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