This article was downloaded by: [74.214.209.62] On: 26 May 2015, At: 07:04 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Psychology & Sexuality Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpse20
Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale a
a
a
Mark R. Hoffarth , Caroline E. Drolet , Gordon Hodson & Carolyn a
L. Hafer a
Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada Published online: 26 May 2015.
Click for updates To cite this article: Mark R. Hoffarth, Caroline E. Drolet, Gordon Hodson & Carolyn L. Hafer (2015): Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale, Psychology & Sexuality, DOI: 10.1080/19419899.2015.1050446 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2015.1050446
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/termsand-conditions
Psychology & Sexuality, 2015 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19419899.2015.1050446
Development and validation of the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale Mark R. Hoffarth*, Caroline E. Drolet, Gordon Hodson and Carolyn L. Hafer Department of Psychology, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON, Canada
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
(Received 16 December 2014; accepted 6 May 2015) Although asexuality (i.e., lack of sexual attraction) is receiving increasing public and academic attention, anti-asexual bias has been the focus of little empirical study. Here, we develop a measure of anti-asexual bias, the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale, consisting of a 16-item factor with strong reliability (α = .94). The ATA demonstrated convergent validity in terms of correlations with individual differences (e.g., positive relations with Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Social Dominance Orientation) and anti-asexual behavioural intentions (e.g., discomfort renting to and hiring asexuals, contact avoidance). Further, these relations were statistically unique from singlism (i.e., bias against singles). In addition, we found relations between greater ATA and greater sexism, greater traditional gender norm endorsement and lower past intergroup contact with asexuals, suggesting potential avenues for expanding our understanding of anti-asexual bias. Implications for examining anti-asexual bias as a distinct form of sexual prejudice are discussed. Keywords: asexual; sexual prejudice; discrimination; scale; measurement
Asexuality is defined as an enduring lack of sexual attraction (Bogaert, 2012). The asexual community is diverse, with asexuals varying across a spectrum of romantic attractions, sexual attitudes, sexual behaviours and identities (Carrigan, 2011). As a social category, asexuals are a sexual minority (akin to gays, lesbians and bisexuals), believed to represent between 0.4% and 1.1% of the general population (Aicken, Mercer, & Cassell, 2013; Bogaert, 2004, 2013), although more inclusive definitions of asexuality (i.e., taking into account those across a spectrum of asexuality) suggest that 3–8% of the population may be classified as asexual (McClave, 2013; Poston & Baumle, 2010; Van Houdenhove, Gijs, T’sjoen, & Enzlin, 2014). Although gay rights have been a major social and political issue for several decades, relatively little attention has been paid to asexuality. The formation and growth of the Asexuality Visibility and Education Network (2014), and the presence of the International Asexuality Conference at the 2014 World Pride (CBC, 2014), highlight the growth of the asexual community. Whereas people generally are assumed to be sexual, making asexuality invisible, asexuals are increasingly ‘coming out’ and making themselves visible (Bogaert, 2012; Chasin, 2015), leading to novel (and largely unstudied) intergroup dynamics between sexuals and asexuals. Despite being historically understudied, academic interest in asexuality is growing and emerging as a distinct interdisciplinary field (Przybylo, 2013). Researchers have *Corresponding author. Email:
[email protected] © 2015 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
2
M.R. Hoffarth et al.
examined the prevalence and correlates of asexuality (Aicken et al., 2013; Bogaert, 2004; Yule, Brotto, & Gorzalka, 2014), the distinction between asexuality and hypoactive sexual desire disorder (a sexual dysfunction characterised by lack of sexual desire; Flore, 2013; Gressgård, 2013; Hinderliter, 2013) and the personal experiences of selfidentified asexuals (Brotto, Knudson, Inskip, Rhodes, & Erskine, 2010; Prause & Graham, 2007; Scherrer, 2008). Indeed, Psychology and Sexuality recently devoted a special issue to asexuality (Carrigan, Gupta, & Morrison, 2013), reflecting growing academic interest in understanding asexuals (see also Bogaert, 2012). Yet to date there exists only one empirical paper on anti-asexual prejudice (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). The reason for this might be, as Crandall and Warner (2005) argue, that researchers typically focus on socially controversial prejudices (i.e., prejudices that are widely held, but are also widely morally condemned). As such, targets outside this ‘window of prejudice’ are understudied, consequently narrowing our understanding of prejudice. Anti-asexual bias is less intuitive as a social problem relative to other biases (e.g., racism). Whereas many disparaged groups are portrayed as ‘threatening’ to society or value systems, the lack of sexual attraction among asexuals does not pose any objective ‘threat’ (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012), and thus, anti-asexual bias is conceptually unique from more frequently studied prejudices. In addition, with asexuality recently emerging as a sexual identity, and interactions with asexuals emerging as a new dynamic in intergroup relations, it is critical to systematically study anti-asexual bias. Here, we contribute to this programme of research by introducing a multiple-item measure of anti-asexual bias. Initial evidence by MacInnis and Hodson (2012) demonstrates that, using attitude thermometers, heterosexuals preferred gay and bisexual people to asexuals. Moreover, asexuals were denied uniquely human traits (i.e., characterised as ‘animalistic’) and human nature traits (i.e., characterised as ‘machine-like’) relative to heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals. Consistent with their relatively negative attitudes towards asexuals, heterosexuals reported behavioural intentions towards discriminating against asexuals, with greater discomfort renting to or hiring asexuals compared to heterosexuals. Greater anti-asexual bias also correlated positively with biases towards other sexual minorities. In addition, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), authoritarian ideologies associated with greater antigay prejudice (see Whitley & Lee, 2000), were also associated with greater antiasexual bias. Of note, anti-asexual bias shares similarities with singlism (i.e., bias against singles, see Depaulo & Morris, 2005), in that neither asexuals nor singles conform to societal ideals of pursuing long-term sexual and romantic relationships, suggesting those expressing singlism would also express anti-asexual bias. Importantly, MacInnis and Hodson (2012) found that although anti-asexual bias is associated with greater singlism, anti-asexual bias is associated with both RWA and SDO uniquely from singlism. In Study 2, MacInnis and Hodson examined the possibility that ‘negative’ attitudes towards asexuals were solely due to unfamiliarity with asexuals. Attitudes towards asexuals were even more negative than towards a less familiar sexual minority (i.e., sapiosexuals), and attitudes towards asexuals maintained relations with RWA and SDO after covarying familiarity with asexuality, with similar magnitudes to the bivariate relations. Thus, negativity towards asexuals does not appear to be solely driven by unfamiliarity. Overall, this research indicates that although anti-asexual bias is related to prejudices towards other sexual minorities and singles, it is a distinct (albeit understudied) prejudice in its own right.
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
Psychology & Sexuality
3
In this light, anti-asexual prejudice represents a subtype of sexual prejudice (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012), a term that encompasses biased expressions towards those with nonheterosexual sexual orientations (Herek, 2004). As such, commonalities between antiasexual prejudice and other forms of sexual prejudice are expected. Anti-gay prejudice is strongly linked to moral opposition to homosexuality (Herek, 1988; Whitley, 2009). Given that asexuals presumably lack any ‘morally-repugnant’ sexual attractions, one might expect no group-targeted bias. However, Herek (2010) proposes that because non-heterosexual sexual orientations are non-normative, they are considered deficient (i.e., devalued and invalidated). Thus, anti-asexual prejudice is presumably based on viewing asexuality as a deficiency, consistent with the dehumanisation of asexuals (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012). Viewing asexuality as a deficit is also reflected in the interpersonal barriers asexuals face when revealing their sexual orientation. Asexuals are told that their lack of sexual attraction is a ‘phase’, a reflection of immaturity, or a quality that needs to be ‘fixed’, leading to conflict with friends, family members and romantic partners (Carrigan, 2011; Chasin, 2015; Van Houdenhove, Gijs, T’sjoen, & Enzlin, 2015). In addition, asexuals are told that they should not ‘give up’ on their sexuality, as they may simply lack sexual experience, may have not met someone they are sexually attracted to yet, or may be closing themselves off from potential sexual attractions (Van Houdenhove et al., 2015). These reactions appear rooted in the assumption that sexuality is preferable and superior to asexuality, positioning asexuality as an undesirable problem rather than a valid sexual orientation (Chasin, 2015). Asexuals tend not to report experiencing more severe forms of prejudice (e.g., derogatory name-calling, workplace discrimination, see Emens, 2014; Gazzola & Morrison, 2012), whereas experiencing subtler forms of prejudice, such as dismissing and denying asexuality, is more commonly reported (Chasin, 2015). The new measure of anti-asexual bias that we introduce in the present investigation therefore includes items reflecting asexuals as deficient or illegitimate (e.g., ‘Asexuality is a “problem” or “defect”’). Another possible commonality between anti-asexual prejudice and other forms of sexual prejudice is a link with sexism and traditional gender norms. Men and women are both expected to conform to socially prescribed gender roles, and those not conforming to gender roles are disparaged (Eagly, 1987). Those who endorse traditional gender norms also express more anti-gay prejudice (MacInnis & Hodson, in press; Whitley, 2001), partially driven by perceptions that gays and lesbians violate gender roles. With regard to anti-asexual bias, gender norms prescribe complementary sexual roles to men and women, with men pursuing sex for pleasure and women consenting to sex for romantic fulfilment in the context of (hetero)sexual attraction to one another (Amaro, 1995). Asexuals typically do not participate in sexual activities in a heteronormative way (e.g., conventional heterosexual flirting, seduction), and may be viewed as violating traditional gender norms (Chasin, 2015). Thus, the lack of sexual attraction among asexuals may be viewed as violating both male and female gender roles. Therefore, those strongly endorsing gender norms are expected to express greater anti-asexual bias. We also expect benevolent and hostile sexism to be positively associated with anti-asexual bias. Ambivalent sexism is characterised by subjectively positive (i.e., benevolent) and negative (i.e., hostile) attitudes, which are complimentary in that they impose norms that position men as dominant and women as submissive and disparage women not conforming to gender roles (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Given the conceptual link between anti-asexual bias and
4
M.R. Hoffarth et al.
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
perception of gender role violation, we also included items in our anti-asexual bias measure that disparage asexuals for violating gender roles (e.g., ‘asexual women are not real women’). Notably, contact with outgroup members reduces prejudice towards the outgroup (Hodson & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). For instance, intergroup contact reduces anti-gay bias particularly strongly (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006; see also Hodson, Harry, & Mitchell, 2009). Therefore, knowing asexuals is likely related to lower anti-asexual bias. Coming out and identifying as asexual is a fairly new phenomenon (Gressgård, 2013; Scherrer, 2008), and thus we would expect contact with asexuals to be relatively rare. Nonetheless, consistent with intergroup contact decreasing other forms of bias, lower contact with asexuals is likely related to more negative attitudes towards asexuals.
The present research The only known examination of anti-asexual bias (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012) employed a single-item thermometer measure. The goal of the current study is to develop a multi-item measure of anti-asexual bias and further develop our understanding of individual differences associated with anti-asexual bias. First, we present a self-report measure of anti-asexual bias, the Attitudes Towards Asexuals (ATA) scale, and examine its reliability. Second, we examine convergent validity of the scale, with ATA predicted to be negatively correlated with a thermometer measure of attitude towards asexuals, greater anti-asexual behavioural intentions (e.g., greater discomfort renting and hiring, contact avoidance), higher scores on ideological prejudice-relevant constructs (e.g., RWA, SDO), more sexist attitudes and stronger endorsement of traditional gender norms. Ideally, the above relations would hold after statistically controlling for singlism, as a test of discriminant validity. Given consistent links between intergroup contact and decreased bias (Hodson & Hewstone, 2013; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), we predicted that knowing asexuals would be associated with lower ATA.
Method Participants Heterosexual Americans were recruited through Mechanical Turk (i.e., ‘Mturk’), a crowdsourcing website. Mturk produces high-quality data, with low levels of random answers and dishonest responses (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). On average, Mturk participants are younger, more educated, less religious, more politically liberal, less extroverted and less emotionally stable than the general population (Paolacci & Chandler, 2014). Although Mturk samples tend to be more representative of the general population than university samples (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011; Paolacci & Chandler, 2014), Mturk samples should not be assumed to be nationally representative. From the 362 participants, those (4.2%; n = 15) incorrectly answering attention check items (e.g., ‘Squares have four corners’) and those (2.2%; n = 8) with missing data on at least one variable of interest were excluded. Therefore, we analysed responses from 339 heterosexuals (M age = 39.18, SD age = 13.09, age range = 19–75, 56% female, 77.9% Caucasian). Participants leaned slightly liberal (vs. conservative, M = 3.47, SD = 1.73 on a 1–7 scale) and Democratic (vs. Republican, M = 3.56, SD = 1.63 on a 1–7 scale). Mean
Psychology & Sexuality
5
household income was $40,000–$50,000, with 86.4% having some post-secondary education, and 50.1% having a bachelor’s degree or higher.
Measures
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
Participants initially viewed definitions of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality and asexuality (see MacInnis & Hodson, 2012), with these definitions available throughout the study. Attitudes Towards Asexuals, attitude thermometers, future contact intentions and discomfort renting and hiring were completed first, with demographics at the end; other measures were counterbalanced in one of four random orders.
Attitudes Towards Asexuals Participants completed 23 items on 9-point scales. In subsequent analyses, the items were refined to a 16-item scale (3 items reverse-coded). Some items were modified from the Attitudes toward Lesbians and Gays (ATLG) scale (e.g., ‘Asexuality is a problem or defect’, Herek, 1988), whereas others were generated for the present study, either assessing attitudes towards asexuals (e.g., ‘There is nothing wrong with not having sexual attraction’, reverse-coded), beliefs about asexuals (e.g., ‘Asexuality simply represents an immature, childlike approach to life’) or denial that asexuality exists (e.g., ‘A lot of asexual people are probably homosexual and in the closet’). Higher scores reflect greater anti-asexual bias.
Attitude thermometers Participants separately rated attitudes towards both male and female sexual orientation categories on 0 (extremely unfavourable) to 100 (extremely favourable) sliding bars. Attitudes were calculated by averaging the male and female attitude thermometers for heterosexuals (r = .69), homosexuals (r = .87), bisexuals (r = .80) and asexuals (r = .92), with higher scores representing more positive attitudes towards the group.1
Future contact intentions Interest in future contact (Husnu & Crisp, 2010) with heterosexuals (α = .92), homosexuals (α = .94), bisexuals (α = .94) and asexuals (α = .91) were captured using four items (e.g., ‘If given the chance, how interested are you in being friends with someone from each of the following groups?’) rated on 8-point scales, with separate 4-item measures for each group. Higher scores indicate greater future contact intentions.2 Discomfort renting and hiring3 Discomfort renting to and hiring (MacInnis & Hodson, 2012) heterosexuals (α = .95), homosexuals (α = .96), bisexuals (α = .96) and asexuals (α = .98) was assessed using four items (e.g., ‘Indicate how comfortable you would be renting an apartment to people from each of these groups?’), rated on 11-point scales, with separate 4-item measures for each group. Scores were reverse-coded, with higher scores indicating greater discomfort renting and hiring.
6
M.R. Hoffarth et al.
Singlism Participants completed a 30-item measure of bias against singles (7-point scales, α = .96), with higher scores indicating endorsement of negative beliefs about singles (e.g., ‘People who do not marry are incomplete’) (Pignotti & Abell, 2009).
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
Right-Wing Authoritarianism Participants completed a 12-item measure (7-point scales, α = .94), with higher scores indicating stronger conventionality, submission to authority figures and traditional rightwing ideology (e.g., ‘What our country really needs, instead of more “civil rights” is a good, stiff dose of law and order’) (Altemeyer, 1996).
Social Dominance Orientation Participants completed a 16-item measure (7-point scales, α = .96), with higher scores indicating stronger preference for inequality among groups (e.g., ‘Some groups of people are simply inferior to other groups’) (Pratto, Sidanius, Stallworth, & Malle, 1994).
Ambivalent sexism inventory Participants completed a 22-item measure (using 6-point scales), which separately measured benevolent sexism (11 items, α = .87) and hostile sexism (11 items, α = .92) (Glick & Fiske, 1996). Benevolent sexism contains items such as ‘Every man ought to have a woman he adores’, a position rendering women as valuable but in service to men. Hostile sexism, a more blatant bias, contains items such as ‘Women seek to gain power by getting control over men’.
Male role norms Participants indicated endorsement of traditional norms of masculinity via three subscales (using 7-point response scales): status (e.g., ‘Success in his work has to be a man’s central goal in this life’, 11 items, α = .90), toughness (e.g., ‘When a man is feeling a little pain, he should try not to let it show very much’, 8 items, α = .85) and anti-femininity (e.g., ‘It bothers me when a man does something I consider “feminine”’, 7 items, α = .87) (Thompson & Pleck, 1986).
Femininity ideology scale Participants indicated endorsement of traditional norms of femininity via five subscales (using 7-point response scales): stereotypic images and activities (e.g., ‘It is more appropriate for a female to be a teacher than a principal’, 11 items, α = .89), dependency/ deference (e.g., ‘Women should act helpless to attract a man’, 10 items, α = .91), purity (e.g., ‘A woman should not swear’, 9 items, α = .81), caretaking (e.g., ‘A woman’s natural role should be the caregiver of the family’, 7 items, α = .86) and emotionality (e.g., ‘It is expected that women will have a hard time handling stress without getting emotional’, 8 items, α = .88) (Levant, Richmond, Cook, House, & Aupont, 2007). Finally, participants indicated if they had heard of asexuality, if they knew any asexuals (i.e., intergroup contact), and provided demographics.
Psychology & Sexuality
7
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
Results Scale refinement of Attitudes Towards Asexuals A preliminary unrotated principal components analysis was conducted on all 23 items, with one large component accounting for 49% of the variance, and all 23 items loading on the component at .46 or above. Given the large number of items, we removed seven items to more efficiently capture the core components of the construct. Three of the removed items had particularly low variability (i.e., almost all participants scored at the bottom of the scale) and four, in retrospect, did not clearly imply a positive or negative attitude towards asexuals.4 A principal component analysis of the remaining 16 items indicated one large component (eigenvalue = 8.62) accounting for 53.9% of the variance (see Table 1). Analyses of the scree plot indicated that the one large component clearly stood out from several smaller components (with eigenvalues approximating 1). However, the second largest component (eigenvalue = 1.14) had an eigenvalue greater than 1, suggesting the possibility of a two-factor solution. Therefore, a principal components analysis with Oblimin rotation was tested to explore the possibility of a two-factor solution. Examination of the factor loadings indicated strong cross-loading between the two components (all items loaded on both components at .30 or above, with 14 of the 16 items loading onto both component at .40 or above). In addition, there was no clear separation of items into distinct scales, suggesting that the items do not separate into two conceptually distinguishable factors. Further, a single-component Table 1.
Unrotated factor loadings for Attitudes Towards Asexuals.
Item Asexual women are not real women Asexual men are not real men Asexuality is probably just a phase A woman who claims she’s ‘asexual’ just hasn’t met the right man yet A man who claims he’s asexual just hasn’t met the right woman yet Asexual people are sexually repressed Asexuality simply represents an immature, childlike approach to life People who identify as ‘asexual’ probably just want to feel special or different Asexuality is a ‘problem’ or ‘defect’ There is nothing wrong with not having sexual attraction* A lot of asexual people are probably homosexual and in the closet Asexuality is an inferior form of sexuality You can’t truly be in love with someone without feeling sexually attracted to them Asexuality should not be condemned* Asexuals who have intimate relationships are being unfair to their partners I would not be too upset if I found out my child were an asexual* Notes: *Items were reverse-coded prior to this analysis. N = 339.
Loading
M
SD
.83 .83 .82 .82
2.37 2.43 3.20 3.29
1.83 1.90 2.14 2.22
.81
3.27
2.23
.80 .80
3.74 2.69
2.44 2.09
.80
2.61
2.04
.77 .70
3.51 3.01
2.59 2.21
.68
2.59
1.85
.65 .64
3.77 4.10
2.56 2.63
.61 .60
2.54 4.49
2.20 2.48
.46
4.48
2.65
8
M.R. Hoffarth et al.
Downloaded by [74.214.209.62] at 07:04 26 May 2015
solution indicated that all 16 items loaded onto the single large component at .46 or above (see Table 1), with the single factor demonstrating strong internal reliability (α = .94, mean inter-item correlation = .50). Given the weak evidence for a distinct second component, and the strong internal consistency of a single component, we concluded that a single factor suitably represented the construct of interest. The ATA has a mean of 3.26 (on a 1–9 scale, SD = 1.63, minimum = 1.00, maximum = 8.50, skew = 0.611, kurtosis = −.292).
Construct validity We first determined the relation between ATA and liking of asexuals (as captured by attitude thermometers). As expected, the ATA scale negatively correlated with the asexuals attitude thermometer (r = −.61, p < .001, see Table 2). As expected, ATA positively related to singlism (r = .58, p < .001). The relation between ATA and liking of asexuals remained significant after accounting for singlism (pr = −.53, p < .001). Next, we determined relations between ATA and prejudice-relevant constructs (see Table 2). ATA positively associated with RWA, SDO, benevolent sexism and hostile sexism (rs = .35 to .49, all ps
