Effects of legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on gay bashing

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 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

Research article

Effects of legitimizing discrimination against homosexuals on gay bashing

ANGELA J. BAHNS* AND NYLA R. BRANSCOMBEUniversity of Kansas, USA

Abstract

OFS

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 (N¼ 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.

Q1

UNCORRECT

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 anti-

gay 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.

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 ofE-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ED PRO

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 group-

based 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 dis-

advantage (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

Kansas, 1415 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045, USA.

Received 16 September 2010, Accepted 26 October 2010

2 Angela J. Bahns and Nyla R. Branscombe 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

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 homo-

sexuals serves as a justification strategy that undermines feelings

of collective guilt in heterosexuals.

ILLEGITIMACY AS A PREDICTOR OFCOLLECTIVE GUILT

UNCORREC

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, theymust 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. How-

ever, 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 partici-

pants. Thoughts of White privilege evoked collective guilt

because Whites were portrayed as perpetrators of injustice,

coloring the perception of ingroup privilege as illegitimate.

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.

TED P

ROO

FS

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 member-

ship 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.

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 discrimi-

nation 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 3 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

undermined. Further, we expected that the effect of

legitimizing discrimination on gay bashing would be mediated

by decreased collective guilt.

METHOD

Participants and Design

Participants were 167 undergraduate heterosexual men, 18–30

years of age (M¼ 19.4; SD¼ 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 mem-

bership of discussion partner: Gay, straight) between-subjects

design.

Materials and Procedure

Cover Story

An adapted version of Dall’Ara and Maass’s (1999) computer

harassment paradigm was developed using MediaLab soft-

ware. 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 partici-

pants they would have a chance to respond to the blog entry by

exchanging comments online with the other participant.

1Comments were selected to be equally balanced in extremity. Pre-test ratings(N¼ 39) confirmed that the offensive comments did not differ in extremity(M¼ 5.70, SD¼ 0.56) from the supportive comments (M¼ 5.71, SD¼ 0.70).Ratings were made on 7-point scales with higher numbers representing moreextreme comments.2Free response comments were coded by two independent raters who wereblind to condition. Comments were coded as offensive or not offensive. Initialagreement between the two raters was acceptable (k¼ .67, p< .0001). Whenthe raters disagreed, consensus was reached through discussion with AngelaBahns. All reported effects remain the same regardless of whether the freeresponse comments are included in the calculation of gay bashing or not.

UNCORManipulation 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’ agree-

ment that heterosexual privilege exists by having them indicate

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ED PRO

OFS

whether they found the examples of privilege from the blog

entry to be true in their own experience. Participants responded

to the 20 items (a¼ .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.’’

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

Whilewaiting for their online discussion partner to respond,

participants completed measures of partner expected agree-

ment, heterosexual identification, perceived legitimacy, col-

lective guilt, collective anxiety, and demographics. Scales

ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), with

higher scores indicating greater agreement with each

construct.

Expected Agreement

Three items (a¼ .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.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

CORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

Table 1. Frequencies and offensiveness ratings of comments

Offensive comments OffensivenessNumber of

times selected

No, I don’t feel bad that gays don’t have the same rights that I do! Homosexuality is immoral. Gays shouldbe discriminated against, not rewarded for their deviant behavior

6.57 11

Gay people just don’t deserve the same rights and benefits as heterosexual people 6.43 17I don’t think there’s anything wrong with discriminating against gays. If they don’t like it, they shouldchoose a different lifestyle

6.39 9

There’s a good reason why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt children or teach in schools. It isdangerous to allow gay people to be role models for children

6.31 17

Of course gays should not be allowed to serve openly in the military! If I were a soldier, I wouldn’t want tohave to worry about my fellow soldiers hitting on me

6.15 25

Our country celebrates personal freedom, but we also celebrate individual responsibility. If people chooseto be gay, they should be prepared to suffer the consequences

5.86 25

Liberals and gay rights advocates are taking over this country. Trying to make heterosexuals feel guiltyabout our rights and benefits is ridiculous and unfair!

5.71 34

I’m sick and tired of hearing about equal rights for gays. We have already passed anti-discriminationpolicies and recognize domestic partnerships. What more do they want?

5.68 20

I generally support equal rights, but when it comes to redefining marriage to allow men to marry other menand women to marry other women, that’s just going too far

5.52 51

I have no problem with being privileged because I am heterosexual 5.33 60People need to learn that life isn’t fair. I don’t think we need to bend over backwards trying to makeabsolutely everything equal

5.29 42

Gay people don’t really have it any harder than straight people 5.18 10Heterosexual privilege is not my problem 4.95 34There’s lots of hype about gay rights these days, but I don’t see what any of this has to do with me 4.56 36I don’t think heterosexual privilege exists 4.51 5Anyone who benefits from heterosexual privilege and does not support efforts to correct these injustices ispart of the problem

3.44 18

How can we expect someone to perform well at their job if they are forced to conceal an important part oftheir identity?

3.23 59

I plan to tell my friends about heterosexual privilege and how I think it is unfair 2.79 9I wish there was something I could do to help ‘‘level the playing field’’ for gay people 2.77 20I am willing to do whatever I can to help to eliminate heterosexual privilege 2.49 16I support the right of service members to serve openly and honestly, and I believe that the majority ofservice members are comfortable serving alongside gay and lesbian troops

2.44 28

I think that we should teach our children from a young age about the different sexual orientations andemphasize that they are all ‘‘normal’’

2.28 44

I think we should all do our part to make gay friends, neighbors, and co-workers feel comfortable, safe, andwelcome

2.15 50

I see no good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to marry if they choose 2.03 77I believe that it is wrong for employers to discriminate based on sexual orientation 1.91 100Heterosexuality should NOT be the only sexual orientation that is accepted and valued in our society.Instead we should learn to value diversity

2.08 65

I believe that who people choose to love should never be a cause for discrimination 1.79 81Treating people differently based on their sexual orientation is just plain wrong 1.96 94Whatever happened to ‘‘liberty and justice for all?’’ I think it is shameful that our country does not offerequal rights and protection to all of its citizens

1.95 82

I believe that gay people deserve the same rights and benefits as heterosexual people 1.83 88

Note: Offensiveness scores represent mean offensiveness ratings from pre-testing (N¼ 39) on a scale from 1 (Extremely supportive of gays) to 7 (Extremelyoffensive to gays).

4 Angela J. Bahns and Nyla R. Branscombe 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

UNHeterosexual Identification

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 (a¼ .85) (‘‘I am proud to be a

heterosexual’’) assessing heterosexual identification.

Perceived Legitimacy

Three items (a¼ .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.

Intergroup Emotions

Next we assessed emotional responses to discrimination

against homosexuals including collective guilt and collective

anxiety. Collective guilt was assessed by four items (a¼ .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 (a¼ .72) assessed collective

anxiety (‘‘I think homosexuals pose a threat to heterosex-

uals’’).

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

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

OFS

Figure 1. Manipulating the legitimacy of discrimination against homosexuals increases gay bashing

Legitimacy of discrimination 5 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

and to ensure they understood why the deception was

necessary.3

RESULTS

RRECTWe 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 partici-

pants sent varying numbers of comments (M¼ 7.83,

SD¼ 2.67, min¼ 2, max¼ 20), we used the proportion of

offensive comments (including both pre-written and free-

response comments) as an indicator of gay bashing.

5To investigate the effect of group membership of the discussion partner, wetested a moderated mediation model ( Q2Preacher,Q2 Rucker, & Hayes, 2007) inwhich the indirect effect of legitimacy on expected agreement through gaybashing is moderated by group membership. With no moderator in the model,the indirect effect of legitimacy on expected agreement via gay bashing wassignificant (Sobel z¼�3.35, p¼ .0008). Participants in the discriminationlegitimate condition engaged in more gay bashing, and in turn expected lessagreement from their discussion partner. We next tested a moderatedmediation

UNC

Manipulation Check

The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on

perceived legitimacy, F(1, 163)¼ 14.07, p< .0001, h¼ 0.28.

Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition

perceived differential treatment of heterosexuals and homo-

sexuals to be more legitimate (M¼ 4.67, SD¼ 1.93) compared

to participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition

(M¼ 3.63, SD¼ 1.62). These results indicate that the

manipulation of legitimacy had its intended effect.4

3No participant expressed suspicion regarding the existence of the onlinediscussion partner during the experiment. During the debriefing, many partici-pants expressed surprise when the experimenter revealed that the discussionpartner was not real.4Eleven participants failed the single-item manipulation check. These cases donot differ by condition (x2 (3)¼ 1.00, p¼ .80) and are included in all analyses.All reported effects are the same regardless of whether they are included orexcluded.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ED PRO

Gay Bashing

As predicted, the main effect of legitimacy on gay bashing was

significant, F(1, 163)¼ 16.06, p< .0001, h¼ 0.30. As shown

in Figure 1, participants in the discrimination legitimate

condition sent a higher proportion of offensive comments

(M¼ 0.46, SD¼ 0.37) compared to participants in the

discrimination illegitimate condition (M¼ 0.25, SD¼ 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).

Expected Agreement

The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on

expected agreement, F(1, 163)¼ 6.07, p¼ .01, h¼ 0.20.

Participants in the discrimination legitimate condition reported

less expected agreement (M¼ 4.12, SD¼ 1.56) compared to

participants in the discrimination illegitimate condition

(M¼ 4.68, SD¼ 1.26). There was also a marginally significant

effect of the group membership manipulation on expected

agreement, F(1, 163)¼ 3.17, p¼ .08, h¼ 0.14.5 Participants in

the gay discussion partner condition reported less expected

model in which this indirect effect was moderated by the group membership ofthe discussion partner. The conditional indirect effect was significant, t(163)¼ 8.39, p< .0001. Probing the interaction revealed that the indirecteffect was significant in the gay partner condition (z¼�3.80, p< .001),and non-significant in the straight partner condition (z¼ 0.54, p¼ .549). Thesefindings indicate that when interacting with a gay man, the choice to sendoffensive comments or not affected participants’ expectations for their part-ner’s agreement. In contrast, when interacting with a straight man, expectedagreement was unrelated to gay bashing.

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

6 Angela J. Bahns and Nyla R. Branscombe 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

agreement (M¼ 4.21, SD¼ 1.83) compared to participants in

the straight discussion partner condition (M¼ 4.59,

SD¼ 0.93). The interaction of legitimacy and group member-

ship on expected agreement was not significant, F(1,

163)¼ 2.48, p¼ .12, h¼ 0.12.

F

Intergroup Emotions

The legitimacy manipulation had a significant effect on

collective guilt, F(1, 163)¼ 7.83, p¼ .006, h¼ 0.21. Partici-

pants in the discrimination legitimate condition reported less

collective guilt (M¼ 3.02, SD¼ 1.28) compared to partici-

pants in the discrimination illegitimate condition (M¼ 3.87,

SD¼ 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, p¼ .

01, h¼ 0.18. Participants interacting with a gay discussion

partner reported more collective anxiety (M¼ 2.50,

SD¼ 1.03) compared to participants interacting with a straight

discussion partner (M¼ 2.11, SD¼ 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.

Q3

Q4

UNCORREC

Tests of Mediation

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 (b¼ .30, t(165)¼ 4.06,

p< .0001), (b) legitimacy condition and collective guilt

(b¼�.21, t(165)¼�2.70, p¼ .008), and (c) collective guilt

and gay bashing (b¼�.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 (b¼ .21, t(165)¼3.12, p¼ .002). A Sobel test of mediation confirmed that the

indirect effect of legitimacy on gay bashing via collective guilt

significantly differed from zero, z¼ 2.48, p¼ .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

Figure 2. Hypothesized mediational model in which the effect oflegitimacy of discrimination on gay bashing is mediated by decreasedcollective guilt. We coded legitimacy condition with 0 for illegitimateand 1 for legitimate. Path weights are standardized. The number inparentheses is the standardized relationship between legitimacy andgay bashing without controlling for collective guilt. �p< .05; ��p< .01;���p< .0001

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

S

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 (b¼�.01, t(165)¼�0.19, p¼ .854); the

Sobel test was also not significant, z¼�0.18, p¼ .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 relation-

ship 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, z¼�3.41,

p¼ .0007. These results indicate that participants in the

discrimination legitimate condition engaged in more gay

bashing, which in turn decreased collective guilt.

TED P

ROORelationship 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 identifi-

cation 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 illegiti-

mate 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 homosex-

uals 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.

DISCUSSION

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)

Table 2. Correlations between the dependent variables

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1. Heterosexual ID —2. Agree privilege exists .38��� —3. Perceived legitimacy .45��� .15 —4. Gay bashing .42��� .16� .68��� —5. Expected agreement �.16� �.02 �.34��� �.46��� –6. Collective guilt �.29��� �.02 �.32��� �.48��� .30��� –7. Collective anxiety .08 �.04- .39��� .26�� �.21�� .01Means (standard deviations) 6.16 (1.06) 6.10 (0.79) 4.13 (1.85) 0.35 (0.36) 4.41 (1.44) 3.30 (1.31) 2.30 (0.94)

�p< .05; ��p< .01; ���p< .001.

Legitimacy of discrimination 7 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

UNCORRECT

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 discrimi-

nation 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

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

ED PRO

OFS

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 discrimi-

nation 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 discrimi-

nation.

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)

8 Angela J. Bahns and Nyla R. Branscombe 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

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 member-

ship 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 homo-

sexuals 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.

KEY MESSAGE

Q5

gay bashing is moderated by the perceived legitimacy of

discrimination against homosexuals.

C

REFERENCES

UNCORBranscombe, N. R. (1998). Thinking about one’s gender group’s privileges or

disadvantages: Consequences for well-being in men and women. BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 37, 167–184.

Branscombe, N. R. & Doosje B. (Eds.), (2004). Collective guilt: Internationalperspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Branscombe, N. R., Doosje, B., & McGarty, C. (2002). Antecedents andconsquences of collective guilt. In D. M. Mackie, & E. R. Smith (Eds.),From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to socialgroups (pp. 49–66). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The contextand 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 attitudesin response to thoughts of White privilege. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 37, 203–215.

Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). The justification-suppression model ofexperienced and expressed prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.

Dall’Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the labora-tory: 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 SocialPsychology, 57, 212–228.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Can functions be measured? A new perspective on thefunctional approach to attitudes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 285–303.

Herek, G. M. (1990). The context of anti-gay violence: Notes on cultural andpsychological heterosexism. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 5, 316–333.

Herek, G. M. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gaymen. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 40–66.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

TED P

ROO

FS

Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002). Victim experiences in hatecrimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319–339.

Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2003). The psychology of system justification andthe palliative function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology,13, 111–153.

Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexualityand the implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 83–96.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes towardhomosexual persons, behaviors, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. JTPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336–353.

Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. Jr., (1998). Do heterosexual women and mendiffer in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodo-logical analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation:Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals. Psycho-logical perspectives on lesbian and gay issues (Vol. 4, pp. 39–61). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harass-ment 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 asdistress over illegitimate intergroup inequality. Group Processes and Inter-group Relations, 9, 163–180.

Nierman, A. J., Thompson, S. C., Bryan, A., &Mahaffey, A. L. (2007). Genderrole 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 ingroupmembership status and public negativity toward outgroups. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 68, 127–137.

Powell, A. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Schmitt, M. T. (2005). Inequality asingroup privilege or outgroup disadvantage: The impact of group focus oncollective guilt and interracial attitudes. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 31, 1–14.

Schmitt, M. T., Behner, R., Montada, L., Muller, L., & Muller-Fohrbrodt, G.(2000). Gender, ethnicity, and eduation and privileges: Exploring thegeneralizability 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 implica-tions for well-being in women and men. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 28, 197–210.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory ofsocial 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 intergrouprelations. In S. Worchel, & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergrouprelations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Whitley, B. E. (1990). The relationship of heterosexuals’ attributions for thecauses of homosexuality to attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 369–377.

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)

Legitimacy of discrimination 9 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

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.

APPENDIX B: DISCRIMINATION LEGITIMATE

CONDITION

Posted by myers007 on 8/18/09:

I think it is completely legitimate that heterosexuals have these

so-called ‘‘privileges.’’ Society gives ‘‘benefits’’ to hetero-

sexuals because heterosexual relationships give benefits to

UNCORRECT

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

OFS

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.

ED PRO

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 1–9 (2010)

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

Author Query Form (EJSP/784)

Special Instruction: Author please include responses to queries with your other corrections and

return by e-mail.

Q1: Author: Please check the order of section headings.

Q2: Author: Reference is not given in the list. Please provide it in the reference list.

Q3: Author: ‘Meditational’ has been changed to ‘mediational’ throughout the text. Please check.

Q4: Author: Reference is not given in the list. Please provide it in the reference list.

Q5: Author: Please check the presentation of this section.

UNCORRECTE

D PRO

OFS

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.

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

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

How to use it:

1. Highlight a word or sentence

2. Select “Cross Out Text for Deletion” from the Text Edits fly down button

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

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.

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.

7. Approved Tool (Stamp) — For approving a proof if no corrections are required. Help For further information on how to annotate proofs click on the Help button to activate a list of instructions:

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)

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

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

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.

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

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

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

[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]

Non-Profit [ ] Physics/Physical Science [ ]

Please complete the next page /

REGISTRATION FORM For Wiley Author Club Discount Card

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