Of course, there are no homophobes, but:
Homophobic? Maybe You’re Gay
Interesting article.
From the research paper:
A common way in which parents may interfere with their chil- dren’s autonomy is by conveying to the child that their love and affection is dependent on the child enacting specific behaviors and espousing sanctioned beliefs (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004; Roth, As- sor, Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009). This failure to support autonomy often results in children acting in ways that are inconsistent with their own values and interests in an effort to maintain conditions of worth. Children confronted with this parenting approach must distinguish between emotions, behaviors, and identities that are acceptable and lovable and others that are not. Those that are unacceptable are in turn defended against or suppressed, as they pose a threat to these and perhaps other important love relationships (Rogers, 1961). In fact, data suggest that those who experience behaviorally dependent par- enting experience less stable self-esteem, more introjection, and lower overall well-being (Roth et al., 2009).
[. . . ]
Perceived Parenting Styles
Previous empirical work has supported the claim that parents’ homophobic attitudes can influence their children’s homophobia (O’Bryan, Fishbein, & Ritchey, 2004). The present studies further explore this connection and the underlying mechanisms. Together these studies indicate that children are affected by their perceptions of their parents’ attitudes and that this relation involves, at least in part, the child’s self-concept and dynamics of threat and defense.
In Studies 2– 4, participants who perceived their parents as being homophobic displayed a greater discrepancy between implicit and explicit measures of orientation, suggesting that exposure to ho- mophobic attitudes at home inhibits children’s sexual self- exploration. Participants who reported that they had observed their parents rejecting others as a function of sexual orientation may have expected similar rejection had they acknowledged some degree of same-sex attraction within themselves.
In the three latter studies, these effects of fathers’ homophobia depended on the paternal provision of autonomy support. Partici- pants experiencing autonomy-supportive fathers were not impacted by their fathers’ homophobic attitudes, whereas those who saw their fathers as both controlling and homophobic exhibited more discrepant implicit and explicit indices of sexual orientation. Presumably, when fathers afforded their children the freedom for self-exploration, they were not motivated to suppress gay inclinations, even when these went against paternal attitudes. Instead, autonomy-supportive fathers may have conveyed their valuing of self-expression, even in conditions countering their own specific beliefs
[...]
Homophobic Attitudes and Behavior
Taken together, the above studies suggest that incongruence between implicit and explicit measures of sexual orientation is predictive of a variety of measures of homophobia and homophobic-consistent behaviors, namely, self-reported homophobia (measured with two validated scales), discriminatory bias, implicit hostility toward homosexuals, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Although the present research does not directly examine the motivational underpinnings of the relationship between sexual orientation discrepancies and homophobia, we propose that these effects can be understood, at least in part, as a defensive response to maintain the suppression of self-relevant, but threatening, information.
Specifically, we believe this pattern of results to be consistent with the defense of reaction formation (A. Freud, 1936). When parents were perceived as controlling, and especially when fathers were experienced as both controlling and homophobic, participants exhibited less congruency in sexual orientation measures and in turn demonstrated more anti-gay sentiments. Gay targets may threaten to bring this incongruence to the forefront and thus elicit this defensive process (Baumeister et al., 1998; Cramer, 1991; A. Freud, 1936; S. Freud, 1915/1961; Shedler, 2010). In the present studies, outcomes for reaction formation were varied and included more endorsement of anti-gay rights policies, the assignment of harsher punishments, and increased implicit hostility toward gay targets. Outside of the lab context defensive processes may take the additional forms of verbal and physical assault, including bullying, directed toward those perceived to be gay.
Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. S., DeHaan, C. R., Przybylski, A. K., Legate, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 102(4), 815-832. doi:10.1037/a0026854
The "dynamics of threat and defense." Something to follow up on.
