127 Graduate Student Journal of Psychology 2023, Vol. 20 Copyright 2023 by the Department of Counseling and Clinical Psychology Teachers College, Columbia University The Impact of a Brief Humanizing Intervention on Prejudice Towards Transgender Individuals Aya Touma Sawaya and Megan K. McCarty Simmons University, Boston, Massachusetts Transgender is an umbrella term used to describe people’s experiences with gender identity. Transgender individuals are people whose sex assigned at birth does not align with their true gender identity. Transgender men are men who were assigned female at birth and transgender women are women who were assigned male at birth (National Center for Transgender Equal- ity, 2016). The limited body of literature surrounding peo- ple in this community and their experiences has been growing over recent years. This literature consistent- ly demonstrates that transgender individuals face an abundance of stigma and prejudice from society, mak- ing them vulnerable to discrimination and violence (Pellicane & Ciesla, 2022). Prejudice is defined as a negative attitude or negative behavior towards a per- son or a group of people based on their belonging to a certain social group (Allport & Lindzey, 1954). Trans- gender people are twice as likely to be unemployed compared to the larger population because of laws and policies that allow employment discrimination (National LGBTQ Task Force, 2022). The 2022 Na- tional Survey by The Trevor Project showed that 71% of transgender and non-binary youth reported having been discriminated against based on their gender iden- tity. In addition, transgender folk are four times more likely to be sexually assaulted, raped, or assaulted in comparison to their cisgender counterparts (Williams Institute, 2021). Thirty-seven percent of transgender and non-binary youth have reported being physically threatened or harmed because of their gender identity (The Trevor Project, 2022). Seventy-three percent of these youth experience symptoms of anxiety and 58% experience symptoms of depression and 1 in 5 trans- gender or non-binary youth have attempted suicide in the past year (The Trevor Project, 2022). Moreover, discrimination restricts transgender individuals from receiving healthcare (Hughto et al., 2015). For exam- ple, in Minnesota, around 20% of transgender folk reported that they had been denied healthcare com- pletely and many others said that they have had poor healthcare experiences (Health Partners, 2017). This discrimination affects the quality of life that transgender individuals have, especially affecting the mental health of transgender folk. Minority stress theory can be used to better understand the rates of mental health hardships that transgender individuals face. Minority stress theory states that marginalized communities experience unique and constant expo- sure to harsh stressors because of their identity. Due to the presence of such chronic stress and continuous discrimination which stigmatizes these individuals, they are at a higher risk of developing mental health issues (Meyer, 2003). The hardships that transgender folk experience have caused high rates of suicide ide- ation and attempts among transgender youth (Gross- man & D’Augelli, 2010). For example, being misgen- dered and discriminated against by society can cause transgender individuals to experience significant psy- chological distress. Additionally, due to high levels of Transgender individuals face an abundance of stigma and prejudice from society, making them vulnerable to dis- crimination, violence, increased stress, and mental health deterioration (Hughto et al., 2015). This study looked at the extent to which a brief humanizing intervention can decrease prejudice against transgender individuals us- ing methods designed to reduce social desirability bias. Unlike past work, the current study implemented a con- trol group that was not subjected to any intervention. Participants (N=302) were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: the control condition, the transman letter condition, and the musician letter condition. Only cisgender participants within the gender binary were used in the analysis (N=293). The humanizing interven- tion involved having participants read a letter written by a transgender man in which he comes out to his parents. The musician letter condition involved having participants read a letter written by a young man telling his par- ents that he is quitting college to pursue a career in music. The control condition did not include any letter. Par- ticipants then responded to various dependent measures such as attitudes towards transgender individuals and empathy. Few effects of the intervention were observed, which were inconsistent with past research. However, the results of this study showed an impact on participants’ perception of how parents should react to their children coming out and a decrease in the standard gender differences in empathy. Thus, the results offer a nuanced under- standing of the extent to which humanizing interventions can reduce prejudice towards transgender individuals. Keywords: Social Psychology, Prejudice Reduction, Humanizing Intervention, Transgender 128128 discrimination, transgender individuals are more likely to experience loneliness and a lack of belongingness to a community. This triggers transgender folk to engage in negative self-appraisal and have low self-esteem and low self-worth. In turn, this leads to higher levels of suicidal ideation and attempts within the transgender community (Hendricks & Testa, 2012). Although society can negatively affect transgender individuals’ health, social support, in comparison, can mitigate the presence of psychological distress (McLemore, 2018). Reducing Transphobia Although it can be helpful to provide transgender individuals with support and resources to cope with societal discrimination, this support does not direct- ly address nor decrease discrimination. Because the transgender community is subject to higher rates of discrimination and violence, it is imperative to study prejudice reduction methods that can ameliorate the quality of life of trans folk (Tompkins et al., 2015). Although the body of literature in this field has been growing recently, there is still relatively little research looking at the efficacy of interventions that reduce transphobia, or prejudice towards transgender folk. The existing body of research surrounding this topic investigates a number of different types of in- terventions that reduce prejudice. Educational inter- ventions involve giving participants scientific infor- mation about the lives of transgender individuals to increase the former’s awareness of transgender lives and decrease transphobia (Chan et al., 2009). One study aimed to measure the efficacy of an education- al webinar training by subjecting participants to three awareness trainings: an anti-stigma training, a panel training, and a webinar, each of which provided edu- cational information about transgender lives such as the effect of transphobia on transgender lives and the different forms of gender affirmation (Mizock et al., 2017). Participants’ transphobic attitudes were tested before and after the training. Although all the train- ing showed a reduction in transphobia, the webinar proved to be an especially valuable tool for spreading awareness because of the flexibility it offered being in- ternet-based. This finding is consistent with previous literature which suggested webinar training, in gen- eral, was more effective in disseminating information than other forms of educational training (Mizock et al., 2017). Furthermore, another study focusing on healthcare workers also suggested that educational training increased awareness about the needs of trans- gender individuals and led to better healthcare for the transgender community (McDowell et al., 2020). Although educational training is effective at re- ducing transphobia, they tend to focus mainly on the scientific explanation of transgender lives, highlight- ing the biological and definitional framework of being transgender. These trainings fail to include the valu- able layer of humanizing transgender individuals by showing the lived experiences of transgender folk and inciting empathy. In order to humanize transgender individuals, researchers thought to broaden transgen- der awareness beyond just the biological explanation by sharing information about personal transgender experiences. Sharing these experiences is meant to not only educate people about transgender lives but to also incite empathy, which can reduce bias (Whitford & Emerson, 2019). Empathy is the act of understand- ing another person’s thoughts and feelings. Previous literature indicates that empathy has played a signifi- cant role in decreasing prejudice against the Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual community provoking participants to imagine what other people’s lives may be like (Hod- son et al., 2009). Past studies looked at how prejudice reduction affected a specific marginalized community and ran studies to see if the same effect would occur in a separate minority community. Thus, researchers saw how empathy affected prejudice against the LGB community and hypothesized that it could have that desired effect on the transgender community. Intergroup contact theory has been used to hu- manize transgender folk and incite empathy. Inter- group contact theory states that, under the right con- ditions, the interaction of one group with another can lead to more positive attitudes between the two groups (Allport, 1954). Participants in one study on intergroup contact were randomly assigned into two groups: one which received a panel presentation by a transgender person followed by a lecture presentation two days later, and another which received the same presentations but in reverse order (Walch et al., 2012). The group who received the transgender panel presen- tation first showed less stigma against transgender in- dividuals compared to those who received the lecture first. Thus, it can be inferred, experiencing humaniz- ing contact with a transgender person before learning more factual information about them primes partici- pants to respond more positively to learning informa- TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 129 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS tion about transgender individuals. This study showed that although brief, meaningful contact with the trans- gender presenter resulted in more stigma reduction that lasted for a prolonged period in comparison to the other condition. Although contact can reduce trans- phobia, it puts a lot of pressure, burden, and respon- sibility on transgender folk, and it may not be logisti- cally feasible. To address these concerns, a follow-up study explored whether imagined intergroup contact can have the same effect as actual intergroup contact (Moss-Racusin & Rabasco, 2017). Participants either engaged in imagined intergroup contact with a cis- gender person or with a transgender person and were then asked to rate how they felt about these people and whether transgender folk were likable and hirable. Imagined intergroup contact reduced transphobia and eliminated the difference previously present around hireability and likeability between cisgender and trans- gender persons. In other words, imagined intergroup contact was an efficacious intervention to decrease transphobia. Inspired by this work, the effect of virtu- al contact with transgender individuals has also been studied (Boccanfuso et al., 2020). In this follow-up, participants were randomly assigned into two groups that had virtual contact through a text-chat program with someone who either told them that she was a cis- gender woman or that she was a transgender woman. Participants were then asked to respond to a question- naire that assessed transgender stigma. Results showed that this intervention successfully reduced transpho- bia in cisgender men but not in cisgender women. The reason behind this effect is the fact that cisgender men typically have more prejudice towards transgender in- dividuals. Contact with transgender folk more heavily affects “prejudice-prone populations” and can alter their prejudice the most (Hodson, 2011). The aforementioned literature focused on study- ing the efficacy of education and contact interventions alone as opposed to comparing them to one another and testing their efficacy. Case & Stewart (2013) in- tended to fill in some of the gaps in the literature by designing a study made of three experimental interven- tions and comparing their efficacy. Participants were recruited from different social science courses in a state university in Texas and assigned to one of three in- terventions: providing participants with a list of facts about transgenderism (educational intervention), pro- viding participants with a letter from a transgender adolescent to his parents (humanizing intervention), and showing participants a snippet of a documenta- ry about transgender students in college (humanizing intervention). The documentary included the parents’ reactions to the letter. The humanizing interventions were meant to incite empathy from participants to- ward transgender individuals. Participants were in- structed to answer a questionnaire before and after the interventions that measured their attitudes toward transgender individuals. No intervention was more ef- fective than the other. Motivated by the comparison of humanizing and educational interventions, Tompkins and colleagues (2015) also randomly assigned partici- pants to experience either a humanizing or education- al intervention. The humanizing condition showed participants that transgender folk are actual people with lives and incited empathy towards their struggles by having them watch a documentary about a trans- gender child who was supported by her parents in her transition. In the education condition, participants read about the diagnostic criteria for Gender Identity Disorder and then watched an interview with an ex- pert who explained the process of transitioning and provided factual information about transgender indi- viduals devoid of emotions. After participating in one of these two interventions, the participants completed self-report measures of feelings and attitudes towards transgender individuals. Participants in the human- izing condition endorsed less transphobic attitudes than those in the education condition. This finding suggests that humanizing interventions may be most effective at reducing transphobia among participants (Tompkins et al., 2015). The Present Study Although past research has compared the effi- cacy of different interventions designed to reduce transphobia, it has not employed strong control con- ditions. The current study focused on a humanizing intervention, as some research suggests they are more successful at reducing transphobia than education in- terventions (Tompkins et al., 2015). Specifically, the current study was encouraged to use one of the hu- manizing interventions from Case and Stewart (2013). Their letter intervention involved participants reading a letter written by an adolescent who came out to his parents as a transgender man. The letter’s goal was to invoke a sense of empathy within participants when they completed a transphobia questionnaire and the 130 results of this group were compared to the results of other types of interventions. Both this study and oth- ers (e.g. Case & Stewart, 2013; Tompkins et al., 2015; Mizock et al.,2017) lacked independent control con- ditions that could have provided them with a baseline and would have strengthened their ability to assess the efficacy of the interventions. Researchers did use a pretest measure, but pretest measures can increase participants’ awareness about the true purpose of the study and lead participants to artificially give less transphobic answers. While previous research was an important initial step in studying approaches to trans- phobia reduction, these prior studies also shared the weaknesses of having a small sample size and utilizing college student samples, who typically have a less con- servative outlook on gender identity than the general population (Campbell & Horowitz, 2015). The cur- rent work seeks to extend prior research by addressing some of their potential weaknesses. Thus, this study will primarily look at the extent to which a brief em- pathetic intervention can decrease prejudice against transgender individuals while also reducing social de- sirability bias. Social desirability bias is the tendency of research participants to answer questions in a manner they assume the researchers desire (Crowne & Mar- lowe, 1960). This study often refers to transphobia as prejudice towards transgender individuals The current work supplements past research by using a separate control group that was not subjected to any interven- tion and then completed the same questionnaire as participants in the other groups. This condition pro- vides an independent baseline to compare with the results of the interventions. Participants in the key intervention condition were instructed to read a letter written by a young man coming out to his parents as a transgender man, which was brought about by the let- ter presented in Case & Stewart (2013). This interven- tion is meant to instigate empathy towards him and reduce transphobia. The current work also extends prior research by testing another condition, a parallel version of the transman letter condition about a young adult telling his parents that he will be dropping out of college to pursue music. This intervention intends to instill empathy in participants towards the young adult to study if empathy in general affects individu- als’ prejudice against transgender folk. After complet- ing one of the three conditions, participants answered self-report measures of transphobia and a number of other dependent variables related to prejudice and in- tergroup attitudes. We expected to find a significant main effect of our manipulation such that participants in the trans- man letter condition would have more positive reac- tions across all of our dependent variables, including lower levels of transphobia and prejudice, compared to participants in the control group (Hypothesis 1). This prediction is consistent with prior research which shows that implementing a humanizing in- tervention (transman letter condition) that incites empathy can decrease prejudice against transgender individuals (Tompkins et al., 2015). Additionally, we explored whether participants in the musician letter condition would differ from participants in the con- trol and transman letter conditions. This letter about a young man dropping out of college to be a musician was meant to incite empathy from the participants to- ward his difficult situation. This condition enabled the current study to look at whether transphobia can be decreased solely by enticing empathy generally, as op- posed to empathy about trans lives specifically. Previ- ous literature shows that humanizing interventions are able to reduce prejudice towards minority groups such as people from different racial groups, people with mental illness, and people in the LGB community (Whitford & Emerson, 2019). If these effects hold true for transphobia, then participants in the musician let- ter condition may have less negative opinions towards transgender folk versus the control condition. How- ever, since the empathy produced from the musician letter condition is not inspired by the vulnerability of the transgender man’s experience, it was predicted to have less of an impact on transphobia compared to the transman letter condition (Hypothesis 2). Although the current work focuses on the effect of our manipulation, this study also explored the role of participant gender. This study explored whether cisgender men would generally have more negative responses across dependent variables, including high- er levels of transphobia, compared to women (Hy- pothesis 3). Men tend to hold more power in society compared to other gender identities, benefit from maintaining the status quo, and therefore feel more threatened by non-normative experiences (West & Borras-Guevara, 2021). Indeed, previous research has shown that men have more negative attitudes toward transgender individuals than women (Tebbe & Mora- TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 131 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS di, 2012; Tompkins et al., 2015). This study also ex- plored whether our manipulation would interact with participant gender (Hypothesis 4). Methods Participants This study was conducted through Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) which is a website used by researchers to recruit and compensate participants for a variety of kinds of tasks including psychological studies (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011). Three hundred and two participants were recruited from the United States only and completed the study. They were compensated $2.50 for their participation. We ran an a priori power analysis using G*Power to determine sample size (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner & Lang, 2009). Given our design, we set alpha to .05 and assumed a small effect size of partial eta squared .035. The analysis indicated that 270 participants would provide us with 80% power. We decided to run up to 300 participants in case we needed to exclude any participants, and due to an MTurk glitch, 302 participants responded. 195 participants indicated that they identify as fe- male, 98 identified as male, 2 identified as transgender men, and 3 identified as non-binary individuals. The remaining 4 either chose not to respond or added a cat- egory of their own. As our analyses required roughly equal groups of participant gender, we only had the statistical power to analyze cisgender male and cisgen- der female participants (N = 293). The participants’ average age was 35.53 years old (SD = 12.04). The majority (70.9%) of participants identified as White/ Caucasian, 13.6% identified as African American, 7.5% identified as Asian/Pacific Islander, and 6.4% identified as Hispanic. The rest of the participants indicated they identified with another racial category or selected multiple identifications (for more infor- mation about demographics see Table 1 and Table 2). Design The study used a 3-letter condition (no letter group vs. musician letter group vs. transgender let- ter group) x 2 participant gender (male participants vs. female participants) between-subjects design. Procedure and Manipulation The study was conducted using the web survey software, Qualtrics. Participants were asked to com- plete a survey called “Other People’s Stories.” They were then randomly assigned to one of three groups: one with no letter, one instructed to read a letter about an individual coming out to his parents as a transgender man, and one with a letter about a student who is tell- ing his parents he wants to drop out of college to pur- sue music. The transgender letter was taken from Case & Stewart (2013); originally, the letter was found in “True Selves: Understanding Transsexuality’’ (Brown & Rounsley, 1996). This book includes real-life expe- riences of transgender people to provide insight into their families and help them better understand the hardships that transgender people go through. This is a real letter from a transgender man coming out to his parents. For this study, the letter was slightly edited: due to ethical concerns, parts that mentioned suicide/ suicidal ideation were removed so as to not expose the participants to such topics. The musician’s letter was based largely on the transgender letter. It was created to make sure there was a group of participants who were exposed to a letter simulation that did not involve transgender experiences. The musician and transgen- der letters were intended to be as parallel as possible, but with the musician’s letter involving a child dis- closing something difficult to their parents unrelated to gender. An example of the difference between these two letters can be seen here: in the musician’s letter the following was said “For the longest time, I had been deeply unhappy with my major- the life plan I am sup- posed to want,” whereas the transgender letter said, “For the longest time, I had been deeply unhappy with the body I am in- the body I am supposed to feel comfortable in.” See Appendices A and B for the complete letters. After reading the transgender letter, musician letter, or no letter, the participants were all instruct- ed to answer the same series of questions. The ques- tionnaire included variables detailed in the dependent measures section below, as well as filler questions such as the big five personality measure (Morizot, 2014). All scales included a prefer not to respond option. Finally, participants were debriefed regarding the true purpose of the study, which was to understand the effect of empathy on prejudice against transgen- der individuals. Participants were asked to re-con- sent given this information and offered the oppor- tunity to have their data discarded. All participants re-consented and allowed for the use of their data. Dependent Measures Transphobia. Participants were asked to respond to nine questions regarding their attitudes towards gen- 132 der-diverse and transgender individuals on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (Na- goshi et al., 2008). An example question is “I believe that a person can never change their gender” (α=.93). Attitudes Towards Transgender Individuals. Par- ticipants were asked to respond to 20 questions measur- ing the way people feel about transgender individuals on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (Walch et al., 2012). An example question is “I avoid transgender individuals whenever possible” (α=.97). Feelings Thermometer. Participants completed an adapted version of the Feelings Thermometer (Mur- phy et al., 2011) which asked them to rate how warm they felt towards groups on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being not warm at all and 100 being complete- ly warm). The groups they were asked to rate their feelings towards were transgender men, transgen- der women, and non-binary individuals (α=.98). Inclusion of Other in Self. Participants completed an adapted version of the Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale (Aron et al., 1992). Participants were presented with seven sets of increasingly overlapping circles, one labeled ‘self’ and the second labeled “other.” These sets of circles began with no overlap and got progressively more overlapping. Participants were asked to choose the circle that best represents their relationship with a group, with “self” being themselves and “other” representing: transgender men, transgender women, and non-binary individuals. They were asked to do so three times for the three different groups (α=.95). Exploratory Dependent Measures Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Participants were asked to respond to 16 questions measuring lev- els of empathy on a scale from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well) (Davis, 1980) (α=.81). This scale is made up of four different sub- scales, each comprised of four items. Example ques- tions of the four subscales perspective taking, fantasy, empathetic concern, and personal distress respective- ly are: “I try to look at everybody’s side of a disagree- ment before I make a decision” (α=.81). “I really get involved with the feelings of the characters in a novel” (α=.84). “I often have tender, concerned feelings for people less fortunate than me” (α=.77). “ In emergency situations, I feel apprehensive and ill-at-ease” (α=.78). Privilege and Oppression Inventory (POI). This scale was included as an exploratory measure to ob- serve the effect that the intervention had on partici- pants’ perception of their social power and other peo- ple’s marginalization within society. Participants were asked to respond to 22 questions regarding their aware- ness of privilege and oppression in society on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (Hays et al., 2007). An example question is “Being White and having an advantage go hand in hand” (α=.97). Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. This scale was in- cluded in order to observe whether the intervention could impact participants’ levels of ambivalent sexism. Ambivalent sexism is made up of two sub-groups: be- nevolent sexism and hostile sexism. Benevolent sexism is characterized by seemingly positive comments that are actually damaging to a person. Hostile sexism is characterized by blunt and negative comments that ad- here to harmful gender stereotypes. Participants were asked to respond to 22 statements concerning their views on men and women within society on a scale of 1 (disagree strongly) to 6 (agree strongly) (Glick & Fiske, 1996) (α=.88). This scale is divided into two subscales each comprised of eleven items. An example of the first subscale, benevolent sexism, is “In a disas- ter, women ought not necessarily to be rescued before men” (α=.84). An example of the second subscale, hos- tile sexism, is “Women are too easily offended” (α=.83). System Justification. This scale was added to observe the effect of the intervention on how fair participants believe social systems are and whether or not they sup- port the current social system. Participants were asked to respond to 8 items measuring how fair participants feel that social systems are on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 9 (strongly agree) (Kay & Jost, 2003). An example item is “In general, you find society to be fair” (α=.86). Need for Closure. This scale was added as an ex- ploratory measure of how this intervention could impact participants’ need for certainty and order and measure participants’ ability to accept uncertainty. Participants were asked to respond to 15 questions regarding their need for certainty and how much they value order on a scale from 1 (strongly dis- agree) to 6 (strongly agree) (Neuberg et al., 1997). An example question is “I don’t like to be with peo- ple who are capable of unexpected actions” (α=.87). Reactions to Coming Out. Participants were asked to rate the degree to which they should respond with five different reactions parents could have to their son coming out to them on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The potential reactions to coming TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 133 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS out were based on data from an article that reported first-person reports of parents dealing with their kids coming out as transgender (Wren, 2002). An example item is: “Take Adam to see a specialist and change his mind’’ (α=.75). Using the same scale, participants were then asked to respond to the same five reactions, ex- cept this time, they were asked to imagine how they would respond if they were in the shoes of those par- ents. An example item is “Get the proper profession- al help to support Adam and his decisions” (α=.76). Manipulation Checks and Demographics Participants were asked four questions and all items had a “Prefer not to respond” option. The first manipulation check asked participants “Did you read a letter at the beginning of this study” with answer options: “Yes”, and “No.” The second manipulation check asked participants: “ If yes, what was this letter about?” and had answer options: “Someone telling their parents that they are actually a man and will be going through a gender transition”, “Someone telling their parents that they will be dropping out of college to pursue music”, and “I did not read a letter.” The third manipulation check asked participants: “Who wrote the letter that you read” with answers: “A transgender man (a man assigned female at birth)”, “A transgender woman (a woman assigned male at birth)”, “A cisgen- der man (a man assigned male at birth)”, “A cisgender woman (a woman assigned female at birth)”, “The gen- der of the letter was not specified”, and “I did not read a letter.” Finally, the fourth manipulation check asked: “If you read a letter, how did it end?” with answer op- tions: “with love, Adam”, “with love, Alice (soon to be known as Adam)”, and “I did not read a letter.” Demographics. After completing the questions, participants were asked to answer a few demo- graphic measures such as gender, age, and race. Results Manipulation Checks Chi-square tests of independence were performed on each manipulation check. Participants’ responses to the first manipulation check regarding whether or not they read a letter were significantly associated with the actual letter condition, χ2 (2, N = 292) = 211.56, p < .001. All participants in both the transman letter condition and the musician letter condition reported that they read a letter at the beginning of the study. 80.00% of participants in the control condition re- ported that they did not read a letter at the begin- ning of the study. This could be due to the fact that early in the study participants were told that other participants would be reading a letter. Thus, partic- ipants were instructed to answer the questionnaire knowing that other participants have read a letter. Participants’ responses to the second manip- ulation check that asked them what the letter was about were significantly associated with the actual letter condition, χ2 (4, N = 292) = 471.76, p <.001. 98.9% of participants in the transman letter condi- tion correctly reported that they read a letter about a transman coming out to his parents. 99.01% of participants in the musician condition correctly re- ported that they read a letter about an aspiring musi- cian. 81.00% of participants in the control condition correctly reported that they had not read a letter. Participants’ responses to the third manipulation check that asked them about the gender identity of the person writing the letter were significantly associated with the actual letter condition, χ2 (10, N = 290) = 4 70.51, p <.001. 87.91% of the participants in the trans- man letter condition reported that the person writing the letter was a transgender man. 98.02% of partic- ipants in the musician letter condition reported that the person writing the letter was either a cis-gender man or they indicated that the gender identity was not disclosed. Both of these options were considered to be correct because the letter’s author used a name that is stereotypically male and did not specify their gender identity explicitly. 81.63% of the participants in the con- trol condition indicated that they did not read a letter. Participants’ responses to the fourth manipu- lation check that asked them how the letter ended were significantly associated with the actual letter condition, χ2 (4, N = 290) = 445.00, p <.001. 91.3% of the participants in the transman letter condition reported that the letter ended with “With love, Alice (soon to be known as Adam).” 100.00% of partici- pants in the musician letter correctly reported that their letter ended with “With love, Adam.” Finally, 81.82% of the participants in the control condition correctly indicated that they did not read a letter. Primary Analyses Between-subjects 3 (letter condition: no letter group vs. musician letter group vs. transgender letter group) x 2 (participant gender: male vs. female)ANO- VAs were conducted on each of our depen dent varia-. 134 bles.Follow-up Tukey tests were conducted on significant main effects of letter condition. Al- though our pre-registration focused primarily on the effects of letter condition only, the analysis with participant gender is reported here since consis- tent participant gender effects emerged, and this analysis was also outlined in the pre-registration. Transphobia. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that men reported greater overall trans- phobia (M = 3.51, SD = 1.49) than women (M = 3.03, SD = 1.54), F (1, 287) = 6.07, p = .014, ηp 2 = .02. There was no main effect of letter condition on transphobia, F (2, 287) = 0.60, p = .549, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a sig- nificant interaction, F (2, 287) = 1.16, p = .316, ηp 2 = .01 Attitudes Towards Transgender Individuals. There was no main effect of participant gender on attitudes towards transgender individuals, F (1, 285) = 3.42, p = .065, ηp 2 = .01. There was also no main effect of letter condition on attitudes to- wards transgender individuals, F (2, 285) = 1.37, p = .256, ηp 2 = .01, nor was there a significant in- teraction, F (2, 285) = 1.89,p = .153, ηp 2 = .01. Feelings Thermometer. A significant effect of par- ticipant gender emerged such that women reported warmer feelings towards transgender men (M = 70.50, SD = 31.19) that did men (M = 60.82, SD = 33.34), F (1, 287) = 5.48, p = .020, ηp 2 = .02. Similarly, a sig- nificant effect of participant gender emerged such that women reported warmer feelings towards transgender women (M = 69.49, SD = 32.27) than did men (M = 60.71, SD = 33.76), F (1, 287) = 4.38, p = .037, ηp 2 = .02. There was no main effect of letter condition on feelings towards transgender men, F (2, 287) = 0.26, p = .755, ηp 2 = .00, nor towards transgender women, F (2, 287) = 0.04, p = .964, ηp 2 = .00. Additionally, nor was there a significant interaction between participant gender and letter condition when it came to transgen- der men, F (2, 287) = 1.80, p = .168, ηp 2 = .01 and trans- gender women F (2, 287) = 1.37, p = .256, ηp 2 = .01. There was no significant effect of participant gender on feelings towards non-binary individu- als, F (1, 287) = 3.69, p = .056, ηp 2 = .01. There was no main effect of letter condition on feelings to- wards non-binary individuals, F (2, 287) = 0.28, p = .754, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a significant in- teraction, F (2, 287) = .69, p = .503, ηp 2 = .01. Inclusion of Other in Self. There was no significant effect of participant gender on how close they felt towards transgender men, F (1, 279) = .08, p = .785, ηp 2 = .00. There was no main effect of letter condi- tion on feelings towards transgender men, F (2, 279) = 0.71, p = .491, ηp 2 = .01, nor was there a significant interaction, F (2, 279) = .211, p = .810, ηp 2 = .00. There was no significant effect of participant gender on how close they felt towards transgen- der women, F (1, 278) = .01, p = .925, ηp 2 = .00. There was no main effect of letter condition on feelings towards transgender women, F (2, 278) = 0.36, p = .698, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a signifi- cant interaction, F (2, 278) = .28, p = .756, ηp 2 = .00. There was no significant effect of participant gender on how close they felt towards non-bina- ry individuals, F ( 1, 278) = .01, p = .924, ηp 2 = .00. There was no main effect of letter condition on feelings towards non-binary individuals, F (2, 278) = 0.46, p = .630, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a signifi- cant interaction, F (2, 278) = .27, p = .767, ηp 2 = .00. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). A signifi- cant effect of participant gender emerged such that women scored higher on perspective taking (M = 4.12, SD = 0.73) than men (M = 3.86, SD = 0.77), F (1, 286) = 7.14, p = .008, ηp 2 = .02. There was no main effect of letter condition on perspective taking, F (2, 286) = 0.52, p = .595, ηp 2 = .00. However, a significant inter- action between letter condition and gender emerged, F (2, 286) = 4.35, p = .014, ηp 2 = .03. Women scored high- er on perspective taking (M = 4.23, SD = 0.67) than men (M = 3.88, SD = 0.86) in the control condition, F (1, 286) = 5.04, p = .026, ηp 2 = .02. Women also scored higher on perspective taking (M = 4.22, SD = 0.73) than men (M = 3.70, SD = 0.70) in the musician letter condition, F (1, 286) = 10.90, p = .001, ηp 2= .04. How- ever, there was no gender difference in the transman letter condition, F (1, 286) = 0.64, p = .424, ηp 2 = .00 (Mwomen = 3.89, SD = .75; Mmen = 4.02, SD = 0.73) (See Figure 1). When broken down the other way, analy- ses show that there was no effect of letter condition among men, F (2, 286) = 1.42, p = .244, ηp 2 = .01, but there was an effect of letter condition among women, F (2, 286) = 4.45, p = .013, ηp 2 = .03. Follow-up Tukey tests indicate that women in the control condition and women in the musician letter condition scored high- er on perspective taking than women in the transman let ter condition (p = .010 and p = .009 respectively). There was no difference in perspective taking between women in the control and musician letter conditions, TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 135 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS p = .980. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that women scored higher on fantasy (M = 3.86, SD = 0.90) than men (M = 3.53, SD = 1.04), F (1, 287) = 6.72, p = .010, ηp 2 = .02. There was no main effect of letter condition on fantasy, F (2, 287) = 1.08, p = .341, ηp 2 = .01. However, a significant interaction be- tween letter condition and gender emerged, F ( 2, 287) = 6.45, p = .002, ηp 2 = .04. Women scored higher on fantasy (M = 3.99, SD = .80) than men (M = 3.17, SD = 1.18) in the control condition, F (1, 287) = 17.58, p < .001, ηp 2 = .06. However, there was no gender dif- ference in the musician letter condition, F (1, 287) = 2.19, p = .140, ηp 2 = .01. (Mwomen = 3.91, SD = .96; Mmen = 3.62, SD = .87). There was also no gender dif- ference in the transman letter condition, F (1, 287) = .99, p = .319, ηp 2 = .00 (Mwomen = 3.65, SD = .91; Mmen = 3.86, SD = 0.92) (See Figure 2). When broken down the other way, analyses show that there was no effect of letter condition among women, F (2, 287) = 2.30, p = .103, ηp 2 = .02, but there was an effect of letter condi- tion among men, F (2, 287) = 4.57, p = .011, ηp 2 = .03. Follow-up Tukey tests indicate that men in the trans- man letter condition scored higher on fantasy than men in the control condition (p = .003). There was no difference in fantasy between men in the control and musician letter conditions nor was there a difference between the men in the musician letter condition and the transman letter condition, (p = .052 and p = .317). There was a significant effect of participant gender such that women scored higher on empathetic concern (M = 4.26, SD = 0.70) than men (M = 3.91, SD = 0.77), F (1, 286) = 14.64, p < .001, ηp 2 = .05. There was no main effect of letter condition on empathic concern, F (2, 286) = 0.02, p = .976, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a sig- nificant interaction, F (2, 286) = .05, p = .951, ηp 2 = .00. A significant effect of participant gender was ob- served such that women scored higher on personal dis- tress (M = 2.88, SD = 1.01) than men (M = 2.52, SD = 0.93), F (1, 287) = 9.58, p = .002, ηp 2 = .03. There was no main effect of letter condition on personal distress, F (2, 287) = 0.05, p = .952, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a sig- nificant interaction, F (2, 287) = 1.84, p = .160, ηp 2 = .01. Privilege and Oppression Inventory (POI). A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that women reported greater awareness of privilege and oppression (M = 4.49, SD = .97) than men (M = 4.10, SD = 1.16), F (1, 287) = 8.96, p = .003, ηp 2 = .03. There was no main effect of letter condition on awareness of privilege and oppression, F (2, 287) = .41, p = .665, ηp 2 = .00, nor was there a significant interaction, F (2, 287) = .67, p = .511, ηp 2 = .01. Ambivalent Sexism Inventory. There was no sig- nificant effect of participant gender on benevolent sexism, F (1, 287) = 1.98, p = .161, ηp 2 = .01. There was no main effect of letter condition on benevolent sexism, F (2, 287) = 1.84, p = .161, ηp 2 = .01. However, a significant interaction between letter condition and gender emerged, F (2, 287) = 3.80, p = .023, ηp 2 = .03. Men scored higher on benevolent sexism (M = 3.60, SD = .95) than women (M = 3.07, SD = 1.09) in the control condition, F (1, 287) = 6.30, p = .013, ηp 2 = .02. There was no gender difference in the musician letter condition, F (1, 287) = 1.75, p = .187, ηp 2 = .01 (Mwomen = 3.35, SD = 1.10; Mmen = 3.06, SD = 0.90), nor in the transman letter condition, F (1, 287) = 1.63, p = .203, ηp 2 = .01 (Mwomen = 3.37, SD = 1.00; Mmen = 3.66, SD = 0.91) (See figure 3). When broken down the other way, analyses show that there was no effect of letter condition among women, F (2, 287) = 1.72, p = .181, ηp 2 = .01, but there was an effect of letter condi- tion among men, F (2, 287) = 3.30, p = .038, ηp 2 = .02. Follow-up Tukey tests indicate that men in the musi- cian letter condition scored lower on benevolent sex- ism than both men in the control condition (p = .030) and men in the transman letter condition (p = .023). There was no difference between men in the control condition and the transman letter conditions, p = .836. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that men reported more hostile sexism (M = 3.32, SD = .91) than women (M = 2.82, SD = .97), F (1, 285) = 17.75, p < .001, ηp 2 = .06. There was no main effect of letter condition on hostile sexism, F (2, 285) = .20, p = .822, ηp 2=.00, nor was there a signifi- cant interaction, F (2, 285) = .07, p = .933, ηp 2 = .00. System Justification. A significant effect of partic- ipant gender emerged such that men reported more support for the status quo (M = 4.06, SD = 1.67) than women (M = 3.5, SD = 1.58), F (1, 286) = 7.86, p = .005, ηp 2 = .03. There was no main effect of let- ter condition on system justification, F (2, 286) = 2.72, p = .067, ηp 2 = .02, nor was there a significant interaction, F (2, 286) = 2.19, p = .114, ηp 2 = .02. Need for Closure. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that women reported more need for closure (M = 4.13, SD = .82) than men (M = 3.92, SD 136 = .79), F (1, 287) = 4.12, p = .043, ηp 2 = .01. There was no main effect of letter condition on the need for closure, F (2, 287) = .72, p = .490, ηp 2 = .01, nor was there a sig- nificant interaction, F (2, 287) = .37, p = .690, ηp 2 = .00. Reactions to Coming Out. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that women report- ed more positive reactions to how parents should re- act to their kids coming out (M = 5.75, SD = 1.17) than men (M = 5.18, SD = 1.33), F (1, 283) = 13.06, p < .001, ηp 2 = .04. There was a significant main effect of letter condition, F (2, 283) = 4.93, p = .008, ηp 2 = .03. Follow-up Tukey tests indicate that participants in the transman letter condition reported more posi- tive reactions to how parents should react to their kids coming out (M = 5.77, SD = 1.43) than participants in the control condition (M = 5.29, SD = 1.32) (p = .019). There was no difference between participants in the control condition and the musician letter condi- tion (M = 5.63, SD = 0.95) nor was there a difference between participants in the transman letter condition and the musician letter condition (p = .121 and p = .694 respectively). There was no significant interac- tion, F (2, 283) = 1.61, p = .201, ηp 2 = .01. A significant effect of participant gender emerged such that women reported more positive reactions to how they would react to their kids coming out (M = 5.83, SD = 1.28) than men (M = 5.20, SD = 1.40), F (1, 283) = 13.46, p < .001, ηp 2 = .05. There was no main effect of letter condition, F (2, 283) = 2.22, p = .111, ηp 2 = .02. However, a significant interaction between letter condition and gender emerged, F (2, 283) = 3.09, p = .047, ηp 2 = .02. Women scored higher on positive reactions to how they would react to coming out (M = 5.85, SD = 1.20) than men (M = 4.72, SD = 1.46) in the control condition, F (1, 283) = 16.55, p < .001, ηp 2 = .06. However, there was no gender difference in the musician letter condition, F (1, 283) = 3.66, p = .057, ηp 2 = .01 (Mwomen = 5.92, SD = .95; Mmen = 5.38, SD = 1.22). There was also no gender difference in the transman letter condition, F (1, 283) = .22, p = .641, ηp 2 = .00 (Mwomen = 5.70, SD = 1.65; Mmen = 5.57, SD = 1.39) (See Figure 4). When broken down the oth- er way, analyses show that there was no effect of letter condition among women, F (2, 283) = .45, p = .638, ηp 2 = .00, but there was an effect of letter condition among men, F (2, 283) = 3.85, p = .022, ηp 2 = .03. Follow-up Tukey tests indicate that men in the transman letter condition and men in the musician letter condition scored higher on positive reactions than men in the control condition (p = .010 and p = .039 respectively). There was no difference between men in the transman and musician letter conditions, p = .582. Discussion The current study extends past research by fur- ther testing how efficacious a brief humanizing inter- vention is in reducing transphobia. In contrast to our hypothesis, we did not see a main effect of our manip- ulation on most of our dependent variables. The only dependent variable that was significantly affected by our manipulation was how participants reported par- ents should respond to their children coming out as transgender. Specifically, participants in the transman letter condition reported more positive responses on how parents should react to their child coming out than participants in the control condition. This posi- tive influence could be caused by the explicitness of the transman letter condition in describing a transgender man’s journey of self-discovery and the importance of having his parents support him. In turn, this could have motivated participants to acknowledge the ideal way in which a parent should react to their kid coming out. However, this manipulation may have not shifted participants’ intrinsic beliefs about how they should act if their own child came out to them (Reiss, 2012). Additionally, the effectiveness of the manipulation may have not been extended to the other dependent variables because they were numerous. Although the questionnaire did include some filler questions, there was an abundance of transphobia questions which may have signaled to participants the true purpose of this study, thus leading to relatively low transphobia regardless of condition. Future research could decrease the number of prejudice-related items and add more filler questions which would lessen the likelihood of the participants figuring out the true purpose of the study. Our exploratory hypothesis which expected differ ences between the musician letter condition and both the control condition and the transman letter condi- tion was not supported. The musician’s letter did not explicitly mention transgender issues in any way. Al- though it did highlight a difficult time that the charac- ter was going through, it did not describe the specific hardships that transgender individuals face when com- ing out to their parents.This piece could have been in- tegral to triggering empathy towards transgender indi- TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 137 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS viduals. Thus, in this case, general empathy did not in- stigate a decrease in transphobia. In turn, the musician letter condition did not show the decrease in transpho- bic attitudes that was hypothesized to occur in com- parison to the control condition. As expected, men exhibited higher levels of trans- phobia, hostile sexism, and system justification than women. In addition, women exhibited higher aware- ness of privilege and oppression and more need for clo- sure in comparison to men. Women also scored higher than men on all facets of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index including perspective-taking, fantasy, empathy, and personal distress. Women had warmer feelings to- wards transgender men and transgender women than men. In contrast to men, women reported more posi- tive reactions to how parents should react to their kid coming out as well as how they would react to their kid coming out. These results are in alignment with our hypothesis and previous literature (Tompkins et al., 2015; Tebbe & Moradi, 2012; Glick & Fiske, 1996) that men would have more negative responses across all dependent variables than women. These findings are consistent with the fact that men tend to hold more power in society compared to other gender identities, benefit from maintaining the status quo, and therefore feel more threatened by non-normative experiences (West & Borras-Guevara, 2021). However, there was no gender difference between men and women when it came to feelings towards non-binary individuals, attitudes towards transgender individuals, and inclu- sion of others in self. The lack of difference in feelings towards non-binary individuals might be due to a lack of awareness, interaction, and knowledge about non-binary folk (Fiani & Serpe, 2020). Additionally, participants may have had a difficult time with answer- ing the inclusion of others in the self scale as it asks them to rate how close they are to transgender indi- viduals without clarifying what closeness refers to. Par- ticipants could have thought that this question asked them to signify how close they feel to the transgender identity, or how closely they feel towards transgender people. The attitudes towards transgender individuals scale might have not triggered a gender difference be- cause it was the second scale measuring transphobia within the survey. Thus, perhaps some participants were made aware of the true purpose behind the study, making them concerned about social desirability. No interaction between participant gender and letter condition was obtained on transphobia, atti- tudes towards transgender individuals, feelings to- wards transgender individuals, inclusion of self, em- pathetic concern and personal distress, hostile sexism, system justification, need for closure, or how parents should react to their kid coming out. In contrast, a significant interaction between participant gender and letter condition emerged on the perspective-taking subscale of the IRI which measures the tendency to imagine oneself in another person’s situation and see things from their perspective. Women reported higher perspective-taking than men in both the control con- dition and the musician letter condition but not in the transman letter condition. This suggests that the transman letter condition affected perspective-taking such that it eliminated the standard gender differenc- es obtained in the control condition and the musician letter condition. The transman letter condition explic- itly explains how difficult it had been for the trans- gender man to go through life without being seen as a man. Male participants may have related to that feeling which encouraged them to put themselves in another person’s shoes. Furthermore, there was a significant interaction on the fantasy subscale of the IRI which measures people’s tendency to imagine themselves in fictional situations. Women scored higher than men in the control condition but there was no difference in the other two conditions. This finding suggests that both the musician and transman letter conditions are able to affect the gendered differences between men and women and their ability to imagine themselves in a situation they would usually not be in. The vulner- ability present in both these letters may have encour- aged men to step into a fictional situation. In addition, an interaction between participant gender and letter condition emerged on how participants would react to their kids coming out. Women reported more positive reactions in the control condition than men, but there was no gender difference in the other two conditions. This finding again suggests that the musician letter and the transman letter conditions eliminate the gender differences obtained in the control condition. Both the musician and transman letters showcased vulnerable experiences which may have influenced participants to take into consideration the characters’ hardships and eliminated typically seen gender differences in would reactions to coming out. A similar interaction was also obtained on benevolent sexism, which is a subter form 138 TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY of sexism expressed in a seemingly positive light, there is an interaction between gender and letter condition. Men scored higher on benevolent sexism in the con- trol condition than women but there was no gender difference in the musician letter condition and the transgender letter condition. The results suggest that the levels of benevolent sexism decrease in men when subjected to reading a letter. Both letter con- ditions highlighted the vulnerability of two young men during a hard time in their lives which could have consequently decreased men’s benevolent sex- ism scores. Since both letters showcased the struggle of two men, they may have led male participants to be less likely to endorse traditional gendered beliefs that are seemingly positive towards women (Manzi, 2019). Overall, the current work has a number of strengths. Firstly, it is important to test the efficacy of brief humanizing interventions with the presence of an independent control condition. The control condition acts as a reference to the other two condi- tions and is essential to get an understanding of the true effect of interventions like reading a coming-out letter on transphobia outside of studies with set pre- and post-tests. Previous literature (Tompkins et al., 2015; Case & Stewart, 2013; Mizock et al., 2017), uses pre-tests that tells participants something about the purpose of the study and increases social desirability bias. This study did not have a pretest condition, thus reducing the likelihood that participants are aware of the purpose of the study before experiencing the ma- nipulation, and thus motivated to answer questions in a particular manner that is desirable to researchers. Moreover, an appropriately large sample size (N=302) was determined by running a priori power analysis and recruitment. This study was able to obtain a larger and more diverse sample than prior research by using MTurk recruitment. In comparison to previous stud- ies (Walch et al., 2012; Tompkins et al., 2015), which utilized students as their participants, our participants had more varied life experiences. The mean age of our participants was approximately 35 and 37.1% of our participants had completed some level of college, 30.8% had various educational levels, and 14.9 % had a Master’s degree. Our sample reported relatively mod- erate political views ranging from conservative (26.2%) to moderate (37.8%) to liberal (56%). Previous liter- ature used undergraduate samples (Tompkins et al., 2015; Case & Stewart, 2013; Walch et al., 2012), which typically skew more liberal politically (Campbell & Horowitz, 2015). Thus, this study offers a more po- litically diverse participant sample. Another strength of our current work was our manipulation check data, which showed that participants were generally atten- tive and understood their respective letter conditions. Although the current study had a number of im- portant strengths, there are also weaknesses that can be addressed in future research. The current sample was not racially diverse. 65.2% of our participants identi- fied as White/Caucasian. Previous research (Case & Stewart, 2013) has demonstrated higher rates of trans- phobia in people of color prior to interventions. Thus, future research may explore the interaction of racial identity with humanizing interventions intended to reduce transphobia. Future studies may find that hu- manizing interventions have a greater effect on people of color who previously had higher rates of transpho- bia. Cisgender men have previously had higher levels of transphobia than cisgender women. Humaniz- ing interventions were able to eliminate some of the gendered differences between them (Hodson, 2011). Thus, a similar effect may occur with participant race. Also, the vast majority (97.1%) of our participants identified as either men or women; there were few non-cisgender and non-binary participants. Further research may attempt to recruit a more gender-diverse participant population and study potential internal- ized transphobia. Internalized transphobia is when transgender individuals internalize the negative out- look and normative gender attitudes that society has put in place (Scandurra et al., 2018). Future research could look into the effect of humanizing interventions on internalized transphobia and whether empathy can decrease internalized transphobia. Transgender individuals might empathize with the representations in humanizing interventions and see that their own struggles are valid. This empathy might extend to themselves thus decreasing their internalized trans- phobia. Additionally, future studies could explore the efficacy of a humanizing intervention by comparing the effect of letters written by people of different gen- der identities: transgender women, transgender men, and non-binary individuals. Participants may have dif- ferent preconceived biases towards people with these gender identities and the humanizing interven tion could affect participants differently depending on what condition they are exposed to. Although there 139 is not much research on whether attitudes towards transmen, transwomen, and gender non-binary peo- ple differ, there is good reason to expect their lived ex- periences to be different, as transgender women have been subjected to higher rates of gender-based violence (Gyamerah et al., 2021). Additionally, people have less awareness of non-binary individuals (Fiani & Serpe, 2020) which could increase people’s transphobia. Peo- ple are generally wary of the concepts and things that they do not know (Carleton, 2016) which in turn may affect people’s attitudes towards non-binary individ- uals. Humanizing interventions that would include these gender identities might elicit greater reductions in transphobia levels towards transgender women versus transgender men and non-binary individuals because of the high rates of violence towards them. Moreover, future research could decrease the number of dependent variables within the study and add more filler questions in order to decrease potential social de- sirability bias. It would also be beneficial to also look at how long the effects of a humanizing intervention last through a longitudinal study. Brief humanizing interventions might have a temporary effect on peo- ple’s prejudice towards transgender individuals, espe- cially if the intervention was only administered once. In sum, this brief humanizing intervention did not have the direct impacts on transphobia that were initially predicted. Unlike prior research which found more support for the effectiveness of brief humanizing interventions, this study included the general popula- tion instead of university students. Additionally, this study reduced participant suspicion by implementing a control condition. Thus, our findings suggest that prior research may have painted a rosier picture of the ease with which humanizing interventions can reduce transphobia. However, our findings still suggest that humanizing interventions may have promising ef- fects. For example, we found that our manipulation influenced participants’ outlook on how they think parents should react to their kid coming out to them, signifying that participants believed parents should re- act in less transphobic ways to their kid coming out. Thus, future research using humanizing interventions is needed to better understand the extent to which they can be effective in reducing transphobia and im- proving the livelihoods of transgender individuals. References Aron, A., Aron, E. N., & Smollan, D. (1992). Inclu- sion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 596-612. https://doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.596 Allport, F. H. (1954). The structuring of events: out- line of a general theory with applications to psy- chology. Psychological Review, 61(5), 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062678 Allport, G. W. & Lindzey, G. (1954). Handbook of so- cial psychology. Addison-Wesley. Boccanfuso, E., White, F. A., & Maunder, R. D. (2020). Reducing transgender stigma via an E-contact in- tervention. Sex Roles, 84(5-6), 326–336. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11199-020-01171-9 Borras Guevara, M. L., & West, K. (2021). Masculinity threat: Understanding why Jamaican men report more anti-gay prejudice than Jamaican wom- en. Journal of Gender Studies, 30(3), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2020.184217 8 Brown, M. L., & Rounsley, C. A. (1996). True selves: Understanding transsexualism—For families, friends, coworkers, and helping professionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 3–5. https://doi. org/10.1177/1745691610393980 Campbell, C., & Horowitz, J. (2015). Does col- lege influence sociopolitical attitudes? Sociol- ogy of Education, 89(1), 40–58. https://doi. org/10.1177/0038040715617224 Carleton, R.N., (2016). Fear of the unknown: One fear to rule them all? Journal of Anxiety Disor- ders, 41, 5-21, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janx- dis.2016.03.011. Case, K. A., Stewart, B. (2013). Intervention effec tiveness in reducing prejudice against transsex- uals. Journal of LGBT Youth, 10(1-2), 140–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/19361653.2012.718549 Chan, J. Y. N., Mak, W. W. S., & Law, L. S. C. (2009). Combining education and video-based contact to reduce stigma of mental illness: “The same or not the same” anti-stigma program for secondary sch- INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS 140 ools in Hong Kong. Social Science & Medicine, 68, 1521–1526. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2009.02.016 Crowne, D.P., and Marlowe, D., (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopa- thology. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24(4), 349–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047358. Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 10, 85. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Fiani, C. N. (2020). Non-Binary identity and the dou- ble-edged sword of globalization. In C. R. Serpe (Ed.), Trans Lives in a Globalizing World (pp. 16–23). Routledge. Glick, P. & Fiske, S.T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sex- ism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and be- nevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and So- cial Psychology, 70(3), 491-512. https://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491 Grossman, A. H., D’Augelli, A. R. (2010). Transgen- der youth and life-threatening behaviors. Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior, 37(5), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1521/suli.2007.37.5.527 Gyamerah, A. O., Baguso, G., Santiago-Rodriguez, E., Sa’id, A., Arayasirikul, S., Lin, J., Turner, C. M., Taylor, K. D., McFarland, W., Wilson, E. C., & Wesson, P. (2021). Experiences and factors as- sociated with transphobic hate crimes among transgender women in the San Francisco Bay Area: Comparisons across race. BioMed Central Public Health, 21(1), 1053-1067. https://doi. org/10.1186/s12889-021-11107-x Hays, Danica G., Chang, Catherine Y., & Decker, Scott L. (2007). Initial development and psychometric data for the Privilege and Oppression Inventory. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 40(2), 66-79. https://dx.doi.org/10 .1080/07481756.2007.11909806 Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A conceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the Minority Stress Model. Professional Psycholo- gy: Research and Practice, 43(5), 460–467. https:// doi.org/10.1037/a0029597 Hodson, G., Choma, B. L., & Costello, K. (2009). Experiencing alien-nation: Effects of a simula- tion intervention on attitudes toward homo- sexuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychol- ogy, 45(4), 974–978. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jesp.2009.02.010 Hodson, G. (2011). Do ideologically intolerant peo- ple benefit from intergroup contact? Current Di- rections in Psychological Science, 20(3), 154–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721411409025 Hughto, J. M., Reisner, S. L., & Pachankis, J. E. (2015). Transgender stigma and health: A crit- ical review of stigma determinants, mecha- nisms, and interventions. Social Science & Med- icine, 147, 222–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. socscimed.2015.11.010 Kay, A.C., & Jost, J.T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of “Poor but Happy” and “Poor but Hon- est” stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 823-837. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.85.5.823 Manzi, F. (2019). Are the processes underlying dis- crimination the same for women and men? A crit- ical review of congruity models of gender discrim- ination. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, e469. https:// doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00469 McDowell, M. J., Goldhammer, H., Potter, J. E., & Keuroghlian, A. S. (2020). Strategies to mitigate clinician implicit bias against sexual and gender minority patients. Psychosomatics, 61(6), 655–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psym.2020.04.021 McLemore, K. A. (2018). A minority stress perspec- tive on transgender individuals’ experiences with misgendering. Stigma and Health, 3(1), 53–64. https://doi.org/10.1037/sah0000070 Meyer I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: conceptual issues and research evidence. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi. org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Mizock, L., Hopwood, R., Casey, H., Duhamel, E., Herrick, A., Puerto, G., & Stelmach, J. (2017). The transgender awareness webinar: Reducing transphobia among undergraduates and mental health providers. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Men- tal Health, 21(4), 292–315. https://doi.org/10.10 TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 141 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS 80/19359705.2017.1320696 Morizot, Julien. (2014). Construct validity of adoles- cents’ self-reported big five personality traits: Im- portance of conceptual breadth and initial valida- tion of a short measure. Assessment, 21(5), 580-606. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191114524015 Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Rabasco, H. (2018). Reduc- ing gender identity bias through imagined inter- group contact. Journal of Applied Social Psychol- ogy, 48(8), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/ jasp.12525 Murphy, A. O., Sutton, R. M., Douglas, K. M., & Mc- Clellan, L. M. (2011). Ambivalent sexism and the “do”s and “don’t”s of pregnancy: Examining atti- tudes toward proscriptions and the women who flout them. Personality and Individual Differenc- es, 51(7), 812-816. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. paid.2011.06.031 Nagoshi, Julie L., Adams, Katherine A., Terrell, Heath- er K., Hill, Eric D., Brzuzy, Stephanie, & Nagoshi, Craig T.(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex Roles, 59(7- 8), 521-531. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199- 008-9458-7 National Center for Transgender Equality. (2016, July 9). Frequently asked questions about transgender people. https://transequality.org/issues/resourc- es/frequently-asked-questions-about-transgen- der-people National LGBTQ Task Force. (2022). Transgender work- ers at greater risk for unemployment and poverty. https://www.thetaskforce.org/transgender-work- ers-at-greater-risk-for-unemployment-and-poverty/ Neuberg, Steven L., Judice, T. Nicole, & West, Stephen G. (1997). What the Need for Closure Scale mea- sures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1396-1412. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1396 Pellicane, M. J., & Ciesla, J. A. (2022). Associations between minority stress, depression, and sui- cidal ideation and attempts in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 91, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cpr.2021.102113 Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Teaching of Psychology, 39(2), 152–156. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704 Scandurra, C., Bochicchio, V., Amodeo, A. L., Esposi- to, C., Valerio, P., Maldonato, N. M., Bacchini, D., & Vitelli, R. (2018). Internalized transphobia, resilience, and mental health: Applying the psy- chological mediation framework to Italian trans- gender individuals. International Journal of En- vironmental Research and Public Health, 15(3), 508. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15030508 Tebbe, E. N., Moradi, B. (2012). Anti-transgender prejudice: A structural equation model of asso- ciated constructs. Journal of Counseling Psychol- ogy, 59(2), 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0026990 The Trevor Project. (2022). 2022 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health. https://www.thet- revorproject.org/survey-2022/#intro Tompkins, T. L., Shields, C. N., Hillman, K. M., & White, K. (2015). Reducing stigma toward the transgender community: An evaluation of a hu- manizing and perspective-taking intervention. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Di- versity, 2(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/ sgd0000088 UCLA School of Law Williams Institute. (2021, March 23). Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla. edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/ Walch, S. E., Sinkkanen, K. A., Swain, E. M., Francisco, J., Breaux, C. A., & Sjoberg, M. D. (2012). Using intergroup contact theory to reduce stigma against transgender individuals: Impact of a transgender speaker panel presentation. Journal of Applied So- cial Psychology, 42(10), 2583–2605. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00955.x West, K. & Borras-Guevara, M.L. (2022). When cis- gender, heterosexual men feel attracted to trans- gender women: Sexuality-norm violations lead to compensatory anti-gay prejudice, Journal of Ho- mosexuality, 69(3), 2267-2285. https://doi.org10 .1080/00918369.2021.1938467 Whitford, D. K., & Emerson, A. M. (2018). Empathy intervention to reduce implicit bias in pre-service- teachers. Psychological Reports, 122(2), 670–688. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294118767435 Wren B. (2002). ‘I can accept my child is transsexual but if I ever see him in a dress I’ll hit him’: Dilemmas 142142 in parenting a transgendered adolescent. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry;7(3), -377-397. https://doi.org10.1177/1359104502007003006 TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 143 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS Table 1 Demographics of Participants 144 TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 145 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS Table 2 The Distribution of Male and Female Participants in Each Condition 146 Figure 1 The Effect of Gender and Letter Condition on IRI-Perspective-Taking TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 147 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS Figure 2 The Effect of Gender and Letter Condition on IRI-Fantasy 148 Figure 3 The Effect of Gender and Letter Condition on Ambivalent Sexism TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 149 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS Figure 4 The Effect of Gender and Letter Condition on Would Reactions 150 Appendix A Musician Letter Dear Mom and Dad, I have something very important to tell you about myself. You might not approve of it, but please try to keep an open mind as I try to explain this. Also, please understand that what I’m about to tell you is not your fault. So whatever you do, please don’t blame yourselves. I know you’ve wondered why I’ve never had a girlfriend. You might have noticed that I spend most of my time with my “buddies.” Well, I’m not slacking off, but I have actually been in a band. You see, my current major doesn’t match the way I see myself. Mom and Dad, I feel that I am a musician. You might not see this for me, but I know I am a musician. It’s what comes naturally to me. I have felt this way for as long as I can remember. I know you thought I was just messing around with my guitar, but it went much deeper than that. At the age of four, I remember thinking that I was a rockstar. Then, I learned that musicians make music for a living. So I waited for the opportunity to pursue music. Obviously, it never came. So every night, I asked God to please let me become a musician. It hasn’t happened yet. Up until age twelve, things were just OK. I had some really good times with my buddies, but I was very sad and lonely knowing that I would soon have to give this all up to go to college. Then in high school, things got a lot worse. There were so many things I wanted to do but couldn’t. There were band practices that I had to miss, but I had to keep my feelings locked up inside. I always had to pre- tend to be someone I wasn’t. I couldn’t just be myself. You have no idea how hard it was for me to try to act like I wanted to become a doctor. It was extremely difficult for me! To this day, it really tears me up inside! For the longest time, I had been deeply unhappy with my major- the life plan I am supposed to want. But no matter what I did or how hard I worked, I could never feel passionate about medicine. At one time, I felt so unhappy that I had to call an emergency hotline because I didn’t know what else to do. Every day is a struggle for me because I know I have to play a role I’m not comfortable in. It stresses me out so much! I’m sick and tired of the whole charade! At school, I present a cheerful image So they expect me to be all dedicated to my academic journey and happy. They’re used to seeing me with a smile on my face all the time. If only they knew the pain and torture I’m going through! Well, Mom and Dad, what I’m trying to say is that I am going to quit college and start my mu- sic career. Now, you don’t have to understand me, but please try to accept me. I can’t be who you want me to be. I’ve got to do what I know is right for me—not what anyone else might think is right. Your support during this chapter of my life would mean the world to me. Mom and Dad, you’ve been so good to me. I just want to thank you for all you’ve done for me. I feel truly blessed to have parents like you. I love you. Please don’t ever forget that, no matter what. With love, Adam TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY 151 INTERVENTION ON PREJUDICE TOWARDS TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS Appendix B Transgender Letter Edited from Case, K. A., Stewart, B. (2013) Dear Mom and Dad, I have something very important to tell you about myself. You might not approve of it, but please try to keep an open mind as I try to explain this. Also, please understand that what I’m about to tell you is not your fault. So whatever you do, please don’t blame yourselves. I know you’ve wondered why I never had a boyfriend. You might have noticed that all of my guy friends are more like my “buddies.” Well, I’m not a lesbian, but I am very much attracted to women. You see, my body doesn’t match the way I see myself. Mom and Dad, I feel that I am a man. My body might tell you the opposite, but I know I am a man. It’s what comes naturally to me. I have felt this way for as long as I can remember. I know you thought I was just a tomboy, but it went much deeper than that. At the age of four, I remember thinking that I was a boy. Then I learned that boys have a penis. So I waited for mine to grow. Obviously, it never did. So every night, I asked God to please change my body into a male body. It hasn’t happened yet. Up until age twelve, things were just OK. I had some really good times with my buddies, but I was still very sad and lonely. Then in high school, things got a lot worse. There were so many things I wanted to do but couldn’t. There were girls that I really liked and cared about, but I had to keep my feelings locked up deep inside. I always had to pretend to be someone I wasn’t. I couldn’t just be myself. You have no idea how hard it was for me to try to act like a girl. It was extremely humiliating for me! To this day, it really tears me up inside! For the longest time, I had been deep- ly unhappy with the body I am in- the body I am supposed to feel comfortable in. But no matter what I did or how hard I worked out, I could never feel at home in my own skin. At one time, I felt so unhappy that I had to call an emergency hotline because I didn’t know what else to do. Every day is a struggle for me because I know I have to play a role I’m not comfortable in. It stresses me out so much! I’m sick and tired of the whole charade! At work, I present a cheerful image. So they expect me to be all feminine and happy. They’re used to seeing me with a smile on my face all the time. If only they knew the pain and torture I’m going through! Well, Mom and Dad, what I’m trying to say is that I am going to begin my gender tran- sition into the body that I truly feel comfortable in. Now, you don’t have to understand me, but please try to accept me. I can’t be who you want me to be. I’ve got to do what I know is right for me—not what anyone else might think is right.Your support during this chapter of my life would mean the world to me. Mom and Dad, you’ve been so good to me. I just want to thank you for all you’ve done for me. I feel truly blessed to have parents like you. I love you. Please don’t ever forget that, no matter what. With love, Alice (soon to be known as Adam) 152 Appendix C Reactions to Coming Out (Using data from Wren, 2002) Rate the following statements according to your degree of agreement or disagreement using a 7-point scale ranging from 1= strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree Adam’s parents should… - Support Adam completely- even if they do not understand him - Tell Adam that he is not mature enough to make such major decisions - Take Adam to see a specialist and change his mind - Get the proper professional help to support Adam and his decisions - Accept Adam If you were Adam’s parent, you would… - Support Adam completely- even if you do not understand him - Tell Adam that he is not mature enough to make such major decisions - Take Adam to see a specialist and change his mind - Get the proper professional help to support Adam and his decisions - Accept Adam TOUMA SAWAYA & McCARTY