Arospec identities stigmatization

This survey was conducted by aro-neir-o

DEMOGRAPHICS There were 623 responses to the survey. 357 of these responses were complete - these participants completed the survey in its entirety. People were recruited from Tumblr, the Arocalypse online forums, and the Arocalypse Discord server. Snowballing was used as a technique for recruitment, so there may also have been participants who were recruited indirectly through other participants. The survey was only made available in English. Age

Over 50% of the participants in the study were between the ages of 18 and 24. Over 25% of the participants were under 18. The rest of the participants were aged 25 to 34, with a small minority being over 35. Gender

Over 50% the participants surveyed reported being non-binary, genderqueer, and/or an other gender identity. Just under 50% of all participants reported being cisgender women. Transgender men and cisgender men also participated, but in small numbers. Note: I separated out cisgender and transgender identities for the purpose of analyzing intersectionality. It may be the case that transgender people who are aromantic navigate microaggressions and stigmatization differently than transgender people who are not aromantic or aromantic people who are not transgender. Unfortunately, there were not enough responses for me to run this statistically, but other queer-focused studies have noticed intersections of queer identities affecting life experiences. ​ Racial and Ethnic background

A significant majority (read: over 75%) of participants in this survey identified as white. Most of these participants (about 75% of that 75%) did not specify further than “white,” but those who did specify fell into European, North American, and Australian/New Zealander categories. After white persons, the next most common demographic was Asian, followed by Latinx, Mixed race, Jewish, Hispanic or Portuguese, Native or Indigenous, and finally, Black or African. Note: In cases where ethnic backgrounds are reported together in these results, these categories were combined based on low numbers and relative appropriateness. Broad categories were determined based on several different Census conventions (e.g., Canadian Census categories) as well as categories used to report demographics in a variety of academic studies. If you are curious about which ethnicities went into which categories, you can ask me for more elaboration. People who reported multiple identities were counted in both or all relevant groups or put into the mixed race category, depending on the person’s answer (e.g., if they explicitly wrote “mixed race” or not). (Romantic) Orientation

Almost 75% of the participants surveyed identified as broadly Aromantic. The next most represented orientations were Demiromantic and Greyromantic, accounting for 12.5% of the total (6.25% each). Participants in the Other category were the next most represented, followed by Quoiromantic, Aro-spec, Aroflux, and Lithromantic or Akoiromantic people. Other identities captured in this survey include: fictorimantic, sansromantic, aegoromantic, abroromantic, cupioromantic, nebularomantic, oriented aromantic, non-SAM-using asexual, non-SAM-using aromantic, and queer. Partnership Status

Almost 50% of all respondents reported being single with no intention to marry at the time of the survey. About 33% of respondents reported being single (never married). Single people therefore made up the vast majority (read: about 83%) of the survey respondents. The next most represented participants were those dating or Other. A very small minority reported being married, and an even smaller minority reported being divorced or separated from their partner(s). Do you consider yourself polyamorous?

Just over 25% of respondents considered themselves polyamorous. The rest (i.e., the majority) did not consider themselves polyamorous. ​ Have you ever been diagnosed with a physical or psychological condition? Does this have any bearing on your view of aromanticism?

About 60% of respondents reported having been diagnosed with a physical or psychological condition. Of the people who had been diagnosed with a physical or psychological condition, almost 30% reported that their condition does have a bearing on their view of aromanticism. ​ SURVEY QUESTION RESULTS ​ The following questionnaires are revisions made by the researcher to Foster (2017)’s revisions of existing queer/LGBT scales. Foster (2017) applied an Asexual focus to the scales. The researcher for this study applied an Aromantic focus, changing terminology where appropriate. ​ Experiences of Aromanticism ​ The diversity of the aromantic community was highlighted in the response rates to the following items. ​ I experience romantic attraction toward other people: 22% True, 78% False

I lack interest in romantic activities: 77.5% True, 22.5% False

I don’t feel that I fit the conventional categories of romantic orientation such as heteroromantic, homoromantic (gay or lesbian), or biromantic: 92% True, 8% False

The thought of romantic activities repulses me: 52% True, 48% False

I find myself experiencing romantic attraction toward another person: 17.5% True, 82.5% False

I am confused by how much interest and time other people put into romantic relationships: 85% True, 15% False

The term “non-romantic” would be an accurate description of my romanticism: 70.5% True, 29.5% False

I would be relieved if I was told that I never had to engage in any sort of romantic activities again: 77% True, 23% False

I go to great lengths to avoid situations where romance might be expected of me: 76% True, 24% False

My ideal relationship would not involve traditionally romantic activities: 73.5% True, 26.5% False

Romance has no place in my life: 70% True, 30% False ​ Aromantic Microaggressions Scale (AroMS) ​ Of the participants who experienced microaggressions against them (i.e., participants who responded with frequency ratings greater than 1), the following trends were observed. ​ Generally, participants reported experiencing microaggressions aimed against them at a rate of “sometimes” (mean=2.84/5). Participants reported these incidences as moderately distressing (mean=3.69/5).

The most frequently reported aggression against aros was others telling them that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice (mean=3.39/5, sometimes to often). This moderately distressed participants (mean=3.72/5).

The most distressing aggression against aros was aros being propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because they were aro-spec (quite distressing, mean=4.01/5; occurring once in a while, mean=2.68/5). As well, participants found that being threatened with harm was quite distressing (mean=3.90/5; occurring once in a while, mean=2.5/5). The latter was also the least frequently reported occurrence.

The least distressing aggression reported was being asked to provide examples of how aros knew they are aro-spec (mean=3.2/5, meaning being bothered a little bit to moderately). ​ MOST OFTEN EXPERIENCED TO LEAST OFTEN EXPERIENCED ​ Others have told me that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice I have been made to feel inferior by others because I am aro-spec I have been told that I am aromantic because I haven’t met the right person yet Others have assumed that I choose to be aro-spec I have been told that aromanticism “isn’t real” I have been asked to provide examples of how I know I am aro-spec I have been told that being aro-spec is against human nature I have been told that no one will want me as a relationship partner because I am aro-spec I have heard non-aro-spec people speculate about the ‘cause’ of my aromanticism I have been called derogatory names (e.g., “manipulative” or “freak”) in relation to my aromanticism I have been told that aromanticism is a form of dysfunction or illness, not a valid way to identify I have been propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because I am aro-spec (e.g., “I’ll show you what you’re missing”) I have been harassed because I am aro-spec I have been told that I am “not healthy” because I am aro-spec People have asked me if sexual/relationship trauma is the reason I am aro-spec I have been threatened with harm because I am aro-spec ​ MOST DISTRESSING TO LEAST DISTRESSING ​ I have been propositioned for pursuing romantic relationships because I am aro-spec (e.g., “I’ll show you what you’re missing”) I have been threatened with harm because I am aro-spec I have been made to feel inferior by others because I am aro-spec I have been told that aromanticism is a form of dysfunction or illness, not a valid way to identify I have been told that aromanticism “isn’t real” I have been called derogatory names (e.g., “manipulative” or “freak”) in relation to my aromanticism I have been told that being aro-spec is against human nature I have been told that I am aromantic because I haven’t met the right person Others have told me that there is no such thing as aromantic discrimination or prejudice I have been harassed because I am aro-spec I have heard non-aro-spec people speculate about the ‘cause’ of my aromanticism I have been told that I am “not healthy” because I am aro-spec People have asked me if sexual/relationship trauma is the reason I am aro-spec I have been told that no one will want me as a relationship partner because I am aro-spec Others have assumed that I choose to be aro-spec I have been asked to provide examples of how I know I am aro-spec ​ Stigma Consciousness Questionnaire (SCQ) ​ This scale is a common and reliable questionnaire used to measure how aware respondents are of stigmas others have toward the respondents’ community. ​ The most agreed upon item for all respondents was that most non-aro-spec people have a lot more anti-aromantic thoughts than they actually express (mean=4.03/6 or slightly agree)

The most disagreed upon item for all respondents was that most non-aro-spec people do not judge aro-spec people on the basis of their lack of romantic attraction (mean=2.66/6 or slightly to moderately disagree)

Particularly variable were participants’ responses to the item “I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of aro-spec people.” Similarly, responses to the item “stereotypes about aro-spec people have not affected me personally” were variable. ​ Collective Self-Esteem Scale (CSES) ​ This scale is used to measure the aromantic community’s collective self-esteem. Most agreed-upon item internally (i.e., response with least variance) was “overall, aro-spec people are considered good by others,” with the response slightly disagreeing (mean=3.22/7)

Respondents also generally agreed that others do not respect aro-spec people (mean=3.13/7 or slightly disagree)

Respondents were ambivalent about “most people consider aro-spec people, on the average, to be more ineffective than other social groups” (mean=4.36/7, or ambivalent, but with quite a bit of variance) ​ In general, respondents’ thoughts were that the aro community is not well-respected, liked, or considered good by others in society, to a slight degree ​ The Heterosexist Harassment, Rejection, and Discrimination Scale for Aromantics (HHRDS-A Aro) ​ For the participants for which these questions were applicable (i.e., for participants who reported frequencies greater than 0), the following trends were observed. ​ The most frequently reported aromantic discrimination from participants was hearing anti-aromantic remarks from family members – on average, happening once in a while to sometimes (mean=2.68/6)

The least frequently reported aromantic discrimination from participants was being denied a raise – on average, happening never (mean=1.02/6). Considering the most represented age demographic in this survey, this result makes sense, as many young adults and teenagers are not far enough into careers to have this opportunity arise at all ​ MOST TO LEAST FREQUENTLY EXPERIENCED ​ Heard anti-aromantic remarks from family members Been treated unfairly by parents Been treated unfairly by friends Been treated unfairly by a romantic partner Been made fun of, picked on, called insulting names, pushed, shoved, hit, or threatened with harm Being treated unfairly by strangers Been rejected by a romantic partner Been verbally insulted Been rejected by parents Been treated unfairly by a sexual partner Been treated unfairly by sibling(s) Been treated unfairly by extended family Been treated unfairly by people in a medical profession Been treated unfairly by peers, co-workers, or colleagues Been rejected by extended family Been rejected by a sexual partner Been rejected by sibling(s) Been treated unfairly by teachers or professors Been treated unfairly by employers or supervisors Been treated unfairly by people in service jobs Been denied a promotion Been denied a job Been denied a raise ​ CORRELATIONS AND ANALYSIS ​ The statistical tests used for the following results include: Pearson’s correlation, ANOVA Frequency of microaggressions vs. Frequency of harassment Purpose of this analysis: to understand whether considering microaggressions and harassment are related, as they are defined differently and often considered separately in discussions of antagonism

The analysis showed a moderate relationship between microaggressions and harassment (r=0.4865, p<0.01). Higher reported frequencies of microaggressions typically correlated with higher frequencies of harassment. This suggests that while microaggressions and harassment are related measures, they are not identical constructs. They are different enough to benefit from separate analyses and consideration. ​ Social desirability vs. Reported frequency and distress levels related to aro antagonism ​ Purpose of this analysis: to disambiguate aromanticism from unrelated aspects of social desirability that may contribute to others’ harassment of people ​ Only participants whose frequency or distress scores were greater than 1 were included in these analyses. The analysis showed no relationship between social desirability and reported frequency of harassment or distress levels related to this harassment. ​ This suggests that a person being targeted for harassment is not in any way related to that person’s level of social desirability (i.e., how ‘sociable’ or ‘good’ that person is considered by others). ​ This result also suggests that people who are aromantic are targeted for harassment because they are aromantic, not because their personalities or social styles are disliked in general. Furthermore, it does not seem to be the case that aromantic people behave in a way more or less socially desirable than the average person. ​ Note: I included a specific measure in the survey for the purpose of this analysis. Many respondents found the questions in the social desirability scale random and irrelevant. In a future iteration of the survey, I will likely not include these questions, as the current research has shown that social desirability does not impact other more relevant measures. ​ Stigma consciousness vs. Reported frequency and distress levels related to harassment/aromisia ​ Purpose of this analysis: to understand how aros view non-aros’ support of aros, how aros view society’s support of aros, and how these views may interact with aros’ reactions to aro antagonism ​ Only participants whose frequency or distress scores were greater than 1 were included in these analyses. ​ ​

Analyses showed that stigma consciousness and harassment frequency were slightly positively related (r=0.2071, p<0.01). As participants’ awareness of others’ stigmatization against them grew, so did their reported frequency of harassment by others.

Analyses showed that stigma consciousness and microaggression frequency were positively related (r=0.3274, p<0.01). As participants’ awareness of others’ stigmatization against them grew, so did their reported frequency of others using microaggressions against them.