Master Same-sex attraction in homophobic men: The role of impulsive processes GUERRA MENESES, Adrianne Abstract While the underlying causes of homophobia are not fully understood, one theory claims it stems from an unconscious or denied attraction to the same-sex. A study by Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) found evidence of this same-sex attraction in homophobic men, but other studies have shown mixed results. Drawing on dual-process models, this study tested the assumption that in homophobic men, sexual interest in homosexual stimuli depends on their specific impulses towards these stimuli. Thirty-eight heterosexual men (Mage = 22 years, SD= 4.74) first completed a questionnaire measuring negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Impulsive tendencies to approach homosexual stimuli (IAH) were then evaluated via a manikin task. Next, participants completed a picture-viewing task with simultaneous eye-tracking recording to assess viewing time of visual areas of interest (i.e., face and body). In our main hypothesis, we expected that in highly homophobic men, IAH would predict viewing time of pictures of homosexual couples, but not of heterosexual couples. Overall, the results of the linear mixed model analyses supported this hypothesis: [...] Reference GUERRA MENESES, Adrianne. Same-sex attraction in homophobic men: The role of impulsive processes. Master : Univ. Genève, 2015 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:81099 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version. 1 / 1 Same-sex attraction in homophobic men: The role of impulsive processes MÉMOIRE RÉALISÉ EN VUE DE L’OBTENTION DE LA MAÎTRISE UNIVERSITAIRE EN PSYCHOLOGIE ORIENTATIONS PSYCHOLOGIE COGNITIVE PSYCHOLOGIE CLINIQUE PAR Adrianne Guerra Meneses DIRECTEUR DU MEMOIRE Julien Chanal Co-directeur Boris Cheval JURY Boris Cheval Julien Chanal Roland Maurer GENÈVE, décembre 2015 UNIVERSITÉ DE GENÈVE FACULTÉ DE PSYCHOLOGIE ET DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION SECTION PSYCHOLOGIE Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to all the people who have made this work possible. I would first like to thank my supervisor, Boris Cheval, for his invaluable guidance and encouragement throughout the entire process. Next, I would like to thank Julien Chanal and Roland Maurer for taking the time to read and evaluate my work. I would also like to thank my research partner, Gwendoline Peyratout, for her 2 years of collaboration. Last but not least, a special thanks to Duarte for his unconditional and endless support. Abstract While the underlying causes of homophobia are not fully understood, one theory claims it stems from an unconscious or denied attraction to the same-sex. A study by Adams, Wright, and Lohr (1996) found evidence of this same-sex attraction in homophobic men, but other studies have shown mixed results. Drawing on dual-process models, this study tested the assumption that in homophobic men, sexual interest in homosexual stimuli depends on their specific impulses towards these stimuli. Thirty-eight heterosexual men (Mage = 22 years, SD= 4.74) first completed a questionnaire measuring negative attitudes towards homosexuals. Impulsive tendencies to approach homosexual stimuli (IAH) were then evaluated via a manikin task. Next, participants completed a picture-viewing task with simultaneous eye-tracking recording to assess viewing time of visual areas of interest (i.e., face and body). In our main hypothesis, we expected that in highly homophobic men, IAH would predict viewing time of pictures of homosexual couples, but not of heterosexual couples. Overall, the results of the linear mixed model analyses supported this hypothesis: homophobic men looked significantly longer at homosexual pictures only when they had a high IAH. Table of Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Homophobia ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Dual-process models of behavior ............................................................................................... 3 1.2.1 The impulsive or hot system ................................................................................................. 3 1.2.2 The reflective or cool system ................................................................................................ 4 1.2.3 Measuring impulsive and reflective precursors of behavior ................................................. 5 1.2.4 Interactions between the two systems ................................................................................... 6 1.2.5 The present study .................................................................................................................. 7 2. Method .................................................................................................................................. 8 2.1 Participants ................................................................................................................................. 8 2.2 Materials and Procedure ............................................................................................................ 9 2.2.1 Sexual Orientation ................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.2 Modern Homonegativity Scale (MHS) ................................................................................. 9 2.2.3 Manikin Task....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4 Picture Viewing Task .......................................................................................................... 12 2.3 Data analyses ............................................................................................................................. 13 3. Results ................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Descriptive Statistics ................................................................................................................. 13 3.2 Results ........................................................................................................................................ 14 3.2.1 Results of viewing time analyses ........................................................................................ 14 3.2.2. Results of analyses on explicit evaluation .......................................................................... 16 4. Discussion............................................................................................................................ 18 5. References ........................................................................................................................... 23 6. Appendices .......................................................................................................................... 27 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Homophobia In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder and removed it from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM; Drescher, 2010). Just one year prior, Weinberg coined the term homophobia, which he defined as “the dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals – and in the case of homosexuals themselves, self- loathing” (as cited in Cullen & Barnes-Holmes, 2008). These two events reflect the beginning of a shift, not only within the mental health community, but a societal one as well, with a general trend of increasing liberalization of explicit attitudes towards homosexuality since the 1970s (Cullen & Barnes-Holmes, 2008). As homosexuality became more accepted by the mainstream, it was no longer the homosexuals themselves who were the problem, but rather those who feared them. The concept defined by Weinberg has spurred extensive research over the years, with over 2,700 citations returned by a search of the term “homophobia” in the PsychInfo database as of October 2015. However, the term is not consistently defined from study to study, with many studies including negative attitudes toward homosexuality in their definition, a usage criticized by those who argue that these attitudes do not necessarily arise from fear (Rye & Meaney, 2010; Smith, Oades, & McCarthy, 2012), but may, for example, result from strong religious or political beliefs (Herek, 2004). Others have questioned the validity of homophobia as an actual phobia, generally defined as a strong or irrational fear of something, and clinically defined in the most current edition of the DSM as an intense fear or anxiety about a particular object or situation (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). As a result of these objections, alternative terms have been proposed, such as homonegativity, heterosexism, and sexual prejudice. In particular, Hudson and Ricketts (1980) recommended using homonegativity to describe negative reactions to homosexuality in general, while reserving the term homophobia to those cases in which individuals experience more irrational, emotional responses such as “fear, disgust, anger, discomfort, and aversion”. Despite these attempts at differentiation, literature searches of homophobia and associated terms have found no clear consensus on the exact definition of individual terms and a similarity between terms which can render them practically indistinguishable