Perceptions of a Sexual Advance

from Gay Men Leads to Negative

Affect and Compensatory Acts of
Masculinity
Schermerhorn, N. E. S. & Vescio, T. K. (2021)
Yaren Irmak AYDIN, Deniz Şahika GÜNEY, Emine Özge BARZA, Alara ÜŞÜMEZOĞLU, Sibel
İMAMOĞLU, Sevim EROL, Selin SATAN, İlayda KIRIK, Öykü Mualla KAYA

Discrimination and violence against LGBTQ+ individuals

persist in contemporary society despite increased legal
rights and protections for sexual minorities.

These crimes are increasing in different parts of the world

and remain a global problem.

01
 “The Report on Homophobia and Transphobia-Based Hate
Crimes in Turkey in 2019” was written with the information
obtained from 150 cases through a survey conducted in our
country.

In this report, as in previous years, it was determined that most

of the hate crimes based on homophobia or transphobia were
committed at school, at home, around the house, in public
transportation vehicles or stops, in cafes and bars, on the
street or in other public spaces.

02
 Went to Court
5.3%

Of the 150 cases, 56 were actual assaults against the Reported

12%
individual, including attempted murder, physical
violence, gunshot wounds, rape or other sexual
assaults.

Out of the total of 150 cases, only 26 were reported to

the police, while only 8 went to court, and only in 4
cases the police evaluated the incident as a hate crime.

Not Reported
82.7%

03
 19% of victims received professional support (psychologist or
psychiatrist support) to overcome serious problems caused by
post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, anger or
paranoia.

04
 Group affiliation, which is the target of hate crimes, does not have to
be real from time to time, but emerges as a result of "attributions" of
the perpetrator. The more common the “stereotypes” (stereotypes) or
“essentialist beliefs” created by gender ideologies in a society, the
more common will be attributions to group affiliation.

One of the victims of attempted murder was between the ages of 13-
17, 4 of them 18-25 and 2 of them 36-45 years old.

In 26 of the 150 reported incidents, or about 17 percent, the

perpetrators were under the age of 18.

05
 There are laws protecting sexual minorities as well as laws protecting
perpetrators of violence against sexual minorities.

The "gay panic" defense, currently legal in 39 of the 50 U.S. states, allows a
murder suspect to allege temporary insanity resulting from the (real or perceived)
sexual advance of a member of the same sex.

The "gay panic" defense has been used more than 100 times since 1970,
successfully reducing sentences for defendants who murder sexual minority
members.

In our country, only 4 murders and murder attempts have appeared in the written
and visual media since 2014, which took place after the "homosexual relationship
proposal".
06
The purpose of the present research is to examine the novel questions
of (a) whether cisgender heterosexual men experience threats to
masculinity when receiving a sexual proposition from a gay man and, if
so, (b) what compensatory actions follow from threats to masculinity.

Our estimates take into account previous research on masculinity

threat and sexual prejudice against gay men, and we think that both
concepts may have been overly felt when heterosexual men
experience sexual advanced from a gay man.

07
MASCULINITY AND SEXUAL PREJUDICE

Masculinity is culturally valuable.

To be a “good man” one should (a) be high in power and status, (b) be
physically, mentally, and emotionally tough, and (c) repudiate all that
is associated with femininity.

Gay men are associated with femininity both sexually and socially;
therefore, to maintain a masculine identity, men must also distance
from and repudiate anything associated with or perceived to be gay.

08
Three existing programs of research converge to highlight the importance of anti-gay prejudice to
masculine identity.

First, straight men often fear and distance from the possibility of being misidentified as “gay”.

Second, this fear of misclassification may be exacerbated when interacting with an out-group
member.

Finally, when similarities between gay and straight men are made salient, less
distinction exists between masculinity and femininity, causing straight men to engage
in behaviors that reassert differences (reactive group distinctiveness).

09
GAY MAN AS MASCULINITY THREAT
Masculinity is a tenuous and easily threatened social
identity that one must consistently prove through the
demonstration of masculine traits (Vandello et al., 2008)

There are studies that threaten men's masculinity:

Hair braiding; Bosson et al., 2009

Experimentally manipulating social norms surrounding
masculinity; Falomir-Pichastor et al., 2019

10
GAY MAN AS MASCULINITY THREAT

When considered in these studies, it seems that gay sexuality and femininity
are often confused.

However, research on identity misclassification,

social contagion, and reactive group difference
is consistent with the conceptualization of
homosexual men as a threat to masculinity.

11
GAY MAN AS MASCULINITY THREAT

Men who believe that they have been misclassified as gay experience feelings of
anxiety and react in a way that re-establishes their desired masculine identity.

There has not been a study that directly tested whether heterosexual men
experience a threat to masculinity when they perceive sexual interest from a gay
man.

12
GAY PANIC

The "gay panic" defense attributes the

murder of gay men to the anxiety that
arises in heterosexual men who are the Given cultural norms of
recipients of a gay man's sexual masculinity, the “reasonable
interest. man” is one who can, and
should, defend his masculine
identity by any means possible
Defense lawyers often appeal to juries
including violence against
bysaying that the defendant acted as
sexual minorities.
any “reasonable man” would.

13
 •Given that same-sex sexual advances elicit both
negative affect and reactions that restore masculinity,
the present research examines whether sexual
advances of a gay man arouse responses consistent
with other masculinity threat outcomes.

14
CONSEQUENCES OF THREATS TO MASCULINITY

If straight men experience threats to masculinity when

they imagine themselves to be the target of a gay man’s
sexual advance, what are the consequences of those
threats to masculinity?

15
Findings of prior research:

•Being seen as masculine requires the acknowledgement of others (Kimmel, 2008);

therefore, threats to masculinity have led to concern about how the person is viewed
(i.e., public discomfort, e.g., Dahl et al., 2015; fear of backlash, e.g., Rudman &
Fairchild, 2004; anxiety, e.g., Vandello et al., 2008).

•To assuage emotions such as discomfort and anxiety, men experience anger
(Jakupcak et al., 2005) that, in turn, predicts various compensatory forms of dominance
that reestablish one’s status as a “good man” (Dahl et al., 2015).

16
 Ideological Dominance Behavioral

17
Ideological Dominance
•The compensatory acts of dominance that follow from threats to masculinity may take a
cognitive a form, which have previously been documented as a pattern of ideologies that
implicitly subordinate out-group members (Dahl et al., 2015; see also Connell, 1995; Jackman,
1994).

•In the present study, it was predicted that a masculinity threat constituted by
same-sex sexual advance would sequentially arouse discomfort, anger, and
anti-gay prejudice (i.e., ideological dominance over gay men).

It was examined whether the predicted ideological dominance effects are constrained to
dominance attitudes toward groups representing a threat in a given context (here gay men),
or all groups repudiated by masculine norms (gay men and women).

18
Behavioral

•The compensatory acts of dominance that follow from threats

to masculinity may also take a behavioral form, as aggression
and behavioral dominance may be a particularly effective
means of reestablishing masculinity.

•The forms of aggression that follow threats to masculinity

include displays of physical aggression, displays of physical
strength, social and economic aggression, sexual aggression,
and the sexualization of women.

19

Behavioral

•Prior studies have shown that threats to masculinity lead to increased use of both both sexist
and anti-gay humor to restore masculinity, denying that discrimination against gay men exists,
and decreased interactions with gay men.

•According to Hunt et al., even gay men distance from

feminine (but not masculine) gay men following a masculinity
threat.

20

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH

AND COMMONALITIES ACROSS STUDIES
The present research examined whether being the
target of a sexual advance from a gay man
constituted a masculinity threat to straight men.

Increased public discomfort and subsequent anger

(Masculinity Threat Hypothesis)

Predicted compensatory acts that functionally

reestablish one’s status as a “good man”
(Compensatory Hypothesis).

21
They examined whether threats to masculinity serially inspired
public discomfort and anger;

Predicted increased sexism (Studies 1 and 3)

Anti-gay attitudes (Studies 1–4)
Endorsement of masculinity (Studies 1 and 2)
Aggression toward gay men (Study 4)
—ideological and behavioral compensation outcomes

22
In this research, 4 studies were conducted.

Study 1: Tests the hypotheses of masculinity threat and compensatory behaviors that
occur in the presence of masculinity threat.
Study 2: Examined if, when they experience a gay man’s sexual advance, straight men
would compensate by reinforcing perceived differences between gay and straight men.
Study 3: Designed to test masculinity threat versus objectification predictions (gay men
and/or straight women).
Study 4A and 4B: Compared a sample of heterosexual men from the United Kingdom,
where "gay panic" defenses are uniformly banned to a sample from the United States.

23
 They recruited samples larger than previous work because they were
interested only in heterosexual men and excluded participants who indicated
that their sexuality was anything other than heterosexual.

The primary manipulation across all studies asked participants to first write
about their reaction to the imagined interaction.
Participants who did not write were not included in the analyses as they did not
complete the experiment.

24
 Finally, to manipulate perceived sexual advance, they conducted a pilot study.

They used the expanded flirtation behavior scale to ask heterosexual male
participants;

(1) how frequently they believed a gay man would use specific methods of
flirtation with a straight man and

(2) how concerned they would feel about their friends’ responses if they saw a
gay man use the flirtation behavior toward them.

25
 The flirtation behaviors were coded as either involving
some sort of physical touch or not involving physical
touch.

T-tests revealed that straight men reported more

concern when imagining physical flirtation.

26
 Based on the pilot study, for this research;
They have chosen flirting behaviors that involve believable but also worrying
flirting comments or physical contact to manipulate a homosexual man's sexual
advance.

27
 STUDY 1

Study 1 tests masculinity threat and compensatory far-reaching

assumptions about masculinity threat.
Here, the concepts presented by the researcher for the entire
compensatory dimension are as follows: Public discomfort, anger, hyper-
masculinity, sexism and homophobic attitude.

28
 METHOD

PARTICIPANTS
269 heterosexual, cis-male college students participated online.

MATERIALS AND PROCEDURES

Of the participants, 132 were randomly assigned to be opponent
restrictions, and 137 were randomly assigned to evade the threat.

29
 METHOD

MANIPULATION OF THREAT

The participants were asked to imagine the following scenario:

Threat: [The imagined roommate] notices you as well, stares at
you for a moment before smiling and remarking
“Wow, you’re in really good shape.”
Non-Threat: [The imagined roommate] notices you as well, stares
at you for a moment before smiling and asking, “How is your
day going? Any big plans for the weekend?”

30
 MEASURES

PUBLIC DISCOMFORT
For example: “How ….. do you feel when you read the testimony of someone else you
just dreamed about?”(anxious, nervous, defensive,depressed, calm, joyful, happy, and
confident)
ANGER
Participants also reported which their anger could be attributed to :
a) to themselves
b) the other person in the situation
c) situation

31
 MEASURES

HYPERMASCULINITY
For example, there are sentences that measure risk behavior such as “I’d rather gamble
than play it safe” vs. “I’d rather play it safe than gamble’’

SEXISM

For example, the article "A good woman

should be exalted/idealized by her man" is
benevolent sexism; The article "Women are
easily irritable" contains hostile sexism

32
 MEASURES

ANTI-GAY PREJUDICE
Anti-Gay Prejudice, homophobia
For example, “I enjoy the company of
homosexuals” or “Homosexuality is
immoral”

33
 RESULTS

MANIPULATION CONTROL
First, open-ended answers were sent to the Language Inquiry and Word Count site.
Participants in the threatening situation expressed statistically significantly more negative
emotions (p=0.03) and anxiety (p=0.02).

Imagining that the homosexual roommate is the center of sexual attention, compared to
chatting with the imaginary homosexual roommate, led to a greater increase in public
discomfort , resulting in increased anger.

34
 RESULTS

In contrast, anger predicted hostile sexism with

a small but statistically significant effect. But
unexpectedly, anger did not predict benevolent
sexism, prejudice against homosexuality, or
hyper-masculinity.

35
 DISCUSSION

Increased discomfort and anger in heterosexual men who are the focus of sexual
attraction of a homosexual man supports the hypothesis for masculinity threat. In the light
of previous research, it can be said that while the threat of being "misclassified" as gay
can only occur by communicating with a gay man; In this study, it was found that the
negative effect occurred not only when chatting with a gay man, but also when imagining
a sexual advance with a gay man ( a homosexual man being the center of attention).

36
 STUDY 2
Study 2 examined the compensatory status of heterosexual men in the event of a sexual
development among heterosexual men. The three hypotheses in the study are as follows:

Heterosexual man avoiding homosexual men

The heterosexual man's denial of discrimination against homosexuals
Not intervening in homophobic (anti-gay harassment) situations

Exploratory hypotheses of the research:

Considering the heterosexuality of the participant, it was examined whether the threat to
masculinity was affected or not.

If the participant imagines having a homosexual/same-sex

relationship, it is examined whether it causes feelings of shame and guilt in the person.

37
 PARTICIPANTS
Data from 225 heterosexual
undergraduate male men
were included in the study analysis. There are 4 conditions in the study:
100

75
Assertion of heterosexuality and threat of masculinity (N=59)

50
No assertion heterosexuality and no threat to masculinity (N=60)

25
Assertion heterosexuality - no threat to masculinity (N=52)

0 No assertion to heterosexuality - threat to masculinity (N=54)

te

an

al

y
it
ia
ac

ci
hi

ic

nt
As
Bl

ra
W

er

de
ti
Am

lI
ul

ia
M
ve

ac
ti

R
Na

er
th
O

38
 MATERIALS AND PROCEDURE
Participants are randomly assigned to 2 situations and are asked to imagine they are staying in a
college dorm where they have a gay roommate. The participant returns to the room from the dormitory
shower and has pain in his shoulder so he puts an ice pack on his shoulder. An offer of help comes
from the participant's homosexual roommate.

Situation where masculinity is threatened

Situation where there is no threat to masculinity
Heterosexual assertion condition
Non-assertion condition

39
 MEASURES

1. Public discomfort and anger: Public discomfort (α = .83) and anger (α = .92)
were measured with the scales used in Study 1.

2. State shame and guilt: A 15-item State Shame and Guilt Scale was used. This
scale is a likert type scale with 1-7 points (α = .77).

3. Self-Distancing: After imagining, the participants were asked about their

roommate avoidance. It was found that avoidance behavior was observed in the
participants with high scores after reverse scoring.

40
 4 . Intention to intervene in situations of anti-gay harassment: Participants were asked (1) to defend
their roommate if they were harassed because of their roommate's orientation, (2) to be nervous about
taking a night walk with their roommate, and (3) they were asked if they would feel bad if there was being
teased about their roommate's orientation.As the scores of the participants increase, their willingness to
intervene decreases (α = .79).
5. Denial of discrimination: Denial of discrimination increases as the scores on the 5-item measure
increase (α = .86).
6. Anti-Gay prejudice: A 15-item Sexual Prejudice Scale was used to measure negative judgments and
feelings about homosexual men. Higher scores indicate more anti-gay prejudice (α = .93).
7. Endorsement of masculinity: The Male Role Norms Inventory was used, which shows how much the
participant believes that men should be strong, not like women, and have high status. Participants with
higher scores had higher endorsement of masculinity (α = .88).

41
 RESULTS

Process Model 83 was used for In all analyzes, the presence of threat increased
analysis in the research. Threat condition public discomfort (b = .46, p = .001), which in turn
(threat/no threat) was entered as the caused an increase in anger (p = .64, p < .001).
independent variable while heterosexual
assertion condition (assertion/no
assertion) was entered as the moderator. Heterosexual assertion condition did not predict
Public discomfort and anger mediating; public discomfort (b = -.03, p = .847).
Self-distancing, denial of gay
discrimination, intent to intervene, anti-
Process Model 6 was used in the research. In
gay prejudice, and masculinity were
this analysis, anger elicited compensatory
entered as dependent variables and
responses. Anger was associated with an indirect
separate analyzes were performed for
effect on four of the five dependent variables
each.
(except intent to intervene).

42
 DISCUSSION
Supporting the hypothesis, when a
heterosexual man imagined having sexual
advance with a homosexual man, the variable
public discomfort increased, which increased
anger.
43
Consistent with the hypotheses,
heterosexual men reported:
(1) more likely to distance themselves from
homosexual roommates,
(2) more likely to deny the existence of
discrimination against homosexual men,
(3) more express anti-gay prejudice,
(4) more approve of hegemonic masculinity.
 STUDY 3
Researchers examined whether
threats to masculinity cause public
discomfort and anger, which in turn
leads to an increase in sexism.
Study 3 also tested if masculinity
threats were unique to the
experience of being hit on by a gay
man rather than being objectified by
others more generally (gay men
and/or straight women.

Objectification uses the knowledge of and adherence to societal power structures to

minimize the agency of the objectified (Nussbaum, 1995, 1999).
44
 STUDY 3

If the results from the previously reported studies are a result of a masculinity threat constituted
by same-sex sexual desire, we would expect that when a straight man imagines being hit on by
a gay male (but not by a straight female), he feels public discomfort, anger, and engages in
compensatory reactions to reassert his masculinity.

OR

If this pattern is a result of objectification more generally, we would expect a straight man to
experience public discomfort, anger, and engage in compensatory reactions regardless of the
flirter’s gender since gay men and women are both low-power others.

45
 METHOD
Participants
Participants were 284 heterosexual, cis-male undergraduates from a large American university
Working data set was comprised of 260 participants (Mage = 19.62)

Materials and Procedure

They used a flirter’s gender (gay male, straight female) by sexual advance (touch, no touch)

design.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions created by crossing the flirter’s
gender condition
1)gay male x threat (N = 67)
2)gay male x no threat (N) = 70)
3)heterosexual women x threat (N = 65)
4)heterosexual women x no threat (N = 58)
46
 MANIPULATION OF THREAT
Participants imagined that they were moving into their freshmen, co-ed dormitory

Then, meeting either a male or a female from down the hall.

They eventually find out that this person is either gay and single (male condition) or straight
and single (female condition).
Threat and no threat conditions were identical to those in Study 2.
After imagining themselves in the situation, participants were asked
to write about how they felt before completing measures
of public discomfort and anger.

47
 MEASURES
1) Public discomfort and anger
Public discomfort (α = .82) and anger (α = .88) were measured with the same items as in the
previous studies.
2) Self-Distancing
The same five items from Study 2 were used and a single score was calculated to measure the
likelihood to self-distance from the male hallmate (α = .87) or the female hallmate (α = .88).
3) Denial of Discrimination
The same five items were used from Study 2 denying that discrimination against gay men exists
in addition to nine items measuring the extent to which participants deny that gender inequality
exists. A single score was calculated for the denial of discrimination against gay men and denial
of gender inequality (α = .86).
(e.g., “In our society men and women are treated equally; adapted from Miron et al., 2006)

48
 MEASURES
4) Anti-Gay prejudice
They used the 15 questions from the Sexual Prejudice Scale (Chonody, 2013) specifically
about gay men. A single anti-gay prejudice score was calculated (α = .92).
5) Empathy
Participants reported how compassionate, softhearted, sympathetic, and compassionate they feel
when thinking about discrimination against gay men and women (adapted from Miron et al.,
2006).
A single score was calculated for empathy toward gay men (α = .92) and a single score was
calculated for empathy toward women (α = .88
6) Sexism
Participants completed the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) as in Study 1.
They created a benevolent sexism variable (α = .77) and a hostile sexism variable (α = .87).

49
 RESULTS

analyses using PROCESS Model 83
They conducted a series of moderated mediation

Threat condition (1 = threat, −1 = no threat) was entered as the independent variable while
hallmate gender (1 = gay male, −1 = straight female) was entered as the moderator.

Public discomfort and anger were entered as the mediators and separate analyses were
conducted for each of the dependent variables
(self-distancing, denial of gay discrimination, denial of gender
discrimination, empathy for gay men, empathy for women,
benevolent sexism, hostile sexism, and heterosexism).

50
 RESULTS
Across analyses, threat (vs. no threat) marginally led to greater public discomfort
(b = .21, p = .070) which, in turn, led to greater anger (b = .38, p < .001).

In addition, being hit on by a gay male (vs. a straight female) led to greater public discomfort
(b = .99, p < .001).

Threat (vs. no threat) led to greater public discomfort when the hall- mate was a gay male
(b = .63, p < .001) but not when the hallmate was a straight female (b = -.21, p = .272).

Replicating the findings of Study 1, anger led to increased hostile sexism (b = .14, p = .015).

51
 DISCUSSION
The results of Study 3 are consistent with the
masculinity threat hypothesis and explanation.
Straight men felt increased public discomfort, increased anger, and, in turn, reported more
compensatory reactions when they imagined a
sexual advance from a gay man but not from a
straight woman.
These findings are consistent with reports that straight men do not anticipate negative reactions
to being hit on by straight women the same way they do when they are hit on by gay men (e.g.,
Lee, 2003).
However, it appears that men do not feel reduced agency when being
objectified by women, which is in line with previous research on
objectification (Gervais et al., 2011b; Mescher & Rudman, 2014).

52
 DISCUSSION
In addition, the study cannot determine if the participant imagined a “desirable” straight
woman when imagining themselves in the situation.

Attributing dislike of an individual to prejudice stands in contrast to the theory and research on
prejudice (e.g., Gaertner & Dovidio, 2000; Glick & Fiske, 1996).

In other words, the threat to masculinity is a potent threat that overrides social desirability
concerns to appear non-prejudiced (Plant & Devine, 1998).

53
 STUDY 4A AND 4B

The first 3 studies are based on US samples where the "gay panic" defense is
legal.
Study 4a and 4b compare a sample of heterosexual men from the United
Kingdom (Study 4a), where homosexual panic defense is banned, to a sample
from the US(Study 4b).

54
 METHOD

PARTICIPANTS
Study 4A consists of 347 participants from the UK and study 4B consists of
306 participants from the US.

MANIPULATION OF THREAT
The same text used in Study 2 was used. After imagining the situation they
read in the text, the participants wrote down how they felt and filled in the
scales.

55
 MEASURES

Public discomfort and anger: Public discomfort (Study 4a: α = .87; Study 4b: α
= .81) and anger (Study 4a: α = .92; Study 4b: α = .92)

Anti-Gay prejudice: (Study 4a: α = .92; Study 4b: α = .93).

Empathy: (Study 4a: α = .91; Study 4b: α = .91).

56
 MEASURES

Reactions: Participants reported how justified they found this reaction, along
with the possibility of giving these reactions to their roommates in the given
situation for all items.

Non-violent reactions: A single score has been calculated for each participant’s
likelihood to react non-violently (Study 4a: α =.87; Study 4b: α = .90) and how
justified they found these reactions (Study 4a: α = .91; Study 4b: α = .90)

57
 MEASURES

Semi-violent reactions: A single score was calculated for each participant’s

likelihood to react semi violently (Study 4a: α = .84; Study 4b: α = .90) and how
justifiable the semiviolent reactions would be i (Study 4a: α = .91; Study 4b: α =
.90).

Violent reactions: A single score was calculated for each participant’s likelihood
to react violently (Study 4a: α = .84; Study 4b: α = .88) and how justifiable the
violent reactions would be (Study 4a: α = .76; Study 4b: α = .97).

58
 RESULTS

Likelihood to engage in aggressive behavior

The results of Studies 4a and 4b show that, when threatened by a same-sex

sexual advance, the public discomfort and subsequent anger felt by straight men,
in turn, predicted a greater likelihood to engage in non-violent, semi-violent, and
violent behaviors against the gay target.

59
 RESULTS
Justification of aggressive behavior

Participants (in both the UK and the US) more public discomfort and subsequent anger that, led to
the greater justification of nonviolent and semi-violent behaviors toward a gay man. Participants in
the Uk, but not the US, also reported that violent behaviors were justified against the gay target.

Reverse serial mediation

The analyzes were repeated by changing the order of public discomfort and anger.
As in Study 1, it was found that threat caused anger and anger caused public discomfort.
When public discomfort and anger were examined as simultaneous mediators, public discomfort was
found to be a stronger predictor of nonviolent responses, while anger was a stronger predictor of
semi-violent behaviors.

60
 DISCUSSION

Despite the ban on using the “gay panic” defence, straight men in the UK experience greater
public discomfort and more anger after imagining sexual advances from a gay man.

In fact, men experiencing masculinity threats in the UK sample not only reported that they
were more likely to engage in gay targeted nonviolent, semi-violent and violent behavior, but
also reported that these behaviors were more justified given the scenario.

While US participants experiencing masculinity threats reported that they would be more
likely to engage in homosexual targeted violence, they did not report finding that they were
more justified for these behaviors. Additional research is needed to better understand this
cultural difference.

61
 GENERAL DISCUSSİON
Importance of the Study
1. First to experimentally manipulate imagined sexual advances from a gay man to elicit a
masculinity threat response in straight men.
2. Experimental design allows for a preliminary understanding of what types of interactions
with gay men may constitute masculinity threats for straight men.
3. Reverse serial mediation model (i.e., threat → anger → public discomfort →
compensatory reactions) was significant in three of the five studies.
4. The mere repeal of discriminatory laws and policies is unlikely to ameliorate anti-gay
prejudice and violence. - United Kingdom where “gay panic” defenses are no longer
permissible in court.

62
 GENERAL DISCUSSİON
Consistent Findings
Group distinctiveness
1. Prescriptions of masculinity require straight men to distance from gay men for
alleviating the potential of being misclassified as gay.
2. Heterosexual men adopted ideologies that reinforce differences between gay and
straight men
As a result;
3. Straight men are more likely to violently aggress against a gay man following a
sexual advance and feel that this aggression is justified.
4. Physical flirtation

63
 GENERAL DISCUSSİON
Inconsistent Findings

1. Imagining a non-sexual interaction with a gay man did not constitute a masculinity
threat although imagining a sexual advance did.

2. Manipulation of heterosexual assertion did not assuage (or amplify) the threat
response (Study 2)
a. Maybe the manipulation was not strong enough.

64
 GENERAL DISCUSSİON
Shortcomings and Improvable Points

1. Trans panic and masculinity threat (Conlfate gender identity and sexuality)
2. Samples are predominantly young white men.
3. Vignettes do not specify the race of the gay target. - Personal experience
4. No interpersonal interactions - sexual advances within interactions is needed.
5. Individual differences in responses between men who experience more anxiety-
related emotions (and less anger) and those who experience more anger (but less
public discomfort).
6. Public vs. private // stranger vs. acquintance

65
QUESTIONS

1) Does gender of the person who conducts the experiment effect the research
results?

2) Studies 4a and 4b found no difference between measurements made in the

United Kingdom, where gay panic defense was banned, compared to the
United States, where gay panic defense is allowed. What might be a possible
explanation for this?

66
 REFERENCES

Fırat, S., & Erk, M. A. Eşcinsel ilişki teklifi sonrası cinayet. G. Oral (Ed.). Olgularla adli
psikiyatri ve davranış bilimleri. (pp. 333-340). Ankara: Akademisyen Kitabevi.
Kaos, G. L. (2020). 2019 yılında Türkiye’de gerçekleşen homofobi ve transfobi temelli
nefret suçları raporu. Ankara, Turkey: Kaos Gey ve Lezbiyen Kültürel Araştırmalar
ve Dayanışma Derneği.
Schermerhorn, N. E., & Vescio, T. K. (2022). Perceptions of a sexual advance from
gay men leads to negative affect and compensatory acts of masculinity. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 52(2), 260-279.

67