Dormant Masculinity: Moderating Effects of Acute Alcohol Intoxication on the Relation Between Male Role Norms and Antigay Aggression

Abstract

Acute alcohol intoxication was examined as a moderator of the association between men’s adherence to traditional gender norms and aggression towards a gay male. Participants were 164 heterosexual drinking men between the ages of 21–30. Participants completed a battery of questionnaires that included a measure of adherence to male role norms (i.e., status, toughness, antifemininity), were randomly assigned to consume an alcohol or no-alcohol control beverage, and completed the Taylor Aggression Paradigm in which electric shocks were administered to, and received from, a fictitious gay or heterosexual male opponent. Results indicated a greater adherence to both the toughness (β = .50, p = .002) and antifeminine (β = .37, p = .023) norms predicted high levels of aggression towards a gay man only among participants who were intoxicated. This interaction effect was not detected for the status norm. Consistent with previous research, findings suggest that adherence to the toughness norm does not increase sober men’s risk of aggression toward gay men. However, this is the first study to demonstrate that alcohol intoxication may activate concepts of toughness, and thus influence men to act in line with this facet of the masculine concept. Importantly, these data support the view that men’s adherence to various dimensions of masculinity may be dormant in some contexts, only to be activated, and subsequently demonstrated, in other contexts.

“The acquisition of ‘beer muscles’is a cultural phenomenon where men are assumed to feel hyper-masculine, tough, strong, and invincible” – Peralta (2007, pg. 748)

On May 17, 2013 Mark Carson, an openly gay male, was killed while walking down the street in Greenwich Village, New York. Elliot Morales, the man charged with the murder, allegedly visited a bar shortly before the shooting and confronted the bartender with antigay slurs, showed off his revolver, and threatened to kill him if he called police. He then left the bar and, after hurling a stream of antigay slurs, shot and killed Carson a few blocks away. Morales’ sister later told reporters her brother “doesn’t remember anything; he was under the influence; he was drinking” (Barron, 2013). When questioned by police regarding the shooting, Morales allegedly told police he shot him because Carson was “acting tough” (Dobnik, 2013) and that he doesn’t “have a problem with gay people.”

This recent murder of a sexual minority, or an individual who endorses a non-heterosexual identity (e.g., gay, lesbian, or bisexual), experiences significant same-sex attraction, or engages in significant homosexual behavior (Herek & McLemore, 2013), is not an isolated case. Antigay violence remains a significant public health concern, despite a growing support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning community (Brewer, 2008). Bias-motivated murder and severe assaults of sexual minorities, as is alleged in the case of Elliot Morales, receive significant media attention; however, approximately 50% of sexual minority individuals report bias-motivated verbal or physical victimization in their lifetimes that goes largely unreported (Herek, 2009). These victims, who are typically male (National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs [NCAVP], 2013), suffer a greater severity of violence and experience greater detrimental personal and psychological effects than victims of other bias-motivated (Dunbar, 2006) and nonbiased assaults (Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999).

These data provide clear evidence to support continued research on determinants of aggression toward sexual minorities. To this end, numerous motivations for aggression toward sexual minorities have been advanced and each has garnered some empirical support. For instance, theorists posit that male-perpetrated aggression towards gay men functions to enforce traditional gender norms (Hamner, 1992; Kite & Whitley, 1996) and prove one’s heterosexuality and masculinity to other men (Franklin, 2000; Herek, 1986; Kimmel, 2000). Indeed, gay men are assumed to violate sex-role norms (Kite, 1994) and are typically viewed as feminine (Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997). Consistent with this view, research indicates that heterosexual men’s endorsement of traditional beliefs about the male gender role increase the risk of aggression toward gay men (e.g., Parrott, 2009; Vincent, Parrott, & Peterson, 2011).

Despite these and other advancements in the identification of risk factors and mechanisms for aggression toward sexual minorities (for reviews, see Franklin, 2000; Parrott, 2008), significant gaps remain. Perhaps most notably, few studies have examined the effects of alcohol on aggression toward sexual minorities (Hull & Van Treuren, 1986; Parrott & Miller, 2009). It is clear that alcohol facilitates aggression (e.g., Bushman & Cooper, 1990), and recent data suggest that alcohol may also facilitate bias-motivated aggression. For instance, a recent analysis of data from the National Incident Based Reporting Survey found individuals who committed hate crimes were more likely to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol than those who committed non-hate crimes (Messner, McHugh, & Felson, 2004). Moreover, research indicates that heterosexual men are twice as likely to aggress towards a sexual minority on days they had consumed alcohol than on non-drinking days (Parrott, Gallagher, Vincent, & Bakeman, 2010). However, there remains no experimental test of the extent to which the pharmacological effects of alcohol moderate the relation between established determinants and aggression toward sexual minorities. To this end, the purpose of the current study was to examine the effect of acute alcohol intoxication on the relationship between men’s adherence to traditional gender norms and aggression towards a gay male.

Traditional Masculine Norms as Risk Factors for Aggression Towards Gay Men

Hegemonic masculinity is defined as “the configuration of gender practice which embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy, which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women” (Connell, 2005, p. 77). Central to the maintenance of the hegemonic masculine identity is heterosexuality (Herek, 1986; Kilianski, 2003) and the division among men which excludes and subordinates gay men (Carrigan, Connell, & Lee, 1985; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005). Aggression toward gay men, or any men who are perceived to be gay, functions to reify these fundamental concepts. Hegemonic masculinity is also defined by the absence of femininity (e.g., Kimmel, 1997; Pleck, 1981). Because homosexuality is equated with femininity (Kite & Deaux, 1987; Madon, 1997), aggression toward gay men may also function as a way for males to affirm their masculine, or antifeminine, identity.

This literature is consistent with the broad and well-accepted view that aggression toward gay men serves to enforce traditional gender norms and demonstrate one’s masculinity and heterosexuality to other men (Franklin, 2000; Hamner, 1992; Kimmel, 2000; Kite & Whitley, 1998). In support of this view, a host of empirical evidence has demonstrated the link between trait masculinity and antigay aggression (e.g., Parrott & Zeichner, 2008; Whitley, 2001); however, these works did not consider the associations between distinct dimensions of masculinity and aggression. Indeed, pertinent theory posits that the masculine gender role is not monolithic, but rather multiple “masculinities” and dimensions of those masculinities exist (for a review, see Connell, 2005).

One example of this conceptualization was advanced by Thompson and Pleck (1986), who identified three distinct dimensions of traditional masculinity to which heterosexual men vary in their adherence: (a) Status, which reflects the belief that men must attain social status and respect of others, (b) Toughness, which reflects the expectation that men be physically tough and inclined to be aggressive, and (c) Antifemininity, which reflects the belief that men should not act in stereotypically feminine ways or participate in stereotypically feminine activities. Recent survey and laboratory-based studies that adopted this conceptualization have demonstrated that adherence to these male role norms is differentially related to antigay attitudes, emotions, and behavior. Specifically, research suggests that adherence to the status and antifemininity, but not toughness, norms indirectly facilitates antigay anger (Parrott et al., 2008) and aggression toward gay, but not heterosexual, persons (Parrott, 2009; Parrott, Peterson, & Bakeman, 2011) via sexual prejudice. Additionally, studies have demonstrated that adherence to the antifemininity, but not status or toughness, norm directly facilitates antigay aggression (Parrott et al., 2011). Moreover, self-identified perpetrators of alcohol-related antigay aggression endorse higher levels of antifemininity, but not toughness or status, compared to non-perpetrators (Parrott et al., 2010). Although no studies have demonstrated a link between adherence to the toughness norm and antigay emotions or behaviors, Davies (2004) provided evidence that adherence to this norm is associated with negative attitudes toward gay men. However, this study did not measure adherence to the status or antifemininity norms.

Collectively, these data indicate that adherence to the antifemininity norm is a predictor of antigay anger and aggression, exhibiting both direct and indirect effects. Further, research has demonstrated adherence to the status norm is indirectly associated with both anger and aggression through sexual prejudice (Parrott 2009; Parrott et al., 2011). Surprisingly, adherence to the toughness norm, which reflects the belief that men should be aggressive and physically tough, has only been associated with negative attitudes towards gay men, not antigay aggression or anger. To explain this finding, Parrott (2009) suggested that aggression towards gay men might provide less of an opportunity to display one’s toughness because gay men are a stigmatized, low-status group. Conversely, aggressing towards gay men allows individuals to affirm their antifeminine orientation and higher social status – and thus demonstrate their masculinity.

Although the link between adherence to certain male role norms and antigay aggression has been established, it is important to consider that men’s overt demonstration of different masculine norms is context dependent (Connell, 2005). This view differs significantly from the traditional approach to research on masculinity, which proceeds predominately from a trait-based theoretical framework (for exceptions, see Talbot & Quayle, 2010). Constructing masculinity from a context-dependent framework allows researchers to identify the contexts that elicit men’s strong adherence—and sometimes public demonstrations—of various traditional male role norms (Addis, Mansfield, & Szydek, 2010).

Research examining context-dependent masculinity is limited; however, sociological research suggests expectations of masculinity vary across contexts. For example, qualitative research examining South African women’s constructions of masculinity suggests contextual variability (i.e., work, friendships, family, and romantic relationships) in their expectations of men to adhere to hegemonic and non-hegemonic masculinities (Talbot & Quayle, 2010). Specifically, men are expected to adhere to non-hegemonic “nice guy” masculinities in romantic and family situations, but should adhere to more traditional male role norms in work and social environments. Research also indicates that men’s views on masculinity differ across various developmental stages in life (i.e., cohabitation, marriage, anticipation of first child, parenthood). This suggests that masculinity is flexible not only in various contexts, but across life stages (Abrahams, Feldman, & Nash, 1978). Finally, laboratory-based studies suggest men often take measures to demonstrate or reestablish their masculinity following situations in which their masculinity is threatened through aggression, financial risk taking, or avoidance of feminine behaviors (Bosson, Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005; Cohn, Seibert, & Zeichner, 2009; Weaver, Vandello, Bosson, & Burnaford, 2010).

Collectively, these studies illustrate that context plays an important role in the expression of masculinity, such that men may be more compelled to demonstrate certain dimensions of masculinity in one context relative to another. Additionally, it may be that men’s adherence to specific dimensions of masculinity is dormant in most situational contexts, only to be activated in specific situations that are relevant to those masculine concepts. In line with this literature, the present study purports that alcohol intoxication represents one such context that alters the dimensions of masculinity that are reaffirmed via heterosexual men’s perpetration of aggression toward gay men.

Acute Alcohol Intoxication and Adherence to Masculine Norms

The most prominent and empirically-supported model for understanding how alcohol affects aggressive behavior is alcohol myopia theory (AMT; Steele & Josephs, 1990). This theory posits that the pharmacological properties of alcohol facilitate aggression by narrowing attentional focus to the most salient cues in the environment. Specifically, alcohol restricts the internal and external cues that can be perceived and processed, and disrupts high-order cognitive functioning (Abroms, Fillmore, & Marczinski, 2003; Giancola, 2000). By impairing attentional capacity, alcohol causes individuals to attend to the more salient and easier to process cues that typically instigate behavior (e.g., provocation), rather than the less salient cues that typically inhibit behavior (e.g., negative consequences of behavior). Therefore, acute alcohol intoxication is likely to facilitate aggression by narrowing an individual’s attention on provocative or threatening cues in the environment, rather than non-provocative, inhibitory cues.

While research has examined how masculinity is positively associated with alcohol use and problems (e.g., Iwamoto et al., 2011; McCreary, Newcomb, & Sadava, 1999; Uy, Massoth, & Gottdiener, 2013), little research has examined how alcohol consumption may influence the expression of masculinity. Using the AMT framework, there is reason to believe that alcohol intoxication may facilitate attention to certain norms of masculinity. Research has demonstrated that men perceive drinking as a “macho” behavior and a way to express one’s masculinity (e.g., Peralta, 2007; Peralta & Cruz, 2006). Thus, the inability to drink large quantities of alcohol without experiencing adverse effects is viewed as weak or feminine (Gough & Edwards, 1998; Peralta, 2007). Being perceived in these ways is directly contrary to the expectations set forth by the toughness and antifemininity norms. Moreover, young men’s report of male-to-male aggression in the context of a barroom is linked to heightened concerns to maintain their personal image and the need to “look tough” in front of others (Wells, Graham, & Tremblay, 2009). Additionally, acute alcohol intoxication heightens men’s concerns about demonstrating personal power (McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Waner, 1972). Such concerns are consistent with the toughness norm, which requires men to be physically tough and willing to be aggressive. Indeed, research indicates drinking helps men maintain a “tough image,” which may involve the display of aggressive behavior (Graham & Wells, 2003; Tomsen, 1997). In summary, alcohol use and intoxication facilitates a heightened focus on these norms. As a result, the enforcement of these norms via aggression toward gay men should be more likely.

The Present Study

Although theory and research have demonstrated an association between adherence to traditional gender role norms and the perpetration of aggression toward sexual minorities, no research has examined how acute alcohol intoxication may moderate this association. This is surprising for several reasons. First, research indicates that individuals who commit biased-motivated hate crimes are more likely to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol than those who commit non-biased-motivated hate crimes (Messner, McHugh, & Felson, 2004). Second, with respect to aggression toward sexual minorities, antigay assailants consume alcohol more frequently than non-assailants (Franklin, 2000) and approximately 33% of hate crime assailants report acute alcohol intoxication at the time of the offense (Dunbar, 2003). Third, heterosexual men are twice as likely to report aggression towards sexual minorities on days they had consumed alcohol than on non-drinking days (Parrott et al., 2010). These data clearly demonstrate a link between alcohol use and the perpetration of antigay aggression and support the call to examine alcohol’s effects on aggression toward sexual minorities and other stigmatized groups (Hull & Van Treuren, 1986; Parrott & Miller, 2009).

The reviewed literature suggests that alcohol intoxication activates masculine concepts of toughness and antifemininity and focuses men’s attention onto these concepts. A myopic focus on toughness and antifeminine concepts may become especially toxic in the presence of gay men – who fundamentally threaten hegemonic masculinity – by creating a context in which masculinity is best reaffirmed through aggression toward gay men. Several hypotheses were investigated to test this relationship utilizing a laboratory aggression paradigm wherein intoxicated and non-intoxicated heterosexual men were able to physically aggress toward a gay or heterosexual man.

Hypothesis 1: There will be no relationship between adherence to the status norm and aggression toward a gay or heterosexual male, regardless of alcohol consumption.

Hypothesis 2: The relationship between adherence to the toughness norm and aggression towards a gay male will be stronger among intoxicated, relative to sober, men. No such relationship will be detected among participants who compete against the heterosexual male.

Hypothesis 3: The relationship between adherence to the antifemininity norm and aggression towards a gay male will be stronger among intoxicated, relative to sober, men. No such relationship will be detected among participants who compete against the heterosexual male.

Method

Participants were 177 heterosexual male social drinkers between the ages of 21 and 30 who were recruited from the metro-Atlanta community through Internet advertisements and local newspapers. Men in this age group were selected because (1) prior research suggests this demographic is disproportionately more likely to be aggressive towards sexual minorities (NCAVP, 2013), (2) most laboratory research has demonstrated that the effect size of alcohol on direct physical aggression is larger in men (d = .51) than in women (d = .29; Giancola et al., 2009), and (3) the primary aim of the current study was to examine effects of adherence to male role norms on antigay aggression.

Respondents were initially screened over the telephone to confirm self-reported alcohol consumption during the past year; non-drinkers were excluded. Social drinking was defined as consumption of at least three drinks per occasion a minimum of two times per month. Participants were also screened for alcohol dependence using the Brief Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (Pokorny, Miller, & Kaplan, 1972). Pertinent research indicates that a cutoff score of six or above maximizes identification of alcohol dependent persons with minimal likelihood of false positives (Chan, Pristach, & Welte, 1994; Pokorny et al., 1972). Thus, any person scoring at or above this cutoff was excluded from participation. Those who reported past or present drug or alcohol-related problems, acute psychiatric symptomatology as defined by a score above 65 on the Global Severity Index of the Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (Deragotis, 1983), serious head injuries, or a condition in which alcohol is medically counterindicated were also excluded.

As recommended by Savin-Williams (2006), reliable assessment of sexual orientation is best achieved when self-identification, behavioral experiences, and sexual arousal are congruent, with the highest priority given to indices of sexual arousal. Indeed, self-identification and behavioral experiences are more susceptible to social context effects, self-report biases, and variable meanings. Thus, a heterosexual orientation was confirmed by participants’ self-identification as heterosexual as well as their endorsement on the Kinsey Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin, 1948) of exclusive sexual arousal to females and sexual experiences that occurred predominately with women.

Participants were informed that they would be required to complete a questionnaire battery (Session 1) and participate in an experimental session on a separate day (Session 2). Within one week of the telephone screening, participants were contacted and scheduled for Session 1. Consistent with prior alcohol administration studies, participants were told to refrain from drinking alcohol or using recreational drugs 24 hours prior to testing and to refrain from eating four hours prior to testing (e.g., Giancola, Godlaski, & Roth, 2012; McCloskey, Berman, Echevarria, & Coccaro, 2009; Brunelle, Barrett, & Pihl, 2007). Any participant who arrived to the laboratory with a positive breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) was not tested and was given an opportunity to reschedule. Ineligible participants were contacted by phone, informed that they would not be eligible to participate, and thanked.

Following a manipulation check, 13 participants were removed from analyses (see Results). This left a final sample of 164 participants (age M = 24.40, SD = 2.70). The racial composition of this sample consisted of 57% African Americans, 32% Caucasians, 1% American Indian or Alaskan native, 3% Asian, 5% who identified with more than one race, and 2% who refused to answer. The sample had an average of 15.03 years of education and on average earned between $10,000 and $30,000 a year. Approximately 89% had never been married. This study was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Questionnaire Battery

Demographic form

This self-report form obtained information such as age, self-identified sexual orientation, race, relationship status, years of education, and yearly family income.

Drinking Patterns Questionnaire

This 6-item self-report form measures participants’ alcohol use during the past year using the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism’s (NIAAA, 2003) recommended set of alcohol consumption questions. Three aspects of participants’ alcohol use were of particularly interest in the present study: participants’ frequency of alcohol consumption, average drinks per drinking day, and frequency of consuming five or more alcoholic beverages. These aspects of participants’ drinking topography were examined because a pattern of heavy drinking is a robust predictor of alcohol-related aggression,

Male Role Norms Scale (MRNS)

The MRNS (Thompson & Pleck, 1986) is a 26-item Likert-type scale that measures men’s endorsement of three dimensions of hegemonic masculine ideology: Status (e.g., “A man always deserves the respect of his wife and children”), Toughness (e.g., “In some kinds of situations a man should be ready to use his fists, even if his wife or his girlfriend would object”), and Antifemininity (e.g., “It bothers me when a man does something that I consider ‘feminine’”). Participants rate items on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale, with higher scores reflecting greater adherence to the three dimensions of masculinity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses have supported this tri-dimensional factor structure (Sinn, 1997; Thompson & Pleck, 1986). These subscales have good reliability, with alpha coefficients ranging from .74 and .81 in standardization samples (Thompson & Pleck, 1986), which was consistent with the present sample (Status: α = .75, Toughness: α = .68, Antifemininity: α = .80).

Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BAQ)

The BAQ (Buss & Perry, 1992) is a 29-item self-report measure that assesses dispositional tendencies towards physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. For the purpose of the present study, the 9-item physical aggression subscale was used to assess trait aggressivity, because this scale has been shown to be a robust moderator of alcohol-related aggression (e.g., Bailey & Taylor, 1991; Eckhardt & Crane, 2008; Giancola, 2002). Therefore, this construct was assessed to control for potential confounds with laboratory-based physical aggression. Participants rate items on a 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me) scale, with higher scores reflecting higher levels of trait aggressivity. For the physical aggression subscale, Buss and Perry (1992) reported an alpha coefficient of .85, which is consistent with the present sample (α = .81).

Beverage Administration

Upon arrival to the laboratory for Session 2, participants were randomly assigned to an alcohol (n = 82) or no-alcohol control (n = 82) beverage condition. Participants in the alcohol beverage condition were administered a dose of .99g/kg of 95% alcohol mixed at a 1:5 ratio with Tropicana orange juice. This dose, which ranges from 4–7 standard drinks for a 130–220 lb. male, has been used in past studies of alcohol-related aggression and reliably produces breath alcohol levels between .08%-.12%. Participants in the no-alcohol control beverage condition received an isovolemic beverage consisting of only orange juice. All participants were allotted 20 minutes to consume their beverage, as is standard procedure in alcohol administration studies (e.g., Brunelle et al., 2007; Giancola et al., 2012; McCloskey et al., 2009). Participants were explicitly informed whether or not their drink contained alcohol.

Taylor Aggression Paradigm (TAP)

A modified version (Giancola & Zeichner, 1995) of the TAP (Taylor, 1967) was used to measure direct physical aggression. The hardware for the task was developed by Coulbourn Instruments (Allentown, PA) and the computer software was developed by Vibranz Creative Group (Lexington, KY). The TAP is presented as a reaction time competition in which electrical shocks are administered to and received from a fictitious opponent ostensibly “seated in an adjacent room.” Participants are seated at a table with a computer screen and keyboard in a small room. The numbers “1” through “10” on the computer keyboard are labeled from “low” to “high” to allow participants to determine varying levels of shock to administer. Participants receive visual feedback on the computer monitor indicating whether they “won” or “lost” the trial as well as the shock level selected and received. Physical aggression was derived from a summation of standardized scores for the average intensity and duration of shocks selected during the task. This was done because previous research has demonstrated that shock intensity and shock duration are highly correlated and part of a more general construct of direct, physical aggression (Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1989). The TAP and other similar shock-based laboratory paradigms have been shown to be a safe and valid measure of aggressive behavior (e.g., Parrott, Miller, & Hudepohl, in press).

Introduction of Opponent Sexual Orientation

Upon arrival to the laboratory for Session 2, participants were randomly assigned to gay (n = 84) or heterosexual (n = 80) opponent condition. Prior to completing the experimental TAP trials, the lab’s ostensible closed circuit television system was activated. This system would presumably allow participants to see one another during the experimental task. After approximately one minute, participants were told that there was a technical difficulty wherein the opponent was not able to see or hear the participant. At this time, they were also told over the intercom that there would be a brief delay in the study because their opponent needed to speak with his friend about a ride home. In actuality, participants viewed a 6-minute scripted videotape that included a 2-minute segment in which the male confederate speaks with his friend. In the gay male opponent condition, the male confederate and his friend “Steve” speak about the ride home and their plans for a date that night. This video concludes with the male confederate saying, “I love you,” and giving “Steve” a kiss. In the heterosexual male opponent condition, the male confederate and his friend “Ashley” have the exact same verbal exchange. The video similarly concludes with the male confederate saying, “I love you,” and giving “Ashley” a kiss. After the 6-minute video was concluded, the closed-circuit television system was ostensibly turned off and participants prepared to complete the TAP trials.

Procedure

Participants presented to the laboratory on two separate days. During Session 1, informed consent was provided and participants were informed they could discontinue participation at any time and still receive compensation. All participants completed a battery of questionnaires in an individual testing room. Other measures included in the questionnaire battery are unrelated to the present study and are not reported here. Upon arrival to the laboratory for Session 2, which occurred within two weeks, participants provided informed consent and were randomly assigned to an alcohol or no-alcohol control beverage condition. During Session 2, participants were again explicitly informed on three separate occasions of their right to stop the study at any time and still receive compensation. In order to disguise the task as a measure of aggression, participants were informed that the purpose of the study was to examine the relation between alcohol and reaction time under competitive conditions. As such, they were informed that they would consume an alcoholic or non-alcoholic beverage prior to engaging in a competitive reaction time task. Participants were led to an individual testing room, at which time the experimenter identified an adjacent room where the “opponent” was ostensibly seated.

Participants were then given instructions for the competitive reaction time task. They were informed that shortly after the words “Get Ready” appeared on the screen, the words “Press the Spacebar” would appear at which time they had to press, and hold down, the spacebar. Following this, the words “Release the Spacebar” would appear at which time they had to lift their fingers off of the spacebar as quickly as possible. A “win” was signaled by the words “You Won. You Get to Give a Shock” and a “loss” was signaled by the words “You Lost. You Get a Shock.” A winning trial allowed participants to deliver a shock to their opponent and a losing trial resulted in receiving a shock from their opponent. Participants were told that they had a choice of 10 different shock intensities to administer at the end of each winning trial for a duration of their choosing. Participants could not elect to not shock their opponent. However, participants were told that shock button “#1” would deliver a low intensity shock that is best characterized as “very mild” and “definitely not painful.”

Next, participants were administered a beverage based on their experimental condition and allotted 20 minutes to consume their beverage. An assessment of participants’ pain thresholds was then conducted. First, participants were informed that their opponent would undergo the threshold assessment and that they would be able to hear their opponent’s responses to the procedure over an intercom. In actuality, a confederate answered the experimenter’s questions regarding the testing of his pain thresholds in accordance with a list of predetermined responses. Next, participants were instructed to inform the experimenter when the shocks they received were “first detectable” and then when they reached a “painful” level. Short-duration shocks (1 second) were then administered in an incremental stepwise intensity method from the lowest available shock setting, which is imperceptible, until the shocks reached a reportedly painful level. All shocks were administered through two finger electrodes attached to the index and middle fingers of the nondominant hand using Velcro straps. The experimenter was in the adjacent control room and communicated with the participant through an intercom.

Upon reaching a BrAC of at least .075%, participants watched the 6 minute video of their opponent that included the introduction of the opponent’s sexual orientation (i.e., gay or heterosexual). Next, participants BrACs were assessed until they reached .08, at which time they were given written instructions for the competitive reaction time task, were informed again that they could stop the experiment at any time without penalty, and began the aggression task. This task consisted of two successive blocks of 16 trails (8 wins and 8 loses), and two “transition trials” between blocks in which participants lost and received shocks of “5” and “6,” respectively. There were 34 trials overall. In the first block, participants received shock intensities of “1” and “2” after they lost a trial. During the second block, participants received shock intensities of “9” and “10” after they lost a trial. All shocks delivered to participants were one second in durations. This sequence of trails was intended to give the appearance of an increasingly provoking aggressive interaction. Following each trail, a “volt meter” and the illumination of one of the 10 “shock lights” on the computer screen signaled to the participant the shock that he or his opponent selected. In actuality, the competitive task was used to lead participants to believe that they were engaging in an adversarial interaction with another individual. A randomly generated win/loss sequence was predetermined and incorporated into the computer program that executed the task. All participants received the same sequence. A computer controlled the initiation of trials, administration of shocks to participants, and recording of their responses.

Upon completion of the aggression task, BrACs were measured for all participants. They were asked a variety of questions to indirectly assess the credibility of the experimental manipulation (see “Manipulation Check” below). All participants were then fully debriefed regarding the use of deception and experimental aims, provided an opportunity to discuss any concerns or questions, and compensated at the rate of $10 per hour. Individuals who received alcohol remained the laboratory until the BrAC fell to .03% and were escorted to prearranged transportation by laboratory staff.

Results

Manipulation Check

Prior to debriefing, participants were asked to describe their impression of their opponent and whether or not the task was a good measure of “reaction time.” Participants were also asked to give an overall impression of their opponent’s sexual orientation. Of the 177 participants, 7 (4%) reported that they did not believe they were competing against another individual and/or that the task was not a measure of reaction time. One participant (.6%) in the gay male opponent condition did not correctly identify their opponent as gay. Additionally, there was an equipment malfunction during the TAP for 3 participants, one participant did not complete the TAP because he became ill after consuming alcohol, and one participant did not reach the target BrAC. These participants were removed from analyses, which resulted in a final sample of 164 participants.

Preliminary Analyses

Group differences

Although random assignment should ensure equal distribution of pertinent demographic and dispositional variables across beverage and opponent sexual orientation groups, a series of 2 (Beverage) × 2 (Opponent Sexual Orientation) analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to confirm this assumption. This analysis revealed that participants who competed against the gay male opponent reported fewer years of education (M = 14.63, SD = 2.24) than participants who completed against the heterosexual male opponent (M = 15.45, SD = 2.15), F(1, 160) = 5.65, p = .019¹. In addition, participants who competed against the gay male opponent reported higher toughness scores (M _{per item} = 4.63, SD = 0.95) than participants who completed against the heterosexual male opponent (M _{per item} = 4.32, SD = 0.98), F(1, 160) = 4.20, p = .042². No other opponent group differences were detected for other demographic variables (i.e., age, yearly income), drinking related variables (i.e., frequency of alcohol consumption in the past 12 months, drinks per drinking day in past 12 months, frequency of heavy consumption (5+ drinks) in the past 12 months), trait aggressivity, or male role norms (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). A chi-square analysis did not detect significant beverage or opponent group differences in racial composition or marital status. As such, subsequent analyses did not control for these variables. Additionally, toughness, status, and antifemininity were all significantly intercorrelated, suggesting all three male role norms are positively associated with each other. Moreover, bivariate correlations were observed between laboratory-based aggression toward a gay male and all three norms (see Table 2).

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Male Role Norms, Drinking Variables, and Trait Aggressivity by Beverage and Opponent Sexual Orientation Condition

	Alcohol Gay Opponent (n = 42)		No-Alcohol Control Gay Opponent (n = 42)		Alcohol Heterosexual Opponent (n =40)		No-Alcohol Control Heterosexual Opponent (n = 40)
Variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Male Role Norms
Toughness	37.83	7.54	36.26	7.65	33.48	7.46	35.68	8.22
Antifemininity	25.86	8.06	24.38	9.23	23.25	8.11	24.08	8.33
Status	56.33	9.71	56.31	9.44	54.23	9.56	55.78	10.09
Drinking Variables
Drinking Days	116.21	80.15	104.43	66.86	101.70	72.65	105.3	74.27
Drinks per  Drinking Day	4.94	2.53	5.13	2.52	4.53	1.77	5.04	4.39
Frequency of  Heavy Drinking  Days (5+ drinks)	29.18	38.35	50.89	71.48	42.33	61.37	35.78	60.43
Trait Aggressivity	22.07	8.03	19.10	5.84	20.30	6.44	19.68	6.14

Note. Drinking variables reflect behavior in the past 12 months.

Table 2.

Intercorrelations Between Toughness, Antifemininity, Status, and Aggression by Beverage and Opponent Sexual Orientation Condition

Variable	1	2	3	4
1. Toughness	_	.63***/.54***	.58***/.30	.55***/.02
2. Antifemininity	.67***/.64***	_	.39*/.37*	.49**/.34
3. Status	.51***/.52***	.42**/.27	_	.35*/.17
4. Aggression	.13/.50**	.06/.37*	.14/.36*	_

Note. Correlation coefficients above and below the diagonal are for participants in the No-Alcohol Control and Alcohol condition, respectively; for each set of correlations, the first statistic was derived from the heterosexual male opponent group, whereas the second statistic was derived from the gay male opponent group.

^*p < .05;

^**p < .01,

^***p < .001.

BrAC levels

All participants had BrACs of 0% upon entering the laboratory. A repeated-measures ANOVA indicated that individuals in the alcohol beverage condition had a significantly higher mean BrAC at post-TAP (M = .114%, SD = .017) than at pre-TAP (M = .108%, SD =.001), F(1, 81) = 451.36, p < .001. Inspection of these data at the individual level confirmed that all intoxicated participants were on the ascending limb of the BrAC curve during the experimental procedures. Participants in the no-alcohol control condition had a mean BrAC of 0% before and after the experimental procedures.

Regression Analyses

Hierarchical linear regressions were performed separately for each norm in accordance with the procedures outlined by Aiken and West (1991). For each model, Step 1 included all three male role norms, beverage condition, and opponent sexual orientation condition. Step 2 included the three possible two-way interaction terms between a given norm, beverage condition, and opponent sexual orientation condition as well as the three-way interaction term between these variables. Thus, the two male role norms not being examined in any given model were included as covariates. This resulted in three full models, each comprised of nine variables.

Prior to computing regression models, scores for each male role norm were mean centered by subtracting the mean score of the variable from the raw score of the variable. Mean centering first-order continuous variables is advantageous for both statistical and substantive reasons. Most importantly, this procedure reduces multicollinearity between the interaction term and its constituent lower-order terms and improves the interpretability of regression equations. Furthermore, the computation of interactions with raw scores yields incorrect regression coefficients because they are not scale invariant. Dummy coding was used to standardize the categorical variable (beverage condition: alcohol = 1, no-alcohol control = 0; opponent condition: heterosexual male = 1, gay male = 0). Interaction terms were then calculated by obtaining cross-products of pertinent first order variables. Simple slopes are reported as standardized βs.

Effects of Beverage Condition, Opponent Sexual Orientation Condition, and Male Role Norms on Aggression

Results of all regression models are presented in Table 3. In Step 1, the regression model was significant, F(5,158) = 7.38, p < .001. Results revealed a significant main effect of beverage on aggression. This finding indicated that consuming alcohol was associated with higher levels of physical aggression. No other main effects were detected.

Table 3.

Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Antigay Aggression

	b	SE	β	t	95% CI	p	R2	ΔR2
Step 1							.19***
Status	.02	.01	.12	1.49	−.007, .05	.138
Antifemininity	.03	.02	.17	1.81	−.003, .07	.072
Toughness	.03	.02	.16	1.6	−.01, .08	.112
Opp	−.37	.24	−.11	−1.5	−.85, .11	.132
Bev	.62	.24	.19	2.57	.14, 1.09	.011
Step 2a							.21***	.02
Status	.004	.03	.02	.15	−.05, .06	.883
Antifemininity	.04	.02	.19	2.02	.001, .07	.045
Toughness	.03	.02	.13	1.28	−.02, .07	.202
Opp	−.15	.34	−.05	−.45	−.82, .52	.652
Bev	.81	.34	.24	2.40	.14, 1.47	.018
Status X Opp	.02	.04	.08	.57	−.05, .09	.571
Status X Bev	.06	.04	.23	1.56	−.02, .13	.121
Bev X Opp	−.47	.48	−.12	−.97	−1.42, .49	.335
Status X Bev X Opp	−.08	.05	−.23	−1.62	−.18, .02	.106
Step 2b							.25***	.06*
Status	.02	.01	.10	1.25	−.01, .05	.215
Antifemininity	.03	.02	.17	1.91	−.001, .07	.057
Toughness	−.03	.03	−.12	−.78	−.09, .04	.436
Opp	−.16	.33	−.05	−.49	−.08, .49	.625
Bev	.67	.33	.20	2.01	.01, 1.32	.046
Toughness X Opp	.09	.04	.28	2.03	.002, .17	.044
Toughness X Bev	.13	.04	.43	3.04	.05, .22	.003
Bev X Opp	−.40	.48	−.10	−.84	−1.34, .54	.402
Toughness X Bev X Opp	−.20	.06	−.46	−3.32	−.33, −.08	.001
Step 2c							.22***	.03
Status	.02	.01	.13	1.63	−.01, .05	.105
Antifemininity	.03	.03	.14	1.00	−.03, .08	.318
Toughness	.03	.02	.14	1.44	−.01, .07	.153
Opp	−.13	.34	−.04	−.40	−.80, .53	.693
Bev	.79	.34	.24	2.35	.13, 1.45	.02
Antifemininity X Opp	.03	.04	.09	.64	−.05, .10	.522
Antifemininity X Bev	.05	.04	.16	1.16	−.03, .12	.248
Bev X Opp	−.48	.48	−.12	−.99	−1.43, .47	.324
Antifemininity X Bev X Opp	−.12	.06	−.28	−2.06	−.23, -.01	.042

Note: Bev = Beverage Condition. Opp = Opponent Sexual Orientation Condition. Beverage and Opponent Condition were dummy coded (alcohol = 1, no alcohol = 0; heterosexual opponent = 1, gay opponent = 0). Status, Antifemininity, and Toughness were centered at their means.

^*p < .05;

** p < .01;

^***p < .001.

In Step 2 of the model that included the Status × Beverage × Opponent Sexual Orientation interaction (Hypothesis 1), the model remained significant (F(9, 154) = 4.63, p < .001), but did not account for a significant amount of additional variance in aggression. No 2-way or 3-way interactions were significant.

In Step 2 of the model that included the Toughness × Beverage × Opponent Sexual Orientation interaction (Hypothesis 2), the model remained significant (F(9,154) = 5.79, p < .001) and explained a significant amount of additional variance in aggression. A significant 3-way interaction was detected. Examination of simple slopes revealed that the relation between toughness and aggression toward a gay male was significant and positive among intoxicated men (β = .50, p = .002) but non-significant and negative among sober men (β = −.12, p = .436). Additionally, the relation between toughness and aggression toward a heterosexual male was non-significant among intoxicated (β = −.08, p = .752) and sober men (β = .28, p = .066). Thus, a greater adherence to the toughness norm predicted higher levels of aggression toward a gay man only among participants who were intoxicated (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Moderating effect of acute alcohol intoxication on the relation between toughness and aggression towards a gay and heterosexual male.

In Step 2 of the model that included the Antifemininity × Beverage × Opponent Sexual Orientation interaction (Hypothesis 3), the regression model remained significant (F(9, 154) = 4.87, p < .001), but did not account for a significant amount of additional variance in aggression. A significant 3-way interaction was detected. Examination of simple slopes revealed that the relation between antifemininity and aggression toward a gay male was significant and positive among intoxicated men (β = .37, p = .023), and non-significant and positive among sober men (β = .14, p = .318). Additionally, the relation between antifemininity and aggression toward a heterosexual male was non-significant among intoxicated (β = −.10, p = .537) and sober men (β = .26, p = .101). Thus, a greater adherence to the antifemininity norm only predicted higher levels of aggression toward a gay man among participants who were intoxicated (see Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Moderating effect of acute alcohol intoxication on the relation between antifemininity and aggression towards a gay and heterosexual male.

Discussion

Extant theory and research indicates that aggression toward gay men functions to enforce traditional gender norms of antifemininity and status and demonstrate rigid adherence to those norms (e.g., Herek & McLemore, 2013; Parrott, 2009). However, recent theoretical work also suggests that adherence to gender norms is context dependent (Addis et al., 2010; Connell, 2005). Building from these theoretical and empirical advancements, the present investigation sought to examine acute alcohol intoxication as one context which may alter the norms which are relevant to men’s perpetration of aggression toward gay men. It was hypothesized that the relationship between adherence to the toughness and antifemininity norms, but not the status norm, and aggression towards a gay male would be stronger among intoxicated, relative to sober, men. We hypothesized no relationship would be detected among participants who competed against the heterosexual male. Results supported these hypotheses.

A greater adherence to the toughness norm only significantly predicted aggression toward a gay man among participants who were intoxicated. Consistent with prior research, this finding suggests adherence to the norm of toughness does not increase the risk of sober men’s aggression towards gay men. However, this is the first study to show that among intoxicated men, strong adherence to this norm significantly increases the risk of aggression towards gay men. This finding is in line with pertinent research that suggests alcohol intoxication helps men maintain a “tough image” and heightens men’s concerns about demonstrating personal power (Graham & Wells, 2003; McClelland, Davis, Kalin, & Waner, 1972; Tomsen, 1997). Overall, results provide indirect evidence that alcohol intoxication facilitates antigay aggression by activating concepts related to toughness and narrowing attentional focus onto these concepts. This heightened focus on the toughness norm and its representation as evidence of one’s masculinity is presumed to influence men to act in line with this masculine concept which involves displays of aggressive behavior toward gay men.

As previously noted, several studies have failed to detect an association between endorsement of the toughness norm and aggression toward sexual minorities among sober men (e.g., Parrott, 2009; Parrott et al., 2011). This null effect suggests that aggression toward sexual minorities, who are a stigmatized and low status group, provides less opportunity to demonstrate one’s toughness than aggressing against heterosexual men, who are part of the heterosexual in-group. Acute alcohol intoxication appears to change the motivational dynamics underlying aggression toward gay men. Specifically, the present study suggests that alcohol facilitates a myopic focus among some men to show their physical power, strength, and aggressivity, the result of which renders gay men a suitable, and perhaps symbolic, target for demonstrating one’s masculine toughness and overall gender conformity. More broadly, however, these data support the view that men’s adherence to various dimensions of masculinity may be dormant in some situations, only to be activated – and subsequently demonstrated – in other situations. Additionally, results highlight that alcohol intoxication may be associated with certain aspects and expectations of masculinity, and that men may feel pressure to act in line with these norms while intoxicated.

Prior research has evidenced a small-to-moderate effect between antifemininity on antigay aggression among sober men (e.g., Parrott, 2009; Parrott et al., 2011). This effect supports theoretical views that male homosexuality represents a core threat to heterosexual masculinity, and particularly men’s endorsement of an antifemininity theme within the male role (Parrott, 2008). Consistent with this literature, the present results observed a small, though non-significant, association (β = .14). Of particular importance, however, results demonstrated that alcohol intoxication strengthened this association. This finding provides indirect evidence that alcohol intoxication further focuses men’s attention onto antifeminine masculine concepts. Thus, whereas alcohol intoxication appears to activate concepts of toughness and men’s display of antigay aggression to demonstrate adherence to that norm, these data suggest that alcohol may also facilitate antigay aggression by heightening men’s focus onto antifeminine concepts which are likely already salient. As a result, alcohol intoxication appears to increase the likelihood that men will reaffirm and demonstrate their antifeminine masculine identity via aggression toward gay men.

Several limitations in the current study warrant discussion. First, attention allocation to different norms was not explicitly measured. While these assumptions were informed by well-established theory, it is clear that future research must directly assess alcohol’s effect on attentional focus to specific masculine norms in different gender relevant contexts. Second, a placebo control group was not utilized, which would have allowed for examination of expectancy effects of alcohol-related aggression. Although this is important for measuring the expectancy effects of alcohol on a variety of other behaviors, several meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that placebo groups do not differ from no-alcohol control groups in the expression of aggression (Bushman, 1993). Thus, it is unlikely that the inclusion of a placebo group would alter the present findings. Third, this study did not simulate the social contexts in which alcohol-related aggression towards gay men frequently occurs. Certainly, alcohol-related antigay aggression is likely to occur in the presence of others due to fear of emasculation from peers and a desire to prove one’s toughness and heterosexuality to others (Franklin, 2000, 2004; Kimmel, 1997). Indeed, survey data indicate approximately three-quarters of young antigay assailants reportedly aggressed in a group context (Franklin, 2000).

Despite these limitations, the present study draws attention to the importance of examining distinct dimensions of masculinity across various contexts (Addis et al., 2010). One such context is alcohol intoxication. Surprisingly, there is little empirical data on the link between alcohol and masculinity. Prior research has sought to identify how masculinity may predict drinking behavior and problems. For example, endorsement of conformity to various masculine norms (i.e., being a “playboy,” risk-taking, winning) has been identified as a risk factor for drinking to intoxication (Iwamoto et al., 2011), and high masculine gender role stress has been linked to alcohol use and abuse (e.g., Isenhart, 1993; McCreary, Newcomb, & Sadava, 1999). However, with the exception of the present study, no research has examined how alcohol may affect the expression of masculinity. Future research should aim to address this gap in the literature.

Results from the present study have implications for prevention of antigay aggression. Intervention programming and prevention strategies for antigay aggression should target traditional views about the male gender role, especially around the antifemininity and toughness norms. Social marketing campaigns designed to modify the hierarchy of hegemonic masculinity may help reduce antigay aggression. More importantly, however, findings suggest it is imperative these programs take into account the role of alcohol intoxication, which may activate masculine concepts that are dormant when men are sober. Because there is conflicting evidence on whether interventions that aim to modify men’s attitudes about the male gender role are effective (Brooks-Harriss, Heesacker, & Megia-Milan, 1996; Hammer & Vogel, 2010; Matteson, 1991), it may also be fruitful for prevention strategies to focus on redirecting intoxicated men’s attention towards nonprovocative stimuli in environments in which antigay alcohol-related aggression is likely to occur (for a review, see Giancola, Josephs, Parrott, & Duke, 2010). Additionally, results of the current study may have implications that extend beyond aggression towards gay men. Results provide preliminary evidence that masculinity may be context dependent. Therefore, interventions for alcohol-related aggression may benefit from considering how dormant masculinity may be demonstrated during intoxication.

The present study represents a first step in understanding how certain dimensions of masculinity and acute alcohol intoxication facilitate aggression towards gay men. A recent report of antigay violence perpetration and victimization argued that, “research that assesses how offenders and victims interact before, during, and after bias violence will enhance our understanding of how offenders accomplish masculinity in different situational contexts” (Gruenewald, 2012, p. 3619). To this end, the present study indicates that strong adherence to the toughness and antifemininity norms, but not the status norm, predicts antigay aggression among intoxicated, but not sober, men. This study also illustrates the potential benefits of examining masculinity-based effects from a context-dependent framework. Elliot Morales told police he did not “have a problem with gay people,” despite reports of him yelling gay slurs to Mark Carson before allegedly fatally shooting him (Dobnik, 2013). It is simply not known whether he would have committed the same crime while sober. However, inasmuch as alcohol heightens men’s desire to demonstrate their toughness – and thus their masculinity – via aggression, alcohol may have facilitated Morales’ selection of Mark Carson, because a gay target perceived to be acting tough would function best to achieve that aim.