Is subjective ambivalence toward gays a modern form of bias? Personality and Individual Differences, 69, 75-80. Mark Hoffarth and Gordon Hodson Brock University, St. Catharines, Ontario Brock Lab of Intergroup Processes (BLIP) tinyurl.com/intergroup-lab ABSTRACT Theoretically, modern racism and sexism are characterized by ambivalence. We directly examined the consequence of being higher in subjective ambivalence toward gays (i.e. attitudes that feel “torn”) with regard to gay rights support. In Study 1, greater subjective ambivalence was associated with more negative attitudes (and not more positive attitudes), more ideological opposition to gays, more negative intergroup emotions, and less gay rights support. In Study 2, less opposition to gay bullying was predicted by: (a) greater subjective ambivalence (through lower intergroup empathy); and (b) experimentally-salient bullying justification norms (through lower collective guilt). These effects held controlling for Attitudes toward Gay Men (i.e., traditional negative attitudes). Although not overtly negative, individual differences in subjective ambivalence tap a unique, subtle, and less objectionable form of bias, consistent with aversive racism and justification-suppression frameworks of explaining modern biases. STUDY 2 OVERVIEW Why is subjective ambivalence associated with negativity, rather than a combination of positive and negative reactions? Goal: Examine mediating factors linking subjective ambivalence to negativity. Predictions: Subjective ambivalence -> less gay bullying opposition. mediated by low intergroup empathy, low collective guilt. over and above univalent negativity. STUDY 2 METHOD Participants: 185 heterosexuals 85% Caucasian 80% female, Mage 19.98. Materials: IVs – Subjective Ambivalence (2 items for gay men) and 10-item Attitudes toward Gays (Herek, 1988) (blatant prejudice). Scenario – read gay bullying article, gay male student in BC called gay epithets, threatened, pushed. - Portrayed as either normative (“This is just boys being boys”) or non-normative (“This is more than just boys being boys”). DV – Gay Bullying Opposition –attitude toward the incident (e.g. good vs. bad) on 7-pt scale (Crites, Fabrigar, & Petty, 1994). Mediators – Intergroup empathy – feelings of sympathy and compassion for gay people (based on Batson et al., 1997). – Collective Guilt – feelings of responsibility for ingroup transgressions against outgroup (Bahns & Branscombe, 2011). STUDY 1 OVERVIEW Ambivalence widely studied (e.g. ambivalent sexism, pro-Black, anti-Black attitudes), little for attitudes toward gay people (but see Garner, 2013). Aversive racism: Whites express negative attitudes toward Blacks when they can justify bias, despite desire to not be prejudiced. (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986) Ambivalence theoretically characterized by conflict between underlying negative attitudes non-prejudiced values Does subjective ambivalence toward gays actually reflect a hidden bias, akin to aversive racism? Goal: Validate subjective ambivalence measure, determine relation with prejudice correlates. Prediction: Subjective Ambivalence more negative attitudes toward gay people, negative intergroup emotions, ideologies STUDY 2 RESULTS Figure 1: Mediation Model predicting anti-gay bullying opposition uniquely from subjective ambivalence and negativity through intergroup empathy and collective guilt. STUDY 1 METHOD Participants:185 heterosexuals 81% Caucasian, 81% female, Mage 20.07. Materials: Subjective Ambivalence (from Visser & Mirabile, 2004) – 4-item self-report of conflicted feelings toward gay people. Polymorphous Prejudice (Massey, 2009) – 7-factor scale (70 items) of attitudes toward gay people Support for Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights (Brown & Henriquez, 2011) – support for many gay rights issues (marriage, adoption, anti-discrimination), and belief gay rights important, valid. Many additional correlates of anti-gay prejudice also measured (see Table 1). Subjective Ambivalence Attitudes toward Gays Normative Justifications Intergroup Empathy Collective Guilt Opposition to Gay Bullying -.17** -.29** -.27** -.33** .24** .34** “Boys will be boys” Figure 1. ATG = Attitudes toward gay men. Path model predicting gay-bullying opposition. Dashed box represents statistical covariate. Mediators were allowed to covary. All indirect effects are significant. **p <.01 STUDY 1 RESULTS Table 1: Correlations with subjective ambivalence  r  M  SD Polymorphous Prejudice Traditional Heterosexism .38*** 1.90 .88 Deny Continued Discrimination .13† 2.20 .58 Aversion toward Gay Men .41*** 2.08 .93 Aversion toward Lesbians .20** 2.33 .34 Value Gay Progress -.45*** 3.54 Resist Heteronormativity -.08 2.67 .89 Positive Beliefs .01 2.56 .71 Prejudice-Relevant Constructs   Right-Wing Authoritarianism 2.93 1.07 Social Dominance Orientation .33*** 2.48 .92 Religious Fundamentalism .29*** 3.24 1.78 Intergroup Disgust Sensitivity .28** 2.41 1.06 General Disgust Sensitivity .21** 2.69 .49 Gay Rights Support -.42*** 5.45 .99 Note. †p = .074 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 Model Fit Indices: χ²(5, N =184) = 4.957, χ²/df =.991, p =.421, CFI =1.000, RMSEA =.000, SRMR =.032. CONCLUSIONS Subjective ambivalence toward gay people associated with intergroup negativity, not intergroup positivity. Subjective ambivalence may represent a modern form of prejudice rather than a truly “mixed” attitude. - Less gay rights support, less anti-gay bullying opposition. Associated with anti-gay ideologies (e.g. Right-wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation), anti-gay emotions (e.g. high intergroup disgust, low intergroup empathy) After controlling for negativity, subjective ambivalence associated with bias through low intergroup empathy. Subjective ambivalence shares similarity with aversive racism and other forms of modern prejudice. FUTURE RESEARCH - Subjective ambivalence toward other marginalized groups (e.g. women, Black people, immigrants). - Examine unique effects of negativity and subjective ambivalence (by manipulating ambivalence and negativity). - Further examine role of intergroup empathy as a facilitator of bias expression, especially in the context of subjective ambivalence.