proof of your article attached, please read carefully ...

JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD., THE ATRIUM, SOUTHERN GATE, CHICHESTER P019 8SQ, UK

*** PROOF OF YOUR ARTICLE ATTACHED, PLEASE READ CAREFULLY *** After receipt of your corrections your article will be published initially within the online version of the journal.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROMPT RETURN OF YOUR PROOF CORRECTIONS WILL ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO UNNECESSARY DELAYS IN THE PUBLICATION OF YOUR ARTICLE READ PROOFS CAREFULLY ONCE PUBLISHED ONLINE OR IN PRINT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAKE ANY FURTHER CORRECTIONS TO YOUR ARTICLE •

This will be your only chance to correct your proof

•

Please note that the volume and page numbers shown on the proofs are for position only

ANSWER ALL QUERIES ON PROOFS (Queries are attached as the last page of your proof.) •

Please annotate this file electronically and return by email to the production contact as detailed in the covering email. Guidelines on using the electronic annotation tools can be found at the end of the proof. If you are unable to correct your proof using electronic annotation, please list all corrections and send back via email to the address in the covering email, or mark all corrections directly on the proofs and send the scanned copy via email. Please do not send corrections by fax or post. Acrobat Reader & Acrobat Professional

•

You will only be able to annotate the file using Acrobat Reader 8.0 or above and Acrobat Professional. Acrobat Reader can be downloaded free of charge at the following address: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html

CHECK FIGURES AND TABLES CAREFULLY •

Check sizes, numbering, and orientation of figures

•

All images in the PDF are downsampled (reduced to lower resolution and file size) to facilitate Internet delivery. These images will appear at higher resolution and sharpness in the printed article

•

Review figure legends to ensure that they are complete

•

Check all tables. Review layout, titles, and footnotes

COMPLETE COPYRIGHT TRANSFER AGREEMENT (CTA) if you have not already signed one •

Please send a scanned signed copy with your proofs by e-mail. Your article cannot be published unless we have received the signed CTA

OFFPRINTS •

Free access to the final PDF offprint of your article will be available via Author Services only. Please therefore sign up for Author Services if you would like to access your article PDF offprint and enjoy the many other benefits the service offers.

Additional reprint and journal issue purchases •

Should you wish to purchase additional copies of your article, please click on the link and follow the instructions provided: http://offprint.cosprinters.com/cos/bw/

•

Corresponding authors are invited to inform their co-authors of the reprint options available.

•

Please note that regardless of the form in which they are acquired, reprints should not be resold, nor further disseminated in electronic or print form, nor deployed in part or in whole in any marketing, promotional or educational contexts without authorization from Wiley. Permissions requests should be directed to mailto: [email protected]

European Journal of Social Psychology, Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010) Published online (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.784

Research article Effects of legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on gay bashing ANGELA J. BAHNS* AND NYLA R. BRANSCOMBE University of Kansas, USA

Abstract

D

on their category membership. The present research considers how heterosexual men respond when differential treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals is made salient. Just as White privilege is pervasive and operates largely unconsciously (McIntosh, 2003), there are many ways heterosexuals enjoy privilege without recognizing their advantages. Examples of heterosexual privilege include the right to marry and adopt children, insurance benefits for spouses and children, and many others. Heterosexual privilege constitutes discrimination against homosexuals because differential rights and benefits based on sexual orientation results in intergroup inequality. Social identity theory (SIT; Tajfel & Turner, 1986) can be applied to understanding responses to discrimination against homosexuals. SIT claims that individuals derive groupbased self-esteem through identification with the groups to which they belong. When intergroup inequality is made salient, reactions to the ingroup’s structural position are dependent on the legitimacy of group differences (Tajfel, 1978). Acknowledging group-based privilege may challenge the dominant group’s deservingness of its advantaged treatment (Branscombe, 1998). Illegitimate intergroup inequality poses a threat to the moral value of the dominant group (Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999). Yet many heterosexuals feel entitled to their privileged position, with those who believe sexual orientation is controllable holding homosexuals responsible for their disadvantage (Whitley, 1990). Several theoretical perspectives on group-based inequality contend that expressing prejudice toward low status groups reinforces societal discrimination (Jost & Hunyady, 2003; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). At the individual-level, the justification of discrimination allows for guilt-free prejudice expression by reconciling negative affect with egalitarian beliefs and social norms (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003). Consistent with these perspectives on the justification of discrimination, high status

CO RR

EC

TE

Anti-gay harassment is both widespread and damaging to the physical and psychological well being of homosexual individuals (Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002). While gay bashing can refer to a range of behaviors from telling anti-gay jokes to violent hate crimes, we define gay bashing as verbal denigration based on an individual’s sexual orientation. Importantly, this definition does not require that derogatory remarks be directed toward a gay individual. Heterosexuals making anti-gay comments to other heterosexuals can be considered gay bashing for two reasons. First, the offensive remarks can be experienced as harassment if overheard by a gay individual. Second, derogatory language legitimizes antigay prejudice as normative and reinforces the broader culture of heterosexism (Herek, 1990). Gay bashing and anti-gay prejudice (Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1996) are more prevalent among heterosexual men than among heterosexual women. Implicit inversion theory (Kite & Deaux, 1987) offers an explanation for this sex difference, suggesting that anti-gay prejudice stems from a perceived violation of gender norms. Previous research shows those who hold more traditional gender role beliefs are more prejudiced toward homosexuals (Kite & Whitley, 1998; Nierman, Thompson, Bryan, & Mahaffey, 2007). Because the male gender role incorporates heterosexuality as an integral part of masculinity, men may engage in gay bashing to assert their own masculinity. In this way, gay bashing serves a social-expressive function (Herek, 1987), helping heterosexual men assert their status in a valued ingroup. Thus, there may be important identity-protective motivations for gay bashing.

PR

O

O

FS

We used a computer harassment paradigm to test the hypothesis that affirming the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals increases the likelihood that heterosexual men will engage in verbal gay bashing. Legitimacy of discrimination was varied among heterosexual males (N ¼ 167) by suggesting that denying homosexuals rights and benefits is either illegitimate or legitimate, and participants interacted online with either a gay or straight bogus discussion partner. Results show that (a) participants sent more offensive comments when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals was affirmed, and (b) legitimacy affected gay bashing through its effect on collective guilt. These findings suggest that challenging the legitimacy of discrimination can be an effective strategy for reducing outgroup derogation. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

JUSTIFICATION OF DISCRIMINATION Group-basedQ1 privilege refers to the social, financial, and legal advantages high status group members enjoy solely based

*Correspondence to: Angela J. Bahns, Department of Psychology, University of Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 16 September 2010, Accepted 26 October 2010

Q1

Angela J. Bahns and Nyla R. Branscombe

CO RR

EC

FS

O

TE

Illegitimacy of group-based inequality suppresses prejudice expression because of its relationship to collective guilt. Collective guilt is an aversive emotion that is experienced when the ingroup is perceived to be responsible for harming a relevant outgroup (Branscombe, Doosje, & McGarty, 2002). Collective guilt is distinct from personal guilt because it occurs without personal responsibility for the harm (Branscombe & Doosje, 2004). There are two necessary conditions to experience collective guilt in response to intergroup inequality. First, individuals must self-categorize as a member of the privileged group, and second, they must perceive their group as responsible for illegitimate status conditions (Branscombe et al., 2002). The suggestion that discrimination against homosexuals is illegitimate can invoke a sense of injustice and undermine internal attributions for group-based success (Branscombe, 1998). Illegitimacy is an important predictor of guilt, both at the individual level (Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure, 1989) and at the group level (Schmitt, Behner, Montada, Muller, & Muller-Fohrbrodt, 2000). Collective guilt is especially likely to occur when people perceive that their ingroup illegitimately benefits from the outgroup’s disadvantage. For example, Miron, Branscombe, and Schmitt (2006) found that men experienced greater collective guilt when gender inequality was perceived as illegitimate compared to when it was perceived as legitimate. Previous work shows that making group-based privilege salient can either increase or decrease prejudice, depending on the perceived legitimacy of differential group treatment. Branscombe, Schmitt, and Schiffhauer (2007) found that highly identified Whites responded to thoughts of White privilege with increased modern racism. Because modern racism involves denial that racial inequality is due to discrimination, this example illustrates how legitimizing discrimination is associated with increased prejudice. However, when justification strategies are not available and the discrimination is perceived to be illegitimate, prejudice decreases due to collective guilt. Powell, Branscombe, and Schmitt (2005) found that framing racial inequality in terms of White privilege compared to Black disadvantage increased collective guilt and decreased racism among White participants. Thoughts of White privilege evoked collective guilt because Whites were portrayed as perpetrators of injustice, coloring the perception of ingroup privilege as illegitimate.

O

ILLEGITIMACY AS A PREDICTOR OF COLLECTIVE GUILT

heterosexuals may engage in by making offensive comments to an ingroup member (another heterosexual) or an outgroup member (a homosexual). The same behavior, however, is likely to be driven by different motives depending on the group membership of the recipient of derogation. Prior research suggests that outgroup derogation can operate as an intragroup process, with people being especially likely to engage in outgroup derogation when an ingroup audience is present. For example, Noel, Wann, and Branscombe (1995) found that insecure group members derogated outgroups when their responses were expected to be shared with fellow ingroup members, but not when their responses remained private. Thus, outgroup derogation may be used in intragroup contexts to secure one’s status in a valued ingroup. Other times, outgroup derogation operates as an intergroup phenomenon, serving to restore a damaged social identity under conditions of threat. Maass and colleagues (Dall’Ara & Maass, 1999; Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003) found that men sent more offensive images to a female recipient under conditions of male identity threat, but they were especially likely to do so when encouraged by a male confederate. In these experiments, it is unclear whether the derogation reflects male participants’ intention to harass the female recipient or their attempts to win the approval of the male confederate (or both). It is possible that outgroup derogation serves the same identity protective function regardless of the group membership of the recipient of derogation, although in each case the behavior is driven by different psychological motives (Branscombe et al., 1999). However, in the experiments by Maass and colleagues the recipient of harassment was always an outgroup member, so the effect of group membership of the recipient remains unclear. Our research provides a direct test of the role played by group membership of the recipient of derogation by investigating the likelihood that heterosexuals will engage in gay bashing when offensive comments are sent to a discussion partner who is either straight or gay.

PR

groups are more likely to denigrate low status groups when intergroup inequality is perceived to be legitimate. We explore the possibility that legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals serves as a justification strategy that undermines feelings of collective guilt in heterosexuals.

D

2

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

GROUP MEMBERSHIP OF THE RECIPIENT OF DEROGATION The current research considers verbal gay bashing as an identity protective response to intergroup inequality which Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENT RESEARCH The present research investigates the effect of legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on gay bashing. We predict that affirming the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals will increase the likelihood that heterosexual men will send gay bashing comments to an online discussion partner. We used an adapted version of the computer harassment paradigm (Dall’Ara & Maass, 1999), which allowed us to study gay bashing with a behavioral measure because participants believed they were interacting with another person. All participants were heterosexual men and the online discussion partner was a gay or straight man. We examined how heterosexual men respond when discrimination against homosexuals was either suggested to be legitimate or illegitimate. We also varied the sexual orientation of the online discussion partner. We predicted that heterosexual men would send more offensive comments to an online discussion partner when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals was affirmed compared to when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals was Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

Legitimacy of discrimination

METHOD Participants and Design

whether they found the examples of privilege from the blog entry to be true in their own experience. Participants responded to the 20 items (a ¼ .91) on a scale from 1 (not at all true in my experience) to 7 (extremely true in my experience). Then participants completed a single-item check of the legitimacy manipulation. The item read, ‘‘The primary argument of the comments that I read initially in this study is that heterosexual privilege is (a) illegitimate, or (b) legitimate.’’ Manipulation of the Discussion Partner’s Sexual Orientation In the next phase of the experiment, participants were given a chance to respond to the blog entry by sending comments online to an assigned discussion partner, supposedly another participant down the hall. The sexual orientation of the bogus discussion partner was manipulated. The program file ‘‘downloaded’’ basic biographical information to introduce the discussion partner. In the gay discussion partner condition, it read, ‘‘My favorite weekend activity is going to movies with my boyfriend.’’ In the straight discussion partner condition, the word ‘‘boyfriend’’ was replaced with ‘‘girlfriend.’’

O

Participants were 167 undergraduate heterosexual men, 18–30 years of age (M ¼ 19.4; SD ¼ 1.85). All participants received course credit for their participation. Eligibility requirements were based on sexual orientation and participant gender assessed in mass testing. The experiment was a 2 (legitimacy of discrimination: Legitimate, illegitimate) 2 (group membership of discussion partner: Gay, straight) between-subjects design.

3

FS

undermined. Further, we expected that the effect of legitimizing discrimination on gay bashing would be mediated by decreased collective guilt.

Dependent Variables A list of comments (15 offensive to gays and 15 supportive of gays) pertaining to the differential treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals was provided ‘‘to stimulate conversation.’’ Comments are listed in Table 1 with the mean offensiveness ratings from pre-testing and how frequently each comment was selected.1 Participants were encouraged to select at least six comments from the list and were given the opportunity to write their own comments. The main dependent variable, gay bashing, was the proportion of offensive comments sent to the online discussion partner, including both pre-written and free response comments.2 While waiting for their online discussion partner to respond, participants completed measures of partner expected agreement, heterosexual identification, perceived legitimacy, collective guilt, collective anxiety, and demographics. Scales ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with higher scores indicating greater agreement with each construct.

CO RR

EC

TE

An adapted version of Dall’Ara and Maass’s (1999) computer harassment paradigm was developed using MediaLab software. Participants were led to believe there was another participant down the hall with whom they would be interacting online during the experiment. Before the experiment ostensibly began, the experimenter left the room briefly to check to see if the other participant was ready to begin. The experimenter explained that participants would be reading an online blog entry about heterosexual privilege and that later in the experiment they would be asked to remember this information (this ensured that participants noticed the legitimacy manipulation). The experimenter also told participants they would have a chance to respond to the blog entry by exchanging comments online with the other participant.

D

Cover Story

PR

O

Materials and Procedure

Manipulation of Legitimacy

We created a private-access web page to display a blog entry on heterosexual privilege that was automatically loaded by the program file. The blog entry included an explanation of what heterosexual privilege is and a list of 20 advantages that heterosexuals enjoy because of their sexual orientation, derived from scholarship on White privilege (McIntosh, 2003). An example item is, ‘‘I have heterosexual privilege if I can publicly display affection toward my loved one without fear of harassment or attack.’’ At the end of the blog entry, two comments were posted in response (seemingly by other online bloggers who were not participants in the experiment) that constituted the legitimacy manipulation. In the discrimination illegitimate condition, the comments explicitly undermined the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals (see Appendix A). In the discrimination legitimate condition, the comments explicitly affirmed the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals (see Appendix B). After reading the blog entry and comments constituting the legitimacy manipulation, we measured participants’ agreement that heterosexual privilege exists by having them indicate

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56


Expected Agreement Three items (a ¼ .88) (‘‘I think the person I am interacting with online is likely to agree with the comments I selected and sent’’) assessed participants’ expectations of whether or not their discussion partner would agree with the comments they sent. 1

Comments were selected to be equally balanced in extremity. Pre-test ratings (N ¼ 39) confirmed that the offensive comments did not differ in extremity (M ¼ 5.70, SD ¼ 0.56) from the supportive comments (M ¼ 5.71, SD ¼ 0.70). Ratings were made on 7-point scales with higher numbers representing more extreme comments. 2 Free response comments were coded by two independent raters who were blind to condition. Comments were coded as offensive or not offensive. Initial agreement between the two raters was acceptable (k ¼ .67, p < .0001). When the raters disagreed, consensus was reached through discussion with Angela Bahns. All reported effects remain the same regardless of whether the free response comments are included in the calculation of gay bashing or not.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

4


Table 1. Frequencies and offensiveness ratings of comments Offensive comments

Offensiveness

Number of times selected

6.57

11

6.43 6.39

17 9

6.31

17

6.15

25

5.86

25

5.71

34

5.68

20

CO RR

EC

TE

D

PR

O

O

FS

No, I don’t feel bad that gays don’t have the same rights that I do! Homosexuality is immoral. Gays should be discriminated against, not rewarded for their deviant behavior Gay people just don’t deserve the same rights and benefits as heterosexual people I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discriminating against gays. If they don’t like it, they should choose a different lifestyle There’s a good reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children or teach in schools. It is dangerous to allow gay people to be role models for children Of course gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military! If I were a soldier, I wouldn’t want to have to worry about my fellow soldiers hitting on me Our country celebrates personal freedom, but we also celebrate individual responsibility. If people choose to be gay, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences Liberals and gay rights advocates are taking over this country. Trying to make heterosexuals feel guilty about our rights and benefits is ridiculous and unfair! I’m sick and tired of hearing about equal rights for gays. We have already passed anti-discrimination policies and recognize domestic partnerships. What more do they want? I generally support equal rights, but when it comes to redefining marriage to allow men to marry other men and women to marry other women, that’s just going too far I have no problem with being privileged because I am heterosexual People need to learn that life isn’t fair. I don’t think we need to bend over backwards trying to make absolutely everything equal Gay people don’t really have it any harder than straight people Heterosexual privilege is not my problem There’s lots of hype about gay rights these days, but I don’t see what any of this has to do with me I don’t think heterosexual privilege exists Anyone who benefits from heterosexual privilege and does not support efforts to correct these injustices is part of the problem How can we expect someone to perform well at their job if they are forced to conceal an important part of their identity? I plan to tell my friends about heterosexual privilege and how I think it is unfair I wish there was something I could do to help ‘‘level the playing field’’ for gay people I am willing to do whatever I can to help to eliminate heterosexual privilege I support the right of service members to serve openly and honestly, and I believe that the majority of service members are comfortable serving alongside gay and lesbian troops I think that we should teach our children from a young age about the different sexual orientations and emphasize that they are all ‘‘normal’’ I think we should all do our part to make gay friends, neighbors, and co-workers feel comfortable, safe, and welcome I see no good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to marry if they choose I believe that it is wrong for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation Heterosexuality should NOT be the only sexual orientation that is accepted and valued in our society. Instead we should learn to value diversity I believe that who people choose to love should never be a cause for discrimination Treating people differently based on their sexual orientation is just plain wrong Whatever happened to ‘‘liberty and justice for all?’’ I think it is shameful that our country does not offer equal rights and protection to all of its citizens I believe that gay people deserve the same rights and benefits as heterosexual people

5.52

51

5.33 5.29

60 42

5.18 4.95 4.56 4.51 3.44

10 34 36 5 18

3.23

59

2.79 2.77 2.49 2.44

9 20 16 28

2.28

44

2.15

50

2.03 1.91 2.08

77 100 65

1.79 1.96 1.95

81 94 82

1.83

88

Note: Offensiveness scores represent mean offensiveness ratings from pre-testing (N ¼ 39) on a scale from 1 (Extremely supportive of gays) to 7 (Extremely offensive to gays).

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Heterosexual Identification

Intergroup Emotions

Level of heterosexual identification was measured with an adapted version of an ingroup identification scale (Schmitt, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Owen, 2002). Participants responded to four items (a ¼ .85) (‘‘I am proud to be a heterosexual’’) assessing heterosexual identification.

Next we assessed emotional responses to discrimination against homosexuals including collective guilt and collective anxiety. Collective guilt was assessed by four items (a ¼ .78) that measured the extent to which participants felt guilty about the harm done to homosexuals by heterosexuals. An example item is ‘‘I feel guilty for the privileges I have because I’m heterosexual.’’ Six items (a ¼ .72) assessed collective anxiety (‘‘I think homosexuals pose a threat to heterosexuals’’). Finally, the demographic items included participant age and racial/ethnic group. The experiment ended before participants received a response from their online discussion partner. Participants were fully debriefed before leaving the lab to explain that their comments were not sent to a real person

Perceived Legitimacy Three items (a ¼ .92) (‘‘I believe that heterosexual privilege is legitimate’’) assessed perceived legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals. This measure served as an additional manipulation check. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

5

Manipulating the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals increases gay bashing

Gay Bashing

As predicted, the main effect of legitimacy on gay bashing was significant, F(1, 163) ¼ 16.06, p < .0001, h ¼ 0.30. As shown in Figure 1, participants in the discrimination legitimate condition sent a higher proportion of offensive comments (M ¼ 0.46, SD ¼ 0.37) compared to participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition (M ¼ 0.25, SD ¼ 0.31). The main effect of group membership and the interaction of legitimacy and group membership on gay bashing were not significant (both Fs < 1).

D

and to ensure they understood why the deception was necessary.3

PR

O

Figure 1.

O

FS


TE

RESULTS

CO RR

EC

We performed a series of 2 2 ANOVAs on each of the dependent variables (perceived legitimacy, gay bashing, expected agreement, collective guilt, collective anxiety, agreement that heterosexual privilege exists, heterosexual identification), with legitimacy of discrimination (illegitimate, legitimate) and group membership of the discussion partner (gay, straight) as between-subjects factors. Because participants sent varying numbers of comments (M ¼ 7.83, SD ¼ 2.67, min ¼ 2, max ¼ 20), we used the proportion of offensive comments (including both pre-written and freeresponse comments) as an indicator of gay bashing.

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

Manipulation Check

The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on perceived legitimacy, F(1, 163) ¼ 14.07, p < .0001, h ¼ 0.28. Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition perceived differential treatment of heterosexuals and homosexuals to be more legitimate (M ¼ 4.67, SD ¼ 1.93) compared to participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition (M ¼ 3.63, SD ¼ 1.62). These results indicate that the manipulation of legitimacy had its intended effect.4 3 No participant expressed suspicion regarding the existence of the online discussion partner during the experiment. During the debriefing, many participants expressed surprise when the experimenter revealed that the discussion partner was not real. 4 Eleven participants failed the single-item manipulation check. These cases do not differ by condition (x2 (3) ¼ 1.00, p ¼ .80) and are included in all analyses. All reported effects are the same regardless of whether they are included or excluded.


Expected Agreement The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on expected agreement, F(1, 163) ¼ 6.07, p ¼ .01, h ¼ 0.20. Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition reported less expected agreement (M ¼ 4.12, SD ¼ 1.56) compared to participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 1.26). There was also a marginally significant effect of the group membership manipulation on expected agreement, F(1, 163) ¼ 3.17, p ¼ .08, h ¼ 0.14.5 Participants in the gay discussion partner condition reported less expected 5

To investigate the effect of group membership of the discussion partner, we tested a moderated mediation model (Preacher,Q2 Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) in which the indirect effect of legitimacy on expected agreement through gay bashing is moderated by group membership. With no moderator in the model, the indirect effect of legitimacy on expected agreement via gay bashing was significant (Sobel z ¼ 3.35, p ¼ .0008). Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition engaged in more gay bashing, and in turn expected less agreement from their discussion partner. We next tested a moderated mediation model in which this indirect effect was moderated by the group membership of the discussion partner. The conditional indirect effect was significant, t (163) ¼ 8.39, p < .0001. Probing the interaction revealed that the indirect effect was significant in the gay partner condition (z ¼ 3.80, p < .001), and non-significant in the straight partner condition (z ¼ 0.54, p ¼ .549). These findings indicate that when interacting with a gay man, the choice to send offensive comments or not affected participants’ expectations for their partner’s agreement. In contrast, when interacting with a straight man, expected agreement was unrelated to gay bashing.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

Q2


FS

Relationship Between the Dependent Variables Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and correlations between the dependent variables. There were positive relationships between heterosexual identification and (a) agreement that heterosexual privilege exists, (b) perceived legitimacy of discrimination, and (c) gay bashing. Heterosexual identification was negatively related to collective guilt and expected agreement. Perceiving discrimination to be legitimate was positively related to gay bashing, which is consistent with our main finding that gay bashing increased in the discrimination legitimate condition compared to the discrimination illegitimate condition. Additionally, perceived legitimacy was negatively related to collective guilt. This finding is consistent with our hypothesized mediational model in which the effect of legitimacy on gay bashing is carried by a reduction of collective guilt. Agreeing that heterosexual privilege exists was unrelated to gay bashing. This finding supports our assertion that acknowledging discrimination is unrelated to one’s choice to engage in gay bashing. Instead, our findings indicate that perceived legitimacy of discrimination is a better predictor of derogation than awareness that discrimination exists. Assuring heterosexuals that discrimination against homosexuals is legitimate frees them to make derogatory comments. However, when the legitimacy of discrimination is called into question, heterosexuals are less likely to make offensive comments.

D

The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on collective guilt, F(1, 163) ¼ 7.83, p ¼ .006, h ¼ 0.21. Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition reported less collective guilt (M ¼ 3.02, SD ¼ 1.28) compared to participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition (M ¼ 3.87, SD ¼ 1.22). There were no other significant effects for collective guilt. The group membership manipulation had a significant effect on collective anxiety, F(1, 163) ¼ 7.04, p ¼ . 01, h ¼ 0.18. Participants interacting with a gay discussion partner reported more collective anxiety (M ¼ 2.50, SD ¼ 1.03) compared to participants interacting with a straight discussion partner (M ¼ 2.11, SD ¼ 0.82). There were no other significant effects on collective anxiety. There were no significant effects or interactions for heterosexual identification or for agreement that heterosexual privilege exists.

O

Intergroup Emotions

condition reported less collective guilt, which in turn increased gay bashing. We also tested an alternate model with collective anxiety as the proposed mediator and found no evidence of mediation: The direct effect of legitimacy condition on collective anxiety was not significant (b ¼ .01, t(165) ¼ 0.19, p ¼ .854); the Sobel test was also not significant, z ¼ 0.18, p ¼ .853. We conclude that collective guilt, not collective anxiety, carries the effect of legitimacy of discrimination on gay bashing. Finally, because collective guilt was measured after participants sent their comments, we tested the reverse causality model in which gay bashing mediates the relationship between the legitimacy manipulation and collective guilt. A Sobel test determined that the indirect effect of legitimacy on collective guilt via gay bashing was significant, z ¼ 3.41, p ¼ .0007. These results indicate that participants in the discrimination legitimate condition engaged in more gay bashing, which in turn decreased collective guilt.

O

agreement (M ¼ 4.21, SD ¼ 1.83) compared to participants in the straight discussion partner condition (M ¼ 4.59, SD ¼ 0.93). The interaction of legitimacy and group membership on expected agreement was not significant, F(1, 163) ¼ 2.48, p ¼ .12, h ¼ 0.12.

PR

6

TE

Tests of Mediation

CO RR

EC

We next tested our hypothesized mediationalQ3 model in which collective guilt mediates the effect of legitimacy on gay bashing. Following procedures outlined by Baron and KennyQ4 (1986), we first established that relationships existed between (a) legitimacy condition (coded as 0 for illegitimate and 1 for legitimate) and gay bashing (b ¼ .30, t(165) ¼ 4.06, p < .0001), (b) legitimacy condition and collective guilt (b ¼ .21, t(165) ¼ 2.70, p ¼ .008), and (c) collective guilt and gay bashing (b ¼ .43, t(165) ¼ 6.36, p < .0001). As shown in Figure 2, when we regressed gay bashing on legitimacy condition and collective guilt, the direct effect of legitimacy on gay bashing was reduced (b ¼ .21, t(165) ¼ 3.12, p ¼ .002). A Sobel test of mediation confirmed that the indirect effect of legitimacy on gay bashing via collective guilt significantly differed from zero, z ¼ 2.48, p ¼ .013. These findings indicate that the indirect effect of the legitimacy manipulation on gay bashing through collective guilt is significant. Participants in the discrimination legitimate

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

DISCUSSION

Figure 2. Hypothesized mediational model in which the effect of legitimacy of discrimination on gay bashing is mediated by decreased collective guilt. We coded legitimacy condition with 0 for illegitimate and 1 for legitimate. Path weights are standardized. The number in parentheses is the standardized relationship between legitimacy and gay bashing without controlling for collective guilt. p < .05; p < .01; p < .0001 Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Findings were consistent with the hypothesis that heterosexual men are more likely to engage in gay bashing when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals is affirmed compared to when the legitimacy of discrimination is undermined. As predicted, the proportion of offensive comments sent was higher in the discrimination legitimate compared to the discrimination illegitimate condition. Heterosexuals made more offensive statements about existing Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

Q3 Q4


7

Table 2. Correlations between the dependent variables 1 1. Heterosexual ID 2. Agree privilege exists 3. Perceived legitimacy 4. Gay bashing 5. Expected agreement 6. Collective guilt 7. Collective anxiety Means (standard deviations)

5

6

7

.38 .45 .42 .16 .29 .08 6.16 (1.06)

.68 .34 .32 .39 4.13 (1.85)

— .46 .48 .26 0.35 (0.36)

– .30 .21 4.41 (1.44)

– .01 3.30 (1.31)

2.30 (0.94)

— .15 .16 .02 .02 .046.10 (0.79)

—

p < .001.

O

FS

for this relationship is that highly identified heterosexuals recognize that heterosexuals enjoy certain advantages, but believe they are entitled to this privileged status. Importantly, the bloggers’ comments were carefully constructed to communicate information about the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals without blaming heterosexuals or derogating the value of the ingroup. Our manipulation of legitimacy did not affect heterosexual identification but instead affected collective guilt. The relationship between agreeing that heterosexual privilege exists and sending offensive comments was fairly weak. Further, the legitimacy manipulation had no effect on agreement that heterosexual privilege exists. Indeed, our findings suggest that recognizing discrimination itself is not related to gay bashing. Rather, it is the combination of making discrimination salient and affirming the legitimacy of discrimination that leads to increased harassment. We believe our results are particularly striking considering that our participants believed they were sending offensive comments to a real person. It appears that participants were willing (and perhaps even eager) to offend a gay student just down the hall, when the legitimacy of discrimination against gays had been affirmed. The conclusions that can be drawn from the present work are limited in some respects. The prewritten comments that largely comprised our dependent measure did not include either neutral comments or comments that were irrelevant to the topic of heterosexual privilege. We did invite participants to type in their own comments in addition to the comments they selected from the prepared list, however not all of our participants chose this option. Future work might benefit from a more qualitative analysis of how heterosexuals react to thinking about discrimination against homosexuals in a less structured, more naturalistic setting (e.g., interviews that invite heterosexuals to discuss gay rights under varying conditions of perceived legitimacy of discrimination). Additionally, future experiments that include separate manipulations designed to independently affect collective guilt and gay bashing may help clarify the nature of the relationship between collective guilt and gay bashing as responses to the legitimacy of discrimination.

CO RR

EC

TE

status differences among heterosexuals and homosexuals when the legitimacy of discrimination was explicitly affirmed compared to when the legitimacy of discrimination was challenged. We found support for our hypothesized mediational model, showing that legitimizing discrimination increases gay bashing by reducing collective guilt. These results are consistent with previous work showing that legitimacy predicts collective guilt, and that collective guilt reduces outgroup derogation (Miron et al., 2006; Powell et al., 2005). When the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals was affirmed in the discrimination legitimate condition, collective guilt was reduced and participants freely made offensive comments. However, when legitimacy was undermined in the discrimination illegitimate condition, participants reported feeling more collective guilt and made fewer offensive comments. Because we also found evidence to support the reverse causality model, our data suggest that the relationship between collective guilt and gay bashing may be bidirectional. We believe there is a stronger theoretical rationale for the path from legitimacy to gay bashing through collective guilt, although the data suggest that collective guilt and gay bashing are correlated outcomes of legitimacy. Legitimizing discrimination against gays decreases collective guilt, which in turn increases gay bashing. At the same time, legitimizing discrimination increases gay bashing, and this results in decreased collective guilt. Surprisingly, participants were just as likely to send offensive comments to a gay or straight discussion partner. Consistent with previous work (Maass et al., 2003), participants seem to be fully aware that their comments would be offensive to the gay man, but they chose to send them anyway. On the other hand, participants who interacted with a straight discussion partner expected just as much agreement regardless of their choice to engage in gay bashing. These findings suggest that outgroup derogation serves a similar identity protective function irrespective of group membership of the recipient of derogation. Yet our findings also suggest that gay bashing is driven by different motives depending on group membership of the recipient. Sending offensive comments to an outgroup member is likely done with the intention to harass, whereas sending offensive comments to an ingroup member may be driven by a social-expressive motivation (Herek, 1987), reflecting affirmation of shared norms concerning the validity of the ingroup’s status. Agreement that heterosexual privilege exists was positively correlated with heterosexual identification. One explanation

O

p < .01;

4

PR

p < .05;

3

D

2

—

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56


CONCLUSION Our findings contribute to the existing literature by identifying perceived legitimacy of discrimination as a predictor of Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)


FS

O

TE

D

KEY MESSAGE

Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319–339. Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111–153. Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83– 96. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. JT Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues (Vol. 4, pp. 39–61). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853–870. McIntosh, P. (2003). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. In S. Plous (Ed.), Understanding prejudice and discrimination (pp. 191–196). New York: McGraw-Hill. Miron, A. M., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2006). Collective guilt as distress over illegitimate intergroup inequality. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 9, 163–180. Nierman, A. J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A., & Mahaffey, A. L. (2007). Gender role beliefs and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men in Chile and the US. Sex Roles, 57, 61–67. Noel, J. G., Wann, D. L., & Branscombe, N. R. (1995). Peripheral ingroup membership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137. Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality as ingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus on collective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1–14. Schmitt, M. T., Behner, R., Montada, L., Muller, L., & Muller-Fohrbrodt, G. (2000). Gender, ethnicity, and eduation and privileges: Exploring the generalizability of the existential guilt reaction. Social Justice Research, 13, 313–337. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., Kobrynowicz, D., & Owen, S. (2002). Perceiving discrimination against one’s gender group has different implications for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 197–210. Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (1978). The psychological structure of intergroup relations. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Differentiation between social groups (pp. 1–28). London: Academic Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup relations. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. Whitley, B. E. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’ attributions for the causes of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377.

O

outgroup derogation through reductions in collective guilt (Branscombe et al., 2002; Miron et al., 2006). We show that making intergroup inequality salient leads to increased prejudice when discrimination is perceived to be legitimate, while making intergroup inequality salient leads to decreased prejudice when discrimination is perceived to be illegitimate. The current research also extends previous work linking the social identity and sexual harassment literatures (e.g., Maass et al., 2003) to include harassment based on sexual orientation. Further, we provide new evidence concerning the role of group membership of the recipient of derogation, and explore how motivations for harassment differ according to group membership of the recipient of derogation. The current research illustrates that heterosexual men tend to engage in gay bashing when the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals is affirmed. In contrast, challenging the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals decreases gay bashing. We demonstrated these effects using a behavioral dependent measure that reflects ‘‘real’’ social interaction (in the sense that participants believed the interaction to be real). Our findings have important implications for the reduction of prejudice by demonstrating that questioning the legitimacy of discrimination can be an effective strategy for reducing outgroup derogation.

PR

8

CO RR

REFERENCES

EC

We concludeQ5 that heterosexuals’ choice to engage in verbal gay bashing is moderated by the perceived legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals.

Branscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in men and women. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184. Branscombe, N. R. & Doosje B. (Eds.), (2004). Collective guilt: International perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Branscombe, N. R., Doosje, B., & McGarty, C. (2002). Antecedents and consquences of collective guilt. In D. M. Mackie, & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups (pp. 49–66). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press. Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Schiffhauer, K. (2007). Racial attitudes in response to thoughts of White privilege. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 203–215. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). The justification-suppression model of experienced and expressed prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414– 446. Dall’Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681–704. Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & Ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228. Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on the functional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285–303. Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural and psychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316–333. Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66.

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56


APPENDIX A: DISCRIMINATION ILLEGITIMATE MANIPULATION Posted by myers007 on 8/18/09: Yes, I recognize that heterosexual privilege exists but I think it is illegitimate. I think it is entirely unjustified that some people are denied everyday rights and benefits solely because of their sexual orientation. Just because I happen to be straight does not mean I should be entitled to special privileges. Expectations that neighbors will be decent to you and that your sexual orientation will not cost you your job, your children, or your life should be the norm in any principled society. I believe the right thing to do is to support policies that extend legal and social benefits to all people regardless of sexual orientation in order to correct these injustices. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

Q5

Legitimacy of discrimination Posted by chiefsfan8 on 8/18/09: In my opinion heterosexual privilege is unearned and unfair. These examples of heterosexual privilege are clearly violations of core American values. Treating people differently on the basis of sexual orientation is totally illegitimate. What ever happened to equal rights for all? I think that once heterosexuals recognize that heterosexual privilege exists they will be more supportive of gay rights. Heterosexuals do not deserve to be more valued by friends and peers, safe from ridicule, or free from stress and worry than anybody else.

society, such as the natural reproduction that is necessary to carry on the human race. Therefore, if people in homosexual relationships seek to receive such public benefits, they bear the burden of proof. They must show that their relationships benefit society (not just themselves) in the same way and to the same degree that relationships between a man and a woman do.

Posted by chiefsfan8 on 8/18/09: Sure there are differences in the way heterosexuals and homosexuals are treated in our society, but these differences are legitimate. The legal and financial benefits afforded to heterosexuals are NOT, nor should they be, an entitlement for every citizen regardless of lifestyle. For example, the military has a right to discriminate against any individual who poses a threat to the success and efficiency of military operations. There is no ‘‘Right to Serve’’ in the military. The military ‘‘discriminates’’ against people with medical conditions, prison records, handicaps, mental conditions, and height and weight problems. The military also has a right to discriminate against men who are sexually attracted to other men.

CO RR

EC

TE

D

PR

I think it is completely legitimate that heterosexuals have these so-called ‘‘privileges.’’ Society gives ‘‘benefits’’ to heterosexuals because heterosexual relationships give benefits to

O

Posted by myers007 on 8/18/09:

O

FS

APPENDIX B: DISCRIMINATION LEGITIMATE CONDITION

9

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56


Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

Author Query Form (EJSP/784) Special Instruction: Author please include responses to queries with your other corrections and return by e-mail.

TE

D

PR

O

O

FS

Please check the order of section headings. Reference is not given in the list. Please provide it in the reference list. ‘Meditational’ has been changed to ‘mediational’ throughout the text. Please check. Reference is not given in the list. Please provide it in the reference list. Please check the presentation of this section.

EC

Author: Author: Author: Author: Author:

CO RR

Q1: Q2: Q3: Q4: Q5:

UN

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56

USING eANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION Required Software to eAnnotate PDFs: Adobe Acrobat Professional or Acrobat Reader (version 8.0 or above). The Latest version of Acrobat Reader is free: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html Once you have Acrobat Reader 8, or higher, open on your PC you should see the Commenting Toolbar:

****(If the above toolbar does not appear automatically go to Tools>Comment & Markup>Show Comment & Markup Toolbar)****

1. Replacement Text Tool — For replacing text. Strikes a line through text and opens up a replacement text box.

How to use it: 1. Highlight a word or sentence 2. Select “Replace Selected Text” from the Text Edits fly down button 3. Type replacement text in blue box

2. Cross-out Text Tool — For deleting text. Strikes a red line through selected text.

How to use it: 1. Highlight a word or sentence 2. Select “Cross Out Text for Deletion” from the Text Edits fly down button

3. Highlight Tool — For highlighting a selection to be changed to bold or italic. Highlights text in yellow and opens up a text box.

How to use it: 1. Highlight desired text 2. Select “Add Note To Selected Text” from the Text Edits fly down button 3. Type a note detailing required change in the yellow box

4. Note Tool — For making notes at specific points in the text Marks a point on the paper where a note or question needs to be addressed.

How to use it: 1. Select the Sticky Note icon from the commenting toolbar 2. Click where the yellow speech bubble symbol needs to appear and a yellow text box will appear 3. Type comment into the yellow text box

USING eANNOTATION TOOLS FOR ELECTRONIC PROOF CORRECTION

5. Drawing Markup Tools — For circling parts of figures or spaces that require changes These tools allow you to draw circles, lines and comment on these marks.

How to use it: 1. Click on one of shape icons in the Commenting Toolbar 2. Draw the selected shape with the cursor 3. Once finished, move the cursor over the shape until an arrowhead appears and double click 4. Type the details of the required change in the red box

6. Attach File Tool — For inserting large amounts of text or replacement figures as a files. Inserts symbol and speech bubble where a file has been inserted. How to use it: 1. Right click on the Commenting Toolbar 2. Select “Attach a File as a Comment” 3. Click on paperclip icon that appears in the Commenting Toolbar 4. Click where you want to insert the attachment 5. Select the saved file from your PC or network 6. Select type of icon to appear (paperclip, graph, attachment or tag) and close

7. Approved Tool (Stamp) — For approving a proof if no corrections are required. How to use it: 1. Click on the Stamp Tool in the toolbar 2. Select the Approved rubber stamp from the „standard business‟ selection 3. Click on the text where you want to rubber stamp to appear (usually first page)

Help For further information on how to annotate proofs click on the Help button to activate a list of instructions:

WILEY AUTHOR DISCOUNT CLUB We would like to show our appreciation to you, a highly valued contributor to Wiley’s publications, by offering a unique 25% discount off the published price of any of our books*. All you need to do is apply for the Wiley Author Discount Card by completing the attached form and returning it to us at the following address: The Database Group (Author Club) John Wiley & Sons Ltd The Atrium Southern Gate Chichester PO19 8SQ UK Alternatively, you can register online at www.wileyeurope.com/go/authordiscount Please pass on details of this offer to any co-authors or fellow contributors. After registering you will receive your Wiley Author Discount Card with a special promotion code, which you will need to quote whenever you order books direct from us. The quickest way to order your books from us is via our European website at:

http://www.wileyeurope.com Key benefits to using the site and ordering online include: • Real-time SECURE on-line ordering • Easy catalogue browsing • Dedicated Author resource centre • Opportunity to sign up for subject-orientated e-mail alerts Alternatively, you can order direct through Customer Services at: [email protected], or call +44 (0)1243 843294, fax +44 (0)1243 843303 So take advantage of this great offer and return your completed form today. Yours sincerely,

Verity Leaver Group Marketing Manager [email protected]

*TERMS AND CONDITIONS

This offer is exclusive to Wiley Authors, Editors, Contributors and Editorial Board Members in acquiring books for their personal use. There must be no resale through any channel. The offer is subject to stock availability and cannot be applied retrospectively. This entitlement cannot be used in conjunction with any other special offer. Wiley reserves the right to amend the terms of the offer at any time.

REGISTRATION FORM

For Wiley Author Club Discount Card To enjoy your 25% discount, tell us your areas of interest and you will receive relevant catalogues or leaflets from which to select your books. Please indicate your specific subject areas below. Accounting • Public • Corporate

[] [] []

Architecture

[]

Business/Management

[]

Chemistry • Analytical • Industrial/Safety • Organic • Inorganic • Polymer • Spectroscopy

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Computer Science • Database/Data Warehouse • Internet Business • Networking • Programming/Software Development • Object Technology

[ [ [ [ [

Encyclopedia/Reference • Business/Finance • Life Sciences • Medical Sciences • Physical Sciences • Technology

[ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ]

Engineering • Civil • Communications Technology • Electronic • Environmental • Industrial • Mechanical

[ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Earth & Environmental Science

[]

Hospitality

[]

Finance/Investing • Economics • Institutional • Personal Finance

[ [ [ [

] ] ] ]

Genetics • Bioinformatics/ Computational Biology • Proteomics • Genomics • Gene Mapping • Clinical Genetics

[] []

Life Science

[]

Landscape Architecture

[]

Mathematics Statistics

[]

[ [ [ [

] ] ] ]

Manufacturing Materials Science

Medical Science • Cardiovascular • Diabetes • Endocrinology • Imaging • Obstetrics/Gynaecology • Oncology • Pharmacology • Psychiatry

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Non-Profit

[]

] ] ] ] ]

[]

[] []

Psychology • Clinical • Forensic • Social & Personality • Health & Sport • Cognitive • Organizational • Developmental & Special Ed • Child Welfare • Self-Help

[ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [ [

] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ] ]

Physics/Physical Science

[]

Please complete the next page /

I confirm that I am (*delete where not applicable): a Wiley Book Author/Editor/Contributor* of the following book(s): ISBN: ISBN: a Wiley Journal Editor/Contributor/Editorial Board Member* of the following journal(s):

SIGNATURE: ……………………………………………………………………………………

Date: ………………………………………

PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING DETAILS IN BLOCK CAPITALS: TITLE: (e.g. Mr, Mrs, Dr) …………………… FULL NAME: …………………………………………………………………………….… JOB TITLE (or Occupation):

..…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

DEPARTMENT: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….. COMPANY/INSTITUTION: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ADDRESS: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… TOWN/CITY: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… COUNTY/STATE: …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. COUNTRY: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. POSTCODE/ZIP CODE: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… DAYTIME TEL: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… FAX: ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… E-MAIL: ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… YOUR PERSONAL DATA We, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, will use the information you have provided to fulfil your request. In addition, we would like to: 1.

Use your information to keep you informed by post of titles and offers of interest to you and available from us or other Wiley Group companies worldwide, and may supply your details to members of the Wiley Group for this purpose. [ ] Please tick the box if you do NOT wish to receive this information

2.

Share your information with other carefully selected companies so that they may contact you by post with details of titles and offers that may be of interest to you. [ ] Please tick the box if you do NOT wish to receive this information.

E-MAIL ALERTING SERVICE We also offer an alerting service to our author base via e-mail, with regular special offers and competitions. If you DO wish to receive these, please opt in by ticking the box [ ]. If, at any time, you wish to stop receiving information, please contact the Database Group ([email protected]) at John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, PO19 8SQ, UK.

TERMS & CONDITIONS This offer is exclusive to Wiley Authors, Editors, Contributors and Editorial Board Members in acquiring books for their personal use. There should be no resale through any channel. The offer is subject to stock availability and may not be applied retrospectively. This entitlement cannot be used in conjunction with any other special offer. Wiley reserves the right to vary the terms of the offer at any time.

PLEASE RETURN THIS FORM TO: Database Group (Author Club), John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, PO19 8SQ, UK [email protected] Fax: +44 (0)1243 770154