Why It's Worse to be a Sissy Than a Tomboy: The Sexual Orientaon Hypothesis. Ursula A. Sanborn-Overby1 & Kimberly K. Powlishta2 SUNY Oneonta1, Saint Louis University2, Department of Psychology Background STUDY 2 STUDY 3 • Although both males and females elicit nega8ve reac8ons when they Aim. To test a necessary precondion of the Sexual Orientaon violate gender norms, intolerance is parcularly pronounced when the Aim. To test the Sexual Orientaon Hypothesis: that the more a gender- Hypothesis: that perceived homosexuality is more closely associated with violaons are commied by males (e.g., Levy, Taylor, & Gelman, 1995; role violaon for a given item is thought to implicate homosexuality, the gender atypicality in males than in females, both overall and within more intolerance there will be for that violaon. Mar8n, 1990; WaKerson & Powlishta, 2007). different gendered domains. • One proposed explanaon for the asymmetric reacon to male vs. Procedure. Intolerance scores (from Study 1) were correlated with Parcipants & Procedure. Sixty-five adults (39 females) rated the same perceived homosexuality scores (from Study 2) using the item as the unit female gender-role violators focuses on perceived sexual orientaon: 245 characteriscs in terms of how typical they were for heterosexual that gender atypicality is more closely associated with homosexuality in of analysis, separately for masculine and feminine characteriscs in each versus homosexual males and females (1 = Typical of Heterosexual Males/ males than in females, such that the elevated negavity towards domain. Females only, 7 = Typical of Gay Males/Lesbians only). A “perceived Results (see Table 1). As expected, all correla8ons were posi8ve and gender-atypical males actually reflects sexual prejudice (McCreary, homosexuality” score was created for each item, with higher scores 1997; Sirin, McCreary, & Mahalik, 2004). moderate to large in magnitude. Therefore, the more a gender-role reflecng how typical each masculine characterisc was believed to be • The current series of studies was designed to test the Sexual Orientaon violaon was thought to predict homosexuality the more intolerance there among lesbians, and how typical each feminine characterisc was was for that violaon. Hypothesis and its assumpons using a wide variety of masculine and believed to be among gay males. These scores were averaged for feminine characteriscs, including occupaons, acvies, traits, and masculine and for feminine items within each domain. appearance-related items. Table 1. Correla-ons Between Perceived Homosexuality and Intolerance of Gender- STUDY 1 Results (see Figure 2). Role Viola-ons • Perceived homosexuality was highest for gender-atypical appearance Aim. To verify the general paern of asymmetry that is seen when Overall Occupaons Ac8vi8es Traits Appearance males vs. females violate gender roles, using a wide variety of and lowest for gender-atypical trait violaons, although perceived homosexuality scores were significantly above the midpoint in each characteriscs and domains. Masculine .583** .738** .705** .545** .399* Parcipants & Procedure. Fify-five adults (36 females) rated 245 domain. occupa8on, ac8vity, trait (OAT & COAT, Liben & Bigler, 2002), and • As predicted, feminine items received higher perceived homosexuality Feminine .737** .482* .830** .600** .856** appearance-related characteriscs (Waerson, Powlishta, & Sanborn, scores than masculine items; therefore, gender atypicality was seen as 2011) in terms of their acceptability of possession for males and females being more predic8ve of homosexuality in males than in females. Addi8onal analyses were conducted (see Table 2) that correlated the (1 = Not at All Acceptable, 7 = Extremely Acceptable). Intolerance Figure 2. Perceived Homosexuality for Masculine and Feminine Gender-Role Intolerance scores with the Perceived Homosexuality scores while scores were created for each item by subtrac8ng the acceptability rang Viola-ons by Domain controlling for the cultural stereotypicality of each item. These results for gender-atypical targets from the acceptability rang for gender- 4.8 indicate that even when controlling for the degree of masculinity or typical targets. Higher, more posive, scores indicated greater femininity of the item the paern is sll seen overall, and within several intolerance of gender-role violaons for that item. Intolerance scores 4.7 domains. were averaged for masculine and for feminine items within each 4.6 Table 2. Correla-ons Between Perceived Homosexuality and Intolerance of Gender- domain. 4.5 Role Viola-ons controlling for Cultural Stereotypicality Results (see Figure 1). • Intolerance was highest in the appearance domain and lowest in the 4.4 Masculine Overall Occupaons Ac8vi8es Traits Appearance trait domain, although intolerance scores were significantly greater 4.3 Females Masculine .431** .595** .338 .368 -.108 than zero in each domain. 4.2 • As predicted, intolerance was greater for feminine viola8ons (i.e., Feminine Feminine .472** .414* .743** .398 .561** gender-atypical males) than for masculine violaons, at least within 4.1 Males the appearance, ac8vity, and occupaon domains. 4 Conclusions Figure 1. Rela-ve Intolerance of Masculine and Feminine Gender-Role Viola-ons by 3.9 Domain 1.6 3.8 The reported studies supported the Sexual Orientaon Hypothesis and its Occupaon Ac8vity Trait Appearance precondi8ons. As expected, Study 1 found that feminine viola8ons were 1.4 evaluated more negavely than masculine violaons across a large 1.2 number of characteriscs in mulple domains. Study 2 found that gender 1 atypicality is believed to indicate homosexuality more in males than in Masculine females. Finally, Study 3 found direct support for the Sexual Orienta8on 0.8 Items Hypothesis: the more “gay” a gender-atypical characterisc was perceived 0.6 Feminine to be, the more intolerance it elicited. This paern was fairly consistent 0.4 Items (especially for feminine males), even when controlling for the cultural 0.2 stereotypicality of each of the characteriscs. 0 Occupaon Ac8vity Trait Appearance For quesons please contact: [email protected] .