INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type o f computer printer.

T he quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the

copy subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by

sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back o f the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.

UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 HETEROSEXUALS' ATTITUDES TOWARD GAY MEN AND

LESBIANS: THE EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL

CONTACT, SEX ROLE ORIENTATION,

GENDER, AND RELIGIOSITY

BY

MARK LYNDON HARMON

A dissertation submitted

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Psychology

California School of Professional Psychology

Fresno Campus

1996

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 UMI Number: 9734473

UMI Microform 9734473

Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 CALIFORNIA SCHOOL OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY

FRESNO CAMPUS

The dissertation of Mark Lyndon Harmon, "Heterosexuals'

Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians: The Effects of

Interpersonal Contact, Sex Role Orientation, Gender, and

Religiosity," approved by his Committee, has been accepted

and approved by the Faculty of the California School of

Professional Psychology, Fresno Campus, in partial

fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of

Psychology.

Dissertation Chairperson:

May 14, 1996

Elizabeth Davis-Russell, EdD, PhD

Dean'fbr Academic
and Professional Affairs

Mary iSeth Kenkel, PhD C

Chancellor

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to offer a special thanks to Dr. Lili

Harrison for her guidance, support, editing efforts, and

periodic swift kicks, without which this dissertation would

still be in progress. I would also like to thank the

participants of this study who offered their attitudes

openly. Finally, I would like to thank Randy Pence, Lee

Halkias, and Cyndi Scales for supporting me through a very

difficult process. I am extremely grateful and I love you

very much.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 iv

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Gay Men and

Lesbians: The Effects of Interpersonal

Contact, Sex Role Orientation,

Gender, and Religiosity

by

Mark Lyndon Harmon

California School of Professional Psychology, Fresno Campus

Lillian B. Harrison, PhD

Dissertation Committee Chairperson

1996

The relationship between interpersonal contact,

religiosity, sex role orientation, gender, and

heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians was

studied. Results revealed that exposure to gay and lesbian

speakers did not statistically change attitudes in a

positive direction; however, a strong trend was identified.

Also, a lack of interpersonal contact with gays and

lesbians, religiosity, a high frequency of attendance at

religious services, and male gender were associated with

more negative attitudes. Fewer hours of interpersonal

contact were found to be the most significant predictor of

negative attitudes. A gender difference was also found,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 V

with males reporting more negative attitudes toward both

gays and lesbians than females, especially toward gay men.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii i

ABSTRACT OF THE D I S S E R T A T I O N ......................... iv

LIST OF T A B L E S ....................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES....................................... viii

HETEROSEXUALS' ATTITUDES TOWARD GAY MEN AND

LESBIANS: THE EFFECTS OF INTERPERSONAL CONTACT,
SEX ROLE ORIENTATION, GENDER, AND RELIGIOSITY. . . 1

Method .............................................. 6

Results.............................................. 14

D i s c u s s i o n .......................................... 24

R E F E R E N C E S ............................................ 35

A P P E N D I C E S ............................................ 38

A. ANNOTATED B I B L I O G R A P H Y ...................... 39

B. DEMOGRAPHIC S HEE T ........................... 47

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Solomon Four-Group 2 x 2 Factorial Design . . 11

2. Solomon Four-Group 2 x 2 Factorial Design

With Corrected Group Sizes for Data
Analysis Purposes .......................... 15

3. Summary of Marital Status, Ethnicity, and

Religious Affiliation by G r o u p ............. 16

4. Summary of Participants' Mean Age,

Masculinity Score, Femininity Score,
Religiosity Score, ATLG Score, and Hours of
Contact With Gay and Lesbian People
by G r o u p ..................................... 17

5. Summary of Participants' Marital Status,

Ethnicity, and Religious Affiliation. . . . 21

6. Summary of Participants' Mean Age,

Masculinity Score, Femininity Score,
Religiosity Score, Hours of Contact
With Gay and Lesbian People, and Number of
Homosexuals Known .......................... 21

7. Summary of Regression of ATLG Scores on

Interpersonal Contact, Gender, Sex Role
Orientation, and Religiosity............... 22

8. Summary of Participants' Marital Status,

Ethnicity, and Religious Affiliation. . . . 25

9. Summary of Participants' Mean Age,

Masculinity Score, Femininity Score,
Religiosity Score, Hours of Contact With
Gay and Lesbian People, and Number of
Homosexuals Known .......................... 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Solomon four-group d e s i g n ................... 10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 1

Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Gay Men and Lesbians:

The Effects of Interpersonal Contact,

Sex Role Orientation, Gender, and

Religiosity

Today in America, lesbians and gay men are the targets

of a large amount of prejudice, which is acted out in a

variety of behaviors, ranging from verbal epithets to

violent physical attacks (Herek, 1988). These

antihomoseuxal attitudes and behaviors are found frequently

and have been compounded by the rising level of fear

associated with the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome

(AIDS; Forstein, 1988; Herek, 1988). Nevertheless, the

attitudes and behavior of many heterosexual people in the

United States show tolerance, acceptance, and support toward

gay and lesbian people (Herek & Glunt, 1993).

Over the past 2 decades, researchers have attempted to

uncover the social and psychological variables that

distinguish heterosexuals with positive attitudes from those

who show disdain, or even express hostility toward gay and

lesbian people (Herek & Glunt, 1993; Marsiglio, 1993). One

of the most consistent correlates of heterosexuals'

attitudes toward homosexuals is the degree to which they

have experienced personal contact with lesbians or gay men

(Herek & Glunt, 1993). Heterosexual men and women who

report having personal interaction with homosexual people

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 2
express more positive attitudes toward lesbians and gays

than do heterosexuals who do not report personal contact

experiences (D'Augelli & Rose, 1990; Ellis & Vasseur, 1993;

Gentry, 1987; Herek, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Lance, 1987;

see Appendix A for Annotated Bibliography). This finding

mirrors the "contact hypothesis" presented by Allport

(1954), which predicts that "prejudice against members of a

minority group is reduced by equal status contact between

majority and minority group members" (Herek & Glunt, 1993,

p. 240).

Many of the findings to date on heterosexuals'

attitudes toward gays and lesbians are a result of studies

utilizing college undergraduate volunteers (D'Augelli &

Rose, 1990; Ellis & Vasseur, 1993; Gentry, 1987; Herek &

Glunt, 1993; Kunkle & Temple, 1992; Lance, 1987; Whitley,

1987). One such study (Lance, 1987) examined the influence

of exposure to and interaction with gays and lesbian persons

on the self-reported attitudes of 46 heterosexual students

in a college human sexuality class. Employing a pre-post

design, the Hudson and Ricketts Attitudes Scale, a 25-item

questionnaire that measures the perceived degree of dread or

discomfort with homosexual people, was administered to a

class interacting with homosexuals and to a class which did

not interact with gays and lesbians. Eighty-two percent of

those students who were exposed to and interacted with gay

persons expressed low-to-moderate discomfort with

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 3

homosexuals, while 61% of those students who did not receive

personal contact with gay persons expressed a high degree of

discomfort with gays and lesbians. In light of the

findings, the author concluded that exposure to, and

interaction with, homosexuals resulted in a reduction in

self-reported negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians

in heterosexual college students.

Another of the more consistent findings in the

literature associated with attitudes toward gays and

lesbians is that although both male and female heterosexuals

report negative attitudes toward homosexuals, females report

less antigay hostility on average than do males (D'Augelli &

Rose, 1990; Ellis & Vasseur, 1993; Forstein, 1988; Herek,

1986, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Kite, 1984; Kunkle &

Temple, 1992; Kurdek, 1988; Whitley & Kite, 1995). Whitley

and Kite (1995), in a meta-analysis of the recent literature

on gender differences in attitudes toward homosexuality,

found that men appeared to hold more negative attitudes

toward gay men and lesbians than did women. Further, Herek

(1986) found that heterosexual males reported especially

rejecting attitudes toward gay men. Herek explained the

finding as a result of societal pressure for men to behave

consistently with prescribed gender roles. He stated that

this emphasis on conforming to societally prescribed sex

role behavior is manifested in heterosexual men's more

negative view of homosexuality in general, as well as their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 4

especially negative view of gay men, whom they perceived as

violating the male gender role.

Not all research, however, has found significant gender

differences in attitudes toward gays and lesbians. Oliver

and Hyde (1995), in a meta-analysis of the literature,

reported no gender differences in attitudes toward

homosexuals and cited many future methodological

implications designed to shed light onto the existence,

nature, and magnitude of these differences. The authors

concluded that the question of sex differences in attitudes

is still a matter of much debate. In response, Whitley and

Kite (1995) alleged that Oliver and Hyde (1995) merely

included 16 studies in their meta-analysis; only two of

which were published since 1982. These researchers

maintained that gender differences have been identified and

replicated consistently in the literature for 2 decades.

Another variable in the literature that is consistently

correlated with attitudes toward gay men and lesbians is sex

role orientation (Herek, 1986, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993;

Kurdek, 1988; Marsiglio, 1993; Whitley, 1987) . Whitley

(1987) , in a study of 225 male and female heterosexual

undergraduates, found that those subjects adhering to less

traditional sex role orientations showed more accepting

attitudes toward gays and lesbians than did those subjects

reporting more traditional ones. This finding was

consistent across gender. Another study conducted by Herek

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 5
(1988) also reported similar findings. With a sample of 368

undergraduate college students, he found that those subjects

who held a traditional sex role were more likely to possess

negative attitudes toward lesbians and gays.

Religiosity has also been found to be associated with

negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Gentry, 1987;

Herek, 1987, 1988; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Kunkle & Temple,

1992; Marsiglio, 1993). In a study of 126 undergraduate

college students from four different universities, Herek

(1987) found that heterosexual persons who held religious

beliefs were more likely than those who reported being

nonreligious to report negative attitudes toward gay people.

He measured religious beliefs with the six-item Orthodoxy

Subscale of the Religious Ideology Scale (RIS) and attitudes

toward gays and lesbians with the 20-item Attitudes Toward

Lesbian and Gay Men Scale (ATLG). Similarly, Kunkle and

Temple (1992) found, in a sample of 507 undergraduate

college students, that church attendance was associated with

less favorable attitudes toward homosexuals. In addition,

those subjects who attended more liberal denominations

showed more positive attitudes than those who attended

conservative denominations, especially fundamentalist

churches.

Finally, in a review of much of the literature on

heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and lesbians, Herek

and Glunt (1993) stated that most of the past and current

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 6

literature represents mainly correlational studies. The

authors mentioned that, as a result of the correlational

nature of the data, conclusions about causality of positive

or negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians are difficult

to make at this time. The authors also stated that much of

the self-report data collected on heterosexuals' attitudes

toward gay people was based on measures with few questions

and little demonstrated validity or reliability. The

current study was designed to address these methodological

issues.

It was hypothesized that (a) Hypothesis 1; After

exposure to and interpersonal contact with gay men and

lesbians, subjects will report an increase in positive

attitudes; (b) Hypothesis 2: Lack of interpersonal contact,

male gender, a traditional gender-role orientation, and

religiosity will be predictive of negative attitudes toward

gays and lesbians; (c) Hypothesis 3: Male subjects will

report more negative attitudes toward both gays and lesbians

than will females; and (d) Hypothesis 4 : Males will report

more negative attitudes to gay men than to lesbians.

Method

Subi ects

During the Fall 1995 semester, 165 heterosexual,

undergraduate students enrolled in introductory psychology

courses at Kings River Community College were the subjects.

The participants received extra credit in their course for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 7

volunteering to be in the study. Subjects were not

penalized in any way for nonparticipation in the study.

Instruments

The Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG;

Herek, 1988) was administered to measure attitudes toward

homosexuals. It is a 20-item scale in the Likert format

w ith two 10-item subscales: (a) Attitudes Toward Lesbians

(ATL) and (b) Attitudes Toward Gay Men (ATG) . Scores on

each subscale range from 10 to 90, with higher scores

indicating more negative attitudes. An overall score is

also calculated for the entire scale, with scores ranging

from 20 (extremely positive attitudes) to 180 fextremely

negative attitudes) . Alpha coefficients for the scale and

subscales show satisfactory levels of internal consistency

(alpha = .90 for the ATLG, .89 for the ATG, and .77 for the

ATL) .

Religiosity was assessed through two measures: the

frequency of attendance at religious services and the

Orthodoxy subscale of the Religious Ideology Scale (RIS;

Putney & Middelton, 1961) . It consists of six items in the

Likert format, with scores ranging from 6 to 42. Higher

scores indicate a more fundamentalist, conservative

ideology. Internal consistency for the scale has been

reported by the authors (alpha = .80).

The Bern Sex-Role Inventory (BSRI; Bern, 1974) was used

to assess sex role orientation. The BSRI asks subjects to

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 8

indicate on a 7-point Likert scale how well they are

characterized by each of 60 personality characteristics. On

the basis of the responses, each subject is given three

scores: a Masculinity score, a Femininity score, and an

Androgyny score. Alpha coefficients for the scales are as

follows: Masculinity (alpha = .86), Femininity (alpha =

.82), and Androgyny (alpha = .85). Higher scores on the

Femininity scale defined a traditional sex role orientation

for females, while higher scores on the Masculinity scale

serve as the definition for males. A nontraditional sex

role orientation is defined as obtaining a higher androgyny

or masculinity score for females and a higher androgyny or

femininity scores for males.

A demographic sheet provided information regarding age,

gender, amount of prior exposure to gays and lesbians,

ethnicity, religious denomination, frequency of attendance

at religious services, and sexual orientation (see

Appendix B) .

Procedures

According to Ray and Ravizza (1985) , in using

traditional pre/post methodology to assess attitudinal

change, it became apparent to some researchers that the

administration of a pretest alone could influence the

persuasiveness of a speech or lecture designed to change

attitudes. To control for this problem, they cited Solomon

(1949), who suggested the use of a four-group design (see

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 9
Figure 1) . Groups 1 and 2 would be the experimental and

control groups in a traditional pre/post design, while

Groups 3 and 4 would be like the experimental and control

groups, except neither would receive the pretest. By using

the Solomon Four-Group Design, researchers would be able to

determine not only the effects of the treatment, but also

the interaction of the treatment with the presence or

absence of a pretest.

Therefore, to control for pretest sensitization issues

and to address the issue of causality of attitudinal change

toward gays and lesbians, a Solomon Four-Group Design

(Solomon, 1949) was used (see Table 1). The subjects in

four introductory to psychology classes (N = 165) taught by

the investigator were given the group-administered

questionnaires and exposed to gay and lesbian speakers on

the same day in the following fashion:

1. Group 1 (n = 40) completed the ATLG, the RIS, the

BSRI, and the demographic sheet in a group-administration

format immediately prior to a 1%-hour session of exposure to

and interaction with four homosexuals. Two gay men and two

lesbian women from the gay community in Fresno, California,

spoke to the class. The talk began with a brief

biographical sketch by each individual, followed by a

question-and-answer period. The subjects either wrote out

questions or asked them in person. The participants filled

out the ATLG immediately after the talk with the gays and

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes

Group 1 Pretest Treatment Posttest (XOX)

Group 2 Treatment Posttest ( OX)

Group 3 Pretest Posttest (X X)

Group 4 Posttest ( X)

Figure 1. Solomon four-aroup design.

Source: Solomon (1949).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 11

Table 1

Solomon Four-Group 2 x 2 Factorial Design

Pretest

Yes No

Contact Group 1 Group 2

(n = 40) (n = 39)

No contact Group 3 Group 4

(n = 48) (n = 38)

Note. N = 165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 12

lesbians to assess any change in attitudes toward gay and

lesbian people. This was an interval of approximately 5

minutes.

2. Group 2 (n = 39) listened to the same talk from the

homosexual people as Group 1; however, they did not complete

the ATLG, BSRI, RIS, or demographic questionnaire until

immediately after the talk. Again, this was an interval of

approximately 5 minutes.

3. Group 3 (n = 48) was treated identically to Group

1; however, the subjects did not receive any exposure to the

gay and lesbian speakers.

4. Group 4 (n = 38) did not receive the scheduled talk

from the gay and lesbian speakers either; however, the

subjects completed the ATLG, BSRI, RIS, and demographic

questionnaire approximately 1% hours into the class session

on the same day as the groups above.

Statistical Procedures

To evaluate Hypothesis 1, that after exposure to and

interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians, subjects

would report an increase in positive attitudes, a 2 x 2

factorial analysis of variance was conducted using the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version

6.0 (Norusis, 1993; see Table 1). Only ATLG scores

generated by those subjects who, on the demographic sheet,

reported being 100% heterosexual and having fewer than 10

hours of previous exposure to someone who they know is gay

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 13

or lesbian were included in the analysis. For purposes of

this analysis, contact was defined only as the level of

exposure to speakers in the classroom setting.

To evaluate Hypothesis 2, that a lack of interpersonal

contact with gay and lesbian people, male gender, a

traditional sex role orientation, and religiosity would be

predictive of negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians, a

multiple regression analysis was conducted. The data

collected from the ATLG, on the posttest basis, served as

the dependent variable. The posttest collection was the

only available measure of ATLG scores for all subjects as a

result of the Solomon Four-Group methodology used (Solomon,

1949). Interpersonal contact was defined by two measures:

the number of homosexual people the subject reported knowing

and the estimated hours of contact the participant reported

having with gays or lesbians. Religiosity was also defined

by two measures: the scores on the Orthodoxy subscale of

the Religiosity Ideology Scale (Putney & Middleton, 1961)

and the frequency of attendance at religious services. A

traditional sex role orientation was defined by the

masculinity and femininity scores on the Bern Sex-Role

Inventory (Bern, 1974) .

To evaluate Hypothesis 3, that male subjects would

report a more negative attitude toward both gays and

lesbians than females, an independent samples t test was

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 14

conducted to determine if the mean attitude score for males

was higher than that of females.

To evaluate Hypothesis 4, that males would report more

negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians, a

paired-samples t test was conducted.

Results

A total of 165 student participants completed the

group-administered questionnaires. Of these volunteers, 40

were in Group 1, 39 were in Group 2, 48 were in Group 3, and

38 were in Group 4 (see Figure 1 and Table 1) .

Hypothesis 1

To evaluate Hypothesis 1, that after exposure to and

interpersonal contact with gay men and lesbians,

participants would report more positive attitudes, a 2 x 2

factorial analysis of variance was conducted on the data

gathered in the Solomon Four-Group Design. The two

independent variables were test condition (pretest or no

pretest) and contact (exposure to speakers or no exposure).

The dependent variable was the posttest score on the

Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG). Only

data collected from those participants who reported being

100% heterosexual and having fewer than 10 hours of previous

contact with someone they know is homosexual were included

in the analysis (n = 111; see Table 2). There were 54 male

and 57 female participants. See Tables 3 and 4 for

additional demographic information.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 15

Table 2

Solomon Four-Group 2 x 2 Factorial Design With Corrected

Group Sizes for Data Analysis Purposes*

Pretest

Yes No

Contact Group 1 Group 2

(n = 26) (n = 23)

No contact Group 3 Group 4

(n = 37) (n = 25)

aOnly subjects who reported being 100% heterosexual and

having fewer than 10 hours of previous contact with a gay or
lesbian individual are included.

Note. N = 111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 16

Table 3

Summary of Marital Status. Ethnicity, and Religious

Affiliation bv Group

Martial Religious

Group status % Ethnicity % affiliation %

1 Single 65 White 66 Protestant 46

(n = 26) Married 15 Latin 19 Catholic 15

Divorced 15 Black 4 None 19

Other 8 Other 12

2 Single 78 White 70 Protestant 48

(n = 23) Married 22 Latin 4 Catholic 31

Divorced 0 Black 0 None 17

Other 26 Other 4

3 Single 87 White 76 Protestant 57

(n = 37) Married 11 Latin 11 Catholic 19

Divorced 0 Black 0 None 19

Asian 3 Jewish 3

Other 8 Other 3

4 Single 76 White 52 Protestant 48

(n = 25) Married 8 Latin 44 Catholic 36

Divorced 4 Black 0 None 16

Separated 12 Other 4 Other 0

Note. N = 111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 17

Table 4

Summary of Participants1 Mean Age. Masculinity Score.

Femininity Score. Religiosity Score. ATLG Score, and Hours

of Contact With Gav and Lesbian People bv Group

Group Age Ma s c u l . Femin. Relig. Hours ATLG

1 25 100.77 97.15 33.50 1.78 111.85

(n = 26)

2 21 94.00 94.65 28.17 1.50 87.26

(n = 23)

3 20 99.43 96.49 31.35 0.00 126.27

(n = 37)

4 23 91.16 103.00 30.04 0.00 101.08

(n = 25)

Note. N = 111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals1 Attitudes 18

Prior to hypothesis testing, data in each of the four

groups were analyzed with a series of one-way analyses of

variance and chi-square tests of independence to determine

group equivalency. The groups were not found to be

equivalent with respect to the following demographic

variables.

There was a significant difference between groups in

age of participants, F(3, 107) = 4 . 5 5 , p < *01/ with those

in Group 3 (M = 20.03, SD = 3.87) younger than those in

Group 4 (M = 23.32, SD = 7.10) or Group 1 (M = 25.35,

SD = 8.40). There was also a significant relationship found

between marital status and group membership, X2 (9, N = 111)

= 22.71, p < .01, with fewer than expected divorced

participants in Group 3 and a greater number than expected

in Group 1. There were more maritally separated

participants than expected in Group 4.

Ethnicity was found to be related to group membership

as well, X2 (12, N = 111) = 25.00, p < .05. There were more

participants in the "other" category in Group 2 than

expected and a greater number of Latin Americans in Group 4

than expected.

Finally, there was a significant relationship between

2
gender and group membership, X (3, N = 111) = 13.49,

p < .01. More males and fewer females were found in Group 3

than expected, and more females and fewer males than

expected were in Group 4 (see Tables 3 and 4, pp. 16 and 17,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 19

respectively) . The following results should be interpreted

w i t h these findings in mind.

Although Hypothesis 1 was not statistically supported,

results indicated that there was a definite trend for a main

effect for contact, F(l, 107) = 3.67, p = .058. The group

m ean on the ATLG, where higher scores indicate more negative

attitudes, for participants exposed to speakers was 100.31

versus 116.11 for those not exposed. There was a

statistically significant main effect, however, for the

pretest variable, F(l, 107) = 11.41, p < .01. The group

m ean for those who completed the pretest was 120.32, and the

group mean for those who did not was 94.46, indicating the

presence of pretest sensitization. Subjects who completed

the pretest scored significantly more negatively than those

who did not. Finally, there was no significant interaction

between the pretest and contact variables on attitudes

toward gays and lesbians, F(l, 107) = .002, p > .05,

suggesting that there was no relationship between

experiencing the pretest and exposure to gays and lesbians

in changing attitudes. These main effects operated

independently of one another.

Hypothesis 2

A multiple regression analysis evaluated Hypothesis 2,

that a lack of interpersonal contact with gay and lesbian

people, male gender, a traditional sex role orientation, and

religiosity would be predictive of negative attitudes toward

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 20

gays and lesbians. This procedure was performed only on

data provided by those participants who admitted to being

100% heterosexual (N = 149, 62 males and 87 females) . See

Tables 5 and 6 for additional demographic information.

Prior to conducting this procedure, the independent

variables were examined for skewness and kurtosis. Variable

"How Many" (the number of gay or lesbian people the

participant reported knowing) was found to be positively

skewed and was subsequently transformed for the analysis

using the natural log transformation.

Hypothesis 2 was partially supported. Together, the

variables accounted for 47% of the variance in attitudes

toward gays and lesbians, R(7, 34) = .69, p < .01. In

isolation, as church attendance (r = .28, p < .01) and

religiosity scores (r = .34, p < .001) increased, negative

attitude scores increased. Further, as the number of gays

and lesbians the participant reported knowing increased

(r = -.38, p < .01), negative attitude scores decreased.

Also, male gender (r = -.38, p < .001) was associated with

more negative attitude scores. The only variable that

offered a significantly unique contribution to the variance,

however, was the number of hours of contact a participant

reported with gay or lesbian people (r = -.51, p < .01).

This variable alone accounted for 16% of the variance,

t (149) = -3.21, p < .01 (see Table 7). As predicted, the

relationship between hours of contact and attitudes toward

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 21

Table 5

Summary of Participants' Marital Status. Ethnicity, and

Religious Affiliation

Marital Religious
status % Ethnicity % affiliation %

Single 73 White 66 Protestant 47

Married 17 Latin 19 Catholic 28

Divorced 8 Black 3 None 18

Separated 5 Other 8 Other 5

Asian 1 Jewish 1

Note. N = 149

Table 6

Summary of ParticiDants' Mean Age. Masculinity Score.

Femininity Score. Religiosity Score. Hours of Contact With

Gav and Lesbian People, and Number of Homosexuals Known

How
Age Mascul. Femin. Relig. Hours many

X 23 97.58 98.76 30.79 32.60 2.2

Note. N = 149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 22

Table 7

Summary of Regression of ATLG Scores on Interpersonal

Contact. Gender. Sex Role Orientation, and Religiosity

Part Sig.

Variables Beta Corr. corr. t t

Attend .17 .28 .13 1.07 .294

Religiosity .19 .34 .16 1.29 .207

X how many -.12 -.38 -.10 -.77 .449

Hours -.44 -.51 -.40 -3.21 .003

Gender -.21 -.38 -.18 -1.47 .150

Masc. .02 .03 .02 .17 .869

Fem. -.04 -.14 -.03 -.24 .812

Note. N = 149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 23

gays and lesbians was inverse, indicating that as hours of

contact increased, negative attitude scores decreased. The

only variable not found to be predictive of negative

attitudes was traditional sex role orientation (masculinity

r = .03, p > .05; femininity r = -.14, p > .05).

Hypothesis 3

To evaluate Hypothesis 3, that male participants would

report more negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians than

would female participants, an independent samples t test was

conducted. As in Hypothesis 2, only those volunteers who

reported being 100% heterosexual were included in the

analysis (N = 149). There were 62 males and 87 females in

this analysis. For additional demographic information, see

Tables 5 and 6. Because the variance in males' and females'

scores was heterogeneous, F(l, 148) = 7.43, p < .01, the t

test based on unequal variances was used.

Hypothesis 3 was supported, t(145) = 5.18, p < .001.

Males (M = 118.58, SD = 35.48) reported more negative

attitudes toward gays and lesbians than did females

(M = 84.53, SD = 44.67).

Hypothesis 4

To evaluate Hypothesis 4, that males would report more

negative attitudes toward gay men than toward lesbians, a

paired samples t test was conducted. Only male participants

who admitted to being 100% heterosexual were included in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 24

analysis (n = 62) . For additional demographic information,

see Tables 8 and 9.

Hypothesis 4 was supported, t(61) = -8.86, p < .001.

Males reported more negative attitudes toward gay men

(M = 66.34, SD = 18.07) than toward lesbians (M = 52.24,

SD = 19.53) .

Discussion

In this study, interpersonal contact with gay and

lesbian people was found to be a strong predictor of

positive attitudes toward homosexuals. It appears that as

interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians increases,

negative attitudes decrease. This variable alone accounted

for 16% of the variance in attitude scores, suggesting that

of the variables studied, it was the greatest predictor of

heterosexuals' attitudes toward homosexuality. This is

consistent with other findings in the literature, suggesting

the stability of this phenomenon.

The question of causality of attitudinal change was

another issue explored in this study. Little consistent

evidence was found in the literature suggesting that contact

with gays and lesbians changed heterosexuals' attitudes in a

positive direction. The majority of the studies reported

correlational findings. To determine if contact with gays

and lesbians caused a change in attitudes in a positive

direction, the Solomon Four-Group Design was employed.

Results showed that there was a definite trend indicating

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 25

Table 8

Summary of Participants' Marital Status. Ethnicity, and

Religious Affiliation

Marital Religious

status % Ethnicity % affiliation %

Single 79 White 66 Protestant 44

Married 16 Latin 15 Catholic 24

Divorced 3 Black 0 None 21

Separated 0 Other 15 Other 7

Asian 2 Jewish 2

Note. N = 62

Table 9

Summary of Participants' Mean Age. Masculinity Score.

Gav and Lesbian P e o d e . and Number of Homosexuals Known

How
Age Mascul. Femin. Relig. Hours many

x 21 100.10 92.06 31.44 24.50 1.25

Note. N = 62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 26

that 1% hours of exposure to homosexual speakers changed

heterosexuals' attitudes in a positive direction. Although

the findings were not statistically significant (p = .058),

probably the addition of a few more participants' data would

have yielded a significant main effect. An increase in

exposure time might also have produced a significant main

effect without increasing the sample size.

Contact with gay men and lesbians was not the only

variable found to change attitudes in this study. Results

of the Solomon-Four-Group Design showed that pretest

sensitization operated in the study. Participants in Groups

1 and 3, who completed the ATLG on a pretest basis, reported

significantly more negative attitudes during posttesting

than did Groups 2 and 4, where no pretest was administered

(see Figure 1, p. 10). As a result, it seems that mere

exposure to the pretest sensitized participants to respond

in a significantly more negative manner on the posttest.

However, because there was no significant interaction

between pretest and contact, the positive change in

attitudes, as a result of exposure to the speakers, is

clearly independent of the pretest.

As expected, other variables in this study that were

found to be strong predictors of heterosexuals' attitudes

toward gays and lesbians were religiosity, the number of

homosexuals participants reported knowing, and the male

gender. When these variables were combined with reported

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 27

hours of interpersonal contact with gays and lesbians, they

explained 47% of the variance in attitude scores.

Also consistent with predictions, in this study those

heterosexual individuals who reported knowing few gays or

lesbians, having few hours of contact with homosexual

people, being "rigid" in their religious beliefs, attending

church services on a frequent basis, and being male were

more likely to report negative attitudes.

Again, although these findings are correlational, the

strong trend from the ANOVA regarding positive attitudinal

change as a function of contact with homosexuals supports

the possibility of a causal relationship. With this in

mind, lack of exposure to gay and lesbian people would

certainly be a large part of any explanation for negative

attitudes toward them. Because contact with homosexuals may

well be causally related to positive attitudinal change, it

logically follows that anything that would block an

individual from knowing gays or lesbians would also impede

attitudes from changing in a positive fashion. Recall that

Allport's (1954) "Contact Hypothesis" predicts that

"prejudice against members of a minority group is reduced by

equal status contact between majority and minority group

members" (Herek & Glunt, 1993, p. 243) .

Religiosity may pose one such obstacle. Because it was

found to be predictive of more negative attitudes, it is

highly likely that much of this culture's religious emphasis

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 28

that homosexuality is inherently evil may explain why those

individuals who adhere to their religious beliefs more

rigidly would be less likely to be exposed to gays and

lesbians and have more negative attitudes. It is

understandable that homosexuals may not feel comfortable

"coming out” to people who express negative feelings and

reactions toward homosexuality.

It seems to be common knowledge that many churches

openly denigrate the "homosexual lifestyle." In

fundamentalist churches (those that adhere to literal and

rigid interpretations of biblical texts) , homosexuality is

viewed as the "blackest of sins," and homosexuality has been

hailed by many of these churches as a major factor leading

to the "downfall" of traditional family values in the United

States. With this is mind, it is logical that many

individuals who attend church services frequently report

more negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians.

This religious rhetoric appears to be spilling into the

political arena. Many religious individuals are joining and

supporting the "Christian Coalition," which is attempting to

initiate and lobby for state and federal legislation to

block same-sex marriages and impede homosexuals from being

listed as a protected group under current antidiscrimination

laws.

Another variable found to be predictive of more

negative attitudes was gender. It was hypothesized that

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 29

males would be significantly more negative in their

attitudes toward gay men and lesbians than would females.

It was also expected that their attitudes toward gay men

would be significantly more negative than toward lesbians.

Both of these hypotheses were supported. This lends support

to the existence of a sex difference in heterosexuals'

attitudes toward lesbians and gays. There was some

disagreement in the literature regarding this finding, in

that some studies reported one, while others did not.

Once again, one possible explanation for the findings

is related to a lack of contact with gays and lesbians.

Males are less likely than are females to report knowing gay

or lesbian people and would, therefore, be less likely to

undergo positive attitudinal change as a result.

Heterosexual men may be unwilling to associate with gay men

and lesbians for several reasons. One possibility is that

they would be "guilty by association." Some people may

assume that if an individual has gay or lesbian friends, she

or he, too, must be homosexual.

Another explanation for this phenomenon is based on the

assumption that straight men would be the target of gay

men's sexual attraction. Because males in this culture are

socialized to be more aggressive and dominant sexually,

heterosexual men may be afraid of or threatened by gay men

in the same way that women feel vulnerable to men. It is

not uncommon for straight men to make comments about being

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 30

uneasy around male homosexuals because they feel that they

may become targets of their sexual desire. This fear is one

of the reasons that openly gay men have not been allowed

into the military. Following this line of reasoning,

lesbians would not pose this same threat, thus explaining

males' more tolerant attitudes toward these homosexuals.

Similarly, because females in this culture are socialized to

be less aggressive and dominant sexually, lesbians should

not be as likely to be viewed as a sexual threat by

heterosexual females.

Another possible explanation for heterosexual males'

especially negative attitudes toward gay men is that

homosexual males are stereotypically viewed as more feminine

and as having abandoned the male gender role. As a result,

it is possible that gay men may be seen by some men as

trading their valued male position in American culture for a

less favorable one. Why would a man want to ''be like a

woman?" Why would he choose to be passive and nondominant

sexually? This line of reasoning would also explain why a

lesbian would not be viewed as negatively by heterosexual

men. After all, in this line of thinking, she is assuming

more valued masculine traits and thus gaining a more valued

position; one similar to that of men. Finally, from a

purely physical perspective, heterosexual men are probably

more able to understand a sexual attraction to women than to

men, even if it is coming from another female. Due to their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 31

own sexual orientation, heterosexual men may be less averse

to considering two women engaging in sexual behavior. This

may even be sexually stimulating for some men, in that this

appears to be a common theme in many pornographic materials

that are viewed by some heterosexual men.

The only variable that was not found to be predictive

of attitudes toward gays and lesbians was a traditional sex

role orientation. This finding is inconsistent with the

literature. One possible explanation is the age of the

participants. One might expect to find more androgyny, a

similar level of masculine and feminine traits, in a younger

population. Table 6 (p. 21) shows that the mean masculinity

(97.58) and femininity (98.76) scores for the participants

are not significantly different. It appears that this

sample contained insufficient numbers of persons who

described themselves as traditional in their sex roles, so

that the hypothesis could not, in fact, be tested.

With respect to sex role orientation, another possible

explanation for the unexpected findings is the nature of the

instrument used in this study to measure sex role

orientation. The Bern Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) , with high

levels of reported reliability and validity, has been used

consistently in the literature investigating other issues

over the past 2 decades. However, it was not cited in any

of the studies that reported the relationship between sex

role orientation and attitudes toward gays and lesbians.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 32

Attitudes Toward Women and Men Scales were the measures used

in the majority of these studies. Because the BSRI measures

sex role orientation in a different fashion (i.e., through

self-ratings on personality characteristics not ratings of

actual sex role behavior) , the findings obtained in this

study are not necessarily suggestive of a lack of

reliability in the literature. It appears that the

construct of sex role orientation is quite different from

the construct of sex role behavior. The former is a measure

of self-described personality traits; the latter is a

measure of evaluative reaction to the behavior of women or

men. It is possible that people respond differently to

measures of sex role orientation and sex role behavior.

As with any empirical study, this research was limited

by some methodological constraints. The analysis of

variance was conducted with the assumption that the groups

were equivalent with respect to demographic variables. When

this assumption was empirically examined, it was found to be

invalid. There were significant differences in age, marital

status, ethnicity, and gender across the four study groups.

Therefore, the differences in posttest scores on the ATLG,

which were attributed to pretest sensitization and contact

with gays and lesbians, may have been affected by the

differences in these variables. Because participants were

grouped by the general psychology class section they

attended, they were not randomly assigned to groups in the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 33

experimental sense. Had this been done, the groups would

likely have been more similar with respect to these

potentially confounding variables. Future research should

take this into account.

Another limitation of the current study, alluding to

the above, was the use of a convenience sample.

Heterosexuals were defined as undergraduate college students

in Central California who reported being 100% heterosexual.

It is highly doubtful that this population is representative

of the general heterosexual college population or

heterosexual population at large. It was also impossible,

as a result of the nature of self-report data, to ensure

that only heterosexuals' attitudes were measured. Some

individuals with a nonheterosexual orientation might have

been hesitant to report their sexuality as a result of fear

about being "found out."

Another limitation was the manner in which data were

collected for the multiple regression analysis. Only data

obtained from the ATLG at posttesting were analyzed. As a

result of the fact that two of the groups were given a

pretest and two were not, findings should be viewed with

some caution. Since the presence of a pretest was found to

change attitudes in a negative direction, attitudes might

have been reported more negatively by those participants who

completed a pretest than they would have been otherwise.

Pretest data were not available for analysis purposes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 34

because, as a result of the Solomon Four-Group Design, not

all of the subjects completed a pretest (see Figure 1,

p. 10).

In conclusion, interpersonal contact with gays and

lesbians appears to be highly influential in changing

attitudes toward these individuals in the heterosexual

population. This finding has tremendous implications for

the homosexual community in that coming out to friends and

relatives, when physically and emotionally safe to do so,

would seem to be a way in which more heterosexual persons

would gain exposure to this otherwise "invisible

population." This study implies that even short-term

contact appears to make a difference in positive attitudes.

Other studies should replicate these findings and seek to

identify other factors that contribute to positive

attitudinal change.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes

REFERENCES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 36

REFERENCES

Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York:

Addison-Wesley.

Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological

androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology. 42., 155-162.

D'Augelli, A. R . , & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a

university community: Attitudes and experiences of
heterosexual freshmen. Journal of College Student
Development. 31, 484-491.

Ellis, A. L . , & Vasseur, R. B. (1993). Prior interpersonal

contact with and attitudes toward gays and lesbians in
an interviewing context. Journal of Homosexuality.
25(4), 31-45.

Forstein, M. (1988). Homophobia: An overview. Psychiatric

Ann a l s . 18(1), 33-36.

Gentry, C. S. (1987). Social distance regarding male and

female homosexuals. Journal of Social Psychology. 127,
199-208.

Herek, G. M. (1986). On heterosexual masculinity: Some

psychical consequences of the social construction of
gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist. 2 9 .
563-577.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Religion and prejudice: A comparison

of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 13(1), 56-65.

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward

lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences.
The Journal of Sex Research. 25. 451-477.

Herek, G. M . , & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact

and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men: Results from
a national survey. The Journal of Sex Research. 3 0 .
239-244.

Kite, M. E. (1984). Sex differences in attitudes toward

homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Homosexuality. 10(1-2), 69-81.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Heterosexuals' Attitudes 37

Kunkle, L. E . , & Temple, L. L. (1992). Attitudes towards

AIDS and homosexuals: Gender, marital status, and
religion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22.,
1030-1040.

Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Correlates of negative attitudes

toward homosexuals in heterosexual college students.
Sex Roles. 18.727-738.

Lance, L. M. (1987) . The effects of interaction with gay

persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human
Relations. 4 0 . 329-336.

Marsiglio, w. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity

and gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual
15 to 19 year-old males. The Journal of Sex Research.
30(1), 12-17.

Norusis, M. J. (1993). SPSS for windows. Release 6 . 0 .

Chicago: S PSS.

Oliver, M. B., & Hyde, J. S. (1995). Gender differences

in attitudes toward homosexuality: A reply to Whitley
and Kite. Psychological Bulletin. 117(1), 155-158.

Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and

correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces.
3 9 . 285-290.

Ray, W . , & Ravizza, R. (1985). Methods toward a science

of behavior and experience (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.

Solomon, R. L. (1949) . An extension of control group

design. Psychological Bulletin. 46, 137-150.

Whitley, B. E. (1987). The relationship of sex-role

orientation to heterosexuals' attitudes toward
homosexuals. Sex Roles. 17(1-2), 103-113.

Whitley, B. E . , & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences in

attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on Oliver and
Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin. 117(1), 146-154.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 38

APPENDICES

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 39

APPENDIX A

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 40
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York:
Addison-Wesley.

In this work the author presented a social

psychological theory of how prejudice is formed, as well as
a means for diminishing it. Allport's "contact hypothesis"
predicted that prejudice against members of a minority group
is reduced by equal status contact between majority and
minority groups in the pursuit of common goals.

Bern, S. L. (1974) . The measurement of psychological

androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psycholocrv. 42., 155-162.

This article described the development of the Bern Sex-

Role Inventory (BSRI). It treated masculinity and
femininity as two independent dimensions, based on a
subject's endorsement of 60 masculine or feminine
personality characteristics. The scale was normed on 444
male and 279 female Stanford University introductory
psychology students and 117 male and 77 female Foothill
Junior College students. Cronbach's alpha was reported at
.86 and .80 for the Masculinity and Femininity scales,
respectively. The author stated that highly sex typed cores
do not reflect a general tendency to respond in a socially
desirable direction, but rather reflect a specific tendency
to describe oneself in accordance with sex typed standards
of desirable behavior for men and women.

D'Augelli, A. R . , & Rose, M. L. (1990). Homophobia in a

university community: Attitudes and experiences of
heterosexual freshmen. Journal of College Student
Development. 3 1 . 484-491.

Attitudes toward gays and lesbians were measured in 108

female and llo male college freshmen living in dormitory
housing. Subjects were given the Attitudes Toward Lesbians
and Gay Men Scale (ATLG) and asked to complete the
questionnaire on their own time. They returned the
responses in a sealed envelope to their resident assistants.
Widespread hostile attitudes about lesbians and gays were
found in the sample. Males who reported knowing fewer gay
men, were more homophobic and made more derogatory remarks
than did females. Eighty-five percent of the respondents
reported making homophobic responses occasionally or often
themselves.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 41

Ellis, A. L . , & Vasseur, R. B. (1993). Prior interpersonal

contact with and attitudes toward gays and lesbians in
an interviewing context. Journal of Homosexuality.
25(4), 31-45.

The effect of prior interpersonal contact with gays and

lesbians on questions chosen for a mock job interview with a
homosexual applicant was assessed using 47 male and 61
female undergraduates. After the questions were chosen,
subjects' attitudes toward gays and lesbians were assessed
with the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men Scale (ATLG).
Those subjects with prior exposure to and/or positive
attitudes toward homosexuals chose fewer negative questions
for the homosexual mock applicant. Male subjects rated male
homosexuals more negatively than did females; however, they
did not differ from female subjects in their attitudes
toward lesbians. The authors concluded that, with respect
to homosexuality, heterosexual men tend to be significantly
less accepting of gay men as compared to lesbians.

Forstein, M. (1988). Homophobia: An overview. Psychiatric

A n n a l s . 18(1), 33-36.

The author presented a theoretical paper discussing

homophobia in American culture. He outlined the history of
the term "homophobia, as well as a brief history of how the
mental health profession has viewed homosexuality over the
past 30 years, including its removal as a disorder from the
DSM-II in 1973. The author stated that increasing
antihomosexual rhetoric is a result of fear over the
Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), and he outlined
several sociological and psychological explanations for the
frequent finding in the literature of negative attitudes of
heterosexual males toward gay males. He finished the paper
with clinical implications for working with gay and lesbian
people in a therapeutic setting.

Gentry, C. S. (1987). Social distance regarding male and

female homosexuals. Journal of Social Psychology. 127.
199-208.

Employing a Guttman Scale of Social Distance toward

male and female homosexuals, the author assessed the level
of social discomfort in 96 male and 105 female undergraduate
students. Findings showed that discomfort around
homosexuals is positively correlated with the frequency of
religious participation and negatively correlated with
having a gay or lesbian friend. The author also found that
subjects were significantly more uncomfortable around
homosexuals of the same sex.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 42

Herek, G. M. (1986) . On heterosexual masculinity: Some

psychical consequences of the social construction of
gender and sexuality. American Behavioral Scientist. 2 9 ,
563-577.

The author presented a paper to discuss the proposition

that, "to be a man in contemporary society is to be
homophobic" (p. 564) . He postulated that to be hostile
toward homosexual persons, especially gay men, is a result
of how heterosexual men are socialized. Herek offered some
empirical observations to support his functional approach to
understanding attitudes and beliefs, which proposes that
individuals hold their attitudes and beliefs as a result of
the psychological benefits of doing so. He concluded the
paper with a section on changing attitudes from a functional
perspective. This involves arranging positive interactions
between heterosexual men and gays and lesbians.

Herek, G. M. (1987). Religion and prejudice: A comparison

of racial and sexual attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin. 13(1), 56-65.

In this study of 126 undergraduate college students

from four different universities, the author found that
heterosexual persons who held religious beliefs were more
likely than those who reported being nonreligious to report
negative attitudes toward gay people. He measured religious
beliefs with the six-item Orthodoxy subscale of the
Religious Ideology Scale (RIS) and attitudes toward gays and
lesbians with the 20-item Attitudes Toward Lesbian and Gay
Men Scale (ATLG). The author concluded that religious
fundamentalism was highly correlated with negative attitudes
toward gays and lesbians.

Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward

lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences.
The Journal of Sex Research. 25, 451-477.

Three studies conducted with undergraduate students at

six different universities (586 females and 328 males)
revealed a consistent tendency for heterosexual males to
express more hostile attitudes toward gay men and lesbians
than heterosexual females, especially toward gay men.
Variables that were positively correlated with negative
attitudes were the same for both genders: religiosity,
adherence to traditional ideologies of family and gender,
and perception of friends' agreement with one's own
attitudes. Past interactions with lesbians and gay men were
positively correlated with positive attitudes, except in the
case that the respondent reported a strong religious belief
system and/or traditional sex role. Religiosity was
measured with the Orthodoxy subscale of the Religious

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 43
Ideology Scale (RIS) . Construction and validation of a new
scale to measure heterosexuals' attitudes toward
homosexuals, the Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men
(ATLG) Scale, were also discussed. Twenty items were
presented in a Likert format with a 9-point scale ranging
from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Scoring is
accomplished by summing scores across items for each
subscale. Total scale scores range from 20 (extremely
positive attitudes) to 1870 )extremely negative attitudes) .
Separate subscale scores can be calculated for attitudes
toward gay men and attitudes toward lesbians.

Herek, G. M . , & Glunt, E. K. (1993). Interpersonal contact

and heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men: Results from
a national survey. The Journal of Sex Rese a r c h . 3 0 .
239-244.

The authors conducted a national survey of English-

speaking households (N = 937) to assess the association
between heterosexuals' attitudes toward gay men and their
interpersonal contact experiences with a lesbian or gay
person. Approximately one third of the probability sample
affirmed that they knew a gay or lesbian person. A
shortened version of the Attitude Toward Gay Men (ATG) Scale
was utilized to assess the subjects' attitudes toward
homosexuals. Regression analyses indicated that prior
interpersonal contact predicted positive attitudes better
than did any of the other variables investigated; even in
the presence of other variables that are associated with
negative attitudes, such as a strong religious belief system
and male gender. The authors mentioned that this study is
one of the only ones they know that assesses attitudes of
heterosexuals in the general population.

Kite, M. E. (1984) . Sex differences in attitudes toward

homosexuals: A meta-analytic review. Journal of
Homosexuality. 10(1-2), 69-81.

Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexuality were

examined in 24 studies. The author concluded that males do
report more negative attitudes toward homosexuals than do
females; however, the effect size was reported to diminish
if there were larger sample sizes employed. Suggestions for
research were offered. The authors concluded that sex
differences in attitudes toward gay and lesbian persons is
still an unclear issue.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 44

Kunkle, L. E . , & Temple, L. L. (1992). Attitudes towards

AIDS and homosexuals: Gender, marital status, and
religion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 22.,
1030-1040.

The present study examined the relationship between

homophobia, gender, marital status, and religiosity in 507
undergraduate college students (203 male and 304 female) .
Higher levels of homophobia were correlated with being male,
having a conservative religious belief system, attending
religious services frequently, and having never married.
Homophobia was measured by the Homophobia Scale, an
instrument comprised from three different sources. No
reliability or validity was reported. The finding that
homophobia was associated with males who have never married
may be more a function of age rather than marital status.

Kurdek, L. A. (1988). Correlates of negative attitudes

toward homosexuals in heterosexual college students.
Sex R o l e s . 18.727-738.

Negative attitudes toward homosexuals were assessed in

103 heterosexual college students (59 males and 44 females).
Negative attitudes were found to be positively correlated
with traditional attitudes toward men, women, and the
equality of men and women. Males' attitudes were found to
be more negative than females'.

Lance, L. M. (1987) . The effects of interaction with gay

persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human
Rela t i o n s . 4 0 . 329-336.

The present study examined the influence of exposure to

and interaction with gay and lesbian persons on the self-
reported attitudes of 46 heterosexual students in a college
human sexuality class. Employing a pre-post design, the
Hudson and Ricketts Attitude Scale, a 25-item questionnaire
that measures the perceived degree of dread or discomfort
with homosexual people, was administered to a class
interacting with homosexuals and to a class not interacting
with homosexuals. Eighty-two percent of those students who
interacted with gay persons expressed low-to-moderate
discomfort with homosexuals, while 61% of those students who
did not interact with gay persons expressed a high degree of
discomfort with gays and lesbians. In light of the
findings, the author concluded that exposure to and
interaction with homosexuals results in a reduction of self-
reported negative attitudes toward gays and lesbians in
heterosexual college students.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 45
Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity
and gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual
15 to 19 year-old males. The Journal of Sex Research.
30(1), 12-17.

Heterosexual adolescent males' (N = 1,880) negative

attitudes toward gays were examined using data from a 1988
probability sample. Results indicated that the vast
majority of young males (89%) showed negative attitudes,
while those subjects with more traditional male sex role
orientation and fundamentalist religious belief systems
reported the most negative attitudes. Attitudes toward gays
were measured by an instrument designed for this study,
while religious beliefs were assessed with a few questions
on a demographic questionnaire. No reliability or validity
of the instruments were reported.

Oliver, M. B . , & Hyde, J. S. (1995). Gender differences

in attitudes toward homosexuality: A reply to Whitley
and Kite. Psychological Bulletin. 117 f1). 155-158.

In a meta-analysis of the literature on sex differences

in the attitudes toward gays and lesbians done in 1993, the
authors found no sex differences in general attitudes toward
homosexuals in the general population or in college student
populations. They reported that their difference scores are
smaller than those reported by Whitley and Kite (1995).
They stated their methodological issues with the Whitley and
Kite study, largely consisting of the contention that they
only employed studies with smaller sample sizes and
concluded by purporting that the existence and magnitude of
a gender difference in attitudes toward homosexuality remain
an open question.

Putney, S., & Middleton, R. (1961). Dimensions and

correlates of religious ideologies. Social Forces.
39, 285-290.

The present study described the construction of the

Religious Ideology Scale (RIS). It contains three
subscales. The Orthodoxy subscale consists of the six items
in the Likert format,with scores ranging from 6 to 42.
Higher scores indicate a more fundamentalist, conservative
ideology. Internal consistency for the scale has been
reported by the authors (alpha = .80). The scale was
standardized on 1,200 undergraduate students from 13
colleges and universities across the United States.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 46

Solomon, R. L. (1949). An extension of control group

design. Psychological Bulletin. 4 6 . 137-150.

The author designed the Solomon Four-Group Design to

control for pretest sensitization confounds that occur in
m uc h research on attitudinal change. Group 1 receives the
pretest, treatment, and posttest; Group 2 receives the
pretest and the posttest only; Group 3 receives the
treatment and the posttest; and Group 4 receives only the
posttest. The author stated that by using this design,
researchers are able to determine not only the effects of
the treatment, but also the interaction of the treatment
with the presence or absence of a pretest.

Whitley, B. E. (1987). The relationship of sex-role

orientation to heterosexuals' attitudes toward
homosexuals. Sex R o l e s . 17(1-2), 103-113.

The author, in a study of 225 male and female,

heterosexual undergraduates, found that those subjects
endorsing a less traditional sex role orientation showed
more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians than did
those subjects reporting more traditional ones. This
finding was consistent for both genders. Sex role
orientation was measured with four scales (Personal
Attributes Questionnaire, Social Behaviors Scale, Attitudes
Toward Women Scale, and Attitudes Toward the Male's Role
S c a l e ) . Attitudes toward gays and lesbians were measured
with the Heterosexuals' Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Scale
and the Index of Homophobia Scale.

Whitley, B. E., & Kite, M. E. (1995). Sex differences in

attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on Oliver and
Hyde (1993). Psychological Bulletin. 117(1), 146-154.

In a meta-analysis of the recent literature on gender

differences in attitudes toward homosexuality, the authors
found that men appeared to hold more negative attitudes
toward gays and lesbians than did women. They found this to
be true when using convenience samples (college students),
but not with samples drawn from the general population.
Oliver and Hyde (1995) challenged these findings by stating
that they found no gender differences with any population
studied. The authors asserted that Oliver and Hyde (1995)
merely included 16 studies in their meta-analysis, only 2 of
which were published since 1982. The authors then concluded
that gender differences in heterosexuals' attitudes toward
gays and lesbians have been identified and replicated
consistently n the literature for the past 2 decades.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 47

APPENDIX B

DEMOGRAPHIC SHEET

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 48
Demographic Sheet

Please answer each of the following questions as accurately

and honestly as possible.

1. Age_______ 2. Political party.

3. I vote regularly. yes no unsure (circle answer)

4. People like me have no say in what the government does,

agree neutral disagree (circle answer)

5. Marital status: never married separated divorced

widow/widower

6. Ethnicity: African American Caucasian Asian American

Latin American Other (circle answer)

7. Gender _______ male _______ female

8. Religious denomination— Please be specific (i.e.,

Baptist, Catholic, Jewish)____________________________ (if

none, write "none")

9. If you have a religion, how often do you attend your

church or synagogue?

never three times per month___

less than once per month once per week_____

once per month______ twice per week_____

twice per month more than twice per

week_____

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 49

10. Have any of your female or male friends, relatives,

or close acquaintances let you know that they are

homosexual?

_____ yes _____ no If yes, how many_____

If v e s . please make an "x" on the following line

representing the number of hours you have spent with the

person you have had the most contact with, since they told

you that they are gay or lesbian.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60+ hours

11. Please make ar. "x11 along the following line to

represent your sexual orientation.

heterosexual bisexual homosexual

12. If heterosexual, would you consider yourself 100%

heterosexual?

yes_____ no_____

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.