Gender Expression and Passing: The Role of Allyship on Perception of Transgender Individuals

Gender Expression and Passing: The Role of Allyship on Perception of Transgender Individuals | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Gender Expression and Passing: The Role of Allyship on Perception of Transgender Individuals Kaid Marek, Hannah Snidman, Adam Thomas, Dana A. Weiser, Amelia Talley This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Given that transgender individuals suffer from minority stress and negative health outcomes instigated by experienced anti-transgender prejudice, research is necessary to reduce these health outcomes by understanding how allies and non-allies favor transgender and non-binary individuals who present a gender expression that aligns with their identity. This online study inquires how allyship and an anticipated interaction with a fictitious target, with a randomly allocated combination of gender identity (i.e. cisgender, transgender women, transgender men and non-binary) and gender expression (i.e. feminine, androgynous, masculine) to predict positive feelings towards the fictitious target. Based on work by Broussard and colleagues and Mao and colleagues, we expected that participants would perceive “passing” transgender individuals to threaten gender boundaries. Participants are hypothesized to have less positive feelings towards transgender individuals whose gender expression aligns with their gender identity, especially among those who do not identify as allies. Participants ( N = 862) were predominantly white (79.8%), non-Hispanic (611, 70.9%) cisgender (829, 96.2%) heterosexual (n = 720, 83.5%) college students who completed a survey regarding their attitudes towards transgender and non-binary individuals and the fictitious target. A series of ANCOVAs revealed that non-allies had the least positive feelings towards the non-cisgender identities. Contrary to hypotheses, participants had the most positive feelings towards transgender women whose expression matched their gender identity. Further research is needed to understand how opinions towards transgender individuals change based upon the facets of gender normative beliefs. Person Perception Gender Identity Gender Expression Allyship Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Transgender individuals, or those whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex at birth, face stress due to internalized transphobia and expectations for rejection or victimization (Hendricks & Testa, 2012), and experience negative consequences from these stressors. Around 1.6 million transgender individuals are estimated to live in the United States (Herman et al., 2022), and the transgender umbrella includes everyone whose gender identity and/or gender expression does not match their assigned sex at birth (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016), including binary and nonbinary identities. Binary identities in the transgender community refer to transgender men and transgender women. In contrast, nonbinary identities include agender, genderqueer, gender-fluid, and more (Tebbe & Moradi, 2016), but not all nonbinary individuals identify as transgender (Trans Student Educational Resources, 2020). Past research has shown that transgender individuals face minority stressors related to their gender expression or identity (Hendricks & Testa, 2012), including trauma, harassment (Lefevor et al., 2019), and being misgendered (Goldberg et al., 2019). These minority stressors can lead to negative health outcomes, such as suicidal ideation (Tebbe & Moradi, 2016) and body dissatisfaction (Brewster et al., 2019). These potential outcomes emphasize the importance for allies to understand the specific factors that contribute to increased prejudice against gender minorities so they can work to lessen these factors, thereby lowering the risk of negative mental health outcomes. The current study focuses on aspects of gender expression and “passing” as one’s stated gender identity. Utilizing minority stress theory, we examined whether transgender and nonbinary individuals who fit societal expectations of appearance (i.e., their gender expression matches their gender identity) receive more favorable ratings compared to those who violate societal standards (i.e., their gender expression does not match their gender identity). We also examine allyship status as a moderator of the relationship between gender expression and attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals. It is essential to examine whether allies have more positive attitudes toward gender minorities compared to non-allies, and whether gender expression moderates the attitudes toward individuals with transgender identities. Minority Stress Theory Minority stress negatively impacts individuals who hold a minority status. Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) suggests that, in addition to everyday stressors faced by everyone, people in a minority group encounter unique stressors due to their minority status. These stressors can be distal, such as discrimination and violence, or proximal, such as expectations of rejection. The theory states that these unique stressors, like prejudice and discrimination, due to holding a minority status, are linked to psychological distress (Meyer, 2003). Negative attitudes toward gender minorities may contribute to this specific type of stress in their lives. While negative attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals are well established, the factors that influence how severe these attitudes remain underexplored. Identifying these factors is essential because negative attitudes can lead to stressors that negatively impact mental health. Attitudes Toward Transgender and Nonbinary Individuals The appearance of transgender and nonbinary individuals influences perceptions and attitudes toward them. Limited research has begun to explore how gender conformity or nonconformity impacts attitudes toward transgender individuals (e.g., Broussard & Warner, 2019). Researchers used vignettes of men and women targets labeled as either cisgender or transgender, and as either displaying traditional gender-role conforming or nonconforming behavior. In this area, the term “target” refers to the person depicted in the vignettes. Results demonstrated that gender-conforming transgender targets were rated as the most threatening to gender boundaries by MTurk workers (Broussard & Warner, 2019). Threat to the distinction between men and women was measured with questions asking the extent to which the target blurs the boundary between genders and threatens the differences between people who are born female and people who are born male. Based on this study and others comparing transgender and cisgender stimulus persons (Mao et al., 2019) that found cisgender participants preferred cisgender targets, we predicted that female target photos paired with a transgender woman gender identity label, male target photos paired with a transgender man gender identity label, and androgynous target photos paired with a nonbinary gender identity label would receive the least favorable attitude ratings, while the control condition of cisgender identity labels will receive the most favorable attitude ratings, particularly for those who do not identify as allies. A study on gender conformity (Broussard & Warner, 2019) only examined attitudes toward male and female targets. The present study expands upon this research by including nonbinary identity labels and androgynous targets, as well as including pictures to denote gender expression. This study will broaden the impacts from previous research by exploring how allyship status may moderate attitudes toward target photos. Social Support and Allyship LGBTQ+ individuals experience significant levels of adverse experiences due to minority stressors (Crissman et al., 2017), with transgender and nonbinary individuals facing even higher levels of adverse experiences (James et al., 2016). Further, trans and nonbinary individuals have been found to have less access to social support compared to the LGBTQ+ population (James et al., 2016). Since social support can reduce the negative impacts of stressful life events (Meyer, 2003; Zimet et al., 1988), the allyship of cisgender individuals should help to mitigate the minority stress experiences of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Although it is important to explore how allies differ from non-allies on factors that contribute to attitudes toward gender minorities, this research topic is largely missing from the literature. Allies’ attitudes toward gender minorities play a critical role in decreasing minority stress because if allies held more favorable attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals, that would decrease prejudice and discrimination. Distal stressors, such as gender discrimination, can cause adverse mental health outcomes for gender minorities (Meyer, 2003), so it is crucial to determine if allies hold more favorable attitudes toward gender minorities who adhere to societal expectations of gender expression than non-allies. The current studies tested the hypothesis that there will be an interaction, where allies will report more favorable attitudes toward transgender stimulus persons who adhere to stereotypical gender expression than non-allies. Stereotypical gender expression includes feminine appearance for women, masculine appearance for men, and androgynous appearance for non-binary individuals. Identifying allyship as a moderator for attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals may reveal how allies can ultimately reduce minority stress for gender minorities. Previous studies have recommended cisgender allyship as a potential solution to social issues for transgender individuals (Erby et al., 2017; Johnson, 2020), even showing how families can operate as allies (Chan, 2018). While these studies have recommended that allies help gender minorities, there is a lack of exploration of how allies can and do help to reduce minority stress. One underexplored area of allyship is facilitating positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals, especially regarding their gender expression. The current study tests whether allies have more positive attitudes toward gender minorities than non-allies, and if these positive attitudes apply regardless of the TGD person’s gender expression. Multi-study Design Multi-study research designs allow for a nuanced understanding of attitudes toward transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. Previous research with the transgender community often lumps all transgender individuals into one group (Bettergarcia & Israel, 2018; Lefevor et al., 2019), which limits researchers’ abilities to discover differences between transgender identity groups. Limited research that considered nonbinary and transgender binary individuals as unique groups discovered differences between the groups in terms of depression, eating concerns, victimization, and psychological distress (Lefevor et al., 2019), along with student health care experiences (Goldberg et al., 2019). Since differences appeared between unique transgender identity groups’ experiences, differences may also occur in attitudes toward these separate identities. Our experimental studies allowed for the examination of attitudes toward transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals, as well as attitudes toward cisgender men and women in our series of three studies. Each study captured attitudes toward each gender identity with a different gender expression in order to examine how gender expression impacts attitudes toward each gender group. This multi-part study was crucial to determine if gender expression contributes to attitudes toward all gender minorities, or only some gender groups. The Current Studies This project examined whether transgender and nonbinary individuals who fit societal expectations for how men, women, and androgynous people should appear receive more or less favorable ratings than those who violate societal standards. Exploring the factors that contribute to negative attitudes, such as atypical gender expression, which involves breaking societal expectations of gender expression, will provide attention to identifying ways to reduce minority stress. In the current study, target gender identity refers to the identity statement in the target description (e.g., Sam identifies as a transgender woman). Target gender expression refers to their appearance, rated by participants in a pilot study (e.g., masculine, feminine, or androgynous gender expression). Nonbinary individuals do not conform to traditional male or female societal expectations, even if their gender expression matches their gender identity. As such, they often receive the least support from family and friends (Aparicio-García et al., 2018), experience more misgendering by therapists and health providers (Goldberg et al., 2019), and are at a higher risk of cyberbullying (Aparicio-García et al., 2018) compared to their binary peers. In the current study, we hypothesized that gender nonbinary targets would be rated more negatively than cisgender targets, but no different than transgender man and transgender woman targets. Based on previous literature (Broussard & Warner, 2019), we also hypothesized that transgender stimulus persons who break societal expectations will receive more favorable attitudes than stimulus persons who match their presenting gender and gender identity. The theory behind this hypothesis is that transgender individuals who ‘pass’ as cisgender due to gender expression may be perceived as threatening, and thus rated more negatively, because cisgender individuals would not be able to tell that they are transgressing binary gender expressions (Broussard & Warner, 2019). We also hypothesized that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward transgender stimulus persons, especially those who conform to societal standards of gender expression. We expect this research to help allies recognize internal biases about what they expect of transgender and nonbinary individuals, as well as help transgender and nonbinary individuals by revealing the negative interpersonal consequences of societal expectations of binary forms of gender expression. Methods Pilot Study A pilot study was conducted with racially diverse human faces from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015). The goal of the pilot was to determine the most “feminine,” “masculine,” and “androgynous” faces for use in the targets. Pilot study participants were 202 undergraduate psychology students from a Southwestern university who received course credit as compensation for participation (Collected in 2021). This pilot asked the following questions about each of the faces – presented in random order: “Looking at this face, would you consider this person masculine, feminine or androgynous?” and “Please rate this person's appearance.” The first question gave three answer options (“Masculine (1)”, “Feminine (2)”, and “Androgynous (3)”) to assess perceptions of gender expression. The second question offered a sliding scale to indicate the gender expression of the face (Range with anchors: 0 = “Masculine;” 50 = “Androgynous;” 100 = “Feminine”). Faces that had average numerical ratings closest to each, respective, category of gender expression (i.e., Feminine, Androgynous, Masculine) were selected for inclusion in the primary study. The “most masculine” face was shown to have a mean value that corresponded to the “masculine” category of gender expression ( M = 1.02, SD = 0.15, t (201) = 1.895, p = .060) and a corresponding mean on the slider scale that was close to zero, the “masculine” anchor ( M = 5.90, SD = 9.55, t(201) = 8.781, p < .001). Similarly, the “most feminine” face was shown to have a mean value that corresponded to the "feminine” category of gender expression ( M = 2.01, SD= 0.18, t (201) = 0.790, p = .431) and a corresponding mean on the slider scale that was close to one-hundred, the “feminine” anchor ( M = 97.2, SD = 0.71, t (201) = 56.050, p < .001). Although the “most androgynous” face tended to be categorized as somewhat between feminine and androgynous in its gender expression ( M = 2.35, SD = 0.83 , t (201) = 11.1, p < .001), the selected face had an average rating that was closest to the mid-point of the scale ( M = 49.13, SD = 19.76, t (201) = 0.626, p < .532). These faces, indicated to be perceptually masculine, feminine, and androgynous by participants, were chosen to represent the varying forms of gender expression as a between-subjects experimental factor (See Figure 1). Procedure Participants had the opportunity to sign up to participate in this study in exchange for course credit in the Psychological Sciences and the Human Development and Family Sciences departments. Prior to consent, participants read about the purpose of the study, the anticipated benefits, and foreseeable risks with participation. After a participant accessed an online survey link, they were shown consent information. Following consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of four target conditions that described a hypothetical person, named “Sam,” that the participant will be working with in a group project. In the target description Sam was described as identifying as either (a) cisgender, (b) transgender woman, (c) transgender man, or (c) nonbinary person. All participants read the following information about Sam with two exceptions. First, the italicized gender identity changed depending on assigned condition and, also, pronouns corresponded to the stated gender identity (e.g., transgender woman = she/her; non-binary person = they/them): Sam was assigned to your group for a semester-long group project in a class in your second semester of college. You have met Sam before from a previous class. Sam identifies as a transgender woman . She is a hard worker and good student. You have some common interests/hobbies, and she is easy to get along with. The other group members seem to get along with Sam too. Above the excerpt describing “Sam”, one of the three images selected from the pilot study was shown. An initial study, with the masculine gender-expression photo, was conducted in 2023. Studies with feminine and androgynous gender-expression photos were conducted, simultaneously, with independent samples, in 2025. After viewing the randomly assigned target and photo, participants were directed to questions about their attitudes towards the target and “Sam,” attitudes towards transgender and gender non-binary individuals, and their allyship towards the transgender and non-binary community. A similar online target study design has been shown to be effective in examining differing attitudes about transgender individuals (Broussard et al., 2019). Measures Demographic Information and Covariates Once the participant provided consent, they were asked demographic questions about their gender identity, age, race, Hispanic identification, and sexual orientation. A single item asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement: “How attracted are you to this person?” The participants indicated their response on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from “1 = Not Attracted at All” to “5 = Extremely Attracted.” Higher scores indicate attraction to the target viewed by the participant and used as a covariate in the primary models. Attitudes Toward the Target Participants were asked to rate how they felt about Sam, based on what they read in the excerpt. Osgood et al.’s (1957) social-object attitudes, which include the semantic differentials of good-bad, positive-negative, pleasant-unpleasant, strong-weak, forceful-gentle, obvious-subtle, restless-calm, fast-slow, and active-passive, were used to assess positive feelings towards target person. Participants had the option to rate their feelings, via a seven-point bipolar scale, ranging from 1 (the respective left attitude value, e.g., “good”) to 4 (neither the left or right attitude value, e.g., “neither good nor bad”) to 7 (the respective right attitude value, e.g., “bad”). In prior work, these social object attitudes have been used to give context as to how participants feel about individuals, and individuals within specific identity groups (Kervyn et al., 2013). These eleven items are utilized within this study to examine the social perceptions of a person solely based on their gender identity and gender expression. After creating a scale using the semantic differential with higher ratings reflecting that Sam is perceived as calm, fast, active, strong, subtle, gentle, good, positive, pleasant, warm, and competent (α = .83). Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (TABS) After filling out their attitudes toward Sam, participants completed the Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (Kanamori et al., 2017) to evaluate their attitudes and beliefs about transgender individuals generally. Participants responded using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 – Strongly disagree” to “7 – Strongly agree.” A higher scale (and subscale) score indicates more positive feelings about transgender individuals. The scale has three subscales: Interpersonal Comfort (α = .97), Sex/Gender Beliefs (α = .95), and Human Value (α = .94; Kanamori et al., 2017). An example item from the Interpersonal Comfort subscale is, “I would be uncomfortable if my boss was transgender (R).” An example item from the Sex/Gender Beliefs subscale is “Whether a person is male or female depends upon whether they feel male or female.” Finally, the Human Value subscale contained items, such as, “Transgender individuals should be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other person.” (Kanamori et al., 2017). In the current study, subscales showed high internal consistency (Interpersonal Comfort [α = .96], Sex/Gender Beliefs [α = .94], Human Value [α = .88]). Ally Identity Measure (AIM) After completing the TABS, participants completed the Ally Identity Measure, which measures a participant’s self-reported skills, actions, and awareness of oppression to readily support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (Jones et al., 2014). This scale, which was adapted for this current study, changed any wording referring to “sexual minorities” to “gender minorities.” Each question is accompanied by a statement that defines gender minority people, describing them as “transgender and nonbinary individuals” to clarify meanings for the participant. Participants had the option to respond to the scale’s questions using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from “1 – Strongly disagree” to “5 – Strongly agree.” The scale has three subscales: Knowledge and Skills, Openness and Support, and Oppression Awareness. An example item from the Knowledge and Skills subscale is “I know of organizations that advocate for gender minority issues.” An example item for the Openness and Support subscale reads, “I regularly engage in conversations with gender minority people.” Finally, an example item from the Oppression Awareness subscale reads, “I think the gender minority groups are oppressed by society in the United States” (Jones et al. 2014). This scale has been shown to be statistically reliable in the literature (Cronbach’s alphas of .76 to .88; Jones et al., 2014). Within the current study, the subscales showed high levels of internal consistency (Knowledge and Skills [α = .91, Openness and Support [α = .92], Oppression Awareness [α = .89]. Self-reported Allyship Identity Participants answered a self-report item on the extent to which they identify as an ally to the transgender and nonbinary communities. Participants will have the option to respond with a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from “1 - Not at All” to “5 - Very Much So”. Therefore, higher scores on the self-report item indicate higher self-perceived allyship. Principal Component Analysis: Allyship To operationalize allyship to the transgender and gender non-binary communities, using the AIM, TABS, and the single, self-report item, a principal component analysis was conducted. The PCA included the single item and the subscale means of Openness and Support (AIM), Oppression Awareness (AIM), Knowledge and Skills (AIM) Interpersonal Comfort (TABS), Sex and Gender Beliefs (TABS), and Human Value (TABS). Direct Oblimin rotation was specified given the expectation that underlying dimensions may be correlated. The PCA revealed two components with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 79.44% of the total variance. The first component accounted for 68.31% of the variance, and the second component accounted for 11.12%. Results showed that the single item rating and all subscale scores, with one exception (Knowledge and Skills subscale, AIM), all loaded onto a primary underlying dimension, reflecting the construct of allyship. Because the Knowledge and Skills subscale did not load onto the primary component, it was not included in the coding of the allyship variable. The allyship score, created by averaging the aforementioned, standardized subscale scores, showed high levels of internal consistency, α = .903. Participants Participants were 1,320 undergraduate students from a Southwestern university who received course credit in psychology, media and communication, or family science courses as compensation for their participation. Survey entries with duplicate participant identification codes ( n = 79, 6%), entries that did not answer thirteen items or more ( n = 103, 7.8%), did not pass the attention check asking the name “Sam” of the target ( n = 115, 8.7%), did not pass the attention check asking the gender identity of the target (n = 136, 10.3%), or answered the survey in under two minutes with straight-line survey responding ( n = 25, 1.9%), were excluded from the final analyses. The final sample size for the current analysis is 862. Participants’ mean age was 20.72 ( M = 20.72, SD = 4.62, 4.72). Most participants self-identified as White ( n = 688, 79.8%). Participants also self-identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native ( n = 7, 0.8%), Asian ( n = 33, 3.8%), Black or African American ( n = 51, 5.9%); Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5, 0.6%), Multiracial (54, 6.3%), with the remaining not reporting (24, 2.8% Unknown). Most participants identified as non-Hispanic (611, 70.9%), with only 250 participants (29%) identifying as Hispanic/Latinx. With regard to gender identity, participants were primarily cisgender (829, 96.2%) women (692, 80.3%) with some men (153, 17.7%) and non-binary (8, 0.9%) individuals. Finally, participants in the current sample were largely heterosexual (n = 720, 83.5%) with some identifying as Bisexual/Pansexual/Queer (76, 8.5%), Asexual (9, 1%), Gay (13, 1.5%), Lesbian (9, 1%), some reporting that they were Questioning (3, 0.3%) and others not reporting (31, 3.6% Unknown). For self-reported allyship, a majority of participants did not identify, at all, as an ally to the transgender and gender non-binary communities ( n = 228, 26.5%), with a smaller number identifying, slightly, as an ally ( n = 101, 11.7%). More participants identified as a moderate ( n = 138, 16%) or strong ally ( n = 173, 20.1%). The remaining participants identified, very much so, as an ally ( n = 173, 20.1%). Two participants did not answer this item. Overall, a majority of participants in the current sample identified, at least moderately, as allies. Results Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted in SPSS (IBM Corp, 2020). To assess positive attitudes toward the fictitious partner, a 4 (target gender identity: cisgender person, transgender woman, transgender man or nonbinary identity) × 3 (target photo: masculine-appearing, feminine-appearing, or androgynous appearing) ANCOVA with a measured moderator (Participant Allyship) and five covariates (Participant Gender: woman, man, or nonbinary; Participant Ethnicity: non-Hispanic/Latino, Participant Age; Participant Race: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Unknown; Participant attraction toward the target was specified. In addition to the three-way interaction of interest, two-way interactions between allyship and target photo, between allyship and target identity, as well as between target identity and target photo were tested. Finally, main effects of the independent variables and covariates were examined. See Table 1 for bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations for measures. A three-way interaction between target gender identity (cisgender person, transgender woman, transgender man or nonbinary identity), target gender expression (masculine-appearing, feminine-appearing, or androgynous-appearing), and level of Allyship was not significant, F (6, 789) = 1.08, p = .375. Nevertheless, this model showed a large direct association between allyship and positive regard for the fictitious partner, F (1, 789) = 96.04, p < .001, 𝜂 partial 2 = .202). Given the higher order interaction was non-significant, this term was removed from the model and three subsequent models tested each respective two-way interaction of interest. Table 1. Bivariate Correlations of Study Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 -- .51** .52** .43** .39** .30** .17** .34** .30** .30** .13** 2 – .96** .91** .74** .64** .34** .70** .68** .71** .22** 3 – .78** .71** .60** .31** .66** .62** .66** .20** 4 – .50** .63** .34** .69** .65** .70** .24** 5 – .40** .17** .43** .52** .45** .10** 6 – .86** .93** .73** .56** .24** 7 – .67** .36** .31** .19** 8 – .69** .62** .25** 9 – .56** .18** 10 – .19** 11 M 4.76 141.2 71.10 40.74 29.60 53.60 20.44 19.56 13.60 2.92 1.36 SD 0.86 37.9 20.16 15.66 5.76 16.88 8.00 7.39 4.34 1.46 0.75 Note. The following variables are denoted by the numerical values in the table: (1) Positive attitudes towards the target; (2) Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, or TABS; (3) TABS subscale of Interpersonal Comfort; (4) TABS subscale of Sex/Gender Beliefs; (5) TABS subscale of Human Value; (6) Ally Identity Measure, or AIM; (7) AIM subscale of Knowledge and Skills; (8) AIM subscale of Openness and Support; (9) AIM subscale of Oppression Awareness; (10) Allyship Self-report item; (11) Attraction to the target. Target Gender Identity X Target Gender Expression The ANCOVA showed a significant interaction between target gender identity and target gender expression in the photo in the prediction of positive feelings toward the fictitious partner, F (6, 800) = 2.15, p = .046, 𝜂 partial 2 = .016. This model accounted for nearly a quarter of the variance in positive feelings towards the fictitious partner ( R 2 = .244).See Figure 2 for a visualization of mean differences that were further examined with post-hoc analyses. Cisgender Identity. Follow-up pairwise comparisons of the significant interaction between target gender identity across target gender expressions revealed some significant differences. Adjusting for covariates at their mean, cisgender-identifying targets elicited the least positive attitudes when this target was feminine-appearing, ( M = 4.51). Mean comparisons suggested that these positive feelings were lower than when the target was androgynous-appearing ( M = 4.8; M Difference = -0.29, SE Mean Difference = 0.118; 95% CI [-.526, -.062], p = .013), which elicited the most positive attitudes. Transgender Woman Identity. More significant differences were found within pairwise comparisons between target gender identity across target gender expressions. Adjusting for covariates at their mean, transgender woman-identifying targets elicited the least positive attitudes when the target was masculine-appearing ( M = 4.54). Mean comparisons suggested these positive feelings were somewhat lower than when the target was feminine-appearing, ( M = 4.8, M Difference = 0.26, SE Mean Difference = 0.145; 95% CI [-.001, .569], p = .05), which elicited the most positive attitudes. Transgender Man Identity. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in positive feelings, based on target gender expression, when the fictitious partner identified as a transgender man. Nonbinary Identity. Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in positive feelings, based on target gender expression, when the fictitious partner identified as a non-binary person. Two-way Interaction: Target Gender Identity X Participant Allyship Another two-way ANCOVA tested the interaction between target gender identity and participant allyship, adjusting for covariates. A significant interaction between target gender identity and participant allyship was shown, F (3, 803) = 7.28, p < .001, 𝜂 partial 2 = .026. This model also accounted for about a quarter of the variance in positive feelings towards the target ( R^2 = .252)See Figure 3 for a visualization of mean differences that were further explored with post-hoc comparison tests at one standard deviation above and below the mean of allyship. Low Allyship. Pairwise comparisons showed some significant differences in positive feelings toward the target when participants’ allyship was low (i.e., -1 SD). Adjusting for covariates, participants who reported low allyship had the most positive regard for targets who identified as cisgender regardless of the target’s gender expression ( M = 4.36). Positive feelings toward cisgender targets were significantly greater than when targets identified as non-binary ( M = 4.12, M Difference = 0.24, SE Mean Difference = 0.117; 95% CI [0.26, .385], p = .029) or as a transgender man ( M = 4.05, M Difference = 0.31, SE Mean Difference = 0.12; 95% CI [.026, .484], p = .009). When comparing positive feelings between cisgender targets and transgender woman targets, no significant differences were found. High Allyship. Pairwise comparisons showed significant differences with regard to positive feelings toward the target, depending on their gender identity, for participants who reported higher levels of allyship (+1 SD). Adjusting for covariates, participants who reported higher levels of allyship showed the lowest positive regard when targets identified as cisgender regardless of the target’s gender expression ( M = 4.83, SD = 0.8). In fact, compared to targets who identified as cisgender, participants who were higher in allyship reported more positive feelings toward targets who identified as a transgender woman ( M = 5.21 , M Difference = -0.38, SE Mean Difference = .144; 95% CI [-.601, -.153], p < .001), transgender man ( M = 5.32, M Difference = 0.49, SE Mean Difference = .117 ; 95% CI [-.714, -.256], p < .001), and a non-binary person ( M = 5.23, M Difference = 0.31, SE Mean Difference = .123; 95% CI [-.638, -.157], p = .001). When participants were high in allyship, no other significant differences were shown among ratings for targets who identified as transgender or gender non-binary. Finally, the two-way interaction between target gender expression and participants’ allyship was tested and shown to be non-significant, F (2, 804) =1.25, p = .288. Discussion This study assessed attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals based on a target’s stated gender expression and gender identity. We utilized a multi-study design approach to consider nonbinary individuals, transgender men, transgender women, and cisgender individuals as unique groups, since previous research often groups all transgender individuals together (Bettergarcia & Israel, 2018; Lefevor et al., 2019). When considering groups separately, differences appear regarding student healthcare experiences (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2019), victimization, psychological distress, eating concerns, and depression (Lefevor et al., 2019). Transgender individuals face minority stressors due to their gender identity or expression (Hendricks & Testa, 2012), including being misgendered (Goldberg et al., 2019), trauma and harassment (Lefevor et al., 2019), and body dissatisfaction (Brewster et al., 2019). The current examination highlights which factors are important for allies to focus on in their efforts to reduce anti-transgender prejudice and subsequently reduce the impacts of minority stress. We also explored how allyship status moderates the relationship between target gender identity and attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals. We hypothesized that transgender targets who break societal expectations would receive more favorable attitudes than transgender targets who match gender identity and expression. In other words, we predicted that transgender targets who ‘pass’ as their gender identity would receive less favorable attitudes. Our findings did not support this hypothesis. We predicted this finding based on previous research, where transgender targets who ‘passed’ were considered threatening by participants, who saw them as blurring gender boundaries (Broussard & Warner, 2019). It is important to note that we measured how participants felt about the target person in the picture, generally, without regard to whether or not they were blurring gender boundaries. Thus, participants may have felt that ‘passing’ targets were blurring gender boundaries, but this belief may not have influenced their general opinion of the target. We also hypothesized that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward all transgender targets, and especially those whose gender identity and expression matched. Results from analyses of covariance partially supported this hypothesis. While there was not a significant interaction between target gender identity, target gender expression, and level of allyship, there was a direct association between allyship and attitude toward target. Low allyship participants preferred cisgender targets, whereas high allyship participants preferred transgender and nonbinary targets. Our hypothesis that transgender targets who ‘pass’ as their gender identity would receive less favorable attitudes from participants was not supported. In fact, for the transgender woman target, an association between target gender identity and target gender expression was shown in the opposite direction. The transgender woman received greater positive attitudes when she had a more feminine gender expression than a more masculine gender expression. Participants, who were largely cisgender women, appeared to be rewarding the transgender woman for ‘passing’ with a feminine gender expression. This finding provides nuance to Broussard and Warner’s (2019) finding that gender-conforming transgender targets were perceived as threatening to gender norms and boundaries. Even if transgender individuals who ‘pass’ as their gender identity are perceived as threatening, they may initially elicit favorable attitudes from peers overall. This finding aligns with cisnormativity, the false belief that gender is defined by bodies and there are only two gender identities (Allen & Mendez, 2018). Nonbinary and non-passing transgender individuals violate cisnormative assumptions, while transgender men and women support the gender binary and subsequently their gender expression may be viewed more positively. Previous research supporting cisnormativity found that transgender individuals who present with a gender-conforming appearance report less discrimination than those who do not (Coburn et al., 2022). Interestingly, there were no significant differences in attitudes toward transgender men nor nonbinary targets based on gender expression. Although we did not make a prediction regarding cisgender targets, they received significantly more positive ratings when the target was androgynous-appearing than feminine-appearing. Although our hypothesis was not supported, these results demonstrate that the relationship between gender identity and gender expression impacts attitudes toward targets. Feminine-presenting transgender women are likely to receive the most positive perceptions from young adults with average levels of allyship. Gender identity, however, does not appear to impact attitudes toward individuals who have a masculine or androgynous gender expression, but that may be a consequence of the current sample that was collected. Results reveal consequences of societal expectations of gender expression, coupled with stated gender identities, opening a path to reduce anti-transgender prejudice through addressing harmful expectations. Specifically, society tends to uphold heteronormativity, which includes gender, sexuality, and family binaries that are viewed as normative (Allen & Mendez, 2018). Transnormativity refers to the idea that transgender individuals’ presentations and experiences of gender operate on a binary, which privileges people who pass as a binary gender identity (Bradford & Syed, 2019). Therefore, feminine-presenting transgender women receive more positive ratings than targets who defy binary expectations because transgender women uphold transnormativity and more closely support heteronormativity. Our hypothesis that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward all transgender targets was supported. Participants with low allyship levels reported a more positive attitude toward cisgender targets than non-binary or transgender men targets, regardless of gender expression. This finding supports the notion that people who do not identify as allies to the transgender and nonbinary community have less favorable attitudes toward members of that community regardless of gender expression. It also aligns with previous research showing cisgender and heterosexual participants rate cisgender target photos higher than transgender and nonbinary target photos on interpersonal attraction (Mao et al., 2019). Participants with high allyship levels reported the least favorable attitudes toward cisgender targets, regardless of gender expression. High allyship participants reported more positive attitudes toward targets who identified as transgender woman, transgender man, and nonbinary targets as compared to those who identified as cisgender. This result supports the notion that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community have greater positive feelings toward members of the community, regardless of whether their gender identity matches their gender expression. Other researchers have proposed cisgender allyship as a potential solution to social issues transgender individuals face (Erby et al., 2017; Johnson, 2020). The finding that young adults higher in allyship reported more positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets supports the fostering of allyship as a potential path to improving attitudes toward and experiences of the transgender and nonbinary community. Limitations and Future Directions This project had many strengths, including using a multi-study design, treating unique transgender identities as individual groups, and measuring allyship as a moderator. There were also several limitations in this study that future research can address. First, we chose to use real-world faces instead of computer-generated faces to increase external validity and make participants believe they were reacting to a real person. However, using a different person’s face for each condition (feminine, masculine, and androgynous) introduces extraneous variables in addition to gender expression, such as facial expression. Although random assignment may reduce concerns, future research should replicate this study with computer-generated faces, where the only difference is the manipulated gender expression. Another limitation is the varying race of the targets. We used a pilot study to determine the most masculine, feminine, and androgynous faces to use for our research, with multiple races represented. The photo rated most masculine was of a Black target, and the images rated most feminine and androgynous were of White targets. Future research should replicate this study with masculine, feminine, and androgynous faces of all races to determine if race is an important factor in assessing attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. Additional work in this area will help illuminate the ways in which person perception is influenced by gender expression and gender identity, as well as how perceptions are shaped by pre-existing beliefs regarding transgender and gender nonbinary folks. Finally, we collected data between May 2022 and December 2024. With the current administration inaugurated in 2025, there may be more public anti-trans narratives now than a few years ago. Future research should replicate our study to examine if results differ depending on public discourse. Conclusion As there are estimated to be around 1.6 million transgender individuals living in the U.S. alone (Herman et al., 2022), it is crucial to work to ameliorate the negative consequences of minority stress on gender minority individuals. To reduce this stress, we must determine factors that contribute to it, such as gender expression of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Findings from this project revealed that gender expression and gender identity impact attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. It is essential for allies to work toward reducing negative attitudes toward the transgender and nonbinary community, regardless of individual gender expression. Researchers should use these findings to investigate competing theories on attitudes toward ‘passing’ with regard to one’s gender identity. Results also demonstrate that people with high allyship levels have more positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. In contrast, people with low allyship levels hold more positive attitudes toward cisgender targets. Allies can use the knowledge from this study to educate people with low allyship levels on differences in perceptions of individuals based on gender identity. Interventions to improve attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals could then be utilized to reduce prejudice toward transgender and nonbinary people, regardless of their gender expression. Reduced prejudice would lead to decreased experiences and impacts of minority stress (Meyer, 2003). Declarations Gender Expression and Passing Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Human Ethics All procedures conducted in this study involving human subjects were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Internal Review Board at the at Texas Tech University, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. This work was approved by the relevant internal review boards. Consent to Participate Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study. Funding Declaration This work did not receive financial support. Clinical trial number: not applicable. References Allen, S. H., & Mendez, S. N. (2018). Hegemonic heteronormativity: Toward a new era of queer family theory. Journal of Family Theory & Review , 10 (1), 70-86. Aparicio-García, M. E., Díaz-Ramiro, E. M., Rubio-Valdehita, S., López-Núñez, M. I., & García-Nieto, I. (2018). Health and well-being of cisgender, transgender and non-binary young people. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 15 (10), 2133. Bettergarcia, J. N., & Israel, T. (2018). Therapist reactions to transgender identity exploration: Effects on the therapeutic relationship in an analogue study. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 423-431. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000288 Bradford, N. J., & Syed, M. (2019). Transnormativity and transgender identity development: A master narrative approach. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research , 81 (5–6), 306–325. Brewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Breslow, A. S., & Geiger, E. F. (2019). Unpacking body image concerns and disordered eating for transgender women: The roles of sexual objectification and minority stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(2), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000333 Broussard, K. A., & Warner, R. H. (2019). Gender nonconformity is perceived differently for cisgender and transgender targets. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 80(7–8), 409 428. https://doi-org.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z Chan, C. D. (2018). Families as transformative allies to trans youth of color: Positioning intersectionality as analysis to demarginalize political systems of oppression. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1–2), 43–60. https://doi-org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1421336 Coburn, K. O., Spencer, C. M., & Kelly, L. C. (2022). Comparing binary transgender and nonbinary people: Factors associated with psychological well-being among a predominately people of color sample. Contemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal . https://doi-org.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1007/s10591-022-09634-9 Crissman, H. P., Berger, M. B., Graham, L. F., & Dalton, V. K. (2017). Transgender demographics: a household probability sample of US adults, 2014. American journal of public health , 107 (2), 213-215. Erby, A., Henry, J. S., Lopez, C., Procter, J., & Robinson, M. C. (2017). Application: Social issues in the transgender community. In R. W. Summers (Ed.), Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions., Vol. 1. (pp. 229–255). Greenwood Press/ABC-CLIO. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. et al. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41, 1149– 1160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Goldberg, A. E., Kuvalanka, K. A., Budge, S. L., Benz, M. B., & Smith, J. Z. (2019). Health care experiences of transgender binary and nonbinary university students. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(1), 59–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019827568 Hayes, J. A., Chun, K. C., Edens, A., & Locke, B. D. (2011). Do double minority students face double jeopardy? Testing minority stress theory. Journal of Colleg Counseling, 14(2), 117–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2011.tb00267.x Hendricks, M. L., & Testa, R. J. (2012). A c onceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the Minority Stress Model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 460–467. https://doi.org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1037/a0029597 Herman, J. L., Flores, A. R., & O'Neill, K. K. (2022). How many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States?. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. James, S., Herman, J., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., & Anafi, M. A. (2016). The report of the 2015 US transgender survey. Johnson, H. L. (2020). Rhetorics of trans allyship, toward an ethic of responsible listening and ally labor [ProQuest Information & Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 81, Issue 4–B) Jones, K. N., Brewster, M. E., & Jones, J. A. (2014). The creation and validation of the LGBT Ally Identity Measure. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1 (2), 181–195. Kanamori, Y., Cornelius-White, J. H. D., Pegors, T. K., Daniel, T., & Hulgus, J. (2017). Development and validation of the Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1503–1515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0840-1 Kervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2013). Integrating The Stereotype Content Model (Warmth And Competence) And The Osgood Semantic Differential (Evaluation, Potency, And Activity). European journal of social psychology , 43 (7), 673–681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978 Krosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2014). The Measurement of Attitudes. In D. Albarracín, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Routledge. Lefevor, G. T., Boyd-Rogers, C. C., Sprague, B. M., & Janis, R. A. (2019). Health disparities between genderqueer, transgender, and cisgender individuals: An extension of minority stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(4), 385 395. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000339 Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122–1135. Mao, J. M., Haupert, M. L., & Smith, E. R. (2019). How gender identity and transgender status affect perceptions of attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(6), 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618783716 Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697. https://doi-org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 National Center for Transgender Equality. (2016, July 9). Understanding Transgender People: The Basics. https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people the-basics Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957). The measurement of meaning (No. 47). University of Illinois press. Tabler, J., Schmitz, R. M., Nagata, J. M., & Geist, C. (2021). Self-perceived gender expression, discrimination, and mental health disparities in adulthood. SSM-Mental Health , 1 , 100020. Tebbe, E. A., & Moradi, B. (2016). Suicide risk in trans populations: An application of minority stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 520–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000152 The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. (2023, July 10). How many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States? - Williams Institute . Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/ Trans Student Educational Resources. (2020). LGBTQ+ Definitions. https://www.transstudent.org/definitions Velez, B. L., Moradi, B., & Brewster, M. E. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532 542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346 Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Journal of personality assessment , 52 (1), 30-41. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7661459","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":558638616,"identity":"60d1e822-e358-406a-bdc0-a05c7e5234ff","order_by":0,"name":"Kaid Marek","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Texas Tech University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kaid","middleName":"","lastName":"Marek","suffix":""},{"id":558638619,"identity":"2328c8f9-8227-4b14-b6dd-d0feaf408f98","order_by":1,"name":"Hannah Snidman","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Marymount University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Hannah","middleName":"","lastName":"Snidman","suffix":""},{"id":558638621,"identity":"203d688b-d381-4599-89cb-3e189c4f52cc","order_by":2,"name":"Adam Thomas","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"State University of New York at Oswego","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Adam","middleName":"","lastName":"Thomas","suffix":""},{"id":558638622,"identity":"c32ba33b-b62b-4966-afcb-0792fa768c76","order_by":3,"name":"Dana A. Weiser","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Texas Tech University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Dana","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Weiser","suffix":""},{"id":558638623,"identity":"1bd830a6-c666-4f64-b1f8-7fe4b83df8ff","order_by":4,"name":"Amelia Talley","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Texas Tech University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Amelia","middleName":"","lastName":"Talley","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-19 23:23:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":99317791,"identity":"3981ad2b-35bd-47b5-b5bf-5ba88f231774","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:30:42","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":1560712,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"GenderExpressionandPassing.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/e901d127c67fb2c90737bd7d.docx"},{"id":99237260,"identity":"1b9b8d16-d62c-420f-9296-19b46ae75e8d","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":7180,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7b7d532d428d44469c92186507a0f985.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/476bf97d6086bffe2a898d92.json"},{"id":99237262,"identity":"3bf89a11-c90f-4e04-9f50-b15b61fc6a54","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131814,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7b7d532d428d44469c92186507a0f9851enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/f2c67ee578f8c9f8ff4900fe.xml"},{"id":99237261,"identity":"7c104690-1aaf-4350-af23-d3633b566554","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"jpeg","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":213740,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/5f6698e0c99dade1d41062e4.jpeg"},{"id":99237263,"identity":"35485bfd-15d8-44d1-a859-84d5aacf4de4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":37799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/4c4caf6128aa8070d5660f4d.png"},{"id":99319268,"identity":"2c0cb136-6c7c-432c-9ded-5aa2b6b64cc3","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:36:47","extension":"gif","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":43,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage3.gif","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/b93dad28b866ebed4d64aff5.gif"},{"id":99319011,"identity":"875113fb-c760-42bb-b13e-bfdee3cd6e4a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:36:00","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":42911,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/3c7d4e65149739687837a756.png"},{"id":99237265,"identity":"e3cd814b-d952-432a-8245-3bae428ad785","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":70586,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/fbecb88d6156a68c2cf6d0b4.png"},{"id":99237269,"identity":"360e5b2e-e9a8-4cef-b247-9193c95ab5e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":16927,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/9c4934dc185b482ef31b9e54.png"},{"id":99237267,"identity":"3d32a15e-432e-4049-9d07-09f4c396a73c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":9,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":321,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/558bbc25a96dac6742b45589.png"},{"id":99237264,"identity":"bd504cce-31c6-425e-a48b-4c667ff1571b","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":10,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":19473,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/2404840f6a684844e27af15d.png"},{"id":99237271,"identity":"d3f1060b-a445-4752-b294-e5a1533410aa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"xml","order_by":11,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":125006,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"7b7d532d428d44469c92186507a0f9851structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/d1ec354765ec0c43e9f88359.xml"},{"id":99318785,"identity":"bb57137d-fc30-47aa-a934-4d16ba58da41","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:34:41","extension":"html","order_by":12,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":142071,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/1cec7d29fa2cd780d1220703.html"},{"id":99237256,"identity":"408b0bce-16cf-4046-8290-eb1645ff2933","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":169195,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eMasculine, Feminine, and Androgynous-appearing Face Photos Determined by Pilot Study Participants\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eEach of these photos is included in the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/58d91e9b7fb0559c488eec27.png"},{"id":99237259,"identity":"cfd399c5-a082-4f21-8e01-cc1be1e5050c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-30 13:46:42","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":56698,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEstimated Means for Positive Feelings Toward Fictitious Partner Based on Two-way Interaction between Target Gender Expression across Target Gender Identity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eEstimated Marginal Means for positive attitudes toward a fictitious partner based on interaction between target gender expression and target gender identity. Covariates in this model are Participant Gender, Participant age, Attraction to Target, Ethnicity, Race, and Allyship.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/8a3234699855d795c7f63f95.png"},{"id":99319195,"identity":"c0b393bc-457c-476f-8cee-f2b18b377124","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-31 16:36:38","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":60086,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEstimated Means for Positive Feelings Toward Fictitious Partner Based on Two-way Interaction between Target Gender Identity and Participant Allyship Level\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote. \u003c/em\u003eCovariates appearing in this model are Target Gender Expression, Participant Age, Participant Gender, Participant’s Attraction to Target, Participant Ethnicity, and Participant Race.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/e356809d7e5b16206ceb5839.png"},{"id":99798160,"identity":"39541290-f61a-46a8-ab7a-f359575110f7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-01-08 13:47:28","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1153139,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7661459/v1/515d69b4-8551-45b1-8788-fa9cd2d2afc8.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Gender Expression and Passing: The Role of Allyship on Perception of Transgender Individuals","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eTransgender individuals, or those whose gender identity does not match their assigned sex at birth, face stress due to internalized transphobia and expectations for rejection or victimization (Hendricks \u0026amp; Testa, 2012), and experience negative consequences from these stressors. Around 1.6 million transgender individuals are estimated to live in the United States (Herman et al., 2022), and the transgender umbrella includes everyone whose gender identity and/or gender expression does not match their assigned sex at birth (National Center for Transgender Equality, 2016), including binary and nonbinary identities. Binary identities in the transgender community refer to transgender men and transgender women. In contrast, nonbinary identities include agender, genderqueer, gender-fluid, and more (Tebbe \u0026amp; Moradi, 2016), but not all nonbinary individuals identify as transgender (Trans Student Educational Resources, 2020).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePast research has shown that transgender individuals face minority stressors related to their gender expression or identity (Hendricks \u0026amp; Testa, 2012), including trauma, harassment (Lefevor et al., 2019), and being misgendered (Goldberg et al., 2019). These minority stressors can lead to negative health outcomes, such as suicidal ideation (Tebbe \u0026amp; Moradi, 2016) and body dissatisfaction (Brewster et al., 2019). These potential outcomes emphasize the importance for allies to understand the specific factors that contribute to increased prejudice against gender minorities so they can work to lessen these factors, thereby lowering the risk of negative mental health outcomes. The current study focuses on aspects of gender expression and “passing” as one’s stated gender identity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUtilizing minority stress theory, we examined whether transgender and nonbinary individuals who fit societal expectations of appearance (i.e., their gender expression matches their gender identity) receive more favorable ratings compared to those who violate societal standards (i.e., their gender expression does not match their gender identity). We also examine allyship status as a moderator of the relationship between gender expression and attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals. It is essential to examine whether allies have more positive attitudes toward gender minorities compared to non-allies, and whether gender expression moderates the attitudes toward individuals with transgender identities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMinority Stress Theory\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMinority stress negatively impacts individuals who hold a minority status. Minority stress theory (Meyer, 2003) suggests that, in addition to everyday stressors faced by everyone, people in a minority group encounter unique stressors due to their minority status. These stressors can be distal, such as discrimination and violence, or proximal, such as expectations of rejection. The theory states that these unique stressors, like prejudice and discrimination, due to holding a minority status, are linked to psychological distress (Meyer, 2003). Negative attitudes toward gender minorities may contribute to this specific type of stress in their lives. While negative attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals are well established, the factors that influence how severe these attitudes remain underexplored. Identifying these factors is essential because negative attitudes can lead to stressors that negatively impact mental health.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAttitudes Toward Transgender and Nonbinary Individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe appearance of transgender and nonbinary individuals influences perceptions and attitudes toward them. Limited research has begun to explore how gender conformity or nonconformity impacts attitudes toward transgender individuals (e.g., Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019). Researchers used vignettes of men and women targets labeled as either cisgender or transgender, and as either displaying traditional gender-role conforming or nonconforming behavior. In this area, the term “target” refers to the person depicted in the vignettes. Results demonstrated that gender-conforming transgender targets were rated as the most threatening to gender boundaries by MTurk workers (Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019). Threat to the distinction between men and women was measured with questions asking the extent to which the target blurs the boundary between genders and threatens the differences between people who are born female and people who are born male.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on this study and others comparing transgender and cisgender stimulus persons (Mao et al., 2019) that found cisgender participants preferred cisgender targets, we predicted that female target photos paired with a transgender woman gender identity label, male target photos paired with a transgender man gender identity label, and androgynous target photos paired with a nonbinary gender identity label would receive the least favorable attitude ratings, while the control condition of cisgender identity labels will receive the most favorable attitude ratings, particularly for those who do not identify as allies. A study on gender conformity (Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019) only examined attitudes toward male and female targets. The present study expands upon this research by including nonbinary identity labels and androgynous targets, as well as including pictures to denote gender expression. This study will broaden the impacts from previous research by exploring how allyship status may moderate attitudes toward target photos.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocial Support and Allyship\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLGBTQ+ individuals experience significant levels of adverse experiences due to minority stressors (Crissman et al., 2017), with transgender and nonbinary individuals facing even higher levels of adverse experiences (James et al., 2016). Further, trans and nonbinary individuals have been found to have less access to social support compared to the LGBTQ+ population (James et al., 2016). Since social support can reduce the negative impacts of stressful life events (Meyer, 2003; Zimet et al., 1988), the allyship of cisgender individuals should help to mitigate the minority stress experiences of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Although it is important to explore how allies differ from non-allies on factors that contribute to attitudes toward gender minorities, this research topic is largely missing from the literature. Allies’ attitudes toward gender minorities play a critical role in decreasing minority stress because if allies held more favorable attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals, that would decrease prejudice and discrimination. Distal stressors, such as gender discrimination, can cause adverse mental health outcomes for gender minorities (Meyer, 2003), so it is crucial to determine if allies hold more favorable attitudes toward gender minorities who adhere to societal expectations of gender expression than non-allies. The current studies tested the hypothesis that there will be an interaction, where allies will report more favorable attitudes toward transgender stimulus persons who adhere to stereotypical gender expression than non-allies. Stereotypical gender expression includes feminine appearance for women, masculine appearance for men, and androgynous appearance for non-binary individuals.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIdentifying allyship as a moderator for attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals may reveal how allies can ultimately reduce minority stress for gender minorities. Previous studies have recommended cisgender allyship as a potential solution to social issues for transgender individuals (Erby et al., 2017; Johnson, 2020), even showing how families can operate as allies (Chan, 2018). While these studies have recommended that allies help gender minorities, there is a lack of exploration of how allies can and do help to reduce minority stress. One underexplored area of allyship is facilitating positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals, especially regarding their gender expression. The current study tests whether allies have more positive attitudes toward gender minorities than non-allies, and if these positive attitudes apply regardless of the TGD person’s gender expression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMulti-study Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMulti-study research designs allow for a nuanced understanding of attitudes toward transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary individuals. Previous research with the transgender community often lumps all transgender individuals into one group (Bettergarcia \u0026amp; Israel, 2018; Lefevor et al., 2019), which limits researchers’ abilities to discover differences between transgender identity groups. Limited research that considered nonbinary and transgender binary individuals as unique groups discovered differences between the groups in terms of depression, eating concerns, victimization, and psychological distress (Lefevor et al., 2019), along with student health care experiences (Goldberg et al., 2019). Since differences appeared between unique transgender identity groups’ experiences, differences may also occur in attitudes toward these separate identities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur experimental studies allowed for the examination of attitudes toward transgender men, transgender women, and nonbinary individuals, as well as attitudes toward cisgender men and women in our series of three studies. Each study captured attitudes toward each gender identity with a different gender expression in order to examine how gender expression impacts attitudes toward each gender group. This multi-part study was crucial to determine if gender expression contributes to attitudes toward all gender minorities, or only some gender groups.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Current Studies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project examined whether transgender and nonbinary individuals who fit societal expectations for how men, women, and androgynous people should appear receive more or less favorable ratings than those who violate societal standards. Exploring the factors that contribute to negative attitudes, such as atypical gender expression, which involves breaking societal expectations of gender expression, will provide attention to identifying ways to reduce minority stress. In the current study, target gender identity refers to the identity statement in the target description (e.g., Sam identifies as a transgender woman). Target gender expression refers to their appearance, rated by participants in a pilot study (e.g., masculine, feminine, or androgynous gender expression).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNonbinary individuals do not conform to traditional male or female societal expectations, even if their gender expression matches their gender identity. As such, they often receive the least support from family and friends (Aparicio-García et al., 2018), experience more misgendering by therapists and health providers (Goldberg et al., 2019), and are at a higher risk of cyberbullying (Aparicio-García et al., 2018) compared to their binary peers.\u0026nbsp;In the current study, we hypothesized that gender nonbinary targets would be rated more negatively than cisgender targets, but no different than transgender man and transgender woman targets.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBased on previous literature (Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019), we also hypothesized that transgender stimulus persons who break societal expectations will receive more favorable attitudes than stimulus persons who match their presenting gender and gender identity. The theory behind this hypothesis is that transgender individuals who ‘pass’ as cisgender due to gender expression may be perceived as threatening, and thus rated more negatively, because cisgender individuals would not be able to tell that they are transgressing binary gender expressions (Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also hypothesized that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward transgender stimulus persons, especially those who conform to societal standards of gender expression. We expect this research to help allies recognize internal biases about what they expect of transgender and nonbinary individuals, as well as help transgender and nonbinary individuals by revealing the negative interpersonal consequences of societal expectations of binary forms of gender expression.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePilot Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA pilot study was conducted with racially diverse human faces from the Chicago Face Database (Ma et al., 2015). The goal of the pilot was to determine the most \u0026ldquo;feminine,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;masculine,\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;androgynous\u0026rdquo; faces for use in the targets. Pilot study participants were 202 undergraduate psychology students from a Southwestern university who received course credit as compensation for participation (Collected in 2021). This pilot asked the following questions about each of the faces \u0026ndash; presented in random order: \u0026ldquo;Looking at this face, would you consider this person masculine, feminine or androgynous?\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;Please rate this person\u0026apos;s appearance.\u0026rdquo; The first question gave three answer options (\u0026ldquo;Masculine (1)\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;Feminine (2)\u0026rdquo;, and \u0026ldquo;Androgynous (3)\u0026rdquo;) to assess perceptions of gender expression. The second question offered a sliding scale to indicate the gender expression of the face (Range with anchors: 0 = \u0026ldquo;Masculine;\u0026rdquo; 50 = \u0026ldquo;Androgynous;\u0026rdquo; 100 = \u0026ldquo;Feminine\u0026rdquo;). Faces that had average numerical ratings closest to each, respective, category of gender expression (i.e., Feminine, Androgynous, Masculine) were selected for inclusion in the primary study. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u0026ldquo;most masculine\u0026rdquo; face was shown to have a mean value that corresponded to the \u0026ldquo;masculine\u0026rdquo; category of gender expression (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 1.02, \u003cem\u003eSD =\u003c/em\u003e 0.15, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(201) = 1.895, p = .060) and a corresponding mean on the slider scale that was close to zero, the \u0026ldquo;masculine\u0026rdquo; anchor (\u003cem\u003eM =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e5.90, \u003cem\u003eSD =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e9.55, t(201) = 8.781, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). Similarly, \u0026nbsp;the \u0026ldquo;most feminine\u0026rdquo; face was shown to have a mean value that corresponded to the \u0026quot;feminine\u0026rdquo; category of gender expression (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 2.01, \u003cem\u003eSD=\u003c/em\u003e 0.18,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e(201) = 0.790, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .431) and a corresponding mean on the slider scale that was close to one-hundred, the \u0026ldquo;feminine\u0026rdquo; anchor (\u003cem\u003eM =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e97.2, \u003cem\u003eSD =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.71, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(201) = 56.050, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). Although the \u0026ldquo;most androgynous\u0026rdquo; face tended to be categorized as somewhat between feminine and androgynous in its gender expression (\u003cem\u003eM =\u003c/em\u003e 2.35, SD = 0.83 , \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(201) = 11.1, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), the selected face had an average rating that was closest to the mid-point of the scale (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 49.13, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 19.76, \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(201) = 0.626, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .532). These faces, indicated to be perceptually masculine, feminine, and androgynous by participants, were chosen to represent the varying forms of gender expression as a between-subjects experimental factor (See Figure 1).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants had the opportunity to sign up to participate in this study in exchange for course credit in the Psychological Sciences and the Human Development and Family Sciences departments. Prior to consent, participants read about the purpose of the study, the anticipated benefits, and foreseeable risks with participation. After a participant accessed an online survey link, they were shown consent information. Following consent, participants were randomly assigned to one of four target conditions that described a hypothetical person, named \u0026ldquo;Sam,\u0026rdquo; that the participant will be working with in a group project. In the target description Sam was described as identifying as either (a) cisgender, (b) transgender woman, (c) transgender man, or (c) nonbinary person. All participants read the following information about Sam with two exceptions. First, the italicized gender identity changed depending on assigned condition and, also, pronouns corresponded to the stated gender identity (e.g., transgender woman = she/her; non-binary person = they/them):\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSam was assigned to your group for a semester-long group project in a class in your second semester of college. You have met Sam before from a previous class. Sam identifies as a \u003cem\u003etransgender woman\u003c/em\u003e. She is a hard worker and good student. You have some common interests/hobbies, and she is easy to get along with. The other group members seem to get along with Sam too.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAbove the excerpt describing \u0026ldquo;Sam\u0026rdquo;, one of the three images selected from the pilot study was shown. An initial study, with the masculine gender-expression photo, was conducted in 2023. Studies with feminine and androgynous gender-expression photos were conducted, simultaneously, with independent samples, in 2025. After viewing the randomly assigned target and photo, participants were directed to questions about their attitudes towards the target and \u0026ldquo;Sam,\u0026rdquo; attitudes towards transgender and gender non-binary individuals, and their allyship towards the transgender and non-binary community. A similar online target study design has been shown to be effective in examining differing attitudes about transgender individuals (Broussard et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographic Information and Covariates\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOnce the participant provided consent, they were asked demographic questions about their gender identity, age, race, Hispanic identification, and sexual orientation. A single item asked participants to rate their agreement with the statement: \u0026ldquo;How attracted are you to this person?\u0026rdquo; The participants indicated their response on a five-point Likert-type scale, ranging from \u0026ldquo;1 = Not Attracted at All\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;5 = Extremely Attracted.\u0026rdquo; Higher scores indicate attraction to the target viewed by the participant and used as a covariate in the primary models.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttitudes Toward the Target\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were asked to rate how they felt about Sam, based on what they read in the excerpt. Osgood et al.\u0026rsquo;s (1957) social-object attitudes, which include the semantic differentials of good-bad, positive-negative, pleasant-unpleasant, strong-weak, forceful-gentle, obvious-subtle, restless-calm, fast-slow, and active-passive, were used to assess positive feelings towards target person. Participants had the option to rate their feelings, via a seven-point bipolar scale, ranging from 1 (the respective left attitude value, e.g., \u0026ldquo;good\u0026rdquo;) to 4 (neither the left or right attitude value, e.g., \u0026ldquo;neither good nor bad\u0026rdquo;) to 7 (the respective right attitude value, e.g., \u0026ldquo;bad\u0026rdquo;).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn prior work, these social object attitudes have been used to give context as to how participants feel about individuals, and individuals within specific identity groups (Kervyn et al., 2013). These eleven items are utilized within this study to examine the social perceptions of a person solely based on their gender identity and gender expression. After creating a scale using the semantic differential with higher ratings reflecting that Sam is perceived as calm, fast, active, strong, subtle, gentle, good, positive, pleasant, warm, and competent (\u0026alpha; = .83).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTransgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (TABS)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter filling out their attitudes toward Sam, participants completed the Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale (Kanamori et al., 2017) to evaluate their attitudes and beliefs about transgender individuals generally. Participants responded using a seven-point Likert scale, ranging from \u0026ldquo;1 \u0026ndash; Strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;7 \u0026ndash; Strongly agree.\u0026rdquo; A higher scale (and subscale) score indicates more positive feelings about transgender individuals. The scale has three subscales: Interpersonal Comfort (\u0026alpha; = .97), Sex/Gender Beliefs (\u0026alpha; = .95), and Human Value (\u0026alpha; = .94; Kanamori et al., 2017). An example item from the Interpersonal Comfort subscale is, \u0026ldquo;I would be uncomfortable if my boss was transgender (R).\u0026rdquo; An example item from the Sex/Gender Beliefs subscale is \u0026ldquo;Whether a person is male or female depends upon whether they feel male or female.\u0026rdquo; Finally, the Human Value subscale contained items, such as, \u0026ldquo;Transgender individuals should be treated with the same respect and dignity as any other person.\u0026rdquo; (Kanamori et al., 2017). In the current study, subscales showed high internal consistency (Interpersonal Comfort [\u0026alpha; = .96], Sex/Gender Beliefs [\u0026alpha; = .94], Human Value [\u0026alpha; = .88]). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlly Identity Measure (AIM)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter completing the TABS, participants completed the Ally Identity Measure, which measures a participant\u0026rsquo;s self-reported skills, actions, and awareness of oppression to readily support lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals (Jones et al., 2014). This scale, which was adapted for this current study, changed any wording referring to \u0026ldquo;sexual minorities\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;gender minorities.\u0026rdquo; Each question is accompanied by a statement that defines gender minority people, describing them as \u0026ldquo;transgender and nonbinary individuals\u0026rdquo; to clarify meanings for the participant. Participants had the option to respond to the scale\u0026rsquo;s questions using a five-point Likert scale, ranging from \u0026ldquo;1 \u0026ndash; Strongly disagree\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;5 \u0026ndash; Strongly agree.\u0026rdquo; The scale has three subscales: Knowledge and Skills, Openness and Support, and Oppression Awareness. An example item from the Knowledge and Skills subscale is \u0026ldquo;I know of organizations that advocate for gender minority issues.\u0026rdquo; An example item for the Openness and Support subscale reads, \u0026ldquo;I regularly engage in conversations with gender minority people.\u0026rdquo; Finally, an example item from the Oppression Awareness subscale reads, \u0026ldquo;I think the gender minority groups are oppressed by society in the United States\u0026rdquo; (Jones et al. 2014). This scale has been shown to be statistically reliable in the literature (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alphas of .76 to .88; Jones et al., 2014). Within the current study, the subscales showed high levels of internal consistency (Knowledge and Skills [\u0026alpha;\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;.91, Openness and Support [\u0026alpha;\u0026nbsp;= .92], Oppression Awareness [\u0026alpha;\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;.89].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSelf-reported Allyship Identity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants answered a self-report item on the extent to which they identify as an ally to the transgender and nonbinary communities. Participants will have the option to respond with a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from \u0026ldquo;1 - Not at All\u0026rdquo; to \u0026ldquo;5 - Very Much So\u0026rdquo;. Therefore, higher scores on the self-report item indicate higher self-perceived allyship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipal Component Analysis: Allyship\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo operationalize allyship to the transgender and gender non-binary communities, using the AIM, TABS, and the single, self-report item, a principal component analysis was conducted. The PCA included the single item and the subscale means of Openness and Support (AIM), Oppression Awareness (AIM), Knowledge and Skills (AIM) Interpersonal Comfort (TABS), Sex and Gender Beliefs (TABS), and Human Value (TABS). Direct Oblimin rotation was specified given the expectation that underlying dimensions may be correlated.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe PCA revealed two components with eigenvalues greater than 1, accounting for 79.44% of the total variance. The first component accounted for 68.31% of the variance, and the second component accounted for 11.12%. Results showed that the single item rating and all subscale scores, with one exception (Knowledge and Skills subscale, AIM), all loaded onto a primary underlying dimension, reflecting the construct of allyship. Because the Knowledge and Skills subscale did not load onto the primary component, it was not included in the coding of the allyship variable. The allyship score, created by averaging the aforementioned, standardized subscale scores, showed high levels of internal consistency, \u0026alpha; = .903.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants were 1,320 undergraduate students from a Southwestern university who received course credit in psychology, media and communication, or family science courses as compensation for their participation. Survey entries with duplicate participant identification codes (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 79, 6%), entries that did not answer thirteen items or more (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 103, 7.8%), did not pass the attention check asking the name \u0026ldquo;Sam\u0026rdquo; of the target (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 115, 8.7%), did not pass the attention check asking the gender identity of the target (n = 136, 10.3%), or answered the survey in under two minutes with straight-line survey responding (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 25, 1.9%), were excluded from the final analyses. The final sample size for the current analysis is 862.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; mean age was 20.72 (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 20.72, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 4.62, 4.72). Most participants self-identified as White (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 688, 79.8%). Participants also self-identified as American Indian/Alaskan Native (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 7, 0.8%), Asian (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 33, 3.8%), Black or African American (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 51, 5.9%); Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (5, 0.6%), Multiracial (54, 6.3%), with the remaining not reporting (24, 2.8% Unknown). Most participants identified as non-Hispanic (611, 70.9%), with only 250 participants (29%) identifying as Hispanic/Latinx. With regard to gender identity, participants were primarily cisgender (829, 96.2%) women (692, 80.3%) with some men (153, 17.7%) and non-binary (8, 0.9%) individuals. Finally, participants in the current sample were largely heterosexual (n = 720, 83.5%) with some identifying as Bisexual/Pansexual/Queer (76, 8.5%), Asexual (9, 1%), Gay (13, 1.5%), Lesbian (9, 1%), some reporting that they were Questioning (3, 0.3%) and others not reporting (31, 3.6% Unknown).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor self-reported allyship, a majority of participants did not identify, at all, as an ally to the transgender and gender non-binary communities (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 228, 26.5%), with a smaller number identifying, slightly, as an ally (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 101, 11.7%). More participants identified as a moderate (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 138, 16%) or strong ally (\u003cem\u003en\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= 173, 20.1%). The remaining participants identified, very much so, as an ally (\u003cem\u003en\u003c/em\u003e = 173, 20.1%). Two participants did not answer this item. Overall, a majority of participants in the current sample identified, at least moderately, as allies. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eAnalysis of Covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted in SPSS (IBM Corp, 2020). To assess positive attitudes toward the fictitious partner, a 4 (target gender identity: cisgender person, transgender woman, transgender man or nonbinary identity) \u0026times; 3 (target photo: masculine-appearing, feminine-appearing, or androgynous appearing) ANCOVA with a measured moderator (Participant Allyship) and five covariates (Participant Gender: woman, man, or nonbinary; Participant Ethnicity: non-Hispanic/Latino, Participant Age; Participant Race: American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, Multiracial, Unknown; Participant attraction toward the target was specified. In addition to the three-way interaction of interest, two-way interactions between allyship and target photo, between allyship and target identity, as well as between target identity and target photo were tested. Finally, main effects of the independent variables and covariates were examined. See Table 1 for bivariate correlations, means, and standard deviations for measures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA three-way interaction between target gender identity (cisgender person, transgender woman, transgender man or nonbinary identity), target gender expression (masculine-appearing, feminine-appearing, or androgynous-appearing), and level of Allyship was not significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6, 789) = 1.08, \u003cem\u003ep =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.375. Nevertheless, this model showed a large direct association between allyship and positive regard for the fictitious partner, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(1, 789) = 96.04, \u003cem\u003ep \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.001,\u0026nbsp;𝜂\u003csub\u003epartial\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .202). Given the higher order interaction was non-significant, this term was removed from the model and three subsequent models tested each respective two-way interaction of interest. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBivariate Correlations of Study Variables\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"624\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e--\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.39**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.17**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.30**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.13**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.96**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.91**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.74**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.64**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.68**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.22**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.78**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.71**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.60**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.66**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.66**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.20**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.50**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.34**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.69**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.65**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e5\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.40**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.17**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.43**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.52**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.45**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.10**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e6\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.86**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.93**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.24**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e7\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.67**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.36**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.31**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.69**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.25**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.56**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.18**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.19**\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\u003cbr\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e141.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e71.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.74\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e53.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.44\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e19.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.92\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.66\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.76\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.39\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.75\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eThe following variables are denoted by the numerical values in the table: (1) Positive attitudes towards the target; (2) Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale, or TABS; (3) TABS subscale of Interpersonal Comfort; (4) TABS subscale of Sex/Gender Beliefs; (5) TABS subscale of Human Value; (6) Ally Identity Measure, or AIM; (7) AIM subscale of Knowledge and Skills; (8) AIM subscale of Openness and Support; (9) AIM subscale of Oppression Awareness; (10) Allyship Self-report item; (11) Attraction to the target.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTarget Gender Identity X Target Gender Expression\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe ANCOVA showed a significant interaction between target gender identity and target gender expression in the photo in the prediction of positive feelings toward the fictitious partner, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(6, 800) = 2.15, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .046, 𝜂\u003csub\u003epartial\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .016. This model accounted for nearly a quarter of the variance in positive feelings towards the fictitious partner (\u003cem\u003eR\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.244).See Figure 2 for a visualization of mean differences that were further examined with post-hoc analyses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCisgender Identity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFollow-up pairwise comparisons of the significant interaction between target gender identity across target gender expressions revealed some significant differences. Adjusting for covariates at their mean, cisgender-identifying targets elicited the least positive attitudes when this target was feminine-appearing, (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.51). Mean comparisons suggested that these positive feelings were lower than when the target was androgynous-appearing (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.8; M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = -0.29, \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u003c/sub\u003e =\u003c/em\u003e 0.118; 95% CI [-.526, -.062],\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e = .013), which elicited the most positive attitudes. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTransgender Woman Identity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eMore significant differences were found within pairwise comparisons between target gender identity across target gender expressions. Adjusting for covariates at their mean, transgender woman-identifying targets elicited the least positive attitudes when the target was masculine-appearing (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.54). Mean comparisons suggested these positive feelings were somewhat lower than when the target was feminine-appearing, (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.8, M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = 0.26, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.145; 95% CI [-.001, .569],\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;p\u003c/em\u003e = .05), which elicited the most positive attitudes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTransgender Man Identity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ePairwise comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in positive feelings, based on target gender expression, when the fictitious partner identified as a transgender man.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNonbinary Identity.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e Pairwise comparisons did not reveal any significant differences in positive feelings, based on target gender expression, when the fictitious partner identified as a non-binary person.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTwo-way Interaction: Target Gender Identity X Participant Allyship\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother two-way ANCOVA tested the interaction between target gender identity and participant allyship, adjusting for covariates. A significant interaction between target gender identity and participant allyship was shown, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(3, 803) = 7.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001,\u003cimg width=\"1\" height=\"1\" src=\"\" alt=\"image\"\u003e𝜂\u003csub\u003epartial\u003c/sub\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .026. This model also accounted for about a quarter of the variance in positive feelings towards the target (\u003cem\u003eR^2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .252)See Figure 3 for a visualization of mean differences that were further explored with post-hoc comparison tests at one standard deviation above and below the mean of allyship.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLow Allyship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ePairwise comparisons showed some significant differences in positive feelings toward the target when participants\u0026rsquo; allyship was low (i.e., -1 SD). Adjusting for covariates, participants who reported low allyship had the most positive regard for targets who identified as cisgender regardless of the target\u0026rsquo;s gender expression (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp; = 4.36). Positive feelings toward cisgender targets were significantly greater than when targets identified as non-binary (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.12, M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = 0.24, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.117; 95% CI [0.26, .385], \u003cem\u003ep =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.029) or as a transgender man (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.05, M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = 0.31, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u003c/sub\u003e =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e0.12; 95% CI [.026, .484], \u003cem\u003ep =\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.009). When comparing positive feelings between cisgender targets and transgender woman targets, no significant differences were found.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHigh Allyship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ePairwise comparisons showed significant differences with regard to positive feelings toward the target, depending on their gender identity, for participants who reported higher levels of allyship (+1 SD). Adjusting for covariates, participants who reported higher levels of allyship showed the lowest positive regard when targets identified as cisgender regardless of the target\u0026rsquo;s gender expression (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 4.83, SD = 0.8). In fact, compared to targets who identified as cisgender, participants who were higher in allyship reported more positive feelings toward targets who identified as a transgender woman (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.21\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eM\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = -0.38, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e=\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.144; 95% CI [-.601, -.153], \u003cem\u003ep \u0026lt;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.001), transgender man \u0026nbsp; (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.32, M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = 0.49, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e=\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.117 ; 95% CI [-.714, -.256], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), and a non-binary person \u0026nbsp;(\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 5.23, M\u003cem\u003e\u003csub\u003eDifference\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/em\u003e = 0.31, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003csub\u003eMean Difference\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sub\u003e=\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e.123; 95% CI [-.638, -.157], \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .001). When participants were high in allyship, no other significant differences were shown among ratings for targets who identified as transgender or gender non-binary.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFinally, the two-way interaction between target gender expression and participants\u0026rsquo; allyship was tested and shown to be non-significant, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2, 804) =1.25, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .288.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study assessed attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals based on a target’s stated gender expression and gender identity. We utilized a multi-study design approach to consider nonbinary individuals, transgender men, transgender women, and cisgender individuals as unique groups, since previous research often groups all transgender individuals together (Bettergarcia \u0026amp; Israel, 2018; Lefevor et al., 2019). When considering groups separately, differences appear regarding student healthcare experiences (e.g., Goldberg et al., 2019), victimization, psychological distress, eating concerns, and depression (Lefevor et al., 2019). Transgender individuals face minority stressors due to their gender identity or expression (Hendricks \u0026amp; Testa, 2012), including being misgendered (Goldberg et al., 2019), trauma and harassment (Lefevor et al., 2019), and body dissatisfaction (Brewster et al., 2019). The current examination highlights which factors are important for allies to focus on in their efforts to reduce anti-transgender prejudice and subsequently reduce the impacts of minority stress. We also explored how allyship status moderates the relationship between target gender identity and attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe hypothesized that transgender targets who break societal expectations would receive more favorable attitudes than transgender targets who match gender identity and expression. In other words, we predicted that transgender targets who ‘pass’ as their gender identity would receive less favorable attitudes. Our findings did not support this hypothesis. We predicted this finding based on previous research, where transgender targets who ‘passed’ were considered threatening by participants, who saw them as blurring gender boundaries (Broussard \u0026amp; Warner, 2019). It is important to note that we measured how participants felt about the target person in the picture, generally, without regard to whether or not they were blurring gender boundaries. Thus, participants may have felt that ‘passing’ targets were blurring gender boundaries, but this belief may not have influenced their general opinion of the target.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe also hypothesized that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward all transgender targets, and especially those whose gender identity and expression matched. Results from analyses of covariance partially supported this hypothesis. While there was not a significant interaction between target gender identity, target gender expression, and level of allyship, there was a direct association between allyship and attitude toward target. Low allyship participants preferred cisgender targets, whereas high allyship participants preferred transgender and nonbinary targets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur hypothesis that transgender targets who ‘pass’ as their gender identity would receive less favorable attitudes from participants was not supported. In fact, for the transgender woman target, an association between target gender identity and target gender expression was shown in the opposite direction. The transgender woman received greater positive attitudes when she had a more feminine gender expression than a more masculine gender expression. Participants, who were largely cisgender women, appeared to be rewarding the transgender woman for ‘passing’ with a feminine gender expression. This finding provides nuance to Broussard and Warner’s (2019) finding that gender-conforming transgender targets were perceived as threatening to gender norms and boundaries. Even if transgender individuals who ‘pass’ as their gender identity are perceived as threatening, they may initially elicit favorable attitudes from peers overall. This finding aligns with cisnormativity, the false belief that gender is defined by bodies and there are only two gender identities (Allen \u0026amp; Mendez, 2018). Nonbinary and non-passing transgender individuals violate cisnormative assumptions, while transgender men and women support the gender binary and subsequently their gender expression may be viewed more positively. Previous research supporting cisnormativity found that transgender individuals who present with a gender-conforming appearance report less discrimination than those who do not (Coburn et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInterestingly, there were no significant differences in attitudes toward transgender men nor nonbinary targets based on gender expression. Although we did not make a prediction regarding cisgender targets, they received significantly more positive ratings when the target was androgynous-appearing than feminine-appearing. Although our hypothesis was not supported, these results demonstrate that the relationship between gender identity and gender expression impacts attitudes toward targets. Feminine-presenting transgender women are likely to receive the most positive perceptions from young adults with average levels of allyship. Gender identity, however, does not appear to impact attitudes toward individuals who have a masculine or androgynous gender expression, but that may be a consequence of the current sample that was collected. Results reveal consequences of societal expectations of gender expression, coupled with stated gender identities, opening a path to reduce anti-transgender prejudice through addressing harmful expectations. Specifically, society tends to uphold heteronormativity, which includes gender, sexuality, and family binaries that are viewed as normative (Allen \u0026amp; Mendez, 2018). Transnormativity refers to the idea that transgender individuals’ presentations and experiences of gender operate on a binary, which privileges people who pass as a binary gender identity (Bradford \u0026amp; Syed, 2019). Therefore, feminine-presenting transgender women receive more positive ratings than targets who defy binary expectations because transgender women uphold transnormativity and more closely support heteronormativity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur hypothesis that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community would report more favorable attitudes toward all transgender targets was supported. Participants with low allyship levels reported a more positive attitude toward cisgender targets than non-binary or transgender men targets, regardless of gender expression. This finding supports the notion that people who do not identify as allies to the transgender and nonbinary community have less favorable attitudes toward members of that community regardless of gender expression. It also aligns with previous research showing cisgender and heterosexual participants rate cisgender target photos higher than transgender and nonbinary target photos on interpersonal attraction (Mao et al., 2019).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants with high allyship levels reported the least favorable attitudes toward cisgender targets, regardless of gender expression. High allyship participants reported more positive attitudes toward targets who identified as transgender woman, transgender man, and nonbinary targets as compared to those who identified as cisgender. This result supports the notion that allies to the transgender and nonbinary community have greater positive feelings toward members of the community, regardless of whether their gender identity matches their gender expression. Other researchers have proposed cisgender allyship as a potential solution to social issues transgender individuals face (Erby et al., 2017; Johnson, 2020). The finding that young adults higher in allyship reported more positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets supports the fostering of allyship as a potential path to improving attitudes toward and experiences of the transgender and nonbinary community.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis project had many strengths, including using a multi-study design, treating unique transgender identities as individual groups, and measuring allyship as a moderator. There were also several limitations in this study that future research can address. First, we chose to use real-world faces instead of computer-generated faces to increase external validity and make participants believe they were reacting to a real person. However, using a different person’s face for each condition (feminine, masculine, and androgynous) introduces extraneous variables in addition to gender expression, such as facial expression. Although random assignment may reduce concerns, future research should replicate this study with computer-generated faces, where the only difference is the manipulated gender expression.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnother limitation is the varying race of the targets. We used a pilot study to determine the most masculine, feminine, and androgynous faces to use for our research, with multiple races represented. The photo rated most masculine was of a Black target, and the images rated most feminine and androgynous were of White targets. Future research should replicate this study with masculine, feminine, and androgynous faces of all races to determine if race is an important factor in assessing attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. Additional work in this area will help illuminate the ways in which person perception is influenced by gender expression and gender identity, as well as how perceptions are shaped by pre-existing beliefs regarding transgender and gender nonbinary folks. Finally, we collected data between May 2022 and December 2024. With the current administration inaugurated in 2025, there may be more public anti-trans narratives now than a few years ago. Future research should replicate our study to examine if results differ depending on public discourse.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eAs there are estimated to be around 1.6 million transgender individuals living in the U.S. alone (Herman et al., 2022), it is crucial to work to ameliorate the negative consequences of minority stress on gender minority individuals. To reduce this stress, we must determine factors that contribute to it, such as gender expression of transgender and nonbinary individuals. Findings from this project revealed that gender expression and gender identity impact attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. It is essential for allies to work toward reducing negative attitudes toward the transgender and nonbinary community, regardless of individual gender expression. Researchers should use these findings to investigate competing theories on attitudes toward ‘passing’ with regard to one’s gender identity.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eResults also demonstrate that people with high allyship levels have more positive attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary targets. In contrast, people with low allyship levels hold more positive attitudes toward cisgender targets. Allies can use the knowledge from this study to educate people with low allyship levels on differences in perceptions of individuals based on gender identity. Interventions to improve attitudes toward transgender and nonbinary individuals could then be utilized to reduce prejudice toward transgender and nonbinary people, regardless of their gender expression. Reduced prejudice would lead to decreased experiences and impacts of minority stress (Meyer, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cu\u003eGender Expression and Passing\u003c/u\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConflict of Interest\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHuman Ethics\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll procedures conducted in this study involving human subjects were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Internal Review Board at the at Texas Tech University, and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments. This work was approved by the relevant internal review boards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants involved in the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFunding Declaration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis work did not receive financial support.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClinical trial number: not applicable.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, S. H., \u0026amp; Mendez, S. N. (2018). Hegemonic heteronormativity: Toward a new era of queer family theory. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Family Theory \u0026amp; Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1), 70-86.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAparicio-Garc\u0026iacute;a, M. E., D\u0026iacute;az-Ramiro, E. M., Rubio-Valdehita, S., L\u0026oacute;pez-N\u0026uacute;\u0026ntilde;ez, M. I., \u0026amp; Garc\u0026iacute;a-Nieto, I. (2018). Health and well-being of cisgender, transgender and non-binary young people. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eHealth\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2133.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBettergarcia, J. N., \u0026amp; Israel, T. (2018). Therapist reactions to transgender identity exploration: Effects on the therapeutic relationship in an analogue study. Psychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 5(4), 423-431. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000288\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBradford, N. J., \u0026amp; Syed, M. (2019). Transnormativity and transgender identity development: A master narrative approach. \u003cem\u003eSex Roles: A Journal of Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e(5\u0026ndash;6), 306\u0026ndash;325.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrewster, M. E., Velez, B. L., Breslow, A. S., \u0026amp; Geiger, E. F. (2019). Unpacking body image concerns and disordered eating for transgender women: The roles of sexual objectification and minority stress. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(2), 131\u0026ndash;142. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000333\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBroussard, K. A., \u0026amp; Warner, R. H. (2019). Gender nonconformity is perceived differently for cisgender and transgender targets. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 80(7\u0026ndash;8), 409 428.\u0026nbsp;https://doi-org.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1007/s11199-018-0947-z\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChan, C. D. (2018). Families as transformative allies to trans youth of color: Positioning intersectionality as analysis to demarginalize political systems of oppression. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 14(1\u0026ndash;2), 43\u0026ndash;60.\u0026nbsp;https://doi-org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1080/1550428X.2017.1421336\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoburn, K. O., Spencer, C. M., \u0026amp; Kelly, L. C. (2022). Comparing binary transgender and nonbinary people: Factors associated with psychological well-being among a predominately people of color sample. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Family Therapy: An International Journal\u003c/em\u003e. https://doi-org.lib-e2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1007/s10591-022-09634-9\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrissman, H. P., Berger, M. B., Graham, L. F., \u0026amp; Dalton, V. K. (2017). Transgender demographics: a household probability sample of US adults, 2014.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAmerican journal of public health\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e107\u003c/em\u003e(2), 213-215.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eErby, A., Henry, J. S., Lopez, C., Procter, J., \u0026amp; Robinson, M. C. (2017). Application: Social issues in the transgender community. In R. W. Summers (Ed.), Social psychology: How other people influence our thoughts and actions., Vol. 1. (pp. 229\u0026ndash;255). Greenwood Press/ABC-CLIO.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A. et al. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods 41, 1149\u0026ndash; 1160 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoldberg, A. E., Kuvalanka, K. A., Budge, S. L., Benz, M. B., \u0026amp; Smith, J. Z. (2019). Health care experiences of transgender binary and nonbinary university students. The Counseling Psychologist, 47(1), 59\u0026ndash;97. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000019827568\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, J. A., Chun, K. C., Edens, A., \u0026amp; Locke, B. D. (2011). Do double minority students face double jeopardy? Testing minority stress theory. Journal of Colleg Counseling, 14(2), 117\u0026ndash;126. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1882.2011.tb00267.x\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHendricks, M. L., \u0026amp; Testa, R. J. (2012). A c onceptual framework for clinical work with transgender and gender nonconforming clients: An adaptation of the Minority Stress Model. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 460\u0026ndash;467.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1037/a0029597\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerman, J. L., Flores, A. R., \u0026amp; O'Neill, K. K. (2022). How many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States?. IBM Corp. Released 2020. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 27.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJames, S., Herman, J., Rankin, S., Keisling, M., Mottet, L., \u0026amp; Anafi, M. A. (2016). The report of the 2015 US transgender survey.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJohnson, H. L. (2020). Rhetorics of trans allyship, toward an ethic of responsible listening and ally labor [ProQuest Information \u0026amp; Learning]. In Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and Engineering (Vol. 81, Issue 4\u0026ndash;B)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJones, K. N., Brewster, M. E., \u0026amp; Jones, J. A. (2014). The creation and validation of the LGBT Ally Identity Measure.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sexual Orientation and Gender Diversity, 1\u003c/em\u003e(2), 181\u0026ndash;195.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKanamori, Y., Cornelius-White, J. H. D., Pegors, T. K., Daniel, T., \u0026amp; Hulgus, J. (2017). Development and validation of the Transgender Attitudes and Beliefs Scale. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 46(5), 1503\u0026ndash;1515. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-016-0840-1\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKervyn, N., Fiske, S. T., \u0026amp; Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2013). Integrating The Stereotype Content Model (Warmth And Competence) And The Osgood Semantic Differential (Evaluation, Potency, And Activity).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEuropean journal of social psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(7), 673\u0026ndash;681. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.1978\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrosnick, J. A., Judd, C. M., \u0026amp; Wittenbrink, B. (2014). The Measurement of Attitudes. In D. Albarrac\u0026iacute;n, B. T. Johnson, \u0026amp; M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes. Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLefevor, G. T., Boyd-Rogers, C. C., Sprague, B. M., \u0026amp; Janis, R. A. (2019). Health disparities between genderqueer, transgender, and cisgender individuals: An extension of minority stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 66(4), 385 395.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000339\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMa, D. S., Correll, J., \u0026amp; Wittenbrink, B. (2015). The Chicago Face Database: A free stimulus set of faces and norming data. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 1122\u0026ndash;1135.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMao, J. M., Haupert, M. L., \u0026amp; Smith, E. R. (2019). How gender identity and transgender status affect perceptions of attractiveness. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(6), 811\u0026ndash;822. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618783716\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674\u0026ndash;697. https://doi-org.libe2.lib.ttu.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNational Center for Transgender Equality. (2016, July 9). Understanding Transgender People: The Basics. https://transequality.org/issues/resources/understanding-transgender-people\u0026nbsp;the-basics\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOsgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., \u0026amp; Tannenbaum, P. H. (1957).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe measurement of meaning\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(No. 47). University of Illinois press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabler, J., Schmitz, R. M., Nagata, J. M., \u0026amp; Geist, C. (2021). Self-perceived gender expression, discrimination, and mental health disparities in adulthood. \u003cem\u003eSSM-Mental Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e1\u003c/em\u003e, 100020.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTebbe, E. A., \u0026amp; Moradi, B. (2016). Suicide risk in trans populations: An application of minority stress theory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 63(5), 520\u0026ndash;533.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000152\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law. (2023, July 10). \u003cem\u003eHow many adults and youth identify as transgender in the United States? - Williams Institute\u003c/em\u003e. Williams Institute. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/trans-adults-united-states/\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTrans Student Educational Resources. (2020). LGBTQ+ Definitions.\u0026nbsp;https://www.transstudent.org/definitions\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVelez, B. L., Moradi, B., \u0026amp; Brewster, M. E. (2013). Testing the tenets of minority stress theory in workplace contexts. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60(4), 532 542.\u0026nbsp;https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033346\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., \u0026amp; Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale of perceived social support.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJournal of personality assessment\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e52\u003c/em\u003e(1), 30-41.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Person Perception, Gender Identity, Gender Expression, Allyship","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eGiven that transgender individuals suffer from minority stress and negative health outcomes instigated by experienced anti-transgender prejudice, research is necessary to reduce these health outcomes by understanding how allies and non-allies favor transgender and non-binary individuals who present a gender expression that aligns with their identity. This online study inquires how allyship and an anticipated interaction with a fictitious target, with a randomly allocated combination of gender identity (i.e. cisgender, transgender women, transgender men and non-binary) and gender expression (i.e. feminine, androgynous, masculine) to predict positive feelings towards the fictitious target. Based on work by Broussard and colleagues and Mao and colleagues, we expected that participants would perceive \u0026ldquo;passing\u0026rdquo; transgender individuals to threaten gender boundaries. Participants are hypothesized to have less positive feelings towards transgender individuals whose gender expression aligns with their gender identity, especially among those who do not identify as allies. Participants (\u003cem\u003eN\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;862) were predominantly white (79.8%), non-Hispanic (611, 70.9%) cisgender (829, 96.2%) heterosexual (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;720, 83.5%) college students who completed a survey regarding their attitudes towards transgender and non-binary individuals and the fictitious target. A series of ANCOVAs revealed that non-allies had the least positive feelings towards the non-cisgender identities. Contrary to hypotheses, participants had the most positive feelings towards transgender women whose expression matched their gender identity. Further research is needed to understand how opinions towards transgender individuals change based upon the facets of gender normative beliefs.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Gender Expression and Passing: The Role of Allyship on Perception of Transgender Individuals","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-12-30 13:46:31","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7661459/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"71839b2e-ae5a-4bbe-b944-01514175545a","owner":[],"postedDate":"December 30th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-01-07T19:08:49+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-12-30 13:46:31","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7661459","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7661459","identity":"rs-7661459","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}