The Moderating Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Relationship Between Gay Men’s Implicit and Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice

The Moderating Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Relationship Between Gay Men’s Implicit and Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice | 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 The Moderating Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Relationship Between Gay Men’s Implicit and Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice Joel R Anderson This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/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 Internalised sexual prejudice (ISP) occurs when sexual minority individuals adopt negative societal attitudes about their own sexuality. ISP research commonly relies on self-report instruments, which captures explicit ISP but fails to assess the automatic aspects of implicit ISP. In addition, emerging research suggests that ISP can be self-directed (i.e., negative attitudes towards oneself as non-heterosexual) or group-directed (i.e., negative attitudes towards other LGB individuals). The present study utilised explicit and implicit measures to evalute the self-directed and group-directed components of ISP, and explored the moderating role of socially desirable responding, including impression management ([IM]; i.e., deliberate response modification) and self-deceptive enhancement ([SDE]; i.e., unintentional positive self-bias). The analysis of data from 244 gay men ( M = 38.40 years, SD = 13.50) revealed that implicit ISP was more negative than explicit ISP. Bivariate correlations showed that IM and SDE were negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP but were unrelated to explicit self-directed ISP and implicit ISP. Moreover, SDE moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP, such that higher SDE scores weakened the implicit-explicit correspondence. Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Introduction Internalised sexual prejudice (ISP ) refers to the process by which sexual minorities, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, accept negative societal attitudes about their sexuality, integrating these beliefs into their self-concept and belief system (Herek et al., 2009; Meyer, 2003). ISP is situated within the Sexual Minority Stress Model , a conceptual framework designed to explain the health disparities experienced by sexual minorities, such as gay men, in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 1995). This model posits that gay men face unique stressors due to their minority status that are not experienced by the majority heterosexual population (e.g., direct experiences of sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence). ISP represents one of these stressors, contributing to chronic stress and exacerbating the health disparities observed between gay men and heterosexuals (Meyer, 2003). Empirical evidence supports this model, showing that higher levels of ISP among gay men are associated with internalising mental health problems (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010), suicidal ideation (Ong et al., 2021), risky sexual behaviour (Newcomb & Mustanski, 2011), and substance use (Huynh et al., 2022). Moreover, longitudinal studies suggest that ISP is difficult to effectively reduce or eliminate, often persisting despite intervention (Nguyen et al., 2024). Thus, further research is critical to better understand ISP and develop effective policies and interventions to improve the health outcomes of gay men. Limitations of Current ISP Measurement Approaches Despite the significant impact of ISP on the well-being of sexual minorities, the measurement of this construct stymies the area of research. More specifically, ISP and other attitudes have historically been measured through self-report instruments (e.g., Likert scales, semantic differential scales, evaluative thermometers). These measures capture explicit attitudes — conscious, deliberate evaluations that individuals are aware of and willing to disclose (Nosek, 2007), such as their views on marriage equality (Anderson et al., 2017) or adoption (Farr et al., 2016). Although easy to score and administer, self-report instruments have limitations - explicit attitudes are accessible to introspection, making them vulnerable to deliberate or unintentional modification before being reported. This is particularly problematic due to the increasing pressure to conform to egalitarian norms (Plant & Devine, 1998) and the desire to appear non-prejudiced (Crandall et al., 2002), leading to underreporting of negative attitudes towards certain groups. Consequently, self-report instruments likely underestimate the true extent of ISP in the literature. To address the limitations of self-report instruments, social psychologists have increasingly focused on assessing implicit attitudes —automatic or unconscious evaluative responses towards an attitude-object (Nosek, 2007). Unlike explicit attitudes, implicit attitudes largely operate outside of conscious awareness and are not always subject to introspection or modification (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; 2017). Implicit attitudes are inferred from participants’ reaction times and accuracy during computerised classification tasks. The assumption is that participants will respond faster and more accurately when categorising strongly associated concepts. For example, individuals with positive implicit attitudes toward a social group (e.g., racial, or religious minorities) will more quickly and accurately associate that group with positive attributes than negative attributes. Research suggests that certain internalised sexual processes occur at a non-conscious level, making them inaccessible through self-reporting (Anderson et al., 2024, Experiment 3; Hall et al., 2024), highlighting the relevance of implicit measures for assessing ISP. While most research assessing ISP among sexual minorities has relied on self-report instruments, some studies have incorporated implicit measures (e.g., Anselmi et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2024; Hatzenbuehler et al. 2009). For instance, Anselmi et al.’s (2015) Italian study with 2,280 heterosexual and 414 gay and bisexual participants found that gay men demonstrated a stronger bias favouring heterosexuals at the implicit (vs. explicit) level. This finding suggests that gay men may unconsciously hold negative views towards homosexuality even if they do not consciously express them, indicating higher levels of ISP at the implicit level. Similarly, Hatzenbuehler et al. (2009) examined 31 lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants using the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998) and a 9-item self-report (i.e., explicit) measure. Their findings revealed that implicit attitudes were more negative than explicit attitudes, and there was a non-significant correlation between them. In summary, most ISP research relies on self-report (i.e., explicit) instruments, with limited attention to implicit measures. To address this gap, the first major aim of the current study it to explore both implicit and explicit measures of ISP. Conceptualising Multiple of Internalised Sexual Prejudice Most commonly, ISP is conceptualised a being a single dimension, and in alignment with this most measures also capture uni-dimensional ISP. However, there is a limited body of literature suggesting that ISP is multifaceted. For example, ISP has been defined as "a set of negative attitudes and affects towards homosexuality in other persons and towards homosexual features in oneself" (Sidlo, 1994, p. 178), and indeed there the evidence suggests that some gay men perceive themselves as quite distinct from other gay men (e.g., Eslen-Ziya & Koc, 2016). Supporting this multidimensional perspective, Ciaffoni and colleagues (2020, see also Anderson et al., 2023) development an explicit measure of ISP that differentiates between self-directed evaluations (e.g., “Sometimes I think I would be happier if I were straight”) and group-directed evaluations (e.g., “Effeminate gay men are bad for the reputation of our community”). After demonstrating the psychometric properties of this measure, they showed that these two distinct dimensions of ISP were meaningful associations with different psychological outcomes. For instance, self-directed ISP was negatively correlated with self-esteem and positively correlated with depression and sexual risk taking (and unrelated to identity centrality), while in contrast, group-based ISP was negatively related to identity centrality and sexual risk taking (and unrelated to depression and self-esteem). Exploring these multiple dimensions of ISP (replicating the explicit measurement findings of Ciafonni and colleagues, 2020, and extending this new conceptualisation to implicit measurement) is the second major aim of this paper. The Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations Two key theoretical models have been proposed to explain the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes: single-attitude models and dual-attitude models (Fazio et al., 1982; Wilson et al., 2000) . Single-attitude models propose that implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same object represent the same underlying attitude (Fazio et al., 1982), captured at different stages - before cognitive awareness in the case of implicit attitudes, and after cognitive awareness for explicit attitudes . In this view, implicit attitudes reflect an individual’s true evaluation, while explicit attitudes may be modified versions after introspection. Strong implicit-explicit alignment suggests the explicit attitude closely reflects the true evaluation, while weaker alignment indicates modification of the explicit attitude. In contrast, dual-attitude models propose that implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same object-attitude represent distinct constructs (Nosek, 2007). Strong alignment is seen as being atypical and perhaps as an artefact rather than the norm, while weak alignment reflects differences in the strength of implicit and explicit attitudes. Empirical evidence suggests that the strength of the implicit-explicit relationship depends on the nature of the attitude-object being measured (Hofmann et al., 2005; Karpinski et al., 2005). Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate a weak correlation between social implicit and explicit attitudes, with correlation coefficients ranging from r = .20 to .25 (Cameron et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2005). In contrast, stronger correlations are observed for general attitudes. For instance, Karpinski et al. (2005) found that attitudes towards soft drinks correlated strongly at r = .66. This suggests that implicit and explicit attitudes are less likely to correlate when the attitude-object is socially charged. The Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Implicit-Explicit Relationship The weak correlation between implicit and explicit social attitudes suggests the influence of potential moderating factors, including socially desirable responding (SDR). SDR refers to the tendency to underreport socially sensitive issues to present oneself more favourably (Paulhus, 1984). Paulhus’ two-factor model distinguishes between impression management , the deliberate modification of responses, often to align with social norms and self-deceptive enhancement , the unintentional tendency to genuinely believe a positive, yet overly biased self-view. The SDR moderation hypothesis suggests that individuals adjust their explicit attitudes to conform to social norms in sensitive contexts, while implicit attitudes, being less subject to conscious control, remain unchanged (Banse, 2001). This leads to weaker implicit-explicit correlations in high SDR conditions. The SDR moderation hypothesis has been examined in empirical research. Supporting the hypothesis, Nosek (2005) used multi-level modelling techniques to assess implicit–explicit correspondence of 57 different attitude-objects and found that correspondence was higher when SDR concerns were low. Further support comes from Anderson (2019) , who used the Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek & Banaji, 2001) to examine the role of SDR in attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. The study revealed that impression management, but not self-deceptive enhancement, moderated the implicit-explicit relationship. Specifically, a significant implicit-explicit correlation emerged only at low levels of impression management, suggesting that self-presentation concerns led people to downplay their negative explicit attitudes, thus weakening the implicit-explicit correlation. Furthermore, bivariate correlations revealed that impression management influenced explicit, but not implicit, attitudes. However, Hofmann et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis of 151 studies presented contrasting findings. By employing independent coders to assess the social desirability of 53 constructs, the researchers aimed to predict the strength of the implicit-explicit correspondence. Contrary to the SDR hypothesis, these subjective ratings did not predict the correlation strength. Further research is needed to clarify these conflicting findings. Exploring how SDR related to both implicit and explicit ISP, and then if SDR moderated the associations between implicit and explicit ISP is the final major aim of this paper. The Current Study Extending previous research (e.g., Anderson 2019; Hofmann et al., 2005; Nosek 2005), this study tested the SDR moderation hypothesis on the relationship between gay men’s implicit and explicit ISP. Notably, this hypothesis has not yet been explored within a sexual minority sample. This study focused on gay men as they are one of the most frequently studied populations in ISP research, and to control for the heterogeneity within the broader LGB community. As LGB issues have increasingly been at the centre of politics, social movements, and human rights discussions in recent years, (Hässler et al., 2024), it is assumed that gay men with high SDR tendencies may avoid expressing negative explicit attitudes towards their own sexual orientation or the LGB community, despite holding implicit biases. The current study aimed to examine correlations between implicit and explicit measures of gay men’s self and group directed ISP as well as to investigate the moderating role of SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement on this relationship. Based on previous research (Anderson, 2019), four specific hypotheses were tested: Attitude hypothesis : It was hypothesised that implicit ISP will be more negative than explicit ISP. Correlation hypothesis : It was hypothesised that the explicit-implicit correlation will be weak, but positive. Socially desirable responding hypothesis : It was hypothesised that higher impression management and self-deceptive enhancement scores will correlate with lower explicit, but not implicit, ISP. Moderation hypothesis : It was hypothesised that the explicit-implicit relationship will be moderated by SDR. Specifically, at higher levels of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement, it is predicted that explicit ISP will become lower, thus weakening the implicit-explicit correlation. Method Participants A total of 244 participants completed the online study ( M = 38.40 years, SD = 13.50). All participants self-identified as gay, with seven additionally identifying as bisexual, two as pansexual, and ten as queer. The sample predominantly comprised cisgender men (95.3%), with the remaining participants identifying as transgender or gender diverse (4.7%). Differences between gender identities and sexual orientations were explored; however no significant differences were found; thus, these participants were retained to maintain statistical power. The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian (67.8%) followed by 12.2% African American/Black, 6.5% Asian, 5.6% mixed-race 5.3% Latino/Hispanic, and 2.6% other. Eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, male, and identify as gay. Recruitment was conducted via Prolific, and participants were compensated AUD$6. The study was approved by the Australian Catholic University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC: 2024-3710). Sample Size justification All power analyses were performed using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009). An a priori power analysis determined that 250 participants would be required to detect a small-to-medium effect (Cohen’s f 2 = .07) with α = .05 using a linear multiple regression with four predictors. As this sample size was not reached, a post hoc power analysis was conducted. The analysis revealed that Model 1, predicting explicit self-directed ISP, was underpowered (power = .26, f 2 = 0.13), while Model 2, predicting explicit group-directed ISP, was adequately powered (power = .99, f 2 = 0.15). Measures Demographics Participants provided demographic information including age, gender, sexual orientation, country of birth, and ethnicity. Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice The Internalised Sexual Prejudice Scale (ISPS; Ciafonni et al., 2020) measured explicit ISP through two subscales to assess both self and group-directed ISP. The self-oriented subscale (e.g., “I sometimes resent my sexual orientation”) consisted of 15 items, while the group-oriented subscale (e.g., “Gay men are responsible for society’s negative perceptions of them”) had 11 items. Items were rated on a 7-point scale from 1 ( strongly disagree ) to 7 ( strongly agree ). Appropriate items were reversed scored and averaged. Higher scores indicated greater self and group-directed explicit ISP, with good estimates of internal consistency in both subscales (self-oriented Cronbach’s α = .85, group-oriented Cronbach’s α = .89). Socially Desirable Responding The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form (Hart et al., 2015) measured SDR through two subscales: impression management (e.g., “I never cover up mistakes”) and self-deceptive enhancement (e.g., “I am not always honest”). Each subscale has 8 items rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 ( not true ) to 7 ( very true ). Relevant items were reversed scored and averaged, with higher scores representing stronger SDR tendencies. Both subscales demonstrated good estimates of internal consistency (both Cronbach’s α =.77). Implicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice The GNAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001) measure implicit ISP. The GNAT is a computerised task that requires participants to rapidly classify words or images, determining if they belong to a specific target category or attribute in each block. Design. The GNAT consisted of four blocks to measure both self-directed and group-directed ISP. In the two self-directed ISP blocks, participants were instructed to “Think of yourself as a gay man,” while in the two group-directed ISP blocks, they were asked to “Think about gay men as a group or the gay community.” Implicit ISP was assessed by measuring the strength of associations between the target categories (self-directed or group-directed) and positive or negative attributes. This was evaluated by participants' ability to differentiate between target and distractor stimuli while accurately classifying congruent and incongruent pairings of target categories and attributes (see Table 1 for design). Table 1 . GNAT Blocks as a Function of Target and Distracter Categories Target category Target category (visual stimuli) Target attribute (word stimuli) Distractor category Distractor attribute Self-directed ISP Images or symbols representing male homosexuality Positive attributes Images or symbols representing heterosexuality Negative attributes Images or symbols representing male homosexuality Negative attributes Images or symbols representing heterosexuality Positive attributes Group-directed ISP Images or symbols representing male homosexuality Positive attributes Images or symbols representing heterosexuality Negative attributes Images or symbols representing male homosexuality Negative attributes Images or symbols representing heterosexuality Positive attributes In each block, participants briefly viewed an image or word at the centre of the screen and were instructed to press the space bar (“go” response) if it matched the target categories (e.g., GAY MAN-YOUR SELF + POSITIVE) displayed in the screen’s top corners, or refrain (“no-go” response) if it did not. Feedback (green “O” for correct and red “X” for incorrect) was provided after each trial. Block order was randomised. Each block included 20 practice trials and 80 experimental trials, with equal “go” and “no-go” trials. Each trial had a 600ms response deadline, with a 200ms inter-stimulus interval. Participants with performance below chance level were to be excluded (although no participants needed to be excluded based on this criteria). Using Williams and Kaufmann's (2012) method, reliability was acceptable for the self-directed blocks (RaSSHpositive = .71, RaSSHnegative = .74) and group-directed blocks (RaSSHpositive =.73, RaSSHnegative =.76). Stimuli. Visual stimuli included six images representing heterosexuality and six representing male homosexuality, tested by Anderson et al. (2015) and validated in a sample of gay men (Anderson et al., 2024). The images were presented in 10 cm x 10 cm size against a black background. Attribute stimuli were six positive words (e.g., ‘GREAT’) and six negative words (e.g., ‘BAD’), displayed in white, 20-point uppercase Arial font. All stimuli are illustrated in Figure 1, and all materials for this project are available at: https://osf.io/hp79m/?view_only=56b02cfc20614865acd3b29d575e0634. Scoring . For each block, d ' scores were calculated according to signal detection theory (Green & Swets, 1966). An attitude score was calculated by taking the d ' score of negative association and subtracting the d ' score of positive associations for each target type (self-directed and group-directed). A higher attitude score indicates higher levels of ISP. Procedure The study was hosted on Qualtrics. Participation was voluntary and participants could withdraw at any point. Participants provided informed consent before completing demographic questions, followed by SDR and explicit ISP measures. Participants were then instructed to an external website (http://www.millisecond.com/) to complete the 4-block GNAT. The study took approximately 30 minutes, after which participants were debriefed and reimbursed. Analytic Approach All analyses were performed using Jamovi (2022, version 2.3). To test the attitude hypothesis (H1), four single-sample t -tests were conducted to assess whether explicit and implicit ISP significantly differed from the midpoint, indicating neutral ISP. For the correlation hypothesis (H2), correlations between implicit and explicit ISP were analysed for both self-directed and group-directed ISP. The socially desirable responding hypothesis (H3) was examined through correlations between impression management, self-deceptive enhancement, and both implicit and explicit ISP. Finally, for the moderation hypothesis (H4), two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to assess how implicit ISP, impression management, and self-deceptive enhancement explained variance in explicit ISP. Eight moderation analyses were conducted separately. Results Data Preparation The data was checked for missing values and outliers. One univariate outlier was identified in the explicit group-directed ISP scale ( z = 3.39) and was windsorized (following the procedure recommended by Field [ 2018 ]; M + 3 x SD ). There were 41 missing data values for implicit self-directed ISP and 34 for implicit group-directed ISP. To preserve statistical power, these cases were retained, and analyses were conducted pairwise. Descriptive and Correlational Findings Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. Single-sample t -tests revealed that both explicit self-directed and group-directed ISP were significantly lower than the scale’s neutral midpoint, indicating low explicit ISP in this sample (self-directed: t (243) = − 9.53, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.05; group-directed: t (243) = − 9.75, p < .001, Cohen’s d = -1.22). In contrast, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP were significantly higher than the neutral score of 0, indicating the presence of implicit ISP (self-directed; t (202) = 37.3, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.62; group-directed: t (202) = 40.5, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 2.80). Explicit self-directed ISP was unrelated to implicit self-directed ISP, while explicit group-directed ISP showed a significant positive correlation with implicit group-directed ISP. Both impression management and self-deceptive enhancement were negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP but showed no relation to explicit self-directed ISP or either type of implicit ISP. Table 2 Descriptive Findings and Correlations M SD 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 1. Explicit self-directed ISP 2.80 1.41 2.Explicit group-directed ISP 2.98 .83 0.45** 3. Implicit self-directed ISP 2.24 .86 .019 .15* 4. Implicit group-directed ISP 2.31 .83 .001 .26*** .58*** 5. Self-deceptive enhancement 3.91 1.09 .003 − .31*** − .04 − .10 6. Impression management 3.97 1.15 − .12 − .20** − .10 − .12 .43*** Note . * p < .05, ** p < .01 , ** p < .001. Significant correlations are presented in boldface. Regression Analyses Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the variance in explicit ISP explained by implicit ISP and social desirability. For each regression, Step 1 included implicit self- group-directed ISP, while Step 2 included SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement). Data assumptions were checked prior to analysis. The first model predicting explicit self-directed ISP showed positive autocorrelation in the residuals (D-W observed statistic = 0.27; criteria = 1–3), potentially increasing the likelihood of a Type II error (Field, 2018 ). However, all other assumptions—multivariate normality, homoscedasticity, linearity, and absence of multivariate outliers—were met for both models. Predicting Explicit Self-Directed ISP In Step 1, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP did not account for a significant amount of variance in explicit self-directed ISP, F (2,170) = .24, p = .783. In Step 2, the inclusion of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement accounted for an additional 1% of the variance, but this was not statistically significant, Δ F (2,168) = .871, p = .421. In combination, all four predictors accounted for a non-significant 1.3% variance (adj. R ² = − .01, F (4, 168) = .557, p = .694, no effect, Cohen’s f 2 = 0.01). Predicting Explicit Group-Directed ISP In Step 1, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP accounted for a significant amount of variance in explicit group-directed ISP, F (2,170) = 6.11 p = .003. Specifically, implicit group-directed ISP was a significant predictor. In Step 2, the inclusion of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement accounted for an additional 5.9% of the variance, which was statistically significant, Δ F (2,168) = 5.64, p = .004. Specifically, implicit group-directed ISP and self-deceptive enhancement were significant predictors. In combination, all four predictors accounted for a significant 12.6% variance; adj. R ² = .10, F (4, 168) = 6.04, p < .001, small effect, Cohen’s f 2 = 0.14). Coefficients are presented in Table 3 . Table 3 Unstandardised (B) and Standardised (β) Regression Coefficients in Regression Models Predicting Gay Men’s Explicit Self-Directed and Group-Directed ISP Explicit Self-directed ISP Explicit Group-directed ISP B [95% Cl] SE B β t p B [95% Cl] SE B β t p Step 1 : Implicit self-directed ISP 0.09 [-.18, .35] 0.14 0.06 0.65 .517 -0.04 [-.22, − .48] 0.09 -0.04 -0.48 .633 Implicit group-directed ISP -0.08 [-.35, .19] 0.14 -0.05 -0.59 .559 0.29 [.47, 3.11] 0.09 0.28 3.11 .002 Step 2 : Implicit self-directed ISP 0.06 [-.21, .33] 0.14 0.04 0.42 .679 -0.04 [-.22, .14] 0.09 -0.04 -0.46 0.645 Implicit group-directed ISP -0.07 [-.34, .20] 0.14 -0.5 -0.51 .608 0.27 [.09, .45] 0.09 -0.26 2.99 .003 Self-deceptive enhancement 0.04 [-.13, .21] 0.09 0.04 0.48 .633 -0.17 [-.28, − .06] 0.06 -0.23 -2.98 .003 Impression management -0.12 [-.29, .06] 0.09 -0.11 -1.32 .189 -0.02 [.13, .10] 0.06 -0.02 -0.30 .761 Note. Significant coefficients presented in bold ( p < .05). Moderation Analyses Eight moderation analyses were conducted to examine whether SDR moderated the relationship between gay men’s implicit and explicit ISP. The analyses focused on two outcome variables: explicit self-directed ISP and explicit group-directed ISP. For each outcome variable, four combinations were tested: (1) self-deceptive enhancement with implicit self-directed ISP, (2) impression management with implicit self-directed ISP, (3) self-deceptive enhancement with implicit group-directed ISP, and (4) impression management with implicit group-directed ISP. In each analysis, the predictor (implicit ISP), moderator (SDR), and their interaction were entered simultaneously. To address issues with multicollinearity, all variables were transformed into z -scores. However, this did not alter the pattern of results, thus, untransformed variables are reported for ease of interpretation. The results of all analyses are presented in Table 4 . Of the eight moderation analyses, there was only one significant interaction: between self-deceptive enhancement and implicit group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP. This suggests that the effect of implicit-group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP varied depending on self-deceptive enhancement. A simple slope analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between implicit group-directed ISP and explicit group-directed ISP at low ( M – 1 SD ), average ( M ) and high ( M + 1 SD ) levels of self-deceptive enhancement. The simple slope of implicit group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP was significant at low ( B = .39, SE = .09, p < .001) and average ( B = .24, SE = .07, p < .001) levels of self-deceptive enhancement, but not high ( B = .09, SE = .09, p = .308). Figure 1 illustrates the simple slopes for the interaction. Table 4 Regression Coefficients for Moderation Analyses Predicting Explicit Self-Directed and Group-Directed ISP. Explicit Self-directed ISP Explicit Group-directed ISP B [95% Cl] SE B β t p B [95% Cl] SE B β t p Model 1 : Implicit self-directed ISP 0.02 [-.17, .21] 0.10 0.01 0.19 .853 0.14 [.01, .27] 0.06 0.15 2.17 .031 Self-deceptive enhancement 0.03 [-0.11, 0.18] 0.07 0.03 0.47 .637 -0.20 [-.30, − .11] 0.05 -0.28 -4.11 < .001 Implicit self-directed ISP x self-deceptive enhancement 0.06 [-.11, .23] 0.09 0.05 0.69 .492 -0.04 [-.16, .07] 0.06 -0.05 -0.77 .443 Model 2 : Implicit self-directed ISP 0.01 [.17, .20] 0.09 0.01 0.13 .897 0.13 [.003, .26] 0.07 0.14 1.98 .049 Impression management -0.10 [-.24, .05] 0.07 -0.09 -1.34 .189 -0.10 [-.20, − .002] 0.05 -0.14 -1.98 .049 Implicit self-directed ISP x impression management -0.04 [-.20, .12] 0.08 -0.03 -0.49 .628 0.03 [-.09, .14] 0.06 0.03 0.47 .639 Model 3 : Implicit group-directed ISP -0.002 [-.20, .19] 0.10 -0.001 -0.02 .996 0.24 [.11, .37] 0.07 0.23 3.61 < .001 Self-deceptive enhancement -0.03 [-.18, .11] 0.07 -0.03 -0.41 .683 -0.22 [-.32, − .12] 0.05 -0.29 -4.46 < .001 Implicit group-directed ISP x self-deceptive enhancement -0.09 [-.26, .08] 0.08 -0.07 -1.04 .300 -0.13 [-.24, − .02] 0.06 -0.14 -2.34 .02 Model 4 : Implicit group-directed ISP -0.02 [-.21, .18] 0.10 -0.01 -0.16 .874 0.25 [.11, .39] 0.07 0.24 3.59 < .001 Impression management -0.15 [-.29, − .01] 0.07 -0.14 -2.06 .041 -0.13 [-.23, − .03] 0.05 -0.17 -2.51 .013 Implicit group-directed ISP x impression management -0.07 [-.25, .11] 0.09 -0.06 -0.82 .415 -0.03 [-.6, .10] 0.06 -0.03 -0.48 .630 Note. Significant coefficients are presented in boldface ( p < .05) Discussion This study explored the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of gay men’s ISP and the moderating effects of SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) in a sample of gay men. Consistent with the attitudes hypothesis (H1), explicit measures of self- and group-directed ISP were low, whereas implicit measures revealed higher levels of both self- and group-directed ISP. These results are consistent with previous research on implicit-explicit discrepancies in anti-gay attitudes (Anderson et al., 2015; Moor et al., 2019) and reflect ongoing social norm change. For instance, Westgate et al.’s (2015) longitudinal study observed a societal attitude shift towards gay men, with explicit anti-gay attitudes decreasing at nearly twice the rate of implicit anti-gay attitudes. This supports the theoretical arguments proposed by Bargh and Ferguson (2000), who suggest that implicit attitudes evolve more slowly than their explicit counterparts. Consequently, this broader societal attitude change may explain why participants in this study exhibited lower levels of explicit, but not implicit, ISP. The findings for the correlation hypothesis (H2) were mixed. As expected, explicit and implicit self-directed ISP were positively but not significantly correlated, consistent with Cameron et al. (2012) and Hofmann et al. (2005), who found weak but significant correlations between implicit and explicit attitudes. However, unexpectedly, explicit, and implicit group-directed ISP were positively correlated. The socially desirable responding hypothesis (H3) received partial support. Both impression management and self-deceptive enhancement were significantly and negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP, but neither were related to explicit self-directed ISP. This suggests that participants motivated to present themselves favourably (intentionally or unintentionally) were less likely to internalise negative attitudes towards their own group, though this motivation did not affect their internalised attitudes towards themselves. Furthermore, consistent with H3, neither impression management nor self-deceptive enhancement were significantly correlated with implicit ISP (self or group-directed). This finding aligns Anderson’s (2019) research, which found significant correlations between impression management and explicit, but not implicit, attitudes toward asylum seekers. These results suggest that implicit attitudes being more automatic and unconscious, are less susceptible to manipulation, while explicit attitudes are more prone to intentional or unintentional modification (Greenwald et al., 1998; Nosek et al., 2007). Findings provided mixed support for the moderation hypothesis (H4). No significant moderating effects of SDR were found in models predicting explicit self-directed ISP, consistent with Hofmann et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis, which found no evidence supporting the SDR moderation hypothesis. However, in models predicting explicit group-directed ISP, self-deceptive enhancement significantly moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP. Specifically, the relationship was significant only at average and low levels of self-deceptive enhancement. This suggests that gay men with more accurate self-perception are more likely to be honest and acknowledge their negative attitudes toward their group. Conversely, at higher levels of self-deception, they may unintentionally minimise or deny such attitudes to maintain a positive self-image, leading to a non-significant correlation between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP. This finding aligns with Nosek’s (2005) research showing that higher self-presentation concerns weaken the implicit-explicit attitude relationship. Notably, the study implicates a different facet of SDR in its moderating role than Anderson’s (2019) study, where only impression management—not self-deceptive enhancement— moderated implicit-explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. This difference may reflect the nature of the attitudes being assessed. In the current study, self-deceptive enhancement likely functions as an unconscious coping mechanism to protect self-esteem, particularly when participants evaluate their own social group under minority stress (Paulhus & Holden, 2009). In contrast, Anderson’s (2019) examined inter-group attitudes towards an out-group (i.e., asylum seekers), where impression management—a more deliberate and strategic response tactic— may have been more influential. Interpretations and Implications Differences Between Self-Directed and Group-Directed ISP The study uncovered significant differences between self-directed and group-directed ISP, with greater support for H3 and H4 in the context of group-directed ISP. One possible interpretation of these findings is that as LGB issues have gained more prominence in political discourse and human rights discussions in recent years, participants may have an increased awareness of potential social consequences (e.g., criticism, exclusion) of expressing negative attitudes toward their own group. This heightened awareness may lead gay men to conform to societal norms that advocate for their inclusivity and equality—not necessarily out of genuine belief in these values, but to avoid negative social repercussions. Conversely, self-directed ISP, which relates to attitudes regarding one's own non-heterosexual identity, tends to be more personal and private. It can be speculated that compared to group-directed ISP, self-directed ISP is less visible to others and more unmonitored. Consequently, the risk of social disapproval is reduced, which may allow gay men to feel less pressure to modify these self-directed attitudes to align with socially favourable views. Overall, the findings suggest that group-directed ISP is more susceptible to SDR than self-directed ISP. The Value of Implicit Measures in Research and Practical Settings The study’s findings have important implications for ISP research. First, researchers should recognise that commonly used self-report instruments for group-directed ISP may be susceptible to SDR, where gay men may attenuate the extent of their internalised negative attitudes towards their own group. Additionally, although participants did not explicitly report negative attitudes toward their sexual orientation or group, implicit measures revealed these attitudes persisted at a subconscious level. This underscores the value of implicit measures in capturing the automatic, unconscious components of ISP that self-reports instruments alone may fail to detect. Thus, self-report instruments provide a limited understanding of ISP, and ISP research should incorporate both implicit and explicit measures to fully capture both its controlled and automatic components (Nosek et al., 2007). These findings also carry significant practical implications, particularly in clinical settings. Mental health practitioners should consider using implicit measures alongside self-report instrument for a more accurate assessment of ISP. Given the established relationship between ISP and adverse mental health outcomes, incorporating implicit measures could help identify individuals at a heightened risk for psychological distress who might otherwise be overlooked by self-report instruments alone (McLemore, 2014; Newcomb & Mustanski, 2010). This comprehensive assessment approach enables more targeted interventions, which may improve mental health outcomes for gay men and help address the health disparities they face compared to heterosexual individuals (Meyer, 2003). Broader Theoretical Contributions The current study provides evidence that supports dual-attitude models. Specifically, it found a non-significant correlation between implicit and explicit self-directed ISP, along with significant negative correlations between the SDR subscales (impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) and explicit group-directed ISP, but not implicit ISP. This reinforces the idea that implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs with different antecedents and correlates (Nosek & Smyth, 2007; Wilson et al., 2000). Limitations and Future Directions One limitation of this study pertains to the target visual stimuli employed in the GNAT. While the stimuli were originally validated by Anderson et al. (2015) and in a gay sample (Anderson et al., 2024), the selection of appropriate stimuli remains a persistent challenge in implicit sexual prejudice research. In contrast to implicit measures for other social categories such as race or ethnicity, which can utilise clear visual cues such as facial images (e.g., black versus white faces; Dasgupta et al., 2000), sexual orientations lack consistent, visible markers (Freeman et al., 2010). Consequently, research on implicit sexual prejudice, including the present study, often relies on a range of stimuli (e.g., same-sex wedding cake toppers, images of same-sex couples kissing or holding hands, or interlocking gender symbols). However, these stimuli may elicit broader societal attitudes. For instance, depictions of romantic same-sex couples might provoke reactions to public displays of affection, while interlocking gender symbols could evoke attitudes about LGB political activism (Anderson et al., 2024). Therefore, it remains uncertain whether the GNAT used in this study accurately captures gay men’s ISP or merely reflects their broader attitudes toward issues related to homosexuality. Nonetheless, the study’s hypotheses received stronger support in the context of group-directed ISP than self-directed ISP, suggesting that the GNAT visual stimuli may be more suitable for assessing gay men’s group-directed ISP. In contrast, measuring self-directed ISP is more challenging. Overall, selecting appropriate visual stimuli for assessing gay men’s ISP remains a critical issue in the field, offering valuable opportunities for future research to enhance the accuracy of implicit measurement. Future studies could also investigate alternative visual stimuli tailored to assessing ISP in other sexual minority groups, such as lesbian and bisexual individuals. A consideration is that the 4-block GNAT took about 20 minutes to complete, requiring participants’ sustained attention. Since the study was conducted online, the environment could not be controlled, potentially leading to distractions (e.g., background noise, presence of others) that may have negatively influenced participant’s response times and accuracy. However, Anderson et al. (2024) found comparable results between online and face-to-face GNAT assessments of implicit anti-gay attitudes, suggesting that the testing environment had little effect on results. This supports the online format used in the current study, which also offered advantages in terms of time and cost efficiency. Conclusion This study examined SDR’s moderating role in explicit–implicit attitude correspondence. Specifically, it examined impression management (i.e., a deliberate response tactic) and self-deceptive enhancement (i.e., an unintentional response style) as moderators of the relationship between gay men’s explicit-implicit ISP. Findings revealed that implicit ISP was more negative than explicit ISP. Moreover, both deliberate and unintentional SDR patterns were related to explicit group-directed ISP, but not explicit self-directed or implicit ISP. This suggests that current self-report instruments of gay men’s group-directed ISP might be susceptible to socially desirable response tendencies. Furthermore, self-deceptive enhancement moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP, to the extent that higher self-deceptive enhancement scores weakened the implicit-explicit correspondence. Consistent with Paulhus’ ( 1984 ) recommendations, the study highlights the importance of statistically accounting for self-deceptive enhancement in social attitudes research, particularly in studies of gay men’s group-directed ISP. Declarations Ethics approval: Approval was obtained from the Human Resaerch Ethics Committee of BLINDED. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki. Data availability: The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due participant confidentiality but supporting data can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. Consent to Publish: Not applicable. Consent to Participate: Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. References Allen, D. J., & Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia in gay men. Journal of Homosexuality , 37 (3), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v37n03_03 Anderson, J. R. (2019). The moderating role of socially desirable responding in implicit–explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers. International Journal of Psychology , 54 (1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12439 Anderson, J. R., de la Piedad Garcia, X., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., & Kaufmann, L. M. (2024). Disentangling gender-based attitudes from sexuality-based attitude: The person-based approach to measuring implicit attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. Journal of Homosexuality , 71 (10), 2366-2399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2233657 Anderson, J. R., Georgantis, C., & Kapelles, T. (2017). Predicting support for marriage equality in Australia. Australian Journal of Psychology, 69, 256-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12164 Anderson, J. R., Kiernan, E., & Koc, Y. (2023). The protective role of identity integration against internalized sexual prejudice for religious gay men. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 15(3), 379-388. https://doi/10.1037/rel0000452 Anderson, J., & Koc, Y. (2015). Exploring patterns of explicit and implicit anti-gay attitudes in Muslims and Atheists. European Journal of Social Psychology , 45 (6), 687-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2126 Anselmi, P., Voci, A., Vianello, M., & Robusto, E. (2015). Implicit and explicit sexual attitudes across genders and sexual orientations. Journal of Bisexuality , 15 (1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.986597 Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 68 (2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181 Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie , 48 (2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145 Bargh, J. A., & Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. Psychological Bulletin , 126 (6), 925-945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.925 Berg, R. C., Munthe-Kaas, H. M., & Ross, M. W. (2016). Internalized homonegativity: A systematic mapping review of empirical research. Journal of Homosexuality , 63 (4), 541-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1083788 Brooks, V. R. (1981). Minority stress and lesbian women . Lexington Press. Cameron, C. D., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Payne, B. K. (2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 16 (4), 330-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440047 Ciaffoni, S., Koc, Y., Monreal, D. C., González, R., Roblain, A., Hanioti, M,. & Anderson, J. R. (2020). Reconceptualizing internalised sexual prejudice: Self- vs. group-related prejudice has different antecedents and consequences for identity, sexuality, and well-being for gay men [Paper Presentation]. European Congress of Social Psychology, Krakow, Poland. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O'Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 82 (3), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359 Dasgupta, N., McGhee, D. E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2000). Automatic preference for white Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 36 (3), 316-328. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1418 Eslen-Ziya, H., & Koç, Y. (2016). Being a gay man in Turkey: Internalised sexual prejudice as a function of prevalent hegemonic masculinity perceptions. Culture, health & sexuality, 18(7), 799-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1133846 Farr, R. H., Crain, E. E., Oakley, M. K., Cashen, K. K., & Garber, K. J. (2016). Microaggressions, Feelings of Difference, and Resilience Among Adopted Children with Sexual Minority Parents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45 (1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0353-6 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods , 41 (4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149 Fazio, R. H., Chen, J.-M., McDonel, E. C., & Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behaviour consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 18 (4), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(82)90058-0 Field, A. P (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Freeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., & Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 36 (10), 1318-1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210378755 Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics . Wiley New York. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). The implicit revolution: Reconceiving the relation between conscious and unconscious. American Psychologist, 72 (9), 861-871. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000238 Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 74 (6), 1464-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 Hall, W. J., Dawes, H. C., Hannay, J. W., Williams, D. Y., Frey, J. J., Srivastava, A., ... & Payne, B. K. (2024). Development and initial validation of the implicit internalized sexual orientation stigma affect misattribution procedure. Frontiers in Psychology, 15 , 1385410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1385410 Hart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., & Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of desirable responding short form (BIDR-16). SAGE Open , 5 (4). 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113 Hässler, T., Fogwell, N. T., Gonzalez, A., Anderson, J. R., & Atwood, S. (2024). Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research: Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries. Journal of Social Issues , 80 (3), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643 Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., & Phills, C. E. (2009). An implicit measure of anti-gay attitudes: Prospective associations with emotion regulation strategies and psychological distress. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 (6), 1316-1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.005 Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counselling Psychology , 56 (1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014672 Herek, G. M., & McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. Annual Review of Psychology , 64 (1), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826 Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (10), 1369-1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275613 Huynh, K. D., Murgo, M. A. J., & Lee, D. L. (2022). Internalized heterosexism and substance use: A meta-analysis. The Counseling Psychologist , 50 (5), 674-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000221086910 The jamovi project (2022). Jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org Karpinski, A., Steinman, R. B., & Hilton, J. L. (2005). Attitude importance as a moderator of the relationship between implicit and explicit attitude measures. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 (7), 949-962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204273007 McLemore, K. A. (2014). Implicit self-stigma and its social psychological, mental, physical, and sexual health correlates in self-identified lesbians and gay men (Publication No. 3646343) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Meyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. Journal of Health and Social Behaviour , 36 (1), 38–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286 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/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 Moor, L., Kapelles, T., Koc, Y., & Anderson, J. R. (2019). Predicting explicit and implicit attitudes towards gay men using the dual process model of prejudice and the dark tetrad. Personality and Individual Differences , 151 , 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.029 Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review , 30 (8), 1019-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003 Newcomb, M. E., & Mustanski, B. (2011). Moderators of the relationship between internalized homophobia and risky sexual behaviour in men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis. Archives of Sexual Behavior , 40 (1), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9573-8 Nguyen, J., Anderson, J. R., & Pepping, C. A. (2024). A systematic review and research agenda of internalized sexual stigma in sexual minority individuals: Evidence from longitudinal and intervention studies. Clinical Psychology Review , 108 , 102376-102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102376 Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 134 (4), 565-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565 Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. Social Cognition , 19 (6), 625-664. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886 Nosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., & Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. Trends in Cognitive Sciences , 15 (4), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005 Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., Olson, K. R., Chugh, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology , 18 (1), 36-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053 Ong, C., Tan, R. K. J., Le, D., Tan, A., Tyler, A., Tan, C., Kwok, C., Banerjee, S., & Wong, M. L. (2021). Association between sexual orientation acceptance and suicidal ideation, substance use, and internalised homophobia amongst the pink carpet Y cohort study of young gay, bisexual, and queer men in Singapore. BMC Public Health, 21 (1), 1-971. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10992-6 Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 46 (3), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 Paulhus, D. L., & Holden, R. R. (2009). Measuring self-enhancement: From self-report to concrete behavior. In Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 25-39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377798.003.0012 Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 75 (3), 811-832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811 Rohner, J. C., & Bjoerklund, F. (2006). Personality and social sciences: Do self-presentation concerns moderate the relationship between implicit and explicit homonegativity measures? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 47 (5), 379-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00522.x Shidlo (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in measurement. In B. Greene & G. M. Herek (Eds.). Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues (pp. 176–205). Sage.Westgate, E. C., Riskind, R. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2015). Implicit preferences for straight people over lesbian women and gay men weakened from 2006 to 2013. Collabra , 1 (1), 28-41. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18 Williams, B. J., & Kaufmann, L. M. (2012). Reliability of the go/no go association task. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 48 (4), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.001 Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review , 107 (1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101 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-7604153","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":545669323,"identity":"4446ce79-c710-41f0-86ab-d9548319ca57","order_by":0,"name":"Joel R Anderson","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"La Trobe University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Joel","middleName":"R","lastName":"Anderson","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-13 02:53:06","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":96247905,"identity":"308efa0d-bf04-4ce7-b7a0-6b332132dc7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:27:50","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":643174,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"BlindManuscriptIEISPandSDR.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/5bef2fecc14ab63934fada0c.docx"},{"id":96067174,"identity":"1033b1d5-69ee-4ff3-b45f-d773185f1ca7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":3419,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3aa5c26107b4af3acbaddc135b8a8a5.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/9a6ec2b8cd35c5527b9519b0.json"},{"id":96067178,"identity":"49fedfb2-48bf-4617-aede-6bceb161192f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"xml","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":168595,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3aa5c26107b4af3acbaddc135b8a8a51enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/b291dc1b5acafd9ac78c6023.xml"},{"id":96067173,"identity":"988268e3-0196-4851-b4a9-fa02a7d42881","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":467088,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/784c0fa5c638874ceb1840dd.png"},{"id":96247554,"identity":"0252132c-abf4-437f-889b-29bfb4f5ab35","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:27:33","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":102790,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/becb3b39f6edef995b03dfb5.png"},{"id":96067179,"identity":"f8af28be-3e2b-40d0-a7e5-df7b82def995","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":73484,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/e59c8b44e14940b706753daf.png"},{"id":96067176,"identity":"a025b8df-9c6d-4f6b-9e65-43a5d79f6b96","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":26755,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/1e8508b6f47df39e88d705b9.png"},{"id":96067181,"identity":"43369ff3-3cad-4ffa-b183-f0484d87f080","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"xml","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":165052,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"a3aa5c26107b4af3acbaddc135b8a8a51structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/9b59ac066cbf57a6d10c04bd.xml"},{"id":96067180,"identity":"f5772335-6fee-4208-bad4-d567c1bdb544","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"html","order_by":8,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":178932,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/bdeb680d509cc91f477e6ebc.html"},{"id":96067171,"identity":"b4f2a86f-ae6b-446b-bc8f-f81e3d01aa31","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-17 09:26:55","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":201436,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStimuli in the GNAT Blocks\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/9f77b9bcce0575d95ac328f1.png"},{"id":96246687,"identity":"6975eff6-1544-4ba2-9727-4634a015fe5e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-11-19 07:26:31","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":39301,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFigure 1 \u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimple Slopes Plot\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/27ceb6471ac9d6861152c7f1.png"},{"id":102408393,"identity":"81889b9e-273d-4f69-8e09-c8e5202350ee","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-11 11:28:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1739878,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7604153/v1/0a445246-554f-4f2a-9990-fd9f31bec57b.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"The Moderating Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Relationship Between Gay Men’s Implicit and Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternalised sexual prejudice\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(ISP\u003c/em\u003e) refers to the process by which sexual minorities, such as lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) individuals, accept negative societal attitudes about their sexuality, integrating these beliefs into their self-concept and belief system (Herek et al., 2009; Meyer, 2003). ISP is situated within the \u003cem\u003eSexual Minority Stress Model\u003c/em\u003e, a conceptual framework designed to explain the health disparities experienced by sexual minorities, such as gay men, in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts (Brooks, 1981; Meyer, 1995). This model posits that gay men face unique stressors due to their minority status that are not experienced by the majority heterosexual population (e.g., direct experiences of sexual harassment, discrimination, and violence). ISP represents one of these stressors, contributing to chronic stress and exacerbating the health disparities observed between gay men and heterosexuals (Meyer, 2003). Empirical evidence supports this model, showing that higher levels of ISP among gay men are associated with internalising mental health problems (Newcomb \u0026amp; Mustanski, 2010), suicidal ideation (Ong et al., 2021), risky sexual behaviour (Newcomb \u0026amp; Mustanski, 2011), and substance use (Huynh et al., 2022). Moreover, longitudinal studies suggest that ISP is difficult to effectively reduce or eliminate, often persisting despite intervention (Nguyen et al., 2024). Thus, further research is critical to better understand ISP and develop effective policies and interventions to improve the health outcomes of gay men.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations of Current ISP Measurement Approaches\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDespite the significant impact of ISP on the well-being of sexual minorities, the measurement of this construct stymies the area of research. More specifically, ISP and other attitudes have historically been measured through self-report instruments (e.g., Likert scales, semantic differential scales, evaluative thermometers). These measures capture \u003cem\u003eexplicit attitudes\u003c/em\u003e— conscious, deliberate evaluations that individuals are aware of and willing to disclose (Nosek, 2007), such as their views on marriage equality (Anderson et al., 2017) or adoption (Farr et al., 2016).\u0026nbsp;Although easy to score and administer, self-report instruments have limitations - explicit attitudes are accessible to introspection, making them vulnerable to deliberate or unintentional modification before being reported. This is particularly problematic due to the increasing pressure to conform to egalitarian norms (Plant \u0026amp; Devine, 1998) and the desire to appear non-prejudiced (Crandall et al., 2002), leading to underreporting of negative attitudes towards certain groups. Consequently, self-report instruments likely underestimate the true extent of ISP in the literature.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the limitations of self-report instruments, social psychologists have increasingly focused on assessing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eimplicit attitudes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e—automatic or unconscious evaluative responses towards an attitude-object (Nosek, 2007). Unlike explicit attitudes, implicit attitudes largely operate outside of conscious awareness and are not always subject to introspection or modification (Greenwald \u0026amp; Banaji, 1995; 2017). Implicit attitudes are inferred from participants’ reaction times and accuracy during\u0026nbsp;computerised classification tasks. The assumption is\u0026nbsp;that participants will respond faster and more accurately\u0026nbsp;when categorising strongly associated concepts.\u0026nbsp;For example, individuals with positive implicit attitudes toward a social group (e.g., racial, or religious minorities) will more quickly and accurately associate that group with positive attributes than negative attributes. Research suggests that certain internalised sexual processes occur at a non-conscious level, making them inaccessible through self-reporting (Anderson et al., 2024, Experiment 3; Hall et al., 2024), highlighting the relevance of implicit measures for assessing ISP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile most research assessing ISP among sexual minorities has relied on self-report instruments, some studies have incorporated implicit measures (e.g., Anselmi et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2024; Hatzenbuehler et al. 2009). For instance, Anselmi et al.’s (2015) Italian study with 2,280 heterosexual and 414 gay and bisexual participants\u0026nbsp;found that gay men demonstrated a stronger bias favouring heterosexuals at the implicit (vs. explicit) level. This finding suggests that gay men may unconsciously hold negative views towards homosexuality even if they do not consciously express them, indicating higher levels of ISP at the implicit level. Similarly, Hatzenbuehler et al. (2009) examined 31 lesbian, gay, and bisexual participants using the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald et al., 1998)\u0026nbsp;and a 9-item self-report (i.e., explicit) measure. Their findings revealed that implicit attitudes were more negative than explicit attitudes, and there was a non-significant correlation between them. In summary, most ISP research relies on self-report (i.e., explicit) instruments,\u0026nbsp;with limited attention to implicit measures. To address this gap, the first major aim of the current study it to explore both implicit and explicit measures of ISP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConceptualising Multiple of Internalised Sexual Prejudice\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMost commonly, ISP is conceptualised a being a single dimension, and in alignment with this most measures also capture uni-dimensional ISP.\u0026nbsp;However, there is a limited body of literature suggesting that ISP is multifaceted. For example, ISP has been defined as \"a set of negative attitudes and affects towards homosexuality in other persons and towards homosexual features in oneself\" (Sidlo, 1994, p. 178), and indeed there the evidence suggests that some gay men perceive themselves as quite distinct from other gay men (e.g., Eslen-Ziya \u0026amp; Koc, 2016). Supporting this multidimensional perspective, Ciaffoni and colleagues (2020, see also Anderson et al., 2023) development an explicit measure of ISP that differentiates between self-directed evaluations (e.g., “Sometimes I think I would be happier if I were straight”) and group-directed evaluations (e.g., “Effeminate gay men are bad for the reputation of our community”). After demonstrating the psychometric properties of this measure, they showed that these two distinct dimensions of ISP were meaningful associations with different psychological outcomes. For instance, self-directed ISP was negatively correlated with self-esteem and positively correlated with depression and sexual risk taking (and unrelated to identity centrality), while in contrast, group-based ISP was negatively related to identity centrality and sexual risk taking (and unrelated to depression and self-esteem). Exploring these multiple dimensions of ISP (replicating the explicit measurement findings of Ciafonni and colleagues, 2020, and extending this new conceptualisation to implicit measurement) is the second major aim of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Relationship Between Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: Theoretical and Empirical Considerations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTwo key theoretical models have been proposed to explain the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esingle-attitude models\u003c/strong\u003e and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edual-attitude models (Fazio et al., 1982; Wilson et al., 2000)\u003c/strong\u003e. Single-attitude models propose that implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same object represent the same underlying attitude \u003cstrong\u003e(Fazio et al., 1982), captured at different stages - before cognitive awareness in the case of implicit attitudes, and after cognitive awareness for explicit attitudes\u003c/strong\u003e. In this view, implicit attitudes reflect an individual’s true evaluation, while explicit attitudes may be modified versions after introspection. Strong implicit-explicit alignment suggests the explicit attitude closely reflects the true evaluation, while weaker alignment indicates modification of the explicit attitude. In contrast, dual-attitude models propose that implicit and explicit attitudes toward the same object-attitude represent distinct constructs (Nosek, 2007). Strong alignment is seen as being atypical and perhaps as an artefact rather than the norm, while weak alignment reflects differences in the strength of implicit and explicit attitudes.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmpirical evidence suggests that\u0026nbsp;the strength of the implicit-explicit relationship depends on the nature of the attitude-object being measured (Hofmann et al., 2005; Karpinski et al., 2005). Meta-analyses consistently demonstrate a weak correlation between social implicit and explicit attitudes, with correlation coefficients ranging from \u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .20 to .25 (Cameron et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2005). In contrast, stronger correlations are observed for general attitudes. For instance, Karpinski et al. (2005) found that attitudes towards soft drinks correlated strongly at \u003cem\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e= .66. This suggests that implicit and explicit attitudes are less likely to correlate when the attitude-object is socially charged.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Implicit-Explicit Relationship\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe weak correlation between implicit and explicit social attitudes suggests the influence of potential moderating factors, including socially desirable responding (SDR). SDR refers to the tendency to underreport socially sensitive issues to present oneself more favourably (Paulhus, 1984). Paulhus’ two-factor model distinguishes between \u003cem\u003eimpression management\u003c/em\u003e, the deliberate modification of responses, often to align with social norms and \u003cem\u003eself-deceptive enhancement\u003c/em\u003e, the unintentional tendency to genuinely believe a positive, yet overly biased self-view. The SDR moderation hypothesis suggests that individuals adjust their explicit attitudes to conform to social norms in sensitive contexts, while implicit attitudes, being less subject to conscious control, remain unchanged (Banse, 2001). This leads to weaker implicit-explicit correlations in high SDR conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe SDR moderation hypothesis has been examined in empirical research. Supporting the hypothesis, Nosek (2005) used multi-level modelling techniques to assess implicit–explicit correspondence of 57 different attitude-objects and found that correspondence was higher when SDR concerns were low. Further support comes from\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAnderson (2019)\u003c/strong\u003e, who used the\u0026nbsp;Go/No-Go Association Task (GNAT; Nosek \u0026amp; Banaji, 2001)\u0026nbsp;to examine the role of SDR in attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. The study revealed that impression management, but not self-deceptive enhancement, moderated the implicit-explicit relationship. Specifically, a significant implicit-explicit correlation emerged only at low levels of impression management, suggesting that\u0026nbsp;self-presentation concerns led people to downplay their negative explicit attitudes, thus weakening the implicit-explicit correlation.\u0026nbsp;Furthermore, bivariate correlations revealed that impression management\u0026nbsp;influenced explicit, but not implicit, attitudes. However, Hofmann et al.’s (2005) meta-analysis of 151 studies presented contrasting findings. By employing independent coders to assess the social desirability of 53 constructs, the researchers aimed to predict the strength of the implicit-explicit correspondence. Contrary to the SDR hypothesis, these subjective ratings did not predict the correlation strength. Further research is needed to clarify these conflicting findings. Exploring how SDR related to both implicit and explicit ISP, and then if SDR moderated the associations between implicit and explicit ISP is the final major aim of this paper.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Current Study\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExtending previous research (e.g.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAnderson 2019;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eHofmann et al., 2005; Nosek 2005), this study tested the SDR moderation hypothesis on the relationship between gay men’s implicit and explicit ISP.\u0026nbsp;Notably, this hypothesis has not yet been explored within a sexual minority sample. This study focused on gay men as they are one of the most frequently studied populations in ISP research, and to control for the heterogeneity within the broader LGB community. As LGB issues have increasingly been at the centre of politics, social movements, and human rights discussions in recent years, (Hässler et al., 2024), it is assumed that gay men with high SDR tendencies may avoid expressing negative explicit attitudes towards their own sexual orientation or the LGB community, despite holding implicit biases. The current study aimed to examine correlations between implicit and explicit measures of gay men’s self and group directed ISP as well as to investigate the moderating role of SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement\u0026nbsp;on this relationship. Based on previous research (Anderson, 2019), four specific hypotheses were tested:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eAttitude hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e: It was hypothesised that implicit ISP will be more negative than explicit ISP.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelation hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e: It was hypothesised that the explicit-implicit correlation will be weak, but positive.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocially desirable responding hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e: It was hypothesised that higher impression management and self-deceptive enhancement scores will correlate with lower explicit, but not implicit, ISP.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eModeration hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e: It was hypothesised that the explicit-implicit relationship will be moderated by SDR. Specifically, at higher levels of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement, it is predicted that explicit ISP will become lower, thus weakening the implicit-explicit correlation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Method","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eParticipants\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA total of 244 participants completed the online study (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 38.40 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e = 13.50). All participants self-identified as gay, with seven additionally identifying as bisexual, two as pansexual, and ten as queer. The sample predominantly comprised cisgender men (95.3%),\u0026nbsp;with the remaining participants identifying as transgender or gender diverse (4.7%). Differences between gender identities and sexual orientations were explored; however no\u0026nbsp;significant differences were found; thus, these participants were retained to maintain statistical power.\u0026nbsp;The sample was predominantly White/Caucasian (67.8%) followed by 12.2% African\u0026nbsp;American/Black, 6.5% Asian, 5.6% mixed-race 5.3% Latino/Hispanic, and 2.6% other.\u0026nbsp;Eligibility criteria required participants to be at least 18 years old, male, and identify as gay. Recruitment was conducted via Prolific, and participants were compensated AUD$6.\u0026nbsp;The study was approved by the Australian Catholic University Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC:\u0026nbsp;2024-3710).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSample Size justification\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll power analyses were performed using G*Power software (Faul et al., 2009). An \u003cem\u003ea priori\u003c/em\u003e power analysis\u0026nbsp;determined that 250 participants would be required to detect a small-to-medium effect (Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = .07) with\u0026nbsp;\u0026alpha; = .05 using a linear multiple regression with four predictors.\u0026nbsp;As this sample size was not reached, a post hoc power analysis was conducted. The analysis revealed that Model 1, predicting explicit self-directed ISP, was underpowered (power = .26, \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e = 0.13), while Model 2, predicting explicit group-directed ISP, was adequately powered (power = .99, \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 0.15).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMeasures\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDemographics\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipants provided demographic information including age, gender, sexual orientation, country of birth, and ethnicity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eExplicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eInternalised Sexual Prejudice Scale\u003c/em\u003e (ISPS; Ciafonni et al., 2020) measured explicit ISP through two subscales to assess both self and group-directed ISP. The self-oriented subscale (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I sometimes resent my sexual orientation\u0026rdquo;) consisted of 15 items, while the group-oriented subscale (e.g., \u0026ldquo;Gay men are responsible for society\u0026rsquo;s negative perceptions of them\u0026rdquo;) had 11 items. Items were rated on a 7-point scale from 1 (\u003cem\u003estrongly disagree\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003estrongly agree\u003c/em\u003e). Appropriate items were reversed scored and averaged. Higher scores indicated greater self and group-directed explicit ISP, with good estimates of internal consistency in both subscales (self-oriented Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; =\u0026nbsp;.85,\u0026nbsp;group-oriented Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; =\u0026nbsp;.89).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSocially Desirable Responding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eBalanced Inventory of Desirable Responding Short Form\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Hart et al., 2015) measured SDR through two subscales: \u003cem\u003eimpression management\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I never cover up mistakes\u0026rdquo;) and \u003cem\u003eself-deceptive enhancement\u003c/em\u003e (e.g., \u0026ldquo;I am not always honest\u0026rdquo;). Each subscale has 8 items rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (\u003cem\u003enot true\u003c/em\u003e) to 7 (\u003cem\u003every true\u003c/em\u003e). Relevant items were reversed scored and averaged, with higher scores\u0026nbsp;representing stronger SDR tendencies. Both subscales demonstrated good estimates of internal consistency (both Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s \u0026alpha; =.77).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eImplicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003eGNAT\u003c/em\u003e (Nosek \u0026amp; Banaji, 2001) measure implicit ISP. The GNAT is a computerised task that requires participants to rapidly classify words or images, determining if they belong to a specific target category or attribute in each block.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign.\u003c/strong\u003e The GNAT consisted of four blocks to measure both self-directed and group-directed ISP. In the two self-directed ISP blocks, participants were instructed to \u0026ldquo;Think of yourself as a gay man,\u0026rdquo; while in the two group-directed ISP blocks, they were asked to \u0026ldquo;Think about gay men as a group or the gay community.\u0026rdquo; Implicit ISP was assessed by measuring the strength of associations between the target categories (self-directed or group-directed) and positive or negative attributes. This was evaluated by participants\u0026apos; ability to differentiate between target and distractor stimuli while accurately classifying congruent and incongruent pairings of target categories and attributes (see Table 1 for design).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e. \u003cstrong\u003eGNAT Blocks as a Function of Target and Distracter Categories\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"614\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTarget category\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTarget category\u0026nbsp;\u003cbr\u003e\u0026nbsp;(visual stimuli)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTarget attribute\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(word stimuli)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistractor category\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDistractor attribute\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing male homosexuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing heterosexuality\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing male homosexuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing heterosexuality\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing male homosexuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing heterosexuality\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 104px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 142px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing male homosexuality\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNegative attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImages or symbols representing heterosexuality\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\" style=\"width: 123px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePositive attributes\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn each block, participants briefly viewed an image or word at the centre of the screen and were instructed to press the space bar (\u0026ldquo;go\u0026rdquo; response) if it matched the target categories (e.g., GAY MAN-YOUR SELF + POSITIVE) displayed in the screen\u0026rsquo;s top corners, or refrain (\u0026ldquo;no-go\u0026rdquo; response) if it did not. Feedback (green \u0026ldquo;O\u0026rdquo; for correct and red \u0026ldquo;X\u0026rdquo; for incorrect) was provided after each trial. Block order was randomised. Each block included 20 practice trials and 80 experimental trials, with equal \u0026ldquo;go\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;no-go\u0026rdquo; trials. Each trial had a 600ms response deadline, with a 200ms inter-stimulus interval. Participants with performance below chance level were to be excluded (although no participants needed to be excluded based on this criteria). Using Williams and Kaufmann\u0026apos;s (2012) method, reliability was acceptable for the self-directed blocks\u0026nbsp;(RaSSHpositive\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;.71,\u0026nbsp;RaSSHnegative\u0026nbsp;=\u0026nbsp;.74) and group-directed blocks\u0026nbsp;(RaSSHpositive\u0026nbsp;=.73,\u0026nbsp;RaSSHnegative\u0026nbsp;=.76).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStimuli.\u003c/strong\u003e Visual stimuli included six images representing heterosexuality and six representing male homosexuality, tested by Anderson et al. (2015) and validated in a sample of gay men (Anderson et al., 2024). The images were presented in 10 cm x 10 cm size against a black background. Attribute stimuli were six positive words (e.g., \u0026lsquo;GREAT\u0026rsquo;) and six negative words (e.g., \u0026lsquo;BAD\u0026rsquo;), displayed in white, 20-point uppercase Arial font. All stimuli are illustrated in Figure 1, and all materials for this project are available at: https://osf.io/hp79m/?view_only=56b02cfc20614865acd3b29d575e0634.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScoring\u003c/strong\u003e. For each block, \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026apos; scores were calculated according to signal detection theory (Green \u0026amp; Swets, 1966).\u0026nbsp;An attitude score was calculated by taking the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;score of negative association and subtracting the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026apos;\u0026nbsp;score of positive associations for each target type (self-directed and group-directed).\u0026nbsp;A higher\u0026nbsp;attitude score\u0026nbsp;indicates higher levels of ISP.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProcedure\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study was hosted on Qualtrics. Participation was voluntary and participants could withdraw at any point. Participants provided informed\u0026nbsp;consent before completing demographic questions, followed by SDR and explicit ISP measures. Participants were then instructed to an external website (http://www.millisecond.com/) to complete the 4-block GNAT. The study took approximately 30 minutes, after which participants were debriefed and reimbursed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalytic Approach\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll analyses were performed using Jamovi (2022, version 2.3). To test \u003cem\u003ethe attitude hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H1), four single-sample\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;t\u003c/em\u003e-tests were conducted to assess whether explicit and implicit ISP significantly differed from the midpoint, indicating neutral ISP. For \u003cem\u003ethe correlation hypothesis\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(H2), correlations between implicit and explicit ISP were analysed for both self-directed and group-directed ISP. The \u003cem\u003esocially desirable responding hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H3) was examined through correlations between impression management, self-deceptive enhancement, and both implicit and explicit ISP. Finally, for \u003cem\u003ethe moderation hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H4), two hierarchical multiple regressions were conducted to assess how implicit ISP, impression management, and self-deceptive enhancement explained variance in explicit ISP. Eight moderation analyses were conducted separately.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eData Preparation\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe data was checked for missing values and outliers. One univariate outlier was identified in the explicit group-directed ISP scale (\u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.39) and was windsorized (following the procedure recommended by Field [\u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e]; \u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;3 x \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e). There were 41 missing data values for implicit self-directed ISP and 34 for implicit group-directed ISP. To preserve statistical power, these cases were retained, and analyses were conducted pairwise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eDescriptive and Correlational Findings\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e presents the descriptive statistics and correlation analyses. Single-sample \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e-tests revealed that both explicit self-directed and group-directed ISP were significantly lower than the scale\u0026rsquo;s neutral midpoint, indicating low explicit ISP in this sample (self-directed: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;9.53, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = -1.05; group-directed: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(243)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;9.75, \u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e = -1.22). In contrast, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP were significantly higher than the neutral score of 0, indicating the presence of implicit ISP (self-directed; \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(202)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;37.3, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.62; group-directed: \u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e(202)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;40.5, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ed\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2.80).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit self-directed ISP was unrelated to implicit self-directed ISP, while explicit group-directed ISP showed a significant positive correlation with implicit group-directed ISP. Both impression management and self-deceptive enhancement were negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP but showed no relation to explicit self-directed ISP or either type of implicit ISP.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDescriptive Findings and Correlations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. Explicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.80\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.Explicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.98\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.45**\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. Implicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.24\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.019\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.15*\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. Implicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.83\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.26***\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.58***\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. Self-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.91\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.003\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.31***\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. Impression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.20**\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.43***\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. *\u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.05, **\u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.01\u003c/em\u003e, **\u003cem\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;.001. Significant correlations are presented in boldface.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eRegression Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTwo hierarchical multiple regression analyses were conducted to assess the variance in explicit ISP explained by implicit ISP and social desirability. For each regression, Step 1 included implicit self- group-directed ISP, while Step 2 included SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement). Data assumptions were checked prior to analysis. The first model predicting explicit self-directed ISP showed positive autocorrelation in the residuals (D-W observed statistic\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27; criteria\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1\u0026ndash;3), potentially increasing the likelihood of a Type II error (Field, \u003cspan class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). However, all other assumptions\u0026mdash;multivariate normality, homoscedasticity, linearity, and absence of multivariate outliers\u0026mdash;were met for both models.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePredicting Explicit Self-Directed ISP\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn Step 1, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP did not account for a significant amount of variance in explicit self-directed ISP, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,170)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.783. In Step 2, the inclusion of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement accounted for an additional 1% of the variance, but this was not statistically significant, \u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.871, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.421. In combination, all four predictors accounted for a non-significant 1.3% variance (adj. \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.557, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.694, no effect, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.01).\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003ePredicting Explicit Group-Directed ISP\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIn Step 1, implicit self-directed and group-directed ISP accounted for a significant amount of variance in explicit group-directed ISP, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(2,170)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.11 \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.003. Specifically, implicit group-directed ISP was a significant predictor. In Step 2, the inclusion of impression management and self-deceptive enhancement accounted for an additional 5.9% of the variance, which was statistically significant, \u0026Delta;\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2,168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.64, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.004. Specifically, implicit group-directed ISP and self-deceptive enhancement were significant predictors. In combination, all four predictors accounted for a significant 12.6% variance; adj. \u003cem\u003eR\u003c/em\u003e\u0026sup2; = .10, \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e(4, 168)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6.04, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001, small effect, Cohen\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003ef\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.14). Coefficients are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnstandardised (B) and\u003c/em\u003e Standardised (\u0026beta;) \u003cem\u003eRegression Coefficients in Regression Models Predicting Gay Men\u0026rsquo;s Explicit Self-Directed and Group-Directed ISP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e [95% Cl]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e [95% Cl]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 1\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09 [-.18, .35]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.65\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.517\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04 [-.22, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.48]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.633\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.08 [-.35, .19]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.59\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.559\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.29 [.47, 3.11]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.09\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.28\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.002\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStep 2\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06 [-.21, .33]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.42\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.679\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04 [-.22, .14]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.46\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.645\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07 [-.34, .20]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.51\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.608\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.27 [.09, .45]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.09\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.26\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.99\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.003\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04 [-.13, .21]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.633\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.17 [-.28, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.06]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.06\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.23\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-2.98\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.003\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.12 [-.29, .06]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.11\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02 [.13, .10]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.761\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Significant coefficients presented in bold (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05).\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec23\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eModeration Analyses\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEight moderation analyses were conducted to examine whether SDR moderated the relationship between gay men\u0026rsquo;s implicit and explicit ISP. The analyses focused on two outcome variables: explicit self-directed ISP and explicit group-directed ISP. For each outcome variable, four combinations were tested: (1) self-deceptive enhancement with implicit self-directed ISP, (2) impression management with implicit self-directed ISP, (3) self-deceptive enhancement with implicit group-directed ISP, and (4) impression management with implicit group-directed ISP. In each analysis, the predictor (implicit ISP), moderator (SDR), and their interaction were entered simultaneously. To address issues with multicollinearity, all variables were transformed into \u003cem\u003ez\u003c/em\u003e-scores. However, this did not alter the pattern of results, thus, untransformed variables are reported for ease of interpretation. The results of all analyses are presented in Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eOf the eight moderation analyses, there was only one significant interaction: between self-deceptive enhancement and implicit group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP. This suggests that the effect of implicit-group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP varied depending on self-deceptive enhancement.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eA simple slope analysis was conducted to explore the relationship between implicit group-directed ISP and explicit group-directed ISP at low (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ndash; 1\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e), average (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e) and high (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;1\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e) levels of self-deceptive enhancement. The simple slope of implicit group-directed ISP on explicit group-directed ISP was significant at low (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.39, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) and average (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.24, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001) levels of self-deceptive enhancement, but not high (\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003eSE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.308). Figure 1 illustrates the simple slopes for the interaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegression Coefficients for Moderation Analyses Predicting Explicit Self-Directed and Group-Directed ISP.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"5\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExplicit Group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e [95% Cl]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eB\u003c/em\u003e [95% Cl]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSE B\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026beta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003et\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel 1\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.02 [-.17, .21]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.853\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.14 [.01, .27]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.06\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.15\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e2.17\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.031\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03 [-0.11, 0.18]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.637\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.20 [-.30, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.11]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.28\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-4.11\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP x self-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06 [-.11, .23]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.69\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.492\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04 [-.16, .07]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.77\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.443\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel 2\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01 [.17, .20]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.13\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.897\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.13 [.003, .26]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.07\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.14\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e1.98\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.049\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.10 [-.24, .05]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.189\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.10 [-.20, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.002]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.14\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-1.98\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.049\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit self-directed ISP x impression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.04 [-.20, .12]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.628\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03 [-.09, .14]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.639\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel 3\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.002 [-.20, .19]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.996\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.24 [.11, .37]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.07\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.23\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.61\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03 [-.18, .11]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.41\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.683\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.22 [-.32, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.12]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.29\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-4.46\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP x self-deceptive enhancement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.09 [-.26, .08]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.08\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-1.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.300\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.13 [-.24, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.02]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.06\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.14\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-2.34\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.02\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel 4\u003c/em\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.02 [-.21, .18]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.16\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.874\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.25 [.11, .39]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.07\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.24\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3.59\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.001\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImpression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.15 [-.29, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.01]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.07\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.14\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-2.06\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.041\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.13 [-.23, \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;.03]\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.05\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-0.17\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e-2.51\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.013\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eImplicit group-directed ISP x impression management\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.07 [-.25, .11]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.09\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.415\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03 [-.6, .10]\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"char\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.03\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-0.48\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.630\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003ctfoot\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"12\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote.\u003c/em\u003e Significant coefficients are presented in boldface (\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;.05)\u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tfoot\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study explored the relationship between implicit and explicit measures of gay men\u0026rsquo;s ISP and the moderating effects of SDR (i.e., impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) in a sample of gay men.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConsistent with \u003cem\u003ethe attitudes hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H1), explicit measures of self- and group-directed ISP were low, whereas implicit measures revealed higher levels of both self- and group-directed ISP. These results are consistent with previous research on implicit-explicit discrepancies in anti-gay attitudes (Anderson et al., 2015; Moor et al., 2019) and reflect ongoing social norm change. For instance, Westgate et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2015) longitudinal study observed a societal attitude shift towards gay men, with explicit anti-gay attitudes decreasing at nearly twice the rate of implicit anti-gay attitudes. This supports the theoretical arguments proposed by Bargh and Ferguson (2000), who suggest that implicit attitudes evolve more slowly than their explicit counterparts. Consequently, this broader societal attitude change may explain why participants in this study exhibited lower levels of explicit, but not implicit, ISP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe findings for \u003cem\u003ethe correlation hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H2) were mixed. As expected, explicit and implicit self-directed ISP were positively but not significantly correlated, consistent with Cameron et al. (2012) and Hofmann et al. (2005), who found weak but significant correlations between implicit and explicit attitudes. However, unexpectedly, explicit, and implicit group-directed ISP were positively correlated.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe \u003cem\u003esocially desirable responding hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H3) received partial support. Both impression management and self-deceptive enhancement were significantly and negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP, but neither were related to explicit self-directed ISP. This suggests that participants motivated to present themselves favourably (intentionally or unintentionally) were less likely to internalise negative attitudes towards their own group, though this motivation did not affect their internalised attitudes towards themselves. Furthermore, consistent with H3, neither impression management nor self-deceptive enhancement were significantly correlated with implicit ISP (self or group-directed). This finding aligns Anderson\u0026rsquo;s (2019) research, which found significant correlations between impression management and explicit, but not implicit, attitudes toward asylum seekers. These results suggest that implicit attitudes being more automatic and unconscious, are less susceptible to manipulation, while explicit attitudes are more prone to intentional or unintentional modification (Greenwald et al., 1998; Nosek et al., 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFindings provided mixed support for the \u003cem\u003emoderation hypothesis\u003c/em\u003e (H4). No significant moderating effects of SDR were found in models predicting explicit self-directed ISP, consistent with Hofmann et al.\u0026rsquo;s (2005) meta-analysis, which found no evidence supporting the SDR moderation hypothesis. However, in models predicting explicit group-directed ISP, self-deceptive enhancement significantly moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP. Specifically, the relationship was significant only at average and low levels of self-deceptive enhancement. This suggests that gay men with more accurate self-perception are more likely to be honest and acknowledge their negative attitudes toward their group. Conversely, at higher levels of self-deception, they may unintentionally minimise or deny such attitudes to maintain a positive self-image, leading to a non-significant correlation between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP. This finding aligns with Nosek\u0026rsquo;s (2005) research showing that higher self-presentation concerns weaken the implicit-explicit attitude relationship.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNotably, the study implicates a different facet of SDR in its moderating role than Anderson\u0026rsquo;s (2019) study, where only impression management\u0026mdash;not self-deceptive enhancement\u0026mdash; moderated implicit-explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers in Australia. This difference may reflect the nature of the attitudes being assessed. In the current study, self-deceptive enhancement likely functions as an unconscious coping mechanism to protect self-esteem, particularly when participants evaluate their own social group under minority stress (Paulhus \u0026amp; Holden, 2009). In contrast, Anderson\u0026rsquo;s (2019) examined inter-group attitudes towards an out-group (i.e., asylum seekers), where impression management\u0026mdash;a more deliberate and strategic response tactic\u0026mdash; may have been more influential.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInterpretations and Implications\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDifferences Between Self-Directed and Group-Directed\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eISP\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study uncovered significant differences between self-directed and group-directed ISP, with greater support for H3 and H4 in the context of group-directed ISP.\u0026nbsp;One possible interpretation of these findings is that\u0026nbsp;as\u0026nbsp;LGB issues have gained more prominence in political discourse and human rights discussions in recent years, participants may have an increased awareness of potential social consequences (e.g., criticism, exclusion) of expressing negative attitudes toward their own group. This heightened awareness may lead gay men to conform to societal norms that advocate for their inclusivity and equality\u0026mdash;not necessarily out of genuine belief in these values, but to avoid negative social repercussions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConversely, self-directed ISP, which relates to attitudes regarding one\u0026apos;s own non-heterosexual identity, tends to be more personal and private. It can be speculated that compared to group-directed ISP, self-directed ISP is less visible to others and more unmonitored. Consequently, the risk of social disapproval is reduced, which may allow gay men to feel less pressure\u0026nbsp;to modify these self-directed attitudes to align with socially favourable views. Overall, the findings suggest that group-directed ISP is more susceptible to SDR than self-directed ISP.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Value of Implicit Measures in Research and Practical Settings\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe study\u0026rsquo;s findings have important implications for ISP research. First, researchers should recognise that commonly used self-report instruments for group-directed ISP may be susceptible to SDR, where gay men may attenuate the extent of their internalised negative attitudes towards their own group. Additionally, although participants did not explicitly report negative attitudes toward their sexual orientation or group, implicit measures revealed these attitudes persisted at a subconscious level. This underscores the value of implicit measures in capturing the automatic, unconscious components of ISP that self-reports instruments alone may fail to detect. Thus, self-report instruments provide a limited understanding of ISP, and ISP research should incorporate both implicit and explicit measures to fully capture both its controlled and automatic components (Nosek et al., 2007).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThese findings also carry significant practical implications, particularly in clinical settings. Mental health practitioners should consider using implicit measures alongside self-report instrument for a more accurate assessment of ISP. Given the established relationship between ISP and adverse mental health outcomes, incorporating implicit measures could help identify individuals at a heightened risk for psychological distress who might otherwise be overlooked by self-report instruments alone (McLemore, 2014; Newcomb \u0026amp; Mustanski, 2010). This comprehensive assessment approach enables more targeted interventions, which may improve mental health outcomes for gay men and help address the health disparities they face compared to heterosexual individuals (Meyer, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBroader Theoretical Contributions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe current study provides evidence that supports dual-attitude models. Specifically, it found a non-significant correlation between implicit and explicit self-directed ISP, along with significant negative correlations between the SDR subscales (impression management and self-deceptive enhancement) and explicit group-directed ISP, but not implicit ISP. This reinforces the idea that implicit and explicit attitudes are related but distinct constructs with different antecedents and correlates (Nosek \u0026amp; Smyth, 2007; Wilson et al., 2000).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLimitations and Future Directions\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOne limitation of this study pertains to the target visual stimuli employed in the GNAT. While the stimuli were originally validated by Anderson et al. (2015) and in a gay sample (Anderson et al., 2024), the selection of appropriate stimuli remains a persistent challenge in implicit sexual prejudice research. In contrast to implicit measures for other social categories such as race or ethnicity, which can utilise clear visual cues such as facial images (e.g., black versus white faces; Dasgupta et al., 2000), sexual orientations lack consistent, visible markers (Freeman et al., 2010). Consequently, research on implicit sexual prejudice, including the present study, often relies on a range of stimuli (e.g., same-sex wedding cake toppers, images of same-sex couples kissing or holding hands, or interlocking gender symbols). However, these stimuli may elicit broader societal attitudes. For instance, depictions of romantic same-sex couples might provoke reactions to public displays of affection, while interlocking gender symbols could evoke attitudes about LGB political activism (Anderson et al., 2024). Therefore, it remains uncertain whether the GNAT used in this study accurately captures gay men\u0026rsquo;s ISP or merely reflects their\u0026nbsp;broader attitudes toward issues related to homosexuality. Nonetheless, the study\u0026rsquo;s hypotheses received stronger support in the context of group-directed ISP than self-directed ISP, suggesting that the GNAT visual stimuli may be more suitable for assessing gay men\u0026rsquo;s group-directed ISP. In contrast, measuring self-directed ISP is more challenging. Overall, selecting appropriate visual stimuli for assessing gay men\u0026rsquo;s ISP remains a critical issue in the field, offering valuable opportunities for future research to enhance the accuracy of implicit measurement. Future studies could also investigate alternative visual stimuli tailored to assessing ISP in other sexual minority groups, such as lesbian and bisexual individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA consideration is that the 4-block GNAT took about 20 minutes to complete, requiring participants\u0026rsquo; sustained attention. Since the study was conducted online, the environment could not be controlled, potentially leading to distractions (e.g., background noise, presence of others) that may have negatively influenced participant\u0026rsquo;s response times and accuracy. However, Anderson et al. (2024) found comparable results between online and face-to-face GNAT assessments of implicit anti-gay attitudes, suggesting that the testing environment had little effect on results. This supports the online format used in the current study, which also offered advantages in terms of time and cost efficiency.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examined SDR\u0026rsquo;s moderating role in explicit\u0026ndash;implicit attitude correspondence. Specifically, it examined impression management (i.e., a deliberate response tactic) and self-deceptive enhancement (i.e., an unintentional response style) as moderators of the relationship between gay men\u0026rsquo;s explicit-implicit ISP. Findings revealed that implicit ISP was more negative than explicit ISP. Moreover, both deliberate and unintentional SDR patterns were related to explicit group-directed ISP, but not explicit self-directed or implicit ISP. This suggests that current self-report instruments of gay men\u0026rsquo;s group-directed ISP might be susceptible to socially desirable response tendencies. Furthermore, self-deceptive enhancement moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP, to the extent that higher self-deceptive enhancement scores weakened the implicit-explicit correspondence. Consistent with Paulhus\u0026rsquo; (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR48\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1984\u003c/span\u003e) recommendations, the study highlights the importance of statistically accounting for self-deceptive enhancement in social attitudes research, particularly in studies of gay men\u0026rsquo;s group-directed ISP.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cul\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eApproval was obtained from the Human Resaerch Ethics Committee of BLINDED. The procedures used in this study adhere to the tenets of the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData availability:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available due participant confidentiality but supporting data can be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Publish:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eNot applicable.\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent to Participate:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eInformed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAllen, D. J., \u0026amp; Oleson, T. (1999). Shame and internalized homophobia in gay men. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 37\u003c/em\u003e(3), 33-43. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v37n03_03 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. R. (2019). The moderating role of socially desirable responding in implicit\u0026ndash;explicit attitudes toward asylum seekers. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 54\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijop.12439 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. R., de la Piedad Garcia, X., Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., \u0026amp; Kaufmann, L. M. (2024). Disentangling gender-based attitudes from sexuality-based attitude: The person-based approach to measuring implicit attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 71\u003c/em\u003e(10), 2366-2399. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2023.2233657 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. R., Georgantis, C., \u0026amp; Kapelles, T. (2017). Predicting support for marriage equality in Australia. \u003cem\u003eAustralian Journal of Psychology, 69,\u003c/em\u003e 256-262. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajpy.12164 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J. R., Kiernan, E., \u0026amp; Koc, Y. (2023). The protective role of identity integration against internalized sexual prejudice for religious gay men. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, 15(3), 379-388. https://doi/10.1037/rel0000452\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, J., \u0026amp; Koc, Y. (2015). Exploring patterns of explicit and implicit anti-gay attitudes in Muslims and Atheists. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(6), 687-701. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2126 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnselmi, P., Voci, A., Vianello, M., \u0026amp; Robusto, E. (2015). Implicit and explicit sexual attitudes across genders and sexual orientations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Bisexuality\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 15\u003c/em\u003e(1), 40-56. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299716.2014.986597 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanaji, M. R., \u0026amp; Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 68\u003c/em\u003e(2), 181-198. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.2.181 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBanse, R., Seise, J., \u0026amp; Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. \u003cem\u003eZeitschrift f\u0026uuml;r Experimentelle Psychologie\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 145-160. https://doi.org/10.1026//0949-3946.48.2.145 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBargh, J. A., \u0026amp; Ferguson, M. J. (2000). Beyond behaviorism: on the automaticity of higher mental processes. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 126\u003c/em\u003e(6), 925-945. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.126.6.925 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBerg, R. C., Munthe-Kaas, H. M., \u0026amp; Ross, M. W. (2016). Internalized homonegativity: A systematic mapping review of empirical research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Homosexuality\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 63\u003c/em\u003e(4), 541-558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1083788 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrooks, V. R. (1981). \u003cem\u003eMinority stress and lesbian women\u003c/em\u003e. Lexington Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCameron, C. D., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., \u0026amp; Payne, B. K. (2012). Sequential priming measures of implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit attitudes. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Social Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 16\u003c/em\u003e(4), 330-350. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868312440047 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCiaffoni, S., Koc, Y., Monreal, D. C., Gonz\u0026aacute;lez, R., Roblain, A., Hanioti, M,. \u0026amp; Anderson, J. R. (2020). Reconceptualizing internalised sexual prejudice: Self- vs. group-related prejudice has different antecedents and consequences for identity, sexuality, and well-being for gay men [Paper Presentation]. European Congress of Social Psychology, Krakow, Poland.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCrandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., \u0026amp; O\u0026apos;Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 82\u003c/em\u003e(3), 359-378. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.3.359 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDasgupta, N., McGhee, D. E., Greenwald, A. G., \u0026amp; Banaji, M. R. (2000). Automatic preference for white Americans: Eliminating the familiarity explanation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 36\u003c/em\u003e(3), 316-328. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1999.1418 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEslen-Ziya, H., \u0026amp; Ko\u0026ccedil;, Y. (2016). Being a gay man in Turkey: Internalised sexual prejudice as a function of prevalent hegemonic masculinity perceptions. Culture, health \u0026amp; sexuality, 18(7), 799-811. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691058.2015.1133846\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFarr, R. H., Crain, E. E., Oakley, M. K., Cashen, K. K., \u0026amp; Garber, K. J. (2016). Microaggressions, Feelings of Difference, and Resilience Among Adopted Children with Sexual Minority Parents. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Youth and Adolescence, 45\u003c/em\u003e(1), 85-104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0353-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFaul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., \u0026amp; Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G* Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. \u003cem\u003eBehavior Research Methods\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 41\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1149-1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFazio, R. H., Chen, J.-M., McDonel, E. C., \u0026amp; Sherman, S. J. (1982). Attitude accessibility, attitude-behaviour consistency, and the strength of the object-evaluation association. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 339-357. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(82)90058-0\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eField, A. P (2018). \u003cem\u003eDiscovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics \u003c/em\u003e(5th ed.). SAGE Publications. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFreeman, J. B., Johnson, K. L., Ambady, N., \u0026amp; Rule, N. O. (2010). Sexual orientation perception involves gendered facial cues. \u003cem\u003ePersonality \u0026amp; Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 36\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1318-1331. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210378755 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreen, D. M., \u0026amp; Swets, J. A. (1966). \u003cem\u003eSignal detection theory and psychophysics\u003c/em\u003e. Wiley New York. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwald, A. G., \u0026amp; Banaji, M. R. (2017). The implicit revolution: Reconceiving the relation between conscious and unconscious. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Psychologist, 72\u003c/em\u003e(9), 861-871. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000238 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGreenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., \u0026amp; Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 74\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1464-1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHall, W. J., Dawes, H. C., Hannay, J. W., Williams, D. Y., Frey, J. J., Srivastava, A., ... \u0026amp; Payne, B. K. (2024). Development and initial validation of the implicit internalized sexual orientation stigma affect misattribution procedure. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology, 15\u003c/em\u003e, 1385410. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1385410\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHart, C. M., Ritchie, T. D., Hepper, E. G., \u0026amp; Gebauer, J. E. (2015). The balanced inventory of desirable responding short form (BIDR-16). \u003cem\u003eSAGE Open\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 5\u003c/em\u003e(4). 5-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244015621113 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eH\u0026auml;ssler, T., Fogwell, N. T., Gonzalez, A., Anderson, J. R., \u0026amp; Atwood, S. (2024). Reimagining LGBTIQ+ research: Acknowledging differences across subpopulations, methods, and countries. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Social Issues\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e80\u003c/em\u003e(3), 821-842. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12643 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHatzenbuehler, M. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nolen-Hoeksema, S., \u0026amp; Phills, C. E. (2009). An implicit measure of anti-gay attitudes: Prospective associations with emotion regulation strategies and psychological distress. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 45\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1316-1320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., \u0026amp; Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights from a social psychological perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Counselling Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 56\u003c/em\u003e(1), 32-43. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014672 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHerek, G. M., \u0026amp; McLemore, K. A. (2013). Sexual prejudice. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 64\u003c/em\u003e(1), 309-333. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143826 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., \u0026amp; Schmitt, M. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. \u003cem\u003ePersonality \u0026amp; Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1369-1385. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275613 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHuynh, K. D., Murgo, M. A. J., \u0026amp; Lee, D. L. (2022). Internalized heterosexism and substance use: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eThe Counseling Psychologist\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 50\u003c/em\u003e(5), 674-707. https://doi.org/10.1177/00110000221086910 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThe jamovi project (2022). Jamovi. (Version 2.3) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarpinski, A., Steinman, R. B., \u0026amp; Hilton, J. L. (2005). Attitude importance as a moderator of the relationship between implicit and explicit attitude measures. \u003cem\u003ePersonality \u0026amp; Social Psychology Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 31\u003c/em\u003e(7), 949-962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204273007 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcLemore, K. A. (2014). \u003cem\u003eImplicit self-stigma and its social psychological, mental, physical, and sexual health correlates in self-identified lesbians and gay men\u003c/em\u003e (Publication No. 3646343) [Doctoral dissertation, University of California]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMeyer, I. H. (1995). Minority stress and mental health in gay men. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Health and Social Behaviour\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(1), 38\u0026ndash;56. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137286\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. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 129\u003c/em\u003e(5), 674-697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMoor, L., Kapelles, T., Koc, Y., \u0026amp; Anderson, J. R. (2019). Predicting explicit and implicit attitudes towards gay men using the dual process model of prejudice and the dark tetrad. \u003cem\u003ePersonality and Individual Differences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 151\u003c/em\u003e, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.06.029 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewcomb, M. E., \u0026amp; Mustanski, B. (2010). Internalized homophobia and internalizing mental health problems: A meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 30\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1019-1029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2010.07.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNewcomb, M. E., \u0026amp; Mustanski, B. (2011). Moderators of the relationship between internalized homophobia and risky sexual behaviour in men who have sex with men: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Sexual Behavior\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 189-199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-009-9573-8 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, J., Anderson, J. R., \u0026amp; Pepping, C. A. (2024). A systematic review and research agenda of internalized sexual stigma in sexual minority individuals: Evidence from longitudinal and intervention studies. \u003cem\u003eClinical Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 108\u003c/em\u003e, 102376-102376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102376 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Psychology, 134\u003c/em\u003e(4), 565-584. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek, B. A., \u0026amp; Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go/no-go association task. \u003cem\u003eSocial Cognition\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 19\u003c/em\u003e(6), 625-664. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek, B. A., Hawkins, C. B., \u0026amp; Frazier, R. S. (2011). Implicit social cognition: From measures to mechanisms. \u003cem\u003eTrends in Cognitive Sciences\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 152-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2011.01.005 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., Olson, K. R., Chugh, D., Greenwald, A. G., \u0026amp; Banaji, M. R. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 18\u003c/em\u003e(1), 36-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eOng, C., Tan, R. K. J., Le, D., Tan, A., Tyler, A., Tan, C., Kwok, C., Banerjee, S., \u0026amp; Wong, M. L. (2021). Association between sexual orientation acceptance and suicidal ideation, substance use, and internalised homophobia amongst the pink carpet Y cohort study of young gay, bisexual, and queer men in Singapore. \u003cem\u003eBMC Public Health, 21\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1-971. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10992-6\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 46\u003c/em\u003e(3), 598-609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePaulhus, D. L., \u0026amp; Holden, R. R. (2009). Measuring self-enhancement: From self-report to concrete behavior. In \u003cem\u003eThen a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 25-39). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195377798.003.0012 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePlant, E. A., \u0026amp; Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 75\u003c/em\u003e(3), 811-832. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRohner, J. C., \u0026amp; Bjoerklund, F. (2006). Personality and social sciences: Do self-presentation concerns moderate the relationship between implicit and explicit homonegativity measures? \u003cem\u003eScandinavian Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 47\u003c/em\u003e(5), 379-385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9450.2006.00522.x \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eShidlo (1994). Internalized homophobia: Conceptual and empirical issues in measurement. In B. Greene \u0026amp; G. M. Herek (Eds.). \u003cem\u003ePsychological perspectives on lesbian and gay issues\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 176\u0026ndash;205). Sage.Westgate, E. C., Riskind, R. G., \u0026amp; Nosek, B. A. (2015). Implicit preferences for straight people over lesbian women and gay men weakened from 2006 to 2013. \u003cem\u003eCollabra\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 1\u003c/em\u003e(1), 28-41. https://doi.org/10.1525/collabra.18 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilliams, B. J., \u0026amp; Kaufmann, L. M. (2012). Reliability of the go/no go association task. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Experimental Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 48\u003c/em\u003e(4), 879-891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.03.001 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., \u0026amp; Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Review\u003c/em\u003e,\u003cem\u003e 107\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101-126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.107.1.101 \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":"","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternalised sexual prejudice\u003c/em\u003e (ISP) occurs when sexual minority individuals adopt negative societal attitudes about their own sexuality. ISP research commonly relies on self-report instruments, which captures \u003cem\u003eexplicit\u003c/em\u003e ISP but fails to assess the automatic aspects of \u003cem\u003eimplicit \u003c/em\u003eISP. In addition, emerging research suggests that ISP can be self-directed (i.e., negative attitudes towards oneself as non-heterosexual) or group-directed (i.e., negative attitudes towards other LGB individuals). The present study utilised explicit and implicit measures to evalute the self-directed and group-directed components of ISP, and explored the moderating role of socially desirable responding, including \u003cem\u003eimpression management\u003c/em\u003e ([IM]; i.e., deliberate response modification) and \u003cem\u003eself-deceptive enhancement \u003c/em\u003e([SDE]; i.e., unintentional positive self-bias). The analysis of data from 244 gay men (\u003cem\u003eM\u003c/em\u003e = 38.40 years, \u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e= 13.50) revealed that implicit ISP was more negative than explicit ISP. Bivariate correlations showed that IM and SDE were negatively correlated with explicit group-directed ISP but were unrelated to explicit self-directed ISP and implicit ISP. Moreover, SDE moderated the relationship between implicit and explicit group-directed ISP, such that higher SDE scores weakened the implicit-explicit correspondence.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Moderating Role of Socially Desirable Responding in the Relationship Between Gay Men’s Implicit and Explicit Internalised Sexual Prejudice","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-11-17 09:26:50","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7604153/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":"9df9a47c-699e-4fd5-92f3-b1726f20147b","owner":[],"postedDate":"November 17th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-11T11:26:22+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-11-17 09:26:50","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7604153","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7604153","identity":"rs-7604153","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}