Sex Res Soc Policy
DOI 10.1007/s13178-013-0127-4
Themes in Heterosexuals’ Responses When Challenging
LGBT Prejudice
Rebecca R. Hubbard & Daniel J. Snipes & Paul B. Perrin &
Matthew R. Morgan & Angelica DeJesus & Sriya Bhattacharyya
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract The purposes of this study were (a) to examine
themes in heterosexuals’ responses when responding to
LGBT prejudice, and (b) to explore the potential influence
of educational information about LGBT topics on these
themes of responses. Heterosexual undergraduate students
(N=225) were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
participants received information about LGBT topics, or they
did not. Then participants were asked to speak out in a written
format against LGBT prejudicial statements they read in a
blog taken directly from the Internet. Using content analysis,
16 codes were generated from the literature on the confrontation of prejudice and from participants’ responses. The 16
codes were then grouped conceptually into four themes with
the following percent representations in participants’ responses: values (38.9 %), knowledge promotion (36.2 %),
attack (16.7 %), and personal participation (8.4 %). No differences between conditions emerged in the prevalence of these
themes. Implications for ally interventions, multicultural education, and future research are discussed.
Keywords LGBT activism . Heterosexual allies . LGBT
prejudice
Allies have been defined as “members of dominant social
groups (e.g., men, whites, heterosexuals) who are working
to end the system of oppression that gives them greater
R. R. Hubbard : D. J. Snipes : P. B. Perrin : M. R. Morgan :
A. DeJesus
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA
S. Bhattacharyya
University of Florida, Miami, FL, USA
R. R. Hubbard (*)
Department of Psychology, Virginia Commonwealth University,
P.O. Box 842018, Richmond, VA 23284-2018, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
privilege and power based upon their social group membership” (Broido, 2000; p. 3). Interventions to create heterosexual
allies for the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
community have primarily included LGBT speakers’ informational panels (Gelberg & Chojnacki 1995; Nelson &
Krieger, 1997; Waterman et al., 2001) and workshops/courses
that facilitate exploration of heterosexuals’ own identities as a
means of better understanding LGBT identities, coupled with
discussions of how to be an LGBT ally (Ji et al. 2009;
McAllister & Irvine, 2000; Wallace, 2000). Despite the successes of these interventions, the process of becoming an
outspoken LGBT ally is often challenging for several reasons.
LGBT allies can put themselves at risk for negative reactions
from other heterosexuals and may engender discrimination
themselves because of their ally stance (Broido, 2000;
DiStefano & Maznevski, 2000; Ji et al. 2009). Reactions from
others might include assumptions about the ally’s sexual
orientation (“If you’re speaking out, you must be gay”) or
patronization regarding the motives of heterosexual allies
(“You must have a gay family member”). Other barriers
include worries about credibility, lack of accurate information,
and a lack of skills to challenge heterosexist remarks or to
respond when someone comes out as being LGBT (Gelberg &
Chojnacki 1995; Ji, 2007, Ji et al. 2009). Many LGBT allies
also fear being labeled as a hypocrite because they have used
heterosexist language in the past, worry they are misinformed,
or fear they may inadvertently offend LGBT people (Ji, 2007,
Ji et al. 2009).
Even considering the momentum in the research literature
regarding the development of LGBT allies, little attention
has been paid to how heterosexuals can confront heterosexism when they encounter it. This is an unfortunate omission
because confronting prejudice is a central part of being an
ally (Roades & Mio, 2000). A literature review revealed that
only one study by Hyers (2010) empirically examined confrontations after encountering heterosexism, although the
study was conducted on 19 gay and bisexual men via diary
Sex Res Soc Policy
reports. Participants reported that after experiencing heterosexism, they used either passive or active responses, hostility, or coming out to the person making the heterosexist
remark. The majority of gay and bisexual men in this sample
tended to use a range of assertive responses with minimal
hostility. Hyers (2010) argued that few participants used
anger or hostility because gay and bisexual men’s anger
about heterosexism was not a socially sanctioned emotion,
and would likely cause more conflict than constructive relationship growth. The implications of the study were more
relevant to gay and bisexual men than to LGBT allies, as
heterosexuals may have different social influences depending
on if and how they confront heterosexism. Additionally, the
authors did not thoroughly examine the themes in their participants’ confrontations. Other research, however, has taken a
more systemic viewpoint, such as Shilt’s (2008) work, which
illustrated how the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against
Defamation (GLAAD) used hostile and reactive strategies
(e.g., protesting) before more recently taking on a cooperative
and proactive (e.g., educating and correcting ignorance) approach in confronting heterosexist institutions and laws.
Although Hyers’ (2010) study was the only empirical
investigation that examined the ways in which people confront heterosexism on an individual basis, research has focused on confrontations of sexism. Swim et al. (1999) exposed women to sexist remarks by a confederate and then
identified several themes in the ways that participants
confronted prejudice: using sarcastic and humorous remarks,
verbally labeling the comment as sexist, interrogating the
confederate, contradicting the comment, and grumbling or
acting surprised. Other research has found that anti-rape
activists confront sexism with sarcasm, dialogue on injustice, and assertions of others’ ignorance about the issue
(Rapp et al., 2010).
The scant empirical research on confronting prejudice has
exclusively included people from target groups (e.g., women
reacting to sexist remarks or gay and bisexual men reacting
to heterosexist remarks; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Hyers, 2010).
No empirical research, by contrast, has focused on how
potential allies of minority groups or how heterosexuals
who are not affected by a particular form of oppression
actually confront prejudice. Because heterosexuals may experience unique influences in comparison to LGBT people if
they confront heterosexism, such as lack of experience in
confronting heterosexism or lack of a community that supports such confrontation (Ji, 2007, 2009), heterosexuals may
engage in certain types of confrontation different from those
of LGBT people. As with LGBT people, when an ally is
exposed to heterosexism, the ally has to decide whether to
confront the remark, or do nothing, and there is no comprehensive discussion in the empirical literature as to the
choices that allies have to confront heterosexist remarks.
Furthermore, interventions aimed at creating heterosexual
LGBT allies could benefit from understanding the ways
in which people choose to respond to heterosexist
statements.
Because of these omissions in the research literature, the
first purpose of this study is to identify the types of confrontation used by heterosexual people after being exposed to
heterosexist and transphobic remarks. The current study
specifically examines heterosexuals’ themes of responses in
order to establish a much-needed starting point in identifying
themes from which future allies might respond to heterosexist or transphobic statements.
A secondary purpose of this study is to explore the potential influence of educational information about LGBT
topics on these themes of confrontation. Many interventions
designed for college students (e.g., Safe Zone Trainings)
theorize that providing information about LGBT topics is a
central piece of ally development (Obear, 1989). Research
has demonstrated that information, whether it be through
intergroup contact, dialogue, or other educational venues,
can be a powerful tool for improving intergroup relations
(Dessel & Rogge, 2008; Spencer et al. 2008; Nagda et al.
2009a). The provision of information about a group different
from oneself can make people appreciate group differences
as well as critically reflect on their own prejudiced attitudes
(Nagda, 2006). Information exchange can also contribute to
a commitment to social justice attitudes and behaviors
(Nagda et al. 2009b). For example, in a study that provided
information about sexual orientation via speaker panels to
public school teachers, Dessel (Dessel and Rogge 2008)
found significant improvements in attitudes towards LGB
civil rights, in feelings toward LGB individuals, and in
anticipated support for LGB issues in schools. These
changes are promising and suggest that information exchange may in fact influence the development of allies.
Other studies have found that interventions incorporating
education about LGBT topics increase ally activism (Finkel
et al., 2003), improve attitudes toward LGBT people
(Geasler et al., 1995; Nelson & Krieger, 1997; Waterman
et al., 2001), and create feelings of preparedness regarding
being an ally (Ji et al. 2009). These studies generally suggest
that the provision of information about LGBT topics may be
a key component of ally development. Based on these studies, it is hypothesized that participants who receive information about LGBT topics will use facts more frequently in
their responses than participants in the control condition.
Method
Participants
Participants 18 years of age and older were recruited from
psychology courses at a major southeastern university and
Sex Res Soc Policy
completed the study out of class and online using a web-based
survey program. Students received course research credit or
course extra credit for completing the study, and instructors
made an announcement about the study in their classroom or
sent an email to their class’s email listserve. The survey was
completed confidentially. Data are unavailable with regard to
how many total students were invited to participate in the
study or how many declined. Although there were initially
244 students, we removed 19 students who identified as
LGBT, and the final total was 225 heterosexual undergraduate
psychology students. Most participants identified as White
(58.0 %), female (85.8 %), and upper-middle class (57 %).
The average age was 20.17 years (SD=2.19). Table 1 provides
the participants’ demographics.
Procedure
The study was approved by the university’s institutional review board. Participants who entered the survey site were told
that the purpose of the study was to investigate the ways in
which people respond to reading controversial blogs.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions:
an informational condition or a control. In the information
condition, participants read a set of seven myths and facts that
had been adopted from the Safe Zone Ally Training (Obear,
1989). The materials are used at many colleges and universities (e.g., Trinity College and University of Connecticut)
across the United States. For example, one such myth and
fact read as follows:
We do not know what causes homosexuality. This is by
far one of the most controversial issues. Perhaps a better
question would be: "What determines our sexual orientation?" To date, no research has conclusively established the
Table 1 Demographics
Category
Race/ethnicity
Gender
Socioeconomic status
No.
Percent
African American
27
12.0
Hispanic/Latino(a)
Asian American
White
Multiracial
Other
Men
Women
Upper class
Upper-middle class
Lower-middle class
Working class
Lower class
34
22
132
7
3
32
193
14
130
41
18
22
15.1
9.8
58.0
3.1
1.3
14.2
85.8
6.2
57.8
18.2
8.0
9.8
The average age was 20.17 years (SD=2.19)
causes of either homosexuality, bisexuality, or heterosexuality. Some believe that orientation is predetermined genetically or hormonally. Others maintain that all humans are
predisposed to all variations of sexual/affectionate behavior
and learn their orientation.
In the control condition, participants read a blog and were
asked to respond to it without receiving information about
LGBT topics. Both conditions used the same blog in which
blog discussants had authored posts containing heterosexist
statements. This blog was taken directly from the Internet,
but a number of extremely offensive words were removed or
edited. No permission was obtained from blog discussants to
use their blog posts in this study, as their posts were not
copyrighted and freely available on the Internet. However,
their discussant user names (e.g., arye36) were modified in
order to retain anonymity of the discussants. The statements
chosen to be included were intended to be unambiguously
heterosexist in an effort to minimize the need for participants
to discern whether or not heterosexist comments were being
made. Although heterosexism—the societal oppression of
the LGBT community and the systemic advantage based on
heterosexual or traditional gender identity—takes place in
ambiguous and more subtle forms as well, this study focused
on blatant and overt forms through prejudicial statements in a
blog. Participants were presented with the following instructions and six heterosexist blog entries (two entries are provided as examples below):
Please read the following blog. This blog was taken
directly from the Internet and is an example of the prejudice
the LGBTQ population faces. The material in the blog may
be controversial, but please read the blog in its entirety. You
will then type a response to the blog into a text box in which
you must take a pro-LGBTQ stance and argue against the
prejudice in the blog. It does not matter whether you agree or
disagree with the statements in the blog—please speak out
AGAINST the prejudicial statements regarding LGBTQ individuals, even if doing so conflicts with your own beliefs.
Spend NO MORE THAN 5 MINUTES speaking out against
the blog.
wherewolfe23: I do not agree with Homosexuals raising
Children, theirs or not. (adopted!). The fact that our Society
condones it disgusts me even more. Now my Children have
to go to School with the 'offspring' of this abominable union
and are taught to accept it.
greenninja5: its about time we started doing stuff about
gays. they aren’t even real people so who cares if they have
rights.
Participants then filled out a demographic questionnaire
including race, gender, age, socioeconomic status, and sexual orientation. Upon completion of the study, participants
were directed to a debriefing webpage where they were
thanked for their participation, and the purpose of the study
was explained. We acknowledged the potentially very
Sex Res Soc Policy
offensive nature of the blog and explicitly emphasized that it
did not represent the attitudes of the researchers or the
university in any way, although it did come directly from
the Internet. Participants were provided with contact information for the university’s counseling center should they be
experiencing any intense emotional or psychological reactions to the content to which they had been exposed.
Data Analysis
The researchers conducted a content analysis of the responses that participants provided to the heterosexist blog
entries in order to explore the themes of how heterosexuals
confronted heterosexist statements. Patton (2002) defines
content analysis as “any qualitative data reduction and
sense-making effort that takes a volume of qualitative material and attempts to identify core consistencies and meanings” (p. 453). The researchers conducted the analysis based
on the step-wise process outlined by Zhang and Wildemuth
(2009). The data analysis for this study was both deductive,
driven by an a priori coding framework derived from published research on the confrontation of prejudice, as well as
inductive, allowing the actual data itself to influence whether
the initial codes held or whether additional codes should be
developed.
A coding scheme was created by generating themes from
previous literature—mostly theoretical—addressing the development and motivations of LGBT allies. The literature
regarding specific ally activities (such as directly confronting
LGBT prejudice) is extremely sparse, so as a result, studies
identified for the coding scheme ranged from theoretical
papers about the motivations of heterosexual allies (e.g.,
Russell, 2011) to recommendations for mental health
workers about how to be an ally (e.g., Silverstein, 2007;
Whitman et al. 2007). Literature from which the initial codes
were generated was selected or excluded on the basis of two
criteria: (a) studies were included in initial code generation if
they explored (theoretically or empirically) LGBT activism
behavior, and (b) studies were excluded if they only
addressed changes in attitudes of heterosexual individuals
toward LGBT people, because the focus of this study is on
how ally behavior takes place. Four researchers reviewed the
nine articles that matched the criteria and identified possible
themes alluding to how allies might confront heterosexism.
In a collaborative effort, certain phrases were combined (e.g.,
“information” and “provide education” were combined into
one code). The process of identifying themes resulted in 15
codes that are named and described in Table 2.
To test the coding scheme and ensure the clarity of definitions, two raters coded a random sample of ten blog post
responses (Weber, 1990). Raters were psychology doctoral
students overseen directly by a psychology professor, who is
also one of the authors of this study. All raters were blind to
the condition to which the participant had been randomly
assigned (information or control condition). Each rater
agreed or disagreed with the codes that the other rater had
assigned to participants’ statements or words. Codes could
be assigned to any unit of analysis that fit the coding scheme.
For example, a code could be assigned to a full sentence, a
phrase, or a group of words. The trial coding yielded 85.4 %
agreement between raters, providing evidence for high
interrater reliability (Weber, 1990). Disagreements were resolved by a third blinded rater (this rater was unaware of
which codes each of the initial raters had assigned to the
piece of text), who coded the specific statements. The trial
coding led to the addition of one code that appeared in the
data, but had not been captured in the initial coding scheme:
humanity (statements that emphasize that LGBT individuals
are human beings). This addition to the coding scheme
derived from the literature produced a final list of 16 codes
(Table 2). The three raters revised the coding book to avoid
disagreements that occurred in the trial coding.
The remaining participant responses were coded in a
similar fashion to the trial coding process. Two raters
reviewed all blog posts and independently assigned codes
to each statement. Subsequently, the two raters exchanged
documents containing the assigned codes and agreed or
disagreed with the code the other rater had assigned. Raters
frequently revisited the coding scheme in order to remain
consistent. Similarly to the trial coding, disagreements were
resolved by a third blinded rater. Coding by the first two
independent raters produced 957 coded statements, of which
84 statements were disagreements and resolved by the third
coder, yielding high interrater reliability (91.2 %). The percentage of codes in each condition and the total sample are
presented in Table 3. The average number of codes per
participant was 4.25, with a range of 1–11 codes per participant. Although some participants indicated which blog post
they responded to by stating the username of the blog entry,
this was fairly rare. Participants tended to respond to the blog
as a whole, and hence, data were analyzed to identify themes
in their reactions to the blog in its entirety. Codes were
grouped conceptually by coders into four overall themes,
based on existing literature and on the content of coded
statements uncovered throughout analysis. Lastly, four zratio tests (two-tailed) for differences in two independent
proportions were calculated to examine whether differences
emerged between the informational and control conditions in
the proportions of responses falling within each of the four
overall themes.
Results and Discussion
The purposes of this study were (a) to examine the pattern of
heterosexuals’ responses when confronting LGBT prejudice,
Sex Res Soc Policy
Table 2 Description of codes
Code
Description
Sources
Moral principles
Expressions of the lack of morality of the heterosexist
authors that emphasize what is “right” and “wrong”
Statements that emphasize the humanity of LGBT people
An opinion that is supportive and accepting of various
expression of sexuality. Expressing support of equal
rights and opposing the notion that the deviation from
heterosexuality is immoral/unnatural
Tying statements made in the post to American values
(e.g., equal rights, freedom)
Tying statements to specific or general religious beliefs
Providing facts and information about myths, equal rights,
dispelling stereotypes, or making a remark about
the historical context
Duhigg et al. (2010); Ghaziani and Baldassarri
(2011); Rapp et al. (2010); Russell (2011)
n/a
Russell (2011); Silverstein (2007);
Whitman et al. (2007)
*Humanity
Affirmation
Patriotism
Religion
Information
Naming heterosexism
Labeling the heterosexism of the blog authors by using words
such as heterosexism, discrimination, or prejudice
Evoking empathy
Statements that attempt to facilitate an understanding of the
struggle of LGBT individuals
Call to educate
Statements that encourage the blog authors to learn more about
the LGBT community without providing information themselves
Ignorance
A blog response that emphasizes the lack of knowledge or
intelligence of the authors of the heterosexist blog post
Sarcasm
Utilizing satirical wit or ironic language that is usually directed
towards the heterosexist blog authors
Insult
Insults directed towards the authors of heterosexist remarks that
can include name-calling and profanity
Blame
The participant blames the authors of the heterosexist blog for
societal difficulties or intends to evoke a sense of guilt or
personal responsibility
Emotional disclosure
A blog post that expresses emotion (e.g., sadness, anger, disgust)
in response to reading the blog
Personal involvement
The participant discloses personal information as part of their post
Interpersonal relationships References to specific relationships the author has had
with LGBT people
Ghaziani and Baldassarri (2011); Russell (2011)
Russell (2011)
Ghaziani and Baldassarri (2011);
Rees-Turyn (2007);
Shilt (2008); Silverstein (2007);
Whitman et al. (2007)
Duhigg et al. (2010); Rees-Turyn (2007)
Jones and Voss (2008); Rapp et al. (2010)
Rees-Turyn (2007)
Rapp et al. (2010)
Rapp et al. (2010)
Shilt (2008)
Rapp et al. (2010)
Ghaziani and Baldassarri (2011);
Jones and Voss (2008); Russell (2011)
Jones and Voss (2008); Rees-Turyn (2007)
Rees-Turyn (2007); Russell (2011)
Humanity was the only code not originally identified in the empirical literature and that emerged from the qualitative coding process
and (b) to explore the potential influence of educational
information about LGBT topics on these types of responses.
Participants’ responses to a heterosexist blog were analyzed
using 16 codes generated from the literature on the confrontation of prejudice, as well as from the data in the current
study. The 16 codes were then grouped conceptually into
four themes. Two themes were widely represented in participants’ responses: Values (38.9 % of total coded statements)
and knowledge promotion (36.2 % of total coded statements). The two remaining themes, attack (16.7 % of total
coded statements) and personal participation (8.4 % of total
coded statements), were represented to a lesser extent. No
differences emerged between the proportions of responses in
each of the four themes for participants who had been first
exposed to educational material about LGBT topics and
controls: Values (z = .57, p = .57); knowledge promotion
(z=−.82, p=.41); attack (z=−.05, p=.96); and personal participation (z=.39, p=.70). Themes and codes are presented in
the following section in the order of prevalence and summarized in Table 3.
Values
The largest proportion of coded statements expressed confrontation through appealing to various values. In general,
values are beliefs and standards that guide reasoning and
behavior, and in the case of this study, guided participants’
themes of confronting heterosexism. The codes that comprised the theme of values were distinct, but all occurred
when participants appealed to their own specific beliefs and
principles. The most represented individual code in the
values theme was moral principles. Statements coded as
moral principles contained the core message that discrimination against LGBT individuals is a violation of what is
moral and just. Example statements included, “Everyone
experiences things differently and should not be judged as
Sex Res Soc Policy
Table 3 Percentage of each
theme and code by overall
sample and condition
Theme
Code
Overall sample Education condition Control condition
Moral principles
Humanity
Affirmation
Patriotism
38.9
13.3
13.0
8.2
2.5
39.9
14.1
13.9
8.8
2.2
38.1
12.6
12.3
7.7
2.8
2.0
Knowledge promotion
36.2
Information
20.2
Naming heterosexism
11.7
Evoking empathy
3.6
Call to educate
0.7
Attack
16.7
Ignorance
10.8
Sarcasm
2.9
Insult
1.8
Blame
1.2
Personal participation
8.4
Emotional disclosure
4.4
Personal involvement
2.6
Interpersonal relationships 1.4
1.0
34.8
20.4
10.0
3.4
1.0
16.5
11.2
2.9
1.7
0.7
8.8
4.6
2.0
2.2
2.8
37.3
20.0
13.0
3.7
0.6
16.6
10.4
2.9
1.8
1.5
8.1
4.2
3.1
0.7
Values
Religion
N=225; total number of coded
statements=957. Percentages of
responses within each theme did
not differ by condition (all
ps≥.41)
bad people due to their sexual preference,” and “LGBTQ are
just normal people who are going about their lives and no
one has a right to condemn that for that.”
Another code with strong representation in the values
theme was humanity, where participants emphasized that
discrimination and prejudice are wrong because LGBT people are human beings. Comments emphasizing the humanity
of LGBT people were likely direct responses to statements in
the blog posts that asserted the inhumanity of LGBT individuals. Examples of statements assigned this code included
“They are people just like us” and “Whether lesbian, gay,
transsexual, etc. you are a human being.” Only a few participants used religion (2 %) or patriotic values (2.5 %) to
confront the heterosexist blog posts.
These findings are consistent with Russell’s (2011) study,
which identified values as a key motivation for heterosexuals
in becoming LGBT allies, although Russell did not specifically look at the use of values to confront heterosexism.
Russell argued that many of the reasons that heterosexuals
become LGBT allies may not be directly related to LGBT
issues, but rather stem from more basic moral issues such as
civil rights, religious beliefs, and patriotism. The current
study’s findings suggest that core values are likely not only
an important motivation for heterosexuals to engage in
LGBT activism, but also make up the majority of the content
used to confront heterosexism.
Knowledge Promotion
Statements attempting to spread knowledge about the LGBT
topics were the second most common type of confrontation.
Within the theme of knowledge promotion, “Information”
was the most prevalent code in the whole study, comprising
20.2 % of all types of confrontation. Example statements
included “First of all, not all homosexual men and women
exhibit traits of the other sex” and “Some of our earliest
human societies celebrated homosexual love, regarding it
as ‘pure’, and many societies today do not condemn homosexual love.”
Another dominant code in this group was “Naming
Heterosexism,” where participants shared information that
explained why the statements made were discriminatory
(11.7 % of statements in the overall sample). Examples
included “The blogs made are prejudiced and opinion based
rather than fact” and “There are a few prejudicial thoughts
that are apparent to me in this blog.” Other codes comprising
this theme included communicating knowledge about the
hardships that many LGBT individuals face because of their
identities (evoking empathy, 3.6 %), and requesting or encouraging the transgressors to seek out information about
LGBT individuals (call to educate, 0.7 %).
Interestingly, there were no differences in the prevalence
of “Knowledge Promotion” statements (or differences in the
Sex Res Soc Policy
prevalence of any other theme) between participants in the
LGBT education and control conditions. The information in
the myths and facts that had been provided to participants in
the information condition had no impact on the themes in the
confrontation they used. It is likely that although the promotion of knowledge is a central tool for LGBT ally activism,
simply providing information to heterosexuals to use when
confronting heterosexism is not enough to influence how
they confront heterosexism. Horn, Szalacha, and Drill
(2008), for example, explored attitudes toward the LGBT
community in a large sample of heterosexual high school
students and found that the knowledge students used to
formulate their opinions was multifaceted and included both
conventional and personal reasoning. Interventions intended
to influence the ways in which heterosexuals confront LGBT
prejudice therefore need to engage heterosexual individuals
in higher-order and more personal processing about LGBT
issues than simply education about LGBT topics. Similarly,
many interventions to increase LGBT ally behaviors rely not
only on information, but also include a thorough exploration
of one’s own identity (e.g., Ji et al. 2009). More involved
interventions have shown to improve attitudes toward LGBT
individuals (Geasler et al. 1995; Nelson & Krieger, 1997;
Waterman et al. 2001) and may play a strong role in the ways
in which heterosexuals confront heterosexism.
Attack
Participants also aggressively confronted the heterosexist
blog comments, verbally attacking the transgressors. Attack
was the third most prevalent type of confrontation and included statements that accused the blog authors of being
ignorant or lacking intelligence (10.8 %). Participants made
statements such as “People should not be ignorant about
LGBTQ issues” and “It is amazing what the veil of the
Internet will do to bring out the ignorance in people such
as the ones who have posted their comments here.” A few
participants also included statements that were coded as
“Sarcasm,” (2.9 %), such as “It's not contagious—No need
to worry about your vulnerable little Johnny or Sally getting
infected by the homosexuals at daycare.” There were also
several instances in which participants expressed an “Insult,”
(1.8 %) or “Blame” (1.2 %) towards the authors of the
heterosexist blog entries, communicating to the transgressors
that their attitudes and statements contribute to the hardship
of LGBT individuals.
The relatively low frequency of aggressive, attacking
statements reflects similar findings in the research literature,
such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation’s
(Shilt, 2008) change from using hostile methods instead to
promoting understanding about the LGBT community.
Similarly, Hyers (2010) found that most gay and bisexual
men did not use hostility when confronting heterosexism,
arguing that hostility is not socially sanctioned and can cause
more conflict than constructive relationship growth. In the
current study, participants could arguably have had more
freedom to “attack” the transgressors in the blog post because of the relative anonymity of the study’s Internet medium in comparison to Hyers’ (2010) study of interpersonal
interactions. However, participants in this study generally
used other forms of confrontation that, as Hyers’ interpreted,
could be more socially sanctioned and constructive.
Personal Participation
The least represented theme was personal participation.
Within this theme, participants engaged in emotional disclosure (4.4 %) when confronting the heterosexist blog entries.
For example, one participant wrote, “The comment by
greenninja5, stating that gay people are not real people, is
saddening.” On rare occasions, participants shared personal
information or experiences (personal involvement, 2.6 %) or
mentioned “Interpersonal Relationships” with people who
identify as LGBT (1.4 %). For example, one participant
shared “My sister's husband has 2 lesbian best friends who
are pretty, slim, and quite feminine” (interpersonal relationships). Another wrote “You can tell if someone is gay just by
looking at them? Please explain how, as from my own
experience, gays and lesbians look the same as anyone else”
(personal involvement).
The low prevalence of this theme could be due to the
necessity of participants who utilize it to have, at some point
in their life, either actively challenged their own heterosexism, or witnessed the struggle of LGBT individuals through
interpersonal contact. It could be that only a small percentage
of participants had interpersonal contact with an LGBT
individual, making them unable to utilize this method of
confrontation. Unfortunately, this study did not ask participants whether they had friends or family members who
identified as LGBT. A national survey by Herek and
Capitanio (1996) illustrated that very few respondents
(31.3 %) reported having had interpersonal contact with
LGBT individuals, and only 5.5 % of their sample reported
having close relationships with LGBT individuals (e.g., a
close gay friend, or a gay family member). As such, only a
small percentage of participants in the present study may
have used personal participation themes due to the relatively
low amount of interpersonal contact with LGBT people.
Another possible explanation for the low prevalence of this
theme is the perceived vulnerability that divulging personal
information could create. Participants may have been wary
of personal information being utilized to discredit or attack
them, which has been identified as a barrier to activist behaviors (Ji et al. 2009).
Sex Res Soc Policy
Although participants typically did not share a rational
regarding why they were disclosing personal experiences,
they may have done so for a number of reasons. Pointing out
personal connections to LGBT individuals may serve to
humanize participants’ statements as opposed to making
their responses strictly intellectual, or doing so could make
participants’ comments seem more legitimate if they show
that they know members of the LGBT community. Personal
disclosures may also help build empathy for the participants
or for LGBT individuals. Future studies could explore
whether responses including personal involvement are more
or less effective than factual or “objective” responses to
heterosexism and whether humanizing LGBT individuals
or oneself adds to effective advocacy.
In summary, this qualitative analysis identified two primary
themes in heterosexual participants’ responses to heterosexist
blog content. Most participants responded by emphasizing
their own values or providing facts or information in an attempt
to correct the authors of the prejudicial blog statements.
Although little research to date has found that people use
value-based approaches when confronting prejudice, this study
suggested that values were actually the most represented type
of response when heterosexuals confront heterosexism. Other
studies, however, have fallen in line with the current findings
that providing facts or information is a common method of
confrontation (Rapp et al., 2010; Shilt, 2008; Swim et al.,
1999). Few participants engaged in a personal attack or
disclosed their personal experiences in their response. These
findings were consistent with Hyers (2010) who found that gay
and bisexual men rarely used hostility and also with Shilt
(2008) who found that LGBT activist approaches have recently
taken on a cooperative—as opposed to hostile—approaches in
confronting heterosexism. Additionally, previous research has
identified personal disclosure as a method of activism (ReesTuryn, 2007), although the current study found that this was
the least frequently used approach. Interestingly, the hypothesis that participants in the information condition would use
more facts in their blog responses than controls was not supported. This finding provides evidence that simple educational
material may not be enough to influence ally responses to
LGBT prejudice, and more substantial interventions are
warranted (e.g., Ji et al. 2009).
Limitations and Future Directions
Despite the information gained from this study, there are
several limitations. First, the convenience sample of participants (mostly White, female, and of upper- or lower-middle
class) may not be representative of other potential LGBT ally
groups. Future studies should examine the ways in which
other, more diverse samples of heterosexuals confront heterosexism. Second, themes of confrontation may vary depending
on whether people confront heterosexism on the Internet or in
person. The Internet provides a large degree of anonymity, so
individuals may be more likely to engage in personal disclosure, for example, or to confront heterosexism more aggressively than they would in person. Given the growing importance of the Internet for social interactions, future studies
should examine potential differences in confrontation
depending on the venue (e.g., Internet or in person).
Additionally, the aggressive and explicit nature of the blog
posts may or may not be reflective of the types of heterosexism
that members of the LGBT community and heterosexual allies
encounter in person. Hence, future studies should also examine
varying responses to blatant and aggressive heterosexism, such
as those in this study, as well as more subtle forms perhaps
encountered on a regular basis. A third limitation to this study
is that although nearly all of the participants followed the
instruction to “speak out against the prejudice in the statements” and provided at least several sentences confronting
the prejudice in the blog, there are no data available on how
many participants exited out of the survey if they did not want
to confront the prejudice, which could have produced a potential bias in how participants responded to the blog.
Fourth, it is unclear whether or not participants would
have responded to such blog posts if they had actually
encountered them on the Internet, or even heard the statements spoken aloud in real life. This study provides evidence
for how college students respond to a request to “speak out”
when they are told to do so in the context of completing a
study for course credit. Yet, the methodology prevented
estimations about what percentage of individuals actually
would speak out, or even perhaps might respond to the
prejudicial blog posts in a manner that agrees with the posts.
Future studies could examine how participants respond to
LGBT prejudice when not explicitly told to confront it, as
well as assess prior ally attitudes, behaviors, and demographic characteristics of participants who refuse to participate, as
those factors may influence the ways in which participants
confront—or do not confront—heterosexist remarks.
Fifth, it should also be noted that although most of the
ways in which heterosexual participants confronted the heterosexist blog comments were extremely supportive of the
LGBT community, some comments that were intended to be
affirming actually perpetuated stereotypes about gender and
sexual orientation. For example, one participant’s comment
that “My sister's husband has 2 lesbian best friends who are
pretty, slim, and quite feminine” was in many ways a gender
and sexual-orientation microaggression (Sue, 2010), which
is an often unintentionally oppressive verbal or behavioral
slight directed at members of a minority group. The participant conveyed a stereotype about what is considered feminine (pretty, slim, and not lesbian). This finding highlights a
critical focus for future research on the ways in which heterosexuals can attempt to be LGBT allies but actually perpetuate the stereotypes and heterosexism that they are
Sex Res Soc Policy
attempting to work against. Sixth, the data analysis chosen
for this study was content analysis (Zhang & Wildemuth,
2009), which allowed an a priori coding framework derived
from published research as well as the data itself to influence
the coding scheme. Although the finding was valuable that
the vast majority of the codes which had been initially
developed from the literature did in fact capture participants’
responses, future studies could use an exclusively inductive
approach without any a priori hypotheses about what codes
might emerge, as it is possible that this combined approach
limited the approach’s openness and flexibility to new
themes that were present in the data.
Seventh, the hypothesis that information about LGBT
topics would change the ways in which heterosexuals
confronted prejudicial statements was not supported, and
limitations to the study’s methodology could have contributed to this outcome. The informational intervention used
may have been too weak or superficial to truly to test whether
providing information about the LGBT topics can influence
heterosexuals’ themes of confronting heterosexism. The
brief and Internet-based nature of this study limited our ability
to have participants engage in deep personal processing about
their attitudes toward the LGBT community which has been
shown to be effective in producing attitude change (Geasler
et al. 1995; Nelson & Krieger, 1997; Waterman et al. 2001).
Future research should involve the provision of more than
simply “myths and facts” statements about the LGBT community, such as thorough self-reflection about heterosexism
and how one’s own sexual orientation contributes to one’s
own identity (Ji et al. 2009). Also, because no manipulation
check was included, it is possible that some participants did
not thoroughly read the information provided, thus reducing
the potency of this key difference between conditions.
Because this study found that heterosexuals were most
likely to appeal to values when confronting heterosexism,
future studies of ally development could include interventions that help heterosexuals assess their value systems and
determine how to use those value systems in ally activism.
And finally, perhaps the most important future direction is
for studies to examine which of the types of confrontation
uncovered in this study are most effective for reducing the
prevalence and intensity of heterosexism in others.
Conclusion
This study found that heterosexuals’ discourse when challenging LGBT prejudice fell into four categories involving
the use of values, knowledge promotion, attack, and personal
participation. Although the educational intervention used in
this study did not influence the ways in participants’
confronted heterosexist comments, the findings have key
implications for education and policy. The provision of
information alone may not be enough to influence the ways
in which heterosexuals confront heterosexism. Much current
ally-development education relies heavily on providing to
heterosexuals information about the LGBT community and
about the system of heterosexism, so it is critical that future
research investigate the effectiveness of more comprehensive educational approaches than that used in the current
study, as well as the potential influence of behavioral interventions on heterosexuals’ LGBT-focused attitudes and
themes in their confrontation of LGBT prejudice. These
future educational approaches can inform heterosexuals
about the four primary ways identified in this study that they
can confront heterosexist comments. As ally educational
interventions are refined through empirical research, they
have the potential to produce more and better allies in the
fight against heterosexism ranging from the individual level
(e.g., confronting heterosexist statements) up to macroscopic
levels (e.g., working against heterosexist public policies;
Dworkin & Yi, 2003). Additionally, while diversity trainings
become more common in organizations, they may begin to
chip away at heterosexist organizational policies as employees’ and leaders’ opinions about the LGBT community
continue to progress. Creating more and better LGBT allies
is a critical step in working toward LGBT civil rights and
equitable social policies to dismantle heterosexism (Duhigg
et al. 2010), and allies who know how to confront heterosexism at different societal levels will play a major role in the
realization of social justice for the LGBT community.
References
Broido, E. M. (2000). The development of social justice allies during
college: a phenomenological investigation. Journal of College
Student Development, 41, 3–18.
Dessel, A., & Rogge, M. (2008). Evaluation of intergroup dialogue: a
review of the empirical literature. Conflict Resolution Quarterly,
26, 199–238.
Distefano, J. J., & Maznevski, M. L. (2000). Creating value with
diverse teams in global management. Organizational Dynamics,
29(1), 45–63. doi:10.1016/S0090-2616(00)00012-7.
Duhigg, J. M., Rostosky, S. S., Gray, B. E., & Wimsatt, M. K. (2010).
Development of heterosexuals into sexual-minority allies: a qualitative exploration. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(1), 2–
14. doi:10.1007/s13178-010-0005-2.
Dworkin, S. H., & Yi, H. (2003). LGBT identity, violence, and social
justice: the psychological is political. International Journal for the
Advancement of Counselling, 25, 269–279.
Finkel, M., Storaasli, R., Bandele, A., & Schaefer, V. (2003). Diversity
training in graduate school: an exploratory evaluation of the safe zone
project. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 34, 555–561.
Ghaziani, A., & Baldassarri, D. (2011). Cultural anchors and the organization of differences: a multi-method analysis of LGBT marches
on Washington. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 179–206.
doi:10.1177/0003122411401252.
Sex Res Soc Policy
Geasler, M. J., Croteau, J. M., Heineman, C. J., & Edlund, C. J. (1995).
A qualitative study of students' expressions of change after attending panel presentations by lesbian, gay, and bisexual speakers.
Journal of College Student Development, 36(5), 483–492.
Gelberg, S., & Chojnacki, J. T. (1995). Developmental transitions of
gay/lesbian/bisexual-affirmative, heterosexual career counselors.
Career Development Quarterly, 43, 267–273.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”
Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes
towards gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22(4), 412–424. doi:10.1177/0146167296224007.
Horn, S. S., Szalacha, L. A., & Drill, K. (2008). Schooling, sexuality,
and rights: an investigation of heterosexual students' social cognition regarding sexual orientation and the rights of gay and lesbian
peers in school. Journal of Social Issues, 64(4), 791–813. doi:10.
1111/j.1540-4560.2008.00589.x.
Hyers, L. L. (2010). Alternatives to silence in face-to-face encounters
with everyday heterosexism: Activism on the interpersonal front.
Journal of Homosexuality, 57(4), 539–565. doi:10.1080/
00918361003608749.
Ji, P. (2007). Being a heterosexual ally to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgendered community: reflections and development. Journal
of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11(3–4), 173–185. doi:10.
1300/J236v11n03_10.com.
Ji, P., Du Bois, S. N., & Finnessy, P. (2009). An academic course that
teaches heterosexual students to be allies to LGBT communities: a
qualitative analysis. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services,
21(4), 402–429. doi:10.1080/10538720802690001.
Jones, B. L., & Voss, T. M. (2008). Lesbian parent activism and
meaning-making in the current political environment. Journal of
Gay and Lesbian Social Services, 19(2), 63–80. doi:10.1080/
10538720802131733.
McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and
multicultural teacher education. Review of Educational Research,
70, 3–24.
Nagda, B. (2006). Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges:
communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of
Social Issues, 62, 553–576.
Nagda, B., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., Gurin-Sands, C., & Osuna, S.
(2009a). From separate corners to dialogue and action. Race and
Social Problems, 1, 45–55.
Nagda, B., Gurin, P., Sorensen, N., & Zuniga, X. (2009b). Evaluating
intergroup dialogue: engaging diversity for personal and social
responsibility. Diversity and Democracy, 12, 4–6.
Nelson, E. S., & Krieger, S. L. (1997). Changes in attitudes toward
homosexuality in college students: implementation of a gay men
and lesbian peer panel. Journal of Homosexuality, 33(2), 63–81.
doi:10.1300/J082v33n02_04.
Obear, K. (1989). Opening doors to understanding and acceptance:
Facilitating workshops on lesbian, gay and bisexual issues.
Materials presented at the ACPA meeting in Washington, DC.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Rapp, L., Button, D. M., Fleury-Steiner, B., & Fleury-Steiner, R.
(2010). The internet as a tool for black feminist activism: lessons
from an online antirape protest. Feminist Criminology, 5(3), 244–
262. doi:10.1177/1557085110371634.
Rees-Turyn, A. (2007). Coming out and being out as activism: challenges and opportunities for mental health professionals in red &
blue states. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11, 155–
172. doi:10.1300/J236v11n03_09.
Roades, L. A., Mio, J. S. (2000). Allies: How are they created and what
are their experiences? Invited chapter in J. S. Mio & G. I. Awakuni,
Resistance to multiculturalism: Issues and interventions (pp. 63–
82). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel
Russell, G. M. (2011). Motives of heterosexual allies in collective
action for equality. Journal of Social Issues, 67(2), 376–393.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01703.x.
Shilt, K. (2008). AM/FM activism. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social
Services, 16(3–4), 181–192. doi:10.1300/J041v16n03_12.
Silverstein, C. (2007). Wearing two hats: the psychologist as activist
and therapist. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11, 9–
35. doi:10.1300/J236v11n03_02.
Spencer, M., Brown, M., Griffin, S., & Abdullah, S. (2008). Outcome
evaluation of the Intergroup Project. Small Group Research, 39,
82–103.
Sue, D. W. (2010). Microaggressions in everyday life: race, gender, and
sexual orientation. Hoboken: Wiley.
Swim, J. K., Ferguson, M. J., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Avoiding stigma
by association: subtle prejudice against lesbians in the form of
social distancing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(1), 61–
68. doi:10.1207/15324839951036560.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just
say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88. doi:10.
1006/jesp.1998.1370.
Wallace, B. C. (2000). A call for change in multicultural training at
graduate schools of education: educating to end oppression and for
social justice. Teachers College Record, 102, 1086–1111.
Waterman, A. D., Reid, J. D., Garfield, L. D., & Hoy, S. J. (2001). From
curiosity to care: heterosexual student interest in sexual diversity
courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(1), 21–26. doi:10.1207/
S15328023TOP2801_05.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newberry Park: Sage.
Whitman, J. S., Horn, S. S., & Boyd, C. J. (2007). Activism in the
schools: providing LGBTQ affirmative training to school counselors. Journal of Gay and Lesbian Psychotherapy, 11(3–4), 143–
154. doi:10.1300/J236v11n03_08.
Zhang, Y., & Wildemuth, B. M. (2009). Qualitative analysis of content.
In B. Wildemuth (Ed.), Applications of social research methods to
questions in information and library. Westport: Libraries
Unlimited.