Journal of Homosexuality

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

Causal Attributions and Parents’ Acceptance of

Their Homosexual Sons

Yael Belsky MA & Gary M. Diamond PhD

To cite this article: Yael Belsky MA & Gary M. Diamond PhD (2015) Causal Attributions and
Parents’ Acceptance of Their Homosexual Sons, Journal of Homosexuality, 62:10, 1419-1431,
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1061364

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2015.1061364

Accepted author version posted online: 15

Jul 2015.
Published online: 15 Jul 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 427

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wjhm20

Download by: [190.233.197.184] Date: 16 June 2016, At: 13:47

 Journal of Homosexuality, 62:1419–1431, 2015
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0091-8369 print/1540-3602 online
DOI: 10.1080/00918369.2015.1061364

Causal Attributions and Parents’ Acceptance

of Their Homosexual Sons

YAEL BELSKY, MA and GARY M. DIAMOND, PhD

Department of Psychology, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel

This Internet-based study examined the association between

Israeli parents’ attributions regarding the cause of their son’s
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

homosexuality and their level of acceptance of their homosex-

ual son. The sample (N = 57) was recruited via Internet Web
sites (gay forums and support groups). Findings suggest that
more essentialist (versus constructivist) causal attributions were
associated with higher levels of parental acceptance. Length of
time parents knew of their son’s homosexual orientation pre-
dicted the degree to which their attributions were essentialist.
Implications are discussed.

KEYWORDS acceptance, causal attributions, essentialist, gay,

homosexual, parent

A growing body of research testifies to the important role that parental rejection
and acceptance play in the welfare of sexual minority adolescents and young
adults. Whereas parental rejection, lack of support, criticism, and psychological
abuse have been linked to internalized homophobia, expectations for future gay
related rejection by others (Pachankis, Goldfried, & Ramrattan, 2008), increased
risk for psychological symptoms and suicidal ideation (Bebes, Samarova, Shilo, &
Diamond, 2013; McLaughlin, Hatzenbuehler, Xuan, & Conron, 2012; Remafedi,
Farrow, & Deisher, 1991; Ryan, Huebner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2009), and higher
levels of drug and alcohol consumption (Rothman, Sullivan, Keyes, & Boehmer,
2012), parental acceptance and support have been linked to greater self-esteem,
wellbeing, and perceived social support, and have been found to buffer against
psychopathology (Eisenberg & Resnick, 2006; Evans, Hawton, & Rodham, 2004;

Address correspondence to Yael Belsky, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva 90815, Israel. E-mail:
yaelbelsky@gmail.com

1419
 1420 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

Hershberger & D’Augelli, 1995; Needham & Austin, 2010; Ryan, Russell, Hueb-
ner, Diaz, & Sanchez, 2010; Savin-Williams, 1989).
Multiple factors likely contribute to the degree to which parents accept
or reject their same-sex-oriented offspring. Some parents reject their chil-
dren because they are disappointed in them, ashamed of them, angry with
them, or repulsed. They may view their child’s homosexuality, lesbianism,
or bisexuality as a defect, weakness, failure, negative reflection of their
parenting, personal affront, or sin. They may also reject their child because
his or her sexuality threatens their family values, family relationships,
religious beliefs, social ties, or status in the community. In contrast, parents
who are less religious and who have had more exposure to gay, lesbian,
and bisexual (LGB) people are likely to be more accepting (Heatherington
& Lavner, 2008).
One strong predictor of parental acceptance or rejection is the
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

attributions parents hold regarding the etiology of their child’s homosexual

orientation (Haider-Merkel & Joslyn, 2008). Attribution theory (Kelly, 1973)
suggests that people’s attributions regarding the cause of another person’s
behavior can determine their attitude and affective response to that person.
When people perceive another person’s stigmatized behavior as beyond
his or her control, or believe that the person is not responsible for their
behavior, they respond more positively. On the other hand, when people
believe that the individual is responsible for her or his stigmatized beha-
vior, and that her or his behaviors are under their control or are reversible,
they are more likely to evaluate the individual negatively and to be less
sympathetic. Indeed, there is some research that suggests that external
causal attributions and the belief that a behavior or situation is uncontrol-
lable are associated with less negative bias toward stigmatized populations,
including those suffering from AIDS, mental disorders, drug addiction, and
obesity (Corrigan, 2000; DeJong, 1980; Diedrichs & Barlow, 2011; Weiner,
Perry, & Magnusson, 1988).
Several studies have specifically examined the association between cau-
sal attributions and people’s attitudes toward homosexuals among the general
population (Ernulf, Innala, & Whitam, 1989; Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008;
Haslam & Levy, 2006; Landén & Innala, 2002). Such studies have typically
examined the degree to which individuals adhere to an essentialist versus
constructivist causal model. The essentialist model contends that sexual orien-
tation, or at least sexual attraction, is dispositional and attributable to biologi-
cal forces (e.g., genetics, in utero hormonal levels). This model posits that
homosexuals have little to no control over their sexual orientation and that
sexual orientation is unchangeable. The constructivist model, on the other
hand, attributes sexual orientation to situational, psychological, and cultural
forces. It proposes that homosexual identity, and perhaps even attraction, are
the function of an interaction between individual and environmental factors
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1421

and are fluid (i.e., changeable). It is worth noting, however, that even con-
structivist theorists acknowledge the potential influence of biological factors
on sexual attraction (Horowitz & Newcomb, 2002). Results across studies
consistently show that the more one’s beliefs are essentialist, the more accept-
ing one is of homosexual individuals. These findings hold true in both random
(Wood & Bartkowski, 2004) and nationally representative (Haider-Markel &
Joslyn, 2008) samples, as well as in multinational studies (Ernulf et al., 1989),
suggesting that this is a robust and cross-cultural phenomenon.
Despite the clear link between causal attributions and acceptance of
sexual minorities in the general population, there have been no quanti-
tative studies to date (to the best of our knowledge) examining the link
between causal attributions and acceptance among actual parents of
homosexual sons. In one analogue study, researchers asked 356 college
students to imagine that they were the parents of a 16-year-old homo-
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

sexual boy and found that the more that the child’s homosexuality was
perceived as being under his control, the more fury, anger, hate, and
shame emerged. Conversely, the less homosexuality was perceived as
under the adolescent’s control, the more affection was demonstrated
(Armesto & Weisman, 2001). However, imagining that you are the parent
of a homosexual son and being a parent of a homosexual son are two
different things. Moreover, the role or weight of causal attributions in the
level of acceptance among actual parents of same-sex-oriented children
may be different from that found in the general population. Parents are
emotionally invested in their child. Such emotional investment typically
involves a natural drive to protect and support their child, which may
attenuate the impact of essentialist attributions. Parents’ identification with
their child may also result in intense shame and loss and exacerbate the
impact of essentialist attributions.
The purpose of this study was to examine the association between
causal attributions and level of acceptance among actual parents of
homosexual sons. The study was conducted in Israel where, despite
progressive nondiscriminatory laws regarding sexual orientation, gender
identity and expression (Shilo & Savaya, 2012), and high levels of accep-
tance in certain urban centers, Israeli public opinion about the accep-
tance of homosexuality is still sharply divided (Pew Research Center,
2013). Also, we focused exclusively on gay sons because previous
research has shown that parents respond differently to gay, lesbian, and
bisexual children (Mohr & Rochlen, 1999), and because sexual orientation
has been found to be less fluid in males than in females (Mock & Eibach,
2012). Based on the previous literature, we expected that the more
parents attributed their son’s sexual orientation to biological, unchange-
able factors, the more accepting they would be. In addition, we explored
which demographic variables, if any, predicted constructivist versus
 1422 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

essentialist causal attributions. For example, findings from a previous

qualitative study suggest that religious parents may be more likely to
hold constructivist attributions (Freedman, 2008).

METHODS
Procedure
The study was Internet-based. Participants were recruited via advertisements
placed in gay-oriented Web sites and forums (e.g., “go-gay,” various forums in
Tapuz, and gay groups on Facebook). Because we have found, in past
research studies, that it is particularly difficult to recruit non-accepting parents
to participate in research on acceptance, the advertisements specifically called
for parents who felt as though they were “having difficulty coping with their
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

child’s sexual orientation or who felt that their child’s coming out had nega-
tively impacted upon their relationship with him.” In addition, e-mails were
sent to listservs composed of parents participating in gay-affirmative support
groups. Once individuals agreed to participate, they were directed to a Web
site where they read and signed a consent form and, then, were instructed
regarding how to complete the study measures and demographic information.
All data were stored in a confidential fashion and deidentified, with consent
forms stored separately. For their participation, respondents were entered into
a raffle for a prize of 800 shekels (approximately $225). The study was
approved by the university’s research on human subjects committee.

Participants
Participants were 57 parents (17 fathers and 40 mothers) of gay males.
Parents’ mean age was 54 years (SD = 9.89). Thirty-four percent reported
that their ethnic origin was Eastern European, 38% were from Western
Europe or North America, 7% were from North Africa or Arab countries,
and 5% identified as at least fifth-generation Israelis, with the remaining
16% identifying as “other.” Thirty-two percent of parents were high
school graduates, 30.5% had obtained a BA degree, and 37.5% had
obtained a graduate degree. In terms of religious identification, 93%
reported being Jewish, 3.5% reported being Druze, and the remaining
3.5% reported “other.” In terms of religious affiliation (i.e., degree that
religion was important to them), 32% reported no affiliation to religion,
47% reported little affiliation to religion, 16% reported moderate affiliation
to religion, and 5% reported a great deal of religious affiliation. Sixty-nine
percent reported that they had known their son was gay for more than 1
year, 5.5% reported knowing for less than 1 year, 5.5% reported knowing
for less than 6 months, 5.5% reported knowing for less than 3 months,
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1423

and 14.5% reported knowing for less than 1 month. Sons’ ages ranged
from 13 to 40 years, with a mean of 24.39 (6.97).

Measures
PARENTAL ACCEPTANCE
Parents were asked the following question: “To what extent do you
accept your gay son?” Parents then chose an answer between 0% (not
at all) to 100% (full acceptance), using a drop-down menu with intervals
of 10%. The frequencies of each level of parental acceptance appear in
Table 1.
Because of the skewed distribution of levels of acceptance, scores
were recoded to form a trichotomous categorical variable: Fully accepting
(100% acceptance); partially accepting (50%–90% acceptance); and
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

non-accepting (0%–40% acceptance). This three-level variable was used

in all subsequent analyses.

TIME KNOWN ABOUT SONS’ SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Parents were asked how long ago they discovered that their son was gay. A
drop-down menu offered the following choices: “Over a year ago,” “less than
a year ago,” “less than 6 months ago,” “less than 3 months ago,” and “less than
a month ago.”

PARENTAL ATTRIBUTIONS REGARDING CAUSE OF THEIR CHILD’S HOMOSEXUALITY

Parents’ explicit attributions regarding the cause of their son’s homosexuality were
measured via four items extracted from the mutability dimension of the Essentialist
Belief Scale (Haslam, Rothschild, & Ernst, 2000). Participants were asked to indicate

TABLE 1 Levels of parental acceptance

Levels of acceptance N = 57

Fully 100% 28
Partially 90% 6
80% 3
70% 2
60% 2
50% 2
Non-accepting 40% 6
30% 2
20% 3
10% 0
0% 3
 1424 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

the degree to which they agreed with or endorsed each statement on a scale from 1
(not at all) to 7 (absolutely). Statements were (1) A homosexual is a person who
chose this sexual orientation for any number of reasons; (2) A homosexual is a
person who was born with this sexual orientation; (3) A homosexual person can
turn into a heterosexual person; and (4) A heterosexual person can turn into a
homosexual person. The attribution score was the mean across all four items, after
reverse scoring statement two. Lower scores reflect more essentialist causal attribu-
tions, whereas higher scores reflected more constructivist causal attributions.

DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONNAIRE
Parents were asked to indicate their gender, religious affiliation (none, little,
moderate, or high), and level of education (high school, BA, or graduate)
(see Table 2).
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

TABLE 2 Sample characteristics

Demographic variables N Percentage

Sex
Male 17 30%
Female 40 70%
Ethnic origin
Eastern Europe 19 34%
Western Europe & North America 21 38%
North Africa & Arab countries 4 7%
5th-generation Israelis 3 5%
Other 8 16%
Education
High school 18 32%
BA 17 30.5%
Graduates 21 37.5%
Religious identification
Jewish 54 93%
Druze 2 3.5%
Other 2 3.5%
Religious affiliation
None 18 32%
Little 26 47%
Moderate 9 16%
High 3 5%
Time since parent knew
Over 1 year 38 69%
Less than 1 year 3 5.5%
Less than 6 months 3 5.5%
Less than 3 months 3 5.5%
Less than 1 month 8 14.5%
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1425

RESULTS
Preliminary Results
RELIABILITY
To estimate the reliability of the attribution questionnaire, we calculated the
Cronbach’s alpha and found that the internal consistency for the measure as a
whole was 0.76 (N = 57).

Primary Analysis
To examine whether less accepting parents held more constructivist causal
attributions than did fully accepting parents, we first divided the sample into
three groups, according to level of acceptance. Those parents reporting 100%
acceptance were designated as “fully accepting” (N = 28), those parents who
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

reported between 50% and 90% acceptance were designated as “partially

accepting” (N = 15), and those parents who reported between 0%–40%
acceptance were designated as “non-accepting” (N = 14).
A 1-way between-subjects ANOVA comparing the average attribution
scores for each of the three groups indicated that the three groups differed
significantly from one another, F(2,54) = 13.66, p < 0.001. Planned contrasts
revealed that “fully accepting” parents scored significantly lower (M = 1.93) on
the attribution questionnaire than did “partially accepting” parents (M = 2.73)
and “non-accepting” parents (M= 3.91), t(1,54) = 4.37, p < 0.001. Moreover,
“partially accepting” parents scored significantly lower on the attribution
questionnaire than did “non-accepting” parents, t(1,54) = 2.15, p = 0.04.
There was also a significant linear trend, F(1,54) = 36.34, p < 0.001, indicating
that the more parents held essentialist causal attributions, the more accepting
they were. Mean attribution scores according to level acceptance appear in
Figure 1.

Secondary Analyses
To explore which demographic variables, if any, predicted parents’ causal
attributions, we conducted a multiple regression analysis. Parents’ attribution
scores served as the dependent measure, with length of time parent knew of
their child’s homosexual orientation, parent’s gender, religious affiliation, and
education serving as predictor variables. The means and standard deviation of
each variable are shown in Table 3. Bivariate associations are shown in
Table 4. Results showed that the overall model was significant, F(4,49) =
3.50, p < 0.05, Adjusted R2 = 0.16. A closer inspection of the beta scores
revealed that both length of time parent knew of their child’s homosexual
orientation and religious affiliation predicted parents’ attributions. Results
indicate that the longer the parent knew and the less religious they were,
 1426 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

6.5

5.5

Attribution scores
4.5
3.91
4 (1.34)

3.5
2.73
3 (1.07)
2.5 1.94
(1.10)
2

1.5

1
Fully accepting Partially accepting Non accepting

Parental acceptance levels

Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

FIGURE 1 Attribution scores according to level of acceptance.

TABLE 3 Mean attribution scores according to demographics

Mean SD N

Gender
Male 3.16 1.45 17
Female 2.40 1.32 40
Religious affiliation
No 2.30 1.35 18
Low 2.73 1.47 26
Moderate 2.55 1.20 9
High 4.08 1.37 3
Time since parents knew
Less than 1 month 3.22 1.42 8
Less than 3 months 3.91 2.26 3
Less than 6 months 4.41 0.38 3
Less than 1 year 2.25 0.43 3
Over 1 year 2.29 1.26 38
Education
High school 2.62 1.30 18
BA 2.25 1.13 17
Graduates 2.96 1.65 21

the more essentialist were their causal attributions. Results of the multiple
regression analysis appear in Table 5.

DISCUSSION

This study examined whether there was an association between parents’

causal attributions regarding the etiology of homosexuality and their level
of acceptance of their homosexual son. Results revealed a significant
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1427

TABLE 4 Zero-order correlations between study variables

Attribution scores Time known Gender Religion Education

Pearson correlation 1 −0.35** −0.25* 0.21 0.11

Attribution scores 0.005 0.03 0.05 0.21
N 57 55 57 56 56
Pearson correlation −0.35** 1 −0.33** −0.05 −0.05
Time known 0.005 0.007 0.35 0.36
N 55 55 55 54 54
Pearson correlation −0.25* 0.33** 1 0.15 −0.00
Gender 0.03 0.007 0.13 0.48
N 57 55 57 56 56
Pearson correlation 0.21 −0.05 0.15 1 0.03
Religion 0.05 0.35 0.13 0.41
N 56 54 56 56 56
Pearson correlation 0.11 −0.05 −0.00 0.03 1
Education 0.21 0.36 0.48 0.41
N 56 54 56 56 56
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

*P < 0.05, one-tailed.

**P < 0.01, one-tailed.

TABLE 5 Multiple regression results for variables predicting attribution

scores (N = 54).

Model 1

Variable B SE B β

Know −0.26 0.12 −0.28*

Gender −0.67 0.41 −0.22
Religion 0.39 0.21 0.23*
R2 0.21
Adj.R2 0.16*
*P < 0.05, one-tailed.

linear trend showing that the more essentialist a parent’s causal attribu-
tions, the more accepting they were, and the more parents believed that
homosexuality is the result of environmental causes and is mutable, the
less accepting they were. This finding is consistent with results from
previous studies examining causal theories and attitudes toward homo-
sexuality among the general public (Ben-Ari, 1998; Ernulf et al., 1989;
Haider-Markel & Joslyn, 2008; Haslam & Levy, 2006; Landén & Innala,
2002; Lewis, 2009; Oldham & Kasser, 1999; Piskur & Degelman, 1992;
Wood & Bartkowski, 2004). It is also in line with findings from a previous
analogue study examining causal attributions and attitudes among a
sample of college students asked to imagine that they were parents of a
homosexual child (Armesto & Weisman, 2001). Moreover, these findings
echo anecdotal reports from parents participating in support groups who
 1428 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

described how their own acceptance process was intimately linked to

changes in how they understood the causes and controllability of their
child’s sexual orientation (Fields, 2001). This is the first study, to the best
of our knowledge, to examine the link between causal attributions and
acceptance of one’s own homosexual son among actual parents of
homosexuals.
We also explored which demographic variables predicted constructivist
versus essentialist attributions. Our findings showed that the more time had
passed from the moment parents knew of their son’s sexual orientation, the
more parents believed that their son’s sexual orientation was biologically
based and immutable. Although this is the first study examining the link
between time from discovery and causal attributions, our findings correspond
with findings by Fields (2001), who reported that parents new to gay support
groups often transition over time from constructivist, environmental causal
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

attributions that elicit self-blame to biologically based causal attributions that

allow for parents to avoid embracing homosexuality per se but still accept and
embrace their child. Indeed, such shifts in causal attribution over time may at
least partially explain the link between time known and level of parental
acceptance found in a number of studies on parental acceptance (Beals &
Peplau, 2006; Cramer & Roach, 1988; Savin-Williams & Ream, 2003), including
among Israeli families (Samarova, Shilo, & Diamond, 2013).
Additionally, we found that religious affiliation was also linked with
parents’ causal attributions. This finding was expected in light of the strict
dictates against homosexuality found in most traditional churches and syna-
gogues—a dictate based on the working assumption that homosexuality is a
matter of choice and a sin. Indeed, previous research has consistently found
that religious affiliation predicts parental acceptance or rejection of same-sex-
oriented offspring (Heatherington & Lavner, 2008).
Surprisingly, neither gender nor education level were associated with
causal attributions in our regression analysis. The non-finding regarding gen-
der, however, should be interpreted with caution: Less than one-third of the
participants were fathers. In light of the fact that there was a significant zero-
order correlation between causal attributions and gender, with fathers holding
more environmental attributions than mothers, our non-finding may have
been the result of low power. The fact that we did not find a link between
parents’ educational level and attributions is inconsistent with prior research
using much larger samples that found that lower levels of education are
associated with negative attitudes toward homosexuals (Ohlander, Batalova,
& Treas, 2005).
Indeed, the small sample size and the dearth of fathers were the most
significant limitations of this study. Unfortunately, recruiting non-accepting
parents to participate in research on sexual orientation in general, and accep-
tance of their own homosexual son in particular, remains one of the biggest
challenges for this type of work. Another obvious limitation is that we
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1429

sampled only parents of gay sons. Although the homogeneity of the sample
increased internal validity, our findings are not necessarily generalizable to
parents of lesbian and bisexual children. Yet another limitation was that only
explicit self-report measures of attributions and acceptance were used. Self-
report may be skewed due to demand characteristics (e.g., not wanting to
appear too rejecting), though such demand characteristics were likely miti-
gated to some extent by the fact that the study was Internet based. Finally,
both Sephardic Jews and Arabs, who comprise 50% and 20% of the Israeli
population, were underrepresented in the study sample.
Even in the context of these limitations, this study presents the first findings
showing that parents’ self-reported level of acceptance is related to their causal
attributions regarding their child’s homosexual orientation. These findings
potentially have applied implication in that they suggest that causal attributions
may be an important target of intervention among non-accepting parents, at
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

least in the early stages of their acceptance process. Future research would do
well to include implicit measures of both causal attributions and acceptance, to
use larger samples including more fathers, and to examine whether shifts in
causal attributions result in shifts in level of acceptance.

REFERENCES

Armesto, J. C., & Weisman, A. G. (2001). Attributions and emotional reactions to the
identity disclosure (“coming out”) of a homosexual child. Family Process, 40,
145–161. doi:10.1111/famp.2001.40.issue-2
Beals, K. P., & Peplau, L. A. (2006). Disclosure patterns within social networks of gay
men and lesbians. Journal of Homosexuality, 51, 101–120. doi:10.1300/
J082v51n02_06
Bebes, A., Samarova, V., Shilo, G., & Diamond, G. M. (2013). Parental acceptance,
parental psychological control and psychological symptoms among sexual
minority adolescents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, Advanced online
publication. doi:10.1007/s10826-013-9897-9.
Ben-Ari, A. T. (1998). An experiential attitude change. Journal of Homosexuality, 36,
59–71. doi:10.1300/J082v36n02_05
Corrigan, P. W. (2000). Mental health stigma as social attribution: Implications for
research methods and attitude change. Clinical Psychology, 7, 48–67.
Cramer, D. W., & Roach, A. J. (1988). Coming out to mom and dad: A study of gay
males and their relationships with their parents. Journal of Homosexuality, 15,
79–92. doi:10.1300/J082v15n03_04
DeJong, W. (1980). The stigma of obesity: The consequences of naive assumptions
concerning the causes of physical deviance. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 21, 75–87.
Diedrichs, P. C., & Barlow, F. K. (2011). How to lose weight bias fast! Evaluating a
brief anti‐weight bias intervention. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16,
846–861. doi:10.1111/bjhp.2011.16.issue-4
 1430 Y. Belsky and G. M. Diamond

Eisenberg, M. E., & Resnick, M. D. (2006). Suicidality among gay, lesbian and bisexual
youth: The role of protective factors. Journal of Adolescent Health, 39, 662–668.
doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2006.04.024
Ernulf, K. E., Innala, S. M., & Whitman, F. L. (1989). Biological explanation, psycho-
logical explanation, and tolerance of homosexuals: A cross-national analysis of
beliefs and attitudes. Psychological Reports, 65, 1003–1010. doi:10.2466/
pr0.1989.65.3.1003
Evans, E., Hawton, K., & Rodham, K. (2004). Factors associated with suicidal phe-
nomena in adolescents: A systematic review of population-based studies. Clin-
ical Psychology Review, 24, 957–979. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2004.04.005
Fields, J. (2001). Normal queers: Straight parents respond to their children’s “coming
out.” Symbolic Interaction, 24, 165–187. doi:10.1525/si.2001.24.2.165
Freedman, L. (2008). Accepting the unacceptable: Religious parents and adult gay and
lesbian children. Families in Society, 89, 237–244. doi:10.1606/1044-3894.3739
Haider-Markel, D. P., & Joslyn, M. R. (2008). Beliefs about the origins of homosexu-
ality and support for gay rights: An empirical test of attribution theory. Public
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

Opinion Quarterly, 72, 291–310. doi:10.1093/poq/nfn015

Haslam, N., & Levy, S. R. (2006). Essentialist beliefs about homosexuality: Structure
and implications for prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32,
471–485. doi:10.1177/0146167205276516
Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories.
British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 113–127. doi:10.1348/014466600164363
Heatherington, L., & Lavner, J. A. (2008). Coming to terms with coming out: Review
and recommendations for family systems-focused research. Journal of Family
Psychology, 22, 329–343. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.329
Hershberger, S. L., & D’Augelli, R. D. (1995). The impact of victimization on the
mental health and suicidality of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths. Developmental
Psychology, 31, 65–74. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.31.1.65
Horowitz, J. L., & Newcomb, M. D. (2002). A multidimensional approach to homosexual
identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 42(2), 1–19. doi:10.1300/J082v42n02_01
Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28,
107–128. doi:10.1037/h0034225
Landén, M., & Innala, S. (2002). The effect of a biological explanation on attitudes
towards homosexual persons. A Swedish national sample study. Nordic Journal
of Psychiatry, 56, 181–186. doi:10.1080/080394802317607156
Lewis, G. B. (2009). Does believing homosexuality is innate increase support for gay
rights? Policy Studies Journal, 37, 669–693. doi:10.1111/psj.2009.37.issue-4
McLaughlin, K. A., Hatzenbuehler, M. L., Xuan, Z., & Conron, K. J. (2012). Dispropor-
tionate exposure to early-life adversity and sexual orientation disparities in
psychiatric morbidity. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 645–655. doi:10.1016/j.
chiabu.2012.07.004
Mock, S. E., & Eibach, R. P. (2012). Stability and change in sexual orientation identity
over a 10-year period in adulthood. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 41, 641–648.
doi:10.1007/s10508-011-9761-1
Mohr, J. J., & Rochlen, A. B. (1999). Measuring attitudes regarding bisexuality in
lesbian, gay male and heterosexual populations. Journal of Counseling Psychol-
ogy, 46, 353–369. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.353
 Causal Attributions and Parental Acceptance 1431

Needham, B. L., & Austin, E. L. (2010). Sexual orientation, parental support, and
health during the transition to young adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 39, 1189–1198. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9533-6
Ohlander, J., Batalova, J., & Treas, J. (2005). Explaining educational influences on
attitudes toward homosexual relations. Social Science Research, 34, 781–799.
doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2004.12.004
Oldham, J. D., & Kasser, T. (1999). Attitude change in response to information that
male homosexuality has a biological basis. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 25,
121–124. doi:10.1080/00926239908403984
Pachankis, J. E., Goldfried, M. R., & Ramrattan, M. E. (2008). Extension of the rejection
sensitivity construct to the interpersonal functioning of gay men. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 306–317. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.76.2.306
Pew Research Center. (2013). The global divide on homosexuality. Retrieved from
http://pewglobal.org
Piskur, J., & Degelman, D. (1992). Effect of reading a summary of research about
biological bases of homosexual orientation on attitudes toward homosexuals.
Downloaded by [190.233.197.184] at 13:47 16 June 2016

Psychological Reports, 71, 1219–1225. doi:10.2466/pr0.1992.71.3f.1219

Remafedi, G., Farrow, J., & Deisher, R. W. (1991). Risk factors for attempted suicide in
gay and bisexual youth. Pediatrics, 87, 869–875.
Rothman, E. G., Sullivan, M., Keyes, S., & Boehmer, U. (2012). Parents’ supportive
reactions to sexual orientation disclosure associated with better health: Results
from a population-based survey of LGB adults in Massachusetts. Journal of
Homosexuality, 59, 186–200. doi:10.1080/00918369.2012.648878
Ryan, C., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2009). Family rejection as a
predictor of negative health outcomes in White and Latino lesbian, gay, and
bisexual young adults. Pediatrics, 123, 346–352. doi:10.1542/peds.2007-3524
Ryan, C., Russell, S. T., Huebner, D., Diaz, R. M., & Sanchez, J. (2010). Family acceptance
in adolescence and the health of LGBT young adults. Journal of Child and Adoles-
cent Psychiatric Nursing, 23, 205–213. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x
Samarova, V., Shilo, G., & Diamond, G. M. (2013). Changes over time in youths’
reports of parents’ acceptance of their sexual minority. Journal of Adolescent
Research, Article first published online August 5, 2013. doi:10.1111/jora.12071.
Savin-Williams, R. C. (1989). Parental acceptance, comfortableness with sexual orien-
tation, and self-esteem among gay and lesbian youths: A reflected appraisals
model. Journal of Homosexuality, 17, 93–109. doi:10.1300/J082v17n01_04
Savin-Williams, R. C., & Ream, G. L. (2003). Sex variations in the disclosure to parents
of same-sex attractions. Journal of Family Psychology, 17, 429–438. doi:10.1037/
0893-3200.17.3.429
Shilo, G., & Savaya, R. (2012). Mental health of lesbian, gay, and bisexual youth and
young adults: Differential effects of age, gender, religiosity, and sexual orientation.
Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22, 310–325. doi:10.1111/jora.2012.22.issue-2
Weiner, B., Perry, R. M., & Magnusson, J. (1988). An attributional analysis of reaction
to stigma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 738–748.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.5.738
Wood, P. B., & Bartkowski, J. P. (2004). Attribution style and public policy attitudes
toward gay rights. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 58–74. doi:10.1111/ssqu.2004.85.
issue-1