Indeed, researchers have long pointed out that the male gender role is defined by contrasts and that these contrasts are maintained through the segregation and persecution of women and gay men as the non-masculine “other” ( Franklin, 1998, 2000, 2004 Kimmel, 1997, 2000 Kimmel & Mahler, 2003). This supposition is consistent with the view that sexual prejudice and antigay aggression function to enforce gender and societal norms ( Franklin, 2004 Harry, 1990 Herek, 2000a Kimmel, 1997). Theorists contend that sexual prejudice most likely facilitates antigay aggression in men who are exposed to intimate or sexual interactions between two men ( Gentry, 1987 Herek, 1988 Kite, 1984 Kite & Whitley, 1996). 19), has been associated with the perpetration of antigay aggression ( Franklin, 2000). Sexual prejudice, which reflects “all negative attitudes based on sexual orientation” ( Herek, 2000a, p.
Theories of antigay aggression have advanced several potential links comprising this chain of events. More importantly, it identifies a number of variables in a “chain of events” that are likely to precede an act of antigay aggression. This theoretical framework effectively organizes the investigation of risk factors for antigay aggression.
Thus, individual differences and situational factors can predispose an individual to an amalgam of affective, cognitive, and physiological responses that may lead to aggression. For example, an individual's experience of anger serves to mediate the causal relation between individual and situational inputs and subsequent aggressive behavior. Appraisals are based upon the relative activation of these routes and, ultimately, inform one's decision to aggress. These input variables influence behavior through the activation of associatively linked cognitive, affective, and physiological networks (i.e., present internal state). Inputs describe features that can be grouped into either personal (i.e., biological, psychological) or situational (i.e., environmental and social) factors. In this model, an aggressive response is determined by inputs, an individual's present internal state, and appraisal processes. In an extensive review of the antigay aggression literature, Parrott (2008) highlighted the utility of organizing risk factors for antigay aggression within the parsimonious theoretical framework of the General Aggression Model ( Anderson & Bushman, 2002). Thus, research that investigates determinants of antigay violence could promote public health by informing intervention programs aimed at reducing these types of hate crimes. Moreover, research suggests that sexual minorities suffer a greater severity of violence in comparison to victims of other bias-motivated crimes ( Dunbar, 2006) and, similarly, more symptoms of depression, anger, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress in comparison to victims of nonbiased crimes ( Herek et al.
Hence, current prevalence rates likely underestimate the degree to which sexual minorities are at risk for victimization. As these attacks become more violent, victims are less willing to report them ( Dunbar, 2006). While discrimination and aggression against sexual minorities remains commonplace ( NCAVP, 2005, 2006), victims of antigay assaults are less likely to report these crimes to law enforcement compared to victims of other bias-motivated attacks ( Dunbar, 2006 Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 1999 NCAVP, 2003). Antigay violence remains a significant public health concern despite increased attention given to this subject in the public domain.