 2015, pp. 1125e1126). Past studies have focused on the might be one of the more dominant themes users take away from content that MSM post in their online and print personal adver- their exposure to MSM-specific dating apps, particularly due to the tisements, or the factors that they tend to emphasize (Bailey et al., repetitive and one-sided nature of the message. 1997; Birnholtz et al., 2014; Fitzpatrick, Birnholtz, & Brubaker, The femmephobic framing of app profiles might be strength- 2015; Gudelunas, 2005; Hatala & Prehodka, 1996; Laner & Kamel, ened by the overall culture of anti-effeminacy in which MSM live. 1977; Lumby, 1978; Miller, 2015). It is equally important to For instance, Clarkson (2006) noted the devaluation of effeminacy, examine if, and how, anti-feminine language influences percep- effeminate gay men, and women, in his analysis of a pro- tions of the men who post femmephobic profile content. The pat- masculinity website for MSM, StraightActing.com. He found that terns of messages occurring online may have effects that reach these particular media users objected to the popular cultural ste- beyond the screen to the psychology of the MSM user. reotypes that conflate the idea of femininity with male homosex- The present study is an online experiment testing the short- uality (Clarkson, 2006). Femininity, for the StraightActing.com term effects of exposure to a femmephobic or non-femmephobic users, was found to operate as an act of derision, and something to MSM dating profile on gay male participants’ perceptions of the B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 179 profile user and their desire to meet said user in real-life, as well as bisexual men in their network of the study. Criteria for participa- the interaction of this main effect with anti-effeminacy attitudes, tion included being 18 years of age or older, being male, and having masculinity consciousness, and self-perceived masculinity. Based used MSM-specific mobile dating apps in the past or present. The on the literature, we propose the following series of hypotheses and Qualtrics link was active for a one-month period, during which research questions. First, it is predicted that exposure to femme- time 144 individuals completed the full survey, including the phobic profile language will result in perceptions of the profile user experimental portion. Participants who did not complete the full that are different from exposure to profiles without femmephobic study were not retained for analysis, and the one female who language. The direction of this relationship, however, is unknown. completed the online experiment was similarly excluded, leaving a sample consisting of 143 males. The following statistics are for the H1. Exposure to femmephobic language in a mobile dating app 143 retained participants. profile will impact perception of a profile user differentially than The mean age was 27.41 (SD ¼ 7.6), with a range from 18 to 50. exposure to a non-femmephobic language profile. Eighty-four percent of participants identified as homosexual or gay Similarly, if perceptions of a profile user are impacted by the (n ¼ 120), and 13 percent as bisexual (n ¼ 19). The remaining usage of a femmephobic profile frame, so too might the willingness identified as heterosexual or straight (n ¼ 1), pansexual or poly- of participants’ to meet the profile user in an offline, face-to-face sexual (n ¼ 1), or other (n ¼ 2). The majority of participants (69%, context. Therefore, we present the following hypothesis: n ¼ 98) reported being single, 11% of people reported being monogamously attached and living with their partner (n ¼ 15), and H2. Exposure to femmephobic language in a mobile dating app 10% reported living apart from their monogamous relationship profile will be differentially related to participants' desire to meet a partner (n ¼ 14). The rest of the participants reported being non- user in an offline setting in comparison to exposure to a non- monogamous with their live-in (5.6%, n ¼ 8) or live-out partner femmephobic profile. (2.8%, n ¼ 4), in a polyamorous relationship (1%, n ¼ 1), or falling Given that self-descriptions of masculinity are correlated with into the “other” category of relationship status (2%, n ¼ 3). partner preference for masculinity (Miller, 2015), participants own The sample was made up of mostly White participants (74%, feelings about their masculinity, their preoccupation with their n ¼ 106), with mixed race (8%, n ¼ 11), Hispanic (7%, n ¼ 10), and masculinity, and their overall attitudes toward effeminacy are Black (4%, n ¼ 6) participants making up the bulk of the rest. Two possible moderators of the main relationships. The following two percent of participants identified as Asian (n ¼ 3), 2% as other research questions explore this: (n ¼ 3), and 1% as South Asian (n ¼ 1), Native (n ¼ 1), and Pacific Islander (n ¼ 2). Geographically, the sample was quite diverse, with RQ1: Will the relationship between exposure to femmephobic 18% of participants from Canada (n ¼ 26) and 18% from outside of mobile dating app profiles and participants' perception of a North America (n ¼ 25). The rest of participants were from all re- profile user be moderated by participants' a) level of anti- gions of the United States, including the Midwest (22%, n ¼ 31), the effeminacy, b) masculinity consciousness, and c) self-perceived South (19%, n ¼ 27), the West (13%, n ¼ 19), and the Northeast (11%, masculinity? n ¼ 15). Most men in the sample (58%, n ¼ 83) reported having at least a 4-year college degree. An additional 25% (n ¼ 35) reported RQ2: Will the relationship between exposure to femmephobic attending some college and 8% reported possessing a 2-year college mobile dating app profiles and participants' desire to meet a degree (n ¼ 12). The remainder of participants had completed high user in an offline setting be moderated by participants' a) level school/GED (8%, n ¼ 12), save for one. of anti-effeminacy, b) masculinity consciousness, and c) self- Participants were asked about their current use of MSM-specific perceived masculinity? phone or web apps, and 41% reported daily interaction with these apps (n ¼ 59). Sixteen percent of participants reported using apps multiple times per week (n ¼ 23), 9% weekly (n ¼ 13), 15% a few 3. Method times per month (n ¼ 21), and 12% less than once a month (n ¼ 17). A minority of the sample reported no current use of MSM-specific An online experiment was conducted, wherein frames were apps (7%, n ¼ 10). manipulated to present both a femmephobic and a non- femmephobic version of otherwise identical mobile app profiles 3.2. Procedure for MSM. Participants were randomly assigned in Qualtrics to the femmephobic or non-femmephobic condition and responded to a Men were asked to complete an online English language survey questionnaire about their perceptions of the profile user, their in which they were assigned to one of two framing conditions: a desire to meet the profile user offline, and their masculinity-related femmephobic condition (condition 1) and a non-femmephobic attitudes and beliefs. condition (condition 2). Each condition included four researcher- created dating app profiles, made to resemble the type of profile 3.1. Participants that one would find on an app like Grindr. All four of the profiles featured different photos and text; however, the photos and profile A total of 144 participants took part in this experimental study text were consistent across conditions. Therefore, attractiveness of on a voluntary and anonymous basis. Participants were recruited the profile user was consistent across conditions, as all men in using a snowball sampling method, though efforts were also un- condition 1 saw the same photos as the men in condition 2. The one dertaken to access a more random sample. Notice of the study was notable exception to the sameness of profiles across conditions was posted in various Facebook groups, with the permission of ad- the insertion of femmephobic language to establish the femme- ministrators. Participation was also solicited on Twitter through phobic frame. Effectively, the profiles shown to each condition were direct tweets and targeted interaction with MSM individuals, identical in content except for this femmephobic text. LGBTQ organizations, and influential gay adult film stars and Profiles were created to mimic the look and feel of actual MSM- Internet celebrities. Lastly, the survey link was posted on a gay male specific mobile dating apps, though they were not labeled as being online forum, and sent in targeted e-mails to LGBT community related to any one website or app. Given that the goals of each members. Participants were encouraged to notify other gay and specific MSM-focused app might differ e for example, men on 180 B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185

Scruff might be exclusively searching for masculine men whereas and I don't have time for queens.” Figs. 1 and 2 provide examples of men on Jack'd might be less streamlined and exclusionary e efforts aprofile shown to participants in each condition. were made to create sample profiles that could not be associated Men in both conditions were asked to rate each fake profile user with any specific network. For example, the advertisements utilized on a variety of personal characteristics, as well as to rate their desire the text-box placement of Grindr, but the colors of Scruff. This of meeting the user in an offline setting. Participants in each con- experiment attempted to isolate the manipulation of the text as our dition were also asked a series of questions to measure their anti- main goal, though future work might seek to examine specific apps effeminacy attitudes, masculinity consciousness, and self- and social networks to see how advertisements from named apps perceived masculinity. These questions were asked after the might prime disparate expectations. experimental portion of the study. Before exposure to the dating In Condition 1, the profiles shown to participants were manip- profiles, all participants were asked a number of demographic ulated to include femmephobic language inserted into the text. questions (e.g. age, race, religion, educational background, These profiles represented a range of femmephobic sentiments, geographic location, etc.) and questions about the frequency of and all femmephobic text was taken from actual profiles high- their MSM-specific app use. lighted on Douchebags of Grindr, a website that proposes to high- light Grindr profiles that use insensitive, hateful, and/or offensive language in reference to masculinity and femininity, age, race, body 3.3. Measures type, or a host of other issues. Profile one did not specifically put down femininity but rather called for “straight acting” men. The 3.3.1. Perceptions of profile users words “masculine guy” were also inserted. Profile two included a Participants were asked to rate each profile based on the user's simple “no fems” statement, a common idiom in MSM-populated perceived physical attractiveness, intelligence, sexual confidence, online circles. The other femmephobic profiles used more pro- masculinity, and dateability. Physical attractiveness (M ¼ 5.76, nounced anti-effeminate language. The third profile's femme- SD ¼ 1.52) was measured by participants' ratings of profile users on phobic insert said, “I am NOT into men that sound, look, or act like a semantic differential scale ranging from 1 (very unattractive/ugly) females. I am a man, you should be too.” The final profile's fem- to 10 (very attractive/handsome). This measure has been success- mephobia was even more extreme, stating “I'm allergic to fairy dust fully used in past research (Urbaniak & Kilmann, 2006), and though immobile photographs are a limited evaluation of physical

Fig. 1. Example of a profile shown to the non-femmephobic condition. Fig. 2. Example of a corresponding profile shown to the femmephobic condition. B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 181 attractiveness, they offer utility for the proposed study. Semantic test, revealing some significant differences between conditions differential scales were also used to measure intelligence (1 ¼ very (femmephobic or non-femmephobic). In comparison to the non- unintelligent, 10 ¼ very intelligent, M ¼ 4.76, SD ¼ 1.5), sexual con- femmephobic profiles, exposure to femmephobic profiles signifi- fidence (1 ¼ very unconfident, 10 ¼ very confident, M ¼ 6.2, SD ¼ 1.8), cantly impacted how participants rated the profile user's intelli- masculinity (1 ¼ not at all masculine/very feminine, 10 ¼ very gence, sexual confidence, and dateability. There was no significant masculine/not at all feminine M ¼ 6.46, SD ¼ 1.54), and dateability relationship between condition and the perceived physical attrac- (1 ¼ not at all dateable, 10 ¼ very dateable M ¼ 3.9, SD ¼ 1.82). tiveness or masculinity of the user. Thus, there was partial support for the hypothesis. In all instances where a significant difference 3.3.2. Desire to meet profile users offline was found, those who viewed the femmephobic version of the Three questions gauged the endorsement of profiles with fem- profiles had a more negative perception of profile users than those mephobic language inserted into the profile text by measuring the who viewed the non-femmephobic profiles. Table 1 summarizes participant's willingness to engage with the profile user in an off- the results for the femmephobic profile exposure versus non- line context. First, participants were asked how likely they would femmephobic profile exposure. be to meet the profile user face-to-face for friendship purposes ¼ ¼ (M 2.30, SD 0.92). Next, participants were asked how likely they 4.2. Hypothesis 2 would be to meet the profile user face-to-face for romantic pur- ¼ ¼ poses (M 2.07, SD 0.87). Lastly, participants were asked how The second hypothesis was also tested using an independent fi likely they would be to meet pro le users face-to-face for sexual samples t-test in order to examine the impact of exposure to ¼ ¼ fi purposes (M 2.25, SD 0.97). A ve-point Likert-type scale femmephobic profiles on participants’ desire to meet profile users ranging from 1 (very unlikely)to5(very likely) measured responses. in an offline setting for a) friendship, b) romantic, and c) sexual purposes. Significant differences were likewise revealed between 3.3.3. Anti-effeminacy attitudes the conditions. Those who viewed the femmephobic profiles had Taywaditep (2001) designed the Negative Attitude Towards significantly lower intentions to meet profile users for friendship Effeminacy Scale to evaluate the amount of negativity gay men feel and romantic purposes than those who did not. The results for towards overtly effeminate behavior in other homosexual men. intention to meet for sexual purposes ran in the same direction but Participants responded to 17 statements using a 7-point Likert-type were not significant. Therefore, the hypothesis was partially sup- scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). For ported. The results are summarized in Table 2. example, participants were asked how much they agree or disagree with statements such as “It bothers me to see a gay man acting like 4.3. Research question 1 a woman” and “When I meet a gay man for the first time, I would be turned off immediately if he acted effeminate.” Items were reverse Hierarchical regressions were used to test RQ1a, b, and c, which coded where necessary, and mean anti-effeminacy scores were explored a number of possible moderators of the relationship be- then created for each participant, with a higher score indicating a tween exposure to femmephobic profiles and perceptions of a higher degree of anti-effeminacy attitudes (a ¼ 0.95, M ¼ 2.90, profile user. For each of these regression models, age, race, sexual SD ¼ 1.23). orientation, regional location, education level, and frequency of MSM-specific mobile dating app use was entered into the first block 3.3.4. Masculinity consciousness as control variables. All moderating variables were mean-centered. The Masculine Consciousness Scale (Taywaditep, 2001) mea- sures the degree to which homosexual men are preoccupied with the masculinity of their appearance e or how “straight acting” they 4.3.1. Research question 1a anti-effeminacy appear to be e in public. Participants were asked to respond to 18 To test RQ1a, which examined the interaction effect between fi statements using a 10-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at exposure to femmephobic pro les and anti-effeminacy on per- fi ’ all true for me) to (definitely true for me). For example, statements ceptions of pro le users, participants anti-effeminacy scores and included “I often wonder whether people think I am masculine” condition were entered into block two, and the interaction term fi and “When I hear my own recorded voice, I listen to see how was entered into block three. A signi cant interaction emerged for fi masculine it sounds.” A mean masculinity consciousness score was all ve of the perception variables. Results are summarized in then created for each participant, with a higher score indicating a Table 3. stronger level of masculinity consciousness (a ¼ 0.96, M ¼ 4.35, SD ¼ 2.15). 4.3.1.1. Attractiveness. For the effect on perception of profile users’ physical attractiveness, the overall model was significant. 3.3.5. Self-perceived masculinity Participants' self-perceived masculinity was measured using the & Sexual Identity Scale (SIS; Stern, Barak, Gould, 1987). Participants Table 1 were asked to finish 16 sentences such as “I FEEL as though I am …” Differences in perception of profile users for participants in femmephobic and non- and “How I dress is …” by choosing from one of five possible re- femmephobic conditions. sponses ranging from (1) very masculine to (5) very feminine. A Variable Femmephobic Non-femmephobic tpr2 mean of each participant's responses was then calculated and a MSDM SD lower score indicated a higher self-perception of masculinity (a ¼ 0.87, M ¼ 2.73, SD ¼ 0.45). Physical 5.58 1.62 5.94 1.51 1.39 0.166 0.01 Attractiveness ** Intelligence 4.33 1.65 5.18 1.23 3.52 0.001 0.08 * 4. Results Sexual Confidence 5.76 2.09 6.64 1.34 2.97 0.004 0.06 Masculinity 6.28 1.75 6.64 1.28 1.41 0.161 0.01 ** 4.1. Hypothesis 1 Dateability 3.40 1.87 4.39 1.65 3.34 0.001 0.07 * Note: A higher mean score indicates a more positive mean rating. A indicates ** The first hypothesis was tested using an independent samples t- significance at the 0.05 level, and indicates significance at the 0.001 level. 182 B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185

Table 2 Differences in desire to meet profile users offline for participants in femmephobic and non-femmephobic conditions.

Variable Femmephobic Non-femmephobic tp r2

MSDM SD

** Desire to meet for friendship purposes 1.98 0.92 2.62 0.82 4.4 <0.001 0.12 * Desire to meet for romantic purposes 1.89 0.91 2.24 0.79 2.41 0.017 0.04 Desire to meet for sexual purposes 2.12 1.03 2.38 0.89 1.61 0.111 0.02

* ** Note: A higher mean score indicates a higher desire to meet. A indicates significance at the 0.05 level, and indicates significance at the 0.001 level.

Table 3 were again more likely to rate a femmephobic profile user as more Interaction between exposure to femmephobic profiles and anti-effeminacy on dateable than a non-femmephobic profile user. For men lower in fi perceptions of pro le users. anti-effeminacy, the reverse was true. See Table 3. Variable b t (df) P

* Attractiveness 0.459 2.279 (142) 0.024 4.3.2. Research question 1b: masculinity consciousness ** Intelligence 0.633 3.391 (142) <0.001 RQ1b looked at the moderating effect of masculinity con- ** Sexual Confidence 0.890 3.959 (142) <0.001 sciousness on the relationship between exposure to femmephobic Masculinity 0.392 1.919 (142) 0.057 profiles and perceptions of profile users. Again, the control vari- Dateability 0.682 3.410 (142)* 0.003 ables were entered into block one, the two independent variables * fi ** fi Note: A indicates signi cance at the 0.05 level, and indicates signi cance at the were entered separately on the second block and the interaction 0.001 level. term was entered on the third block. There were no significant interaction effects for any of the perception variables. R2 ¼ 0.135, F (9, 142) ¼ 2.316, p ¼ 0.019. Results revealed an interaction effect between anti-effeminacy and femmephobic 4.3.3. Research question 1c: self-perceived masculinity profile exposure, such that those with high levels of anti- RQ1c tested whether a participant's self-perceived masculinity effeminacy were significantly more likely to rate profile users as would moderate the relationship between exposure to femme- more attractive when they used femmephobic language. See phobic profiles and perceptions of the profile user. To test this, Table 3. A crossover interaction was found in those with low levels condition and SIS were entered into block two, and the interaction of anti-effeminacy, as such participants were significantly less term was entered into block three. SIS and exposure to femme- likely to rate profile users as more attractive when they used phobic profiles did not produce any significant results for any of the femmephobic language. five perception dependent variables.

4.3.1.2. Intelligence. The overall model was similarly significant for 4.4. Research question 2 the interaction effect on intelligence ratings, R2 ¼ 0.231, F (9, 142) ¼ 4.451, p < 0.001. Men in the femmephobic condition who Hierarchical regressions were again used to test RQ2a, b, and c, had lower levels of anti-effeminacy rated profile users as less which explored a number of possible moderators of the relation- fi ’ intelligent than men in the non-femmephobic condition, however, ship between exposure to femmephobic pro les and participants fl men with higher levels of anti-effeminacy that were exposed to desire to meet a user in an of ine setting. For each of these fi femmephobic profiles rated these profile users as more intelligent regression models, control variables were entered into the rst than their counterparts who viewed the non-femmephobic ver- block, the moderators and condition were entered into the second fi sions. See Table 3. block, and the interaction term was added into the nal block. All moderating variables were mean-centered. 4.3.1.3. Sexual confidence. Results also illustrated that anti- effeminacy was a moderator of the effect of femmephobic profile 4.4.1. Research question 2a: anti-effeminacy fl exposure on profile users’ perceived sexual confidence, R2 ¼ 0.232, When desire to meet of ine for friendship was the dependent fi 2 ¼ F (9,142) ¼ 4.472, p < 0.001. The stronger anti-effeminacy attitudes variable, the overall regression model was signi cant, R 0.278, ¼ < a man held, the more likely he was to interpret a femmephobic F(9, 142) 5.687, p 0.001. While there was no effect for men high profile user as sexually confident. See Table 3. Similarly, the lower in in anti-effeminacy, those with lower levels of anti-effeminacy were fi anti-effeminacy attitudes, the more likely a man was to deem a signi cantly less likely to want to meet men with femmephobic fi femmephobic profile user as sexually unconfident. pro les for friendship than low anti-effeminacy men who viewed the non-femmephobic profiles. See Table 4. For romantic intention to meet, the model was correspondingly 4.3.1.4. Masculinity. For masculinity, the overall model was signif- significant, R2 ¼ 0.245, F(9, 142) ¼ 4.783, p < 0.001. The lower a icant, R2 ¼ 0.13, F (9, 142) ¼ 2.211, p ¼ 0.25, and anti-effeminacy was man's level of anti-effeminacy, the less likely he was to desire to found to be a marginally significant moderator of femmephobic profile exposure on perception of user masculinity. See Table 3. Similar to the other perception variables, in the femmephobic Table 4 condition, the higher the level of anti-effeminacy, the more likely a Interaction between exposure to femmephobic profiles and anti-effeminacy on man was to rate the profile user as masculine, and the lower a man's desire to meet a user in an offline setting. level of anti-effeminacy, the more likely he was to rate the profile Variable B t (df) p user as less masculine. ** Friendship 0.267 2.392 (142) <0.001 ** Romance 0.367 3.411 (142) 0.001 * 4.3.1.5. Dateability. Finally, RQ1a also looked at dateability, with Sexual 0.310 2.405 (142) 0.018 fi 2 ¼ * ** the overall model proving to be signi cant, R 0.255, F (9, Note: A indicates significance at the 0.05 level, and indicates significance at the 142) ¼ 5.056, p < 0.001. Men with higher levels of anti-effeminacy 0.001 level. B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 183 meet a femmephobic profile user for romantic or dating purposes organizations need to focus more on educating MSM about the in an offline context. See Table 4. dangers of using anti-feminine sentiments rather than solely Lastly, anti-effeminacy was found to moderate the relationship focusing on highlighting homophobia when it originates from between exposure to femmephobic profiles and intentions to meet outside of the queer community. It is possible that the femme- offline for sexual purposes, R2 ¼ 0.126, F(9, 142) ¼ 2.135, p ¼ 0.031. phobic frame is employed simply due to a group mentality that The higher a man's level of anti-effeminacy, the more likely he was privileges masculinity, and it is this cultural understanding of gay to want to meet a femmephobic profile user for sexual purposes masculinity and its importance that needs our focus. when compared with those low in anti-effeminacy. See Table 4. That the presence of femmephobic language did alter the way that profile users were perceived in levels of intelligence, sexual 4.4.2. Research question 2b: masculinity consciousness confidence, and dateability is also important. Across all three of RQ2b looked at the moderating effect of masculinity con- these dependent variables, men were perceived less well when sciousness on the relationship between exposure to femmephobic their profile included femmephobic language. This finding illus- profiles and desire to meet profile users offline. Control variables trates that femmephobic profile text is seen as less indicative of were entered into block one, masculinity consciousness and con- intelligence; that men using this language are seen as less sexually dition were entered in block two, and the interaction term was confident themselves, likely because the use of this language is entered in block three. There were no significant interaction effects seen as overcompensation for one's own lack of comfort with for any of the desire variables. femininity; and that men utilizing femmephobic language are overall less desirable as romantic partners, as evidence by the lower 4.4.3. Research question 2c: self-perceived masculinity dateability ratings. Nonetheless, the privileging of masculinity and Lastly, RQ2c examined the interaction between self-perceived demeaning of femininity continues to be a problem in MSM pop- masculinity and exposure to femmephobic profiles on partici- ulations, both online and off, and we must continue to explore the pants’ desire to meet profile users in an offline context. No inter- motivations behind these sentiments, as well as the effects they action effects were found for self-perceptions of masculinity and have on individuals, gay culture, and society. If men are not exposure to femmephobic profiles on desire to meet for friendship, perceiving this type of language positively when others employ it, it romantic or sexual purposes in an offline context. begets the question of why some men continue to frame their profiles in an especially femmephobic manner. Furthermore, we 5. Discussion must consider how the apps themselves facilitate the privileging of masculinity in the branding and features of their products. The present study adds to the limited amount of research examining LGBTQ individuals' use of LGBTQ-centered social media, 5.2. Hypothesis 2 particularly as it relates to sub-cultural understandings of mascu- linity and femininity. Findings indicate that the use of femme- The second hypothesis also has significant implications for men phobic textual elements negatively impacts a user's perceptions of who engage on online networks for MSM, as femmephobic lan- potential mates, which might thus limit dating and friendship pools guage was shown to have an influence on how willing men were to and create tension within these online communities. More and interact with profile users. Men were significantly less likely to more MSM (as well as straight individuals) are moving to online want to meet profile users for friendship or romantic purposes than spaces to find mates, and the presence of this anti-effeminacy can when profile users used no femmephobic language. However, they have worrisome and potentially very dangerous effects on self- were still just as likely to want to have sex with people who used esteem, self-concept, and how these men interact with other in- femmephobic text. This is problematic for the queer community as dividuals within and outside of the queer community. Furthermore, a whole, because it emphasizes the willingness to overlook we can look to the 3AM model (Wright & Funk, 2013) as a possible damaging and hurtful language for the sake of finding sexual justification for how these attitudes might affect actual behaviors. gratification. It is possible that this finding could be related to the This model emphasizes the ability of sexual media (e.g. pornog- anti-effeminacy that many queer men develop early on in life as a raphy) to activate social behavior scripts that range beyond what is response to societal masculinity pressures (Bailey, 1996), or specifically depicted in the interaction. Given the often-sexual na- perhaps indicative of the overall preference that many gay and ture of MSM online interactions and profiles, this model might be bisexual men have for masculine sexual and dating partners beneficially applied in future research. (Sanchez et al., 2010). Because many men that utilize apps to find other MSM are driven by a life of “geographic or psychological 5.1. Hypothesis 1 isolation” (Woodland, 2000), they might be willing to overlook more than other men with increased access to the offline queer H1 examined the impact of exposure to femmephobic dating community on a regular basis. profiles on perceptions of profile users, and the results show that using femmephobic language impacts the way that a man is 5.3. Research questions perceived, but not across all variables. Having a femmephobic profile does not significantly alter perceptions of a man's physical The current study's inclusion of a variety of moderating vari- attractiveness, perhaps because femmephobic remarks are a ables is an important step in further understanding whom is most reflection on personality rather than physicality. This may also impacted by femmephobia and its presence in mobile dating app speak to the superficiality of Western culture, and of the gay profiles, the queer community, and society as a whole. That neither community more specifically, where much social capital seems to masculinity consciousness nor self-perceived masculinity had a be placed on appearance and materiality (Mowlabocus, 2010). significant impact on the relationship between exposure to fem- A man's perceived masculinity was also unaffected, which mephobic profiles and perception of profile users, as evidenced by highlights that perceived masculinity is not enhanced by the use of RQ1b and RQ1c, or on the desire variables, as evidenced by RQ2b anti-feminine language. It would appear that the use of femme- and RQ2c, indicates that others' online profiles are judged under a phobic language in one's online profile is not an effective strategy separate standard than MSM use to judge themselves. While pre- for bolstering one's own masculinity perception, and perhaps gay vious research has noted that men crave romantic and sexual 184 B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 partners who appear to be masculine (Sanchez et al., 2010), this reach a more diverse sample of MSM. The current study had vari- desire to be with someone masculine does not necessarily correlate ability in terms of geographic location within North America (and with a preoccupation with one's own masculinity. The current overseas), but lacked the ideal range of ethnic/racial backgrounds, study looked at these variables as moderators rather than outcome relationship statuses, and educational backgrounds that one might variables, however, further research should explore the effect of desire for such a study. MSM-specific mobile dating app use and exposure to femmephobic Another limitation of the present study was the focus solely on profiles on masculinity consciousness and self-perceptions of cognitive effects rather than behavioral ones. This work explored masculinity. A particularly interesting approach might be to utilize questions about how femmephobic profile text impacts the way a sample consisting of men who use MSM-specific mobile dating that MSM perceive those who use this language, as well as their apps as well as men who never have, which is something that the desire to meet men who utilize femmephobic language, but it present study did not do. would also be beneficial to explore the actual behaviors associated Unlike masculinity consciousness and self-perceived masculin- with the endorsement or non-endorsement of such language. For ity, anti-effeminacy was a critical moderator between exposure to example, it would be useful to know whether a profile user's femmephobic profiles and perception of profiles users, as well as negative language directed toward effeminate men leads to less the desire to meet these users in an offline context. RQ1a looked at real-time meetings or shortened bouts of continued correspon- the perception outcome variables, and produced fascinating dence. It would be difficult to investigate these questions without crossover interaction effects. Men with low levels of anti- creating a falsified profile and engaging in deception. effeminacy consistently rated profile users less positively when Finally, the present study focused on femme-negative language they utilized femmephobic language in their advertisements. in relation to a control group, but is hindered by the absence of a Femmephobia is in direct contrast with the attitudes that these pro-femme condition. While anecdotal experience indicates that men hold about effeminacy in gay men, and they viewed femme- pro-feminine frames are relatively rare in the real-world of MSM- phobic language use as making a man less physically attractive, less specific apps, they do exist, as do profiles that call out the intelligent, less sexually confident, less masculine, and less privileging of masculinity and “straight-acting” culture. A third dateable. condition that replicated an example of pro-femme language might However, the presence of femmephobic text had an adverse have been a useful contrast to the anti-femme condition, and is effect for participants who had high levels of anti-effeminacy. The fruitful territory for future work in this area. This third condition higher a man's level of anti-effeminate attitudes, the more likely he would provide a truer contrast, and it would allow us to determine was to deem a femmephobic profile user as more physically the default frame. attractive, more intelligent, more sexually confident, more mascu- Nonetheless, the present study advances framing theory by line, and more dateable. While it is intuitive that those with lower suggesting a novel set of frames by which we might examine MSM anti-effeminate attitudes would be less drawn to femmephobic online profiles. By contrasting femmephobic and non- men online, it is surprising that the presence of femmephobic femmephobic frames, the current work recreated a unique facet language actually increased ratings of profile users for some men. It of gay online culture. Evidence suggests that the femmephobic is possible that those who endorsed femmephobia display similar frame is more often than not perceived rather negatively, an femmephobia in their own online profiles, and future research interesting finding given the persistence of femmephobic personal should ask participants about the content of their own mobile profile language over time. Because individuals are both the pro- dating app profiles to explore this correlation. This may also be an ducers and the audience on mobile apps, it is particularly important avenue to explore using a content analytical approach, as we have a that we continue to explore framing and its effects on these new limited amount of knowledge about the frequency of femmephobic technologies. frame use on newer mobile apps, particularly in how frequencies may differ between apps. The results of RQ2a, which signified that 6. Conclusion men with higher anti-effeminacy attitudes were more likely to desire to meet femmephobic profile users offline for friendship, The current research provides a variety of key implications for romantic, and/or sexual purposes, was consistent with the findings those studying anti-effeminate attitudes and behaviors within the for the perception variables. queer community, as well as those studying mobile dating apps or websites for MSM. The results clearly indicate that femmephobic 5.4. Limitations language used in social networking profiles does impact the way that MSM perceive each other and their desire for offline inter- Given that the researchers reside in a midsized Midwestern city, personal interactions. More research is needed on the other effects recruiting a large sample of local MSM for a laboratory experiment of femmephobic profile language, such as its impact on self- was not realistic. A sample recruited online was beneficial for this perception, sexual practices, or desire to participate as a member reason. It allowed participants increased anonymity, and it pro- of the queer community. The present study also highlights the vided the opportunity to explore geographical differences. An importance of examining the effect of anti-effeminacy on online Internet-based sample does, however, have the significant draw- interaction between men who have sex with men (MSM). With so back of credibility. While all materials asked for participants’ many opportunities for sexual minority men to connect online in gender and sexual orientation, there is no guarantee that the per- today's current media landscape, it has become more and more son on the other side of each computer screen was without a doubt apparent that this is an avenue for socially interesting and impor- a man who has sex with men. Additionally, this study required that tant research. participants be current or past users of MSM-specific mobile dating apps. As previously stated, replications of this type of work might References choose to investigate the impact of femmephobic language on men who are not users of this type of media and who, therefore, might Bailey, J. M. (1996). Gender identity. In R. C. Savin-Williams, & K. M. Cohen (Eds.), have less desensitization to this type of anti-feminine language. The lives of lesbians, gays, and Bisexuals: Children to adults (pp. 71e93). Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace College Publisher. While measures were taken to counteract the non-random sam- Bailey, J. M., Kim, P. Y., Hills, A., & Linsenmeier, J. A. W. (1997). Butch, femme, or pling method, future research might also look for novel ways to straight acting? partner preferences of gay men and lesbians. Journal of B. Miller, E. Behm-Morawitz / Computers in Human Behavior 62 (2016) 176e185 185

Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 960e973. gender-related traits in disordered eating. Sex Roles, 41(112), 1e15. Bailey, J. M., & Zucker, K. J. (1995). Childhood sex-typed behavior and sexual Lamb, M. E., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Holden, G. W. (1980). Reinforcement and pun- orientation: a conceptual analysis and quantitative review. Developmental ishment among preschoolers: characteristics, effects, and correlates. Child Psychology, 31,43e55. Development, 51, 1230e1236. Bergling, T. (2001). Sissyphobia: Gay men and effeminate behavior. New York: Har- Laner, M. R., & Kamel, G. L. (1997). Media mating I: newspaper “personal” ads of rington Park Press. homosexual men. Journal of Homosexuality, 3,149e162. Birnholtz, J., Fitzpatrick, C., Handel, M., & Brubaker, J. R. (2014, September). Identity, Latrofa, M., Vaes, J., & Cadinu, M. (2012). Self-stereotyping: the central role of an identification and identifiability: The language of self-presentation on a location- ingroup threatening identity. The Journal of Social Psychology, 152(1), 92e111. based mobile dating app. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628406. Paper Levine, M. (1998). Gay macho: The life and death of the homosexual clone. New York: presented at MobileHCI. NYU Press. Blackwell, C., Birnholtz, J., & Abbott, C. (2015). Seeing and being seen: co-situation Levitt, H. M., Gerrish, E. A., & Hiestand, K. R. (2003). The misunderstood gender: a and impression formation using Grindr, a location-aware gay dating app. New model of modern femme identity. Sex Roles, 48(3/4), 99e113. http://dx.doi.org/ Media & Society, 17(7), 1117e1136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444814521595. 10.1023/A:1022453304384. Blakemore, J. E. O. (2003). Children's beliefs about violating gender norms: boys Lumby, M. E. (1978). Men who advertise for sex. Journal of Homosexuality, 4,63e72. shouldn't look like girls, and girls shouldn't act like boys. Sex Roles, 48,411e419. Martin, C. L. (1990). Attitudes and expectations about children with nontraditional Cassidy, E. M. (2013). Gay men, social media and self-presentation: managing and traditional gender roles. Sex Roles, 22,151e165. identities in Gaydar, Facebook and beyond. PhD thesis. Queensland University of Miller, B. (2015). “Dude, where's your face?” Self-presentation, self-description, and Technology. partner preferences on a social networking application for men who have sex Cater, D. B., & McCloskey, L. A. (1984). Peers and the maintenance of sex-typed with men: a content analysis. Sexuality & Culture. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ behavior: the development of children's conceptions of cross-gender behavior s12119-015-9283-4. Advanced online publication. in their peers. Social Cognition, 2, 294e314. Mowlabocus, S. (2010). Look at me! Images, validation, and cultural currency on Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Gaydar. In C. Pullen, & M. Cooper (Eds.), LGBT identity and online new media (pp. Science, 10,103e126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ 201e214). New York: Routledge. annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054. Nardi, P. (2000). “Anything for a Sis, Mary”: an introduction to gay masculinities.In Clarkson, J. (2006). “Everyday Joe” versus “Pissy, Bitchy, queens”: gay masculinity P. Nardi (Ed.), Gay masculinities (pp. 1e11). on StraightActing.com. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14(2), 191e207. Phua, V. C. (2002). Sex and sexuality in men's personal advertisements. Men & Edelman, L. (1994). Homographesis: Essays in gay literary and cultural theory. New Masculinities, 5,178e191. York: Routledge. Sanchez, F. J., Greenberg, S. T., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2009). Reported effects of Ellison, N., Heino, R., & Gibbs, J. (2006). Managing impressions online: self- masculine ideals on gay men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 10(1), 73e87. presentation processes in the online dating environment. Journal of http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013513. Computer-Mediated Communication, 11,415e441. Sanchez, F. J., & Vilain, E. (2012). “Straight-acting gays”: the relationship between Entman, R. (1993). Framing: toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of masculine consciousness, anti-effeminacy, and negative gay identity. Archives of Communication, 43(4), 51e58. Sexual Behavior, 41,111e119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-012-9912-z. Fitzpatrick, C., Birnholtz, J., & Brubaker, J. R. (2015). Social and personal disclosure in Sanchez, F. J., Westefeld, J. S., Liu, W. M., & Vilain, E. (2010). Masculine gender role a location-based real time dating app. In Presented at the Hawaii International conflict and negative feelings about being gay. Professional Psychology: Research conference on system sciences. and Practice, 41(2), 104e111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015805. Frantz, O. (2012, April 16). Femmephobia: “Girls are gross” writ large. The Good Men Skidmore, C. W., Linsenmeier, J. A., & Bailey, M. J. (2006). Gender nonconformity and Project. Retrieved from http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ psychological distress in lesbians and gay men. Archives of Sexual Behavior, femmephobia-girls-are- gross-writ-large/. 35(6), 685e697. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9108-5. Grindr. (2015). Grindr e Learn more. Retrieved from http://grindr.com/learn-more. Stern, B. B., Barak, B., & Gould, S. J. (1987). Sexual identity scale: a new self- Grov, C., Breslow, A. S., Newcomb, M. E., Rosenberger, J. G., & Bauermeister, J. A. assessment measure. Sex Roles, 17(9e10), 503e519. (2014). Gay and bisexual men's use of the Internet: research from the 1990s Szymanski, D. M., & Carr, E. R. (2008). The roles of gender role conflict and inter- through 2013. American Journal of Men’s Health, 51(4), 390e409. nalized heterosexism in gay men's psychological distress: testing two media- Gudelunas, D. (2005). Online personal ads. Journal of Homosexuality, 49(1), 1e33. tion models. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9,40e54. http://dx.doi.org/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v49n01_01. 10.1037/1524-9220.9.1.40. Gudelunas, D. (2012). There's an app for that: the uses and gratifications of online Taywaditep, K. J. (2001). Marginalization among the marginalized: Gay men's negative social networks for gay men. Sexuality & Culture, 16,347e365. http://dx.doi.org/ attitudes towards effeminacy. Doctoral dissertation. Available from: ProQuest 10.1007/s12119-012-9127-4. Dissertations and Theses database (UMI No. 729025261). Halkitis, P. N., Green, K. A., & Wilton, L. (2004). Masculinity, body image, and sexual Taywaditep, K. J. (2002). Marginalization among the marginalized. Journal of Ho- behavior in HIV-seropositive gay men: a two-phase formative behavioral mosexuality, 42(1), 1e28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J082v42n01_01. investigation using the Internet. International Journal of Men’s Health, 3(1), Urbaniak, G. C., & Kilmann, P. R. (2006). Sex Roles, 55, 209e224. http://dx.doi.org/ 27e42. 10.1007/s11199-006-9075-2. Halkitis, P. N., Moeller, R. W., & DeRaleau, L. B. (2008). Steroid use in gay, bisexual, Wester, S. R., Pionke, D. R., & Vogel, D. L. (2005). Male gender role conflict, gay men and nonidentified men-who-have-sex-with-men: relations to masculinity, and same- sex romantic relationships. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 6, physical, and mental health. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9(2), 106e115. 195e208. Hamilton, C. J., & Mahalik, J. R. (2009). Minority stress, masculinity, and social Woodland, R. (2000). Queer spaces, modem boys and pagan statues: gay/lesbian norms predicting gay men's health risk behaviors. Journal of Counseling Psy- identity and the construction of cyberspace. In D. Bell, & B. M. Kennedy (Eds.), chology, 56,132e141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0014440. The cybercultures reader (pp. 403e415). New York: Routledge. Hancock, J. T., & Toma, C. L. (2009). Putting your best face forward: the accuracy of Wright, P. J., & Funk, M. (2013). Pornography consumption and opposition to online dating photographs. Journal of Communication, 59, 367e386. affirmative action for women: a prospective study. Psychology of Women Harry, J. (1983). Defeminization and adult psychological well-being among male Quarterly. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0361684313498853. Advance online homosexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 12,1e19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ publication. BF01542112. Young, R., & Sweeting, H. (2004). Adolescent bullying relationships, psychological Hatala, M. N., & Prehodka, J. (1996). Content analysis of gay male and lesbian per- well-being, and gender-atypical behavior: a gender diagnosticity approach. Sex sonal advertisements. Psychological Reports, 78,371e374. Roles, 50, 525e537. Lakkis, J., Ricciardelli, L. A., & Williams, R. J. (1999). Role of sexual orientation and