JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH

2017, VOL. 14, NO. 4, 345–358

https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2017.1326867

Stigma and stigma by association in perceptions

of straight allies
Susan B. Goldstein
Department of Psychology, University of Redlands, Redlands, California, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

As evidence builds for straight allies’ contributions to battling Received 17 June 2016
sexual prejudice, barriers to assuming this role must be Revised 10 December 2016
identified and dismantled. This study investigated stigma and Accepted 26 December 2016
stigma by association in perceptions of straight allies in a KEYWORDS
college population. Adjective rating items were completed by Sexual prejudice; stigma;
505 participants who identified as heterosexual and not as stigma by association; social
lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer/questioning. Results justice allies
indicated stigma by association for the male heterosexual target,
who was rated as more feminine in the ally than non-ally
condition. Implications for research and ally training are
discussed.

In recent years, straight allies have played an increasingly significant role in efforts
to reduce campus-based sexual prejudice, with the number of registered middle
school, high school, and university gay–straight alliance organizations (GSAs)
reaching greater than 4,000 in the United States alone (Kosciw, Greytak,
Bartkiewicz, Boesen, & Palmer, 2012). Washington and Evans (1991, p. 195) intro-
duced the term “ally” to refer to “a person who is a member of the ‘dominant’ or
‘majority’ group who works to end oppression in his or her personal and profes-
sional life through support of, and as an advocate for, the oppressed population.”
Allies are presumed to strive for social justice, which includes “a vision of society
in which the distribution of resources is equitable and all members are physically
and psychologically safe and secure” (Bell, 1997, p. 1).
There has been considerable research examining the effectiveness of GSAs.
These studies have produced evidence associating GSAs with a more favorable
campus climate, reduced sexual prejudice (Blumenfeld, 1994; Evans, 2002; Walls,
Freedenthal, & Wisneski, 2008), fewer instances of victimization based on sexual
orientation or gender expression (Marx & Kettrey, 2016), and improved psychoso-
cial and academic well-being for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
students (Fetner & Elafros, 2015; Kosciw, Greytak, Palmer, & Boesen, 2014; Walls,

CONTACT Susan B. Goldstein susan_goldstein@redlands.edu Department of Psychology, University of

Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., Redlands, CA 92373.
© 2017 Taylor & Francis
346 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

Wisneski, & Kane, 2013), with an effect that persists through young adulthood
(Toomey, Ryan, Diaz, & Russell, 2011).
Heterosexual students make up a substantial proportion of GSA membership
and play a significant role in efforts to promote equality (Scheer & Poteat, 2016).
Yet, little is known about how straight allies are perceived by members of their
own social identity groups or the target groups with whom they are allied. Russell
(2011) suggested that identifying the costs and rewards of being an ally is a key
question that remains unaddressed in the ally literature. This is particularly true
when it comes to information about factors associated with the engagement of
male allies (Sheer & Poteat, 2016), who are underrepresented in GSAs (Fingerhut,
2011; Goldstein & Davis, 2010; Liang & Alimo, 2005; Russell, 2011; Stotzer, 2009).
Research on barriers to taking on the ally role indicates that straight allies express
concern about being subject to stigmatization and that the anticipated perceptions
of others appear to be a significant force driving ally behavior (Dillon et al., 2004;
Duhigg, Rostosky, Gray, & Wimsatt, 2010; Goldstein & Davis, 2010).
Both qualitative and quantitative research have indicated that straight allies
expect to be perceived negatively by non-allies. For example, older adult straight
allies have reported negative reactions to their social justice activities from others,
including family, friends, coworkers, and members of the groups with whom they
are allied (Duhigg et al., 2010). Furthermore, a survey of heterosexual members of
a college GSA found that few students expected to be viewed favorably by other
heterosexuals; the majority expected that allies would be teased or harassed, and
many expressed concern about being physically threatened or avoided by other
heterosexuals (Goldstein & Davis, 2010). Although college student allies may antic-
ipate stigmatization, it is not clear whether they are in fact perceived negatively by
their non-ally peers, who—in contrast to the associates of older adult allies—often
have considerable exposure to diversity, both through curricular and co-curricular
channels.
Stigma involves characteristics that result in widespread social disapproval (Bos,
Pryor, Reeder, & Stutterheim, 2013) and extend “to more general attributions
about character and identity” (Dovidio, Major, & Crocker, 2000, p. 5). It involves
both “the recognition of difference based on some distinguishing characteristic”
and “a consequent devaluation of the person” (Dovidio et al., p. 3). Stigmatization
may result from unusual positive or negative characteristics and may arouse anxi-
ety in others (Dovidio et al., 2000). Stigmatization is central to the enforcement of
social norms, particularly when applied to behavior or identity perceived to be vol-
untary (Phelan, Link, & Dovidio, 2008). In the current study, stigmatization is rele-
vant in that the voluntary behavior of allies may be viewed as a deviation from
norms for social relations and may thus result in disapproval.
In addition to more direct forms of stigma, stigma by association has been iden-
tified as a particular concern among straight allies. Goffman (1963, p. 30), in his
classic study of stigma, used the term courtesy stigma to refer to his observation
that some individuals are “obliged to share some of the discredit of the stigmatized
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 347

person to whom they are related.” Over 2 decades ago, Neuberg, Smith, Hoffman,
and Russell (1994) found support for this phenomenon, which they termed stigma
by association, in that a heterosexual male target person was denigrated when
viewed in casual conversation with a gay male friend. In the years since, a growing
literature has supported the existence of stigma by association in regard to sexual
orientation (Horne, Rostosky, & Riggle, 2011, Jefferson & Bramlett, 2010) as well
as for individuals in a wide range of other circumstances (see for reviews Bos et al.,
2013; Pryor, Reeder, & Monroe, 2012).
Stigma by association spreads through both meaningful relationships and sim-
ple associations, such as those based on proximity (Pryor et al., 2012; van der San-
den, Bos, Stutterheim, Pryor, & Kok, 2013), but may be particularly likely for
voluntary associations, due to the perceived controllability of stigma (Sigelman,
Howell, Cornell, Cutright, & Dewey, 1991). In the case of social justice allies, it
may not always be possible to distinguish stigmatization (a response to the ally’s
behavior and identity) from stigma by association (a response to the ally’s associa-
tion with members of the targeted group), but there are some clear examples of the
latter. Straight allies, for example, express anxiety about being perceived as gay or
lesbian themselves (Duhigg et al., 2010; Goldstein & Davis, 2010), with some
behaving in ways that emphasized their heterosexuality, such as mentioning
romantic partners of the other sex (Dillon et al., 2004). Although there appear to
have been no studies to date of stigma by association in straight allies, Rudman,
Mescher, and Moss-Racusin (2013) found that a gender egalitarian man (who
might be viewed as a “male ally”) was judged as more feminine than a control
male target stimulus due to a perceived alliance with women. It seems possible that
this same form of stigma by association may apply to straight allies.
Both stigma and stigma by association may have a detrimental effect on well-
being, including feelings of anger, sadness, disgust, anxiety, and social exclusion, as
well as stress-related physical health problems (Bos et al., 2013; Chaudoir, Earn-
shaw, & Andel, 2013; Pinel & Bosson, 2013; van der Sanden et al., 2013). Stigma
and stigma by association may also play a significant role in the recruitment and
retention of members into ally organizations. If such stigmatization occurs, it
should become a central consideration for the design and implementation of ally
training. The study described below sought to assess the presence and nature of
stigmatization through an investigation of perceptions of straight allies.
In the case of allies, stigma by association would occur if any negative traits
attributed to the gay or lesbian target were also attributed to the straight ally but
not to the heterosexual target in the non-ally condition. In the current study, it
was expected that the gay male target stimulus would be perceived as less mascu-
line and more feminine than the straight male target stimulus and that the lesbian
target stimulus would be viewed as less feminine and more masculine than the
straight female target stimulus, in accord with this well-documented stereotype
(Blashill & Powlishta, 2009; Brambilla, Carnaghi, & Ravenna, 2011). Thus, if
stigma by association were to occur, the straight male ally would also be perceived
348 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

as less masculine and more feminine than the straight male non-ally and the
straight female ally would be perceived as more masculine and less feminine than
the straight female non-ally. Stigma by association in terms of the straight ally’s
perceived sexual orientation was not tested in this study, as sexual orientation was
a manipulated condition. Additional perceptions of the straight ally were investi-
gated on an exploratory basis using adjective rating scales as described below.
This study used a 2 (gender of participant) £ 2 (gender of target) £ 2 (sexual
orientation of target) £ 2 (target activity) design. Gender of participant was
included as a condition due to the robust finding that women tend to manifest
lower levels of sexual prejudice than men (Herek, 2002; Whitley, 2001). Sexual ori-
entation of the target stimulus was varied in order to differentiate sexual prejudice
from ally-associated stigma.
The straight ally target stimulus was expected to be perceived differently by
members and nonmembers of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer/ques-
tioning, and other (LGBTQC) community. Several decades of research on social
identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) have identified significant differences in
the perceptions of social groups by in-group and out-group members, including
those differentiated by sexual orientation (e.g., Simon, Gl€assner-Bayerl, & Straten-
werth, 1991). Research on White antiracist allies, for example, has distinguished
between the perspectives of dominant group members and the communities of
color with which they are allied (Brown & Ostrove, 2013). Although both domi-
nant and nondominant group perspectives are critical to an understanding of
straight allies, the current study focused on the former, and thus only participants
who identified as heterosexual and not LGBTQC were included in the analyses.

Method
This study received institutional review board (IRB) approval and all procedures
(e.g., recruitment, informed consent, confidentiality, debriefing, and data storage)
were in compliance with IRB regulations and American Psychological Association
Ethical Principles.

Participants
A total of 542 students (92% first- and second-year undergraduates) were recruited
from an Introduction to Psychology subject pool at a small liberal arts college in
the Western United States. Participation in this study was one of several options
available for these students to fulfill a research requirement, the link for which was
listed on their online course management site. Ninety-four percent of the partici-
pants self-identified as heterosexual and not LGBTQC. Thirty-four individuals
who identified as LGBTQC were excluded from the analyses. Three additional par-
ticipants were dropped due to missing data. The remaining 505 individuals (313
female) self-identified as 50% White, 18% Latino/a, 17% multiethnic, 9% Asian/
Pacific Islander, 5% Black, and 1% other identities. The participants were fairly
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 349

equally distributed across annual family income levels ranging from less than
$20,000 to greater than $100,000. They ranged in age from 18 to 29 years
(M D 18.7).

Measures and procedure

The questionnaire used in this study had two main sections: (a) demographic
items, including age, gender, race/ethnicity, and sexual orientation, and (b) a target
description followed by an open-ended item and adjective ratings.

Evaluation of target stimulus

Participants were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions in which target
gender, sexual orientation, and activity were varied as follows:
Student A is a college sophomore. She [He] is a writing major and a fairly good student.
She lives in one of the newer dorms on campus. Student A is from a middle-income fam-
ily in Los Angeles. She is 20 years old, White, and heterosexual [a lesbian or gay]. She
sometimes does some part-time work for the writing department and is an active officer
in the college gay–straight alliance [student government], where she spends several hours
each week assisting with programming.

In order to ensure that the participant carefully attended to the target descrip-
tion and processed the manipulated condition, a brief “Memory Quiz” was pre-
sented, which required that the participant recall key facts in the description.
While completing the quiz, participants were directed to click on the back button
and review the description if they were unable to recall any of the correct answers.
Following the description, to further focus participants’ attention on the target
stimulus and as a manipulation check, participants were instructed to spend a few
moments thinking about Student A and then describe their image of him or her in
a few sentences. Participants were then asked to rate the individual on 32 attributes
using a 6-point Likert scale. Adjective rating scales are frequently the method of
choice for comparing perceptions of different target stimuli (see, for example, Blas-
hill & Powlishta, 2009; Greenleaf, Chambliss, Rhea, Martin, & Morrow, 2006;
Sigelman et al., 1991). The adjective ratings in the current study were compiled
from research addressing various forms of social stigma (Blashill & Powlishta,
2009; Goldstein & Johnson, 1997; McCabe & Brannon, 2004). Table 1 indicates
the 30 items generated to assess each of 10 trait subscales in addition to the single-
item feminine and masculine descriptors. The adjective rating items were presented
in random order. Mean scores were computed to form each subscale. Assessment
of these scales in the current study produced acceptable reliabilities, considering
that Cronbach’s alpha often substantially underestimates the reliability of very
brief scales (Eisinga, te Grotenhuis, & Pelzer, 2012), including trustworthiness
(.56), sociability (.64), self-confidence (.60), altruism (.53), effort (.66), likeability
(.59), bravery (.62), attractiveness (.55) and intelligence (.66). The dominance
350 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

Table 1. Adjective rating dimensions.

1. Trustworthiness: trustworthy, honest, deceitful*
2. Sociability: lonely,* popular, shy*
3. Self-confidence: self-confident, uncertain,* insecure*
4. Altruism: helpful, understanding, selfish*
5. Dominance: demanding, submissive,* aggressive
6. Effort: hardworking, lazy,* determined
7. Likeability: pleasant, annoying,* likeable
8. Bravery: brave, courageous, weak*
9. Attractive: attractive, interesting, boring*
10. Intelligence: unintelligent,* clever, smart
11. Gender descriptors: feminine, masculine

Note.  Reverse scored.

subscale, however, had considerably lower reliability (.31) and was dropped from
the analysis.

Results
Manipulation check
A review of the open-ended item yielded no cases in which the target stimulus gen-
der, sexual orientation, or activity did not correspond to the experimental condition.

Analysis of trait descriptors

Separate 2 (participant gender) £ 2 (target gender) £ 2 (target orientation) £ 2
(target activity) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were computed for the single-
item feminine and masculine measures. Not surprisingly, for feminine, there was a
significant main effect for target gender, F(1, 502) D 96.75, p < .001, partial h2 D
.17, with the female target (M D 4.34, SD D 1.11) rated higher than the male target
(M D 3.37, SD D 1.24). There was also a significant main effect for target orienta-
tion on feminine, F(1, 502) D 15.20, p < .001, partial h2 D .03, with the gay/lesbian
target (M D 4.05, SD D 1.10) rated higher than the heterosexual target (M D 3.76,
SD D 1.39). This effect was primarily due to the higher feminine rating of the gay
male target as indicated by a significant two-way interaction between target gender
and target orientation F(1, 502) D 131.05, p < .001, partial h2 D .21. Simple effects
follow-up tests indicated that the gay male target was rated higher on feminine
(M D 4.12, SD D 0.99) as compared with the heterosexual male target (M D 2.70,
SD D 1.04), F(1, 499) D 107.89, p < .001; the lesbian target was rated lower on fem-
inine (M D 4.00, SD D 1.19) than the heterosexual female target (M D 4.71,
SD D 0.89), F(1, 499) D 34.69, p < .001. Stigma by association was indicated by a
significant three-way interaction among target gender, target orientation, and tar-
get activity, F(1, 502) D 8.62, p < .005, partial h2 D .02 (see Figure 1). Simple
effects follow-up tests indicated that the heterosexual male target was rated higher
on feminine in the GSA condition (M D 3.00, SD D 1.08) than in the student gov-
ernment condition (M D 2.41, SD D 0.92), F(1, 486) D 9.90, p < .005; see
Figure 1).
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 351

Figure 1. Feminine ratings by target gender as a function of target sexual orientation and target
activity.

The 2 (participant gender) £ 2 (target gender) £ 2 (target orientation) £ 2

(target activity) ANOVA for the single-item masculine measure resulted in a sig-
nificant main effect for target gender, F(1, 501) D 58.72, p < .001, partial h2 D .11,
as would be expected, with the male target (M D 3.56, SD D 1.07) rated higher
than the female target (M D 2.82, SD D 1.13). There was also a significant main
effect for participant gender on masculine, F(1, 501) D 14.52, p < .001, partial
h2 D .03, with the female participants (M D 3.28, SD D 1.15) assigning higher
masculine ratings than male participants (M D 2.95, SD D 1.15). Finally, there was
a significant two-way interaction between target gender and target orientation
F(1, 501) D 95.31, p < .001, partial h2 D .16. Simple effects follow-up tests indi-
cated that the female target was rated higher on masculine in the lesbian condition
(M D 3.25, SD D 1.12) as compared with the heterosexual condition (M D 2.35,
SD D 0.93), F(1, 498) D 54.38, p < .001, and the male target was rated lower on
masculine in the gay condition (M D 3.09, SD D 1.01) as compared with the het-
erosexual condition (M D 3.99, SD D 0.93), F(1, 498) D 46.37, p < .001. The test
for stigma by association, the target gender £ target orientation £ target activity
interaction, was not significant, F(1, 501) D 1.70, p D NS, but was in the expected
direction, with the heterosexual female target rated higher on masculine in the
352 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

GSA (M D 2.49, SD D 0.99) than in the student government (M D 2.22, SD D

0.86) condition.
A 2 (participant gender) £ 2 (target gender) £ 2 (target orientation) £ 2
(target activity) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was computed
for the exploratory variables, the trustworthiness, sociability, self-confidence,
altruism, effort, likeability, bravery, attractiveness, and intelligence subscales.
The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate main effect for target activ-
ity, Wilks’ λ D .96, F(8, 481) D 2.40, p < .05, partial h2 D .04. Due to the sig-
nificance of the overall test, univariate main effects for target activity were
examined. A significant univariate main effect was obtained for intelligence, F
(1, 504) D 4.76, p <.05, partial h2 D .01, in that the target in the student gov-
ernment condition was rated higher on intelligence than the target in the GSA
condition (M D 4.81, SD D 0.63 vs. M D 4.69, SD D 0.70).
The MANOVA also revealed a significant multivariate main effect for target ori-
entation, Wilks’ λ D .84, F(8, 481) D 9.96, p < .001, partial h2 D .16. Significant
univariate main effects were obtained for sociability, F(1, 504) D 24.88, p < .001,
partial h2 D .05; self-confidence, F(1, 504) D 123.20, p < .001, partial h2 D .05;
bravery, F(1, 504) D 22.24, p < .001, partial h2 D .04; and attractiveness, F(1, 504)
D 5.9, p < .05, partial h2 D .04. The heterosexual target was rated higher than the
gay/lesbian target on sociability (M D 3.99, SD D 0.78 vs. M D 3.59, SD D 0.86)
and self-confidence (M D 4.23, SD D 0.67 vs. M D 3.89, SD D 0.81), whereas the
gay/lesbian target was rated higher than the heterosexual target on bravery (M D
4.45, SD D 0.69 vs. M D 4.11, SD D 0.75) and attractiveness (M D 4.33, SD D
0.66 vs. M D 4.15, SD D 0.69). Were stigma by association operating, there would
be a significant interaction between target orientation and target activity such that
these traits that were attributed to the gay/lesbian target would also be attributed
to the straight ally. Although the scores on each of these descriptors for the straight
ally (as compared with the straight non-ally) were in the direction of the scores for
the gay/lesbian target, there was no significant multivariate interaction between
target orientation and target activity.
Additional significant findings unrelated to the investigation of stigma
and stigma by association included multivariate main effects for participant
gender, Wilks’ λ D .91, F(8, 481) D 5.08, p < .001, partial h2 D .09, with
female participants rating the target higher than did male participants on
trustworthiness, altruism, effort, likeability, bravery, attractiveness, and intelli-
gence, and for target gender, Wilks’ λ D .93, F(8, 481) D 4.03, p < .001,
partial h2 D .07, with the female target rated significantly higher than the
male target on trustworthiness, effort, and bravery. There was also a signifi-
cant participant gender by target gender interaction, Wilks’ λ D .96, F(8,
481) D 2.17, p < .05, partial h2 D .04, in that as compared with female par-
ticipants, the male participants rated the male target as lower on likeability
and attractiveness. There were no other significant main effects or
interactions.
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 353

Discussion
This study investigated manifestations of stigma and stigma by association in per-
ceptions of straight allies. Stigmatization is demonstrated when negative traits are
attributed to straight allies that are not attributed to straight non-allies or to the
gay or lesbian targets. This occurred in only one instance, in that the straight ally
was rated significantly lower on intelligence than target stimuli in the other condi-
tions. Although this finding may indicate a negative perception of straight allies, it
is also possible that it reflects the use of student government as a non-ally compari-
son activity. Participating in student government may be viewed as requiring a
high level of intelligence, particularly if it is assumed that the student government
worker has been elected to that position.
Stigma by association is demonstrated when negative traits attributed to the les-
bian and gay target stimuli spread to the straight ally. Stereotyping of the gay and
lesbian target stimuli was evident in that the gay male was rated as more feminine
and less masculine than the straight male and the lesbian was rated as less feminine
and more masculine than the straight female. These stereotyped perceptions took
the form of stigma by association in that the straight male ally was rated as more
feminine than the straight male non-ally. This was not the case for the straight
female ally; although ratings were in the direction expected for stigma by associa-
tion, they were not statistically significant. The strength of stigma by association
for the male ally, as compared with the female ally, is not surprising given the rela-
tive flexibility of socially sanctioned roles for women as compared with those for
men (Diekman & Eagly, 2000). The finding of stigma by association in perceptions
of the male straight ally may help to explain the underrepresentation of men in
GSA organizations. Male students may be less willing to join a GSA and participate
in public forms of activism if they associate the role with femininity. Lapointe
(2015, p. 163) noted that “… adopting LGBTQ-positive attitudes has the potential
to conflict with normative expressions of masculinity” and may “compromise
[male students’] privileged masculine status.” Thus, efforts to develop and main-
tain GSAs could be supported by ally recruitment and training materials, as well as
curricular and co-curricular programing, that address gender stereotypes, roles,
and identity. In addition, as Rudman et al. (2013) suggested in the context of gen-
der egalitarian men, associating willingness to stand up for equal rights with
strength may feed common notions of masculinity and facilitate the participation
of men in social justice efforts.

Limitations and directions for future research

The current study focused only on the perspectives of individuals who identified as
heterosexual and not LGBTQC. An understanding of both dominant and non-
dominant group members’ perceptions of allies is a vital and under-addressed
component of the research literature, with potential implications for enhancing
the overall functioning of GSAs and the well-being of LGBTQC individuals. As
354 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

has been demonstrated in research on antiracist allies, valuable insights can be

gained by investigating perceptions of allies by members of nondominant groups
(see, e.g., Brown & Ostrove, 2013). Future research on straight allies must consider
the perspectives and needs of the LGBTQC community as the primary force dic-
tating ally recruitment, training, and programming.
Perceptions of straight allies should also be studied using multiple methods. It is
unknown whether participants’ responses to written vignettes would correspond
to their responses to actual allies, particularly since trait descriptor rating scales,
such as those used in the current study, may be sensitive to social desirability bias
(Spector, 1992).
An additional direction for future inquiry is assessing the role of intergroup atti-
tudes in perceptions of social justice allies, as previous research links these attitudes
with LGBT stigma by association (Jefferson & Bramlett, 2010; Sigelman et al.,
1991). For example, immutability beliefs, inversely correlated with sexual prejudice
among some populations (Hegarty, 2002; Murray, Aberson, Blankenship, & Barry
Highfield, 2013), may also be a potential moderator of perceptions of straight allies.
Attention must also be given to the intersection of social identities (Cole, 2009) and
the ways in which intersectionality shapes perceptions of social justice allies. It may
be that experiencing minority status on one dimension influences how one engages
in—or perceives—ally status on another, given what Munin and Speight (2010,
p. 263) refer to as the “complex interplay between oppressed and privileged identi-
ties” in their study of college student allies. For example, Duhigg et al. (2010) sug-
gested that straight allies of color may be at greater risk due to interacting forms of
stigma.
Further research is needed to better understand how anticipated stigma and
stigma by association may impact the effectiveness of social justice allies. For
example, even if actual stigmatization is minimal, anticipated stigma may subject
allies to stereotype threat (Steele, 1997) in that an expectation of negative percep-
tions of allies may result in anxiety, and thus poor performance, in anticipation of
confirming these perceptions. Training programs might focus on helping allies to
identify situations in which they are likely to have increased stigma consciousness
(Brown & Pinel, 2003; Pinel & Bosson, 2013) and thus minimize the psychological
and physiological consequences of anticipated stigmatization.
Finally, the open-ended item, which served as a manipulation check in this
study, may indicate a direction for future research on perceptions of allies. While
this item did not provide enough focused narrative material for a systematic con-
tent analysis, an informal review of the responses suggests that the straight ally was
more likely than the gay or lesbian member of the GSA to be described as moti-
vated by altruism, citing such characteristics as empathy, compassion, or selfless-
ness (e.g., “She has a good heart and wants to help others.”). The gay and lesbian
members of the GSA, on the other hand, were more often described as motivated
by social justice concerns, based on belief in equality or civil rights (e.g., “She is
fighting to end prejudice and discrimination.”). While altruism is generally
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 355

considered a positive trait, ally motivation based on altruism “often limits [allies]
to simply responding to, rather than actively addressing, the systemic roots of
oppression” (Edwards, 2006, pp. 50–51) and may unintentionally convey a conde-
scending attitude (Tatum, 1994). The scant extant research on ally motivation
challenges the view that allies are driven solely by altruism, rather than social jus-
tice beliefs (Lapointe, 2015; Russell, 2011). Yet this perception may be fueled by
difficulties among allies in translating altruistic motivation into informed social
action. In research on antiracist allies, for example, Brown and Ostrove (2013)
found that participants of color viewed their White allies and allies of color as
equally supportive, but rated the allies of color higher on social justice action. If
found to be characteristic of straight allies in future research, altruistic motivation
might be addressed explicitly in ally training. Straight allies could be encouraged to
reflect on the motivation for their participation in a GSA and be provided with
specific strategies for enacting and communicating social justice goals.

Conclusions
This study did not find stigmatization of straight allies to be pervasive or severe.
Yet, the form of stigma identified here, stigma by association in perceptions of
male straight allies, is concerning in that it is consistent with low rates of participa-
tion among male students in GSA organizations. Additional investigation is
needed to determine predictors of this form of stigma as well as the appropriate
action to be taken in terms of the design of ally training and programming. Social
justice allies are a critical component of efforts to end marginalization and oppres-
sion. A better understanding of the experiences of allies and the way they are per-
ceived by others will allow for more effective and inclusive recruitment and
retention as well as more collaborative relations with members of the groups with
whom they are allied.

Notes on contributor
Susan B. Goldstein is Professor of Psychology at the University of Redlands where she teaches
psychology of prejudice, cross-cultural psychology and study abroad pre-departure and re-entry
courses. Her research has focused on intercultural attitudes, social justice allies, stigma, study
abroad, and strategies for diversifying the psychology curriculum.

References
Bell, L. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell,
& P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for diversity and social justice: A sourcebook (pp. 3–15). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Blashill, A. J., & Powlishta, K. K. (2009). Gay stereotypes: The use of sexual orientation as a cue
for gender-related attributes. Sex Roles, 61, 783–793.
Blumenfeld, W. J. (1994). Gay/straight alliances: Transforming pain to pride. High School
Journal, 77, 113–121.
356 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory
and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9.
Brambilla, M., Carnaghi, A., & Ravenna, M. (2011). Status and cooperation shape lesbian stereo-
types: Testing predictions from the stereotype content model. Social Psychology, 42(2),
101–110.
Brown, K., & Ostrove, J. M. (2013). What does it mean to be an ally? The perception of allies
from the perspective of people of color. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2211–2222.
Brown, R. P., & Pinel, E. C. (2003). Stigma on my mind: Individual differences in the experience
of stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 626–633.
Chaudoir, S. R., Earnshaw, V. A., & Andel, S. (2013). “Discredited” versus discreditable”:
Understanding how shared and unique stigma mechanisms affect psychological and physical
health disparities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35, 75–87.
Cole, E. R. (2009). Intersectionality and research in psychology. American Psychologist, 64, 170–180.
Diekman, A. B., & Eagly, A. H. (2000). Stereotypes and dynamic constructs: Women and men of
the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188.
Dillon, F. R., Worthington, R. L., Bielstein-Savoy, H., Rooney, S. C., Becker-Schutte, A. M., &
Guerra, R. (2004). On becoming allies: A qualitative study of lesbian-, gay-, and bisexual-
affirmative counselor training. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43(3), 162–178.
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In T. F.
Heatherton, R. E. Kleck, M. R. Hebl, & J. G. Hull (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma
(pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Duhigg, J. M., Rostosky, S. S., Gray, B. E., & Wimsatt, M. K. (2010). Development of heterosex-
uals into sexual-minority allies: A qualitative exploration. Sexuality Research and Social
Policy, 7, 2–14.
Edwards, K. E. (2006). Aspiring social justice ally identity development: A conceptual model.
NASPA Journal, 43(4), 39–60.
Eisinga, R., te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2012). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson,
Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.
Evans, N. J. (2002). The impact of an LGBT safe zone project on campus climate. Journal of
College Student Development, 43(4), 522–539.
Fetner, T., & Elafros, A. (2015). The GSA difference: LGBTQ and ally experiences in high
schools with and without gay-straight alliances. Social Sciences, 4(3), 563–581.
Fingerhut, A. W. (2011). Straight allies: What predicts heterosexuals’ alliance with the LGBT
community? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(9), 2230–2248.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Goldstein, S. B., & Davis, D. S. (2010). Heterosexual allies: A descriptive profile. Equity and
Excellence in Education, 43, 478–494.
Goldstein, S. B., & Johnson, V. A. (1997). Stigma by association: Perceptions of the dating part-
ners of college students with physical disabilities. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19,
495–504.
Greenleaf, C., Chambliss, H., Rhea, D. J., Martin, S. B. & Morrow, J. R., Jr. (2006). Weight ster-
eotypes and behavioral intentions toward thin and fat peers among White and Hispanic ado-
lescents. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 546–552.
Hegarty, P. (2002). “It’s not a choice, it’s the way we’re built”: Symbolic beliefs about sexual ori-
entation in the US and Britain. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(3),
153–166.
Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 66, 40–66.
 JOURNAL OF LGBT YOUTH 357

Horne, S. G., Rostosky, S. S., & Riggle, E. D. B. (2011). Impact of marriage restriction amend-
ments on family members of lesbian, gay, bisexual individuals: A mixed-method approach.
Journal of Social Issues, 67, 358–375.
Jefferson, S. D., & Bramlett, F. (2010). The moderating roles of gender and anti-gay prejudice in
explaining stigma by association in male dyads. Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 401–414.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Bartkiewicz, M. J., Boesen, M. J., & Palmer, N. A. (2012). The 2011
national school climate survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth
in our nation’s schools. New York, NY: GLSEN.
Kosciw, J. G., Greytak, E. A., Palmer, N. A., & Boesen. (2014). The 2013 national school climate
survey: The experiences of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender youth in our nation’s schools.
New York, NY: GLSEN.
Lapointe, A. A. (2015). Standing “straight” up to homophobia: Straight allies’ involvement in
GSAs. Journal of LGBT Youth, 12(2), 144–169.
Liang, C. T. H., & Alimo, C. (2005). The impact of white heterosexual students’ interactions on
attitudes toward lesbian, gay, and bisexual people: A longitudinal study. Journal of College
Student Development, 46, 237–250.
Marx, R. A., & Kettrey, H. H. (2016). Gay-straight alliances are associated with lower levels of
school-based victimization of LGBTQC youth: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45(7), 1269–1282.
McCabe, A. E., & Brannon, L. A. (2004). An examination of racial subtypes versus subgroups.
Current Research in Social Psychology, 9, 109–123.
Munin, A., & Speight, S. L. (2010). Factors influencing the ally development of college students.
Equity and Excellence in Education, 43(2), 249–264.
Murray, R. A., Aberson, C. L., Blankenship, K. L., & Barry Highfield, J. J. (2013). Beliefs that
sexual orientation is a choi8ce and motivation to control prejudice moderates method of dis-
ease transmission and sexual orientation effects on reactions to HIV-positive men. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 35(3), 272–285.
Neuberg, S. L., Smith, D. M., Hoffman, J. C., & Russell, F. J. (1994). When we observe stigma-
tized and “normal” individuals interacting: Stigma by association. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 20, 196–209.
Phelan, J. C., Link, B. G., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?
Social Science and Medicine, 67, 358–367.
Pinel, E., & Bosson, J. K. (2013). Turning our attention to stigma: an objective self-awareness
analysis of stigma and its consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 55–63.
Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Monroe, A. E. (2012). The infection of bad company: Stigma by
association. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 224–241.
Rudman, L. A., Mescher, K., & Moss-Racusin, C. A. (2013). Reactions to gender egalitarian men:
Perceived feminization due to stigma-by-association. Group Processes & Intergroup Rela-
tions, 16(5), 572–599.
Russell, G. M. (2011). Motives of heterosexual allies in collective action for equality. Journal of
Social Issues, 67(2), 376–393.
Scheer, J. R. & Poteat, V. P. (2016). Factors associated with straight allies’ current engagement
levels within Gay-Straight alliances. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 43,
112–119.
Sigelman, C. K., Howell, J. L., Cornell, D. P., Cutright, J. D., & Dewey, J. C. (1991). Courtesy
stigma: The social implications of associating with a gay person. The Journal of Social
Psychology, 131(1), 45–56.
Simon, B., Gl€assner-Bayerl, B., & Stratenwerth, I. (1991). Stereotyping and self-stereotyping in a
natural intergroup context: The case of heterosexual and homosexual men. Social Psychology
Quarterly, 54(3), 252–266.
358 S. B. GOLDSTEIN

Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An introduction. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and perfor-
mance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.
Stotzer, R. L. (2009). Straight allies: Supportive attitudes toward lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals
in a college sample. Sex Roles, 60, 67–80.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S.
Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA:
Brooks/Cole.
Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White students about racism: The search for White allies and the
restoration of hope. Teachers College Record, 95(4), 462–476.
Toomey, R. B., Ryan, C., Diaz, R. M., & Russell, S. T. (2011). High school gay-straight alliances
(GSAs) and young adult well-being: An examination of GSA presence, participation, and
perceived effectiveness. Applied Developmental Science, 15(4), 175–185.
van der Sanden, R. L. M., Bos, A. E. R., Stutterheim, S. E., Pryor, J. B., & Kok, G. (2013).
Experiences of stigma by association among family members of people with mental illness.
Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(1), 73–80.
Walls, N. E., Freedenthal, S., & Wisneski, H. (2008). Suicidal ideation and attempts among
sexual minority youth receiving social services. Social Work, 53(1), 21–29.
Walls, N. E., Wisneski, H., & Kane, S. (2013). School climate, individual support, or both?
Gay-straight alliances and the mental health of sexual minority youth. School Social Work
Journal, 37(2), 88–111.
Washington, R. L., & Evans, N. J. (1991). Becoming an ally. In N. J. Evans & V. A. Wall (Eds.),
Beyond tolerance: Gays, lesbians, and bisexuals on campus (pp. 195–204). Alexandria, VA:
American College Personnel Association.
Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45
(11–12), 691–721.
Copyright of Journal of LGBT Youth is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.