Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts -and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, &Foster;, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ -not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.

The long-term impacts of bullying, stress, sexual prejudice and stigma against members of the LGBTQ population are both worrisome and expansive. Bullying among adolescents is one of the clearest and most well documented risks to adolescent health(Nansel et al., 2004; Wilkins-Shurmer et al., 2003; Wolke, Woods, Bloomfield, & Karstadt, 2001) The present study examined the influence of sexual orientation to severity of bullying experience, coping strategies, emotion regulation and the interaction of gender role endorsements in relation to coping and emotion regulation strategy prediction. Extensive research exists to support high victimization experiences in LGBT individuals (Birkett et al., 2009; Robert H DuRant et al., n.d.; Kimmel & Mahler, 2003; Mishna et al., 2009) and separately, research also indicates support of gender role non conformity, social stress and long term coping skills (Galambos et al., 1990; Sánchez et al., 2010; Tolman, Striepe, & Harmon, 2003b). The goal of this study was to extend previous finding to find a relationship between the three variables: sexual orientation, victimization history, and non-traditional gender role endorse and utilizing those traits as predictors of future emotion regulation and coping strategies. The data suggests that as a whole LGBT identified individuals experience bullying at a significantly higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts. By utilizing gender role endorsement the relationship can be expanded to predict maladaptive emotion regulation skills, higher rates of perceived stress and increased fear of negative evaluation in lesbian women and gay men. The data was consistent for all hypotheses in the model: sexual identity significantly predicts higher bully score and atypical gender role endorsement is a moderator of victimization in LGBT individuals. The findings indicate high masculine endorsement in lesbians and high feminine endorsement in gay males can significantly predict victimization and maladaptive coping skills, emotion dysregulation, increased stress, and lack of emotional awareness.