UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Date: 11/16/04 I, Julie A. Murphy , Hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctorate of Philosophy In: Psychology It is entitled: The Use of Sexual Orientation-Related Insults Among College Students This work and its defense approved by: Chair: Steven R. Howe, Ph.D._______ Edward Klein, Ph.D.____________ James Koschoreck, Ph.D.________ Daniel Langmeyer, Ph.D._______ Paula Shear, Ph.D._____________ The Use of Sexual Orientation-Related Insults Among College Students A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati In partial fulfillment of the Requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) In the Department of Psychology of the McMicken College of Arts and Sciences 2004 by Julie A. Murphy B.A., University of Maryland, University College, 1991 B.A., University of Maryland, College Park, 1995 M.A., University of Cincinnati, 1999 Committee Chair: Steven R. Howe, Ph.D. ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was: to determine what insults college students know and use; to develop a model of insult use in general, and of sexual orientation-related insult (SOI) use in particular; and, to understand the impact of SOI use on students of different sexual orientations. Data were collected from interview participants, field observations on and around a university campus, top-rated movies and TV shows, and two focus groups with lesbian/gay/bisexual (LGB) students. Overall, the interview participants generated 1,453 insults, a mean of 20 insults. Men listed significantly more SOI’s than women. The insult categories rated as “worst” by participants were race-related, SOI’s, and insults for women. Field data yielded 317 insults. The three most frequent categories of field insults were for women, personality-related insults, and SOI’s (accounting for 14.5% of field insults). Fag was one of the five most frequently overheard insults, and was used significantly more frequently by men than women. None of the recorded SOI uses appeared to be directed to an LGB target. The media data yielded 655 insults, with comedies including significantly more insults than dramas. SOI’s accounted for 1.8% of media insults. Decisions regarding both serious and good-natured insult use involved four major components: insulter characteristics, social cues to be read, social cues to be conveyed, and the response of the insult target (and sometimes of an audience). The majority of heterosexual participants identified SOI’s as inappropriate to direct towards LGB people, though LGB participants described numerous examples of being maliciously targeted with SOI’s. Heterosexual participants who were supportive of LGB people were significantly less likely to use SOI’s than participants who were ambivalent or disapproving. Heterosexual men used SOI’s with greater frequency than heterosexual women. These men used SOI’s primarily as tools of peer pressure and regulating gender role expression in other men. SOI’s were a safe way for men with traditional conceptions of masculinity to express affection for each other while asserting heterosexuality; less traditional men were less likely to use SOI’s. Acknowledgements: I would like to thank my mentor, Dr. Steven Howe, for his decade of challenges, support, and occasional collegial insults. I also wish to thank Dr. Langmeyer for his accessibility, input, and his willingness to have casual hallway consultations about this project over the years. Dr. Koschoreck has been a colleague and a friend, and contributed valuable expertise that enhanced this project from the beginning. Dr. Klein provided valuable feedback on ways to bridge my clinical and social interests, both on this project and my clinical orals. Thanks also to Dr. Shear, for fitting in this unusually large project to an already overbooked schedule; I have so appreciated the countless ways she has helped and supported me over the years. Karen Eichelbrenner has gone far above and beyond her duties to help me finish, and I feel lucky to have worked with her. Thank you to Dr. Carole Giunta, who has given me the time, encouragement, and sage advice I needed to balance a new work life and completing this project. And, of course, thanks to my research assistants Corrie Madden, Robin Becker, Stephanie Adams, Christina Enoch, Jennifer Hinkle, Brian Gray, Darla Koopman, Joe Girbert, and Patrice McNicholas, without whom this project would have been unwieldly and probably less interesting. Ms. Madden, in particular, became a trusted colleague and friend, and contributed far more to this project than the title “research assistant” could ever convey. My partner Tim Arnold has been consistently supportive and loving; I am deeply grateful for the sacrifices (including living in Cincinnati, working in corporate atmospheres, and having me as a too-infrequent fan at his band performances) he made to help me achieve this dream. My children Phenon Murphy and Rowan Arnold have been a driving force behind my commitment to working (however slowly) towards a safer and more welcoming social landscape, and I am looking forward to giving them my undivided attention. My parents, Judy and Bob Murphy, have provided both emotional and material support in this endeavor, and I literally could not have done it without them. I am also grateful to Tim’s parents, Courtney and David Arnold, who have tolerated years of visits during which I hid myself away to work as the rest of the family spent quality time together. My grandmother, Grace Murphy, has been a source of unwavering faith, love, and inspiration; I can only dream that I will grow to be as open, curious, politically passionate, and fiercely loyal a woman as she is. Finally, without my dear friends Alison Momeyer, Chandra Napora, Dr. Aarti Pyati, Dr. Tracy Weeks, and Dr. Lynn Yosua, I could not have finished this project; my life has been greatly enriched by each of them. Table of Contents List of Tables and Figures ................................................................................................................ 2 Chapter 1: Introduction.................................................................................................................... 1 Insults, Slang, & Swearing................................................................................................. 1 Use & Function of Insults .................................................................................................. 3 Sexual Orientation and Gender Role-Related Insults......................................................... 5 Response to and Impact of Sexual Orientation & Gender Role-Related Insults ................ 8 Summary & Research Goals ............................................................................................ 10 Chapter 2: Method......................................................................................................................... 12 Interview & Insult List Procedures................................................................................... 12 Field Insult Data Collection Procedure ............................................................................ 14 Media Insult Data Collection Procedure .......................................................................... 14 Focus Group Procedures .................................................................................................. 15 Chapter 3: Thousands of Insults (Quantitative Data)..................................................................... 16 Participant Insult Lists...................................................................................................... 16 Field Insult Data Collection ............................................................................................. 18 Insults in Movies & TV Shows ........................................................................................ 18 Limitations of the Quantitative Component ..................................................................... 22 Chapter 4: A Model of Insult Use.................................................................................................. 23 Insulter Characteristics..................................................................................................... 23 Social Cues to Read and Convey...................................................................................... 27 Target & Audience Response........................................................................................... 53 Misunderstandings ........................................................................................................... 57 Chapter 5: Users & Targets of Sexual Orientation & Gender-Related Insults .............................. 59 Language Used: Insulting vs. Proper Terms ................................................................... 59 Insults Towards Men........................................................................................................ 60 Insults Directed Towards Women.................................................................................... 77 Discussion ........................................................................................................................ 85 Chapter 6: Overall Discussion & Suggestions for Future Research .............................................. 88 The Social Rules of Sexual Orientation-Related Insult Use............................................. 88 The Meaning of Sexual Orientation-Related Insults