J. DICKINSON
458
times which contained heterosexual female main characters (M
= 8.36 seconds), and those which contained heterosexual male
characters (M = 6.92 seconds), t = 4.04, p < .0125, this differ-
ence was not found in the homosexual main character condition
(female M = 7.66 seconds, male M = 7.46 seconds). Inversely,
for the heterosexual prime group there was no significant read-
ing speed difference found between female (M = 8.85 seconds)
and male (M = 8.29 seconds) main character sentences for the
heterosexual condition, but there was for female (M = 9.47
seconds) and male (M = 8.47 seconds) characters in the homo-
sexual character co nd iti on t = 2.51, p < .0125.
Accuracy
A Sexuality by gender interaction was found to be significant
(F(1,34) = 1.95, p < .05, η2 =.17). (Please note that the accuracy
rates are presented in Figure 2 to mimic the 2 × 2 × 2 design
shown in the reading time figure). Post-hoc analysis (with
Bonferonni correction) revealed accuracy levels for questions
regarding heterosexual females (M = .85) versus homosexual
females (M = .86) not to be significantly different. Accuracy
rates for questions regarding heterosexual male (M = .69) ver-
sus homosexual male questions were found to be significantly
different F(1,35) = 39.38, p < .025.
Does Homosexuality Count?
Among the demographic questions asked of participants if
they considered themselves to be heterosexual, along with
questions regarding how many (if any) individuals that they
knew who did not consider themselves heterosexual, and how
important were these people in their life. All but one participant
indicated that they had people who were close to them who
identified as “non-heterosexual”. It was thought that how well
people identified with homosexuals would mediate the auto-
matic activation of heterosexuality of the characters in the sen-
tences, however including “influence” (number of people close
to the participant who identified as non-heterosexual) as a fac-
tor in an ANCOVA did not result in significant differences to
the results. Four participants identified as being “non-hetero-
sexual”, excluding them from the analysis did not alter the re-
sults of any analyses.
Discussion
A three way interaction (Context × Sexuality × Gender) was
found for reading times, indicating that the impact of each of
Figure 2.
Mean accuracy rates per condition.
the main effects was dependent on the level of the other two
variables. Although the main effect of Sexuality was not found
to be significant, the hypothesis that activation of “heterosexu-
ality” was automatic, and would therefore result in a slowing of
reading speeds if a character was later identified as homosexual,
was partially supported. Evaluation of Figure 1 shows that the
impact of reading the word “husband” in relation to a previ-
ously mentioned man results in a slower reading time than
when reading the word “wife” in relation to a previously men-
tioned man. This holds true for both the heterosexual context
condition: heterosexual main character, homosexual main
character and for the homosexual context condition: heterosex-
ual main character, homosexual main character. However, for
female main characters, although the heterosexual context
group data do support the impact of introducing homosexual
content leading to a slowing of reading speed (heterosexual
main character, homosexual main character), the homosexual
context group showed the opposite effect. That is, for the ho-
mosexual context, the impact of reading the word “wife” in
relation to a previously mentioned woman results in a faster
reading time than reading the word “husband” in relation to a
previously mentioned woman. This result suggests that the
impact of priming of a homosexual context had an opposite
impact when the mai n cha r acter is female versus mal e .
The question as to whether a previously denoted context
could act to reduce the automatic activation of “heterosexual-
ity” was also partially supported. The combined reading speed
means for male and female characters for the heterosexual con-
text, were greater than the combined means for the male and
female main character homosexual context. This data support
the generalization of findings of Duffy and Keir (2004) who
found that providing the context of gender prior to the men-
tioning of a non-stereotypical noun can reduce the interference
of the processing of the sentence.
The evaluation of the impact of gender results in an expected
finding. The data from Banaji and Hardin’s (1998) study would
suggest that sentences with males as a main character would be
processed faster than sentences with a female main character.
Not only did the significant main effect from the present study
support this, when evaluating the individual cell means it is
evident that the reading times for sentences containing male
characters were consistently faster for those containing females
characters within each condition (see Figure 1).
The most interesting result with the accuracy with which
material was immediately recalled within the sentences, is that
regardless of the amount of time spent reading the sentence
(and therefore processing it), accuracy for information of sen-
tences with homosexual main characters remained consistent.
Figure 2 shows that the speed/accuracy trade off (Ollman, 1966)
holds true for information from sentences with heterosexual
main characters for all conditions. That is, the difference be-
tween accuracy for the male and female sentences for both the
heterosexual context group and homosexual context group
mimic the response time differences. However, for the homo-
sexual main character sentences, accuracy remains consistently
high, even for conditions that resulted in significantly faster
response times. The bizarreness effect (e.g., Richman, 1994;
Macklin & McDaniel, 2005) showed a facilitation of informa-
tion processing for items/sentences that are “bizarre” relative to
other stimuli in a task where memory is later tested (e.g., im-