Sexual Prejudice

Abstract

Sexual prejudice may arise from beliefs that certain sexual orientation groups direct unwanted sexual interest, with the implication that heterosexual men and women hold prejudices against different groups. Study 1 confirmed that heterosexual women believe bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians (but not gay men) direct unwanted sexual interest, whereas heterosexual men believe bisexual and gay men (but not bisexual women or lesbians) direct unwanted sexual interest. Study 2 revealed patterns of negativity toward different sexual orientation groups mirroring Study 1’s pattern of perceptions of unwanted sexual interest and Study 3 demonstrated that the perception of unwanted sexual interest statistically mediates the relationship between target sexual orientation group and negativity. Existing theoretical approaches for understanding sexual prejudices, including the in-group–out-group heterosexism, gender–role violation, and sexual identity threat approaches, fail to account for the nuanced pattern of findings observed.

Keywords

unwanted sexual interest prejudice sexual orientation homophobia heterosexism

In trying to explain causes of sexual prejudice—prejudice based on sexual orientation—researchers have employed theoretical perspectives ranging from the psychodynamic to the sociological (for reviews, see Herek, 1984, 2009). We apply an alternative framework from which we derive a novel and untested hypothesis: Heterosexuals’ prejudice toward nonheterosexuals stems from a desire to avoid persons believed to direct unwanted sexual interest. This hypothesis implies a pattern of sexual prejudices across sexual orientation groups different than those derived from alternative frameworks; we focus on contrasting our approach against the three dominant perspectives: the in-group–out-group heterosexism, gender–role violation, and sexual identity threat perspectives.

The affordance–management perspective (Gibson, 1979; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Neuberg, Kenrick, & Schaller, 2010, 2011) posits that social cognition and behavior serve to manage the potential opportunities and threats others may afford. Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) demonstrated, for example, that perceptions of the specific threats posed by a range of different groups (e.g., racial/ethnic, religious) strongly predicted emotional reactions to these groups; moreover, these threat perceptions accounted for nearly all the variance in these prejudices. Other research has similarly demonstrated the sensitivity of prejudices to perceived threats others pose (e.g., Alexander, Brewer, & Livingston, 2005; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, 2006).

An understanding of sexual prejudices may also benefit from an affordance-focused approach. Indeed, several studies suggest prejudices against gay men partially arise from perceptions that they pose disease and child socialization threats (Bosson, Haymovitz, & Pinel, 2004; Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Gallup, 1995; Herek & Capitanio, 1999a). Here, we propose heterosexuals’ sexual prejudices against nonheterosexual groups (gay men, lesbians, and bisexual women and men) partially arise from a concern that certain nonheterosexual groups direct unwanted sexual interest toward them.

A range of conceptual perspectives, from evolutionary to feminist (e.g., Buss & Malamuth, 1996; Lalumiere, Harris, Quinsey, & Rice, 2005), point to the challenge to sexual autonomy posed by unwanted sexual interest. Unwanted sexual advances by nonheterosexuals may be viewed by heterosexuals as challenging that autonomy by creating coercive or uncomfortable sexual situations, or by placing doubt about one’s sexual orientation in others’ minds (e.g., Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Herek, 2004).

Although likely exaggerated, heterosexuals may have some reason to believe nonheterosexuals may direct sexual interest toward them. Developmentally, the first realizations of a gay, lesbian, or bisexual sexual orientation usually result from attractions to same-sex (and likely heterosexual) targets (Savin-Williams & Diamond, 2000). Furthermore, bisexuals can be sexually and romantically interested in both male and female targets—which likely includes heterosexuals. Moreover, media depictions suggest nonheterosexuals can possess feelings for heterosexual individuals and may approach them with romantic or sexual aims—either having misidentified heterosexuals as gay/lesbian/bisexual or even knowing they are heterosexual (e.g., plotlines in Will and Grace and Sex and the City in which nonheterosexual characters have “crushes” on heterosexual characters)—which might magnify this perception. To our knowledge, no study has quantitatively assessed heterosexuals’ perceptions of nonheterosexuals’ sexual interests in them. Study 1 examines these beliefs.

Facing somewhat different mating and parenting challenges, heterosexual men and women likely differ in who they view as posing unwanted sexual interest. Given the relatively high costs of engaging in heterosexual sex (e.g., Buss & Schmitt, 1993; Trivers, 1972), women are comparatively reticent about engaging in sexual relationships perceived to offer minimal or no prospects for becoming longer term (heterosexual) relationships (e.g., Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Conley, 2011; Schmitt, 2005). Thus, heterosexual women may negatively view those interested others perceived to be undesirable long-term partners, including lesbians and bisexual women, because of incompatible sexual interests. This would also include bisexual men because they may be seen as promiscuous, as unable to be satisfied by women alone, or as poor long-term partners (Spalding & Peplau, 1997). In contrast, heterosexual women should view favorably those with whom they share either a mutual sexual disinterest (heterosexual women, gay men) or a mutual sexual interest (heterosexual men).¹

For men, the costs of engaging in sex with limited prospects for longer term relationships are comparatively small, given their lower obligatory parental investment (Trivers, 1972); indeed, men are generally willing to have sex with consenting women of even moderate desirability (Clark & Hatfield, 1989; Haselton & Buss, 2000; Kenrick, Groth, Trost, & Sadalla, 1993). We would thus expect men to view relatively favorably those with whom they would have sex if approached (women, regardless of orientation) and those with whom they share a mutual sexual disinterest (heterosexual men); they are likely, however, to view negatively those whose sexual interest would be unwanted (gay and bisexual men; see Note 1).

Contrast those predictions (see Figure 1A) with those derived from alternative approaches:

Figure 1.

Competing predictions derived from the unwanted sexual interest (A), in-group—out-group heterosexism (B), gender-role violation (C), and sexual identity threat (D) hypotheses, and actual general negative prejudice findings from Study 2(E).

In-Group–Out-Group Heterosexism Hypothesis

One alternative is that heterosexuals make judgments employing a simple social categorization of sexual orientation, without accounting for distinctions among nonheterosexual subgroups. From this viewpoint, because heterosexuals and nonheterosexuals seem group-like and different from one another, heterosexuals’ sexual prejudices can be conceptualized as in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. This simplified in-group–out-group heterosexism approach generates a straightforward “heterosexism” prediction—heterosexuals would view (out-group) nonheterosexuals unfavorably relative to (in-group) heterosexuals (Figure 1B).

Other approaches, like ours, consider not just the type of nonheterosexual orientation but also whether the targets and heterosexual perceivers are men or women (e.g., Herek, 2000a, 2002; Herek & Capitanio, 1999b; Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998; Nagoshi et al., 2008; Parrott & Gallagher, 2008; Parrott, Peterson, Vincent, & Bakeman, 2008; Ratcliff, Lassiter, Markman, & Synder, 2006; Spalding & Peplau, 1997). The most prominent of these are the gender–norm violation and sexual identity threat hypotheses.

Gender–Norm Violation Hypothesis

This perspective proposes that sexual prejudices emerge from nonheterosexuals’ gender–norm violations (Kite & Whitley, 1996, 1998; Whitley & Kite, 2006). Due to their socialized rigidity, violations of male gender roles (e.g., being gay) are predicted to elicit strong prejudices, particularly by heterosexual men. Because gender–role norms are less rigid for women, lesbianism should be seen as less of a norm violation and elicit less stigma. Gay men should thus elicit greater negativity than lesbians, and heterosexual men should be particularly prejudiced. Although prejudices against bisexuals have not been explicitly addressed by this perspective, one might presume bisexuals also violate gender norms and should be viewed negatively similar to gay men and lesbians (Figure 1C).

Sexual Identity Threat Hypothesis

Some have suggested that prejudice against gay men results from heterosexual men’s anxiety about their own sexual identities and that antigay prejudice reinforces one’s sense of heterosexuality (Adams, Wright, & Lohr, 1996; Herek 2000a, 2000b; Weinstein et al., 2012). Extending this approach to explain sexual prejudices toward bisexuals, and prejudices held by heterosexual women, one might surmise that both male and female heterosexuals would feel unfavorably toward same-sex gay/lesbian and bisexual individuals (Figure 1D).

To test these competing hypotheses, heterosexual men and women evaluated groups varying in sex and sexual orientation. Evaluating the pattern of findings captured by the full perceiver sex by target sex by target sexual orientation design is critical for differentiating the competing in-group–out-group heterosexism, gender–role violation, sexual identity threat, and unwanted sexual interest hypotheses. We have seen no empirical tests of this full design or attempts to empirically contrast these theoretical perspectives.

Study 1

Study 1 assessed (1) perceptions of whether nonheterosexuals express sexual interest in heterosexuals, (2) whether (presumably) heterosexual men and women express sexual interest in gay/lesbian and bisexual men and women, and (3) the resulting perceived sexual interest discrepancies, which constitute our operationalization of unwanted sexual interest. We expect heterosexual women to believe that bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians (but not gay men) direct unwanted sexual interest, and heterosexual men to believe that bisexual and gay men (but not bisexual women and lesbians) direct unwanted sexual interest.

Method

Participants

U.S. undergraduates participated in partial fulfillment of their research requirement; average age = 19.14 (SD = 1.57, range = 18–25), a range for which sexual activity is particularly important and salient. A computer error prevented obtaining sexual orientation data for all participants except 15; of these, we omitted 1 bisexual participant, leaving 102 (46 women) in the final sample.²

Procedure

Employing a within-participant design, participants reported beliefs about six target groups—straight men, straight women, bisexual men, bisexual women, gay men, and lesbians. We randomized target order and counterbalanced presentation order of dependent variables.

Participants reported on 9-point scales (1 = strongly disagree, 9 = strongly agree) perceptions of the sexual interests of each target group toward heterosexual men or women of the participants’ same sex, on 3 items: “In general, [target group] are [sexually interested in/attracted to/hit on] heterosexual [men/women].” For the six target groups, αs ranged from .95 to .99.

Participants also reported on 9-point scales (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely) their own sexual and romantic interest in each target group: “If you weren’t currently in a relationship and you were approached by an attractive, intelligent, funny, desirable [target], how interested would you be in [having sex with that person/having a romantic relationship with that person]?” For the six target groups, αs ranged from .89 to .98.

Results and Discussion

Beliefs About Target Sexual Interest

A 3 (target orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual; within-participant) × 2 (target sex; within-participant) × 2 (perceiver sex; between-participant) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on beliefs about target sexual interest revealed a highly significant three-way interaction: F(2, 192) = 332.68, p < .0001, η _p ² = .78. Women believed all targets to be sexually interested in heterosexual women, with the exception of heterosexual women and gay men. Men believed all target groups to be interested in heterosexual men, except for heterosexual men, and, to a lesser degree, lesbians (see Figure S1 and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Perceiver Sexual Interest

A 3 (target orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual; within-participant) × 2 (target sex; within-participant) × 2 (perceiver sex; between-participant) ANOVA on participants’ sexual interests also revealed a highly significant three-way interaction, F(2, 192) = 128.58, p < .0001, η _p ² = .57. Consistent with predictions, women were essentially uninterested in all target groups except heterosexual men, whereas men were interested in all female targets regardless of target orientation (see Figure S2 and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Unwanted Sexual Interest

Unwanted sexual interest was operationalized via sexual interest discrepancy scores, calculated by subtracting, for each target group, participant sexual interest from their perceptions about target sexual interest. Positive scores represent unwanted sexual interest, negative scores reflect unreciprocated sexual interest, and scores near 0 reflect mutual sexual interest/disinterest.

A 3 (target orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual; within-participant) × 2 (target sex; within-participant) × 2 (perceiver sex; between-participant) ANOVA on sexual interest discrepancies revealed a highly significant three-way interaction, F(2, 192) = 63.21, p < .0001, η _p ² = .40. Consistent with predictions, women perceived unwanted sexual interest from bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians; men perceived unwanted sexual interest from bisexual and gay men. Men also viewed lesbians as not reciprocating their sexual interest. See Figure 2 and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental, for specific comparisons.

Figure 2.

Sexual interest discrepancy as a function of target sexual orientation, target sex, and participant sex in Study 1. Positive scores indicate unwanted sexual interest; negative scores indicate unrequited sexual interest.

These findings support our predictions about perceptions of the sources of unwanted sexual interest.³ Study 2 investigates our focal hypothesis—that sexual prejudices mirror these perceptions.

Study 2

In line with our hypotheses and Study 1 findings, we predict heterosexual women will feel negatively toward bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians (but not gay men), whereas heterosexual men will feel negatively toward bisexual and gay men (but not bisexual and lesbian women).

Method

Participants

Undergraduates participated in partial fulfillment of their research requirement. We omitted bisexual and gay/lesbian participants (n = 8), leaving 148 (78 women) heterosexuals (M _age = 18.72, SD = 1.74, range = 18–34).

Procedure

Participants provided their general negative affect toward the six sexual orientation groups assessed in Study 1. Herek (2002) employed a general negativity feeling thermometer to enable comparisons across different sexual orientation groups, and the in-group–out-group heterosexism, gender–role violation, and sexual identity threat approaches focus on general prejudice. We thus had participants report on the extent to which they felt negativity toward each group (1 = not at all, 9 = extremely), averaged on 2 items negative and dislike; for the six target groups, αs ranged from .75 to .94.⁴

Results and Discussion

A 3 (target orientation: heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual; within-participant) × 2 (target sex; within-participant) × 2 (perceiver sex; between-participant) ANOVA on negativity revealed a main effect of target orientation, F(2, 292) = 20.01, p < .001, η _p ² = .12; bisexual (M = 2.52) and gay/lesbian (M = 2.43) targets elicited stronger (and equivalent, p = .40) negativity than did heterosexual targets (M = 1.65).

This main effect was qualified, however, by the predicted three-way interaction: F(2, 292) = 14.67, p < .001, η _p ² = .09. As Figure 1E reveals, the pattern of means more closely matches the predictions of the unwanted sexual interest hypothesis than the alternative hypotheses.

We then ran three ANOVAs to compare the proportions of variance accounted for (η _p ²) by the unwanted sexual interest, in-group–out-group heterosexism, and sexual identity threat models, by recoding the 12 target groups according to the predictions represented in Figure 1.⁵ All three models received support: Unwanted sexual interest targets elicited greater negativity than did mutual sexual interest targets, F(1, 147) = 36.68, p < .001, η _p ² = .20, supporting the unwanted sexual interest model; nonheterosexual targets elicited greater negativity relative to heterosexual targets, F(1, 147) = 25.43, p < .001, η _p ² = .15, supporting the in-group–out-group heterosexism model; and same-sex nonheterosexual targets elicited greater negativity relative to the other targets, F(1, 147) = 33.95, p < .001, η _p ² = .19, supporting the sexual identity threat model. Although the unwanted sexual interest model explained a greater proportion of variance than the others, this is a relatively weak test because each approach generates similar predictions for many of the 12 cells.

Therefore, we also ran a series of planned t-tests where the three alternatives make diverging predictions from the unwanted sexual interest model (e.g., whereas the in-group–out-group heterosexism model predicts that heterosexual women will be more negative toward gay men than toward heterosexual men, the unwanted sexual interest model does not). As revealed in online supplemental Table S2 (found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental), 27 of the 31 critical comparisons supported the unwanted sexual interest hypothesis. This support was unequivocal for heterosexual women’s (lack of) negativity toward gay men, heterosexual women’s elevated negativity toward bisexual men, and heterosexual men’s (lack of) negativity toward bisexual women. Men’s moderate negativity toward lesbians exhibited mixed support for the unwanted sexual interest, in-group–out-group heterosexism, and gender–role violation models.

In sum, the unwanted sexual interest model mirrored the pattern of negativity toward sexual orientation targets, whereas the alternative perspectives did not. By assessing perceptions of unwanted sexual interest, gender–role violations, sexual identity threat, and negativity, Study 3 more formally tests the ability of these models to account for the relationship between target sexual orientation and perceiver negativity.

Study 3

Method

Participants

Two hundred and eighty-three heterosexual undergraduates (159 women) participated in partial fulfillment of their research requirement (M _age = 19.45, SD = 2.37, range = 18–45).

Design and Procedure

We adopted the same design and procedure as Studies 1 and 2, except negativity was operationalized as a single item (“How negative do you feel toward [target]?”). We assessed perceptions of gender–role violation and sexual identity threat, in addition to sexual interests (which was measured as before). We randomized target order, the order of perception versus emotion item sets within each target, and the order of individual items within emotion and perception sets.

Target Perceptions

Employing 9-point scales (1 = not at all to 9 = extremely), we assessed gender–role violation (“In general, [target] act like the wrong gender” and “In general, [target] violate gender roles like ‘men should act like men and women should act like women;’” for the six target groups, αs ranged from .42 to .80) and sexual identity threat (“In general, [target] make me wonder about my sexual orientation” and “In general, [target] threaten my sexual identity”; for the six target groups, αs ranged from .62 to .71).

Results

ANOVAs

General Negativity

The three-way interaction pattern for negativity largely replicated the findings of Study 2, F(2, 562) = 29.76, p < .001, η _p ² = .10, with the single exception that heterosexual males’ negativity against bisexual females was greater than that directed against heterosexual females—although not as great as directed against bisexual and gay men (Figure 3A, and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sage-pub.com/supplemental).

Figure 3.

Pattern of findings for general negativity (A), and perceptions of unwanted sexual interest (B), gender-role violation (C), and sexual identity threat (D) from Study 3.

Unwanted Sexual Interest

The three-way interaction for unwanted sexual interest replicated nearly identically, F(2 562) = 266.36, p < .001, η _p ² = .49 (Figure 3B, and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Gender–Role Violation

As predicted by the gender–role violation hypothesis, nonheterosexual targets were perceived to violate gender norms more strongly than heterosexual targets (and gay/lesbian targets more than bisexual), ps < .001. Male targets were perceived to violate gender roles more strongly than female targets (p < .001), and men perceived greater levels of norm violations than women (p = .03); three-way interaction: F(2, 562) = 7.88, p < .001, η _p ² = .03 (Figure 3C, and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Sexual Identity Threat

For female participants, bisexual women and lesbians were perceived as greater sexual identity threats than were gay men, bisexual men, and heterosexual women (ps < .03), as predicted by the sexual identity threat perspective. Inconsistent with predictions, heterosexual men were perceived to threaten sexual identity as much as bisexual female targets, p = .14. For male participants, consistent with predictions gay and bisexual men were perceived as greater sexual identity threats than heterosexual men (ps < .01); inconsistent with predictions, bisexual women were perceived to threaten sexual identity more than heterosexual men (p < .001), and heterosexual women were perceived to threaten sexual identity as strongly as bisexual men (p = .17; see Figure 3D, and Table S1 in the online supplement found at http://spps.sagepub.com/supplemental).

Mediation Analyses

To assess whether perceptions of unwanted sexual interest and/or sexual identity threat statistically mediate the relationship between target group and negativity, we dichotomously recoded the target groups within participant sex based on theoretical predictions (Figure 1; see Note 5 for codes), then ran a series of multilevel regression equations with predictor variables centered within person (Enders & Tofighi, 2007) following the causal steps approach (Baron & Kenny, 1986). Per Note 5, we were unable to cleanly recode the sexual orientation groups to enable a strong mediational test of the gender–role violation hypothesis.

Unwanted Sexual Interest

We dichotomously recoded the six groups in terms of whether or not they would pose unwanted sexual interest, based on theoretical predictions and supported by Study 1’s findings. Target groups coded as posing unwanted sexual interest predicted increased perceptions of unwanted sexual interest, b = 4.00, SE = .11, p < .001, and increased negativity, b = 1.25, SE = .08, p < .001. Moreover, perceptions of unwanted sexual interest predicted increased negativity, b = .21, SE = .01, p < .001. Finally, in the full model, perceptions of unwanted sexual interest (b = .11, SE = .02, p < .001) remained a strong mediator of the ability of sexual orientation target groups to predict negativity, while the predictive ability of target group significantly weakened (b = .82, SE = .11, p < .001; Sobel Z = 5.28, SE = .08, p < .001). Perceptions of unwanted sexual interest strongly mediated the extent to which sexual orientation groups elicited negativity.

Sexual Identity Threat

We dichotomously recoded the six groups in terms of whether or not they would pose a sexual identity threat, based on the theory’s predictions. Target groups coded as posing sexual identity threats predicted increased perceptions of sexual identity threat, b = .38, SE = .05, p < .001, and increased negativity, b = 1.09, SE = .09, p < .001. Perceptions of sexual identity threat predicted increased negativity, b = .18, SE = .05, p < .001. However, in the full model, perceptions of sexual identity threat was no longer a significant predictor of negativity (b = .08, SE = .04, p = .12), whereas target group continued to predict negativity (b = 1.06, SE = .09, p < .001). Perceptions of sexual identity threat fail to account for the differential negativity toward the six sexual orientation groups.

General Discussion

Consistent with a functional approach to prejudice (e.g., Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), the sexual prejudices of college-age heterosexuals mirrored their perceptions of which groups direct unwanted sexual interest, as indicated by the patterns of data in Studies 1–3 and the mediational analyses in Study 3. Heterosexual women expressed negativity against bisexual men, bisexual women, and lesbians (but not gay men); heterosexual men expressed negativity against bisexual and gay men (but not bisexual women). Although heterosexual men viewed lesbians somewhat more negatively than they viewed heterosexual women, this negativity was relatively modest and, as initially predicted, these men viewed lesbians less negatively than they viewed bisexual and gay men.⁶

Alternative Explanations

Other approaches fared less well:

In-group–Out-group Heterosexism Hypothesis

That perceiver sex, target sex, and specific sexual orientation interact with one another, and in the observed, nuanced way, cannot be explained by the in-group–out-group heterosexism approach. Social perceivers do not approach intergroup relations, and those based on sex and sexual orientation, in terms of either simple sex or sexual orientation categorizations. Rather, they imbue such intersecting categories with more nuanced meaning.

Gender–Role Violation Hypothesis

Consistent with these predictions, heterosexual men responded more negatively toward gay men than lesbians (and slightly more negatively toward lesbians than heterosexual women). Yet inconsistent with these predictions, heterosexual women were more prejudiced against lesbians than gay men—who were viewed no more negatively than heterosexual men. Furthermore, heterosexual women were more negative toward bisexual men than gay men and heterosexual men were less negative toward bisexual women than lesbians. The gender–role violation hypothesis cannot account for these findings.

Sexual Identity Threat Hypothesis

Bisexual and gay/lesbian same-sex targets indeed elicited greater levels of negativity, both for men and for women. However, heterosexual women also exhibited high levels of disfavor toward bisexual men—who are not a sexual identity threat. Moreover, heterosexuals’ responses about which groups threaten their sexual identity did not match predictions, and mediation analyses failed to provide evidence that perceived sexual identity threats mediate sexual prejudices across the different target groups.

In sum, the proposed unwanted sexual interest hypothesis fares substantially better than the alternatives in explaining the observed pattern of findings.

Causal Order?

Our theoretical stance suggests perceptions of unwanted sexual interest causally contribute to sexual prejudices. Of course, our design cannot conclusively prove this, nor conclusively rule out the reverse causality hypothesis that sexual prejudices cause perceptions of unwanted sexual interest (perhaps via prejudice justification processes; Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Regardless, we find the reverse causality hypothesis implausible.

First, and conceptually most important, the reverse causality hypothesis requires the observed prejudices to have been caused by some process unrelated to unwanted sexual interest. As discussed and tested, however, no alternative theoretical approach predicts or empirically accounts for the observed pattern of findings.

Second, the unwanted sexual interest measure was implicit—created from the combination of two essentially “factual” questions—about participants’ own sexual interests and the sexual interests of explicitly labeled targets. The reverse causality hypothesis thus requires, for instance, that heterosexual women’s prejudice toward lesbians causes them to (1) view themselves as sexually uninterested in lesbians and (2) view lesbians as being sexually interested in heterosexual women. We suspect, however, that self-identified heterosexual women already know they are not sexually interested in lesbians and already know lesbians are sexually interested in women. It strikes us as highly unlikely that participants’ sexual prejudices could have caused perceptions of unwanted sexual interest as operationalized here.

Third, if unwanted sexual interest merely acts to justify existing sexual prejudices, we would expect responses to other potential justifications—for example, gender–role violations and sexual identity threats—also to mirror the observed prejudice pattern. They do not, however, and we see no logical explanation why unwanted sexual interest, in particular, would effectively serve as a post hoc justification whereas these other potential justifications would not.

Finally, in our initial exploration, we measured perceptions of unwanted sexual interest in Study 1 but measured prejudice in a different sample in Study 2. For the Study 1 participants, then, there were no publicly reported prejudices to justify—and yet their patterns of perceived unwanted sexual interest predicted Study 2 participants’ prejudices.

In all, although we do not have definitive data demonstrating that beliefs about unwanted sexual interest cause the prejudices observed here, it remains a highly plausible hypothesis. The reverse causality alternative does not. Not only does the reverse causality alternative beg the critical question of where the observed pattern of prejudices comes from in the first place, but it also falls short on several other considerations given the methods we employed. This is not to say that post hoc justifications of sexual prejudices do not occur; it is to say, however, that such processes cannot explain away the unwanted sexual interest interpretation of these data.

The Affordance–Management Approach, Extended

Sexual prejudice is a complex phenomenon. Heterosexuals endorse a variety of stereotypes, and discrimination based on sexual orientation takes on a variety of forms. We are not suggesting perceptions of unwanted sexual interest is the only contributor to sexual prejudice. Indeed, an affordance–management approach presumes that the specific perceived challenges and opportunities shaping sexual prejudices depend upon several classes of factors, including the perceiver’s current or chronically active goals. Concerns about unwanted sexual interest will be psychologically salient and influential for individuals for whom mating is a prominent goal, and thus should be an especially strong predictor of sexual prejudices in college-age samples. In contrast, threats to social norms may be particularly salient and influential for individuals seeking social acceptance; these individuals might especially stigmatize those whose sexual orientations are perceived violate gender norms. And concern about socialization practices may be particularly salient for parents of young, impressionable children, with the consequence that the sexual prejudices and discriminatory behaviors of these individuals may be directed toward those believed to threaten that socialization (e.g., activist or visible nonheterosexuals of all types).

This functional approach thus does not assume the same mechanisms underlie patterns of sexual prejudices held by individuals at all life stages, or by individuals currently engaged by different goals. Rather, thinking about sexual prejudices, like thinking about all prejudices, requires we consider the perceived tangible challenges and opportunities people perceive others to pose.

Finally, to explain sexual prejudice is not to justify it. Our goal was to enhance our understanding of why certain heterosexuals are prejudiced against sexual orientation minorities in the nuanced ways they are. Only through such understanding can effective means of reducing prejudices be designed and implemented.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We thank Jenessa Shapiro, Becca Neel, Gabrielle Filip-Crawford, and Andrew White for their comments on previous versions of the article, and Erica Bessen, Carly Buckingham, and Jennifer Johansen for their assistance with data collection.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Adams

H. E.

Wright

L. W.

Lohr

B. A.

(1996). Is homophobia associated with homosexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105(3), 440–445.

Alexander

M. G.

Brewer

M. B.

Livingston

R. W.

(2005). Putting stereotype content in context: Image theory and interethnic stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 781–794. doi:10.1177/014616720427155

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bosson

J. K.

Haymovitz

E. L.

Pinel

E. C.

(2004). When saying and doing diverge: The effects of stereotype threat on self-reported versus non-verbal anxiety. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 247–255. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00099-4

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.552

Buss

D. M.

Malamuth

N. M.

(1996). Sex, power, conflict: Evolutionary and feminist perspectives. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Buss

D. M.

Schmitt

D. P.

(1993). Sexual strategies theory: An evolutionary perspective on human mating. Psychological Review, 100, 204–232. doi:0033-295X/93/S3.00

Clark

R. D.

Hatfield

(1989). Gender differences in receptivity to sexual offers. Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39–55. doi:10.1300/J056v02n01_04

Conley

T. D.

(2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differenes in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 309–329. doi:10.1037/a0022152

10.

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.5.770

11.

Crandall

C. S.

Eshleman

(2003). A justification-suppression model of the expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446. doi:10.1037/0033- 2909.129.3.414

12.

Enders

C. K.

Tofighi

(2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12, 121–138. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121

13.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2002). A model of often mixed stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.82.6.878

14.

Gallup

G. G.

(1995). Have attitudes toward homosexuals been shaped by natural selection? Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 53–70. doi:10.1016/0162-3095(94)00028-6

15.

Gibson

J. J.

(1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

16.

Haselton

M. G.

Buss

D. M.

(2000). Error management theory: A new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 81–91. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.78.1.81

17.

Herek

G. M.

(1984). Beyond “homophobia”: A social psychological perspective on attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. In De Cecco

J. P.

(Ed.), Homophobia: An overview (pp. 1–21). New York, NY: The Haworth Press.

18.

Herek

G. M.

(2000a). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251–266. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00164

19.

Herek

G. M.

(2000b). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 19–22. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00164

20.

Herek

G. M.

(2002). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264–274. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3813227

21.

Herek

G. M.

(2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Thinking about sexual stigma and prejudice in the twenty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 6–24. Retrieved from http://nsrc.sfsu.edu

22.

Herek

G. M.

(2009). Sexual prejudice. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 441–467). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

23.

Herek

G. M.

Capitanio

J. P.

(1999a). AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1130–1147. doi:10.1177/0002764299042007006

24.

Herek

G. M.

Capitanio

J. P.

(1999b). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348–360.

25.

Kenrick

D. T.

Groth

G. R.

Trost

M. R.

Sadalla

E. K.

(1993). Integrating evolutionary and social exchange perspectives on relationships: Effects of gender, self-appraisal, and involvement level on mate selection criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 951–969. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.951

26.

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. doi:10.1177/0146167296224002

27.

Kite

M. E.

Whitley

B. E.

(1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In Herek

G. M.

(Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation (pp. 39–61). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

28.

Lalumiere

M. L.

Harris

G. T.

Quinsey

V. L.

Rice

M. E.

(2005). The causes of rape: Understanding individual differences in male propensity for sexual aggression. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

29.

Maitner

A. T.

Mackie

D. M.

Smith

E. R.

(2006). Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.00

30.

McArthur

L. Z.

Baron

R. M.

(1983). Toward an ecological theory of social perception. Psychological Review, 90, 215–238. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.215

31.

Nagoshi

J. L.

Adams

K. A.

Terrell

H. K.

Hill

E. D.

Brzuzy

Nagoshi

C. T.

(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59, 521–531. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7

32.

Neuberg

S. L.

Kenrick

D. T.

Schaller

(2010). Evolutionary social psychology. In Fiske

S. T.

Gilbert

Lindzey

(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 761–796). New York, NY: John Wiley.

33.

Neuberg

S. L.

Kenrick

D. T.

Schaller

(2011). Human threat management systems: Self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1042–1051. doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.08.011

34.

Parrott

D. J.

Gallagher

K. E.

(2008). What accounts for heterosexual women’s negative emotional responses to lesbians? Examination of traditional gender role beliefs and sexual prejudice. Sex Roles, 59, 229–239. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9436-0

35.

Parrott

D. J.

Peterson

J. L.

Vincent

Bakeman

(2008). Correlates of anger in response to gay men: Effects of male gender role beliefs, sexual prejudice, and masculine gender role stress. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 9, 167–178. doi:10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.167

36.

Pirlott

A. G.

Neuberg

S. L.

(2011). Sexual attraction to heterosexual, bisexual, and gay/lesbian male and female targets among bisexual and gay/lesbian men and women. Unpublished manuscript.

37.

Ratcliff

J. J.

Lassiter

G. D.

Markman

K. D.

Snyder

C. J.

(2006). Gender differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: The role of motivation to respond without prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1325–1338. doi:10.1177/0146167206290213

38.

Savin-Williams

R. C.

Diamond

L. M.

(2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexual-minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 607–627. doi:10.1023/A:1002058505138

39.

Schmitt

D. P.

(2005). Sociosexuality from Argentina to Zimbabwe: A 48-nation study of sex, culture, and strategies of human mating. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 247–311.

40.

Spalding

L. R.

Peplau

L. A.

(1997). The unfaithful lover: Heterosexuals’ perceptions of bisexuals and their relationships. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 611–625.

41.

Trivers

(1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell

(Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man (pp. 136–179). Chicago, IL: Aldine-Atherton.

42.

Weinstein

Ryan

W. S.

DeHaan

C. R.

Przybylski

A. K.

Legate

Ryan

R. M.

(2012). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defence. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 102, 815–832. doi:10.1037/a0026854

43.

Whitley

B. E.

Kite

M. E.

(2006). The psychology of prejudice and discrimination. Belmont, CA: Thomas Wadsworth.