Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Journal of Homosexuality
ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Young

Adults: Connections to Gender Role Identity,
Gender-Typed Activities, and Religiosity
Evan Harbaugh & Eric W. Lindsey
To cite this article: Evan Harbaugh & Eric W. Lindsey (2015) Attitudes Toward Homosexuality
Among Young Adults: Connections to Gender Role Identity, Gender-Typed Activities, and
Religiosity, Journal of Homosexuality, 62:8, 1098-1125, DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1021635
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1021635
Accepted author version posted online: 24

Feb 2015.
Published online: 24 Feb 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 2437
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 8 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20
Download by: [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] Date: 24 October 2017, At: 13:40
Journal of Homosexuality, 62:10981125, 2015
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1021635
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Young

Adults: Connections to Gender Role Identity,
Gender-Typed Activities, and Religiosity
EVAN HARBAUGH, BA and ERIC W. LINDSEY, PhD

Department of Applied Psychology, Penn State Berks, Reading, Pennsylvania, USA
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
Individual differences in attitudes toward homosexuality have

been linked to numerous personality and demographic variables.
This study investigated the influence that gender role identity,
involvement in gender-typed activities, and religiosity plays in this
relationship. The sample included 194 undergraduate students
from a Northeastern university. Analyses revealed that both males
and females who held a more masculine gender role identity and
individual commitment to religion scored higher on measures of
homophobia and heteronormativity, whereas there was no asso-
ciation between spiritual meaning in life and attitudes toward
homosexuality. Among males, but not females, more masculine
gender identity and less spiritual meaning in life was associ-
ated with greater homophobia. The importance of the findings
for research on the origins of attitudes toward individuals with
a homosexual orientation are discussed, as well as the poten-
tial directions for future research on connections between gender
role identity, religious affiliation, and attitudes toward gays and
lesbians.
KEYWORDS heterosexism, homosexuality, masculinity, feminin-

ity, religiosity, spirituality, gender-typed activity
Although data from national surveys reveal that attitudes among heterosex-
uals concerning homosexuality and perceptions of lesbians and gay men
have become less disparaging and more tolerant in recent years (Dasgupta &
Rivera, 2006; Gabriel, Banse, & Hug, 2007), evidence of criminal enactments
Address correspondence to Eric W. Lindsey, Department of Applied Psychology, Penn

State Berks, 7009 Tulpehocken Road, Reading, PA 19610-7009, USA. E-mail: ewl10@psu.edu
1098
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1099
of prejudice toward sexual minorities continues to be prevalent in society

(Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2005; Harlow, 2005). A recent study using
data collected from a probability sample of adults living in the United States
in 2005 found that approximately 20% of the U.S. sexual minority population
reported having experienced a crime against their person or as a conse-
quence of their sexual orientation since age 18 (Herek, 2009a). Harassment
was found to be considerably more widespread, with about one half of sex-
ual minority adults reporting verbal abuse at some time in their adult life.
Research over the past two decades suggests that the real cost of sexual
orientation prejudice in our society is becoming more apparent, with gay,
lesbian, and bisexual adolescents and young adults struggling with serious
emotional and psychological consequences of social disapprobation and iso-
lation (Engstrom & Sedlacek, 1997; Herek, Cogan, & Gillis, 2002; Hillier &
Harrison, 2004; Szymanski, 2005). In addition to higher than average rates
of suicide ideation (Garofalo, Wolf, Wissow, Woods, & Goodman, 1999),
these young people also experience a greater incidence of substance abuse,
sexual abuse, homelessness, parental rejection, emotional isolation, school
drop-out, and low self-esteem (Hershberger & DAugelli, 1995; Herek et al.,
2002).
Homophobia and negative attitudes toward homosexuality are said to
be one reason for these negative life outcomes experienced by LGTB youth.
Attitudes toward homosexuality manifest themselves in many ways and have
been operationalized in the literature using a myriad of terms. The social
manifestation of prejudice and distress over homosexual orientation, as well
as the many traditions that pathologize homosexuality, is referred to as
homophobia. Credit for coining the term homophobia is given to Weinberg
(1972), who defined it as unwarranted distress over homosexuality
(pp. 45). More recently, homophobia has been reconceputalized as
heteronormativity, defined as the promotion by major institutions in society
of the superiority of heterosexual lifestyles, with the subordination of other
lifestyles (Jackson, 2006; Yep, 2002). Heteronormativity has been described
as beliefs and attitudes that emphasize the importance of safeguarding the
one form of sexuality (heterosexuality) deemed noble, while marginalizing
and stigmatizing homosexuality (Anderson, 2002; Cowan, Heiple, Marquez,
Khatchadoourian, & McNevin, 2005). The operations of heteronormativity
lead people to believe that the expression of heterosexuality is right, just, and
natural, while all other forms of sexuality are immoral, unhealthy, or inferior
(MacDonald, Huggins, Young, & Swanson, 1973). Empirical work suggests
that homophobia and heteronormativity are related, but distinct, constructs
that form the core of a constellation of attitudes surrounding sexual orien-
tation (Finlay & Walther, 2003; Greendorfer & Rubinson, 1997). It remains
unclear, however, whether the two constructs share similar correlates in
accounting for individual differences in their manifestation.
1100 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
Culturally ingrained beliefs about masculinity and femininity may play

a role in the attitudes heterosexuals hold toward homosexuality, including
homophobia and heteronormativity. Gender role beliefs focus on the behav-
iors that are seen as appropriate for men and women, and therefore may
be particularly relevant for understanding opinions about sexuality (Herek,
2009b). The Gender Belief System (GBS; Kite & Whitley, 1996) offers one
explanation for the origin of negative attitudes about homosexuality, pre-
dicting that antigay attitudes are related to traditional gender role beliefs.
Specifically, gender socialization teaches men and women what society
believes are the behaviors appropriate for their corresponding biological
sex, so that the individual learns to devalue and dislike, and therefore avoid,
any behavior that could be construed as counter to particular gender roles,
including homosexuality, in order to be accepted by society (Kite & Deaux,

1987; Whitley, 2001). Therefore, when a man is not masculine or woman is
not feminine, they are believed to be acting not only contrary to their given
sex but also to the ideal of heterosexuality. Support for the GBS expla-
nation of negative attitudes toward homosexuality comes from empirical
research that has found a positive relationship between hypermasculinity
and homophobia (Kilianski, 2003; Theodore & Basow, 2000).
Studies suggest that heterosexual men whose identity is closely tied
to their masculinity and who try to live up to a standard of extreme
masculinity have more negative attitudes toward gay men (Davies, 2004;
Jellison, McConnell, & Gabriel, 2004). Whether adherence to traditional gen-
der role identity in general is predictive of homophobia is more equivocal.
Although some studies report that having traditional gender role identity is
positively associated with homophobia among college students (Basow &
Johnson, 2000; Kerns & Fine, 1994; Theodore & Basow, 2000), other studies
report no relationship between adherence to traditional gender roles and
homophobia (Cotton-Huston & Waite, 2000; Whitley & gisdottir, 2000).
Still other empirical evidence indicates that traditional gender role identity is
linked to homophobia in males, but not females (Falomir-Pichastor, Martinez,
& Paterna, 2010; Polimeni, Hardie, & Buzwell, 2000). These discrepancies in
findings across studies have led several researchers to call for additional
research to elucidate the connections between personal gender role iden-
tity and attitudes toward homosexuality in heterosexual men and women
(Nagoahi et al., 2008; Polimeni et al., 2000).
It seems reasonable to speculate that gender role identity may be asso-
ciated with attitudes toward homosexuality, both directly and indirectly, by
influencing the individuals choice to participate in gendered-typed activities
and to avoid activities that are associated with the other gender. Consistent
with this reasoning, integrated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 2000) sug-
gests that individuals are likely to avoid those behaviors that threaten, and
embrace activities that strengthen, their sense of selfin this case, their gen-
der role identity. In support of this perspective, Anderson (2008) suggested
that men wishing to avoid homosexual stigma generally do not work or play
in feminized contexts, nor do they act in feminine ways if they desire to be
perceived as heteromasculine among peers. Consistent with this argument,
empirical evidence points to a connection between gender role attitudes
and career choices of college students, with individuals who hold more
traditional gender role identities selecting careers that are stereotypically
linked to their gender (Weisgram, Dinella, & Fulcher, 2011). In turn, the
choice of a more traditional gender-typed occupation may serve to reinforce
or strengthen negative attitudes toward homosexuality. Therefore, it seems
worthwhile to examine the association between occupational choice and
attitudes toward homosexuality.
Sports have been described as another context in which hegemonic
ideals of traditional gender roles, particularly in regard to masculinity, are

reproduced and defined (Harry, 1995; Muir & Seitz, 2004). The culture of
organized sports not only rejects homosexuality but also venerates hyper-
heterosexuality (Greendorfer & Rubinson, 1997; Kolnes, 1995; Osborne &
Wagner, 2007). In the context of sports, gay men specifically are perceived
largely as deviant and dangerous participants on the sporting turf in that
they defy culturally defined structures of hegemonic masculinity (Messner,
1992, p. 34). In order to examine the connection between heteromasculin-
ity and attitudes toward homosexuality, Anderson (2005, 2008) conducted
extensive personal interviews and observations of a sample of male cheer-
leaders. Consistent with his expectations, the male cheerleaders reported
facing the persistent challenge of a homosexual stigma. At the same time,
the male cheerleaders reported being accepting of homosexuality, but they
expressed negative attitudes toward males who behaved in ways that would
be considered feminine. Additional research is needed that examines the
connections between homophobia and heteronormativity in relation to a
wider range of sports and other recreational activities.
Another avenue by which gender roles may operate indirectly to influ-
ence attitudes toward homosexuality is through religious affiliation and
beliefs. Previous research suggests that college students who report greater
religiosity have a more traditional gender role identity (Aosved & Long,
2006; Finlay & Walthers, 2003; Hodge, 2005; Rowatt, Tsang, Kelly, LaMartina,
McCullers, & McKinley, 2006). Weinberg (1972) argued that there are a
number of religious and political traditions that support anti-homosexual
sentiment. One tradition is that of the Judeo-Christian religion, which pre-
scribes formal religious guidelines against homosexual behavior. A second
tradition is the Augustinian Catholic anti-pleasure value system, which in
combination with the Calvinist Protestant tradition of the value of work,
led to restrictive attitudes about sex and sexuality in the United States (Fyfe,
1983). Consistent with this perspective, empirical evidence suggests that indi-
viduals who report greater religiosity also report more negative attitudes
about homosexuals and greater sexual prejudice, including apprehension
about contact with homosexuals, civil rights intolerance, and stereotypic

beliefs (Finlay & Walther, 2003; Hodge, 2005; Rowatt et al., 2006). According
to Veenvliet (2008), individuals who are intrinsically motivated to practice
their religion are more likely to have negative attitudes toward homosexuals
and to also have less tolerance for same-gender sexual behavior. At the same
time, however, Veenvliet (2008) reported that members of congregations that
embrace the love the sinner, hate the sin philosophy tend to have relatively
high positive attitudes toward gay men and lesbians while having lower mea-
sures of tolerance toward same-gender sexual behavior. Although Veenvliets
study (2008) linked homophobia and religiosity, it failed to examine the rela-
tionship between heteronormativity and religiosity. It seems reasonable to
hypothesize that individuals who report greater religiosity will hold more
negative attitudes toward homosexuality.

Because many of the negative life outcomes observed for lesbian,
gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) youth likely have their origins in
the general populations attitudes toward homosexuality, it is important for
empirical research to examine the factors that may play a role in individ-
ual differences in such attitudes. The present study represents an effort
to further understand the attitudes and beliefs that are associated with
homophobia and perceptions of homosexual individuals among college stu-
dents. Building on previous research, assessments of gender role identity,
participation in leisure activities, occupational interests, and religiosity will be
compared to individuals reported heteronormative beliefs, attitudes toward
homosexuality, and gay rights. In addition, gender and ethnicity will be
used to examine group differences in homophobia and attitudes toward
homosexuality. Based on existing evidence, it is hypothesized that (1) the
heteronormative beliefs will be positively associated with negative attitudes
toward homosexuality, (2) adherence to a traditional gender role identity
will be positively associated with heteronormative beliefs and negative atti-
tudes toward homosexuality, (3) involvement in gender-typed employment
and recreational activities will be positively associated with heteronormative
beliefs and negative attitudes toward homosexuality, and (4) religiosity will
be positively associated with heteronormative beliefs and negative attitudes
toward homosexuality. The analyses will also explore interactions between
gender role identity, involvement in gender-typed activities, and religious
affiliation in predicting attitudes toward homosexuality, although no specific
hypotheses are advanced regarding these interactions.
METHOD
Participants
Data were collected from 194 undergraduate students (83% of those who
were invited to participate) at a small liberal arts college in the Northeast
United States. The mean age of participants was 21.3 (SD = 4.73) years and
included 93 (40.3%) male and 101 (59.7%) female students. The respondents
college majors included arts and sciences (55.6%), business administration
(10%), journalism and mass communication (20.8%), and engineering and
technology (4.4%). The remaining 8.1% were in education, agricultural sci-
ence, fine and performing arts, architecture, human resource and family
science, and law. One hundred and twenty-three (63%) of the participants
identified as White or European American, 26 (13%) as African American,
24 (12%) as Hispanic or Latino, 6 (3%) as Asian/Pacific Islander, 7 (4%)
as Biracial, and the 8 remaining (4%) as Other, which included written-in
responses such as Indian and Iranian. Eighty-nine (46%) of the participants
were in their first two years of college, and 105 (54%) were in their third
or fourth year of college-level education. All participants were made fully

aware that participation was voluntary, and participants were asked to sign
a consent form.
Procedure
A convenience sampling plan was used to recruit participants from under-
graduate classes in psychology (53%), communications (37%), and theater
(10%). Students were offered course credit for participating in the study, and
they were informed that their name would be entered into a lottery for the
drawing of six gift certificates to the campus bookstore worth $35. A writing
assignment was offered as an option for earning course credit to students
who did not desire to participate in the research. The study was described as
a survey aimed at assessing college students gender role attitudes, religious
beliefs and experiences, and opinions regarding sexual orientation. In order
to avoid disrupting course schedules by having students complete surveys in
class at the time of recruitment, paper-and-pencil surveys were distributed to
students with instructions to return the completed surveys to researchers in
1 week.
Measures
DEMOGRAPHIC SURVEY
Participants completed a demographics survey that included questions con-

cerning age, ethnicity, marital status, year in school, and employment
status.
PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES QUESTIONNAIRE
Students also completed the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence

& Helmreich, 1978) designed to assess gender role identity. The PAQ
contains 24 items asking the respondent to describe themselves in terms of

various bipolar adjectives. Respondents are asked to rate themselves along a
5-point continuum, from 0 to 4, that compares an adjective at one extreme
with its presumed opposite (e.g., Very passiveVery active) or with its nega-
tion (e.g., Not at all competitiveVery competitive) at the other extreme. The
PAQ contains three subscales: individual masculinity (IM; = .74), individual
femininity (IF; = .86), and masculinityfemininity (MF; = .30). Because
the focus of this study was on traditional gender role attitudes, and due
to the low reliability of the measure, the masculinityfemininity scale (i.e.,
androgyny) was not used in the present study. Participants responses to all
of the items making up the IM and IF subscales were summed and aver-
aged into a single score with higher scores indicating greater endorsement
of the gender role. Therefore, there were two scores for each participant: an
average masculinity and an average femininity score.
The PAQ was chosen over other measures of gender role identity
because of empirical support for its validity and reliability. In a recent psy-
chometric review of the PAQ, Ward, Thorn, Clements, Dixon, and Sanford
(2006) reported adequate internal consistency ( = .67 to .80) for both the
M and the F scale of the PAQ. Additionally, Ward et al. (2006) reported con-
firmatory factor analyses of the F and M scales within the PAQ. Construct
validation of the PAQ has consisted of correlating scores on the IM scale
to typical masculine traits such as competitiveness (Spence & Helmreich,
1978) and scores on the IF scale to feminine traits such as nurturance (Bem,
Martyna, & Watson, 1976).
LEISURE AND WORK ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE (LWAQ)

Students completed a survey created for this study designed to obtain
information concerning their participation in leisure and work activities. The
survey consists of four questions that ask respondents to identify up to three
activities that they participate in on a regular basis in the following domains:
(1) sports, (2) hobbies, (3) organizations/groups, and (4) paid employment.
Respondents were also asked to rate how much time they spend in each
activity and their level of skill in relation to activities in the sports and
hobbies domains.
Responses to the LWAQ were subsequently coded by two research assis-
tants to identify the gender stereotypical pattern of leisure and work activities
reported by respondents. For each sport, hobby, organizational affiliation,
and job that an individual identified, coders assigned a score based on cul-
tural stereotypes of the activity as being masculine or feminine following
guidelines adapted from Liben and Bigler (2002). A score of 0 was assigned
to activities not stereotypically affiliated with a specific gender, but that are
equally applicable to males or females (e.g., waitstaff; cashier; exercise; go
for a drive; listen to music; go to a movie; watch television). A score of
1 was assigned to activities that are stereotypically affiliated with females, in

that social norms or expectations would suggest that the activity should be
performed more commonly by females than males (e.g., babysitting/child
care; go shopping/browsing; reading; go horseback riding). A score of
2 was assigned to activities stereotypically affiliated with males, in that social
norms or expectations suggest that the activity should be performed more
commonly by males than females (e.g., construction work; yard work; go
hunting/fishing; play football, basketball, or baseball; go hiking, camping, or
backpacking). Interrater agreement between the coders for the entire sample
was 85%. All disagreements between the coders were reviewed with the sec-
ond author and a consensus was reached as to the final scoring that should
be assigned.
Subsequently, two scores were created for gender-typed employment

and leisure activity involvement. For gender-typed employment, all items in
the employment category that were assigned a score of 1 for females and
a scores of 2 for males were summed and divided by the total number of
items reported, thus creating a proportion score representing the proportion
of paid employment experiences that were gendered typed within females
and males. A similar procedure was used for gender-typed leisure activi-
ties, with all items in the three categories of (1) sports, (2) hobbies, and
(3) organizations/groups that received a score of 1 for females and a score
of 2 for males being summed and divided by the total number of items.
In this way, scores could range from 0 to 1, with scores closer to 1 reflecting
greater participation in gender-typed activities.
INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOSITY QUESTIONNAIRE
Participants responded to four questions designed to assess private reli-

gious and spiritual practices, a conceptual domain or dimension of religious
involvement often characterized by terms such as nonorganizational, infor-
mal, and noninstitutional religiosity (Levin, Taylor, & Chatters, 1995; Taylor,
Chatters, Jayakody, & Levin, 1996). Each item asks for information concern-
ing a particular religious/spiritual practice, with the beginning phrase How
often . . . (i.e., . . . do you pray privately in places other than at church or
synagogue?, . . . do you listen to religious programming on television or
radio?, . . . do you read the Bible or other religious literature outside of
church or formal religious gatherings?, . . . are prayers or grace said before
or after meals in your home), to which participants respond using a scale
indicating the frequency with which they engage in the behavior. The first
three items are scored on an 8-point scale ranging from never to several times
a day, whereas the fourth item pertaining to prayer at mealtimes is scored
on a 5-point scale ranging from never to at all meals. The validity of the
scale has been demonstrated through consistently high correlations with vari-
ables associated conceptually with informal religiosity, such as conservative
political ideology (Levin et al., 1995) and marital fidelity (Burdette, Ellison,
Sherkat, & Gore, 2007). All items were averaged to form a single measure
of individual religiosity ( = .80), with high scores representing greater
informal religious affiliation.
RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL MEANING IN LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE
Participants completed the Religious/Spirituality Meaning in Life

Questionnaire (RSMLQ; Pargament, 1997; Pargament, Koenig, & Perez,
2000). The RSMLQ is designed to assess the extent to which a person
turns to religion or spirituality in a search for meaning in their life using
20 questions (e.g., My spiritual beliefs give meaning to my lifes joys and
sorrows; The goals of my life grow out of my understanding of God;
Without a sense of spirituality, my daily life would be meaningless; My

religious beliefs help me find a purpose in even the most painful and
confusing events in my life). Items are rated on a 5-point scale ranging from
strongly agree to strongly disagree. Support for validity of the scale comes
from evidence that it is significantly correlated with other conceptually
relevant variables among samples of college students, such as coping with
bereavement (Wortmann, Park, & Edmondson, 2012) and life stress (Chai,
Krgeloh, Shepherd, & Billington, 2012). All 20 items were averaged to form
a single indicator of religious/spiritual meaning in life ( = .98), with high
scores representing greater adherence to religious/spiritual meaning.
ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY
Preexisting questions from several different instruments were combined

to form a questionnaire to assess attitudes toward homosexuality and
heteronormativity. Questions were taken from the Attitudes Toward
Homosexuals Scale (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; MacDonald et al., 1973),
the Attitudes Toward Same-Gender Sexual Behavior Scale (Veenvliet, 2008),
and the Acceptance of Homosexuality and Support for Gay Rights scale
(Lewis, 2003). All items were scored using a 7-point scale ranging from 1
strongly disagree to 7 strongly agree. Three scales were created by averaging
the items that were conceptually related, with appropriate reverse scoring
of question. The three scales are (1) homophobia ( = .86; 7 items), (2)
heteronormativity ( = .83; 4 items), and (3) attitudes toward gay rights
( = .78; 10 items).
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Due
to insufficient cell sizes, a new race variable was computed with two lev-
els, Caucasian (N = 123; 62 female, 61 male), and non-Caucasian (African
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics
Males (n = 93) Females (n = 101) t
Demographic characteristics M (SD) M (SD)

Age 20.91 (4.47) 21.31 (4.74) .86
Year of college 2.75 (.96) 2.87 (.97) .53
Employed (1 = no, 2 = yes) 1.78 (.40) 1.73 (.44) .11
Personal Attributes Questionnaire
Masculine identity 3.75 (.67) 3.43 (.67) 2.34
Feminine identity 3.79 (.27) 4.18 (.53) 2.82
Gender typed activities
Employment .41 (.25) .44 (.22) .88
Recreation .35 (.29) .37 (.30) .74
Religiosity
Individual religious commitment 6.12 (1.25) 5.68 (1.64) 1.94
Spiritual meaning in life 3.84 (.95) 3.98 (1.18) .85

Attitudes toward homosexuality
Homophobia 2.97 (1.08) 2.27 (.85) 4.11
Heteronormativity 3.58 (1.59) 2.73 (1.37) 3.51
Gay rights 3.41 (.63) 3.62 (.67) 2.34
Note. p < .05; p < .01; p < .001.
Americans, Latinos, Asians, and other (N = 71; 39 female, 32 male). To exam-

ine participant gender and race differences on the dependent variables
(Hypotheses 1 and 2), a 2 (Participant Gender) 2 (Participant Race)
MANOVA was computed. There was a significant main effect of participant
gender on all three specific attitudes toward homosexuality: (1) homophobia,
F(1, 192) = 18.13, p < .01, with men (M = 2.86, SD =.54) scoring higher
than women (M = 2.14, SD = .47), (2) heteronormativity, F(1, 192) = 26.31,
p < .001, with men (M = 3.61, SD = .46) scoring higher than women (M
= 2.87, SD = .42), and (3) attitudes toward gay rights, F(1, 192) = 11.53,
p < .05, with women (M = 4.16, SD = .34) scoring higher than men (M =
3.58, SD = .41. In contrast, there was no significant main effect of participant
race for (1) homophobia, F(1, 162) = 3.45, ns, (2) heteronormativity, F(1,
162) = 6.02, ns, and (3) attitudes toward gay rights, F(1, 162) = 1.93, ns,
nor was there a significant interaction between participant race and gender
for (1) homophobia, F(2, 190) = 7.33, ns, (2) heteronormativity, F(1, 192) =
2.42, ns, and (3) attitudes toward gay rights, F(1, 192) = 4.32, ns.
Intercorrelations
Because our primary goal was to examine the relationship between gender
role identity, participation in gender-typed activities, and religiosity to atti-
tudes toward homosexuality, correlations between all of the measures were
computed for the full sample adjusting for gender (see Table 2). Greater iden-
tification with masculine and feminine gender roles was positively associated
with involvement in gender-typed employment and recreation activities.
TABLE 2 Partial correlations among variables controlling for gender
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Personal Attributes Questionnaire

1. Masculine identity
2. Feminine identity .08
Gender typed activities
3. Employment .14 .20
4. Recreation .17 .29 .53
1108
Religiosity
5. Individual commitment .06 .18 .25 .26
6. Spiritual meaning in life .14 .15 .21 .20 .17
Attitudes toward homosexuality
7. Homophobia .17 .05 .26 .15 .27 .20
8. Heteronormativity .18 .11 .24 .13 .25 .23 .62
9. Gay rights .20 .10 .05 .16 .07 .04 .12 .14
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.
Identification with masculine gender role was significantly negatively asso-

ciated with spiritual meaning in life. Identification with feminine gender
role was significantly negatively associated with individual commitment to
religion and significantly positively associated with spiritual meaning in life.
Individuals who reported more gender-typed employment experiences
also reported engaging in more gender-typed recreational activities and
greater individual commitment to religion. However, individuals with more
gender-typed employment experiences reported lower spiritual meaning in
life. Individuals who reported more involvement in gender-typed recre-
ational activities also reported greater individual commitment to religion and
spiritual meaning in life.
As can be seen in Table 2, individuals who identified with a masculine
gender role were significantly more likely to report homophobic and het-
eronormative beliefs and were less likely to endorse support for gay rights.
Individuals who reported more gender-typed employment experiences and
recreational activities scored higher on homophobic attitudes and heteronor-
mative beliefs, whereas only individuals who reported more involvement in
gender-typed recreational activities were less likely to endorse gay rights.
There was a consistent pattern of associations between both religiosity
measures and attitudes toward homosexuality, with individuals who reported
more individual commitment to religion being significantly more likely to
score higher on homophobia and heteronormative beliefs, whereas individ-
uals who reported more spiritual meaning in life were significantly more
likely to score lower on homophobia and heteronormative beliefs. Neither
religiosity variable was significantly associated with attitudes toward gay
rights.
Primary Analysis
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses were used to test the main hypothe-
ses concerning associations of gender-role identify, gender-typed activities,
and religiosity to attitudes toward homosexuality. Gender and ethnicity were
entered in the first step of each regression analysis to control for potential
confounds. Young adult reported gender role identity was entered in the
second step of each analysis. The two gender-typed activity scores were
entered together in the third step. Step 4 contained the measures of reli-
giosity. The product of the interaction between gender, gender-role norms,
and religiosity measures were entered into the fifth step as recommended
by Aiken and West (1991). In total, three separate regression analyses were
conducted, one with each measure of attitudes toward homosexuality (i.e.,
homophobia, heteronormativity, and attitudes toward gay rights).
Calculation of simple intercepts and simple slopes to probe signifi-
cant interactions was conducted according to standard procedures (Aiken
& West, 1991; Dearing & Hamilton, 2006). These analyses yielded intercepts
and slopes representing the relations between the predictor (gender-typed
norms) and outcome (attitudes toward homosexuality) at lower (1 SD) and
higher (+1 SD) levels of the moderator (religiosity) for males and females.
It is important to note that a significant interaction term indicates that the
associations between the predictor and outcome variable at higher versus
lower religiosity are different from one another. The significance of the slope
itself indicates whether the magnitude of the slope is significantly different
from 0 at a particular level of gender role attitude.
As shown in Table 3, in step 1 of the first regression gender and ethnic-
ity accounted for 12% of the variance in homophobia, but each were each
independently associated with homophobia. The beta weights revealed that
males and European American young adults reported more homophobic atti-
tudes. Step 2 of the regression revealed that gender-typed identity predicted
an additional significant 7% of the variance in homophobia scores. The beta
weights revealed that only higher masculine gender identity, not feminine
gender identity, was significantly related to higher homophobic attitudes.
Step 3 revealed that gender-typed activities accounted for a nonsignificant
3% of the variance in homophobic attitudes. The fourth step revealed that
religiosity significantly contributed to homophobic attitudes, explaining 9%
of the variance. However, the beta weights indicated that only individual
commitment to religion was associated with higher homophobia. The fifth
step revealed that these main effects were qualified by a significant three-way
interaction between gender, masculine gender role identity, and individual
commitment to religion, as well as by a significant three-way interaction
between gender, masculine gender identity, and spiritual meaning in life,
which accounted for 6% of the variance. Follow-up analyses revealed that
masculine gender role identity was significantly positively associated with
homophobic attitudes among males who were high on individual commit-
ment to religion, = .34, SE = .11, p < .05, but nonsignificantly associated
with homophobic attitudes among males who were low on individual com-
mitment to religion, = .19, SE = .05, ns (see Figure 1a). A similar pattern
was seen for spiritual meaning in life, with masculine gender role identity
significantly positively associated with homophobic attitudes among males
who were high on spiritual meaning in life, = .36, SE = .11, p < .05, but
nonsignificantly associated with homophobic attitudes among males who
were low on spiritual meaning in life., = .07, SE = .03, ns (see Figure 1b).
In step 1 of the second regression, gender, but not ethnicity, was asso-
ciated with heteronormativity, accounting for 9% of the variance. The beta
weights revealed that males reported more heteronormative beliefs. Step 2
of the regression revealed that gender-typed identity accounted for an addi-
tional significant 9% of the variance in heteronormative beliefs. The beta
weights revealed that greater masculine gender role identity was significantly
related to more heteronormative beliefs. Step 3 revealed that there was
TABLE 3 Gender, ethnicity, gender role identity, gender typed activities, and religiosity as predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality
Homophobia Heteronormativity Attitudes toward Gay Rights

2 2
F R F R F R 2
Step 1 4.14 .12 3.32 .09 2.91 .07

Gender .44 .40 .28
Ethnicity .21 .13 .07
Step 2: Personal Attributes 3.16 .07 3.37 .09 2.54 .05
Masculine identity .32 .40 .28
Feminine identity .12 .18 .15
Step 3: Gender-typed activities 1.11 .03 1.42 .04 .94 .01
Employment .07 .18 .02
1111
Recreation .22 .16 .10
Step 4: Religiosity 3.62 .09 3.84 .10 1.75 .03

Individual commitment (IC) .31 .45 .17
Spiritual meaning in life (SMIL) .22 .31 .10
Step 5: 3-way interactions 3.20 .06 3.25 .06 1.12 .02
Gender MI IC .31 .48 .11
Gender FI IC .15 .09 .14
Gender MI SMIL .28 .32 .03
Gender FI SMIL .17 .20 .17
Note. Gender coded 1 = Female 2 = Male; ethnicity coded 1 = African American 2 = European American.
p < .05, p < .01, p < .001.
6
Males High IC
5 Males Low IC
Homophobia
Females High IC
4
Females Low IC
0
1 SD +1 SD
Masculine
FIGURE 1A The 3-way interaction of gender, masculine gender role identity, and individual
religious commitment (IC) when predicting homophobia.
6
Males High IC
Heteronormativity
5 Males Low IC
Females High IC
4
Females Low IC
0
1 SD +1 SD
Masculine
FIGURE 1B The 3-way interaction of gender, masculine gender role identity, and individual
religious commitment (IC) when predicting heteronormativity.
no association between gender-typed activities and heteronormative beliefs,

which accounted for only 4% of the variance. The fourth step revealed that
individual commitment to religion and spiritual meaning in life explained a
significant 10% of the variance in heteronormative beliefs, with individual
commitment to religion associated with more heteronormative beliefs and
spiritual meaning associated with less heteronormative beliefs. The fifth step
revealed that these main effects were qualified by a significant three-way
interaction between gender, masculine gender role identity, and individual
commitment to religion, as well as by a significant three-way interaction
between gender, masculine gender role identity, and spiritual meaning in
life, which accounted for 6% of the variance. Follow-up analyses revealed

that masculine gender role identity was significantly positively associated
with heterosexist attitudes among males who were high on individual com-
mitment to religion, = .67, SE = .12, p < .01, but significantly negatively
associated with heterosexist attitudes among males who were low on indi-
vidual commitment to religion, = .71, SE = .12, p < .01 (see Figure 2a).
A similar pattern was seen for spiritual meaning in life, with masculine gen-
der role identity significantly positively associated with heterosexist attitudes
among males who were high on spiritual meaning in life, = .40, SE = .11,
p < .05, but nonsignificantly associated with heterosexist attitudes among
males who were low on spiritual meaning in life., = .16, SE = .05, ns (see
Figure 2b).
6
Males High SMIL
5 Males Low SMIL
Homophobia
Females High SMIL

4
Females Low SMIL
0
1SD +1SD
Masculine
FIGURE 2A The 3-way interaction of gender, masculine gender role identity, and spiritual
meaning in life (SMIL) when predicting homophobia.
6
Males High SMIL
Heteronormativity
5 Males Low SMIL

Females High SMIL
4
Females Low SMIL
0
1 SD +1 SD
Masculine
FIGURE 2B The 3-way interaction of gender, masculine gender role identity, and spiritual
meaning in life (SMIL) when predicting heteronormativity.
In the third regression, step 1 revealed that gender, but not ethnicity,
was associated with attitudes toward gay rights, accounting for 7% of the
variance. The beta weights revealed that females reported more positive
attitudes toward gay rights. Step 2 of the regression revealed that gender
role identity norms predicted an additional 5% of the variance in attitudes
toward gay rights. The beta weights revealed that higher masculine gender
role identity was significantly related to less positive attitudes toward gay
rights. Step 3 revealed that there was no association between gender-typed
activities and attitudes toward gay rights, which explained only 1% of the
variance. The fourth step revealed that there were no associations between
religiosity and attitudes toward gay rights, with only 3% of the variance
accounted for by these variables. The fifth step revealed that there were
no significant three-way interactions between gender, gender role identity,

and religiosity in predicting attitudes toward gay rights, with only 2% of the
variance accounted for by these variables.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to examine differences in attitudes toward

homosexuality among young adult college students. In an effort to replicate
and expand on prior studies, this investigation brought together previously
studied sociodemographic, gender role identity, and religiosity variables in
a multivariate approach to examine their relative associations with college
students attitudes toward homosexuality. Moreover, this study sought to
determine what aspects of religiosity, individual commitment, or spiritual
meaning were the best predictors of homophobia and heteronormativity.
The goal of this strategy was to examine the interplay among these charac-
teristics in a way that better captures the complexity of how they manifest
themselves in the lives of college students. Achieving a greater understand-
ing of the characteristics that relate to attitudes toward homosexuality can
help inform therapeutic and educational efforts to reduce prejudice toward
sexual minorities and identify what areas should be explored further through
research.
A major goal of the study was to identify potential differences in the cor-
relates of homophobia and heteronormative beliefs, two types of attitudes
toward homosexuality that past research has suggested may be distinguished
from each other (Aosved & Long, 2006; Davies, 2004). Consistent with past
research (Aosved & Long, 2006), in the present study there was a sig-
nificant association between the three measures used to assess attitudes
toward homosexuality: (a) homophobia, (b) heteronormativity, and (c) atti-
tudes toward gay rights. Individuals who reported more homophobia were
significantly more likely to hold heteronormative beliefs and less positive
attitudes toward gay rights. Likewise, more heteronormative beliefs were
associated with less positive attitudes toward gay rights. At the same time,
however, the pattern of correlations among these variables suggests that they
are tapping different components of beliefs associated with homosexuality.
Simply because a person holds negative attitudes about homosexuality and
adheres to a heteronormative worldview does not necessarily indicate that
they oppose equal rights for individuals who are homosexual. The findings
point to the usefulness of distinguishing between these three dimensions of
attitudes toward homosexuality for the purpose of elucidating the complexity
of this social phenomenon.
Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Consistent with previous studies (Herek, 1988; Kite & Whitley, 1996), men
were found to be more homophobic than women. Interestingly, however,
there were differences in variability of homophobia scores within gender, in
that there was more variability in homophobia for men than women. This
indicates that there are other factors, not assessed in this study, that may have
mediated homophobic beliefs for men. Although research has consistently
found differences between women and men in homophobic beliefs (Herek,
2002; Kerns & Fine, 1994), these differences may be due to differences in
other factors for women and men. Existing literature suggests that contact
with LGB individuals or exposure to positive images of lesbian, gay, bisexual
(LGB) individuals in the media (Cotton-Huston & Waite, 2000), aggression
proneness (Aosved & Long, 2006), and restrictive sexuality (Davies, 2004;
MacDonald et al., 1973) may be areas to explore further in light of the
differences in homophobia between women and men.
Gender Role Attitudes and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

In keeping with hypotheses based on the GBS theory (Kite & Whitley,
1998), the present study found that participants gender role identity pre-
dicted homophobic and heteronormative beliefs. Specifically, the findings
indicate that regardless of gender, individuals who held stronger masculine
gender role identity scored higher on the measures of homophobia and
heternormativity, and held less favorable attitudes toward gay rights. There
was no significant association between feminine gender role identity and
homophobia or heteronormative beliefs. These findings suggest that it is not
adherence to traditional gender role identity in general, but rather empha-
sis on the importance of traditional masculinity specifically, that is related
to negative attitudes toward homosexuality. In contrast, identification with
a feminine gender role was unrelated to attitudes toward homosexuality.
Consequently, the present study lends support to arguments that individ-
ual differences in homophobia may have more to do with beliefs about
the importance of masculinity and power, and less to do with the inherent
characteristics of being homosexual (Anderson, 2002; Davies, 2004; Herek,
2009b). Because the nature of homosexual relationships threaten traditional
gender roles, homosexual men and lesbians are likely to be viewed more
negatively by individuals in the United States who strongly adhere to tradi-
tional gender norms. The results of this study also support findings of other
researchers who have demonstrated that gender role attitudes were signif-
icantly related to attitudes toward homosexuality (Basow & Johnson, 2000;
Kerns & Fine, 1994; Theodore & Basow, 2000), and are contrary to stud-
ies that have failed to find an association between adherence to gender roles
and homophobia (Cotton-Huston & Waite, 2000; Whitley & gisdottir, 2000).
It may be that the strategy of assessing both masculine and feminine gen-
der role attitudes, as opposed to reliance on a broad indicator of traditional

gender role beliefs, accounts for the significant findings in the present study.
Gender-Typed Activities and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Contrary to expectations, neither involvement in gender-typed employment
nor involvement in gender-typed recreational activities was associated with
attitudes toward homosexuality after taking into account participants tra-
ditional gender role attitudes. Thus it appears that gender role attitudes is
the more robust concomitant individual characteristic associated with atti-
tudes toward homosexuality. This makes theoretical sense in that gender
role attitudes are considered to be the foundation for beliefs about how gen-
der should be enacted, such as those tapped by the measures of attitudes
toward homosexuality used in the present study, as well as the guiding force
behind an individuals the choice to engage in gender-typed behavior, such
as that captured by the measure of involvement in gender-type activities.
Furthermore, the fact that the measures of gender role attitudes and attitudes
toward homosexuality assessed patterns of thinking, whereas the measure of
involvement in gender-typed activities was more behavioral in nature, may
help to explain the pattern of associations. It is worth noting that there was a
significant positive association between traditional gender role attitudes and
involvement in gender-typed activities. That is, individuals who held more
traditional masculine and feminine gender role attitudes were more likely to
have held employment and to have engaged in recreational activities that
were gender typed.
Religiosity and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Support also was found for the hypothesized connection between religiosity
and attitudes toward homosexuality. However, the nature of this association
differed based on the particular dimensions of religiosity examined.
Specifically, individual commitment to religion proved to be significantly
related to higher levels of homophobia and heteronormative beliefs. In con-

trast, spiritual meaning in life was negatively associated with heteronormative
beliefs. This finding is consistent with results of prior research indicating that
anti-homosexual prejudice is associated with religiousness and frequency
of religious practices (Finlay & Walther, 2003; Veenvliet, 2008), as well as
with findings linking more fundamentalist religious orientation with greater
prejudice (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Rowatt et al., 2006). However, it
is important to note that not all religions embrace negative perceptions of
homosexuality (Veenvliet, 2008), and because the specific religious denomi-
nations to which our participants affiliated was not assessed, it is important
to avoid making generalizations about religious organizations. Furthermore,
because our data was concurrent in nature we cannot make claims about the
direction of effect in the association between our variables. It may be that

participants in this study who endorsed more homophobic beliefs were also
more likely to frequently engage in religious practices.
Interestingly, spiritual meaning in life was not found to be a predictor for
homophobic beliefs in this study. This is noteworthy in that both the present
study and past research indicates that there is a robust connection between
spiritual meaning in life and individual commitment to religion, yet in the
present study only individual commitment to religion predicted homophobic
beliefs. It may be that individuals who adhere to a strong spiritual meaning
in life have more of an extrinsic than an intrinsic religious orientation. Past
research indicates that an extrinsic religious orientation is linked to values
of social support and interactions with others while in a religious setting, as
opposed to an intrinsic religious orientation where religious teachings and
instructions about how to live ones life are the primary focus (Donahue,
1985). Therefore, negative messages about sexual minorities heard in some
religious settings may be less likely to have a significant impact on indi-
viduals with a high spiritual meaning in life because religious teachings are
not their primary focus. This interpretation is consistent with the results of
a recent meta-analysis (Whitley, 2009) showing that compared to intrinsic
forms of religiosity, such as fundamentalism, religious service attendance,
and self-rated religiosity, that are related to negative attitudes toward les-
bians and gay men, the less traditional form of religiosity, characterized by
open-mindedness and willingness to change, are related to positive attitudes
toward lesbians and gay men (Whitley, 2009). Future research should include
assessments of different forms of religious affiliation to gain a more spe-
cific understanding of the distinction between spiritual meaning in life and
individual commitment to religion, and how these and other forms of reli-
gious affiliation interact to influence positive and negative attitudes toward
homosexuality.
Interactions
Analyses revealed that there was a significant three-way interaction between
gender, gender role identity, and individual commitment to religion in
accounting for variations in attitudes toward homosexuality. Post hoc anal-
yses indicated that while males scored higher than females on measures of
homophobia and heteronormativity, both males and females who held more
masculine gender identity and expressed more individual commitment to
religion scored higher on homophobia and heteronormativity than their same
gender counterparts with lower masculine identity and less individual com-
mitment to religion. This indicates that males with more masculine gender
identity and individual commitment to religion hold the most negative views
toward homosexuality, followed closely by females with more masculine
gender identity and individual commitment to religion. Thus there appears

to be something about the combined effect of adherence to masculine gen-
der roles and individual commitment to religion that significantly contributes
to negative attitudes toward homosexuality more than either characteristic
alone. It may be that there is some underlying characteristic shared by indi-
viduals who hold more masculine gender beliefs and adhere to individual
commitment to religion not assessed in this study that make it more likely
that they hold negative attitudes toward homosexuality. It may also be that
this finding simply reflects an inherent consistency in beliefs and values,
given the inherent opposition to homosexuality association with traditional
masculinity and religious beliefs. It would be worthwhile for future longitu-
dinal research to attempt to disentangle the temporal connection between
gender role beliefs, religiosity, and attitudes toward homosexuality.
The three-way interaction between gender, gender role identity, and
spiritual meaning in life also accounted for individual differences in attitudes
toward homosexuality. Specifically, both males and females who reported
less spiritual meaning in life and held more masculine gender identity scored
significantly higher on homophobia and heteronormativity than their same
gender counterparts. Males and females with less spiritual meaning in life
and greater adherence to masculine gender identity had the highest scores on
homophobia. Males with less spiritual meaning in life and greater adherence
to masculine gender identity had the highest scores on heteronormativity,
whereas scores for females who scored low on spiritual meaning in life and
high on masculine gender role identity were comparable to those of males
with high spiritual meaning in life and high masculine identity. Females
with high spiritual meaning in life and lower adherence to masculine gen-
der identity had the lowest scores on homophobia and heteronormativity
of any group. These findings are interesting in that they suggest that spir-
itual meaning in life is a form of religious belief that operates differently
in conjunction with gender and gender role identity to predict attitudes
toward homophobia compared to individual commitment to religion. The
pattern of results suggests that spiritual meaning in life may function to

reduce the likelihood that individuals, particularly males, who adhere to
traditional masculine gender role identity will have negative attitudes toward
homosexuality.
Limitations
The present findings must be interpreted in light of the fact that the sample
was composed of college students from the northeastern United States, with
almost all of the participants falling between the ages of 18 and 24, more
than one half of whom identified as European American, and most of whom
identified as middle or upper middle class. Consequently, our ability to con-
sider region of residence, age, race/ethnicity, and social class in relation to

attitudes toward homosexuality was limited and raises questions concerning
the generalizability of the findings. The potential problem with generaliz-
ability of findings from the current study is exacerbated by the fact that a
convenience sample was used. In addition, in order to follow appropriate
ethical guidelines, participation in the study was voluntary. As a result, some
self-selection may have been involved in the recruitment of participants from
classes that attract students who, on average, share particular attitudes toward
homosexuality. In addition, given that the topic of the study was disclosed
to potential participants in the recruitment process, self-selection may have
resulted from students with high levels of homophobia being among the
17% who opted not to participate in the study. Future studies with more
representative samples based on random selection are needed to exam-
ine the generalizability of the present results to participants of other ages,
races/ethnicities, educational backgrounds, social classes, and regions of the
United States.
In addition, although the instruments used in this study have been found
to have moderate to good internal consistency and validity, the applicability
of some of the questions for some of the participants in this study was
problematic. Specifically, because this study aimed to include participants
from a wide variety of religious denominations, as well as individuals who
have no religious affiliation, there were a number of participants for whom
some of the religiosity questions simply did not apply. This was especially
true for participants who may have been atheist or agnostic and did not
engage in any religious practices.
Future Directions
This study aimed to expand on previous research by the inclusion of multiple
variables in an effort to better understand what factors perpetuate and main-
tain homophobic attitudes and beliefs. Based on the findings in this study,
there are some areas that are implicated for future research. In particular,
examining differences between women and men in terms of homophobia
should continue and be expanded on in future studies. Although men have
consistently been found to be more homophobic than women (Falomir-
Pichastor et al., 2010; Nagoahi et al., 2008; Kerns & Fine 1994), recent studies
have indicated that there may be correlates of gender, such as sexism and
a desire to have power by maintaining traditional gender roles, that predict
the presence or absence of homophobia beyond biological sex (Aosved &
Long, 2006; Green, 2005). Exploring these correlates of gender may provide
greater insight into why homophobic beliefs persist and offer direction and
guidance to intervention and treatment.
The present study can be used to inform future research and interven-
tion efforts that aim to reduce anti-gay and lesbian attitudes and behaviors.
Overall, findings of this study point to the importance of the relations
of traditional gender attitudes and religiosity with college women and
mens attitudes toward homosexuality. Based on these results, organiza-
tional, group, and individual interventions aiming to reduce anti-lesbian and
gay attitudes and gay- and lesbian-rejecting behaviors could focus limited
time and resources specifically on modifying traditional gender attitudes.
However, it is important to note that attitudes are usually found to be very
poor predictors of actual behavior (see Ajzen & Fishbein, 2005, for review).
Likewise, simply because someone endorses attitudes that might be consid-
ered homophobic or heteronormative does not indicate that they will behave
in a discriminatory way toward an individual with a homosexual orientation.
Considered in the light of this body of evidence, the findings of the present
study should be used cautiously by practitioners and policy makers hop-
ing to curtail discriminatory behavior toward LGBT individuals. Program
evaluation research that examines the extent to which interventions that
reduce traditional gender attitudes also decrease negative attitudes toward
homosexuality would serve to test directionality of relations examined in the
present study. The present findings provide the basis for such research and
interventions and can ultimately inform efforts to reduce anti-lesbian and
gay attitudes. However, additional work is needed to evaluate the direct and
mediated relations of antigay and lesbian attitudes on anti-lesbian and gay
behaviors.
The results of this study also offer guidance to practitioners working
with clients who tend to be more homophobic. Clinicians who utilize infor-
mation generated from this study and other similar studies may find useful
avenues of intervention by assessing the gender role attitudes and religious
beliefs of their clients. These characteristics may offer a means for promoting
cognitive change. That is, by helping clients to become more self-aware of
how different dimensions of beliefs may be related and by identifying incon-
sistencies in those beliefs, therapists may be better able to motivate clients to
adopt more constructive approaches toward thinking about homosexuality.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Francisco Davila, Chris Forbes, Stephen
Rotkiskie, London Trusik, and Jessi Warfield for their help in various phases
of data collection and coding. Appreciation is expressed to the students of
Penn State Berks who participated in this research.
FUNDING
This investigation was supported by a research development grant from the

College of Humanities Arts and Social Sciences at Penn State Berks to the
second author.
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2005). The influence of attitudes on behavior. In D.
Albarracn, B. T. Johnson, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The handbook of attitudes
(pp. 173221). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism,
quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2,
113133.
Anderson, E. (2002). Openly gay athletes: Contesting hegemonic masculinity in a
homophobic environment. Gender & Society, 16, 806877.
Anderson, E. (2008). Being masculine is not about who you sleep with
. . .: Heterosexual athletes contesting masculinity and the one-time rule of
homosexuality. Sex Roles, 58, 104115.
Aosved, A. C., & Long, P. J. (2006). Co-occurrence of rape myth acceptance, racism,
sexism, homophobia, ageism, classism, and religious intolerance. Sex Roles, 55,
481492.
Basow, S. A., & Johnson, K. (2000). Predictors of homophobia in female college
students. Sex Roles, 42, 391403.
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.
Burdette, A. M., Ellison, C. G., Sherkat, D. E., & Gore, K. A. (2007). Are there religious
variations in marital infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 28, 15531581.
Chai, P. P. M., Krgeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). Stress and qual-
ity of life in international and domestic university students: Cultural differences
in the use of religious coping. Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 15, 265277.
Cotton-Huston, A. L. & Waite, B. M. (2000). Anti-homosexual attitudes in college
students: Predictors and classroom interventions. Journal of Homosexuality, 38,
117133.
Cowan, G., Heiple, B., Marquez, C., Khatchadourian, D., & McNevin, M. (2005).
Heterosexuals attitudes toward hate crimes and hate speech against gays and
lesbians: Old-fashioned and modern heterosexism. Journal of Homosexuality,
49(2), 6782.
Davies, M. (2004). Correlates of negative attitudes toward gay men: Sexism, male
role norms, and male sexuality. Journal of Sex Research, 41, 259266.
Dasgupta, N., & Rivera, L. M. (2006). From automatic antigay prejudice to behavior:
The moderating role of conscious beliefs about gender and behavioral control.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 268280.
Dearing, E., & Hamilton, L. C. (2006). Contemporary advances and classic advice
for analyzing mediating and moderating variables. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 71(3), 88104.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-
analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400419.

Engstrom, C. M., & Sedlacek, W. (1997). Attitudes of heterosexual students toward
their gay male and lesbian peers. Journal of College Student Development, 38,
565575.
Falomir-Pichastor, J. M., Martinez, C., & Paterna, C. (2010). Gender-roles attitude,
perceived similarity, and sexual prejudice against gay men. Spanish Journal of
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2005). Hate crime statistics 2004. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
Finlay, B., & Walther, C. S. (2003). The relation of religious affiliations, service atten-
dance, and other factors to homophobic attitudes among university students.
Review of Religious Research, 44, 370393.
Fyfe, B. (1983). Homophobia or homosexual bias reconsidered. Archives of Sexual
Behavior, 12, 549554.
Gabriel, U., Banse, R., & Hug, F. (2007). Predicting private and public help-
ing behaviour by implicit attitudes and the motivation to control prejudiced
reactions. British Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 365382.
Garofalo, R., Wolf, R. C., Wissow, L. S., Woods, E. R., & Goodman E. (1999). Sexual
orientation and risk of suicide attempts among a representative sample of youth.
Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 153, 487493.
Greendorfer, S. L., & Rubinson, L. (1997). Homophobia and heterosexism in
womens sport and physical education: A review. Women in Sport and Physical
Activity Journal, 6, 189210.
Harlow, C. (2005). Hate crime reported by victims and police. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/
hcrvp.pdf
Harry, J. (1995). Sports ideology, attitudes toward women, and anti-homosexual
attitudes. Sex Roles, 32, 109116.
Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and gay men:
Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451477.
Herek, G. M. (2004). Beyond homophobia: Thinking about sexual prejudice and
stigma in the 21st century. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 1, 624.
Herek, G. (2002). Gender gaps in public opinion about lesbians and gay men. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 66, 4066.
Herek, G. M. (2009a). Hate crimes and stigma-related experiences among sex-

ual minority adults in the United States: Prevalence estimates from a national
probability sample. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 24, 5474.
Herek, G. M. (2009b). Sexual stigma and sexual prejudice in the United States:
A conceptual framework. In D. A. Hope (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on
lesbian, gay & bisexual identities: The 54th Nebraska Symposium on Motivation
(pp. 65111). New York, NY: Springer.
Herek, G., Cogan, J., & Gillis, J. (2002). Victim experiences in hate crimes based on
sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 319339.
Hershberger, S. L., & DAugelli, A. R. (1995). The impact of victimization on the men-
tal health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental
Hillier, L., & Harrison, L. (2004). Homophobia and the production of shame: Young
people and same sex attraction. Culture, Health, & Sexuality, 6, 7994.
Hodge, D. R. (2005). Epistemological frameworks, homosexuality, and religion: How
people of faith understand the intersection between homosexuality and religion.
Social Work, 50, 207218.
Jackson, S. (2006). Gender, sexuality, and heterosexuality: The complexity (and
limits) of heteronormativity. Feminist Theory, 7, 105121.
Jellison, W. A., McConnell, A. R., & Gabriel, S. (2004). Implicit and explicit measures
of sexual orientation attitudes: Ingroup preferences and related behaviors and
beliefs among gay and straight men. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
30, 629642.
Kerns, J. G., & Fine, M. A. (1994). The relation between gender and negative attitudes
toward gay men and lesbians: Do gender role attitudes mediate this relation?
Sex Roles, 31, 297307.
Kilianski, S. E. (2003). Explaining heterosexual mens attitudes toward women and
gay men: The theory of exclusively masculine identity. Psychology of Men and
Masculinity, 4, 3756.
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1986). Attitudes toward homosexuality: Assessment and
behavioral consequences. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 137162.
Kite, M. E., & Deaux, K. (1987). Gender belief systems: Homosexuality and the
implicit inversion theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 11, 8396.
Kite, M. E., & Whitley, B. E. (1996). Sex differences in attitudes towards homosex-
ual persons, behavior, and civil rights: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 336353.
Kolnes, L. J. (1995). Heterosexuality as an organizing principle in womens sport.
International Review for the Sociology of Sport, 30, 6177.
Levin, J. S., Taylor, R. J., & Chatters, L. M. (1995). A multi-dimensional measure of
religious involvement in black Americans. Sociological Quarterly 36, 157173.
Lewis, G. B. (2003). Black-white differences in attitudes toward homosexuality and
gay rights. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 5978.
Liben, L. S., & Bigler, R. S. (2002). The developmental course of gender differen-
tiation: Conceptualizing, measuring, and evaluating constructs and pathways.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 67(2, Serial
No. 269), vii147
MacDonald, A. P., Huggins, J., Young, S., & Swanson, R. A. (1973). Attitudes toward
homosexuality: Preservation of sex morality or the double standard. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 40, 161.
Messner, M. (1992). Power at play: Sports and the problem of masculinity. Boston,
MA: Beacon.
Muir, K. B., & Seitz, T. (2004). Machismo, misogyny, and homophobia in a male ath-
letic subculture: A participant-observation study of deviant rituals in collegiate
rugby. Deviant Behavior, 25(4), 303327.
Nagoahi, J. L., Adams, K. A., Terrel, H. K., Hill, E. C., Brzuzy, S., & Nagoshi, C. T.
(2008). Gender differences in correlates of homophobia and transphobia. Sex
Roles, 59, 521531. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9458-7
Osborne, D., & Wagner, W. E. (2007). Exploring the relationship between
homophobia and participation in core sports among high school students.
Sociological Perspectives, 50, 597613.

Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research,
practice. New York, NY: Guilford.
Pargament, K. I., Koenig, H. G., & Perez, L. M. (2000). The many methods of religious
coping: Development and initial validation of the RCOPE. Journal of Clinical
Pharr, S. (1997). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Berkeley, CA: Chardon.
Polimeni, A., Hardie, E., & Buzwell, S. (2000). Homophobia among Australian het-
erosexuals: The role of sex, gender role ideology, and gender role traits. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 5, 4762.
Rowatt, W. C., Tsang, J.-A., Kelly, J., LaMartina, B., McCullers, M., & McKinley,
A. (2006). Associations between religious personality dimensions and implicit
homosexual prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45, 397406.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psycho-
logical dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas
Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated threat theory of prejudice. In
S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination (pp. 2345). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Szymanski, D. M. (2005). Heterosexism and sexism as correlates of psychological
distress in lesbians. Journal of Counseling and Development, 83, 355360.
Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Jayakody, R., & Levin, J. S. (1996). Black and white
differences in religious participation: A multisample comparison. Journal for the
Scientific Study of Religion, 35, 403410.
Theodore, P. S., & Basow, S. A. (2000). Heterosexual masculinity and homophobia:
A reaction to the self? Journal of Homosexuality, 40, 3148.
Ward, L. C., Thorn, B. E., Clements, K. L., Dixon, K. E., & Sanford, S. D.
(2006). Measurement of agency, communion, and emotional vulnerability with
the Personal Attributes Questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86,
206216.
Weinberg, G. (1972). Society and the healthy homosexuality. New York, NY:
St.Martins.
Weisgram, E. S., Dinella, L. M., & Fulcher, M. (2011). The role of
masculinity/femininity, values, and occupational value affordances in shaping
young mens and womens occupational choices. Sex roles, 65, 243258.
Whitley, B. E. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex

Roles, 45, 691721.
Whitley, B. E. (2009). Religiosity and attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: A
meta-analysis. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 19, 2138.
Whitley, B. E., & gisdttir, S. (2000). The gender belief system, authoritarianism,
social dominance orientation, and heterosexuals attitudes toward lesbians and
gay men. Sex Roles, 42, 947967.
Wortmann, J. H., & Park, C. L. (2008). Religion and spirituality in adjustment
following bereavement: An integrative review. Death Studies, 32, 703736.
Wortmann, J. H., Park, C. L., & Edmondson, D. (2012). Spiritual struggle and adjust-
ment to loss in college students: Moderation by denomination. International
Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 22, 303320.
Veenvliet, S. G. (2008). Intrinsic religious orientation and religious teaching:
Differential judgments toward same-gender sexual behavior and gay men and
lesbians. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 18, 5365.
Yep, G. A. (2002). From homophobia and heterosexism to heteronormativity: Toward
the development of a model of queer interventions in the university classroom.
Journal of Lesbian Studies, 6, 163176.

Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Attitudes Towards Homosexuality

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Journal of Homosexuality

ISSN: 0091-8369 (Print) 1540-3602 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wjhm20

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Young

Evan Harbaugh & Eric W. Lindsey

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1021635

Accepted author version posted online: 24

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2437

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

Attitudes Toward Homosexuality Among Young

EVAN HARBAUGH, BA and ERIC W. LINDSEY, PhD

Individual differences in attitudes toward homosexuality have

KEYWORDS heterosexism, homosexuality, masculinity, feminin-

Address correspondence to Eric W. Lindsey, Department of Applied Psychology, Penn

of prejudice toward sexual minorities continues to be prevalent in society

Culturally ingrained beliefs about masculinity and femininity may play

including homosexuality, in order to be accepted by society (Kite & Deaux,

ideals of traditional gender roles, particularly in regard to masculinity, are

about contact with homosexuals, civil rights intolerance, and stereotypic

negative attitudes toward homosexuality.

or fourth year of college-level education. All participants were made fully

Participants completed a demographics survey that included questions con-

PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES QUESTIONNAIRE

Students also completed the Personal Attributes Questionnaire (PAQ; Spence

contains 24 items asking the respondent to describe themselves in terms of

LEISURE AND WORK ACTIVITIES QUESTIONNAIRE (LWAQ)

1 was assigned to activities that are stereotypically affiliated with females, in

Subsequently, two scores were created for gender-typed employment

INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOSITY QUESTIONNAIRE

Participants responded to four questions designed to assess private reli-

RELIGIOUS/SPIRITUAL MEANING IN LIFE QUESTIONNAIRE

Participants completed the Religious/Spirituality Meaning in Life

Without a sense of spirituality, my daily life would be meaningless; My

ATTITUDES TOWARD HOMOSEXUALITY

Preexisting questions from several different instruments were combined

TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics

Males (n = 93) Females (n = 101) t

Demographic characteristics M (SD) M (SD)

Spiritual meaning in life 3.84 (.95) 3.98 (1.18) .85

Americans, Latinos, Asians, and other (N = 71; 39 female, 32 male). To exam-

TABLE 2 Partial correlations among variables controlling for gender

Personal Attributes Questionnaire

Identification with masculine gender role was significantly negatively asso-

Homophobia Heteronormativity Attitudes toward Gay Rights

Step 1 4.14 .12 3.32 .09 2.91 .07

no association between gender-typed activities and heteronormative beliefs,

life, which accounted for 6% of the variance. Follow-up analyses revealed

Females High SMIL

5 Males Low SMIL

no significant three-way interactions between gender, gender role identity,

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in attitudes toward

Gender Differences in Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Gender Role Attitudes and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

der role attitudes, as opposed to reliance on a broad indicator of traditional

Gender-Typed Activities and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

Religiosity and Attitudes Toward Homosexuality

related to higher levels of homophobia and heteronormative beliefs. In con-

direction of effect in the association between our variables. It may be that

gender identity and individual commitment to religion. Thus there appears

pattern of results suggests that spiritual meaning in life may function to

sider region of residence, age, race/ethnicity, and social class in relation to