Page 217 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

186
RAG INS AND WIETHOFF
between heterosexist attitudes and (a) sexist attitudes in general (Stevenson
& Medler, 1995), (b) personal contact with gay men and lesbians (Horvath
& Ryan, 2003) and (c) the belief that homosexuality is a choice rather than
a biological orientation (King, 2001).
Consequences of Discrimination
Now that we understand the antecedents of heterosexism, we can begin
to examine some of the outcomes associated with its practice. Research
in this area addresses two basic questions. First, what are the behavioral
consequences of heterosexism? And second, how do gays and lesbians
react to this treatment? This section will explore each of these questions in
turn.
Heterosexism prompts heterosexuals to engage in a variety of negative
behaviors toward lesbians and gay men in the workplace. At best, these
behaviors can be described as "avoidance"; at worst, they represent overt
and aggressive forms of discrimination and physical harassment (Bernat,
Calhoun, Adams, & Zeichner, 2001). A national study of 534 gay and les­
bian professionals revealed that over a third had been physically or verbally
harassed in prior positions because of their sexual orientation, 37% faced
discrimination because others suspected or assumed that they were gay
or lesbian, and 12% left their last job because of sexual orientation dis­
crimination (Ragins & Cornwell, 2001b). Swim and her colleagues found
that heterosexual women made public statements to distance themselves
from attitudes and opinions held by a lesbian (Swim, Ferguson & Hyers,
1999). Other studies indicate that individuals who hold heterosexist beliefs
help gays and lesbians far less than do those without this prejudice (Ellis &
Fox, 2001). Similarly, Kite and Deaux (1986) found less information-seeking
behaviors and more guarded self-presentation among heterosexual males
interacting with a gay man. Participants in other research experiments
were found to speak more quickly and abruptly to people believed to be
gay (Cuenot & Fugita, 1982) and to label gay men as less preferred work
partners, regardless of the quality of their work (Karr, 1978). Moreover,
although many heterosexuals recognize that overt discrimination is un­
acceptable or illegal in some locales, more subtle forms of interpersonal
discrimination emerge. For example, one study found that while job ap­
plicants who posed as gay men and lesbians did not face overt workplace
discrimination, they still were subject to interpersonal biases that resulted
in shorter job interviews, less eye contact, and more negative and trun­
cated communication interactions (Hebl, Foster, Mannix, & Dovidio, 2002).
This suggests that even in the presence of formal organizational policies