Mating Motives and Concerns About Being Misidentified as Gay or Lesbian

Abstract

Recent research has demonstrated that concerns about being misidentified as gay or lesbian lead to the avoidance of gay men and lesbians. Because being misidentified as gay/lesbian can result in the loss of heterosexual people’s mating opportunities, we predicted that the activation of mating motives would heighten concerns among some heterosexuals about being misidentified as gay/lesbian. To combat such misidentification, we argued that heterosexuals would express antipathy toward and avoid contact with gay/lesbian people. Consistent with predictions, the activation of mating motives led heterosexuals who were generally concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian to denigrate (Study 1) and avoid (Study 2) gay/lesbian people. Activating mating motives increased heterosexual participants’ concerns about being misclassified, which in turn heightened interest in avoiding gay/lesbian people (Study 3). These findings indicate that, although the motivation to find a romantic partner can have positive implications, it can contribute to negative responses to gay/lesbian people.

Keywords

Contagion concerns sexual prejudice mating motives intergroup relations

Recent work indicates that some heterosexuals avoid contact with gay men and lesbians, respond negatively during interorientation interactions, and refuse to publicly support gay/lesbian rights and policies because they are concerned about being misidentified as gay/lesbian (Buck, Plant, Ratcliff, Zielaskowski, & Boerner, 2013). It is, therefore, critical to identify factors that can heighten such misidentification concerns because they may further exacerbate these antisocial responses. The present work examines one factor that we theorize increases these concerns, the pursuit of mating motives. We argue that the pursuit of mating motives can increase concerns about misidentification and thereby heighten tendencies to avoid and derogate gay men and lesbians. For a heterosexual interested in finding a romantic partner, being misidentified as gay or lesbian would greatly hinder successful attraction of an opposite-gender mate and impede goal progress. Thus, we argue that when mating motives are salient, heterosexuals who are concerned about such misidentification will avoid contact with gay/lesbian people and publicly derogate gay men and lesbians with the objective of making their heterosexuality clear. Sadly, this would mean that for some heterosexuals, pursuing the goal of finding love increases antisocial tendencies toward gay men and lesbians.

Social Contagion Concerns

Sexual prejudice has traditionally been conceptualized as a moral condemnation of homosexual behavior and gay men and lesbians (see Kite & Whitley, 1996). However, recent research suggests that this conceptualization is incomplete, and to more fully understand some heterosexuals’ negativity toward gay/lesbian people, one must consider that sexual orientation is a concealable identity. As a concealable identity, sexual orientation is not readily apparent from a person’s appearance; thus, it is possible for a heterosexual individual to be misidentified as gay/lesbian (e.g., Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Bosson, Taylor, & Prewitt-Freilino, 2006; Buck et al., 2013; Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008). Research suggests that one factor that can increase such miscategorization of sexual orientation is associating with gay/lesbian individuals. For example, Sigelman, Howell, Cornell, Cutright, and Dewey (1991) found that when a male target whose sexual orientation was not explicitly disclosed was seen voluntarily associating with a gay man, prejudiced individuals reported that the target had stereotypically gay traits and likely engaged in homosexual behaviors (also see Neuberg, Smith, Hoffman, & Russell, 1994).

Recently, Buck and colleagues (2013) demonstrated that some people report being highly concerned about being misclassified as gay/lesbian. These concerns, which they termed social contagion concerns, have implications for intergroup contact above and beyond self-reported sexual prejudice. Across a series of studies, Buck and colleagues showed that high levels of social contagion concerns led heterosexuals to respond with heightened anxiety about and desire to avoid contact with gay/lesbian individuals (also see Bosson et al., 2006). In addition, when contagion concerns were made salient prior to an interaction with a gay confederate, heterosexual participants responded with increased avoidance and unpleasant behavior toward the confederate. These findings indicate that social contagion concerns have negative implications for heterosexuals’ contact with lesbians and gay men.

In considering the factors that may contribute to social contagion concerns, it is helpful to reflect upon the negative consequences that could arise for heterosexuals who are misperceived as gay/lesbian. Particularly relevant to the present work, being misclassified as gay/lesbian could decrease heterosexual people’s chances of finding a romantic partner. As a result, heterosexuals interested in finding a partner may be particularly concerned that others not misperceive them as gay/lesbian.

Mating Motives

Finding a mate is one of the chief concerns that humans face (e.g., Kenrick et al., 2002). Indeed, people spend huge amounts of time and energy making themselves attractive to others, securing mates, and maintaining relationships. As finding a mate and reproduction are of central importance to humans, it follows that this fundamental motivation would influence a variety of cognitive and emotional processes. Mounting research indicates that this is indeed the case. For example, priming mating-related goals has been shown to increase attention to and evaluation of potential mates and romantic rivals (Maner, Gailliot, Rouby, & Miller, 2007; Maner, Miller, Moss, Leo, & Plant, 2012).

Given the importance many people place on finding a romantic partner, people who have the goal of finding a mate should prefer situations where their odds are better for attracting a desirable mate. Therefore, one could imagine that heterosexuals actively pursuing a mating goal would prefer affiliating with same-gender lesbians and gay men because, compared with same-gender heterosexuals, they are not romantic rivals. However, we posit that affiliating with gay/lesbian individuals may be perceived as risking misidentification as gay/lesbian, which would be a barrier to being seen as a viable potential mate to opposite-gender heterosexuals. We argue, therefore, that because being misidentified as gay/lesbian could hinder the successful pursuit of mating goals, having active mating motives should heighten social contagion concerns and contribute to negative responses toward lesbians and gay men.

Current Work

Across a series of studies, the current work examines the implications of mating motives for contagion concerns and responses toward lesbians and gay men. We hypothesize that when people are pursuing mating motives, it activates social contagion concerns because of the negative implications of being misidentified as gay/lesbian for meeting one’s mating goal. When social contagion concerns are activated, we argue they result in the avoidance of public derogation of and gay/lesbian people as a way to clarify to others that one is not gay/lesbian.

Across three studies, we experimentally activated mating motives to examine the implications of this activation on the denigration (Study 1) and avoidance of lesbians and gay men (Studies 2 and 3). We predicted that heterosexuals whose mating motives were activated would denigrate and avoid gay/lesbian individuals to a greater extent than heterosexuals whose mating motives were not activated. In these studies, we also examined the role of social contagion concerns in predicting avoidance and denigration of gay/lesbian individuals. Specifically, in Studies 1 and 2, we examined the implications of individual differences in existing social contagion concerns for both denigration of and the desire to avoid gay/lesbian individuals. We predicted that although participants whose mating motives were activated would report higher levels of denigration and avoidance, these effects would be especially pronounced in heterosexuals who possessed high levels of trait contagion concerns. In Study 3, we were interested in the role of state contagion concerns (i.e., contagion concerns elicited by a given situation) as a mediator in the relationship between mating motives and the desire to avoid lesbians and gay men. Specifically, we predicted that the heightened desire to avoid lesbians/gay men among heterosexuals whose mating motives were activated would be due to their heightened state contagion concerns.

In addition, we anticipated that the impact of mating motives and contagion concerns on the avoidance of lesbian/gay individuals would be strongest for same-gender contact. Although being seen in public with an opposite-sex gay/lesbian individual could lead people to misidentify one as gay/lesbian, such misidentification seems most likely when the gay/lesbian individual is same-gender and may be mistaken as one’s romantic partner. As a result, we focused on the avoidance of same-gender gay/lesbian individuals in our studies examining avoidance (Studies 2 and 3). Although it was also possible that people would be particularly likely to derogate same-gender gay men/lesbians when they fear misidentification, we thought people concerned about misidentification may take advantage of any opportunity to demonstrate they do not approve of same-gender relationships. Therefore, in Study 1, we explored the derogation of both gay men and lesbians.

Study 1

In the current study, we examined the implications of mating motives for the denigration of gay/lesbian people. Derogating members of a group is an effective way to indicate to others that one is not a member of that group. Thus, we anticipated that heterosexual people with heightened concerns about misidentification of sexual orientation would be disposed toward derogating gay men/lesbians. We experimentally manipulated mating motives and then examined participants’ tendencies to denigrate lesbians and gay men as a way to affirm their heterosexual identity to a potential mate. Specifically, following a mating motives manipulation, participants were told that they would be sharing their attitudes about a range of topics with an opposite-gender interaction partner. Included in these topics were attitudes about gay men and lesbians. We predicted that participants whose mating motives were activated, compared to not activated, would be more likely to disparage gay/lesbian people to the opposite-gender interaction partner.

Based on our theorizing about the implications of mating motives on the willingness to denigrate gay/lesbian people, we predicted that people’s concerns about being misidentified as gay/lesbian would play an important role. Therefore, we assessed participants’ trait contagion concerns prior to the experimental session. Contagion concerns, as conceptualized and measured by Buck and colleagues (2013), reflect concerns that both heterosexuals and gay men/lesbians will misidentify one as gay/lesbian. Although misidentification as gay/lesbian by opposite-sex heterosexuals would seem to be particularly problematic for a heterosexual pursuing a mating goal, we suspect that such people would be concerned about anyone misidentifying their sexual orientation. Anyone who misidentifies an individual as gay/lesbian could share that misperception with others. Social reputation is important and gossip can move fast through social environments. In addition, if a same-gender gay/lesbian individual mistook one as gay/lesbian, it could result in behavior that would lead others to make a similar misidentification (e.g., if a same-gender gay/lesbian individual was flirtatious). Therefore, we used the measure developed by Buck and colleagues that assessed concerns about misidentification by either heterosexual or gay/lesbian people.

We hypothesized that participants’ preexisting contagion concerns would interact with the mating motives manipulation to influence their degree of denigration of gay/lesbian people. Specifically, we predicted that participants high in contagion concerns, who tend to report being highly concerned about misidentification, would be more strongly influenced by the mating motives manipulation than low contagion participants. As a result, high contagion participants in the mating motives condition were expected to be particularly likely to disparage gay/lesbian people to their interaction partner.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 63 introductory psychology students (79% female; 64% White, 11% Hispanic, 10% Black, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, 7% Other; M_age = 18.60) who completed the current study in exchange for course credit. Eight participants who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual were not included in any analyses. Six additional participants completed the procedures but were excluded from analyses because they suspected that there was no interaction (n = 4) or were in the control condition and wrote about times they were sexually aroused (n = 2).

Procedure and design

Between 3 months and 3 weeks prior to the experimental session, participants completed an online survey that included the social contagion scale (Buck et al., 2013). When participants arrived for the experimental session, they were told that they would be participating in two unrelated studies. The first study investigated the effects of thinking about past experiences on mood. Participants were randomly assigned to either the mating motives condition or control condition. To manipulate mating motives, we drew upon a procedure that has been used repeatedly to activate goals and emotional states including mating goals (Ainsworth & Maner, 2012; Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2003; Gonzaga, Haselton, Smurda, Davies, & Poore, 2008; Lerner & Keltner, 2001; Maner et al., 2007; Maner et al., 2012; Maner, Miller, Rouby, & Gailliot, 2009). In the mating motives condition, participants wrote about 4 or 5 times they felt sexual arousal and then wrote in detail about the one situation that made them feel the most sexual desire for another person. Participants in the control condition wrote about 4 or 5 times they felt happy and wrote in detail about the one situation that made them feel the happiest.

Participants were told the second study examined the implications of knowing information about another person before meeting that person. Ostensibly, to ensure that participants did not know their partner, the experimenter showed the participant an informed consent form, which identified the partner as male or female. Participants were always matched with an opposite-gender partner. Participants were informed that they would exchange information about themselves before meeting via a getting acquainted worksheet. On this worksheet, participants provided their feelings toward a variety of different topics including items tapping into attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.

Materials

Social contagion concerns

During a screening session at the beginning of the term, participants completed a seven-item version of Buck et al.’s (2013) social contagion concerns measure. Responses were made on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) rating scale and were scored so that higher scores indicated greater contagion concerns (e.g., “If I was hanging out with a homosexual person, I would worry that other people would think I was a homosexual, too,” “If I were to become friends with a gay or lesbian person of my own gender, I would be concerned that he or she might think I was homosexual too,” α = .89). It is worth noting that a principal components factor analysis indicated that the contagion items loaded onto a single factor.

Getting acquainted worksheet

Participants reported their overall feelings toward 25 different topics, activities, and groups (e.g., recycling, shopping, tennis) on a feeling thermometer from 0° (extremely cold) to 100° (extremely warm). Of interest were participants’ responses to the items assessing their feelings toward lesbians and gay men. Participants responses across these two items were highly correlated (r = .63, p < .001). Therefore, the scores from these two items were averaged.

Results

To assess whether priming mating motives and trait social contagion concerns influence the tendency to disparage lesbians and gay men, we conducted a multiple regression on participants’ feelings toward lesbians and gay men with priming condition, social contagion scores, and their interaction as predictors. We were interested in the effects of contagion scores above and beyond that of gender, so gender was included as a covariate. Results indicated that contagion concerns significantly predicted thermometer scores such that higher levels of contagion concerns were associated with more negative attitudes toward gay/lesbian people, β = −.54, t(58) = −5.63, p < .001. However, this main effect was qualified by the hypothesized interaction between priming condition and contagion concerns, β = −.22, t(58) = 2.32, p = .03 (see Figure 1).¹

Figure 1.

Thermometer warmth toward lesbians and gay men (higher numbers more warm; Study 1).

To examine this interaction, we ran simple slopes analyses at high and low levels of contagion concerns. For participants high in contagion concerns (1 SD above the mean), participants in the mating motives condition reported colder feelings toward gay/lesbian people than participants in the control condition, β = −.57, t(58) = −4.13, p < .001. In contrast, for participants low in contagion concerns (1 SD below the mean), there was no difference in thermometer scores based on priming condition, β = −.12, t(58) = −0.89, p = .38.²

We also ran simple slope analyses to examine the effects of contagion concerns in the mating motives and control conditions. Results indicate that for participants in the mating motives condition, there was a strong effect of contagion concerns, β = −.80, t(58) = −5.42, p < .001, such that participants higher in contagion concerns reported more negative attitudes toward gay/lesbian people. For control condition participants, contagion concerns were a significant predictor of thermometer scores, β = −.35, t(58) = −2.73, p < .01; however, the magnitude of this effect was much smaller than in the mating motives condition. Thus, people with high compared with low levels of contagion concerns tended to be more likely to denigrate gay/lesbian people to their opposite-sex partner, but the mating motives prime exacerbated this tendency.

Discussion

The results of the current study shed light on the role that mating motives and contagion concerns play in the denigration of lesbians and gay men. Heterosexuals whose mating goals were activated, compared to control, expressed greater negativity toward gay/lesbian people to an opposite-gender person they anticipated meeting. In addition, consistent with our theorizing, this increase in the denigration of gay/lesbian people was particularly strong among heterosexuals with high levels of social contagion concerns. That is, heterosexuals high in contagion concerns whose mating goals were activated expressed heightened negativity toward gay/lesbian people as compared with high contagion participants whose mating goals were not activated. Given that denigration is an effective way to establish to others that one is not a member of a group, it appears that heterosexuals high in contagion concerns derogate both lesbians and gay men as a way to establish their heterosexual identity to others. It is noteworthy that despite the norm discouraging prejudice on college campuses (e.g., Monteith, Deenen, & Tooman, 1996), these participants’ approach to impressing their opposite-gender interaction partner was to share bigoted attitudes, in the form of negative feelings about gay men and lesbians. In contrast, for heterosexuals low in contagion concerns the mating motives prime did not significantly increase their derogation of gay/lesbian people. These results indicate that the activation of mating goals does not lead all heterosexuals to express negativity toward gay/lesbian people, but that these increases in negativity are only seen among heterosexuals who are chronically concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian.

Study 2

The goal of our second study was to examine the roles that mating motives and contagion concerns play in heterosexuals’ willingness to engage in interorientation contact in public settings. Utilizing the priming procedure from Study 1, we manipulated participants’ mating motives and had participants respond to a scenario about hypothetical contact with a same-gender roommate who they were told was either heterosexual or gay/lesbian. We predicted that participants who responded to contact with a gay/lesbian roommate would report a greater desire to avoid this individual in public settings when their mating motives had been activated than when these motives were not activated. Although it was possible that participants who had their mating motives activated would see a heterosexual roommate as a competitor for potential mates, we did not expect concerns about the presence of another competitor to be as troubling as the potential to be mistaken as gay/lesbian. Thus, we anticipated that participants would be more interested in avoiding a gay/lesbian roommate than a heterosexual roommate when their mating motives were active. We chose a same-gender roommate not only because that is more common for students but also because contact with a same-gender gay/lesbian individual is likely to elicit the strongest concerns about misidentification, particularly as it relates to finding a romantic partner.

As in the previous study, we also hypothesized that people’s existing contagion concerns would play an important role in the relationship between mating goals and public avoidance of gay/lesbian people. In particular, we predicted that mating motives would particularly heighten the desire to avoid gay/lesbian people for high contagion heterosexuals because they would exacerbate their concerns about being misidentified as gay/lesbian and lead to an increased interest in publicly avoiding a gay/lesbian roommate.

Another goal in the current study was to examine alternative reasons why activating mating motives could lead to the desire to avoid contact with gay/lesbian people. It is possible that thinking about sex could activate feelings of disgust, which have been associated with responses to homosexuality and sexual prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Hodson & Costello, 2007; Inbar, Pizarro, Knobe, & Bloom, 2009). If feelings of disgust are heightened in the mating motives condition when the roommate is gay/lesbian, then this disgust could contribute to the desire to avoid the roommate. To examine this possibility, we included an assessment of participants’ feelings of disgust directed toward their hypothetical roommate. It was also possible that activating mating motives would make participants’ heterosexual identity salient, which could increase avoidance of lesbian/gay outgroup members (Bosson, Weaver, Caswell, & Burnaford, 2012). To explore this possibility, we examined participants’ interest in avoiding their roommate in both private and public. If the mating motives are activating concerns about misidentification as gay/lesbian, then they should have a stronger influence on the desire to avoid public than private contact with the gay/lesbian roommate because public contact increases the likelihood that others will misidentify one as gay/lesbian. However, if the mating motives manipulation is making people’s heterosexuality salient, then it should lead to a desire to avoid the gay/lesbian roommate in both public and private.

In addition, we were interested in the influence of contagion concerns above and beyond sexual prejudice as traditionally assessed. The majority of research on sexual prejudice has focused on heterosexuals’ moral condemnation of gay/lesbian people (see Kite & Whitley, 1996). However, recent work examining social contagion concerns indicates that these concerns are a better predictor of the desire to avoid contact with gay/lesbian people than traditional measures of sexual prejudice (Buck et al., 2013). Therefore, in the current study, we included a measure of general sexual prejudice to examine the independent influence of these individual differences on the desire to avoid gay/lesbian people.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 118 introductory psychology students (62% female, M_age = 18.90) who completed the current study in exchange for course credit.³ Nine participants who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual also completed the procedures but were not included in any analyses. Thirteen additional participants completed the procedure but were excluded from analyses because they either incorrectly recalled their hypothetical roommate’s sexual orientation on the manipulation check (n = 10) or were assigned to the control prime condition and wrote about times they were sexually aroused (n = 3).

Procedure and materials

Participants completed two ostensibly unrelated studies. Participants were told the first study investigated the effects of thinking about past experiences on mood and were randomly assigned to either the mating motives prime condition or control condition. As in Study 1, to prime mating motives, participants wrote about times they felt sexual arousal. In the control condition, participants wrote about times they felt happy.

Participants were then told that they would be participating in a second study, which involved imagining interactions with others and providing impressions of these individuals. Participants were presented with a brief scenario asking them to imagine they had moved into a new apartment with a roommate. They were told he or she is from Florida, from the same ethnic group as the participant, and straight/gay/lesbian. The roommate gender was matched to the participant’s gender. Participants were randomly assigned to have either a gay/lesbian or heterosexual roommate.

After reading the scenario, participants completed seven items assessing their desire to avoid public contact with their imagined roommate (e.g., “If I saw my roommate on campus, I would avoid him or her,” α = .88). In addition, participants completed eight items about avoiding contact with the roommate in private (e.g., “I would avoid contact with my roommate in our apartment,” α = .94), and four items asking how disgusted they would feel about their roommate (e.g., “I would be disgusted by the fact that I had to live with this person,” α = .95). All responses were given on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), reverse scored where necessary. Higher scores indicate more avoidance and disgust.

Participants also completed the 10-item version of Buck et al.’s (2013) scale assessing social contagion concerns (α = .90). To assess general sexual prejudice, participants completed Herek’s (1998) 10-item Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) Scale. This scale consists of two 5-item measures assessing attitudes toward lesbians (ATL; for example, “Lesbians just can’t fit into our society”) and gay men (ATG; for example, “Sex between two men is just plain wrong”). Because participants always responded to contact with a same-gender roommate, we focused on female participants’ attitudes toward lesbians (female participants, α = .76) and male participants’ attitudes toward gay men (male participants, α = .92).

Finally, as a manipulation check, participants were asked to recall the gender and sexual orientation of their roommate. Participants then provided demographic information and were debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Results

Primary analyses

To assess whether priming condition and sexual orientation of the roommate influenced each of the dependent measures, we regressed each of these measures on priming condition, roommate condition, and the interaction between the two conditions. To examine the effects of the experimental conditions over and above traditional sexual prejudice and participant gender, ATLG scores (relevant to the roommate’s gender) and participant gender were included as covariates. Because it is the most conservative case, the results are presented controlling for ATLG and gender but the results are highly similar in pattern and magnitude if either of the covariates is removed.

Public avoidance

Examination of the public avoidance scores from the roommate scenario revealed a significant effect of ATLG, β = .37, t(110) = 4.46, p < .001, with higher (vs. lower) prejudiced participants reporting a greater desire to avoid public contact.⁴ Results also indicated a main effect of roommate sexual orientation with participants wanting to publicly avoid their roommate more if he/she was gay/lesbian than heterosexual, β = .25, t(110) = 3.13, p = .002. However, this main effect was qualified by the predicted interaction between priming condition and sexual orientation of the roommate, β = .17, t(110) = 2.12, p = .04. To examine this interaction, simple slopes analyses examined the effects of the priming condition in the gay/lesbian and heterosexual roommate condition.

When considering contact with a gay or lesbian roommate, participants in the mating motives condition reported a greater desire to avoid public contact with the roommate than participants in the control condition, β = .30, t(110) = 2.82, p = .006. However, in the heterosexual roommate condition, there was no difference in the desire to avoid between participants in the mating motive and control conditions, β = −.04, t(110) = −0.34, p = .73 (see Figure 2). In addition, participants in the control condition did not differ in their desire to avoid their roommate as a function of the sexual orientation of the roommate, β = .07, t(110) = 0.65, p = .52. In contrast, participants in the mating motives prime condition reported a greater desire to avoid their roommate if he or she was gay or lesbian than if he or she was straight, β = .41, t(110) = 3.68, p < .001.

Figure 2.

Avoidance of roommate in public as a function of prime condition and sexual orientation of roommate (Study 2).

Private avoidance

Examination of the private avoidance scores from the roommate scenario revealed a significant effect of ATLG, β = .42, t(110) = 5.40, p < .001, with higher prejudiced participants reporting a greater desire to avoid contact with the roommate in private than lower prejudiced participants. Results also indicated a main effect of roommate sexual orientation with participants wanting to avoid their roommate in private more if he or she was gay/lesbian than if heterosexual, β =.44, t(110) = 5.94, p < .001. None of the other effects approached significance, ps > .27.

Disgust

Results from the analysis of disgust revealed a significant effect of ATLG, β = .42, t(110) = 4.76, p < .001, with higher prejudiced participants reporting being more disgusted by their roommate than less prejudiced participants. Results also indicated a main effect of roommate sexual orientation with participants being more disgusted by a gay or lesbian roommate compared with a heterosexual roommate, β =.22, t(110) = 2.63, p = .01. However, the key interaction between prime and roommate sexual orientation was not significant, β =.12, t(110) = 1.36, p = .17.

Implications of social contagion concerns

A follow-up analysis was conducted to examine whether participants with high levels of contagion concerns were particularly sensitive to the mating motives prime in their desire to publicly avoid the gay/lesbian roommate. Previous work indicates that contagion concerns as assessed in the current study tend to be relatively stable and not influenced by situational manipulations (Buck et al., 2013). Consistent with this, regression analyses examining the effects of the priming condition and the roommate condition on contagion concerns assessed at the end of the study revealed no significant main effects or interactions, ps > .59.

To examine the role of contagion concerns as a possible moderator of the effect of the mating motives prime on the reactions to the gay/lesbian roommate, we conducted a multiple regression analysis on the public avoidance of the gay/lesbian roommate as a function of social contagion concerns and mating motives. We were interested in the effect of contagion concerns above and beyond gender and ATLG, so we again included both of these variables as covariates. Results revealed a main effect of contagion concerns, β = .40, t(60) = 4.01, p < .001, and a main effect of priming condition, β = .26, t(60) = 2.95, p = .004. However, these main effects were qualified by the hypothesized interaction between priming condition and contagion concerns, β = .18, t(60) = 2.06, p = .04 (see Figure 3).

Figure 3.

Avoidance of lesbian/gay roommate in public as a function of prime condition and social contagion concerns (Study 2).

To examine this interaction, simple slopes analyses were run at high and low levels of contagion concerns. For participants with high levels of contagion concerns (1 SD above the mean), participants in the mating motives condition reported a greater desire to publicly avoid the gay/lesbian roommate than participants in the control condition, β = .43, t(60) = 3.58, p = .001. In contrast, for participants with low levels of contagion concerns (1 SD below the mean), there was no effect of prime on public avoidance, β = .08, t(60) = 0.70, p = .49.

Discussion

Results from this study indicate that activating mating motives has the capacity to increase heterosexuals’ desires to avoid public contact with same-gender gay/lesbian people but does not affect willingness to have contact with other heterosexuals or willingness to have contact in private with gay/lesbian individuals. Heterosexuals whose mating motives were activated, relative to control, reported a heightened desire to publicly avoid their same-gender gay/lesbian roommate. However, there was no difference in the desire to avoid a same-gender heterosexual roommate based on whether or not participants’ mating motives were activated.

In the present study, we also assessed participants’ interest in privately avoiding the roommate and their disgust about interacting with their roommate. Although both of these responses were higher in the gay/lesbian than the heterosexual roommate condition, the mating motives prime did not predict these responses or interact with sexual orientation of the roommate. The fact that mating motives influenced public but not private contact indicates that the mating motive manipulation did not simply increase participants’ focus on their own sexual identity as a heterosexual. If it had, then they should have been interested in avoiding both public and private contact. The disgust findings indicate that the activation of mating motives does not lead to the desire to avoid contact with gay/lesbian people because it activates feelings of disgust about contact with gay/lesbian people.

Further analyses indicated that this increase in the desire to publicly avoid the gay or lesbian roommate was particularly strong among heterosexuals who were generally concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian. For these individuals with strong contagion concerns, the activation of mating motives increased their desire to publicly avoid contact with a gay/lesbian individual relative to control. While high contagion individuals typically possess concerns about being misperceived as gay/lesbian, it appears that the activation of their mating motives results in an increased desire to avoid gay/lesbian individuals to minimize the potential for misclassification and the resulting loss of mating opportunities.

The findings from the current study offer insight into the roles played by mating motives and general contagion concerns in understanding heterosexuals’ avoidance of same-gender gay/lesbian people. Although informative, these findings only provide suggestive evidence of the reasons why mating motive activation resulted in more avoidance. Specifically, is the impact of mating motives on the desire to avoid contact with gay/lesbian people due to an increase in concerns about being misclassified as gay/lesbian? In Study 3, we examined whether these negative responses to gay/lesbian people were due to the heightening of state contagion concerns when mating motives were activated.

Study 3

The primary goal of the final study was to examine the role of state contagion concerns in the relationship between the activation of mating motives and negative responses to gay/lesbian people. In the current study, participants reported their thoughts and feelings about an upcoming interaction with either a heterosexual or gay/lesbian interaction partner of their own gender including their concerns that they would be misidentified as gay/lesbian as a result of the upcoming interaction (i.e., state contagion concerns). We hypothesized that participants who anticipated interacting with a gay/lesbian partner would report greater state contagion concerns when their mating motives had been activated than when these motives were not activated. These heightened contagion concerns were predicted to contribute to the increased desire to avoid the upcoming interaction with the gay/lesbian partner. That is, we anticipated that state contagion concerns would mediate the effect of the mating motives manipulation on the desire to avoid the interorientation interaction. In contrast, when anticipating an interaction with a heterosexual partner, the activation of mating motives was not expected to influence state contagion concerns or avoidance.

In the current study, we also took a different approach to manipulating mating motives. Specifically, in Study 3, to manipulate the activation of mating motives, participants viewed photos of opposite-gender targets. In the mating motives condition, the opposite-gender targets were highly attractive in appearance whereas in the control condition, participants viewed targets who were average in appearance. This procedure has been successfully used repeatedly to prime mating motives (see Baker & Maner, 2008; Griskevicius, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Griskevicius, Tybur, et al., 2007; Roney, 2003; Sundie et al., 2011).

Method

Participants

Respondents were 55 introductory psychology students (55% female, M_age = 19.42, 56% White, 20% Hispanic, 18% Black, 6% Other) who completed the current study in exchange for partial course credit. Three participants who identified as gay, lesbian, or bisexual also completed the procedure but were not included in any analyses. Ten additional participants completed the procedure but were excluded from analyses because they suspected there would not be an interaction. The high levels of suspicion are likely due to the time during which this study occurred. At the time, multiple studies were being conducted in the department that involved similar cover stories and many of the suspicious participants had taken part in one of these studies already.

Procedure

As in Studies 1 and 2, participants completed two ostensibly unrelated studies. Participants were randomly assigned to either the mating motives prime condition or control condition. In both conditions, participants were presented with 10 photos taken from the images Baker and Maner (2008) used to manipulate the activation of mating motives. In the mating motives condition, participants viewed photos of attractive opposite-gender targets. In the control condition, participants viewed photos of unattractive opposite-gender targets. All of the facial images were pre-rated on attractiveness using a 9-point scale (attractive mean = 6.52, unattractive mean = 2.60). Each image was presented for 8 s and the order of presentation was randomized.

Participants were told that the second study involved interacting with a same-gender student and that the purpose of the study was to examine the impact of knowing information about a person prior to meeting. Participants were shown answers to a series of questions allegedly completed by their partner. Included in this list was a question about the partner’s sexual orientation. Participants were randomly assigned to have a heterosexual or a gay/lesbian interaction partner. Because we anticipated that the impact of the mating motive manipulation on contagion concerns would be strongest regarding contact with a same-gender gay/lesbian individual, participants were always told their partner matched their gender. After reviewing the information about their partner, participants completed a series of items about their upcoming interaction. Participants then completed measures assessing their moral condemnation of homosexuality and their demographic information. Finally, participants were probed for suspicion about the upcoming interaction, debriefed, and dismissed.

Materials

State contagion concerns

Participants completed a seven-item measure assessing their contagion concerns related to the upcoming interaction (e.g., “I am concerned that my interaction partner will think that I am gay/lesbian,” “If I am friendly to my interaction partner, I worry other people will think I’m gay/lesbian”; α = .71). Participants responded to items on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), reverse scored where necessary, with higher scores indicating higher levels of state contagion concerns.

Desire to avoid

The desire to avoid the upcoming interaction was assessed via 13 items (e.g., “If I had the choice, I would rather not interact with this person,” “I wish I could avoid having this interaction”; α = .92). Responses were given on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), reverse scored where necessary. Higher scores indicate elevated desires to avoid the upcoming interaction.

Moral condemnation

Participants also completed Buck et al.’s (2013) measure of moral condemnation of homosexuality. The moral condemnation subscale consists of four items (e.g., “According to my personal morals, homosexuality is wrong”; α = .83). Items were reverse scored where necessary so that higher scores indicated higher levels of moral condemnation of homosexuality.

Results

Primary analyses

State contagion concerns

To assess whether activating mating motives influenced contagion concerns regarding interacting with the gay/lesbian, but not heterosexual, interaction partner, we regressed state contagion concerns regarding the upcoming interaction on priming condition, partner’s sexual orientation, and the interaction between these two variables. Similar to the previous studies, moral condemnation and participant gender were included as covariates. However, the results were highly similar in pattern and magnitude if either of the covariates was removed.

There was a significant effect of moral condemnation of homosexuality on state contagion concerns, β = .31, t(49) = 2.47, p = .02, with participants higher in moral condemnation reporting more contagion concerns than participants lower in moral condemnation. In addition, there was a significant effect of partner’s sexual orientation such that, not surprisingly, participants who expected a gay/lesbian partner reported more state contagion concerns than participants anticipating a heterosexual partner, β = .35, t(49) = 2.82, p = .007. However, this main effect was qualified by the predicted interaction between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation, β = .26, t(49) = 2.11, p = .04 (see Figure 4). To examine this interaction, we ran simple slopes analyses examining the impact of the priming condition in the gay/lesbian and heterosexual conditions.

Figure 4.

Contagion concerns about the upcoming interaction as a function of prime condition and partner sexual orientation (Study 3).

When considering contact with a gay/lesbian interaction partner, participants in the mating motives condition reported higher levels of contagion concerns regarding the upcoming interaction than participants in the control condition, β = .46, t(49) = 2.58, p = .01. In contrast, in the heterosexual partner condition, there was no difference in contagion concerns based on priming condition, β = −.05, t(49) = −0.31, p = .76.

Avoidance

We conducted parallel analyses to assess whether activating mating motives influenced the desire to avoid interacting with the gay/lesbian, but not heterosexual, interaction partner. As before, moral condemnation and participant’s gender were entered as covariates. There were no significant main effects of any of the variables on the desire to avoid the upcoming interaction, ts < 1.36, ps > .18. However, there was a significant interaction between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation, β = .31, t(49) = 2.32, p = .03. To examine this interaction, we ran simple slopes analyses examining the impact of the priming condition on the desire to avoid in the gay/lesbian and heterosexual conditions.

When considering contact with a gay/lesbian interaction partner, participants in the mating motives condition reported greater desires to avoid the upcoming interaction than participants in the control condition, β = .42, t(49) = 2.11, p = .04. In contrast, when considering contact with a heterosexual interaction partner, participants in the mating motives condition did not differ from those in the control condition in the desire to avoid the interaction, β = −.21, t(49) = −1.11, p = .27.

Morality

It was possible that our manipulation of mating motives was instead heightening ingroup identification and salience. Therefore, we examined whether the prime condition influenced participants’ condemnation of homosexuality. We regressed morality on priming condition, partner’s sexual orientation, and the interaction between these two variables. To parallel the above analyses, participant gender and state contagion concerns were included as covariates. Similar to the analysis of contagion concerns, there was a significant effect of contagion concerns, β = .35, t(49) = 2.47, p = .02, with participants higher in contagion concerns reporting more moral condemnation than participants lower in contagion concerns. In addition, there was a main effect of partner condition, β = −.30, t(49) = 2.26, p = .03, such that participants reported less moral condemnation of homosexuality if their partner was gay/lesbian than if their partner was heterosexual. There was no effect of prime on morality, p > .26, indicating that the prime was not simply activating ingroup identity or identification.

Mediation analyses

We were also interested in the role of contagion concerns as a mediator of the interactive relationship between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation on the desire to avoid the upcoming interaction. To examine this, we conducted a regression analysis on the desire to avoid the upcoming interaction with state contagion concerns, priming condition, partner’s sexual orientation, and the interaction between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation entered as predictors. The analyses revealed that contagion concerns significantly predicted the desire to avoid the interaction, such that participants who reported higher levels of contagion concerns also reported greater desires to avoid the upcoming interaction, β = .31, t(48) = 2.32, p = .03. Furthermore, when contagion concerns were included in the model, the interaction between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation was no longer significant, β = .20, t(48) = 1.55, p = .13. Using the bootstrapping procedure outlined by Preacher and Hayes (2008), mediation analyses indicated that contagion concerns significantly mediated the relationship between the interaction between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation and the desire to avoid the upcoming interaction (confidence interval [CI] = [0.09, 1.02]). Thus, it appears that the differences in the desire to avoid that we see in the moderation analyses are due to contagion concerns.

Given that contagion concerns significantly mediated the interactive relationship between priming condition and partner’s sexual orientation on the desire to avoid the interaction, we next investigated whether contagion concerns mediated the relationship between priming condition and the desire to avoid the gay/lesbian partner specifically. To examine this, we conducted follow-up analyses using procedures recommended by Muller, Judd, and Yzerbyt (2005). Specifically, we ran hierarchical regression analyses on participants’ desire to avoid the upcoming interorientation interaction with priming condition entered in the first step, and contagion concerns entered in the second step (see Figure 5).

Figure 5.

State social contagion concerns mediates the effect of mating motives condition on the desire to avoid contact with a gay/lesbian interaction partner (Study 3).

The first step of the regression revealed that participants whose mating goals were activated reported more contagion concerns than participants whose mating goals were not activated. The second step of the analyses revealed that contagion concerns significantly predicted the desire to avoid the upcoming interorientation interaction, β = .43, t(48) = 2.89, p = .01. When contagion concerns were included into the model, priming condition was no longer a significant predictor, β = .22, t(48) = 1.12, p = .27. Bootstrapping analyses indicated that contagion concerns significantly mediated the relationship between priming condition and the desire to avoid the interaction with a gay/lesbian partner (CI = [0.10, 1.01]).

Discussion

Results from the current study indicate that activating mating motives has the capacity to increase heterosexuals’ state contagion concerns and desire to avoid same-sex lesbians and gay men. Specifically, heterosexual participants whose mating motives were activated reported higher levels of contagion concerns and greater interest in avoiding their partner in an upcoming interaction with a gay/lesbian interaction partner compared to participants in the control condition. However, when the interaction partner was heterosexual, neither contagion concerns nor the desire to avoid the interaction were affected by the activation of mating motives. Further analyses indicated that contagion concerns about the upcoming interaction mediated the relationship between the activation of mating motives and the desire to avoid the upcoming interorientation interaction. Specifically, the increased desire to avoid the gay/lesbian interaction partner reported by heterosexuals whose mating motives were activated was statistically explained by increased contagion concerns regarding the upcoming interaction. These findings clarify that the activation of mating motives has implications for responses to gay/lesbian people because they increase contagion concerns regarding contact with gay/lesbian people.

General Discussion

The purpose of the present work was to explore the implications of mating goals for contagion concerns and responses toward gay/lesbian people. To this end, we experimentally activated mating motives and examined the impact of these motives on heterosexuals’ denigration and avoidance of gay/lesbian people. We hypothesized that the activation of mating motives heightens concerns among some heterosexuals about being misidentified as gay/lesbian because of the negative implications of such misidentification for successful pursuit of an opposite-gender mate. We further argued that, to combat such misidentification, heterosexuals would express antipathy toward and avoid contact with gay/lesbian people. Consistent with our hypotheses, we found evidence that the activation of mating goals increases avoidance and denigration of gay/lesbian people.

Our results indicate that the activation of mating motives led heterosexuals who were generally concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian to denigrate (Study 1) and avoid (Studies 2) gay/lesbian people. Our final study provided evidence that the activation of mating goals leads to interest in avoiding lesbians and gay men because it increases concerns about being misclassified as gay/lesbian. Taken together, these findings indicate that mating goals play an important role in heterosexuals’ responses to gay/lesbian people. Furthermore, the current work clarified the role of heightened concerns about being misidentified as gay/lesbian in increasing negative and avoidant responses toward gay/lesbian people.

The present work adds to the recent literature indicating that gay/lesbian people face avoidance, antipathy, and denigration when heterosexuals fear misclassification as gay/lesbian (Bosson et al., 2012; Buck et al., 2013). These negative responses could lead to feelings of social isolation and social rejection among gay/lesbian people, and they could contribute to the further marginalization and discrimination these individuals face. However, by identifying one of the concerns and motivations underlying this behavior, we may be better equipped to combat these responses.

The present work also provides important insight into “for whom” the activation of mating goals heightens negativity toward gay/lesbian people. For example, the results of Studies 1 and 2 indicate that not all heterosexuals respond with negativity toward lesbians and gay men when their mating goals are activated. Instead, it was heterosexuals who reported that they were generally concerned about being misidentified as gay or lesbian who showed the strongest tendencies to denigrate and avoid lesbians and gay men when their mating goals were activated. Furthermore, the effects of contagion concerns on participants’ desire to avoid contact with a same-gender lesbian or gay man was found above and beyond the effects of participant’s general sexual prejudice (Study 2) and moral condemnation of homosexuality (Study 3). Thus, although social contagion concerns and sexual prejudice are correlated (typically r ~ .45), these concerns appear to reflect more than negative attitudes toward gay/lesbian people. As a result, improving people’s attitudes about gay men and lesbians would likely be insufficient to reduce existing contagion concerns and the negative implications of these concerns. Exploring the characteristics and experiences of people who do not report concerns about misidentification as gay/lesbian (i.e., those low in social contagion concerns) may help to identify factors that can be targeted to reduce social contagion concerns in others.

Limitations and Future Directions

Because this was the first examination into these issues, there are many exciting future avenues of research. For example, these findings highlight the importance of developing strategies to reduce concerns about misclassification. Alleviating heterosexuals’ contagion concerns could reduce the perceived need to engage in negative behaviors, such as denigrating and avoiding gay/lesbian people, particularly when these behaviors are used as strategies to establish a heterosexual identity to others and reduce the likelihood of misclassification as gay/lesbian. Providing heterosexual people with alternative routes to signaling their sexual orientation may reduce the tendency to act out against gay/lesbian people. Future work should explore whether simply getting the opportunity to espouse one’s sexual orientation is adequate to assuage these concerns. Because sexual orientation is a concealable identity and difficult to prove, merely espousing one’s sexual orientation may not be enough to allay these concerns. Previous work examining responses to threatened masculinity provide a mixed picture as to whether asserting one’s heterosexuality alleviates such threats (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004; Bosson et al., 2005, 2012; Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008). Reducing social contagion concerns may require more meaningful experiences such as positive contact with gay/lesbian people where misidentification does not occur.

In the current work, we were interested in the implications of mating goals on concerns about misclassification as gay/lesbian and responses toward gay/lesbian people. However, we suspect that it is likely that other fundamental goals would also have implications for interorientation relations. For example, when self-protection goals are activated, people are particularly cognizant of and attentive to other individuals in the environment who could threaten their safety (e.g., Miller, Zielaskowski, Maner, & Plant, 2012). Given that heterosexuals who are misclassified as gay/lesbian could face the very real threat of denigration and potential violence (Herek, 2009), the activation of self-protection goals could increase contagion concerns among some heterosexuals. In this case, we would predict that negative responses to gay/lesbian people would be particularly heightened when heterosexuals are concerned about their own physical safety and are motivated to make their heterosexuality clear. Future research would benefit by examining the effect of other fundamental goals on responses to lesbians and gay men.

It is worth noting that in Studies 2 and 3, participants reported their desire to avoid gay/lesbian people of their own gender. Although we anticipate that responses would be more intense toward a same-gender lesbian or gay man, it is possible that mating goals and contagion concerns would also influence responses to opposite-gender gay/lesbian people. We suspect that if a heterosexual individual is concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian and believes affiliation with a gay/lesbian individual will increase that likelihood, then the gender of the gay/lesbian individual may be relatively inconsequential. In future work, it will be important to explore the degree to which gender plays a role in these responses.

In the current work, we used college samples to test our hypotheses, but it’s possible that more variability in contagion concerns would be found in the general population. For example, teens and young adults who are just beginning to seek out romantic partners might be particularly concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian because these individuals may be less confident in their ability to attract a mate. A more complete understanding of the roots of contagion concerns across various age groups and life situations will greatly improve the effectiveness of strategies aimed at alleviating these concerns.

It will also be important in future work to examine whether these findings generalize to more serious forms of denigration including aggression and bullying of gay/lesbian people. In our first study, we found evidence that the activation of mating goals led heterosexuals who were generally concerned about misclassification as gay/lesbian to report more negative attitudes toward gay/lesbian people to an opposite-gender partner. We fear that concerns about misidentification as gay/lesbian could contribute to verbal and even physical harassment of gay/lesbian individuals. A primary goal of our future work is to examine how contagion concerns may contribute to aggression and bullying behavior based on sexual orientation.

Conclusion

The motivation to find a romantic partner can have many beneficial implications for our lives such as inspiring us to form and maintain close and rewarding relationships with others. However, the current work provides evidence that the desire to find a partner can have detrimental implications for interorientation contact. Mating motives, which can encourage individuals to engage in very positive and loving actions toward others, can also motivate avoidance and hostility directed at lesbians and gay men. Particularly if heterosexuals fear misidentification as gay/lesbian, mating motives may result in hostile and unwelcoming situations for gay/lesbian people. Thus, even goals with positive intentions can have unexpected negative intergroup implications if people perceive outgroup members as obstructing their goal pursuit.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Christopher Beck for his valuable comments on a previous version of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ainsworth

S. E.

Maner

J. K.

(2012). Sex begets violence: Mating motives, social dominance, and physical aggression in men. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 819-825.

Baker

M. D.

Maner

J. K.

(2008). Risk-taking as a situationally sensitive male mating strategy. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 391-395.

Bosson

J. K.

Haymovitz

E. L.

Pinel

E. C.

(2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus nonverbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247-255.

Bosson

J. K.

Prewitt-Freilino

J. L.

Taylor

J. N.

(2005). Role rigidity: A problem of identity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552-565.

Bosson

J. K.

Taylor

J. N.

Prewitt-Freilino

J. L.

(2006). Gender role violations and identity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55, 13-24.

Bosson

J. K.

Weaver

J. R.

Caswell

T. A.

Burnaford

R. M.

(2012). Gender threats and men’s antigay behaviors: The harmful effects of asserting heterosexuality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 471-486.

Buck

Plant

E. A.

Ratcliff

Zielaskowski

Boerner

(2013). Fear of social contagion: Implications for the avoidance of homosexuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 941-960.

Cottrell

C. A.

Neuberg

S. L.

(2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770-789.

Fitzsimons

G. M.

Bargh

J. A.

(2003). Thinking of you: Nonconscious pursuit of interpersonal goals associated with relationship partners. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 148-164.

10.

Gonzaga

C. G.

Haselton

M. G.

Smurda

Davies

Poore

J. C.

(2008). Love, desire, and the suppression of thoughts of romantic alternatives. Evolution and Human Behavior, 29, 119-126.

11.

Griskevicius

Cialdini

R. B.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2006). Peacocks, Picasso, and parental investment: The effects of romantic motives on creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 63-76.

12.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Sundie

J. M.

Cialdini

R. B.

Miller

G. F.

Kenrick

D. T.

(2007). Blatant benevolence and conspicuous consumption: When romantic motives elicit strategic costly signals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 85-102.

13.

Herek

G. M.

(1998). The attitudes toward Lesbians and Gay Men (ATLG) scale. In Davis

C. M.

Yarber

W. L.

Bauserman

Schreer

Davis

S. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of sexuality-related measures (pp. 392-394). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

14.

Herek

G. M.

(2009). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sexual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 54-74.

15.

Hodson

Costello

(2007). Interpersonal disgust, ideological orientations, and dehumanization as predictors of intergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 18, 691-698.

16.

Inbar

Pizarro

Knobe

Bloom

(2009). Disgust sensitivity predicts intuitive disapproval of gays. Emotion, 9, 435-439.

17.

Kenrick

D. T.

Maner

J. K.

Butner

N. P.

Becker

D. V.

Schaller

(2002). Dynamical evolutionary psychology: Mapping domains of the new interactionist paradigm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 347-356.

18.

Kite

M. E.

Whitley

B. E.

(1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336-353.

19.

Lerner

J. S.

Keltner

(2001). Fear, anger, and risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 146-159.

20.

Maner

J. K.

Gailliot

M. T.

Rouby

D. A.

Miller

S. L.

(2007). Can’t take my eyes off of you: Attentional adhesion to mates and rivals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 389-401.

21.

Maner

J. K.

Miller

S. L.

Moss

Leo

Plant

E. A.

(2012). Motivated social categorization: Fundamental motives enhance people’s sensitivity to basic social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 70-83.

22.

Maner

J. K.

Miller

S. L.

Rouby

D. A.

Gailliot

M. T.

(2009). Intrasexual vigilance: The implicit cognition of romantic rivalry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 74-87.

23.

Miller

S. L.

Zielaskowski

Maner

J. K.

Plant

E. A.

(2012). Self-protective motivation and avoidance of heuristically threatening outgroups. Evolution and Human Behavior, 33, 726-735.

24.

Monteith

M. J.

Deneen

N. E.

Tooman

(1996). The effect of social norm activation on the expression on opinions concerning gay men and Blacks. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 267-288.

25.

Muller

Judd

C. M.

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2005). When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 852-863.

26.

Neuberg

S. L.

Smith

D. M.

Hoffman

J. C.

Russell

F. J.

(1994). When we observe stigmatized and “normal” individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196-209.

27.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879-891.

28.

Prewitt-Freilino

J. L.

Bosson

J. K.

(2008). Defending the self against identity misclassification. Self and Identity, 7, 168-183.

29.

Roney

J. R.

(2003). Effects of visual exposure to the opposite sex: Cognitive aspects of mate attraction in human males. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 393-404.

30.

Sigelman

C. K.

Howell

J. L.

Cornell

D. P.

Cutright

J. D.

Dewey

J. C.

(1991). Courtesy stigma: The social implications of associating with a gay person. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 45-56.

31.

Sundie

J. M.

Kenrick

D. T.

Griskevicius

Tybur

J. M.

Vohs

K. D.

Beal

D. J.

(2011). Peacocks, Porsches, and Thorstein Veblen: Conspicuous consumption as a sexual signaling system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 664-680.