Sex Roles, Vol. 50, Nos.

7/8, April 2004 ( C 2004)

Gender Type and Comfort With Cross-Dressers

Cindi M. Penor Ceglian1,3 and Nancy N. Lyons2

The Bem Sex Role Inventory was used to classify university participants into the gender types: masculine, feminine, and androgynous. Two men who cross-dress were invited to attend and interact with the participants during regular classroom periods. Pre- and posttests were administered to measure the participants comfort level with the phenomenon of cross-dressing. Feminine-gender-typed participants were initially the most comfortable with the concept of cross-dressing and experienced the least pre- and posttest mean change following the interaction. The masculine-gender-typed participants were the least comfortable, but experienced the greatest pre- and posttest mean change. Androgynous participants differences for preand posttest scores were greater than the feminine-gender-typed participants differences, but less than those of the masculine-gender-typed participants.
KEY WORDS: cross-dresser; androgynous; gender type.

When you meet a human being the rst distinction you make is male or female? and you are accustomed to making the distinction with unhesitating certainty. Freud (1966, p. 577).

Historically and culturally individuals have been conditioned to assess visually whether a woman or man looks the way they are expected to look (Hegland, 1999). Dress is the most visible manifestation of gender and status because it provides information about an individuals characteristics and expected role behaviors, opening the door to social communication (Hegland, 1999; Rubinstein, 1995; Stone, 1965). The socialization process toward genderappropriate dress begins at birth as adults provide infants with gender-symbolic dress that encourages

1 Department

of Human Development, Consumer and Family Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 2 Department of Apparel Merchandising and Interior Design, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 3 To whom correspondence should be addressed at Department of Human Development, Consumer and Family Sciences, South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota 57007; e-mail: cindi ceglian@sdstate.edu or nancy lyons@sdstate.edu.

others to attribute masculine or feminine gender and to act on the basis of these attributions when interacting with the child (Eicher & Roach-Higgins, 1992, p. 17). Gender-associated beliefs appear to be inextricably linked; that is, people expect others gender-associated characteristics to form a coherent package. Norms that govern gender-appropriate dress are powerful, and individuals are rewarded or punished for their clothing choices; these rewards and punishments contribute powerfully to the development of a gender identity (Stone, 1965). Dress is a means of demonstrating how one measures up to cultural standards associated with gender roles (Herek, 2000a). This socialization process also ensures that individuals learn attitudes that predispose them to respond positively or negatively toward the gender-appropriate dress of others (Schiffman & Kanuk, 2004). Women may adopt masculine dress in Western societiesas long as they do not attempt to disguise their biological sex, but men are restricted from wearing the dress of women (Hegland, 1999, p. 194). Cross-dressers, a term preferred by men who wear womens clothing, risk being labeled sissy or crazy when they violate cultural norms as to what a man or woman should be (Bullough & Bullough, 1997) because their behaviors and appearances do not 539
0360-0025/04/0400-0539/0
C

2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

540 conform to the expected gender roles prescribed by society. Psychologists have devoted extensive study to majority group attitudes toward members of stigmatized minority groups (Herek & Capitanio, 1996). However, few researchers have measured attitudes toward men who cross-dress, so it is difcult to determine the prevalence of actual prejudice toward this category of sexual identity. Considerable empirical research exists on heterosexual attitudes toward lesbians and gay men, and a few studies have focused on attitudes toward bisexual men and women. Some researchers have found signicant correlations between attitudes toward these two stigmatized sexual minorities (Eliason, 1997; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999). Because gay men and lesbians and bisexual men and women are considered to violate normative gender roles, the factors that are associated with positive and negative attitudes toward them might also apply to men who cross-dress. A study of heterosexual and gay mens attitudes toward heterosexual and lesbian and gay crossdressers (Moulton & Adams-Price, 1997) showed that gay men are more tolerant of gender-discordant behavior or deviations from traditional gender roles than are heterosexual men. Negative attitudes are often associated with a lack of interaction with gay or bisexual individuals (DAugelli & Rose, 1990; Eliason, 1997; Herek, 2002; Mohr & Rochlen, 1999) and with traditional expectations of gender and sexual behavior (Herek, 2002; Kite & Whitley, 1998; Marsiglio, 1993; Schellenberg, 1999). Higher levels of education (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Lottes & Kuriloff, 1994; Schellenberg, 1999), including courses in human sexuality, have been shown to be effective in reducing homophobic attitudes (Patton & Morrison, 1993, 1994), especially if the courses include classroom interaction with sexual minorities (Green, Dixon, & Gold-Neil, 1993; Lance, 1987). Other opportunities for interpersonal contact, such as knowing a peer, relative, coworker, or friend who is gay (Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Herek & Glunt, 1993; Sears & Williams, 1997), or interacting with a gay or lesbian professor (Waldo & Kemp, 1997), appear to be conducive to the development of more favorable attitudes. Individuals are constantly adopting, modifying, and relinquishing attitudes. Acceptance of new attitudes depends on who is presenting the knowledge, how it is presented, the conditions in which it is perceived, and the credibility of the communicator

Ceglian and Lyons (Halloran, 1967). Attitudes change in a cognitive way when an individual receives new information from others. In fact, attitudes can be thought of as cognitive associative networks. Affective change in attitudes occurs through direct experience with the object. Finally, behavioral attitude change indicates that somehow individuals have been convinced to behave in a way different from their prior behavior. In analyzing the attitude change process, we must consider the effect of who says what, how, to whom, with what effect (Triandis, 1971, p. 144). From the moment children are born in Western culture, they are immersed in the binary gender system of expected male and female physical characteristics, behaviors, and personality traits. According to gender schema theory (Bem, 1981, 1985; Martin & Halverson, 1981), this information is processed through the use of gender schemas, which are cognitive mechanisms that serve as a lens through which children observe and interpret what is considered normal male and female behavior. These gender schemas inuence peoples views of gender roles (Bem, 1974). In Western societies individuals are more likely to condemn mens rather than womens gender role nonconformity due to the higher status of men in society (Bem, 1993). Further, Bem (1974) stated that masculinity and femininity represent separate dimensions of an individuals personality rather than opposite ends of a continuum. Individuals who describe themselves as possessing traits that are consistent with cultural expectations, or stereotypes, associated with their biological sex are gender-typed as masculine or feminine. Individuals who have integrated equal aspects of both masculinity and femininity into their personality and behaviors are considered to be androgynous. Androgynous people, regardless of their anatomical sex, are more exible in various situations; they adopt the role traits most appropriate for particular situations, rather than limiting their behavior to gender-appropriate expectations. Androgynous persons are more independent and less likely to have their opinions swayed than are those who identify with the masculine or feminine identity (Bem, 1975). Feminine and androgynous persons of both sexes are considered to be more nurturing than are masculine persons (Bem, Martyna, & Watson, 1976; Coleman & Ganong, 1985; Ray & Gold, 1996). Androgynous individuals have a more positive attitude toward sexuality than do those who are gendertyped (Ganong & Coleman, 1987), and they are more tolerant and less likely to stereotype, judge,

Comfort With Cross-Dressers or criticize the sexual behaviors of others (Garcia, 1982).

541 primarily came from rural backgrounds; most graduated from high schools in towns with populations of 1,200 or fewer (51.6%) and 1,20125,000 (34.8%). Measures Comfort With Cross-dressers Scale Hudson and Ricketts (1980) Index of Homophobia scale was revised to measure the participants comfort level with cross-dressers. The 20-item Homophobia Scale measures the degree to which an individual experiences discomfort in the presence of homosexuals. Statements on the instrument are responded to using a Likert scale with scores ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). After reverse-scoring some of the items, the higher the score, the more discomfort a person feels toward homosexuality. For this study, the scale was revised by changing the term homosexual to transvestite/cross-dresser. For example, statements such as I would feel comfortable working closely with a male homosexual were revised to I would feel comfortable working closely with a transvestite/cross-dresser. The revised scale had a reliability coefcient alpha level of .89. Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) To ascertain their gender type, participants completed the Bem Sex Role Inventory (BSRI) (Bem, 1974). The BSRI consists of 60 characteristics (20 feminine, 20 masculine, and 20 gender-neutral) that are used to determine gender type. Participants responded to each characteristic on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never or almost never true) to 7 (almost always true) in terms of whether it was descriptive of them. We used the method suggested by Bem to determine the participants gender role classications as feminine, masculine, or androgynous. Participants obtaining signicantly higher masculinity scores compared with femininity scores were classied as having a masculine gender type. Similarly, participants with a higher femininity score, compared to their masculinity score, were classied as feminine. Participants with scores that were high in both femininity and masculinity, that is, no signicant difference between the scores, were considered to be androgynous. Bem reported that approximately 50% of her college student sample adhered to the gender-role classication of their sex, 15% were cross-sex-typed, and 35% were androgynous.

THE PRESENT STUDY The purpose of this study was to examine attitudinal changes of student participants toward crossdressing, prior to and after an in-class presentation by men who engage in the practice. As there are few studies concerning attitudes toward cross-dressers, the hypotheses for this study were based upon the substantial body of research on heterosexuals attitudes toward bisexuals, gay men, and lesbians. On the basis of the review of the literature and the gender schema theory, the following hypotheses were formulated: 1. Prior to meeting men who cross-dress, participants with an androgynous gender type would report the greatest amount of comfort with cross-dressing, followed by participants with a feminine gender type; masculine gender types would report the least comfort. 2. Exposure to and interaction with men who cross-dress would increase participants comfort with those who engage in cross-dressing. 3. Participants gender role orientations would predict the magnitude of their change in scores from Time 1 (prior to meeting cross-dressers) to Time 2 (following interaction with crossdressers) on the Comfort With Cross-dressers Scale (CWCS). The greatest increase in comfort with cross-dressers from Time 1 to Time 2 was expected to be found among participants with a feminine gender type, followed by those with an androgynous gender type; masculine participants would report the least change from Time 1 to Time 2.

METHOD Participants One hundred and fty-seven undergraduate students participated in the study: 117 women (74.5%) and 40 men (25.5 %). The various class ranks of the students were sophomores (31.1%), juniors (31.7%), seniors (23.6%), freshmen (7.5%), and graduate students (6.2%). The majority of the participants were from the colleges of Family and Consumer Sciences (39.1%) and Arts and Sciences (28%). Participants

542 Procedure Two men from Tri-ess, a national organization of men who cross-dress, were invited to speak about their lifestyles to students enrolled in ve social sciences courses at a midwestern university campus. Both of the men were middle-aged; one was married, and the other was divorced. The men, from a southeastern state, were employed in traditionally maledominated occupations. They wore female dress as they spoke to the participants about the characteristics and behaviors of men who cross-dress, their family relationships, and issues regarding discrimination. Participants were encouraged to ask questions at any time. One week prior to the mens arrival, the participants completed pretest questionnaires to identify their gender types and to rate their comfort with the phenomenon of cross-dressers. Immediately following the interactive presentations, the participants comfort level with cross-dressing was again measured.

Ceglian and Lyons nicant difference was found in comfort level among the different groups, F(2, 154) = 5.95, p < .05. The effect size, which was calculated as 2 , was .07, a medium effect. Post hoc comparisons of means using the Tukey HSD test at the level of .05 indicated that comfort scores for the feminine group (M = 2.48) and the androgynous group (M = 2.56) were not signicantly different from one another, but both were signicantly different from the comfort scores of the masculine-gender-typed group (M = 2.98). It was expected that following exposure to and interaction with men who cross-dress, participants comfort with cross-dressers would increase. It was also expected that participants gender types would predict the magnitude of change from the pretest (prior to interaction) to the posttest (immediately following interaction). Table I provides the pre- and posttest mean CWCS scores for each of the gender-type groups. A two-tailed t test indicated that of the three gender-type groups, the feminine group experienced the least pre- and posttest mean change, t(39) = 1.95 (M = 2.50, SD = 0.57, compared to M = 2.12, SD = 0.62), and the change was not statistically signicant ( p = .06). The masculine group experienced the greatest pre- and posttest mean change (M = 2.98, SD = 0.60, compared to M = 2.25, SD = 0.60), and their scores were signicantly different, t(21) = 3.95, p < .001. A signicant difference, t(79) = 5.07, p < .0001, was also found for the pre- and posttest scores of the androgynous group (M = 2.56, SD = 0.61, compared to M = 2.10, SD = 0.57). Although the different scores of the androgynous group were greater than those of the feminine group, they were less than those of the masculine group. Table II provides the pre- and posttest mean comparisons of comfort by sex and gender type.

RESULTS The participants were rst classied into gender groups of masculine, feminine, or androgynous. Participant self-ratings indicated that 30.4% (n = 49) of the participants were feminine-gender-typed, 14.9% (n = 24) were masculine-gender-typed, and 54% (n = 87) considered themselves to be androgynous. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the difference in CWCS scores of the participants with feminine, masculine, and androgynous gender types prior to their interaction with the men who cross-dress. A statistically sig-

Table I. Study Variable Descriptives Pretest: Cross-dresser comfort Gender type Feminine Sex Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total Men Women Total N 4 43 47 16 8 24 20 66 86 40 117 157 M(SD) 2.94 (0.70) 2.44 (0.55) 2.48 (0.57) 3.16 (0.55) 2.61 (0.54) 2.98 (0.60) 3.01 (0.53) 2.42 (0.57) 2.56 (0.61) 3.07 (0.55) 2.44 (0.56) 2.60 Posttest: Cross-dresser comfort N 4 38 42 15 7 22 18 63 81 37 108 145 M(SD) 1.63 (0.40) 2.18 (0.62) 2.12 (0.62) 2.14 (0.64) 2.47 (0.46) 2.25 (0.60) 2.16 (0.64) 2.09 (0.56) 2.10 (0.57) 2.10 (0.63) 2.14 (0.58) 2.13

Masculine

Androgynous

Total

Comfort With Cross-Dressers

Table II. Pre- and Posttest Mean Comparisons of Comfort With Cross-Dressers by Gender Type Gender type and sex Men Feminine Masculine Androgynous Women Feminine Masculine Androgynous M 1.31 0.99 0.88 0.15 0.11 0.34 SD 0.68 0.79 0.75 0.82 0.65 0.81 t Value 3.9 4.87 5.01 1.12 0.4 3.36

543 drogynous were reversed, posttest scores were consistent with expectations. It could be that prior to meeting the cross-dressers, the feminine participants were much more empathetic than the androgynous participants, however, having met and interacted with the cross-dressers, characteristic of the adaptability and exibility associated with androgynous individuals, they were more willing than the feminine participants to change their views. Following the interactive presentation by the cross-dressers, it was expected that the greatest magnitude of change in the CWCS scores would be found in the feminine group. However, of the three gendertype groups, the feminine group experienced the least pre- and posttest mean change, and the masculine group experienced the greatest change. Although the pre- and posttest scores of the androgynous group were more different than those of the feminine group, they were less different than those of the masculine group. Among the three gender groups, no signicant differences were found in posttest CWCS scores. This is mainly attributed to the large differences in pre- and posttest means found among the men in the study; in fact the posttest CWCS scores indicated the masculine and androgynous men were more comfortable with cross-dressing than were the masculine women. It is readily apparent that interaction with cross-dressers signicantly promotes comfort with the cross-dressing lifestyle, especially among men. In a number of studies of mens and womens reactions to gay men and lesbians (DAugelli & Rose, 1990; Herek, 2000b; Herek & Capitanio, 1996; Kite & Whitley, 1998), men consistently had more negative attitudes than did women. Likewise in this study, the men initially reported more negative attitudes toward cross-dressers than did the women. However, the feminine men were the most comfortable with cross-dressing behavior, even surpassing the feminine and androgynous women in the posttest. Although all of the participants became more positive toward the cross-dressers, it was the male participants who had the greatest magnitude of mean change from Time 1 to Time 2 on the CWCS. Because the mens posttest scores closely approximated those of the women, there was no signicant difference between them. One possible explanation for the sizeable increase in mens scores may be that the male participants were responding to the male cross-dressers heterosexuality. Herek (2000b) found that heterosexual men, when evaluating gay men, tend to place greater emphasis on gender issues and sexual identity, whereas women tend to view gay men as members of a minority group,

Note. Lower scores reect more comfort. p .05. p .01.

Examination of the pre- and posttest CWCS scores of the male participants revealed signicant differences among the three gender types, masculine: t(14) = 4.87, p < .0001; androgynous: t(17) = 5.01, p < .0001; feminine: t(3) = 3.85, p < .05. Among the female participants, the androgynous gender type was the only group that had signicant pre- and posttest differences, t(61) = 3.36, p < .001.

DISCUSSION According to gender schema theory (Bem, 1974), individuals observe and interpret the gender role behavior of others on the basis of cultural expectations of what is considered normal. Previous studies have shown that femininity in men is subject to criticism and considered socially unacceptable, especially by adolescents (Kite & Whitley, 1996; Lobel, 1994), perhaps because feminine men challenge the binary gender system of Western cultures. In this study we explored the inuence of gender type as a factor in determining comfort with those who challenge the binary gender system by crossdressing. Consistent with expectations, prior to meeting the cross-dressers, masculine-gender-typed participants were the least comfortable with cross-dressers. Comfort levels of the feminine-gender-typed participants, contrary to expectations, were greater than those of the androgynous-gender-typed participants. It was expected that the androgynous participants would be the most comfortable with cross-dressing because they are least likely to stereotype or criticize the sexual behaviors of others, whereas the feminine participants, although empathetic, would still evaluate the behavior as nonconformist, and would be less than completely accepting of cross-dressing behavior. Although pretest predictions of the feminine and an-

544 similar to those who are of a different race or ethnic group. In a study of bisexuals, Herek (2002) found that bisexuals may be less denigrated by heterosexuals than gay men and lesbians because they engage in both heterosexual and same-sex relationships, and it is only the latter that are stigmatized. In addition, Wong, McCreary, Carpenter, Engle, and Korchynsky (1999) found that gender-related factors, such as occupation of a target person, were signicantly related to perceptions of masculinity, femininity, and whether the target person was gay. The ndings of the previous studies suggest that the male participants in this study valued the fact that the men, even though they engaged in cross-dressing, practiced heterosexual sexual behaviors. The cross-dressing mens traditionally male-dominated professions and traditionally maledominated interests and hobbies may have further contributed to the male participants comfort level. Anecdotal comments made by several male participants corroborate this assumption. For example, in one of the courses where the cross-dressers presented, participants were asked to write a short paper regarding their reactions to the cross-dressers. Several of the male participants reported that they were impressed that the men emphasized the importance of family and being a good husband, that they were not dysfunctional or gay, but were straight men leading normal lives outside of their cross-dressing activities. The hypotheses of this study were based on participants gender type and possible prejudice toward cross-dressing behavior. If indeed the men did not focus on the cross-dressing, but rather on the crossdressers normative male behaviors, dening them as similar to their own belief systems, then Bems theory could explain the signicant increases in the male participants comfort with the cross-dressers. Although the male participants learned a great deal about diversity within gender role behaviors through their interactions with the male crossdressers, the female participants, initially more comfortable with the concept of cross-dressing than were the men, did not change as signicantly. On the pretest, feminine women had higher scores on the CWCS scale than did the masculine- or androgynousgender-typed women. Perhaps the feminine women were exhibiting nurturing and empathetic behaviors toward the cross-dressers even before meeting them. Of the three groups, it was only the androgynous women who had signicant differences in pre-and posttest comfort. Because androgynous individuals are less likely to stereotype acceptable gender role behaviors, following the interaction they may have been

Ceglian and Lyons less likely to stereotype acceptable gender-related dress than were the feminine or masculine women. Or it may be that the feminine women were not signicantly different because the scores on the pretest were already low, thus exhibiting a oor effect. If so, the CWCS would not be sufciently sensitive to uncover signicant pre- and posttest attitudinal changes. In addition, masculine individuals are not easily persuaded to change their opinions. Masculine women felt somewhat more comfortable with the cross-dressers following the interaction, but the increased level of comfort was not signicantly different from their pretest scores.

Limitations and Future Research Although the ndings have implications for faculty seeking to place a greater emphasis on understanding diversity issues, particularly those pertaining to gender, it should be noted that because of the limitations of the study, these ndings must be considered tentative, and the study itself, as exploratory. A replication of this study, with a more diverse, representative sample, should address the following limitations before we can assume that the ndings are generalizable to the larger population. Because this study used a convenience sample of homogenous college participants, the age range, geographical location, and educational level of the participants were restricted. Further, as Sears (1986) has indicated, the attitude changes that were observed may be due to exposing captive college student subjects, with their relatively uncrystallized attitudes, to authoritative communications in an academic atmosphere (p. 522). Certainly the importance of cohort inuences in attitude change must be acknowledged. The courses used for data collection were in the social sciences, and the majority of the participants were enrolled in the colleges of Family and Consumer Sciences and Arts and Sciences. Because participants enrolled in colleges that focus on the social sciences tend to have more liberal views and less traditional attitudes toward sexuality and gender (Schellenberg, 1999), they may have been more open to changing their attitudes toward the cross-dressers. Other variables that were not measured, but which should be considered if the study is replicated, are the economic status of participants and their families, ethnicity, religiosity, and age. Finally, because the posttest was administered directly following the intervention, the design did not allow for evaluating long-term

Comfort With Cross-Dressers attitudinal change. Therefore, the results of this study may be more applicable to participants in a short-term academic context, rather than to that of the general public over the long term. CONCLUSION Although this study should be considered exploratory, the ndings offer further support to a number of studies that indicate that interaction facilitates attitudinal change. In this study, interaction with cross-dressers resulted in a self-reported reduction in discomfort with cross-dressers. Therefore, it is recommended that faculty who seek to encourage heightened awareness of gender diversity should provide opportunities for students, especially men, to dialogue with cross-dressers and other sexual minorities in the classroom setting. REFERENCES
Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 151116. Bem, S. L. (1975). Sex role adaptability: One consequence of psychological androgyny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 634643. Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354364. Bem, S. L. (1985). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. In T. B. Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 32. Psychology and gender (pp. 179226). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Bem, S. L. (1993). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bem, S. L., Martyna, W., & Watson, C. (1976). Sex typing and androgyny: Further explorations of the expressive domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 10161023. Bullough, V. L., & Bullough, B. (1997). Are transvestites necessarily heterosexual?Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 112. Coleman, M., & Ganong, L. H. (1985). Love and sex role stereotypes: Do macho men and feminine women make better lovers? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 170 176. DAugelli, A. R., & Rose, M. (1990). Homophobia in a university community: Attitudes and experience of White heterosexual freshmen. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 484 491. Eicher, J. B., & Roach-Higgins, M. E. (1992). Dress and identity. In J. B. Eicher, K. K. P. Johnson, & M. E. Roach-Higgins (Eds.), Dress and identity (pp. 718). New York: Fairchild. Eliason, M. J. (1997). The prevalence and nature of biphobia in heterosexual undergraduate students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26, 317326. Freud, S. (1966). The complete introductory lectures on psychoanalysis (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York: W. W. Norton. (Original work published 1933) Ganong, L., & Coleman, M. (1987). Sex, sex roles, and family love. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 148, 4552. Garcia, L. (1982). Sex role orientation and stereotypes about male female sexuality. Sex Roles, 8, 863876.

545
Green, S., Dixon, P., & Gold-Neil, D. (1993). The effects of a gay/lesbian panel discussion on college student attitudes toward gay men, lesbians, and persons with AIDS (PWAs). Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 4763. Halloran, J. D. (1967). Attitude formation and change. Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press. Hegland, J. (1999). Drag queens, transvestites, transsexuals: Stepping across the accepted boundaries of gender. In M. L. Damhorst, K. A. Miller, & S. O. Michelman (Eds.), The meanings of dress (pp. 193205). New York: Fairchild. Herek, G. M. (2000a). The psychology of sexual prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9, 1922. Herek, G. M. (2000b). Sexual prejudice and gender: Do heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay men differ? Journal of Social Issues, 56, 251266. Herek, G. M. (2002). Heterosexuals attitudes toward bisexual men and women in the United States. Journal of Sex Research, 39, 264275. Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and heterosexuals attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 412424. Herek, G., & Glunt, E. (1993). Interpersonal contact and heterosexuals attitudes toward gay men: Results from a national survey. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 239244. Hudson, W., & Ricketts, W. (1980). A strategy for the measurement of homophobia. Journal of Homosexuality, 5, 357 372. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes toward homosexual persons, behavior, and civil rights: A metaanalysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336 353. Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E., Jr. (1998). Do heterosexual women and men differ in their attitudes toward homosexuality? A conceptual and methodological analysis. In G. M. Herek (Ed.), Stigma and sexual orientation: Understanding prejudice against lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals (pp. 3961). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Lance, L. M. (1987). The effects of interaction with gay persons on attitudes toward homosexuality. Human Relations, 40, 329 335. Lobel, T. E. (1994). Sex typing and the social perception of gender stereotypic and non stereotypic behavior: The uniqueness of feminine males. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 379385. Lottes, I. L., & Kuriloff, P. J. (1994). The effects of gender, race, religion, and political orientation on the sex role attitudes of college freshmen. Adolescence, 27, 675688. Marsiglio, W. (1993). Attitudes toward homosexual activity and gays as friends: A national survey of heterosexual 1519 year old males. Journal of Sex Research, 30, 1217. Martin, C. L., & Halverson, C. F., Jr. (1981). A schematic processing model of sex typing and stereotyping in children. Child Development, 54, 11191134. Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in lesbian, gay male, and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46, 353 369. Moulton, J., & Adams-Price, C. (1997). Homosexuality, heterosexuality, and cross-dressing: Perceptions of gender discordant behavior. Sex Roles, 37, 441450. Patton, W., & Morrison, M. (1993). Effects of a university subject on attitudes toward human sexuality. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 19, 93107. Patton, W., & Morrison, M. (1994).Investigating attitudes toward sexuality: Two methodologies. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 2, 185197. Ray, A., & Gold, S. (1996). Gender roles, aggression, and alcohol use in dating relationships. Journal of Sex Research, 33, 4755.

546
Rubinstein, R. (1995). Dress codes. Boulder, CO: West View Press. Schellenberg, E. G. (1999). Attitudes toward homosexuals among students at a Canadian University. Sex Roles, 40, 139149. Schiffman, L., & Kanuk, L. (2004). Consumer behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Inuences of a narrow data base on social-psychologys view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515530. Sears, J. T., & Williams, W. L. (Eds.) (1997). Overcoming heterosexism and homophobia: Strategies that work. New York: Columbia University Press.

Ceglian and Lyons

Stone, G. P. (1965). Appearance and the self. In J. B. Eicher & M. E. Roach-Higgins (Eds.), Dress, adornment, and the social order (pp. 216246). New York: Wiley. Triandis, H. C. (1971). Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley. Waldo, C., & Kemp, J. (1997). Should I come out to my students? An empirical investigation. Journal of Homosexuality, 34, 79 94. Wong, F. Y., McCreary, D. R., Carpenter, K. M., Engle, A., & Korchynsky, R. (1999). Gender-related factors inuencing perceptions of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 37, 1931.

COPYRIGHT INFORMATION

TITLE: Gender Type and Comfort With Cross-Dressers SOURCE: Sex Roles Ment Health Jron 50 no7/812/12 Ap 20047652004 The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher: http://springerlink.metapress.com/content/1573-2762/