1. Oak Reed GradCon Presentation April 20th, 2018
To Know is to Grow: How Different Types of Contact with Transgender Individuals is Associated with Varying Levels of Anti-Transgender Prejudice
Oak Reed
GradCon Presentation
April 20th, 2018

2. Identifying as Transgender
SEX
MALE
FEMALE
INTERSEX
Sex ≠ Gender ≠ Sexuality
Transgender  Sex ≠ Gender
Cisgender  Sex = Gender
GENDER
MAN
WOMAN
GENDERQUEER
Sex = assigned at birth; internal/external genitalia, chromosomal, hormonal
Gender = identity; cultural, social, idiographic
Sexuality = attraction
SEXUALITY
HETEROSEXUAL
NON-HETEROSEXUAL

3. Why is this research important?
Background
Why is this research important?
How prejudice affects transgender individuals
Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003)
Where discrimination may occur
Who may hold prejudices
What these prejudices may result in
Where
Who
Why
How: proximal & distal stressors, increased SA, depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideation/completion
Where: bathrooms, locker rooms, relationships, employment, healthcare, housing, personal relationships, access to resources
Who: education level, age, religiosity, race, contact, sexual orientation
What: increased SA, depression, anxiety, self-harm, suicidal ideation/completion
How
What

4. Present Study
Participants N = 347 (Primarily 18-22, White, heterosexual, and female)
Asking participants about their personal experiences of contact with transgender individuals and/or material that describes transgender identities and/or experiences
Social contact (e.g., friend, family member, classmate)
Educational contact (e.g., textbooks, panels, documentaries)
General media contact (e.g., movies, television shows, comic books)
Along with detailed questions extrapolating on different types, longevity, and details of the participants’ contact, the survey also has valence questions after each measure to gather information regarding the perceived quality of their contact
Several parallel questions asking about the perceived quality of the participants’ differing types of contact with lesbian, gay, or bisexual identified individuals.

5. Hypotheses
1) Previous social (personal) contact with transgender identified individuals will be associated with the lowest levels of anti-transgender prejudices
2) Different levels of contact with transgender individuals in all categories will be associated with different levels of anti-transgender prejudice
3) Heterosexual, cisgender men will have higher levels of anti-transgender prejudice when compared to heterosexual, cisgender women

6. Results
-7.522
Hypothesis 1:
Personal contact had a significant effect on anti-transgender prejudice
t(345)= 5.123, p < .001   
F(1, 291) = , p < .001; 𝑅 2 = .184
Personal Contact
Educational Contact
General Media Contact
Questions:
Not simple linear regression b/c contact is comprised of many different factors
Multicollinearity  predictor variables may be highly correlated
Want them to be different enough so that we can be confident that they are explaining different variances
Want IVs to be correlated w/ DV, but not each other
Correction for running multiple tests
Bonferroni correction (divide alpha levels by X) – most conservative
Correct for family-wise error
Factor analysis vs. principal components analysis
Social contact: 12 specific prompts; 8 identity prompts
Educational contact: 9 specific prompts
General media contact: 12 specific prompts
Anti-Transgender Prejudice
(Scale 32 – 224)

7. Results -7.522 -5.051 -2.727 Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 2:
Personal contact had a significant effect on anti-transgender prejudice
Hypothesis 2:
Each type of contact had a significant effect on anti-transgender prejudice
Edu: t(345)= 3.284, p = .001; F(1, 172) = , p < .001; 𝑅 2 = .073
Gen. Media: t(345)= 3.340, p = .001; F(1, 172) = , p < .001; 𝑅 2 = .073
Personal Contact
-5.051
Educational Contact
-2.727
General Media Contact
Questions:
Not simple linear regression b/c contact is comprised of many different factors
Multicollinearity  predictor variables may be highly correlated
Want them to be different enough so that we can be confident that they are explaining different variances
Want IVs to be correlated w/ DV, but not each other
Correction for running multiple tests
Bonferroni correction (divide alpha levels by X) – most conservative
Correct for family-wise error
Factor analysis vs. principal components analysis
Social contact: 12 specific prompts; 8 identity prompts
Educational contact: 9 specific prompts
General media contact: 12 specific prompts
Anti-Transgender Prejudice
(Scale 32 – 224)

8. Results Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 3:
M = 95.59
Heterosexual, Cisgender Male
Hypothesis 1:
Personal contact had a significant effect on anti-transgender prejudice
Hypothesis 2:
Each type of contact had a significant effect on anti-transgender prejudice
Hypothesis 3:
Heterosexual, cisgender men reported higher levels of anti-transgender prejudice
t(303)= 8.594, p < .001
M = 67.16
Heterosexual, Cisgender Female
Questions:
Not simple linear regression b/c contact is comprised of many different factors
Multicollinearity  predictor variables may be highly correlated
Want them to be different enough so that we can be confident that they are explaining different variances
Want IVs to be correlated w/ DV, but not each other
Correction for running multiple tests
Bonferroni correction (divide alpha levels by X) – most conservative
Correct for family-wise error
Factor analysis vs. principal components analysis
Social contact: 12 specific prompts; 8 identity prompts
Educational contact: 9 specific prompts
General media contact: 12 specific prompts
Anti-Transgender Prejudice

9. Implications Personal contact = increased visibility
Educational contact = decreased biases
General Media Contact = facilitate healthy dialogue

10. Questions?
Thank you!

11. References
Allport, G.W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Case, K. A., & Stewart, B. (2013). Intervention effectiveness in reducing prejudice against transsexuals. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2), doi:
Frazier, E. F. (1949). Race contacts and the social structure. American Sociological Review, 14, doi:
Meyer, I.H., Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin 129 (5), doi: /
Norton, A. T., & Herek, G. M. (2013). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward transgender people: Findings from a national probability sample of U.S. adults. Sex Roles, 68(11-12), doi:
Oost, K. M., Livingston, N. A., Gleason, H. A., Cochran, B. N. (2016). Gender Nonconformity, Psychosocial Stressors, and Psychopathology: Looking Beyond Sexual Orientation. Journal of LGBT Youth, 13(3), doi: /  
Riezler, K. (1944). The Social Psychology of Fear. American Journal of Sociology, 49(6), doi: /
Tompkins, T. L., Shields, C. N., Hillman, K. M., & White, K. (2015). Reducing stigmatoward the transgender community: An evaluation of a humanizing and perspective-taking intervention. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 2(1), doi:
Walch, S. E., Ngamake, S. T., Francisco, J., Stitt, R. L., & Shingler, K. A. (2012).The attitudes toward transgender individuals scale: Psychometric properties. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, doi: /s
West, K., Hewstone, M. & Lolliot, S. (2014). Intergroup Contact and Prejudice Against People With Schizophrenia, The Journal of Social Psychology, 154:3, , DOI: /
Yuker, H. E., & Hurley, M. K. (1987). Contact with and attitudes toward persons with disabilities: The measurement of intergroup contact. Rehabilitation Psychology, 32(3),