1. Content Analysis of Justifications of Homosexual Discrimination Evelyn Stratmoen a & Thomas Hancock b a Kansas State University b University of Central Oklahoma Discussion Heterosexism & Discrimination Methods Study 1 (2013) After providing their own explanations, participants were asked to rank the themes extracted from Study 1 in order of importance and influence for each decision. Correlations were conducted on the rankings using Kendall’s Tau. There were significant negative correlations between the ranking of Religious Convictions in the First Decision and both the ranking of Equality Concerns and Gender Stereotypes in the Second Decision. We conducted a content analysis on the explanations given for both decisions. Eight themes were extracted. The top two themes in the First Decision were Gender Role Models (23%) and writing “None” (21%). The top two themes in the Second Decision were Gender Stereotypes (24%) and writing “None” (49%). In November of 2015, Judge Johansen in Utah ordered the removal of a foster child from a same-sex parent foster home solely due to the sexual orientation of the foster parents (CBS, 2015). Judge Johansen stated that his reasoning was based on research that showed children in same-sex family homes do poorly compared to children in different-sex homes. However he was unable to provide citations of the studies he was referring to. This event is an example of how one justifies discrimination based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on one’s sexual orientation is affected by heterosexism -- the belief that heterosexuality is superior to other forms of sexuality (McGeorge & Carlson, 2011) It refers to the process that grants societal privileges to heterosexual individuals over lesbians or gay men. According to this definition, lesbians and gay men are a deviation from an ideological norm. Therefore they are discriminated against through the denial of rights, harassed, victimized, and stigmatized (Silverschanz, Cortina, Konik, & Magley, 2008). Heterosexism also results in adherence to strict gender roles and the enforcement of traditional family structures (Vincent, Parrott, & Peterson, 2011). And quite often when one is perceived to violate heterosexist norms, they are perceived to violate gender norms as well (Petersen & Hyde, 2010; Rieger & Savin-Williams, 2012; Rudman & Phelan, 2010). Any person who deviates from these social norms is perceived to be unnatural, immoral, and unfit to fulfill certain roles, such as parenting (Silverschanz et al., 2008; Whitley, Jr., 2001). We recently conducted two separate studies that indicated heterosexism and gender norm saliency predicted sexual orientation discrimination, specifically within an adoption scenario. In both studies, participants were asked to choose between three different couples to be adoptive parents, where the couples only differed on sexual orientation, and to provide explanations that justified their decisions. Content analyses were conducted on both sets of data to extract common themes and to determine if these themes were consistent across both studies. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups. One group was primed with gender normative pictures, the second group was primed with gender non-normative pictures, and the third group was primed with nature pictures. There were approximately 30 pictures per group. Participants were asked to rate each one on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (Dislike) to 5 (Like). After rating the pictures, participants were given an adoption scenario, where they were asked to choose between three different couples to be the adoptive parents, where the couples only differed on sexual orientation. Participants were also asked to provide an explanation for their decision. After they made their first decision, the participants were then asked to make a second decision from the remaining two couples, and to also provide an explanation for their decision. Participants were instructed to write “None” if they did not want to provide an explanation for either decision. Heterosexism was measured with the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men scale (ATLG; Herek, 1988). Participants who discriminated against same-sex couples used various explanations to justify their decisions, with content analyses indicating this discrimination to be complex. For some participants, it was based on prejudicial beliefs (e.g. Religious Convictions, Gender Role Models and Stereotypes). However, for other participants it was based on a desire to protect the child from the backlash they might receive from their peers and society as a whole (i.e., Child’s Best Interest). In an effort to replicate these findings, Study 2 was conducted, resulting in differences in both discrimination as well as the justification for this discrimination. Content analyses of the justifications show the emergence of new themes, including Sexual Orientation Stereotypes (e.g. “Gay men are more nurturing than lesbians”) as well as stating they were “Unsure” if they were making the best decision. It was also noted that when traditional gender norms were made salient, participants did not use Religious Convictions as a justification for either decision. There was one distinct difference between the two studies: the media salience of the term “same-sex marriage” in the United States. Same-sex marriage became a hugely debated topic in 2014 along with the Supreme Court ruling in favor of same- sex marriage. In accordance with Social Justification Theory and as this confound might indicate, even though sexual orientation discrimination is still prevalent, the justification for this discrimination may change due to the social normalization of same-sex relationships. Future research can probe this further to determine how normalizing same-sex relationships may affect one’s justification for discriminating against someone solely based on their sexual orientation. Results Study 2 (2014) Results from both studies indicated that participants were more likely to discriminate against a same-sex couple as their levels of heterosexism increased. This was significant when making the first decision, when the three couples were available. Gender norm saliency appeared to have a stereotype suppression/rebound effect. In Study 1, participants who were primed with non-traditional gender norms and did not discriminate by choosing one of the same-sex couples in the first decision overwhelmingly chose the heterosexual couple in the second decision. However, in Study 2, this effect was reversed, where participants who were primed with traditional gender norms may have had this suppression/rebound effect. Overall the same-sex female couple was chosen more often than the same-sex male couple in the second decision for both studies. We conducted a content analysis on the explanations given for both decisions. Twelve themes were extracted, with 8 the same as the previous study and 4 new themes: Unsure, Sexual Orientation Stereotypes, Gender Hierarchy, and Gender Matching. The top two themes for the First Decision were Gender Role Models (24%) and writing “None” (22%). The top two themes for the Second Decision were Gender Stereotypes (21%) and writing “None” (42%). Additional Themes Unsure Sexual Orientation Stereotypes Gender Hierarchy Gender Matching Participants primed with Gender Non-Normative primes used Religious Convictions/Personal Beliefs more often to explain their First Decision compared to the other two groups. They also tended to use Nondiscriminatory concerns as well as Child’s Best Interest more often to explain their Second Decision compared to the other two groups. Participants primed with Gender Normative primes did not use Religious Convictions/Personal Beliefs to explain their First Decision, and they were the only participants to use Gender Role Models as explanations for their Second Decision. Participants in the Control group used Reproductive Restrictions and Upbringing more often to explain both decisions compared to the other two groups. Surprisingly, Religious Convictions/Personal Beliefs was not used by any participants to explain their Second Decision. Media Salience of Same-Sex Marriage in the US 2013 – 238,000 articles via Google News Archive 2014 – 434,000 articles; 80+% increase Correspondence may be sent to: Evelyn Stratmoen, M.A. Kansas State University Department of Psychological Sciences Email: stratmoen@ksu.edu Contact Information Kendall's Tau Correlations between Ranked Themes in Study 2 First Decision Rank Religious Beliefs Personal Upbringing Child's Best Interest Equality Concerns Gender Role Models Gender Stereotypes Reproductive Restrictions Second Decision Rank Religious Beliefs 1 Personal Upbringing.041 Child's Best Interest -.15.0041 Equality Concerns -.36***-.13-.841 Gender Role Models.12-.12-.02-.37***1 Gender Stereotypes -.32***-.21**-.21*-.04 1 Reproductive Restrictions -.19*-.34***-.25**.25**-.33***.141 *p <.05, **p <.01, ***p <.001 Themes Upbringing/Personal Experience Child’s Best Interest Nondiscriminatory Gender Role Models Gender Stereotypes Reproductive Restrictions Religious Convictions/Personal Beliefs Participants primed with Gender Non- Normative primes tended to use Nondiscriminatory explanations to explain their First Decision and wrote “None” less often than the other two prime groups. They also tended to use Child’s Best Interest and Gender Role Models to explain their Second Decision more often than the other two groups. Participants primed with Gender Normative primes wrote “None” more often as well as cited Child’s Best Interest to explain their First and Second Decisions compared to the other groups. They also used Religious Convictions/Personal Beliefs to explain their Second Decision more often than the other groups. Participants in the Control group used Upbringing more often to explain their First and Second Decisions more often than the other two groups.