|UFDC Home||myUFDC Home | Help|
This item has the following downloads:
UNDERSTANDING HOMONEGATIVE ATTITUDES THROUGH SEX, RACE, AND
GENDER ROLE IDEOLOGIES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1972-1998 GENERAL
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
This thesis is dedicated to Scott-Lee Cash.
This paper would have not been possible without the consistent support of several
faculty members at the University of Florida. First and foremost I would like to thank
Kendal Broad for helping spawn my interest in gender and sexuality research, in addition
to always making herself available for both personal and professional advice. Secondly, I
wish to thank my committee members, Constance Shehan and Charles Peek. Charles has
always been there to shed light where there was empirical darkness, aiding me in my
growth as a graduate student and quantitative researcher. Connie has always been there to
offer both moral and emotional support. She has had the ability to give my work
substance and ground when I was at a loss for direction. Finally, I wish to thank John
Henretta. As the former Graduate Coordinator of the Department of Sociology, John has
offered me both logical and hard-to-come-by advice, guiding me into the transition of
becoming a graduate student. As the departmental chair, John has expressed a superior
sense of responsibility and moral obligation to all graduate students. He has always
pointed me in the right direction, whether in life or academically. In total, I would not be
where I am today without the combined support of Chuck, John, Kendal and Connie.
Distinctively and profoundly, they have influenced my past and shed light upon my
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TA BLE S .................. ............ .................. ....... ............ .. vii
LIST OF FIGURES ............. .. ..... ...... ........ ....... ............. ............. viii
ABSTRACT .............. ......................................... ix
1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................
2 BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE .............................................. ...............3
Sex and G ender R ole Ideologies............................................ ........................... 4
Racial D differences in H om onegativity ........................................ ...... ............... 8
A additional Influential V ariables ........................................ ........................... 10
E d u c atio n ............................................... ....................... 1 1
R religious Fundam entalism ............................................ ............................... 12
A g e .............................................................................. 12
P political Ideology ....................................... ......................... 13
H y p o th e se s ........................................................ ................ 13
3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS ................ ..................................15
S a m p le .................................................................................................................. 1 5
M e a su re s ............................................................................................................... 1 6
4 R E S U L T S .............................................................................2 1
U nivariate A naly sis .............................................................. 2 1
B iv ariate A n aly sis....................................................................................................... 2 2
Multivariate Analysis...................................... ........ 25
Intervening and Suppressor Effects ........................................27
N onadditivity ..................................... ........ ................... 31
Race interactions. .............................................................. 33
G ender interactions ....................... ...... ... ................36
Interactions with sex, race, and the gender role scale ................................36
5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ........................................ ...................... 39
6 LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................... ..........................44
L IST O F R E FE R E N C E S ............................................................................. .............. 47
B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ...................................................................... ..................52
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 Factorial analysis and Chronbach's alpha for HomoScale and RoleScale ................18
4 -1 U niv ariate statistics........................................................................... .....................22
4-2 Sam ple size and m eans by year ................................. ............... ............... 22
4-3 Correlation matrix for all quantitative variables............................... ............... 24
4-4 Pearson correlation between HomoScale and RoleScale. .........................................24
4-5 Racial and gender differences using T-tests. .......................................................25
4-6 M odel sum m aries ........................... .......................... .... .... ........ ........28
4-7 M odel summaries with nonadditivity ...................................................................... 32
LIST OF FIGURES
4-1 Interactive effects of education and race on homonegativity .............. ...................34
4-2 Interactive effects of religious fundamentalism and race on homonegativity ...........35
4-3 Interactive effects of race and political ideology on homonegativity. ........................36
4-4 Interactive effects of education and gender on homonegativity..............................37
4-5 Interactive effects of gender and the RoleScale on homonegativity. ..........................38
4-6 Interactive effects of race and the RoleScale on homonegativity. .............................38
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master or Arts
UNDERSTANDING HOMONEGATIVE ATTITUDES THROUGH SEX, RACE, AND
GENDER ROLE IDEOLOGIES: AN ANALYSIS OF THE 1972-1998 GENERAL
Chair: Constance Shehan
Cochair: Charles W. Peek
Major Department: Sociology
This study attempts to analyze homonegativity as an expression of contempt for
violations in perceived gender role ideologies. Society assigns and constricts individuals
into strict behavioral patterns based on ideas about gender roles. Individuals who violate
these roles are often perceived as deviant and subsequently treated as such. Additionally,
previous research has demonstrated both racial and gender differences in homonegative
attitudes with African Americans and males displaying more homonegativity. This study
gives considerable attention to the interaction between race and gender.
Data used are from the 1977-1998 General Social Survey. The General Social
Survey is a face-to-face interview administered to a representative sample of the English-
speaking American public over the age of 18. Gender role ideologies were measured
using a scale of questions about attitudes toward women (e.g., women in politics, women
in the workforce, women and the family). Homonegativity was measured using a scale of
questions about attitudes toward homosexuals (e.g., allowing a homosexual to teach in a
college, allowing a book written by a homosexual to remain in a library).
The data show a strong relationship between supporting traditional gender role
ideologies and being homonegative. Additionally, Caucasian homonegativity is more
sensitive to changes in educational attainment, religious fundamentalism, political
ideology, and gender role attitudes. Similarly, male homonegative attitudes are more
sensitive to changes in education and gender role ideologies.
There are a large number of characteristics an individual may possess that guide the
individual's belief and attitudinal schemas. Individuals possess both biological drives and
social characteristics that can sometimes be used to better explain social phenomenon.
Features of an individual's religious background, race, educational attainment,
upbringing, immediate environment, socioeconomic status, etcetera all interact with one
another and impact how individuals interact with others. This analysis attempts to better
predict the characteristics in individuals that allow them to hold negative attitudes toward
gays and lesbians. Specifically, this analysis addresses how gender role ideologies, race
and gender impact attitudes toward lesbians and gays. Demographic (control)
characteristics are also taken into consideration.
There is never one reason why an individual displays homonegative affect or
behaviors. However social science has been able to identify several key predictors (e.g.,
religious fundamentalism, age, and educational attainment.) This study explores the facet
of how attitudes about sex roles impact homophobia. Moreover, it explores the probable
connection between a traditional sex role ideology and a liberal or egalitarian sex role
ideology. The idea of sex roles was proposed after World War II and originally applied to
the area of family studies (Ferree 1990). Individuals in the traditional family were seen as
fulfilling certain roles (e.g., women nurture and men provide). Feminist thought of the
1960s and later challenged these ideologies, as they were seen as contributing to and
justifying the subjugation of women (e.g., women should raise children rather than seek
employment or education). Although sex role theory was originally applied to the family,
and later rejected for its apparent flaws, members of society today still hold belief
patterns that men are to fit into a certain set of behavior patterns just as women are
(Ferree 1990). Homosexual individuals violate the sex roles assigned to them by society,
as they are not procreative and oftentimes do not adhere to a standard set of masculine or
feminine behaviors. This is further complicated by the stereotypical images society
upholds when envisioning homosexuals as individuals and a group (e.g., flamboyant-sex-
crazed gay men and "masculine-ized" butch-lesbian women) (Faderman 1991). These
flawed images are perpetuated by a number of factors (e.g., media misrepresentation and
sensationalism, individuals who are closeted about their sexuality, the persistence of
homophobia). The purpose of this analysis is not to unveil all factors leading to the
continuances of homophobia, but rather explicate interactions among gender, race, and
gender role ideologies and how they impact social attitudes.
Conclusions can expose the intricate linkage between the subjugation of women
and the subjugation of other sexual minorities, and can add to the understandings of
societal views of sex-role ideologies. Finally, our understanding of why potential
universal gender and racial differences exist is quite limited. Analyzing confounding
effects will better help unmask why differences are perpetuated. Implications could lead
to protocol that may help individuals to think outside of the gender box to understand the
fluidity of gender rather than to polarize roles.
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE
The scientific study of gays did not emerge until the later half of the last century,
and a most of the research pathologized the behavior. It was not until 1973 that the
American Psychiatric Association, which had classified it as a mental disorder, removed
homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. Understandably, the body of
academic research on gays is limited, hence so is the specific study of homonegativity.
In 1973 Weinberg documented a term in academic literature describing negative
attitudes toward lesbians and gays. That term was "homophobia" and directly meant "the
dread of being in close quarters with homosexuals and in the case of homosexuals
themselves, self-loathing" (p. 4). Over the years the term has been redefined as
attitudinal structures toward gays and lesbians have been better studied. In 1983, Gramick
created the term "homosexphobia" to describe a fear of homosexuality. Other terms since
created include "sexual prejudice," "homonegativity" (Herek 2000) "homosexism,"
(Hansen 1982) and "homoprejudice" (Logan 1996). Although "homophobia" is the most
common term (because it was the first), many social scientists have identified an inherent
flaw with it. Using a medical model, homophobia as a term has pathological implications
that may not be inherent. For the purposes of this paper the term homonegativity will be
used to define negative attitudes toward lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders1.
1 For the purposes of simplicity the terms LGBT and/or gay will be used synonymously to describe
lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders alike.
Substantial negative impacts of homonegativity on gays have been noted. Gay
youth are seven times more likely to attempt suicide when compared to other teens
(Baumrind 1995). Additionally, gay teens have higher levels of self-reported stress and
substance abuse. Finally, these teens are more likely to experience rejection by friends
and also by family. The United States Gay and Lesbian Task Force found that more than
75% of lesbians and 90% of gay men had been verbally harassed because of their
sexuality (Herek 1988). In 1988, Herek found that 50% of gay males and more than a
third of lesbian females reported being threatened with physical violence.
The Kaiser Family Foundation (2001) conducted an opinion survey among the
general public with a specific oversample of gays. Among the gay sample, Kaiser found a
large majority felt there was more acceptance of homosexuality today compared to a few
years ago. On the contrary, almost three-quarters of this gay sub sample had experienced
a significant amount of both prejudice and discrimination because of their sexual
orientation. Finally, about one-third of the sample indicated that their family (or a family
member) has refused to accept them because of their sexuality.
The Kaiser Foundation found that most of the general public reports knowing
someone who is gay. Secondly the general public also agrees that there is greater
acceptance of gays today compared to a few years ago. Nonetheless, about half of the
sample felt that homosexual behavior is morally wrong. Although public support may be
increasing toward gays, homonegativity in some forms is still widespread and needs
attention as to its causal and contributing factors.
Sex and Gender role Ideologies
Research by and large has found that heterosexual males, in general, display more
homonegativity than females (D'Augelli and Rose 1990, Fishbein 1996, Herek 1986,
1988, 1994, 2002, Hudson and Ricketts 1980, Johnson et al. 1997, Kite 1984, Klamen et
al. 1999, Morin and Garfinklel 1978, Oliver and Hyde 1993, Pratte 1993, Price 1982,
Seltzer 1992, Thompson et al. 1985, Whitley and Kite 1995). Males are generally
socialized to more stringent hetero-normative gender roles, whereas females are given
more freedom in the gender roles they may fulfill. An individual who violates her or his
gender role is more likely to be treated as deviant (Laner and Laner 1979, 1980).
Moreover, Laner and Laner (1979) found that lesbians and gays experience
homonegative affect, in part, because of their perceived sex-role deviance. Specifically, a
male who violates his gender role is likely to be treated more as a deviant than a female
who violates her socially defined role (Herek 1994, Kite and Whitley 1996). Herek
(1984) found homonegative individuals more often were highly authoritarian, had
traditional attitude toward gender roles, were more negative toward other minority
groups, had less education, and were male. Deaux and Kite (1987) found that
heterosexual attitudes toward gays and lesbians are influenced by a "generalized gender
belief system," defined as "a set of beliefs and opinions about males and females and
about the purported qualities of masculinity and femininity" (p. 97). They further discuss
that this gender-belief-system drives stereotypes including attitudes toward appropriate
gendered behavior, toward men and women, and toward those who violate these
stereotypes. Research supports that women's homonegative attitudes are more inclined to
change compared to men's (Lance 1992). Kite and Whitley (1996) argue that rigid
gender roles arguably require [heterosexual] men to eschew homosexuality. Because men
are expected to avoid feminine traits or activities, and because gay persons are often
thought to be deviant from appropriate gender roles, men may feel pressured to display
antigay prejudice" (p. 338). In summary, there is a strong link between traditional gender
role ideologies and homonegativity. More important are the potential differences in the
links between gender role ideologies and homonegavity that may exist based on gender.
Earlier research supports that greater levels of homonegativity are derived from more
stringent gender role ideologies, that men succumb to more stringent ideologies than
women, and that men are more homonegative.
Research has continually identified the existence of gender differences in attitudes
toward gays with emphasis that men tend to be more homonegative. Empirical reasoning
explaining this distinction lacks development. "Heterosexuality is equated ideologically
with 'normal' masculinity and 'normal' femininity, whereas homosexuality is equated
with violating the norms of gender" (Herek 1988, p. 97). Society has polarized
understandings of gender (Bem 1993); forcing individuals to either conform or face
consequences. Polar ideologies are not new to social understanding but rather indicative
of human schematic understandings (e.g., black or white, fat or thin, male or female,
good or evil, heaven or hell).
Heterosexuals tend to expresses more negative attitudes toward homosexual
individuals of the same sex; this pattern is more pronounced among men than women
(Kite and Whitley 1996). Researchers typically do not distinguish between attitudes
toward gays and lesbians. Most often the terms gay or homosexual are used to describe
both. Gender biases could lead respondents to consider attitudes toward gay men before
they consider attitudes toward lesbians. Herek (2002) proposes that individual attitudes
toward gays and lesbians may reflect that individuals attitudes toward her or his own
"Because of homosexuality's stigmatized status, many heterosexuals wish to avoid
being labeled gay or lesbian, and this concern is probably stronger among men in
the U.S. society. Some individuals may feel a particular need to distance
themselves from gay people because they have experienced homosexual desired or
engaged in same-sex behaviors, which they regard as extremely unacceptable and
inconsistent with their self-concept" (p 43).
In essence, a man's sense of masculine identity may encounter more insecurity,
causing him to display more homonegative affect. This is in concurrence with earlier
researched indicating that men have less liberty in the gender/sex role behaviors they may
display. In contrast, women have more liberty in the gender/sex roles they may
undertake. This may give a female individual more security in her attitudes toward
individuals who violate their gender roles. Additionally, this helps explain why
homonegative affect is sometimes less severe for lesbians than gay men.
In accord with the previous discussion, there is one research study that refutes all
previous findings indicating males are more homophobic than females. Proulx (1997)
sampled 553 Brazilian college university students and found a complete inversion of
gender and homophobia (i.e., women were more homonegative than men and
homonegativity was more pronounced between heterosexual women toward lesbians than
between heterosexual men and gay men). Proulx hypothesized that these differences are
probably due to Brazilan culture, in that the women of this area undergo rigid gender
roles. This data clearly supports Herek's (2002) postulations about the correlations
between rigid gender role structures and subsequent attitudes toward gays and lesbians.
The Proulx study is a counter example that supports the hypothesis and offers reasoning
as to why these characteristics may exist.
In sum, research has clearly defined three things. First there has been discussion on
the impact of gender role ideologies on homonegativity finding that traditional gender
role ideologies contribute to greater homonegativity. Second has been the discussion of
gender differences in homonegativity suggesting that, in most cases, females are less
homonegative than males. Finally, there is the discussion that gender role ideologies are
dependent upon gender, finding that males are subjected to more stringent gender role
structures giving them more traditional belief patterns. Unfortunately, there is little to no
empirical research that moves far beyond this to develop other influential factors that
may cause or mask these relationships. This study will attempt to examine the impact of
gender and gender role ideologies on homonegativity, and how interaction between the
two may better explain why differences continue to exist.
The items selected for the scale measuring gender role ideologies assess several
aspects of attitudes about gender roles but they center only on attitudes toward women.
Although simply assessing attitudes toward women may not ascertain all aspects of
gender role ideologies, they do help assess a significant portion of them. Ideally this
assessment would include a variety of gender role attitudes (e.g., attitudes about men's
behaviors), however the General Social Survey does not elaborate into this aspect.
Racial Differences in Homonegativity
Racial or ethnic makeup is a second predictor of homonegavity. The General Social
Survey conglomerates race and ethnicity into three categories: Caucasians, African
Americans, and other. In this study, the "other" group has been omitted due to lack of
sample size and complex variability in race and ethnicity that is sure to exist within such
a category. When comparing African Americans to Whites it is plausible to think that,
because of the civil rights and equality struggles that African Americans have endured
over the course of the last millennium, African Americans could be more compassionate
to other minority groups being discriminated against in similar fashions. In this type of
discussion, gays would be categorized as a sexual minority. In contrast, it is plausible to
believe that because African Americans may value a more traditional family model, are
on average more religious, and hold more stringent constructs of gender role
identifications, they would thereby be more homonegative. Research seems to support the
latter model more.
Chng and Moore (1991) found that African American males were more
homophobic than Caucasian males based on the information reported from nine African
American respondents. It was found that African American females displayed less
tolerance toward homosexuals than Caucasian females (Ernst et al. 1991). Black et al.
(1998) studied the relationship of homophobia and sexism among social work students.
Their findings support research that correlates gender roles and homonegativity. They
additionally found that changes in sexist and corresponding homophobic attitudes might
occur with greater ease among Caucasians than among African Americans.
Unfortunately, Black et al. offer no assessment explaining this interaction other than
citing the 1995 study by Blee and Tickamyer. Blee and Tickamyer noted that gender
roles specifically were more multidimensional for African American men than Caucasian
men. In all, African American homonegativity could be better explained through the
differences between Caucasians and African Americans in their attitudes about gender
roles. In these circumstances, research has both reified the relationship between gender
roles and homonegativty, while considering racial and gender differences.
Klamen et al. (1999) study of medical students found that the African American
respondents were more likely to agree with statements such as "Homosexuality is
immoral" (p 58). The same study also found that, when compared to other ethnic groups,
African Americans were much more likely to oppose statements such as "Homosexuals
should have equal employment opportunity" (p 59). Wills and Crawford's 2000 study
found that "African Americans were more likely to attribute the cause of homosexuality
to a moral choice while other ethnic groups tended to say a combination of biology and
environment" (p 101).
In general, it is found that condemnation against homosexuals is greatest in African
American communities when compared to Caucasians (Freudenberg 1989, Staples 1982,
Waldner et al. 1999). In contrast, African American homosexuals are not rejected by their
families to the extent that Caucasian homosexuals are (Greaves 1987). This could be due
to stronger family ties within the African American community. It has clearly been
identified that homonegativity in African Americans is greater than that in Caucasians.
Little research addresses the reasons why this may be the case. Harper (1991) suggested
that this might be due to African Americans greater sense of nationalism that emerged
from the civil rights movements of the 1960s. This suggests that homosexuality is viewed
or can be viewed as un-American.
This study attempts to discover both the influence race has over homonegativity in
addition to assessing its confounding effects with other variables such as education,
gender role ideologies, religious fundamentalism, and political ideology. As in the case of
gender, much research has discussed the existence of this relationship, however little has
been done to empirically examine why it exists.
Additional Influential Variables
In analyzing potential racial or gender differences in homonegativity or the impact
of gender role ideologies on homonegativity, it is necessary to consider other common
variables identified as having influence over homonegative attitudes. This analysis is
necessary because these other influential variables can vary across both race and gender.
Only when we control for these differences, might we be able to obtain a clearer picture
of the effects of race, gender, and gender role ideologies.
It is a general fact that a college education tends to increase ones sense of
liberalness. Individuals with lower levels of education are less likely to have exposure to
the vast aspects of many social issues. Many activists have hailed high schools as being
some of the most homophobic institutions in existence. In general, neither texts nor
teachers in secondary institutions cover the environmental, social, and biological aspects
of homosexuality. Understandably these aspects are not touched upon in any lower levels
of schooling either (e.g., middle school or elementary school). Colleges are known for
fostering social change; nonetheless "anti-gay sentiments are [still] prevalent (and even
fostered) at the university level" (Walters and Hayes 1998, p. 3).
Whitley's 1987 study of college students found that older students were less
negative toward homosexuals than were the younger ones. First year college students, in
general, displayed negative attitudes toward homosexuality (Young and Whertvine
1982). Although both Whitley's and Young and Whertvine's research from the 1980s
may seem dated, many researchers have consistently found that the less education a
person has, the more likely she or he is to display homonegative attitudes (Beran, et al.
1992, Bowman 1979, Glenn and Weaver 1979, Irwin and Thompson 1977, Nyberg and
Alston 1976, Price and Hsu 1992). Wills and Crawford (2000) found that people with a
masters or doctorate degree were least likely to agree with questions concerning gays
going to hell as a result of sexual orientation. They also found that respondents with a
high school diploma or below were more likely to attribute homosexuality to a moral
choice, rather than environment or biology. Finally, they found respondents with a high
school degree or below were less in favor of homosexuals having equal civil rights.
Certain religious segments have been most noted for expressing homonegavity
(e.g., the Christian coalition). In this study, level of religious fundamentalism, in contrast
to liberalism, will be controlled for. Admittedly, there are many factors of religion that
can impact homonegativity such as extent of intrinsic beliefs, denomination, frequency of
church attendance, etc.
On average, Catholics are usually more tolerant of homosexuality than are
Protestants (Bierly 1985, Wills and Crawford 2000). People whose religion has a more
fundamentalist orientation are more likely to be homonegative compared to individuals
with religions that have less fundamentalist orientations (Herek and Glunt 1993). Herek
(1994) found that simply being more religious would cause a person to exhibit a more
anti-homosexual attitude. In contrast, research supports that individuals high in several
aspects of religiosity will internalize their beliefs; thereby they display less
homonegativty than individuals who use religion as an explanation for current social
climates (Batson et al. 1986).
The children of both Generation D and Generation X have been growing up in an
era where gays are being portrayed by the media in a more positive light. Some of the
only negative media attention that a member of Generation X would have heard about
gays may have centered on the HIV/AIDS epidemic. For the most part, it is now socially
accepted that HIV/AIDS is not a gay disease, and hence much of that attribution has been
dispelled. Members of previous generation cohorts, such as the baby boomers and those
before them, grew up in eras where they saw homosexuality was still classified under a
medical model as a mental disorder. Similarly, they lived in times where it was
acceptable for the police to harass lesbians and gays, and in general to display
homonegative affects and behaviors. Individuals growing up and being raised in a society
where gays are more accepted would be more socially conditioned to accept
homosexuality. Similarly, individuals who grew up and were raised to believe that
some/all aspects of homosexuality are in some part wrong would be more secure in those
beliefs. The older an individual is (or the longer they spent in a time period where
homonegativity was more acceptable) the more homonegative attitudes they will continue
Research has supported that homonegativity is positively correlated to the level of
political conservativism a person displays (Whitcomb 2001). Heaven and Oxman (1999)
found that males were more likely display conservative attitudes and that these attitudes
correlated strongly with homonegativity. Among members of the military Marine Corps,
researchers found that homonegativity and conservative attitudes correlated strongly
(Estrada 1999). There is a clear positive relationship between politically conservative
attitudes and homonegativity.
Based on the literature review and corresponding theoretical framework built for
this study, the following relationships are believe to be demonstrated by the data:
* Individuals with more traditional gender role ideologies will have more
* Males will display more traditional gender role ideologies than females.
* Males will display more homonegativity than females.
* African Americans will display more homonegativity than Caucasians.
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
The General Social Survey, a time series study based on a probability sample, is a
survey of opinions and beliefs administered face to face every few years to a
representative sample of the United States population. Its content briefly addresses a
plethora of topics including attitudes about the government, abortion, welfare, suicide,
pornography, work, family etc. Sample sizes for each survey year are roughly under
3,000 individuals with an over sample of African Americans. Data span from 1972
through 2000. This study uses data from the 1977, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1993,
1994, 1996, and 1998 datasets (N = 6133)2. In order to be qualified for sample
consideration respondents must have been between the ages of 18 and 89 years, English-
speaking, and not institutionalized at the time of the survey (i.e., whose who reside in
nursing homes, incarcerated individuals, or those committed to mental institutions are not
surveyed). Significant limitations of this survey include the exclusion of non-English
speaking households and individuals living on U.S. Military bases. The response rate is
2 Data were originally to be taken from the 1998 dataset alone. Unfortunately, not a great enough number of
respondents answered all questions relevant to the two scales. To counteract, all years were included into
the sample selection. Again, not all questions were asked every year. The final set of years utilized reflects
those in which all items on the selected scales were asked to respondents (1977, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990,
1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, and 1998 See Table 3) Additionally the sample size of 6133 does not reflect all
respondents from those years, but rather those remaining who answered all questions used in this study.
Two scales will be used for this analysis. The dependent variable is constructed
from an array of questions assessing attitudes toward homosexuals. As mentioned,
gender role ideologies constitute one of the major explanatory variables in this study.
Attitudes about gender roles were assessed using an array of questions specifically about
the roles of women.
The Homonegativity scale (HomoScale) was be derived from the following series
* HOMOSEX: "What about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex -
do you think it is ...
* SPKHOMO: "And what about a man who admits that he is a homosexual. Suppose
this admitted homosexual wanted to make a speech in your community. Should he
be allowed to speak, or not?"
* COLHOMO: "Should a homosexual be allowed to teach in a college or university,
* LIBHOMO: "If someone in your community suggested that a book, written by a
homosexual, in favor of homosexuality should be taken out of your public library,
would you favor removing this book or not?"
The question HOMOSEX4 is coded on a scale from 1 to 4 (Strongly Disagree,
Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree), while the other three mnemonics are dichotomized
(e.g., yes or no, allow or not allow). The responses of the HOMOSEX variable were
collapsed into dichotomous categories in order to match the other variables in the scale.
This additionally prevents overweighing the responses for other items in the scale. Items
3 The homonegativity scale originally included the variable ASKSEXOR: "Before giving an individual
secret or top-secret clearance, the government should have the right to ask a person their sexual
orientation?" The inclusion of this variable into the scale presented a significant problem, as there were a
limited number of individuals this question was asked of. The sample size was cut virtually in half with the
inclusion of this variable.
4 The mnemonic for ASKSEXOR also was on a 4-point scale similar to HOMOSEX, however omitted (See
on the homonegativity scale were reordered and added together so that a score of zero
represents complete acceptance of homosexuality while a score of 4 represents the
highest level of homonegativity.
The second scale on attitudes about gender roles (RoleScale) includes the following
* FEFAM: "Now I'm going to read several more statements. As I read each one,
please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree
with it. For example, here is the statement: D. It is much better for everyone
involved if the man is the achiever outside the home and the woman takes care of
the home and family."
* FECHLD: "Now I'm going to read several more statements. As I read each one,
please tell me whether you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree
with it. For example, here is the statement: A. A working mother can establish just
as warm and secure a relationship with her children as a mother who does not
* FEHOME: Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Women should take care
of running their homes and leave running the country up to men.
* FEPOL: Tell me if you agree or disagree with this statement: Most men are better
suited emotionally for politics than are most women.
* FEWORK: Do you approve or disapprove of a married woman earning money in
business or industry if she has a husband capable of supporting her?
The questions FEFAM and FECHLD are on a four-point scale (similar to
HOMOSEX). The remaining variables are on a two-point scale of "Agree or Disagree."
Both FEFAM and FECHLD were recorded into dichotomous categories much like
HOMOSEX. Like the homonegativity scale, the gender role scale will range from 0 to 5
with higher scores indicating more traditional attitudes about gender roles (in contrast to
lower scores indicating more egalitarian attitudes). Scales are being used rather than
individual items because the items selected represent variations in similar characteristics.
Both the homonegativity scale and gender role scale were assessed for reliability
using factorial analysis and Varimax rotation (Table 3-1). Varimax rotation identified one
factor for each scale. Follow-up analysis computed Chronbach's alpha for both scales (a
= 0.783 for the homonegativity scale and a = 0.697 for the gender roles scale) (Tables 4-
1 and 4-2). Overall mean value for the homonegativity scale was 1.627 with insignificant
skew and slightly platykurtotic kurtosiss = -1.026). The gender role scale had an overall
mean of 1.510 and was neither significantly skewed nor kurtotic (Table 4-1).
Table 3-1 Factorial analysis and Chronbach's alpha for HomoScale and RoleScale
Alpha if item
Variable Factor deleted
HomoScale Homosex 0.5827 0.8228 Chronbach Alpha = 0.7827
Colhomo 0.8604 0.6734
Spkhomo 0.8466 0.6922
Libhomo 0.8124 0.7104
RoleScale Fefam 0.7639 0.5992 Chronbach Alpha 0.6966
Fechld 0.6058 0.6736
Fepol 0.6996 0.6459
Fehome 0.7884 0.5999
_Fework 0.4879 0.7048
Source, General Social Survey 1977-1998
As discussed, gender and race were also included in this analysis. Gender was
dichotomized into male and female (F = 1) while race was dichotomized into African
American and Caucasian (Af. Amer. = 1).
Finally, the additional control factors were included. These factors include the age
at the time of the interview (in years), highest educational attainment of the respondent
(in years), religious fundamentalism, and the political ideology of the respondents.
Religious fundamentalism was measured by asking respondents how they identified their
religious beliefs (fundamental, moderate or liberal)5. Political ideology was measured
using a seven-point scale in which respondents were asked to indicate where they "fall"
in their political beliefs (1 being extremely liberal and 7 being extremely conservative).
Finally, educational attainment was measured by asking respondents what was the
highest grade completed. Responses could vary from 0 (no formal schooling) to 20 (a
doctoral degree or greater than four years of schooling beyond a bachelors degree). As
discussed, research has identified that older individuals, and individuals with less
education display more homonegativity. Furthermore, individuals who identify as
politically conservative or religiously fundamental also have a tendency to display more
Univariate, Bivariate, and Ordinary Least Squares multivariate analysis were used
to see how gender role attitudes, gender and race confound to explain homonegative
affect. All models will take into consideration the year the data were collected, which
were coded into a series of dummy variables. For modeling purposes, data from the year
1998 were excluded as this year represented the reference category. As discussed,
homonegative attitudes have been in flux over the course of the last quarter century.
Consistent consideration for the year of data collection will help better show the effects
of independent variables net of year.
Model building will consider the effects of all variables discussed simultaneously
(Model 2, Table 4-6), the impact of gender role ideologies alone (Model 1), the impact of
5 In the assessment of both scales and all independent variables, non-response to any one of the questions
constituted exclusion from the sample. In the end, 6133 individuals remained. See also, comment 2.
Fundamentalism was coded 1 through 3 with higher values corresponding to liberal orientation.
gender alone (Model 3) and race alone (Model 9). Gender role ideologies, gender, and
race are believed to provide substantial impacts on homonegativity. To assess the impacts
of other confounding variables on the significance of gender and race, additional models
were run (Models 4-8 and 10). Finally, assessment of nonadditivity between both gender
and race with other variables was taken into consideration (Models 11-16, Table 4-7).
Approximately 11.3% of the sample was comprised of African American
individuals. The remaining 88.7% were identified as Caucasian. The sample was
comprised of approximately 56% female and 44% male6. The mean age was roughly 44.5
years with a median of 41 years (Table 4-1). As stated, ages varied from 18 to 89 years.
The mean education of the sample was 12.88 years, or basically just short of one year of
college. The median education reported was the 12th grade. Religious fundamentalism
was coded by asking respondents whether their religious denomination was
fundamentalist, moderate, or liberal (coded 1 through 3 with higher values indicating
more liberalism). Mean value for fundamentalism was 1.94 with both the median and
mode at 2 (moderate). Finally, for political ideology, respondents were asked how they
identified on a scale from 1 through 7 with a response of 1 indicating "extremely liberal"
while a response of 7 corresponded to "extremely conservative." Mean response was 4.07
(moderate) with a median and mode of 4 as well. Distributions for all variables were
approximately normal, with the exception of a slightly platykurtotic distribution for
religious fundamentalism (Kurtosis = -1.26). The final sample size was 6133 (Table 4-2).
6 Race was dummy coded with values of 0 corresponding to Caucasian and 1 corresponding to African
Americans. Gender was dummy coded with the 1 group representing females.
Table 4-1 Univariate statistics
HomoScale* 0 1496 24.39 1.626 1.412 0.546 -1.026 0 4
1 2087 34.03
2 873 14.23
3 567 9.25
4 1110 18.1
RoleScale** 0 2132 34.76 1.510 1.514 0.756 -0.507 0 5
1 1430 23.32
2 1019 16.62
3 720 11.74
4 526 8.58
5 306 4.99
Afam 0.113 0 1
Female 0.562 0 1
Age 44.473 16.932 0.515 -0.645 18 89
Education 12.878 3.020 -0.171 0.767 0 20
Fundamental __1.943 0.759 0.095 -1.258 1 3
Political ID 4.071 1.383 -0.071 -0.456 1 7
Increasing values correspond to increasing HomoNegativity
** Increasing values correspond to increasing traditional gender role ideologies
Source, General Social Survey 1977-1998
Table 4-2 Sample size and means by year
Sample HomoScale RoleScale
Year size mean* mean**
1977 1163 2.012 2.321
1985 1193 1.881 1.599
1988 344 1.721 1.439
1989 359 1.585 1.337
1990 329 1.623 1.357
1991 362 1.619 1.461
1993 397 1.484 1.237
1994 693 1.345 1.082
1996 681 1.248 1.141
1998 612 1.206 1.223
Higher values correspond to more negative attitudes
** Higher values correspond to more traditional gender role attitudes
Source, General Social Survey 1977-1998
Pearson's Correlations were assessed for all quantitative variables (e.g., both scales,
respondent age, education, political ideology, and religious fundamentalism) (Table 4-3).
Correlations were significant in all relationships except for those between religious
Kurtosis Min Max
fundamentalism and age. The homonegative scale had a positive moderate correlation
with the gender role scale supporting the first hypothesis that individuals expressing
traditional gender role ideologies were also more homonegative (r = 0.48, p < 0.01). The
homonegative scale also had positive weak correlations with age and political ideology (r
= 0.26, p < 0.01, and r = 0.22, p < 0.01 respectively), supporting expected relationships
between both older individuals displaying more homonegativity and politically
conservative individuals expressing more homonegativity. Additionally, there was a
moderate negative correlation between respondent's education and reported
homonegativity (r = -0.41, p < 0.01) supporting that individuals with a higher education
will report less homonegativity. Further, there is weak negative correlation between the
homonegative scale and religious fundamentalism (r = -0.295, p < 0.01), supporting that
religiously liberal individuals report less homonegativity. Noteworthy is the substantial
correlation between the homonegative scale and the gender role scale (r = 0.48, p < 0.01).
Finally, correlations among independent variables, although significant, were relatively
weak ruling out possible multicolinearity (Table 4-3).
Because the focus of this project ascertains the relationship between homonegative
attitudes and gender role ideologies, correlations by year were assessed between the two
scales (Table 4-4). Overall, the strength and direction of the relationship is relatively
consistent. There is a slight dip in the strength of the correlation in 1989 (r1989 = 0.34),
however not a substantial drop. Nonetheless, the strength of the relationships between the
scales was at its highest point a year prior (r1988 = 0.55).
Table 4-3 Correlation matrix for all quantitative variables
HomoS RoleS Educ- Fund- Pol.
cale cale Age ation mental views
Homoscale 1 0.48 0.26 -0.41 -0.295 0.22
Rolescale 1 0.33 -0.36 -0.18 0.19
Age 1 -0.24 0.01 0.12
Education 1 0.23 -0.05
Fundamental __1 -0.14
Pol. Views 1
Values correspond to Pearson's correlation
NOT Significant a > 0.05
Source, General Social Survey, 1977-1998
Table 4-4 Pearson correlation between HomoScale and RoleScale
*All significant a p < 0.01
Source, General Social Survey 1977-1998
Assessment of potential racial or gender differences were calculated using
independent sample t-tests (Table 4-5). Focusing on racial differences, we find that
African Americans report a mean higher score on the homonegative scale. This supports
the fourth hypothesis that African Americans will display more homonegativity than
Caucasians. There are no significant racial differences on answers toward the gender role
scale. Nonetheless, there are significant racial differences in age, education, religious
fundamentalism, and political ideology. In sum, we find that African Americans in the
sample are approximately three years younger, have about a year less education, are more
fundamentalist, and politically liberal than Caucasians in the sample.
Table 4-5 Racial and gender differences using T-tests
Mean for African
Variable T value p-value Whites Americans
Race Homoscale -4.73 .01 1.596 1.86
RoleScale -0.05 0.61
Age 4.32 .01 44.8 41.9
Education 7.72 .01 12.98 12.05
Fundamental 18.12 .01 2 1.46
Pol. Views 3.74 <.01 4.09 3.89
Mean for Mean for
Gender HomoScale 1.78 0.08
RoleScale 4.72 <.05 1.61 1.43
Age -2.96 <.01 43.7 45
Education 3.85 <.01 13 12.7
Fundamental 4.56 <.01 1.99 1.90
Pol. Views 1.57 0.11
Source, General Social Survey 1977-1998
In analysis of gender differences, we find no differences in mean scores on the
homonegative scale. This does not support the third hypothesis that men will display
more homonegative attitudes than women. As expected, we do find gender differences in
that women are more egalitarian in their gender role ideologies, supporting the second
hypothesis. Additionally, women are about a year and a half older on average, have less
education, and report more fundamentalist religious ideologies than men. Finally, we find
no significant gender differences in political ideology. Hypothetical stipulations and
previous research have both supported that women tend to display less homonegativity
than males. Controlling for differences between males and females in age, education,
gender role ideologies, and/or religious fundamentalism may help to better expose the
relationship between gender and homonegativity
In an effort to understand the effects of the independent variables on the
homonegative scale while controlling for the effects of other variables, multivariate
analysis was conducted using Ordinary Least Squares methods. Model 1 (Table 4-6)
presents the effects of the gender role scale on the homonegative scale while controlling
for the variability in each year the data were collected. As stated, dummy coding was
allowed for each year data were collected from and 1998 is excluded from all models as it
acts as the reference group. In Model 1, we see the effect of traditional gender views on
homonegativity is positive and significant. Increases in traditional gender role ideologies
correspond to increases in homonegativity (Std. B = 0.466, p < 0.05). Additionally,
significant to all models is the apparent "spike" attributed to the data from the year 1985.
It is believed that this spike in overall predicted homonegativity could be better attributed
to the historical events surrounding the discovery of HIV/AIDS in the early 1980's and
its greater incidences among gay men. In 1984, nationwide recognition was given to the
existence of this epidemic. At that time, the disease was mainly affecting gay men.
Societal initial responses were to both blame the disease on gay men and also allow
justification as punishment for immoral behavior. This spike observed consistently in
1985 could be evidence of a period effect being experienced in response anti-gay
sentiments associated with the HIV/AIDS epidemic. With time, there was an increase in
recognition that this disease was not necessarily a gay disease. This could explain the
observed drops in homonegativity attributed to subsequent years of data. Finally, while
controlling for the years data were collected, we see that more recent years (in particular
1994 and 1996) do not contribute significantly compared to 1998 in explaining
homonegativity. This can be described as a plateau effect. In essence, we see an overall
pattern of decrease in homonegativty across the years with diminishing effects in more
Model 2 considers all variables introduced in this study (Full Model). Controlling
for the effects of gender, race, education, religious fundamentalism, political ideology,
and the years the data were collected, we still observe a significant contribution of gender
role ideologies on attitudes toward homosexuals. As stated, all models that include the
gender role scale as a predictor, find that the gender role scale contributes the most
predictive ability (demonstrated by its Standardized Estimate). In analysis of other
control factors, we find all expected relationships confirmed with the exception of
predicted racial differences. In Model 2, we find that race is not a significant predictor of
attitudes toward homosexuals while controlling for other factors. Otherwise, net of the
effects of other variables, we find that men, older individuals, those with lower levels of
education, those expressing fundamentalist religious ideologies, those with traditional
gender role ideologies and those expressing conservative political ideologies are all
predicted to display more homonegative attitudes than their counterparts. Using a
subsequent F-test, model 2 provides overall explanatory power of the homonegativity
scale (F = 209 p < 0.05)7. In analysis of this power, we find that approximately 35% of
the variability in the homonegativity scale can be better explained by the gender role
scale, race, gender, education, political ideology, age and religious fundamentalism
compared to using the mean of the homonegativity scale alone (R2 = 0.353).
Intervening and Suppressor Effects
The data at hand present both intervening and suppressor effects related to expected
relationships among race and gender and their effects on homonegativity. As remarked in
Significant F-statistics were obtained from all models discussed.
Table 4-6 Model summaries**
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Model 10
Intercept .719 2.120 1.234 3.727 2.357 .239 2.142 2.59 .673 1.55
RoleScale .466 (.434) .300 (.280) .351 (.327) .320 (.299) .465 (.433) .427 (.398) *
Afam .016 (.071) .063 (.281) .016 (.069)
Female -.025 (-.072) -.017 (-.047) -038 (.108) -.033 (-.097) -.027 (-.076) -.015 (-.042) -.027 (-.075) *
Age .101 (.008) .267 (.022) .087 (.007) .108 (.009) *
Education -.218 (-.102) -.385 (-.180) -.252 (-.118) -.214 (-.100) *
Fundamental -.172 (-.319) -.288 (-.536) -.189 (-.352) -.212 (-.394) *
Pol. View .113 (.115) *
1977 .079 (.286) .067 (.242) .223 (.804) .129 (.463) .198 (.712) .233 (.804) .057 (.204) .320 (.214) .082 (.295) .074 (.266) *
1985 .131 (.469) .114(.408) .188 (.672) .139(.496) .174(.619) .196 (.699) .116(.413) .059 (.411) .135 (.483) .127(.452) *
1988 .062(.378) .051 (.311) .083 (.514) .057(.353) .071 (.433) .091 (.561) .052 (.321) .115(.296) .061 (.375) .054(.239) *
1989 .048 (.286) .038 (.226) .063 (.378) .043 (.261) .051 (.307) .067 (.402) .050 (.241) .048 (.214) .059 (.294) .041 (.245) *
1990 .050(.315) .046 (.290) .067 (.417) .053 (.330) .063 (.397) .068 (.429) .046 (.287) .036(.291) .052(.327) .050 (.311) *
1991 .044 (.266) .035 (.208) .068 (.410) .049 (.292) .056 (.337) .069 (.405) .037 (.223) .046 (.196) .046 (.275) .038 (.229) *
1993 .040 (.228) .024 (.137) .048 (.273) .025 (.146) .039 (.225) .049 (.279) .028 (.160) .033 (.143) .040 (.232) .035 (.201) *
1994 .035 (.156) .024 (.106) .031 (.138) .021 (.093) .020 (.090) .035 (.154) .029 (.128) .025 (.101) .036 (.160) .027 (.121)
1996 .001 (.034) -.0005 (-.002) .009 (.041) .003 (.012) .002 (.011) .014(.062) .005 (.204) .023 (.009) .007 (.031) .003 (.012)
R-Squared .242 .353 .043 .184 .126 .114 .308 .341 .246 .287
F-Value 195 209 27.5 125 79.8 71.7 209 227 166 205
Dependent Variable: HomoScale
**Values correspond to standardized parameter estimates. Those in parentheses correspond to the parameter estimate.
Source General Social Survey 1977-1998
bivariate analysis of gender and homonegativity, we found that there was weak evidence
of a bivariate relationship (men and women did not differ significantly in their
homonegative attitudes). However, in Model 2 (the full model), we find that gender does
provide a significant effect while controlling for other variables. This evidence now
supports the second hypothesis that males are more homonegative. Further analysis was
conducted to unveil what variables contributed to this suppressor effect. Models 3
through 8 are those being used to discuss the relationship between gender and
homonegativity. Model 3 demonstrates that there is no evidence of a relationship between
gender and homonegativity (even while controlling for the year the data were collected
from). However Models 4, 5 and 6 all show that the relationship becomes significant
when we control for age, education, and religious fundamentalism. As noted in bivariate
analysis, women in the sample tended to be older, more religiously fundamental, and
have less educated, which all contribute to higher levels of homonegativity. When
controlling for any one of these factors, the previously masked relationship becomes
To add to the complexity of this relationship, the gender role scale was reintroduced
into the model. In bivariate analysis we found that women in the sample tended to have
more egalitarian attitudes about gender roles. When the gender role scale was
reintroduced in the presence of gender, education, age, or any combination of the three,
we found that gender was again no longer significant. The lack of relationship remained
intact until religious fundamentalism was controlled for8. In essence, the gender role scale
better explains gender differences in homonegativity until the level of religious
8 For simplicity, not all model combinations were shown
fundamentalism is taken into consideration. Respondent's age and education can also be
used to unmask the relationship between gender and homonegativity however not while
controlling for gender role ideologies. In either situation, the data suggest the
implications religious doctrines can have on both gender role ideologies, on
homonegativity and gender.
As briefly mentioned, the data also present an intervening relationship between race
and homonegativity. In bivariate analysis, we found extremely strong evidence of a
relationship between race and homonegativity, with African Americans displaying more
homonegative attitudes than Caucasians. In Model 2 (the full model), we see that race no
longer acts as a significant predictor of homonegativity while controlling for other
effects. As with unveiling the relationship between gender and homonegativity, several
models were assessed to unveil the intervening relationship between race and
homonegativity. In all models assessed (using combinations of other independent
variables) we find that race remains intact as a significant predictor of homonegativity
until religious fundamentalism is controlled for9 (Models 9 and 10). Bivariate analysis
has indicated that African Americans are more fundamental in their religious ideology
than Caucasians. When this factor is taken into consideration, race alone no longer acts as
a significant predictor of homonegativity. Previous research has implicated African
Americans as having higher levels of homonegativity. Although this may be the case,
these findings demonstrate that this relationship may be the result of religious doctrine,
and not necessarily race. Admittedly, there is a historical relationship in the religious
differences among Caucasians and African American's; however in the analysis of
9 Not all model combinations shown
homonegativity, inadvertent focus on racial differences could probably be better
discussed as a product of religious affiliation and dogma, even while controlling for the
effects of gender role ideologies. Nonetheless, a discussion of interaction/nonadditivity
may help to better understand this relationship.
Finally, multivariate analysis took into consideration nonadditive relationships
among the independent variables. Analysis of nonadditive relationships helps to better
understand interactive effects among variables (Table 4-7). Rather, non-consideration of
interactive models assumes identical change for one variable over the variability of
another. It would predict, for example, that males and females experience the same
predicted change in homonegativity as level of education increased. In theory, either
males or females may be more sensitive to increases or decreases in education and this
can be reflected in predicted homonegativity. Nonadditivity in this study will give
consideration that males may differ from females just as blacks may differ from whites
across the variation of other independent variables. Models 11 through 14 take into
consideration the interaction between both race and gender on other independent
variables. Models 15 and 16 take into consideration the interaction between race and
gender on the gender role scale.
Table 4-7 Model summaries with nonadditivity**
Model 11 Model 12 Model 13 Model 14 Model 15 Model 16
Intercept 2.185 2.162 2.083 2.231 2.181 2.107
RoleScale .300 (.279) .300 (.280) .299 (.279) .301 (.280) .268 (.249) .314 (.292) *
Afam -.112 (-.500) -.052 (-.233) .083 (.368) .016 (.072) .016 (.072) .055 (.244) *
Female -.026 (-.074) -.024 (-.069) -.025 (-.072) -.111 (-.316) -.054 (-.154) -.026 (-.074) *
Age .102(.009) .101 (.008) .100 (.008) .102 (.008) .100 (.008) .101 (.008) *
Education -.231 (-.108) -.217 (-.101) -.219(-.102) -.237 (-.111) -.218 (-.102) -.218 (-.102) *
Fundamental -.170 (-.317) -.183 (-.340) -.170 (-.317) -.172 (-.320) -.172 (-.320) -.171 (-.318) *
Pol. View .114(.116) .112(.114) .214(.127) .113 (.116)* .112(.115) .112(.114) *
RaceXeduc .132(.047) *
RaceXfund .074 (.200) *
RaceXpol. View -.072 (-.076) *
SexXeduc .090 (.019) *
SexXroleScale .051 (.054) *
RaceXroleScale -.056 (-.113) *
1977 .067 (.242) .066 (.240) .067 (.240) .068 (.243) .067 (.241) .067 (.242) *
1985 .114(.408) .114(.405) .113(.404) .114(.409) .114(.407) .115 (.410) *
1988 .050(.308) .050 (.307) .051(.310) .051(.311) .051(.311) .051(.312) *
1989 .038 (.226) .037 (.224) .037 (.224) .038 (.227) .038 (.228) .038 (.227) *
1990 .046 (.289) .046 (.288) .046 (.287) .046 (.291) .046 (.287) .047 (.292) *
1991 .035 (.208) .034 (.205) .034 (.206) .035 (.208) .034 (.204) .035 (.209) *
1993 .024 (.138) .023 (.132) .024 (.137) .024 (.139) .024 (.135) .0252 (.145) *
1994 .023 (.103) .023 (.104) .023 (.104) .024 (.104) .024 (.106) .0245 (.109)
1996 -.0006 (-.003) -.001 (-.006) -.0003 (-.001) -.0002 (-.001) -.0008 (-.003) -.0006 (-.003)
R-Squared .355 .354 .354 .354 .354 .355
F-Value 198 197 197 197 197 197
Dependent variable: HomoScale
**Values correspond to standardized parameter estimates. Those in parentheses correspond to the parameter estimate.
Source General Social Survey 1977-1998
In analysis of the interaction of race and educationO1 (Model 11), we find that the
effect of having higher levels of education does not produce the same rate of predicted
decrease in homonegativity between whites and blacks. Additionally, we find that
African Americans with no education are expected to have lower levels of
homonegativity than whites. However, as the level of education increases, African
Americans will not experience the same rate of predicted decrease in homonegativity. At
approximately 10 years of education, controlling for other effects, we observe that the
two lines cross. In other words, beyond 10 years of education we find that whites' benefit
from higher levels of education predicts lower levels of homonegativity than African
Americans at the same level of education; whereas, before ten years of education, African
Americans are less homonegative than whites at the same level (Figure 4-1)1.
An interesting aspect of this interaction is the almost reverse effect education has on
African Americans (i.e., African Americans with lower levels of education are expected
to have lower homonegativity than whites with the same education, compared to reverse
that occurs when the two groups have higher levels). Finally, important in this
relationship, is to take into consideration that increases in education do indeed predict
lower levels of homonegativity for both groups, however the impact is greater for
Caucasians. This implication suggests whites homonegativity is more sensitive to
changes in education whereas African Americans' homonegativity is more immune.
10 Interactions were also assessed for Education and Religious Fundamentalism, and Gender and Religious
Fundamentalism, Gender and Race, however these interactions were not significant and will not be
1 All figures shown are to scale however the scales shown differ in effort to visually demonstrate the
interactive relationships discussed interactive relationships discussed
0 4 8 12 16 20
Education in Years
Figure 4-1 Interactive effects of education and race on homonegativity
In Model 12, we take into consideration the interaction between race and religious
fundamentalism. This interaction is highly similar to the race and education interaction.
African Americans expressing fundamental religious ideologies are expected to be less
homonegative than Caucasians at the same level of fundamentalism. However, as with
the interaction between education and race, the predicted lines cross as religious
fundamentalism "moves" toward more liberal religious ideologies (Figure 4-2). African
Americans expressing liberal religious ideologies are expected to be more homonegative
than Caucasians in the same category, controlling for other effects. In this situation, we
see that having religiously liberal ideologies "benefits" Caucasians more than African
Americans in their attitudes toward gays and lesbians. As with education, having
religiously liberal ideologies does decrease predicted values in homonegativity, but not at
the same rate across races. Finally, the evidence surrounding Model 10 (religious
fundamentalism better explaining race in predicted homonegativity) is quite interesting. It
was previously argued that racial differences in negative attitudes toward lesbians and
gays could be better attributed to differences in religious fundamentalism. Nonetheless,
Model 12 proposes that religious fundamentalism acts independent of races.
O 1.5 -*- Whites
S1.4 --- Blacks
1 2 3
Fundamental Moderate Liberal
Figure 4-2 Interactive effects of religious fundamentalism and race on homonegativity
Model 13 assesses the interaction between race and political ideologies. Contrary to
the interactions between race-education and race-fundamentalism, the interaction
between race and political ideologies predicts liberal African Americans to be more
homonegative than Caucasians with the same political ideology (controlling for other
factors) (Figure 4-3). However, having a more conservative political ideology has a
greater impact on homonegativity for Caucasians than African Americans, in that
Caucasians responding as conservative or extremely conservative are expected to display
more homonegativity than African Americans with the same ideology (controlling for
In sum of interactions with race, we find an overall pattern of effect that is greater
for Caucasians than for African Americans. The slope of the parameter estimate for the
African American group has, in all circumstances, been closer to zero. In other words, we
find that African American homonegativity is more consistent across the variations of
political ideologies, religious fundamentalism, and education, whereas increases or
decreases in these variables presents greater impacts for Caucasians levels of
1 -- Whites
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Figure 4-3 Interactive effects of race and political ideology on homonegativity.
Model 14 takes into consideration the interactive effects of gender and education
(Figure 4-4). In this circumstance, we find that women overall display less
homonegativity. Additionally, we find that the benefit to higher levels of education on
decreasing predicted homonegativity has a more significant impact for men than women.
Women's lack of decrease in homonegativity for higher levels of education could
probably be a result of lower overall homonegativity to begin with.
Interactions with sex, race, and the gender role scale
Finally, analysis of interaction with the gender role scale was assessed. Model 15
analyzes interaction between gender and the gender role scale while Model 16 considers
racial interactions with the gender role scale. Interaction finds that women expressing
more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles will subsequently display less
homonegative affect than males in the same category. However women who display
more traditional gender role ideologies are actually predicted to display higher levels of
homonegativity than males in the same category (controlling for other variables) (Figure
0 4 8 12 16 20
Education In Years
Figure 4-4 Interactive effects of education and gender on homonegativity
The final interactive effect to be discussed accounted for the interaction of race and
the gender role scale, and its impact on Homonegativity (Model 16). In this analysis we
find that African Americans holding egalitarian attitudes about gender roles are expected
to be more homonegative than Caucasians with similar gender role attitudes. However
the impact of having more traditional gender roles has a greater substantial impact for
Caucasians, to where predicted values in homonegativity actually surpass those of
African Americans ( Figure 4-6). Findings indicate that increases in the gender role scale
do correspond to increases in homonegativity for both Caucasians and African
Americans, however the impacts of having more traditional gender role ideologies is
much greater for Caucasians than for African Americans (at least in explaining negative
attitudes toward lesbians and gays).
1.5 -- Females
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4-5 Interactive effects of gender and the RoleScale on homonegativity.
o -- s Whites
0 1 2 3 4 5
Figure 4-6 Interactive effects of race and the RoleScale on homonegativity.
All nonadditive models discussed underwent subsequent F-tests12 to determine if
the interactive models provided a significantly better model fit than Model 2 (the full
model). In all instances, interactive models did indeed provide significant F-values (p <
0.05). In other words, allowing for interaction actually provided more explanatory ability
than models ignoring this feature.
12 Not Shown
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to discuss why gender and racial differences in
attitudes toward homosexuals might differ. Additionally, this study aimed to discuss
these differences as a result of the impact of gender role ideologies. Findings indicate that
gender differences in homonegativity can be hidden by normative differences in age,
education, gender role ideologies or religious fundamentalism. Furthermore, male
homonegativity is easier influenced by educational changes than females. In the case of
race, multivariate analysis finds that prominent racial differences between blacks and
whites homonegativity can be better explained by religious fundamentalism. In
considering interaction, the data indicate whites' attitudes toward homosexuals have a
tendency to be more sensitive to changes in education, religious fundamentalism and
gender role ideologies. Finally, in the consideration of the impacts of gender role
ideologies, we find confirmed expected relationships that traditional gender role
ideologies correlate with increases in homonegativity; even while controlling for the
effects of race, gender, education, religious fundamentalism, political ideology, and year
data were collected from. Substantial to this correlation was its strength these ideologies
have, over other variables, in uniquely explaining homonegative attitudes, in addition to
the sensitivity in homonegativity experienced by females as a result of changes in gender
Previous research on homonegativity has identified correlates among individuals
that stimulate homonegativity, in addition to providing some reasoning why these
relationships may exist. This study has built a bridge in that it has done both. The data
have demonstrated linkages between gender role ideologies, race, gender, religious
fundamentalism, age and education with subsequent attitudes toward lesbians and gays.
Just like race and gender, it is assumed that gender role ideologies precede
homonegativity and not the reverse. In this circumstance we can now better understand
the effects that gender role schemas play in our every day lives. Barbara Risman in her
book Gender Vertigo (1998) has proposed that gender should be as insignificant as the
length of one's toes or the color of one's eyes. Nonetheless, gender is at the forefront of
everything we do. The elimination of gender inequality can only be accomplished
through the elimination of gender. Although there may be many factors influencing
homonegativity, the data have demonstrated that gender role schemas are still the best
predictor, even when controlling for these other influential factors. In essence, this study
helps expose the link between gender inequality and homonegativity. Although an
elimination of gender inequality could have a significant impact on reducing
homonegativity, the data also demonstrate that there are many other factors beyond
gender role ideologies that influence homonegativity. Future research could analyze
potential linkages between gender role ideologies and any number of the other
independent variables considered in this study. An altering of the structures of gender and
gender role ideologies will subsequently have effects on any number of other variables
(i.e., challenging gender role ideologies will not only effect homonegativity but also
institutions such as the government, religion, families).
Previous research have almost universally identified that men tend to express more
homonegative attitudes than women. This study has argued that this effect could largely
be attributed to the impacts of gender role ideologies. Importantly noted was the lack of
an apparent gender difference in bivariate analysis of homonegativity (i.e., men and
women did not significantly differ in homonegative attitudes). Multivariate analysis
helped to unveil this relationship and it was suggested that the initial relationship might
have been masked by gender differences in the sample (i.e., men were younger on
average and tended to have more education on average). Many of the previous
discussions on gender differences in homonegativity were able to identify this difference
through bivariate analysis and little attention was given toward unmaking this
relationship. Additionally, many previous researchers had a tendency to use more
convenient samples such as college students, medical students, etc. The General Social
Survey uses a probability-based sample that is far more accurate at portraying the
American population than a college sample. Although this research has suggested
bivariate differences were not discovered because of other factors, further research is
needed to analyze why or why not differences may exist.
This study also suggests the need for understanding African American
homonegativity. Research has continually demonstrated that racial discrepancies exist,
but has rarely offered as explanation for why this may be the case. Bivariate analysis
supported previous research in conclusions about racial differences. Nonetheless, this
relationship was better explained through religious fundamentalism. This acted as a
preliminary indication and explanation as to why these differences may exist, however
the incorporation of nonadditive effects in the multivariate models further complicated
any assumptions. In all circumstances of interaction discussed, we find that African
Americans are less sensitive to the changes in other variables; and although political
ideology, religious fundamentalism, and education do provide explanatory power,
changes across these variables for African Americans are minute compared to those of
Caucasians. Understandably, there may be influences not addressed by this study that
could better explain African American homonegativity. The lack of variability/sensitivity
could be attributed to the smaller sample size of this group in the sample or poor choice
of variables that may confound homonegativity for African Americans. Additionally the
African American sample is under representative of black men. Again, this provides
further reason to devote considerable attention to African American homonegativity. In
analyzing racial differences it is equally important to assess class differences. It could be
possible that class differences are what cause this plateau effect among African
In analyzing gender interactions with education, a unique relationship was
discovered. As predicted, women display less homonegativity than men in similar
educational categories. However the benefit of having a higher level of education to
reduce homonegativity is more substantial in males. This could be due to several reasons.
First, it is possible that because female homonegativity is already low, there is little that
an increase in education can due to reduce this further. Second, is the idea that education
may not be as good a predictor for reducing homonegativity among females. This would
be similar to the discussion of interaction and African American homonegativity.
When considering interactions between gender role ideologies (the RoleScale) and
gender, a unique unexpected relationship was discovered. Egalitarian women were
expected to be less homonegative than men in the same category; however female
adherence to gender role ideologies greatly increases predicted homonegativity (to where
is surpasses the predicted homonegativity of males in the same category). Since
traditional gender role ideologies typically have more substantial negative impacts on
women, I argue that women who support these values have embedded themselves with a
much stricter gender role reality. In this study, women overall were expected to display
more egalitarian attitudes toward gender roles (especially those specifically concerning
the roles and behaviors of women). However, in the event that women display traditional
roles (contrary to normative expectations), we find individuals who embrace structural
norms more stringent than society imposes. These individuals, I propose, are classic
illustrations of the impacts that stringent gender role ideologies can have on attitudinal
structures (specifically toward gays and lesbians, or any individuals/groups who violate
supposed gender norms). These women have adopted these stringent traditional gender
role ideologies and allowed them to influence how they see the world. I call this
phenomenon a belief effect experienced by these women. The effect of these females
believing in strict traditional gender role ideologies, contrary what may be expected of
females, creates a strict gender role schema observed indirectly through homonegativity.
Future research on the belief effect observed with this data may help to confirm the deep-
rooted linkages between gender role ideologies and attitudes toward sexual minorities.
LIMITATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
There are several features of this study that could benefit from refinement in the
future. The first is unidimensionality of the gender role scale. Gender role ideologies
were operationalized by considering attitudes about the equality of women. Ideals of
gender and sex roles span much further than attitudes about women. Ideally, a scale of
gender role attitudes would encompass many dimensions that gender role ideologies are
demonstrated through (e.g., childrearing responsibilities, housework, attitudes about men,
attitudes about how to raise children, attitudes toward gender neutrality). Additionally,
the questions forming the homonegativity scale do not specify the gender of the
"homosexual" being described in addition to being rather one-dimensional. As discussed,
attitudes toward lesbians versus gays are not universal. It secondly omits bisexual
individuals along with transgender and inter-sexed individuals. There is substantial
research indicating that attitudes and behaviors may not necessarily match up.
Additionally, there is the stipulation that just because individuals may not agree with
homosexuality does not mean they would deny homosexuals equal rights. And although
both scales used do represent an array of questions, variability in the scales boarder what
a truly quantitative variable should be. Hence there may be some question as to whether
Ordinary Least Squares methodology was best used for the Mulivariate analysis.
Nonetheless, univariate analysis did provide relatively strong support that the variables
and scales used do approximate normal distributions.
Additionally, this study gave little focus to the effect of changes over time. A
substantial body of research in the area of studying homonegativity has been devoted to
observed changes over time. In an effort to increase sample size and statistical power,
twenty years of data were conglomerated. Although the year the data were collected from
was controlled for, the data taken from 1985 does implicate a possible period effect that
was only briefly addressed by this study. Either the use of a single large cross-sectional
dataset, or further analysis of potential age, period, or cohort effects should be considered
in future research.
The General Social Survey, although a very strong research tool, in itself presents
issues of validity and accuracy. This study is primarily assessing attitudes and omits
behaviors. It is generally accepted that attitudes compliment behaviors (and vice versa)
however it is firmly established that this may not be true all the time (i.e., front-stage
versus back-stage behavior). Additionally, it is taken for granted that survey respondents
are completely honest. The General Social Survey is given face to face; hence it is
possible that respondents may respond dishonestly on a variety of questions in effort to
avoid disapproval from the interviewer.
The sexual orientation of the respondent could have significant influence over their
responses. Gay respondents would be far more likely to respond in favor of attitudes
toward homosexuals independent of many other control variables. There are many ways
to assess homosexual behavior including self-identification, feelings and behaviors.
There is a behavioral measure used in the General Social Survey that assess whether
respondents have had sexual relations with someone of the same or opposite sex. Future
research could consider this variable and assess its potential influence.
As discussed, considerable attention has been given to analyzing gender differences
in homonegativity. This study has suggested that these differences would largely be as a
result of differing attitudes about gender roles. Nonetheless, this study finds that gender
differences still prevail even while controlling for gender role ideologies. In essence,
what variables could better explain the gender differences between male and female
Finally, considerable attention was devoted to racial differences among African
Americans and Caucasians, however no attention was allotted to any other racial or
ethnic categories. This is a huge limitation in that a significant portion of the United
States is comprised of a variety of ethnic minorities. Future research must consider the
plethora of ethnic diversity that should exist in a representative sample of the United
LIST OF REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders : DSM-IV-TR. Washington DC.: American Psychiatric Association.
Batson, C. D., Flink, C. H., Schoenrade, P. A., Fultz, J., & Pych, V. (1986). Religious
orientation and overt versus covert racial prejudice. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 40, 290-302.
Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A., & Pych, V. (1985). Brotherly love or self-concern?
Behavioural consequences of religion. In L. B. Bron (Ed.), Advances in the
psychology of religion. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Baumrind, D. (1995). Commentary on sexual orientation: Research and social
Implications. Developmental Psychology, 31, 130-136.
Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Beran, N. J., Claybaker, C., Dillon, C., & Haverkamp, R. J. (1992). Attitudes toward
minorities: A comparison of homosexuals and the general population. Journal of
Homosexuality, 23, 65-83.
Bierly, M. M. (1985). Prejudice toward contemporary outgroups as a generalized attitude.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 189-199.
Black, B., Oles, T. P., and Moore, L., (1998). The relationship between attitudes;
homophobia and sexism among social work students. Affila Journal of Women and
Social work; 13, 2, 166-190.
Blee, K., & Tickamyer, A. (1995). Racial differences in men's attitudes about women's
gender roles. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 21-30.
Bowman, R. (1979). Public attitudes toward homosexuality in New Zealand.
International Review of Modem Sociology, 9, 229-238.
Chng, C. & Moore, A. (1991). College students' beliefs and behaviors about AIDS:
Implication for family life educators. Family Relations, 40, 258-263.
D'Augelli, A. R., & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a university community:
Attitudes and experiences of heterosexual freshman. Journal of College Student
Development, 31, 484-491.
Davis, J.A. and T. W. Smith. 1998. General Social Surveys, 1972-2000. Cumulative
online codebook and data file (www.icpsr.umich.edu/gss). Chicago, accessed
November 16, 2002.
Deaux, K., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Thinking about gender. In B. B. Hess &M. M Ferree
(Eds.), Analyzing Gender: A handbook of social science research (p. 920117).
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ernst, F., Francis, R., Nevels, H. & Lemen, C. (1991). Condemnation of homosexuality
in the black community: A gender-specific phenomenon? Archives of Behavior, 20,
Estrada, A. X. & Weiss, D. J. (1999). Attitudes of military personnel towards
homosexuals. Journal of Homosexuality. 37, 4, 83-97.
Faderman, L. (1991). Odd girls and twilight lovers: A history of lesbian life in Twentieth-
Century America. New York, Penguin.
Ferree, M. M. (1990). Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and Family Research. Journal
of Marriage and the Family, 52, 866-884.
Fishbein, H.D. (1996). Peer prejudice and discrimination. Boulder, CO. Westview Press.
Freudenberg, N. (1989). Preventing AIDS: A guide to effective education for the
prevention of HIV infection. American Public Health Association, Washington DC.
Glenn, N., & Weaver, C. N. (1979). Attitudes towards premarital, extramarital, and
homosexual relations in the U.S. in the 1970s. Journal of Sex Research, 15, 108-
Gramick, J. (1983). Homophobia. A new challenge. Social Work, 28, 137-141.
Greaves, W. L. (1987). The black community. In H. Dalton & S. Burris (Eds.). AIDS and
the law (pp. 281-289). New Haven: Yale University Press.
Hansen, G. L. (1982). Androgyny, sex-role orientation, and homosexism. Journal of
Psychology, 112, 39-45.
Harper, P. B. (1991). Eloquence and epitaph: Black Nationalism and the homophobic
impulse in response to the death of Max Robinson. Social Text, 28, 68-86.
Heaven, P. & Oxman, L. N. (1999). Human values, conservatism and stereotypes of
homosexuals. Personality and Individual Differences. 27,1, 109-118.
Herek, G. M. (1984). Beyond homophobia: A social psychological perceptive on
attitudes toward lesbians and gay men. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 1-21.
Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: some psychical consequences of the
social construction of gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist, 29, 563-
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates
and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
Herek, G. M., & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexual's attitudes
toward gay men: Results from a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research, 30,
Herek, G. M. (1994). Assessing heterosexuals' attitudes towards lesbian and gay men: a
review of empirical research with the ATLG scale. In b. Green and G. M. Herek
(Eds.), Contemporary Perspectives on lesbian and Gay Issues in Psychology (p.
206-228) Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Herek, G. M. (2000). The Psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directories in
Psychological Science, 9, 19-22.
Herek, G. M. (2002) Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 66, 40-66.
Hudson, W. W. & Ricketts, W. A. (1980). A strategy for measurement of homophobia.
Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357-372
Irwin, P., & Thompson, N. L. (1977). Acceptance of the rights of homosexuals: A social
profile. Journal of Homosexuality, 3, 107-121.
Johnson, M. E., Brems, C., and Alford-Keating, P. (1997) Personality correlates of
homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality. 34, 57-69.
Kaiser Family Foundation (2001). Inside-Out: a report on the experiences of lesbians,
gays, and bisexuals in America an the public's views on issues and policies related
to sexual orientations. #3193 www.kff.org. Kaiser Family Foundation, accessed
April 8, 2003.
Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuals: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Homosexuality, 10, 69-81.
Kite, M. E. and Whitley, B. E. (1996) Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual
persons, behaviors and civil rights: a meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336-353.
Klamen, D. L., Grossman, L. S., Kopacz, D. R. (1999) Medical student homophobia
Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 53-63.
Lance, L. M. (1992). Changes in homophobic views as related to interaction with gay
persons: a study in the reduction of tensions. International Journal of Group
Tension, 22, 291-299.
Laner, M. R., & Laner, R.H., (1979). Personal style or sexual preference: Why gay men
are disliked. International Review of Modern Sociology, 9, 215-228.
Laner, M. R., & Laner, R.H., (1980). Sexual preference or personal style? Why lesbians
are disliked. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 339-356.
Logan, C. R. (1996) Homphobia? No, Homoprejudice. Journal of Homosexuality. 31,
Morin, S., & Garfinkle, E. (1978). Male Homophobia. Journal of Social Issues, 34, 29-
Nyberg, K. L., & Alston, J. P. (1976). Analysis of public attitudes toward homosexual
behavior. Journal of Homosexuality, 2, 99-107.
Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1993). Gender differences in sexuality: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 29-51.
Pratte, T. (1993). A comparative study of attitudes toward homosexuality: 1986 and
1991. Journal of Homosexuality, 26, 77-83.
Price, J. H. (1982). High school students' attitudes toward homosexuality. Journal of
School Health, 52, 469-474.
Price, V. & Hsu, M. (1992). Public opinions about AIDS policies: The role of
misinformation and attitudes towards homosexuals. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56,
Proulx, R. (1997) Homophobia in Northeastern Brazilian University Students. Journal of
Homosexuality. 34, 47-57.
Risman, B. (1998) Gender Vertigo: American Families in Transistion. New Haven, CT.
Yale University Press.
Seltzer, R. (1992) The social location of those holding antihomosexual attitudes. Sex
Roles, 26, 391-398.
Staples, R. (1982). Black masculinity: The Black male's role in American society. San
Francisco: Black Scholar Press.
Thompson, E.H., Grisanti, C., & Pleck, J.H. (1985). Attitudes toward the male role and
their correlates. Sex Roles, 13, 413-427.
Waldner, L. K., Sikka, A., Baig, S. (1999). Ethnicity and sex differences in university
students knowledge of AIDS, fear of AIDS, and homophobia. Journal of
Homosexuality, 37, 117-133.
Walters, A. S., & Hayes, D. M. (1998). Homophobia within schools: Challenging the
culturally sanctioned dismissal of gay students and colleagues. Journal of
Homosexuality, 35, 1-23.
Weinberg, G. (1973). Society and healthy homosexual. New York: Anchor books.
Whitcomb, D. H. (2001). Development, implementation, and applications of an
instrument to measure relationships among sexual orientation, political orientation,
and socioeconomic status in an undergraduate population. Dissertation Abstracts
international. 61, 9-B, 5062.
Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1987). The relationship of sex-role orientation to heterosexuals'
attitudes toward homosexuals. Sex Roles, 17, 103-113.
Whitley, B. E., Jr., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences in attitudes toward
homosexuality: A comment on Oliver and Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin,
Wills, G., & Crawford, R. (2000). Attitudes toward homosexuality in Shreveport-Bossier
City, Louisiana. Journal of Homosexuality, 38, 97-115.
Young, M., & Whertvine, J. (1982). Attitudes of heterosexual students toward
homosexual behavior. Psychological Reports, 51, 673-674.
Christian Grov, born in 1980, was the second child of Sharon and Kjell Grov. Both
Sharon and Kjell were foreign immigrants to the United States in search of a better life
for themselves and their children. Raised in south Florida, Christian graduated
salutatorian of Stranahan High School, Ft. Lauderdale in 1998 and immediately moved
into the honors program at Broward Community College. After only two semesters,
Christian finished his associate's degree and moved to Gainesville, Florida in pursuit of a
bachelor's degree in psychology. Upon enrolling in one course in sociology, Christian
decided to double major in both psychology and sociology. In May of 2001, Christian
graduated with honors in both areas. That August, he began the masters program in
sociology at the University of Florida, where he focused on the study of gender, families,
and human sexuality. Two years later, Christian graduated with a Master of Arts degree.
In the fall of 2003, Christian will be beginning the doctoral program in sociology at the
City University of New York, Graduate Center (CUNY) in New York City.