EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CUES ON RESPONSES TOWARD CONTAGION- RELEVANT GROUPS

Transcription

1 EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CUES ON RESPONSES TOWARD CONTAGION- RELEVANT GROUPS By STEVE NEWELL A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2 2012 Steve Newell 2

3 For my family 3

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank Dr. Catherine Cottrell both for her guidance on this project and for her positivity, enthusiasm, and direction as a mentor. I also thank my lab-mate Corey Cook, of the University of Florida, for his feedback and advice on this and other projects. Additionally, I thank Drs. John Chambers and Bonnie Moradi for offering their insight while serving as committee members. Finally, I thank all of my research assistants for their hard work and willingness to run the various studies I put together. 4

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS... 4 ABSTRACT... 7 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION... 9 The Socio-functional Threat-Based Model Threat-Based Prejudice toward Gay Men STUDY Method Participants Measures Procedure Results and Discussion Analyses Affective and Evaluative Thermometer Measures Policy Items Perceptions of Threat Affective Responses Attitude Measures Discussion STUDY Method Participants Measures Results and Discussion Analyses Policy Responses Discussion GENERAL DISCUSSION Summary Conclusions APPENDIX A ATTITUDES TOWARD GROUPS

6 B COMMUNITY STUDY POLICY ITEMS LIST OF REFERENCES BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

7 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science EFFECTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CUES ON RESPONSES TOWARD CONTAGION- RELEVANT GROUPS Chair: Catherine A. Cottrell Major: Psychology By Steve Newell May 2012 From the socio-functional threat-based approach to prejudice, cognitive and affective responses to groups are based on specific, discrete threats thought to be posed by those groups. For example, gay men are stereotypically thought to be a threat via contagion, either to values or health. A threat-based approach also suggests that an individual s sensitivity to a threat may depend upon environmental cues relevant to that threat. What effect do these cues and associated sensitivity have on people s responses to groups? Specifically, could environmental cues to contagion (e.g., sneezing, coughing) increase negative responses to the groups, such as gay men, associated with these threats? Furthermore, could environmental cues denoting health and sanitation (e.g., hand sanitizer) cause more positive responses to these groups? To test this hypothesis, participants provided reports of their attitudes toward a number of social groups as part of a 2 2 (exposure to contagion cues exposure to sanitation cues) design. Participants exposed to a sick confederate displayed more negative attitudes toward gay men but were unaffected by sanitizer use. Effects of contagion cues on responses to Muslims were moderated by sanitizer use for a pair of threats, safety and property concerns. A follow-up study with a community sample found no 7

8 effects of contagion cues on attitudes toward policies targeting gay men or Muslims. Overall, environmental cues exerted influence on responses to groups in specific patterns generally predicted by the socio-functional threat-based approach and associated literature. 8

9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION African-American, Muslim, Jew, Gay, Hispanic. For many, these are simply titles of groups to which one could claim membership. Unfortunately, for others, encountering these groups brings to mind negative thoughts and feelings. These thoughts and feelings can arise seemingly automatically (Devine & Monteith, 1999). These negative sentiments could be thought of as prejudice, an unfavorable opinion of a person or group, in its simplest form. A more complete definition was offered by pioneering psychologist Gordon Allport (1954). Allport described prejudice as aversive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to that group (p. 7). Prejudice toward individuals or groups can have significant effects in almost any type of interpersonal or intergroup interaction. For example, prejudice has been shown to affect hiring practices, housing options, support for public policies and spending, and even non-verbal behaviors, such as eye contact (Barkan & Cohn, 2005; David, 2009; Fazio et al., 1995; Pager & Shepherd, 2008). It is the job of the psychologist to understand when and why prejudice occurs. Without a thorough understanding of the factors that promote and exacerbate prejudice, it is more difficult to find effective, viable methods of prejudice reduction. Therefore, it is necessary to thoroughly study the factors that can influence an individual s attitudes toward groups. This is the goal of the current proposed research. We seek to understand the role that environmental cues play in individuals evaluations of threat from groups they encounter. While there are many models utilized in understanding prejudice, the socio- 9

10 functional threat-based approach (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Neuberg & Cottrell, 2006) is the primary model through which the current theoretical perspective is derived. The Socio-functional Threat-Based Model Humans evolved primarily as an ultra-social species (Campbell, 1982). In order to maximize the opportunities available in the environment and increase their chance of survival, humans have depended on one another to varying degrees throughout our history. Those individuals working together in groups and societies over time most likely featured higher levels of survival than those working individually due to advantages from the ability to divide labor, accumulate resources more effectively, and protect themselves from safety threats (Campbell, 1982). Consequently, societies that function effectively have the tendency to feature certain social structures and systems that facilitate their survival. As a result of the necessity of maintaining group structures and processes beneficial to survival, humans have evolved psychological mechanisms for detecting threats to themselves and their group (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). In both intragroup and intergroup interactions, the cost of failing to recognize a threat, such as physical contamination, from another individual or group can often have disastrous results in terms of reducing survival fitness. Therefore, individuals skilled in detecting threats to themselves and the systems upon which they rely would most likely have significantly increased survival odds and become more likely to thrive and reproduce (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Threats to individuals can result from, but are not limited to, threats to: physical safety, attacks on property, damage to health from contagion, or violations of group norms such as reciprocity or morality (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). 10

11 According to the socio-functional threat-based model, prejudice and discrimination result from a perceived threat(s) posed by an individual or group (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). The initial step in the model is the perception of a specific threat from a group (which may or may not have any basis in reality). This occurs through the cognitive appraisal of a group s threat to the in-group or individual. This cognitive appraisal of threat is judged through the lens of cultural knowledge, stereotypical information, social learning, and heuristics (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Thus, different groups have been shown to be believed to pose qualitatively distinct threats (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Neuberg & Cottrell, 2006). In studies conducted on the threats perceived by European- American undergraduate students, gay men were identified as a threat to health while other groups, such as African-Americans or Mexican-Americans, elicited qualitatively different perceptions of threat via physical safety concerns (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Following the cognitive appraisal of a distinct threat to the group, the sociofunctional threat-based model predicts a discrete affective response. Depending on the threat perceived, different affective responses are elicited, thus continuing the pattern of qualitatively distinct responses to different groups (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Cottrell, Richards, & Nichols, 2010; Neuberg & Cottrell, 2006). These qualitatively different affective responses are one of the more unique features of the socio-functional threatbased model. Rather than producing a general negative affect as would normally be considered in many theories of prejudice (e.g., group categorization, realistic conflict, self-enhancement motives, etc.) distinct affective responses are elicited based on the specific threat posed by a particular group. These affective responses can include anger, fear, pity, disgust, or guilt. Affective responses differ depending on the perceived 11

12 threat (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Individuals who perceive a safety threat are likely to respond with a functional affective response, such as fear, rather than a response not tailored to dealing with that specific situation, such as pity or guilt. Investigating prejudice using another paradigm may not predict or detect these discrete affective responses. Understanding the origin and unique features of these affective responses and the responses they tend to promote will allow for a greater understanding of prejudice and discrimination. Following the cognitive appraisal of threat and discrete affective response, a functional behavioral response may be elicited. While behavioral actions follow affective responses, the two are tightly linked as affect is one of the factors responsible for directing an individual s behavior (Gaulin & McBurney, 2003). The type of behavioral response elicited depends upon both the perceived threat and affective response. A behavioral response to a health threat isn t functionally adaptive to dealing with a violation of social norms, such as those regarding reciprocity. Health threats, for example, are likely to lead to disgust and corresponding attempts to isolate the health risk or avoid it. A physical safety threat would prompt fear in individuals and lead to attempts to escape the fear-provoking stimuli. Therefore, individuals are likely to respond to different threats with distinct behavior as opposed to a general negative response. The socio-functional threat based model allows researchers to understand the origins of prejudicial attitudes to groups. The model also allows us to gain a more complete view of the steps involved that lead to the ultimate behaviors. Threat-Based Prejudice toward Gay Men Sexual prejudice (negative attitudes toward individuals as a result of their sexual orientation) is still a wide-spread phenomenon in the United States and many western 12

13 countries (Herek, 2000). A number of studies have shown prejudice toward gay men in explicit attitude measures (Ratcliff, Lassiter, Markman, & Snyder, 2006; Yang, 1997). Beyond explicit attitudes, prejudice toward gay men is evident in a number of domains and behaviors demonstrated in studies where men perceived to be gay receive less help, individuals seek more social distance from gay men, and children are bullied for being gay (Clark, Kitzinger, & Potter, 2004; Gentry, 1987; Hendren & Blank, 2009). Recent legislation, such as California Proposition 8 which declared that only marriage between a man and a woman would be recognized by the state, directly target the rights and liberties of gay and lesbian individuals. The presence of prejudice and discriminatory action on so many levels (interpersonal, economic, legislative, etc.) requires that researchers investigate the causes and factors that affect prejudice toward this group. Recent research on the subject of sexual prejudice against gay men has identified disgust as one of the central variables (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis, 2010). From the threat-based approach to prejudice, gay men are stereotypically seen as a threat to values and health via contamination (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Individuals perceive a health threat when out-groups are thought to carry harmful, dangerous, or contagious physical contaminants that threaten the in-group, such as illness or disease (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). The perceived health threat from gay men is likely a result of stereotypic links between gay men and HIV/AIDS and promiscuity (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005; Netzley, 2010). Individuals perceive threats to values when out-groups are thought to advocate different moral or value systems that threaten the current established value system. The threat to values could be the result of moral 13

14 outrage or fear of socialization of children by gay individuals (Eckes & McCarthy, 2008). These perceived threats prompt an affective disgust response on the part of individuals who perceive this threat. In a study by Terrizzi, Shook, & Ventis (2009), disgust significantly predicted participants prejudicial attitudes toward gay men. Cottrell, Richards, & Nichols (2010) demonstrated that disgust toward gay men significantly predicts attitudes toward public policies related to the group, such as gay marriage and adoption rights. We have chosen to focus on prejudice toward gay men for a number of reasons. Gay men have a reasonably well-defined threat dimension; gay men are perceived to threaten health and values through contagion (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). A well-defined primary threat dimension allows for exploration into the secondary factors that affect responses toward the group. The current studies will focus on health threat via contagion. Although prejudice toward gay men may also be the result of moral disgust, it is beyond the scope of the current studies. A focus purely on health threat via contagion allows for the use of specific manipulations and situations. Environmental Effects on Responses As noted above, significant literature links gay men to perceived contagion threat and affective disgust. These cognitive and affective responses to the group are thought to be the cause behind prejudicial responses (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). However, individuals rarely encounter gay men in situations lacking context. It is, therefore, important to consider what role the environment plays in moderating these responses. Prior studies have shown that environmental cues and context can play a significant role in responses to groups. Schaller, Park, and Mueller (2003) showed that individuals 14

15 who score high on the Belief in a Dangerous World Scale (BDW) responded to images of Black men by showing stronger implicit associations with danger-related stereotypes when shown in dark environments versus lighter environments; this response was not seen for individuals low in BDW. That is, individual differences in beliefs about the safety and order of the world interacted with environmental cues to promote more negative responses toward Black men. This provides significant evidence to the role environment cues play in responses to groups; individuals can be primed by threatrelevant environmental cues to display increased sensitivity to the groups associated with these threats. As another example of environmental effects on responses, Lee, Schwarz, Taubman, and Hou (2010) demonstrated that participants attitudes and perceptions of risk were affected by environmental cues to contagion. Lee et al. exposed participants to a sneezing confederate, which led to increased perceptions of risk to contagious disease. Furthermore, participants also showed shifts in policy preferences indicating increased desires for contagion-related governmental funding, such as additional research funding for vaccines. Environmental Cues and Threat-Based Prejudice To test this, I propose a study examining how people s attitudes toward groups are affected by environment cues to contagion versus health (Study 1). It is possible to do this by collecting a wide variety of information on the various dimensions of people s attitudes toward these groups and manipulating the environmental cues present. Specifically, we will look at responses toward gay men and a group, Muslims, not tied to disgust or contagion in the literature. Muslims are more closely linked to safety concerns 15

16 and fear than contagion and disgust (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) and thus provide a control group for our study. Manipulating whether participants are exposed to a confederate feigning illness should cause significant differences in their concerns of contagion, disgust, and attitudes related to the gay men, but not Muslims. Working from the same viewpoint, environmental cues denoting cleanliness and sanitation should lead to decreased concerns of contagion and lead to lower levels of disgust and more positive attitudes toward a group associated with these threats, but not a group associated with other threats. Having participants engage in behaviors, such as using hand sanitizer, that provide a buffer from contagion or reduce contagion risks should cause the opposite effect of the contagion cues for responses to gay men, but not Muslims. Because our research seeks to further disentangle the role the environment plays in responses to groups, it is valuable to show these responses in the field (Study 2). We will also attempt to demonstrate how encountering a sick confederate outside the laboratory affects responses on a real-world test of attitudes toward groups (in this case, support for legislative policies that benefit gay men and other contagion-relevant groups). Because we will be looking only at policy attitudes in this second study, we will modify the groups we use to include: ethnic minorities, obese individuals, individuals with HIV/AIDS, illegal immigrants, Muslims, and gay men. Not only do these groups allow us to look at a wide variety of groups people encounter, but they also vary in threat dimension. While our first study focused primarily on a contagion-relevant group and a non-contagion relevant group, our second covers a larger variety of groups and threats. To attempt to maximize our external validity, we will not use the hand sanitizer 16

17 manipulation in the field study. People often encounter contagion threats, such as a nearby sick individual, in everyday situations. In contrast, people are less likely to be offered hand sanitizer or similar products in everyday interactions. Our hypotheses fall in line with what would be expected based on the threat-based framework. When participants are exposed to a cue in their environment that denotes contagion, they should be more inclined to show concern for and aversion to contagion threats, such as gay men (Hypothesis 1). This should be the case when participants are exposed to our sick confederate; participants should show increased sensitivity to contagion threats. This increased sensitivity to contagion threats should cause individuals to become more negative in their evaluations of gay men. More specifically, participants with this heightened sensitivity should view them as an increased risk of contaminating their health and respond with higher contagion threat perceptions and disgust. These participants may also show more negative responses on attitudinal measures, such as policy preferences, explicit prejudice measures, or measures of modern prejudice. In keeping with the specificity of the socio-functional threat-based approach, we don t expect significant differences in responses to Muslims as a result of exposure to our sick confederate. We hypothesize participants will respond in a similar fashion when exposed to environmental cues denoting sanitization and health. If participants use a hand sanitizer product, they should be less concerned about contagion threats in the immediate environment. This lowered contagion sensitivity should lead to lower contagion threat and disgust toward gay men (Hypothesis 2). This lowered cognitive threat and affective disgust should lead to more positive responses on attitudinal 17

18 measures. Furthermore, as with the contagion cues, response toward Muslims should show little change. Participants should respond similarly in the field replication (Study 2). Participants should be less supportive of policies that benefit gay men and other contagion-relevant groups when they encounter a sick confederate (as compared to situations not involving a sick confederate). For other groups not strongly associated with contagion threats, there should be little change in support for group-relevant policies. 18

19 CHAPTER 2 STUDY 1 To test our hypotheses regarding the effects of environmental cues on responses to contagion relevant groups, particularly gay men, I conducted a 2 2 (contagion cues sanitizer use) study that examined how manipulating environmental cues to contagion or health can result in changes in affective, behavioral, and cognitive changes responses to a group. As described above, I will focus on comparing how people in the different experimental conditions perceive gay men versus Muslims. I expect these environmental cues to exert larger effects on reactions to gay men than reactions to Muslims. As prejudice toward gay men is partially the result of perceived threats to health via contagion, environmental cues relating to contagion and sanitation should affect participants sensitivity to this type of threat and the groups associated with it. To manipulate the environment cues denoting contagion in the environment, we utilized confederates of the lab instructed to display symptoms of a cold when interacting with the participants; confederates did not display these symptoms in other conditions. The cold symptoms consisted of two coughs and a sneeze while experimenters led participants to the lab and provided instructions. By having a confederate of the lab feign cold symptoms, we exposed participants to a controlled environment with cues denoting risk to health via contagion. The presence of a sick individual in the immediate environment should prime the individual to be more aware of health risks. We also used a second environmental cue denoting sanitation and cleanliness. If contagion cues in the environment can cause individuals to become more cognizant of threats to their health via contamination, it is theoretically possible that the opposite 19

20 could occur when they encounter cues that prime cleanliness and sanitation. Depending on condition, participants were or were not offered hand sanitizer prior to reporting responses toward gay men and Muslims. Method Participants Participants were 151(102 females, 46 males, 3 unidentified) undergraduate students from the University of Florida given partial course credit for participation. Participants ages ranged from 18 to 31 years (M = 18.83, SD = 1.65). Of the 151 participants, 135 identified as exclusively heterosexual, 6 as mostly heterosexual, 1 as bisexual, and 6 as exclusively homosexual/gay/lesbian. Measures Participants completed a variety of measures to test the various aspects of their attitudes toward the groups included in the study, particularly gay men and Muslims. All items are presented in Appendix A. First, participants provided their opinions on a variety of policy items. Each policy item was designed to target a specific group. Agreement with the policy items is rated on a seven point scale from 1 (Strongly Oppose) to 7 (Strongly Favor). An example of a policy item focusing on gay men was How much would you support a government action that grants homosexual couples the right to marry one another? The policy items are adapted from a similar set used by Cottrell, Richards, & Nichols (2010). For the current study, the policy items demonstrated adequate reliability, ranging from α =.50 for Muslim-focused policies to α =.92 for gay men-focused policies. Policy items 4, 8, and 15 targeted gay men; items 3, 9, and 17 targeted Muslims. Policy items were averaged to create a composite variable indicating support for policies targeting each group. 20

21 Participants also completed a number of ratings of perceived threat for each group. Twelve items were designed to uncover the cognitive responses participants have in response to the included groups. An example threat item is In general, I feel that gay men increase the risk of physical illness for people like me. Agreement with the threat items was rated on a seven point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). Threat items were paired and averaged to create a composite threat item for each threat dimension. Composite threat items included items measuring perceptions of threat regarding contagion, morality, reciprocity violations, safety, and physical property. The composite for health threat would combine the example item above and In general, I feel that gay men harm the medical health of people like me. These items and composites were previously used by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005) to look at perceived threats from groups. In the current study, items correlated highly within pairs, rs >.78. Similar to the threat measure, participants completed a measure of affective responses to each group. Affective response items are also taken from Cottrell and Neuberg (2005). This measure includes items such as When I think about my impressions of gay men, in general, I feel disgusted toward them. The measure contains a pair of items for pity, anger, disgust, fear, and general negative affect. Agreement with the threat items was rated on a seven point scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). As with the threat items, item pairs were averaged to form composites. In the current study, these item pairings correlate highly, rs >.67, ensuring reasonable internal consistency for the measure. 21

22 Following with the affective and cognitive ratings of the groups on a variety of factors, participants were also asked to provide overall ratings of the groups. Participants were asked to provide A number between 0 and 100 to indicate your overall evaluation of gay men ; they were presented with an item for each group. Scores for the evaluative thermometer ranged from 0 (Extremely Unfavorable) to 100 (Extremely Favorable). They were also asked to provide affective ratings of each group. An example item is Please provide a number between 0 and 100 to indicate your feelings towards gay men. Scores for the affective thermometer ranged from 0 (Extremely Cool) to 100 (Extremely Warm). Participants completed the Modern Homonegativity Scale. The Modern Homonegativity Scale is designed to test modern prejudice (Morrison & Morrison, 2002). A 12 item version of the measure focusing on gay men (MHS-G) was used for this study. The measure focuses on negativity toward gay men in social contexts such as excessive demands by gay interests, overblown complaints of discrimination, and lack of assimilation into mainstream culture. Participants are instructed to indicate agreement using a scale from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree) on items such as Gay men should stop shoving their lifestyle down other people s throats. The measure demonstrated adequate reliability in the current study (α =.92). Participants also completed an explicit measure of prejudice toward gay men. The Attitudes toward Gay Men scale provides a measure of an individual s acceptance of gay men. The shortened version of the measure consists of five items rated on from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). An example item for the measure is I think 22

23 male homosexuals are disgusting. In the current study, the scale was adequately reliable (α =.92). Because participants were asked to complete a number of self-report measures of responses to groups, the Motivation to Control Prejudiced Responses scale was administered. The Motivation to Control Prejudiced Responses Scale provides a measure of individual difference in the desire to have thoughts and give answers or responses that could be perceived as prejudiced (Dunton & Fazio, 1997). The measure consists of 17 items rated on a 7 point scale from -3 (Strongly Disagree) to 3 (Strongly Agree). An example of an item used on the scale is I get angry with myself when I have a thought or feeling that might be considered prejudiced. In the current study, the scale possesses adequate reliability (α =.81). The scale is a valid measure of motivation to control or inhibit prejudiced responding and correlates highly with modern prejudice scales, such as the Modern Racism Scale. Participants also reported responses on the Perceived Vulnerability to Disease Scale. The Perceived Vulnerability to Disease scale provides an individual difference measure of a participant s trait concern toward transmission of contagious diseases or illnesses (Duncan, Schaller, & Park, 2009). The scale consists of 15 items rated 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). I prefer to wash my hands pretty soon after shaking someone's hand is an example of an item on the measure. The PVD scale demonstrated adequate reliability (α =.79) in the current study. The scale also has significant correlations with other measures of vulnerability and the Disgust Scale (Haidt et al., 1994). 23

24 Finally, participants completed a thorough demographic and debriefing section. Participants were asked their age, gender, ethnicity, relationship status, religion, how important they viewed religion, and how involved they were with religious organizations. Participants were also asked their sexual orientation, how often they come into contact with gay men, and whether any of their close friends are gay males. Procedure Participants were greeted at the entrance of the lab by the experimenter. The experimenter confirmed the identity of the participant and led him/her to the lab space. In cold symptom present conditions, experimenters coughed twice while covering their mouths with their right hands before entering the lab room. Upon entering the lab room, participants were seated at a computer and given instructions for completing the informed consent procedure and study. In cold symptom present conditions, while the participant read over the consent form the experimenter feigned a sneeze while facing 90 degree to the left. Once the participant consented to participate, the experimenter took the informed consent form and departed while notifying another experimenter to help the participant begin the study. The experimental manipulation used is similar to one utilized by Lee et al. (2010). In the cold symptoms absent conditions, experimenters greeted and instructed participants in the same manner with the exception of the coughs and sneeze. After completion of the consent procedures, a second experimenter entered the lab room, opened the study questionnaire on the desktop PC, and input the participant s ID number. In sanitizer present conditions, the second experimenter told participants Since we will have so many participants using this computer, we d like you to use some hand sanitizer before you begin to keep everything clean for you and other participants. 24

25 The experimenter then requested participants use a single pump of hand sanitizer from a provided container. Experimenters in non-sanitizer conditions did not request participants use the hand sanitizer, nor was it present in the lab room. Once participants used given the hand sanitizer in appropriate conditions, or bypassed that section in nonsanitizer conditions, they received the opportunity to ask any further questions. The second experimenter then informed them to ask if they needed help and left them alone in the room to begin the questionnaires. Participants received a set of introductory instructions on the computer before beginning followed the policy items measure. Following completion of the policy measure, participants completed affective thermometers for all groups and emotion items for all groups. After participants completed the affective items, they completed evaluative thermometers and threat items for all groups. Following completion of the threat items, participants reported their responses to the Modern Homonegativity Scale, the Attitudes toward Gay Men Scale, the Motivation to Control Prejudiced Responses Scale, and the Personal Vulnerability to Disease Scale. After participants completed the scales, they provided demographic information and be answered a series of questions about their understanding of the study. Following this, participants notified the experimenter they had completed the study. The experimenter then debriefed participants and led them to the exit. Results and Discussion Analyses To reduce unexplained variance from individual differences in the motivation to control prejudice and perceptions of personal vulnerability to contagious diseases, we 25

26 added participants scores on the MCPR and PVD scale as covariates in the presented analyses. Affective and Evaluative Thermometer Measures Participants completed an affective and evaluative thermometer for the included groups. For affective warmth toward gay men, participants were significantly more negative when exposed to the contagion cues (M = 64.11, SE = 2.84) compared with 2 control conditions (M = 73.02, SE = 2.82), F(1, 137) = 4.94, p =.03, p =.04. There 2 were no effects of sanitizer use, F(1, 137) =.80, p =.37, p =.01, or interaction 2 between contagions cues and sanitizer use, F(1, 137) =.13, p =.72, p <.01. For Muslims, there was a marginally significant main effect of contagion cues on affective 2 warmth, F(1, 142) = 3.74, p =.06, p =.03. Participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 55.68, SE = 2.77) were less warm toward Muslims than those in the control condition (M = 63.31, SE = 2.80). There were no main effects of sanitizer use or interaction between cues and sanitizer use, ps >.35. Responses to the evaluative thermometer produced similar results. Participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 58.35, SE = 3.14) reported lower evaluations of gay men than those in control conditions (M = 72.08, SE = 3.16), F(1, 141) = 9.49, p <.01, 2 p =.06. Once again, there were no effects of sanitizer use or the interaction between cues and sanitizer use, ps >.36. There were no main effects or interactions for evaluative ratings toward Muslims, ps >.67. Policy Items Responses to the policies items measure were transformed into composite items for each group. There were no significant effects of the contagion cues, sanitizer use, or 26

27 their interaction for responses to legislative policies targeting gay men, ps >.37. There were no main effects or interactions for responses toward policies targeting Muslims, ps >.58, although the low level of reliability for policies targeting Muslims limits confidence in the result. Perceptions of Threat Pairs of threat-items were averaged to form composite threat items. There was a marginally significant main effect of contagion cues on perceptions of contagion threat 2 from gay men, F(1, 143) = 3.34, p =.07, p =.02. Participants exposed to the sick confederate (M = 1.94, SE =.13) reported slightly higher perceptions of contagion threat from gay men than those in control conditions (M = 1.62, SE =.13). There was no effect of sanitizer use or the interaction between sanitizer use and contagion cues, ps >.17.Similar results emerged for morality threat. Participants exposed to contagion cues (M = 3.30, SE =.23) reported slightly higher levels of morality threat concerns than 2 those in the control condition (M = 2.66, SE =.23), F(1, 143) = 3.80, p =.05, p =.03. There were no effects of sanitizer use or interaction of the variables, ps >.58. There were no effects of contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction on perceptions of threat relating to violations of reciprocity due to inability, violations of reciprocity due to choice, safety concerns, or property, ps >.09. For responses to Muslims, there were no main effects of contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction for concerns of contagion, morality, reciprocity violations due to choice, reciprocity violations due to inability, ps >.13.Furthermore, there were no main effects of contagion cues or sanitizer use in regards to physical safety concerns or property concerns, ps >

28 However, there were significant interactions between contagion cues and sanitizer use for perceptions of physical safety or property threat of threat. Sanitizer use moderated the effect of the contagion cues on perceptions of safety threat. In conditions lacking sanitizer, participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 3.14, SE =.28) reported higher levels of safety concerns than those in the control condition (M = 2,14 2 SE =.28), F(1, 143) = 6.59, p =.01, p =.04. For conditions utilizing sanitizer, participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 2.53, SE =.28) reported similar levels of safety concern as those in the control condition (M = 2.77, SE =.28), F(1, 143) = 2.36, p =.55, p <.01. A similar pattern emerged for property threat. In conditions lacking sanitizer, participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 2.71, SE =.26) reported higher levels of property concerns than those in the control condition (M = 2.08, SE =.26), F(1, 143) 2 = 2.89, p =.09, p =.02. For conditions utilizing sanitizer, participants exposed to the contagion cues (M = 2.17, SE =.27) reported similar levels of property concern than 2 those in the control condition (M = 2.57, SE =.27), F(1, 143) = 1.09, p =.30, p =.01. Affective Responses We created composite items from the pairs of affective items (i.e., disgust, anger, pity, fear, overall negativity). Participants reported significantly more disgust toward gay men in the contagion cues condition (M = 1.76, SE =.11) than the control condition (M = , SE =.11), F(1, 143) = 5.03, p =.03, p =.03. There was no effect of sanitizer use or the interaction between sanitizer use and contagion cues, ps >.62. Participants also reported significantly more anger toward gay men in the contagion cues condition (M = 1.41 SE =.07) than the control condition (M = 1.14, SE =.07), F(1, 143) = 7.22, p <.01, 28

29 2 p =.05. There was no effect of sanitizer use or the interaction between sanitizer use and contagion cues, ps >.43. For general negative affect, participants in the contagion cues conditions (M = 1.59, SE =.09) also reported significantly higher negativity than those in the control condition (M = 1.31, SE =.09) for overall negativity, F(1, 143) = , p =.03, p =.03. There was no effect of sanitizer use or the interaction between sanitizer use and contagion cues, ps >.33. There were no effects of contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction for pity or fear, ps >.14. For affective responses to Muslims, there were no effects of exposure to contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction for disgust, pity, anger, fear, or general negativity, ps >.15. Attitude Measures There were no effects of contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction on responses to the Attitudes toward Gay Men Scale, ps >.31. The was a significant main effect of contagion cues on responses to the Modern 2 Homonegativity Scale, F(1, 143) = 4.37, p =.04, p =.03. Participants exposed to the sick confederate (M = 2.65, SE =.10) reported higher modern prejudice scores than those in the control conditions (M = 2.36, SE =.10). There was no effect of sanitizer or interaction of the variables, ps >.37. Discussion Participants responded more negatively to gay men on the general thermometer measures when exposed to the contagion cues exhibited by the ostensibly sick confederate. Participants demonstrated this effect for the feeling and evaluative thermometers, indicating more negativity in terms of both affective and cognitive 29

30 responses. For a group not strongly associated with contagion threats, Muslims, there were no effects of exposure to contagion cues from the confederate on evaluative responses. However, there was an effect of contagion cues for responses to Muslims regarding affective warmth. The exposure to contagion cues may have produced more negative responses toward all out-groups, even those not strongly tied to contagion. This possibility is explained further in the general discussion. In line with hypotheses, participants reported more negative affective responses to gay men when exposed to the contagion cues. Specifically, participants who encountered the sick confederate reported higher disgust, anger, and overall negative affect. While disgust and negative affect follow our hypotheses, the significant difference in anger was not predicted. Along with disgust, Anger is a basic affective response utilized in response to a variety of threats (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Keeping in line with a functional interpretation of the data, it logically follows that participants would express more anger toward gay men when exposed to contagion cues. Perceptions of control guide attributions regarding behavior (Weiner, 1985). When individuals perceive greater personal control over behavior and outcomes, they are more willing to attribute the result to the internal characteristics of an observed person or group (Weiner, 1985). The hypothesized causes of contagion threat from gay men are personally controllable behaviors, such as promiscuity. When participants are threatened, as they were in contagion cue conditions, they perceive higher levels of contagion threat and thus are more likely to respond with anger as they likely attribute the threat to personal characteristics of the group. If participants perceived contagion threat from gay men as attributable to agentic action by gay men, such as promiscuous behavior, it should 30

31 increase the likelihood of anger responses as people blame gay men for the threat rather than circumstances or situations. Following our hypotheses, participants responded similarly on pity and fear regardless of the presence of contagion cues and sanitizer use. As hypothesized, participants reported no significant differences in affective responses to Muslims as a result of the contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction. Participants also showed trends of increased perceptions of contagion and moral threat from gay men when exposed to contagion cues when compared with environments lacking said cues. While not predicted, differences in perceptions of moral threat logically follow when considering the nature of the contagion threat associated with gay men. Gay men are stereotypically associated with promiscuity which carries a strong moral component (Halwani, 2007). If this association is part of the prejudice toward gay men, it may be difficult to detach the contagion aspect of threat from the moral one. Participants showed no effects for threats relating to violations of reciprocity, safety concerns, or property concerns as a result of contagion cues, sanitizer use, or their interaction regarding gay men. An interesting pattern of results appeared for perceptions of threat in responses to Muslims. There were no significant main effects of contagion cues or sanitizer use for threat perceptions regarding Muslims. However, there were two significant or interactions for concerns of physical safety and property. In these interactions, sanitizer use moderated the effect of the contagion cues. Participants perceived more threat 31

32 when exposed to the cues without sanitizer use and demonstrated no change in threat perceptions when using the sanitizer. There were no effects of contagion cues or sanitizer use on responding on the Attitudes toward Gay Men scale. Although participants in the contagion cues conditions rated gay men more negatively on both thermometer measures, expressed more disgust and anger, and perceived more threat from gay men, their explicit prejudicial attitudes differed little. Several possible explanations could account for this finding. Our manipulation may not be strong enough to change explicit attitudes directly relating to prejudicial statements. While participants may feel more disgust, they may not feel it strongly enough to make significantly more prejudicial explicit statements. Alternatively, participants responses could be affected by social desirability concerns. Although we controlled for individual differences in social desirability concerns, this selfpresentational motive may have prevented participants from expressing explicitly prejudiced attitudes. Finally, following our hypotheses, participants reported significantly more negative responses to the Modern Homonegativity Scale when exposed to the contagion cues. While participants in the contagion cues conditions did not report more negative scores on the explicit Attitudes toward Gay Men scale, they did report more negative responses on the scale measuring subtle prejudice. Participants who encountered our sick confederate were more willing to endorse statements criticizing gay men s lifestyles and place in society as opposed to directly attacking the group itself. 32

33 There were no consistent effects of sanitizer use across the range of dependent variables for gay men. Exposure and use of the hand sanitizer does not seem to prime sanitation or cleanliness in the way we theorized; I will discuss this point further in the General Discussion. Furthermore, sanitizer use and contagion cues did not show a pattern of meaningful interaction. Overall, there is little evidence our sanitizer manipulation primes sanitation and cleanliness at a strong enough level to reduce negative responses to the contagion-relevant groups, nor is it capable of buffering from the effects of the contagion cues in responses to gay men. However, for Muslims, there seemed to be limited evidence that sanitizer use could buffer individuals from the negative effects of the contagion cues provided by the threat interactions. 33

34 CHAPTER 3 STUDY 2 Study 2 largely replicates Study 1 with a community sample and focuses only on the effects of contagion cues on support for public policies targeting contagion-related groups. For Study 2, we have expanded the number of groups of interest. The current study involves three disgust-relevant groups (gay men, obese individuals, and individuals with HIV/AIDS) Much of the research linking gay men to contagion threats also implicates individuals with HIV/AIDS as a contagion threat. Prior literature also links obese individuals to disgust (Vartanian, 2010). The current design also includes three non-disgust relevant groups (ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, and Muslims). Ethnic minorities, illegal immigrants, and Muslims are more closely linked to safety, property, and values threats than disgust/contagion (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Participants Method Participants were 48 (30 females, 18 males) volunteers in the Alachua County, FL area. Participant ages ranged from 18 to77 years (M = 33.59, SD = 16.87). The sample was predominately White (32 White, 2 African-American, 7 Asian-American, 4 Hispanic, 5 other options). Participants were recruited from Oaks Mall, the Farmer s Market, and the downtown area. Measures Participants completed a policy measure similar to Study 1 (included in Appendix B). As with Study 1, the measure comprised 18 items relating to a number of groups. The groups include: gay men (Items 5, 10, and 17), ethnic minorities (Items 1, 14, and 16), illegal immigrants (Items 4, 6, 11), obese individuals (Items 2, 13, 18) people with 34

35 HIV/AIDS (Items 3, 8, and 15), and Muslims (Items 7, 9, and 12). Participants reported their agreement to each item on a seven-point scale from Strongly Oppose to Strongly Favor. Each policy item was designed to reflect underlying support for the target-group; greater support of the policy items is generally indicative of greater positivity toward the groups. An example of a policy item relating to gay men is How much would you support a government action that grants homosexual couples the right to marry? Items were average to create composite items for each group. All composites demonstrated adequate reliability ( s >.74) with the exceptions of policies targeting obese individuals ( =.12) and ethnic minorities ( =.55). Participants also reported their age, gender, and ethnicity. Procedure Research assistants of the laboratory worked in pairs to find volunteers in various locations around Gainesville, including the University of Florida, the Gainesville Farmers Market, and downtown Gainesville. Research assistants approached potential participants and asked Can you spare a moment to fill out a one-page questionnaire? If participants expressed interest in completing the questionnaire, the experimenter told them they were investigating policy attitudes for a political science project. The experimenter then gave the participant a copy of the consent form to look over. While participants were looking over the consent form, the experimenter pretended to sneeze then sniffle while rubbing his/her nose with a finger. This occurred with roughly half the participants; the other half was not exposed to any cold symptoms from experimenters. After participants looked over the consent form and agreed to participate, the experimenter informed them that the other researcher had the surveys and walked over 35

36 to get him/her. The second experimenter provided a copy of the questionnaire and instructions. After completing the questionnaire, participants placed the questionnaire in a provided envelope to maintain confidentiality. Finally, participants were thanked for their time and departed. Results and Discussion Analyses Items were averaged within groups to create a composite response item for each group indicating their support for the proposed public policies. Results were analyzed using one-way ANOVAs with composite policy items as dependent variables and the presence of cold symptoms as the independent variable. As noted above, the low reliability levels for obese individuals and ethnic minorities limit the reliability of the analyses for those groups. Policy Responses Among our disgust-relevant groups, there was no effect of cold symptom presence 2 on support for policies benefitting obese individuals, F(1, 46) =.019, p =.89, p <.001. Exposure to the sick confederate had no effect on support for policies targeting gay 2 men, F(1, 46) =.003, p =.954, p <.001. However, there was a significant effect of cold symptom presence on support for policies discriminating against individuals with 2 HIV/AIDS, F(1, 45) = 4.62, p =.037, p =.09. Participants exposed to the cold symptoms (M = 2.60, SE =.29) were significantly less supportive of policies discriminating against those with HIV/AIDS than those in the control condition (M = 3.44, SD =.26). 36