Psychology of Men & Masculinity Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 9, No. 3, 167–178 1524-9220/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.9.3.167

Correlates of Anger in Response to Gay Men: Effects of Male

Gender Role Beliefs, Sexual Prejudice, and Masculine Gender
Role Stress
Dominic J. Parrott, John L. Peterson, Wilson Vincent, and Roger Bakeman
Georgia State University

The present study examined whether sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress
mediate the effect of male gender role beliefs on anger in response to gay men.
Participants were 135 exclusively heterosexual men who completed a structured
interview designed to assess endorsement of 3 male gender norms (status, toughness,
and antifemininity), sexual prejudice, masculine gender role stress, and anger in
response to a vignette depicting a nonerotic male–male intimate relationship (i.e.,
partners saying “I love you,” holding hands, kissing). Results revealed that sexual
prejudice fully mediated the association between status and anger (and partially
mediated the association between antifemininity and anger) in response to gay men.
Moreover, results indicated that masculine gender role stress partially mediated the
effect of antifemininity on anger in response to gay men. Overall, these findings suggest
that male gender role norms, particularly the antifemininity norm, are strongly asso-
ciated with anger in response to gay men and that sexual prejudice and masculine
gender role stress are important mediators of these associations.

Keywords: masculinity, sex roles, sexual prejudice, gender role stress, anger

Antigay aggression is an ongoing problem in transgender experience (Federal Bureau of In-

the United States (Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion, 2006; Harlow, 2005; National Coalition of
Anti-Violence Programs [NCAVP], 2007). Un-
fortunately, because of a reliance on conve-
nience samples and the lack of data collection
statutes for hate crimes based on sexual orien-
tation in most states (Anti-Defamation League,
2003), an accurate estimation of the frequency
and severity of antigay assaults remains elusive.
Nevertheless, a recent national probability sam-
ple found that one in five sexual minority adults
were victims of a person or property crime
because of their sexual orientation and that ap-
proximately 50% were verbally insulted or
abused because of their sexual orientation
(Herek, in press). In addition, victims of antigay
aggression, who are largely men who identify as
gay or bisexual or people of male-to-female
Dominic J. Parrott, John L. Peterson, Wilson Vincent,
and Roger Bakeman, Department of Psychology, Georgia
State University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Dominic J. Parrott, Department of Psychology,
Georgia State University, P.O. Box 5010, Atlanta, GA
30302-5010. E-mail: parrott@gsu.edu
167
vestigation, 2006; NCAVP, 2007), are more
likely to suffer psychiatric symptoms relative to
victims of nonbiased assaults (Herek, Gillis, &
Cogan, 1999). Hence, the need to understand
the causes of aggression against this population
is clearly important.
It is well accepted that sexual prejudice is a
key determinant of antigay aggression. Herek
(2000a) defined sexual prejudice as a stable
attribute that incorporates “all negative attitudes
based on sexual orientation, whether the target
is homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual” (p.
19). Indeed, both experimental and correlational
studies have demonstrated that sexual prejudice
is positively associated with bias-motivated ag-
gression toward gay men (Bernat, Calhoun, Ad-
ams, & Zeichner, 2001; Franklin, 2000; Patel,
Long, McCammon, & Wuensch, 1995; Rod-
erick, McCammon, Long, & Allred, 1998), es-
pecially after exposure to sexual violations of
the male gender role (e.g., male–male erotica;
Parrott & Zeichner, 2005).
However, antigay aggression is not always
motivated by sexual prejudice. For example,
many perpetrators are motivated by social dynam-
ics such as peer group effects or thrill seeking
168 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
(Franklin, 1998, 2000). Nevertheless, for perpe-
trators motivated by these social dynamics, the
selection of gay men or lesbians as targets is
sanctioned by cultural norms of masculinity that
value status, toughness, and, above all, hetero-
sexuality (Herek, 1990, 2004; Neisen, 1990;
Pharr, 1988). Thus, in addition to sexual preju-
dice, a strong adherence to culturally deter-
mined masculine ideologies may similarly fa-
cilitate antigay aggression (Franklin, 1998;
Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997; Kite & Whitley,
1998). Consistent with this view, Parrott and
Zeichner (in press) found that hypermasculinity
was more positively associated with antigay
aggression after exposure to male–male, rela-
tive to male–female, sexual activity. Collec-
tively, these data indicate that sexual prejudice
and endorsement of traditional masculine gen-
der norms are important individual-level risk
factors to consider when examining processes
associated with antigay aggression.
Nonetheless, these individual risk factors do
not sufficiently explain antigay aggression in all
perpetrators. Many men who are prejudiced or
endorse a strong adherence to heterosexual mas-
culinity fail to engage in antigay acts. Hence,
other factors are necessary for antigay aggres-
sion to occur. It is pertinent that theories from
the general aggression literature posit that anger
mediates the relationship between individual
and/or situational risk factors and aggressive
behavior (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002;
Berkowitz, 1990, 1993). A recent study on the
motivations for antigay aggression supports this
view. Specifically, Parrott and Peterson (in
press) found that anger in response to gay men
mediated the association between sexual preju-
dice and antigay aggression and peer dynamics
and antigay aggression. These data suggest that,
to better understand the causes of antigay ag-
gression, it is important to understand the fac-
tors that lead to men’s experience of anger.
Potential Causes of Antigay Anger
Masculinity, Sexual Prejudice, and
Antigay Anger
Male sexual prejudice is strongly associated
with adherence to traditional gender norms
(Ehrlich, 1990; Kilianski, 2003; Parrott, Adams,
& Zeichner, 2002; Patel et al., 1995; Polimeni,
Hardie, & Buzwell, 2000; Sinn, 1997). The
connection between sexual prejudice and male
gender role beliefs may be elucidated further by
considering the development of each. Beliefs
about the male gender role are culturally con-
structed from birth. Specifically, male gender
role beliefs reflect an adherence to a variety of
distinct norms, including the following: (a) sta-
tus, which reflects the belief that men must gain
the respect of others; (b) toughness, which re-
flects the expectation that men are physically
tough and willing to be aggressive; and (c)
antifemininity, which reflects the belief that
men should not engage in stereotypically femi-
nine activities (Thompson & Pleck, 1986). Sim-
ilarly, sexual prejudice is also culturally con-
structed. However, sexual prejudice emerges
from one’s developing masculine identity to
reinforce one’s status as a heterosexual male
(Herek, 2000a) and to represent a specific “re-
pudiation of femininity” (Kimmel, 1997, p.
229). Indeed, sexual prejudice is a particularly
likely by-product of masculine socialization
(Shields & Harriman, 1984), especially an an-
tifemininity theme within the male role (Parrott
et al., 2002; Thompson, Grisanti, & Pleck,
1985).
Numerous studies have shown that both tra-
ditional male gender role beliefs and sexual
prejudice predict increased self-reports of anger
among men who were exposed to male–male,
relative to male–female, sexual activity (Bernat
et al., 2001; Parrott & Zeichner, 2005, in press;
Parrott, Zeichner, & Hoover, 2006). Inasmuch
as sexual prejudice is a specific product of
men’s endorsement of traditional masculine
ideologies, it can be argued that sexual preju-
dice mediates the established link between male
gender role beliefs and anger in response to gay
men. However, it is important to conceptualize
masculine ideology in terms of its specific
norms rather than as a unidimensional construct
(Fischer, Tokar, Good, & Snell, 1998). Thus,
research that examines predictors of anger in
response to gay men must examine the separate
influence of each norm.
This approach has important theoretical im-
plications. For example, relative to the status or
toughness norms, the antifemininity norm may
be more directly related to anger in response to
gay men. Likewise, the extent to which sexual
prejudice mediates the relation between tradi-
tional male gender role beliefs and antigay an-
ger may vary as a function of the specific norm
 CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER
considered. For example, endorsement of the
status, toughness, and antifemininity norms
may elicit antigay anger through sexual preju-
dice. However, endorsement of the antifeminin-
ity norm may also exert direct effects on antigay
anger after controlling for sexual prejudice.
These hypotheses have yet to be tested in the
extant literature and are one focus of the present
investigation.
Masculinity, Masculine Gender Role
Stress, and Antigay Anger
In addition to facilitating sexually prejudiced
anger in response to gay men, a strong adher-
ence to heterosexual masculinity may also in-
crease the likelihood of antigay anger within the
male group context (Franklin, 2000). One indi-
vidual factor that may reflect men’s susceptibil-
ity to these peer effects is masculine gender role
stress. In contrast to masculine ideology, mas-
culine gender role stress refers to the tendency
for men to appraise “specific cognitions, behav-
iors, or situations as stressful and undesirable”
(Eisler, Skidmore, & Ward, 1988, p. 135). As
described by Eisler and Skidmore (1987), men
high in gender role stress “will experience stress
when they judge themselves unable to cope with
the imperatives of the male role or when a
situation is viewed as requiring ‘unmanly’ or
feminine behavior” (p. 125). Accordingly, men
who report high masculine gender role stress are
posited to display increased anger in situations
that require or involve behavior inconsistent
with traditional male gender role norms (e.g.,
being in the presence of two gay men). These
reactions are consistent with a strong adherence
to heterosexual masculinity. Moreover, inas-
much as male peers perpetuate the importance
of adhering to this ideology, men high in gender
role stress may be especially susceptible to
peer-related effects on antigay aggression.
As such, masculine gender role stress appears
especially likely to facilitate anger in response
to gay men. Unfortunately, no study to date has
directly examined this hypothesis. However, in-
direct evidence is found in related literatures.
For example, men who endorse high, relative to
low, levels of masculine gender role stress
report higher levels of anger, more negative
attributions, and heightened cardiovascular re-
activity in response to situational threats of tra-
ditional masculinity (Cosenzo, Franchina, Eisler,
169
& Krebs, 2004; Eisler, Franchina, Moore, Honey-
cutt, & Rhatigan, 2000; Franchina, Eisler, &
Moore, 2001; Lash, Eisler, & Schulman, 1990;
Moore & Stuart, 2004). Likewise, men who report
high levels of masculine gender role stress are
more likely to use aggressive tactics in situations
in which a female threatens their masculinity
(Eisler et al., 2000; Franchina et al., 2001).
The reviewed literature indicates that adher-
ence to traditional masculine gender norms may
lead to men’s tendency to experience stress in
situations that are perceived to violate those
norms. Indeed, it may well be that a tendency to
experience certain gender-relevant situations as
stressful, rather than merely holding traditional
beliefs about the male role per se, more strongly
predicts anger in response to gay men. Consis-
tent with this view, Thompson, Pleck, and Fer-
rera (1992) concluded that masculine gender
role stress likely predicts men’s behavior more
directly than specific norms of masculinity.
Given this rationale, it can be argued that mas-
culine gender role stress mediates the estab-
lished link between male gender role beliefs and
anger in response to gay men. However, this
mediational effect may vary as a function of the
specific norm under investigation. This hypoth-
esis has yet to be tested in the extant literature
and is another focus of the present investigation.
The Present Research
The aim of the present study was to examine
two potential mediators of the relation between
male gender role beliefs and anger in response
to gay men. Consistent with the reviewed liter-
ature, male gender role beliefs, sexual preju-
dice, and masculine gender role stress likely
facilitate anger in response to gay men.
Whereas male gender role beliefs involve sev-
eral different norms, sexual prejudice and mas-
culine gender role stress are highly specific,
unidimensional constructs that may affect anti-
gay anger more directly. Thus, it was hypothe-
sized that sexual prejudice and masculine gen-
der role stress would mediate the association
between male gender role beliefs and anger in
response to gay men. However, relative to other
male role norms, pertinent theory suggests that
the antifemininity norm is more closely related
to responses to gay men. Thus, we hypothesized
further that the antifemininity norm would still
directly affect antigay anger after controlling
170 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
simultaneously for sexual prejudice and mascu-
line gender role stress.
Method
Participants
Participants were 173 men recruited through
introductory psychology courses. Women were
not recruited because, relative to men, they re-
port lower levels of sexual prejudice toward gay
men and are less likely to engage in antigay
aggression (Baker & Fishbein, 1998; Lim,
2002; Polimeni et al., 2000; Whitley & Kite,
1995). Potential participants responded to a
study advertisement titled “Survey of Social
Attitudes.” Participants were informed that they
would be required to complete a 1-hr interview
designed to assess their thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors about homosexuality and, more
broadly, the roles of men and women in our
society. Participants were told that they would
receive partial course credit for completing the
interview. Informed consent was obtained from
all participants. From this initial sample of
173, 38 men were excluded because they re-
ported prior male–male sexual behavior or sexual
arousal, refused to answer some interview ques-
tions, or exceeded the targeted age range (18 –30
years old) generally found for heterosexual perpe-
trators of antigay aggression (Harry, 1990;
NCAVP, 2007). Overall, the final sample con-
sisted of 135 young adult, exclusively heterosex-
ual, male participants from various racial back-
grounds (see Table 1 for demographic details).
Table 1
Sample Demographics
Variable M(SD) or %
Age 20.0 (2.6)
Education (in years) 14.1 (1.2)
Race
White, non-Hispanic 50
African American 24
Asian American 17
Hispanic or Latino 2 does something that I consider ‘feminine’”).
Other 7 Participants were asked to rate each item on a
Relationship status
Single, never married 97
Married 3 more traditional beliefs of the status, toughness,
Note. n ⫽ 135.
Measures
Structured interview. Participants com-
pleted a structured interview that included nu-
merous self-report measures administered
orally (discussed later). Thus, rather than com-
pleting items from each self-report measure in
the traditional written format, participants re-
sponded orally to all items. A structured inter-
view, rather than a traditional written self-report
format, was used to establish a data collection
strategy that may be easily adapted for use in
large-scale national surveys. For each self-
report measure, a male interviewer read the
instructions, response options, and items to par-
ticipants. The interviewer provided clarification
regarding instructions and items on request
from participants. All participants were in-
formed that they could refuse to answer any
item and still receive compensation. Additional
questionnaires were also administered orally
but are unrelated to the present study and so are
not reported here.
Demographic form. These interview items
obtained information such as age, sexual orien-
tation, race, relationship status, and years of
education.
Kinsey Heterosexual–Homosexual Rating
Scale (KRS; Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948).
A modified version of this instrument was used
to assess previous sexual arousal and experi-
ences. On this 7-item scale, participants rate
their sexual arousal and behavioral expe-
riences from 1 (exclusively heterosexual) to 7
(exclusively homosexual). As noted previously,
only participants who reported exclusively het-
erosexual arousal and behavioral experiences
were included in the analyses.
Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS; Thompson
& Pleck, 1986). The MRNS is a 26-item in-
ventory that assesses three dimensions of mas-
culine ideology: status (e.g., “A man must stand
on his own two feet and never depend on other
people to help him do things”), toughness (e.g.,
“A good motto for a man would be ‘When the
going gets tough, the tough get going’”), and
antifemininity (e.g., “It bothers me when a man
scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), with higher scores corresponding to
and antifemininity norms. This tridimensional
 CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER
factor structure has been supported by both
exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses
(Sinn, 1997; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). In-
ternal consistency coefficients for these sub-
scales range between 0.74 and 0.81 in stan-
dardization samples (Thompson & Pleck,
1986). In the present sample, alpha reliability
coefficients of 0.85, 0.70, and 0.80 were
found for status, toughness, and antifeminin-
ity subscales, respectively.
Attitudes Toward Gay Men Scale (ATGS;
Herek, 1988). Sexual prejudice was assessed
with the 10-item, Likert-type ATGS, which spe-
cifically measures heterosexuals’ attitudes to-
ward gay men. Scores range from 1 (extremely
positive attitudes) to 9 (extremely negative atti-
tudes). Sample items include “I think male ho-
mosexuals are disgusting,” and “Homosexual
behavior between two men is just plain wrong.”
Internal consistency for oral administrations of
this measure in standardization samples typi-
cally exceeds .80, which was consistent with the
present study (␣ ⫽ 0.88). This scale has been
orally administered in numerous national sur-
veys and been shown to be both reliable and
valid (Herek, 2000b, 2002).
Masculine Gender Role Stress Scale
(MGRSS; Eisler & Skidmore, 1987). This 40-
item Likert-type scale assessed the tendency to
appraise as stressful those situations that con-
flict with the traditional male gender role. Par-
ticipants rated items on a scale ranging from 0
(not at all stressful) to 5 (extremely stressful),
with higher scores reflecting increased mascu-
line gender role stress. For example, sample
items asked participants to rate how much stress
they would feel if they were “comforting a male
friend who is upset,” “perceived as having fem-
inine traits,” “asking for directions when lost,”
or “with a woman who is more successful.” The
MGRSS has been found to be independent of
measures of masculinity and beliefs about the
masculine gender role (Eisler & Skidmore,
1987; Eisler et al., 1988). Standardization data
indicate alpha reliability coefficients that ex-
ceed 0.90, which was consistent with the
present sample (␣ ⫽ 0.94).
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule—
Expanded Form (PANAS–X; Watson & Clark,
1994). The PANAS–X was used to assess par-
ticipants’ experience of anger in response to a
vignette describing male–male intimate rela-
tionship behavior (discussed later). Specifically,
171
anger was assessed with the 6-item Anger–
Hostility scale, which was presented in conjunc-
tion with the 20-item PANAS (Watson, Clark,
& Tellegen, 1988). Participants were asked to
rate the extent to which they would experience
each mood descriptor on a 5-point scale ranging
from 1 (very slightly) to 5 (extremely). Watson
et al. reported an internal consistency coeffi-
cient of 0.84. In the present study, an alpha
reliability coefficient of 0.90 was obtained.
Before the oral administration of the PANAS–X,
the interviewer asked participants to imagine
themselves in the following situation:
Imagine you are in the airport waiting for a friend’s
flight to arrive. As you wait, you see a man who has
just returned from his trip greet his male friend. They
hug each other for several seconds, and then kiss on the
lips for several seconds. They hug again and then kiss
on the lips several more times. You overhear both men
say how much they missed each other, and one of the
men specifically says “I love you” to his male friend.
The man who has been waiting at the airport then gives
flowers to his friend who has just returned. Upon
receipt of the gift, this man is visibly thankful, they
embrace again, and both say that they love each other.
The two men then walk away together holding hands.
Procedure
On arrival to the laboratory, all participants
provided informed consent. The structured in-
terview was then administered. After complet-
ing the full interview, participants were de-
briefed, compensated with course credit, and
thanked.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Means, standard deviations, and ranges for
the key variables are given in Table 2, along
with their correlations. All variables except an-
tigay anger were reasonably distributed (i.e.,
skew ⬍2.56 times its standard error). A recip-
rocal transform was required for the positively
skewed antigay anger to meet this criterion; the
transformed variable was used for subsequent
analyses (although analyses with the untrans-
formed variable gave essentially identical re-
sults). Unmediated effects of status, toughness,
and antifemininity on anger in response to gay
men (i.e., zero-order correlations) were signifi-
cant (.34, .37, and .59, respectively).
172 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations for Key Variables
Variable Descriptives
M SD Range
1. Status 52 13 17–77
2. Toughness 32 9 13–54
3. Antifemininity 22 9 7–42
4. Sexual prejudice 42 24 10–90
5. MGRS 112 39 13–186
6. Antigay anger 10 6 6–30
Note. n ⫽ 135. MGRS ⫽ masculine gender role stress.
All correlations are significant, p ⬍ .001.
Mediation Models
We used path analysis (Kline, 2005; Tabach-
nick & Fidell, 2007) to examine whether sexual
prejudice and masculine gender role stress me-
diated the relationship between male gender
role beliefs (status, toughness, and antifeminin-
ity) and anger in response to gay men. This
analytical approach permitted simultaneous
evaluation of the relationships between these
variables while accounting for shared variance
among the hypothesized mediators. First, we
estimated path coefficients (using LISREL) for
an unmediated model that linked status, tough-
ness, and antifemininity to sexual prejudice,
masculine gender role stress, and anger in re-
sponse to gay men. This unmediated model did
not include paths from sexual prejudice and
masculine gender role stress to antigay anger
(see top of Figure 1). This model did not fit the
data; ␹2(3, N ⫽ 135) ⫽ 39.5, p ⬍ .01; root mean
square error of approximation [RMSEA] ⫽ 0.30
(90% confidence intervals [CIs], 0.22– 0.39);
confirmatory factor index [CFI] ⫽ .90. Direct
effects of status on sexual prejudice, toughness
on masculine gender role stress, and antifemi-
ninity on both sexual prejudice and masculine
gender roles stress were significant.
The mediated model that included links from
sexual prejudice and masculine gender role stress
to antigay anger (Figure 1, bottom) fit the data;
␹2(1, N ⫽ 135) ⫽ 0.58, p ⫽ .45, RMSEA ⫽ 0.0
(90% CIs 0 – 0.21), CFI ⫽ 1.0. Total, direct, and
indirect effects are shown in Table 3. The indi-
rect effect of status was statistically significant
and mediated fully by sexual prejudice (the
indirect effect through masculine gender role
stress was .00). The indirect effect of toughness,
Correlations
1 2 3 4 5 6
—
.54 —
.48 .59 —
.50 .43 .59 —
.35 .50 .57 .32 —
.34 .37 .59 .67 .47 —
although not statistically significant, t ⫽ 1.16,
was mediated fully by masculine gender role
stress (the indirect effect through sexual preju-
dice was .00). The direct and indirect effects of
antifemininity were statistically significant.
Overall, 39% of the total effect was direct, 43%
was mediated by sexual prejudice, and 18% was
mediated by masculine gender role stress.
In summary, after we controlled for sexual
prejudice and masculine gender role stress, sta-
tus and toughness had small and statistically
insignificant direct effects on anger in response
to gay men. In contrast, the effect of antifemi-
ninity maintained a significant direct positive
effect. The indirect effect of status was signifi-
cant and mediated fully by sexual prejudice (not
masculine gender role stress). The indirect ef-
fect of toughness was mediated fully by mascu-
line gender role stress (not sexual prejudice) but
was not significant. The indirect effect of anti-
femininity was significant and mediated more
by sexual prejudice then by masculine gender
role stress. Of course, although we use standard
structural equation terms here (direct effects,
indirect effects, etc.), these correlational data
cannot prove, but can only suggest, plausible
causal relationships.
Discussion
The aim of the study was to determine
whether sexual prejudice and masculine gender
role stress mediate the associations between
three norms of masculine ideology and antigay
anger. Specifically, sexual prejudice and mas-
culine gender role stress were hypothesized to
mediate the relations between the status, tough-
ness, and antifemininity norms and antigay
 CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER 173

Status .28** Sexual

Prejudice
.01

.01 .07

Tough - .00 Antigay

ness Anger
.25** .56**

.44**

Anti- MGR
femininity .42** Stress

Status .28** Sexual

Prejudice
.01 .54**

.01 –.09

Tough - –.06 Antigay

ness Anger
.25** .22*

.23**
**
.44

Anti- MGR
femininity .42 ** Stress

Figure 1. Top panel: Unmediated effect of status, toughness, and antifemininity on increases
in anger toward gay men. Bottom panel: Effect of status, toughness, and antifemininity on
increases in anger toward gay men mediated by sexual prejudice and masculine gender role
stress. *p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .001.

anger. In addition, antifemininity was expected
to maintain a direct effect on antigay anger
when controlling for sexual prejudice and mas-
culine gender role stress. These hypotheses
were generally supported.
Results indicated that sexual prejudice fully
mediated the relation between status and anti-
gay anger, did not mediate the relation between
toughness and antigay anger, and partially me-
diated the relation between antifemininity and
antigay anger. In addition, results demonstrated
that masculine gender role stress did not medi-
ate the relation between status and antigay anger
or the relation between toughness and antigay
anger. However, masculine gender role stress
partially mediated the relation between anti-
femininity and antigay anger. After accounting
for sexual prejudice and masculine gender role
stress, antifemininity maintained a significant,
albeit reduced, association with antigay anger.
174 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
Table 3
Total, Direct, and Indirect Effects of Status,
Toughness, and Antifemininity on Anger in
Response to Gay Men
Variable Total Direct Indirect
Status .07 –.09 .15**
Toughness .00 –.06 .06
Antifemininity .56** .22* .34**
Note. n ⫽ 135.
*
p ⬍ .05. **p ⬍ .001.
Results suggest that antifemininity is related
directly to antigay anger and is related indirectly
to antigay anger via sexual prejudice and mas-
culine gender role stress. It is interesting, how-
ever, that the majority of this indirect effect is
mediated by sexual prejudice. In addition, these
data indicate that adherence to the status norm is
related to antigay anger indirectly through sex-
ual prejudice. Finally, it appears that adherence
to the toughness norm is not related to antigay
anger, perhaps because endorsement of this
norm reflects the expectation that men are will-
ing to be aggressive. Although anger and ag-
gression are inextricably linked (Cavell & Mal-
com, 2007), they reflect theoretically distinct
emotional and behavioral processes, respec-
tively (Baron & Richardson, 1994; Berkowitz,
1993). Thus, endorsement of the toughness
norm may relate more strongly to the actual
enactment of antigay aggression. Future re-
search is needed to investigate this possibility.
In summary, inasmuch as masculine ideology is
a multidimensional construct (Thompson &
Pleck, 1986), these data suggest that antifemi-
ninity emerges as the norm that demonstrates a
direct link to antigay anger and, potentially, to
antigay aggression.
These findings are generally consistent with
theory pertinent to sexual prejudice. Fundamen-
tally, sexual prejudice emerges from the devel-
opment of masculine identity to reinforce one’s
status as a heterosexual male (Herek, 2000a)
and to represent a “repudiation of femininity”
(Kimmel, 1997, p. 229). Because sexual preju-
dice is congruent with cultural norms of hetero-
sexism and sexism (e.g., Brannon, 1976; Deaux
& Kite, 1987; Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 1997;
Kite, 2001; Pleck, 1981), it is particularly likely
to reinforce these traditional norms (Herek,
2000a). In contrast, sexual prejudice does not
specifically reflect one’s physical prowess and,
consequently, is not theoretically linked to
one’s perceived toughness as a male. Accord-
ingly, male sexual prejudice may be conceptu-
alized as a manifestation of the status and anti-
femininity norms. Indeed, analyses revealed
significant associations between status and sex-
ual prejudice and antifemininity and sexual
prejudice and failed to detect a significant asso-
ciation between toughness and sexual prejudice.
Although sexual prejudice develops to reinforce
traditional status and antifemininity norms of
the male role, theorists posit that reinforcement
of the antifemininity norm is particularly criti-
cal (e.g., Thompson et al., 1985). Consistent
with this view, the present data suggest that an
antifeminine orientation, whether expressed
through sexual prejudice or an endorsement of
the antifeminine male norm, is a critical corre-
late of men’s anger in response to gay men.
These findings are also consistent with re-
search and theory on masculine gender role
stress. Specifically, results suggest that adher-
ence to the traditional male norm of antifemi-
ninity is associated with the tendency to expe-
rience gender-relevant situations as stressful
(i.e., high masculine gender role stress), partic-
ularly situations in which heterosexual men per-
ceive that their antifeminine orientation is
threatened by gay men. These men feel higher
levels of anger as a consequence. Consistent
with this finding, O’Neil (1982) posited that, to
the extent that a heterosexual man fears the
appearance of femininity, he will display exag-
gerated characteristics of the male role (e.g.,
anger). Likewise, research indicates that men
who endorse high, relative to low, levels of
masculine gender role stress report higher levels
of anger in response to situations in which a
female threatens their masculinity (Eisler et al.,
2000). These data suggest that men’s “fear of
femininity” is related to their tendency to expe-
rience anger when confronted with situations
perceived to be “unmanly.” Once again, en-
dorsement of the antifemininity norm appears to
be fundamental to the experience of anger in
response to gay men.
The results of the present study have impor-
tant implications for the prediction of antigay
aggression. Recent research suggests that anti-
gay anger mediates the association between sex-
ual prejudice and antigay aggression and the
association between peer effects and antigay
 CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER
aggression (Parrott & Peterson, in press). In
light of the present data, it appears that endorse-
ment of masculinity norms, particularly status
and antifemininity, may increase the likelihood
of sexually prejudiced and peer-driven antigay
aggression by facilitating men’s experience of
anger in response to gay men. This interpreta-
tion is consistent with pertinent theory on the
individual motivations and determinants of an-
tigay aggression. One function of antigay ag-
gression is to provide a means by which young
men may prove their masculinity by demon-
strating their socially expected rejection of fem-
ininity (Franklin, 1998; Hamner, 1990; Herek,
1986; Kimmel, 1997). Thus, individuals who
endorse status and antifemininity norms may be
more likely to engage in antigay aggression
because of the anger associated with sexual
prejudice and their experience of gender-related
stress. Another function of antigay aggression is
to “prove both toughness and heterosexuality to
friends” (Franklin, 1998, p. 12). To the extent
that endorsement of the toughness norm is as-
sociated with antigay aggression, the present
data suggest that this association is not attribut-
able to men’s experience of anger in response to
gay men.
An alternative explanation for the present
findings merits discussion. In the present study,
we assessed participants’ estimation of their
anger to a hypothetical situation rather than
their actual anger to an interpersonal interaction
with a gay man. Thus, male participants were
placed in a situation in which they had the
opportunity to enact components of the male
gender role (e.g., rejection of femininity) di-
rectly to another man (i.e., the male inter-
viewer). In this situation, men who were highly
sensitive to being perceived as nonmasculine or
nonheterosexual may have been particularly
likely to express antigay antipathy in an effort to
reaffirm their masculine identity to the male
interviewer. As a result, the present findings
may actually reflect correlates of men’s self-
presentation to other men rather than correlates
of actual felt emotion in response to gay men.1
Unfortunately, the design used in this study
could not disentangle the extent to which the
findings reflected men’s felt anger in real inter-
actions with gay men, men’s self-presentation
to other men, or both. Nevertheless, the theo-
retical mechanisms supported in this investiga-
tion are consistent with extant literature perti-
175
nent to these different explanations, regardless
of which explanations ultimately prove most
viable. For example, robust laboratory data
have demonstrated that hypermasculinity and
sexual prejudice predict state anger in response
to gay men (e.g., Bernat et al., 2001; Parrott &
Zeichner, in press; Parrott et al., 2006). This
evidence suggests that the present findings may,
in fact, reflect pathways to men’s experience of
felt anger in direct response to gay men. Even
so, until research determines the extent to which
these variables predict tendencies in self-
presentation and/or true felt anger in response to
gay men, the present results should be inter-
preted with caution.
Although the present findings represent a sig-
nificant advancement in the understanding of
individual and contextual factors that lead to
antigay anger, there are several other caveats
regarding the conclusions of the present study.
First, the correlational, cross-sectional design of
the study cannot determine causal and temporal
relationships among the variables. As a result,
any causal explanations regarding the associa-
tions between the variables examined in this
study should be interpreted with caution. Sec-
ond, the study was limited to male college stu-
dents between the ages of 18 and 30. Although
young men are most often perpetrators of anti-
gay aggression (Harry, 1990; NCAVP, 2007),
results obtained from samples consisting solely
of young adult college students may be limited
in their applicability to the rest of the male
population. For example, relative to older
males, adolescent and young adult males may
endorse male gender norms more strongly and
report higher levels of sexual prejudice and
masculine gender role stress. In contrast, inas-
much as one’s level of education is positively
correlated with favorable attitudes toward les-
bians and gay men (Herek, 1994; Herek &
Glunt, 1993; Plugge-Foust & Strickland, 2000;
Yang, 1997), a university sample may underes-
timate true associations among pertinent vari-
ables. Thus, large population-based studies are
required to determine whether these effects can
be generalized to adult males in general. Third,
we did not examine determinants of antigay
anger within a male peer group context. As
such, the present study did not provide the op-
1
We thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion.
176 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
timal test of how masculine gender role stress
may predict anger in response to gay men. As
noted earlier, men who endorse high masculine
gender role stress are likely to become angry in
situations that may be viewed as feminine or
requiring feminine behavior (Eisler et al.,
1988). Given that men’s fear of emasculation
from male peers is believed to contribute to
group-perpetrated antigay aggression (Franklin,
2000; Kimmel, 1997), future research that rep-
licates the present data within a male group
context is needed. Finally, in addition to the
possibility of a self-presentation bias, it is also
possible that an interview-based assessment
strategy increased the risk of social desirability
biases.
In conclusion, results of this investigation
indicate that endorsement of male gender role
norms, particularly the antifemininity norm, is
strongly associated with anger in response to
gay men and that sexual prejudice and mascu-
line gender role stress are important mediators
of these associations. Additionally, these results
provide new evidence that links masculine gen-
der role stress to anger in response to gay men.
These results represent important steps toward
clarifying the correlates of antigay anger and,
potentially, toward understanding and reducing
antigay aggression.
References
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human
aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
27–51.
Anti-Defamation League. (2003). Hate crimes laws.
Retrieved on January 3, 2008, from http://
www.adl.org/99hatecrime/print.asp
Baker, J. G., & Fishbein, H. D. (1998). The devel-
opment of prejudice toward gays and lesbians
by adolescents. Journal of Homosexuality, 36,
89 –100.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human
aggression (2nd ed.). New York: Plenum Press.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regula-
tion of anger and aggression: A cognitive neoas-
sociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45,
494 –503.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, conse-
quences, and control. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bernat, J. A., Calhoun, K. S., Adams, H. E., &
Zeichner, A. (2001). Homophobia and physical
aggression toward homosexual and heterosexual
individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,
179 –187.
Brannon, R. (1976). The male sex role: Our culture’s
blueprint for manhood, and what it’s done for us
lately. In D. David & R. Brannon (Eds.), The
forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role (pp.
1– 48). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cavell, T. A., & Malcom, K. T. (Eds.). (2007). An-
ger, aggression, and interventions for interper-
sonal violence. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cosenzo, K. A., Franchina, J. J., Eisler, R. M., &
Krebs, D. (2004). Effects of masculine gender-
relevant task instructions on men’s cardiovascular
reactivity and mental arithmetic performance. Psy-
chology of Men & Masculinity, 5, 103–111.
Deaux, K., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Thinking about
gender. In B. B. Hess & M. M. Ferree (Eds.),
Analyzing gender: A handbook of social science
research (pp. 92–117). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ehrlich, H. (1990). The ecology of antigay violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 359 –365.
Eisler, R., & Skidmore, J. (1987). Masculine gender
role stress: Scale development and component fac-
tors in the appraisal of stressful situations. Behav-
ior Modification, 11, 123–136.
Eisler, R. M., Franchina, J. J., Moore, T. M., Hon-
eycutt, H., & Rhatigan, D. L. (2000). Masculine
gender role stress and intimate abuse: Effects of
gender relevance of the conflict situation on men’s
attributions and affective responses. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 1, 30 –36.
Eisler, R. M., Skidmore, J. R., & Ward, C. H. (1988).
Masculine gender-role stress: Predictor of anger,
anxiety, and health-risk behaviors. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 52, 133–141.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2006). Uniform
Crime Reporting Program: Hate crime statistics,
2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. Available online at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/
hc2005/index.html
Fischer, A. R., Tokar, D. M., Good, G. E., & Snell,
A. F. (1998). More on the structure of male role
norms. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22,
135–155.
Franchina, J. J., Eisler, R. M., & Moore, T. M.
(2001). Masculine gender role stress and intimate
abuse: Effects of masculine gender relevance of
dating situations and female threat on men’s attri-
butions and affective responses. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 2, 34 – 41.
Franklin, K. (1998). Unassuming motivations: Con-
textualizing the narratives of antigay assailants. In
G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation:
Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay
men, and bisexuals (pp. 1–23). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Franklin, K. (2000). Antigay behaviors among young
adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 15,
339 –362.
 CORRELATES OF ANTIGAY ANGER
Hamner, K. M. (1990). Gay-bashing: A social iden-
tity analysis of violence against lesbians and gay
men. In G. M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate
crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians and
gay men (pp. 179 –190). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Harlow, C. W. (2005, November). Hate crimes re-
ported by victims and police (Publication No. NCJ
209911). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. Retrieved on February 11, 2008, from
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/hcrvp.pdf
Harry, J. (1990). Conceptualizing antigay violence.
Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 350 –358.
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity:
Some psychical consequences of the social con-
struction of gender and sexuality. American Be-
havioral Scientists, 29, 563–577.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals’ attitudes toward
lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender dif-
ferences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451– 477.
Herek, G. M. (1990). Psychological heterosexism
and anti-gay violence: The social psychology of
bigotry and bashing. In G. M. Herek & K. T.
Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence
against lesbians and gay men (pp. 149 –169).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals’ atti-
tudes toward lesbians and gay men: A review of
the empirical research with the ATLG scale. In B.
Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.), Lesbian and gay
psychology: Theory, research, and clinical appli-
cations (pp. 206 –228). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2000a). The psychology of sexual
prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 9, 19 –22.
Herek, G. M. (2000b). Sexual prejudice and gender:
Do heterosexuals’ attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56,
251–266.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion
about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quar-
terly, 66, 40 – 66.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond “homophobia”: Think-
ing about sexual prejudice and stigma in the twen-
ty-first century. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 1, 6 –24.
Herek, G. M. (in press). Hate crimes and stigma-
related experiences among sexual minority adults
in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a
national probability sample. Journal of Interper-
sonal Violence.
Herek, G. M., Gillis, R. J., & Cogan, J. C. (1999).
Psychological sequelae of hate crime victimiza-
tion among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychol-
ogy, 67, 945–951.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal
contact and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay
177
men: Results from a national survey. The Journal
of Sex Research, 30, 239 –244.
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual
men’s attitudes toward women and gay men: The
theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychol-
ogy of Men & Masculinity, 4, 37–56.
Kimmel, M. S. (1997). Masculinity as homophobia:
Fear, shame, and silence in the construction of
gender identity. In M. M. Gergen & S. N. Davis
(Eds.), Toward a new psychology of gender (pp.
223–242). New York: Routledge.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E.
(1948). Sexual behavior in the human male. Phil-
adelphia: W. B. Saunders.
Kite, M. E. (2001). Changing times, changing gender
roles: Who do we want women and men to be? In
R. Unger (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of
women and gender (pp. 215–227). New York:
Wiley.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1998). Do heterosex-
ual women and men differ in their attitudes toward
homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological
analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual
orientation: Understanding prejudice against les-
bians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 39 – 61). Thou-
sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of struc-
tural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Lash, S. J., Eisler, R. M., & Schulman, R. E. (1990).
Cardiovascular reactivity to stress in men: Effect
of masculine gender role stress appraisal and mas-
culine performance challenge. Behavior Modifica-
tion, 14, 3–20.
Lim, V. K. (2002). Gender differences and attitudes
towards homosexuality. Journal of Homosexual-
ity, 43, 85–97.
Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2004). Effects of
masculine gender role stress on men’s cognitive,
affective, physiological, and aggressive responses
to intimate conflict situations. Psychology of Men
& Masculinity, 5, 132–142.
National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs.
(2007). Anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen-
der violence in 2006. New York: Author.
Neisen, J. H. (1990). Heterosexism: Redefining ho-
mophobia for the 1990s. Journal of Gay and Les-
bian Psychotherapy, 1, 21–35.
O’Neil, J. (1982). Gender-role conflict and strain in
men’s lives: Implications for psychiatrists, psy-
chologists, and other human-service providers. In
K. Solomon & B. Levy (Eds.), Men in transition:
Theory and therapy (pp. 5– 44). New York: Ple-
num Press.
Parrott, D. J., Adams, H. E., & Zeichner, A. (2002).
Homophobia: Personality and attitudinal corre-
lates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32,
1269 –1278.
178 PARROTT, PETERSON, VINCENT, AND BAKEMAN
Parrott, D. J., & Peterson, J. L. (in press). What
motivates hate crimes based on sexual orientation?
Mediating effects of anger on antigay aggression.
Aggressive Behavior.
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (2005). Effects of
sexual prejudice and anger on physical aggression
toward gay and heterosexual men. Psychology of
Men & Masculinity, 6, 3–17.
Parrott, D. J., & Zeichner, A. (in press). Determinants
of anger and physical aggression based on sexual
orientation: An experimental examination of hy-
permasculinity and exposure to male gender role
violations. Archives of Sexual Behavior.
Parrott, D. J., Zeichner, A., & Hoover, R. (2006).
Sexual prejudice and anger network activation:
The mediating role of negative affect. Aggressive
Behavior, 32, 7–16.
Patel, S., Long, T. E., McCammon, S. L., & Wuen-
sch, K. L. (1995). Personality and emotional cor-
relates of self-reported antigay behaviors. Journal
of Interpersonal Violence, 10, 354 –366.
Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism.
Inverness, CA: Chardon Press.
Pleck, J. (1981). The myth of masculinity. Cam-
bridge, MA: MIT Press.
Plugge-Foust, C., & Strickland, G. (2000). Homo-
phobia, irrationality, and Christian ideology: Does
a relationship exist? Journal of Sex Education and
Therapy, 25, 240 –244.
Polimeni, A., Hardie, E., & Buzwell, S. (2000). Ho-
mophobia among Australian heterosexuals: The
role of sex, gender role ideology, and gender role
traits. Current Research in Social Psychology, 5,
47– 62.
Roderick, T., McCammon, S. L., Long, T. E., &
Allred, L. J. (1998). Behavioral aspects of
homonegativity. Journal of Homosexuality, 36,
79 – 88.
Shields, S. A., & Harriman, R. E. (1984). Fear of
male homosexuality: Cardiac responses of low and
high homonegative males. Journal of Homosexu-
ality, 10, 53– 67.
Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminant
validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Re-
search in Personality, 31, 117–135.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston: Pearson
Educational.
Thompson, E. H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J. H. (1985).
Attitudes toward the male role and their correlates.
Sex Roles, 13, 413– 427.
Thompson, E. H., & Pleck, J. H. (1986). The struc-
ture of male role norms. American Behavioral
Scientist, 29, 531–543.
Thompson, E. H., Pleck, J. H., & Ferrera, D. L.
(1992). Men and masculinities: Scales for mascu-
linity ideology and masculinity-related constructs.
Sex Roles, 27, 573– 607.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). Manual for the
Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (expanded
form). Unpublished manuscript, University of
Iowa.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).
Development and validation of brief measures of
positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
1063–1070.
Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences
in attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on
Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin,
117, 146 –154.
Yang, A. S. (1997). Trends: Attitudes toward homo-
sexuality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 477–507.
Received August 27, 2007
Revision received February 14, 2008
Accepted February 17, 2008 䡲