Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
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
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
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
1098
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1099
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
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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1103
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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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
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).
Sherkat, & Gore, 2007). All items were averaged to form a single measure
of individual religiosity ( = .80), with high scores representing greater
informal religious affiliation.
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
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1107
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.
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
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.
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1109
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
1110 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
& 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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
TABLE 3 Gender, ethnicity, gender role identity, gender typed activities, and religiosity as predictors of attitudes toward homosexuality
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.
1112 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
6
Males High IC
5 Males Low IC
Homophobia
Females High IC
4
Females Low IC
0
1 SD +1 SD
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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.
6
Males High SMIL
5 Males Low SMIL
Homophobia
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
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.
1114 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
DISCUSSION
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.
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.
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-
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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-
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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,
1120 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
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-
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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.
Attitudes Toward Homosexuality 1121
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
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.
1122 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
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-
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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
1124 E. Harbaugh and E. W. Lindsey
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.
Downloaded by [Pontifica Univ Catolicaperu] at 13:40 24 October 2017
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.