目前國內對同性戀的態度似乎日益正面，但同性戀歧視的事件仍層出不窮，顯示探討影響同性戀歧視因素的重要性。本論文擬探討過往學者較少關注的因素，即情境對歧視同性戀者的影響。本論文探討兩種情境：缺少明確行為準則的情境與訊息呈現不同順序的情境。根據過去研究種族歧視的學者對嫌惡型歧視（Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986）的探討，他們主張嫌惡型歧視者只有當情境缺少明確行為準則時，才會表現出對特定族群的負面行為（即歧視）。由於黑人族群與同志族群有些共通點，本論文根據嫌惡型歧視理論假設：缺乏明確行為準則的情境容易引發對同性戀者的歧視。除此之外，延伸嫌惡型歧視理論的看法，本論文嫌惡型歧視者雖信奉族群平等，卻無法控制其未意識到的負面情緒，而較容易受到情境中訊息呈現順序的影響（Krosnick, 1999）。當訊息呈現順序加強族群間對立，或凸顯族群特性，就會造成歧視行為（McConahay, 1983; Wilson, 2010）。研究一以實驗法操弄多位目標人物的職業與性傾向以及人物呈現順序，預期在評價刻板印象中同性戀不適合的職業（老師）時，參與者會因為缺乏工作平等對待的行為準則，降低對同性戀工作者的工作評價，不過未獲得支持證據。訊息呈現順序效果則發現支持證據，若先評異性戀再評同性戀，會引發群際比較，降低對同性戀的評價。研究二改採判決目標人物是否有罪的情境，以犯罪證據是否矛盾操弄情境是否有明確準則，並同樣操弄性傾向呈現順序，加入態度內隱測驗以分辨嫌惡型歧視者與無歧視者。研究二符合預期，發現在證據矛盾時才會認為同性戀有罪程度高於比異性戀，證據相符時則否。性傾向呈現順序則重複驗證研究一發現。本論文延伸嫌惡型歧視理論以瞭解對男同性戀的歧視，並發現特定訊息呈現順序可能引發男同性戀歧視行為，這些結果可以提供發展性別平等教育方案，以有效降低這些歧視行為，促進社會平等。 / In Taiwan, people’s attitudes toward gay men and lesbians have become more and more positive. However, gay men and lesbians are still suffer discrimination, suggesting that it is important to study the causes of discrimination against gay men and lesbians. In this thesis, I investigated the impact of context on discrimination against gay men because 1) gay men suffer more hostile and overt discrimination than lesbians and 2) impact of context is rarely studied. I targeted two kinds of context: context norm and information order. According to aversive racism theory (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986), individuals may discriminate against a person when they do not have to follow a norm. Thus, I hypothesized that people discriminate gay men only when there is no specific norm to follow. Furthermore, I applied the basic principle underlying aversive racism theory to order effect. That is, according to aversive racism theory, individuals may believe in social equality but may discriminate when they have no control over their negative emotions unconsciously aroused by some subordinate group member (e.g., Blacks). Because it is not possible for individuals to be aware of the order effect (Krosnick, 1999), I hypothesized that individuals may discriminate against gay men when the information order makes intergroup comparisons salient (McConahay, 1983; Wilson, 2010). In Study 1, I manipulated the target person’s job title and sex orientation, expecting that when the job was generally considered unsuitable for gay men, participants might believe that equal employment rights did not apply to gay men. As a result, they derogated against gay men. The result was not substantiated. However, I did find supporting evidence for the order effect. When judging a heterosexual male applicant before a gay male applicant, intergroup comparisons became salient, people would derogate against the gay male applicant. In Study 2, I adopted a crime judgment paradigm to address several potential problems in Study 1. I also applied the affect misattribution procedure to measure participants’ implicit attitude against gay men. This procedure allows me to distinguish aversive discriminators from non-discriminators. The results were consistent with the hypotheses derived from aversive racism theory. Participants derogated against a gay male suspect only when there was no consistent evidence in a criminal case; they treated a gay male suspect and a heterosexual male suspect equally when there was consistent evidence. Also, when participants judged a heterosexual male suspect before a gay male suspect, they would consider the gay male suspect to be guiltier than the heterosexual male suspect. The findings extend aversive racism theory to the understanding of discrimination against gay men and in the context of information order that makes intergroup comparisons salient. With the knowledge of context effects on discrimination against gay men, we are able to develop education programs for gender equality and offer insight on how to best guard against discrimination against gay men so that social equality may become possible.